Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

In the United States, the penny should be phased out of circulation.

As part of its fiscal strategy, Canada has decided to eliminate its penny, resulting in a savings of over C$11 million for taxpayers, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Since its inception in 1908, the bank has produced over 35 billion pennies, but circulation will cease in 2012. As a cost-cutting measure, Canada will save at least C$150 million in production and handling costs once the penny is completely abolished. It costs the Canadian government C1.6 cents to mint a penny, a coin made from copper-plated zinc and copper-plated steel. However, the savings will not be limited to the government. Banks will also benefit from the elimination of the penny, as the transportation, handling, and storage of coins costs about C$20 million per year, according to Canadian officials, a cost that must be passed on to customers through fees. The elimination of the penny will save a portion of the costs associated with processing coins. Some argue that cash registers will have to be reprogrammed to accommodate the change, but since the penny will remain in circulation until most pennies are out of circulation and taxes will continue to be calculated to the penny, cash registers and other business machines will continue to operate as they always have. Catherine Swift, president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says that businesses welcome the change, as fewer coins will eventually make their operations more efficient. Canada is not alone in ending the minting of its lowest-value coin. In 1992, Australia eliminated its one- and two-cent coins from circulation. In January 2008, Israel eliminated its five agorot coin. These countries join at least 15 other countries, including Great Britain, the Philippines, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore, and Mexico, in eliminating at least one of their coins to reduce government costs. The United States is the most notable holdout. In 2006, Representative Jim Kolbe introduced The Legal Tender Modernization Act. The bill aimed to require that all transactions be rounded to the nearest 5 cents, but this legislation failed to pass Congress, leaving the U.S. with the same problem as Canada. Producing the penny in the U.S. costs significantly more than in Canada, according to CNN. To produce a U.S. penny, the U.S. Mint pays 2.4 cents per penny,

$10.07 is how much doing this every single day will save you over the year. A year of effort for $10. I thank you for the debate and topic and hope that we can do more debates in the future. Thank you,

The 16th Amendment to the US Constitution should not be repealed because it allows the Federal government to tax income in a much more meaningful way. Also, repealing the 16th Amendment would also be a lot of hassle, and with no good reason to repeal it, this makes it very much not worth it. So there are my opening reasons. Since my opponent made no opening arguments, these will suffice for now. Usefulness we derive from the 16th amendment is one reason not to repeal it, the hassle inherent in repealing it is another. I now await my opponent's argument.

Okay, you do make a good point there. You win. If Kids wanted to change courses they would have to start from the beginning and it would be insanely expensive. But i still hate common core. And, Yes socalism has and never will work out unless the world becomes one socalist country.

MY TURN! C1: The Resolution is a Minor Concession by my Opponent Roy is advocating to that it ought to not increase. This must mean that my opponent concedes that there are benefits of the MW in the first place. If my opponent thought that the MW was more harmful than beneficial, he would have advocated for it's complete abolishment. Otherwise, there is at least some reason to keep minimum wage (MW). C2: The Role of the Government is Not a Factor Here I would like to point out that this debate revolves around the evaluation of a policy. The question is not what the government's role ought to be. The topic of this debate must assume that the government is already involved, and the question of this debate is whether it has been economically beneficial or not. Therefore, my opponents entire 4th point concerning welfare is completely irrelevant. Besides, MW and welfare are different. To justify keeping MW the same, he must in fact show the effects of this on the whole economy. When my opponent reverts to microeconomics to try and justify his position, this is null-and-void. Turn: Without raising MW, the costs to the state is substantial: we lose tax revenue, more people go on welfare programs, some look to the “shadow economy” and begin to commit crimes, etc... So by taking the position my opponent has maintained, he is actually making those dependant on the state worse off by opposing MW, instead of saving money by increasing wages. Besides, my opponent completely forgets that if MW increases, people will be encouraged to find a job through legal means. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] C3: MW Hasn't Been Abolished Due to it's Effectiveness Thought experiment: MW enters the US in about the 1930's under FDR's New Deal. Since then, the MW legislation has been increased in the US alone 22 times. Unless it was beneficial to the people, politicians, and businesses, then why has it not been abolished? In fact, why has it been furthered even surpassing federal levels in some states? Heck, why is it that in some parts of South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, a MW is simply customary? The answer is simple: MW legislation simply works. Well over 90% of the world has some form of a MW legislation, so there’s lots of data for us to analyze. [http://tinyurl.com...] C4: MW Improves the Gini Coefficient Pretty self-explanatory: when MW hikes happen, every single index from the Gini Coefficient to Atkinson indexes, or even standard deviation of logarithms, show great improvement for the US. Meaning when MW hikes happen, income mobility is dramatically improved, and ones ability to improve their financial situation from their parents is increased. (“the American Dream” folks?!)[http://tinyurl.com...] C5: Monopsonistic Competition Unfairly Favour Businesses Imperfect competition has resulted in a buyer being able to unfairly dictate it's terms to the seller (worker) because of the volume of sellers. When competition between sellers ensues, the marginal product of labour (MLP) drops. The seller is producing the same amount of goods, but at a reduced price. As a result when MW increases, employment and wages go up as well. When we ask how much MW should increase, we look to MLP for equilibrium. MW is a legislation that regulates a market failure, not some silly “free-lunch” handout my opponent dresses it up as. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re1: Labour Costs Are About 25-35% of Fast Food Costs If we were to have a controlled experiment between someone who does pay MW (Walmart) vs paying more (Costco) we find that Costco actually saves money due to less turnover rates in the long run. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re2: Increase Costs Actually Can Come From Revenue, in Fact My Opponent Himself Stated This in His First Paragraph (Price Increases) Senator Elizabeth Warren notes on raising MW, McDonalds would be able to raise their prices about 8 more cents per burger to off-set the increase in labour costs (assuming MW is up to $14.75/hour). Meaning that increase costs can be compensated with additional revenue, my opponent noted this himself. It doesn't make sense to claim that prices will increase, but somehow revenue is lost when prices compensate for those factors. Furthermore, this is NOT counting the fact that most people who make a yearly income of $5,000 or less (students) spend about 6.2% of their income at fast-food chains. This is also not including the fact that increasing MW, as economist Robert Reich notes, only effects industries such as fast food, hospitality chains, and retail. Far more people will actually have more money to spend, furthering productivity, and the amount of money McDonalds gets in return as a result is higher than what my opponent claims. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re3: My Opponent Assumes the Neoclassical Model of Supply and Demand When Claiming Half The Jobs Would Be Lost My opponent is assuming a basic supply and demand model in microeconomics. As OMGJustinBeiber points out: “To get that degree of precision would presupposing a kind of uniform rationality in regard to the consumer and producer, which obviously doesn't exist in the real world. Unfortunately, my opponent demands this exact precision – ["Raising minimum wage would costs half the jobs, jobs will be lost to technology"] -- to make his case. Short of believing this standard we must vote con.” For instance, my opponent notes a completely automated McDonalds in Tokyo, but as much as it makes complete rational sense for every single McDonalds to go this way (saves on labour costs substantially to the investor) they simply have not done it yet even after a MW hike in 2007! Rationally, this is the most illogical thinking I have ever seen if my opponents claim is correct! Meaning that some things demanded, or even supplied have absolutely no rational basis for them, and this assumption of actors always working for their own rational self-interests is nonsense. In fact, in his claim that jobs would be lost, he cites he following study: .Burkhauser, Couch et Wittenburg, “Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS”, Southern Economic Journal, 2000. Upon examining the study, it only used 3 points of data constituting a hasty conclusion. Turn: My opponent claims that if MW increases, McDonalds would have incentive to replace workers with technology, costing jobs. However, he actually made a de facto case for minimum wage, as technology is a benefit to the economy not a detriment! Furthermore, this article was made in 2003 as his citation notes. Lets not forget MW at the federal level was increased in 2007, yet this fear of a complete automated McDonalds has yet to appear in the US (to the best of my knowledge). This is an irrational position for my opponent to claim; if my opponent's claim was correct, McDonalds would have already automated everything in every store. [http://tinyurl.com...] studies show that jobs are increased or are unaffected when MW is increased. The studies done by Card and Kruger show this when comparing New Jersey to Pennsylvania. This was after New Jersey hiked their MW in 1992 by 18%. This was repeated using the data from a federal MW hike, and California hike and the findings stayed the same. When we drop the supply and demand model, and actually precisely look at the employment impacts of a MW hike, they either remain unchanging or increase. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re4: Role of the Government (See C2) Conclusion: My opponent displays kettle logic and agreed with me on some points: MW increases technological innovation, businesses would not lose money due to price increases. The monsopolistic society we live in would heavily benefit from a MW increase when we drop the “s/d” generalities, and observe precise impacts via Card and Kruger studies.I did not ask for special treatment! Thank You

Second round is rebuttals and conclusion. Here's my stand, all you have to do is argue against it: I believe that the current welfare system should be abolished. It's not helping anyone, not the poor, not the taxpayers and not society. The taxpayers are stuck picking up the tab for a flawed system. Society's suffers in that our churches, schools, parks, and other programs are shoved to the side and ignored. Instead of the money to improve these things, it's tossed to the welfare system so more and more people can be supported. And the poor are trapped because the system pays them more than they can get working a forty (or more) week at minimum wage. Basically the American welfare system is a complete failure. It provides free money to the poor and gives absolutely no incentive to be free of it. Worse yet, it seeds future generations to live this way as well. The current welfare system is set up so that its paying those on it more than that of someone working. Thirty-five states pay above the current minimum wage. Thirteen states pay over what would average out to $15 an hour. That's nearly $8 over minimum wage. There are even a few states that pay nearly $44,000, which is equal to a teachers salary. Where's the incentive to get off the system? There isn't one. Worse yet, this system is teaching the children that furthering their education, getting a job and working hard isn't necessary, not when they can not work and get paid. Why work when you don't have to? That's the mind set of the children growing up on welfare have begun to adapt. Currently there are about 110,000,000 Americans on welfare. That's about 36% of the population and doesn't include those that are receiving food stamps or unemployment. If these are added the total percentage comes up to about 49. That's half (or close enough) of the American people. Around 131 billion dollars is given to the welfare system annually and again, this amount doesn't include food stamps or unemployment. Imagine what could be accomplished with that amount of money. Here are a few more numbers: The average time spent on AFCD (Aid to Families w/ Dependent Children) Less than 7mth - 19% 7mth - 12mth - 15.2% 1 - 2 years - 19.3% 2 - 5 years - 26.9% Over 5 years - 19.6 True the stats state that families do eventually get off welfare is there but what isn't in the above numbers are the numbers of those that return. 22% of those who get off welfare return and of that number, about 13% are not returning because of a loss of a job but only because they complied with the rules and are back to receiving the benefits. What does this say about America? My opinion, the people of this country have become lazy and expectant. There's no reason to earn money when the government is willing to give it away as long as you meet the guidelines they set forth. Guidelines that help the non-working members of society and not those that work hard and could actually use a little extra assistance. What's worse is that people are learning to expect the welfare system to give them money. Let's get America back to the hardworking, dreams come true country it's known for and do away with a system that keeps the poor, poor.

For my final speech I would like to say it costs taxpayers $1.9-$3.6 million dollars a year to keep a murderers in prison for life why should they deserve to live after killing a child that couldn't defend himself or an elderly the death penalty is the best way our prisons are getting over crowded and dangerous thank you.

Pro : It should be. Con : It should be not.

I offer my thanks to my opponent for his quick reply. However, I do hope he actually reads my sources. I am not simply making statements devoid of supportive data. "Life imprisonment is less costly?" Yes. [1] Life imprisonment is less costly for a variety of reasons, far beyond lethal injection costs. It is more costly because of a lengthy appeals process. It is more costly because you can not free a dead man, which means that all appeals must be exhausted before sentencing is carried out. It is more costly because a person who is to be executed needs to be guarded more closely. It is more costly because someone dies, and that costs a life. "Imagine how much more money this country would save if we put our murderers to death the moment they are convicted of the crime." This is a separate argument for the death penalty. It is one of modification rather than continuation. I will answer it regardless, but I fail to see how it supports your resolution that the death penalty remain in the United States. Would we save money if we immediately killed those convicted of murder the first time, assuming no appeal? Yes. We would also have a 12% chance of killing an innocent. [2] That would just be murder sanctioned by the state. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional. You can not deprive a person of life or liberty without applying due process of the law. [3] That includes the appeals process. You are claiming that the death penalty should be modified so that it can be a justified expense in the United States. However, the way you have gone about justifying it is completely un-American. ""The death penalty does not deter." Says you? I am pretty sure that is a matter of opinion." It is a matter of fact. In every state that has abolished the death penalty, murder rates have decreased. This is not proof that the death penalty causes murder. It is however proof that there is no correlation between the death penalty and the prevention of murder. Deterrence **is only evident** if there is a correlation between implementation and prevention. Clearly, there is not. [4] "The death penalty would in fact prevent more people from being murdered." It does not. If you live where the death penalty is applied, you are more likely to be killed than if you did not. See above. "In the end you are saving more lives then you are killing." A murderer does not get to justify his murders by saying they were mostly bad guys. Neither should the state. "The overall murder rate jump doesn't prove that the death penalty doesn't work the way its supposed too, that is do to a multiple of different factors including the moral decline of the U.S." Please explain the source of the purported moral decline of the United States. If you think it is a lack of faith, I'm sorry to say it isn't. [5] [6] "The state of North Carolina banned the death penalty in 2001. North Carolina had seen a pretty subtle decline in the murder rate for many years leading up to 2001 after it was decided to ban execution in the state … North Carolina has seen a subtle increase in murder rates in more recent years." You are wrong. North Carolina is a death penalty state on the graph you cited. It still has the death penalty. [7] [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (California estimates that a life imprisonment system would cost only $11.5 million per year, where as the death penalty system costs $63.3 million per year) [2] http://www.truthandjusticedenied.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (Showing that murder rates have risen in death penalty states by 42% in comparison to states without the death penalty) [5] http://scienceblogs.com... (The religion, it does NOTHING!) [6] http://www.timesonline.co.uk... (Or if it does something … nothing good.) [7] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Your opinion is irrelevant. My sources say otherwise, so you really don't have much left.

You wouldn't have to pay everywhere you go. When somebody is doing you a service, yes. But nobody is going to charge you for trivial things. (Imagine the uproar.) Yes the government will continue to function, and perhaps become economically stronger as a result. (If the market is good people are likely to spend more) and China's economy is flourishing because of the use of Western economic policies. China in the 70s and China today are two very different Chinas. They started to practice a free market system around 78 and their productivity skyrocketed over the next 15 years. But the USA seems to be drifting to a pre 78 China. (Which is not a good thing) And when it comes to corruption, you're going to find that in every system of government. Socialist, Theocratic, Republic, Monarchy, all of them will have some. But our Capitalistic Republic is the best option you will get when it comes to economic growth and freedom. Now you say employers don't care about their employees. Yes and no. A employer knows that workers are needed to get a job done, but also has to know that if they are not treated fairly, they could loose workers and/or face lawsuits. But think about what you said from the perspective of an employer: if he or she is demanding too much or isn't working they fire the person and contact another one. Well that's how the market works. If you are at a job, you are there to work, collect your pay and go home. A boss is not going to play around with lack of progress. It was you, after all signing saying I'll do this job. And you will never get any laws preventing you from being fired. That would throw everything upside down. Suddenly a manager can't fire a person who won't stop distracting other workers, and yet still has to pay them because they're on the clock. Now you're dad put in some good time at his company, but he was not entitled to a raise (even though I'm sure he deserved it! He should have at least been recognized after 25 years) but his bosses could have had other reasons for denying a raise to him. I can't tell you the number of times I've been shot down on that one. But after 25 years experience he should have no trouble finding a different company to work for. I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting multiple job offers once word got out. Now companies are out to make profit, and they do avoid places where little can be made. But not all private businesses have the same principles. The Red Cross and Salvation Army were both privately founded, and both use profit to help others, mostly relying on volunteers as workers. And Charter Schools are also privately owned and use the parents money to directly buy school supplies and pay their teachers. These new Charters are actually so popular among parents that lotteries are held to determine which students get enrolled. And why shouldn't parents want their kids there? Charter Schools are cleaning public school kids test scores year after year. Charters only employ the best teachers, and often fire and replace them. Other private learning institutes like Sylvan and Fusion Academy also follow Charter Schools examples and always out preform the public school system (which ha sent changed its methods much over the last 30 years, another common trait in government run institutes. The USA now ranks 17th in education when it comes to 1st world countries). And because of new schools like these kids are graduating, which leads to a lower crime rate. And when it comes to crisis, the private sector takes care of individuals. Remember superstorm Sandy? The Red Cross and The Salvation Army were on the scene in less than 72 hours, while the government publicly run FEMA and DRF, as well as Congress, were arguing that something had to be done and more laws were needed to prevent these kinds of disasters. One congressman in 2012 actually proposed a 794 billion dollar plan to build giant windmills in the Atlantic Ocean to blow hurricanes away. (Imagine for a moment how many windmills that would be, and more importantly who is sailing out there to build them). While all this nonsense was being talked about, the private industries were out there helping thousands of people rebuild their lives, just like they did during Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil Spill. Will government ever realize that individuals can do it better? I'd like to think so, but year after year it seems that they really know what you can and can't eat, smoke, enjoy and do.


Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

Network Neutrality
Shouldn't some data be permitted to travel at a faster pace?

**Explanation**: The original documents argue that not all data should be treated equally, implying that some data, perhaps due to its importance or nature, should be allowed to travel faster on the network. The similar documents maintain this perspective by questioning whether certain data shouldn't be given priority, effectively preserving the semantic style and relationship to the question about net neutrality.

Of course I don't want to, but the bill per customer only rose a few cents, and is still under 3 dollars a month, so it isn't that much at all. However this debate isn't over whether or not customers want to pay more for services. This is about whether or not Viacom should pull channels from DirectTV services, and as you dropped every argument I posted about that, it's been proven that they are perfectly justified in doing so, and so saying that they should not is false.VOTERS:Conduct: Because I put so much effort into the round 2 debate, and my opponent responded with a one-liner, I ask for the conduct vote as that's just rude and/or lazy.S/G: If you look at the spelling of the resolution, the random capitilization of my opponent in round 2, and the horrible grammar and spelling made by my opponent in round 3, it's evident that he lost the spelling and grammar vote.Arguments: My opponent dropped every argument I made in round 2, and as such I have proven that Viacom is justified in pulling channels and so the resolution is false and as such negated.Sources: My opponent only used one source in his argument, and that one was too biased (which he dropped so it's considered true for the round) to be considered an informative source. Therefor, since I'm the only one wo has posted viable sources, I respectfully ask for the sources voteVote Con :)

For this debate, I will be arguing that we should entirely have freedom of speech. To further explain, should be protected by the first amendment, however, the high court has introduced an array of laws that abridge freedom of speech, such include imminent lawless action and many other laws (all of which in my opinion are reasonable laws to be introduced). Although, in doing this, is freedom of speech still a right or a privilege? Since the US constitution states rights, is introducing laws unconstitutional that compromise the first amendment unconstitutional? In commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, and Britain, their constitutions do not explicitly state that they have freedom of speech, however, the high court has implied they do but only as a privilege. Furthermore, are laws introduced abridging freedom of speech (which the US constitution clearly states not to do) unconstitutional? As such, I believe that we should have absolute freedom of speech.

Whether the Internet revolution should or should not undermine intellectual property is based on the grounds of whether intellectual property is or is not an actual valid notion. I will commence with a simple but adequate account of my position: An idea action cannot be owned by any group or any individual as property.

"I used two clearly placed sources."Actually, my opponent is technically correct. Though no links were provided, he was still right about that part. Again, 2 problems mainly here: No enforcement capability (second War on Drugs) Removal of personal freedom & choice Need I say more?Why was the War on Drugs, which this could easily become, bad? Just Google it. I barely have enough characters left, anyway.Good & fun quick debate- these should happen more often.

Thanks to my opponent for his arguments. First, I would like to point out that Pro's resolution is a bit vague. There are four main dimensions to the requirement of providing "broadband Internet access for all":1) The first is timeliness. In other words, how quickly would this need to occur to satisfy Pro? 2) How do we define "all"? 3) The second is cost. Who would pay for this? 4) What Internet speed would satisfy the definition of broadband? Of these four dimensions, Pro has only defined the fourth, speed, choosing 5-6 mbps as defining broadband. Personally, I think 3-4 mbps is adequate to get a great deal of internet use, but this dimension is the least important of the four.I will start by addressing dimensions one and two: who has and needs broadband and how soon they might get it.According to the Dept. of Commerce, broadband use in 2010 was 68% of households (1). Using that figure and the total United States population, we do indeed get a figure close to Pro's number: 100,000,000. However, this is deceiving. First, this represents how many use broadband, not how many have access. Many have access but choose to not subscribe. The DOC information (1) states that the reasons for not subscribing are:1) lack of need or interest (47 percent)2) lack of affordability (24 percent)3) inadequate computer (15 percent)Note: the 68% figure is the percentage of households with broadband overall. So, the 32% who do not have broadband includes both those who do not have the option and those who choose not to subscribe.According to the FCC, the actual number who lack broadband access is about 19,000,000 (3). In fact, if you look at the actual report, they also report that the number with "Either Fixed or Mobile Broadband" is 5.5 million. This same report shows continued increases in broadband adoption rates from 2010 to 2011:At least 768 kbps 62.6% to 64.0%At least 3 mbps, 36.6% to 40.4%Internet adoption rates have grown almost continuously since 1995 (4). While the Pew research graph shows a leveling off in the last few years, that is likely explained partially by the economy. Looking more at the Pew data, one can see that older, less educated and poorer Americans use the internet much less. Of those three categories, providing more broadband would only really address poorer Americans.As shown above, 47% of those who opt out of subscribing do so because they lack the need or interest. Older Americans also have less interest in broadband. Of the 5.5 million who currently have no access to broadband, we can assume that 47% (2.6 million) would choose not to use it, leaving 53% (2.9 million) who lack access but desire it.This is a classic example of government stepping in for an easy victory. The debate becomes riddled with propaganda, such as the 100,000,000 figure. When you factor in the ability to get access from friends, school and libraries, these figures drop even more.Would Pro argue that those who do not need or desire broadband should get it anyway? As a taxpayer, I would strongly object. Access to broadband continues to grow. The Dept. of Commerce numbers show that use grew from 64% in 2009 to 68% in 2010. In other words, not only is the number of Americans without broadband relatively small, but progress is already being made. How soon is fast enough? Regarding cost, we cannot ignore that this is a matter of economics. Economics, at it's heart, concerns the allocation of scarce resources. If additional taxes are spent on broadband, what other resources might have benefited more? Is it appropriate to fund this at a time when our yearly deficit is more than $1 trillion and our national debt is over $16 trillion? In addition, we will need to consider the purchase of computers to facilitate this for many Americans. Not only that, but providing access for the "last mile" of connectivity is very expensive. Pro has also argued that broadband access is a right based on both the first and ninth amendment. This is really stretching the use of the constitution. The intent of the first amendment is to ensure that ones right to speak freely is not violated. That is, that your are not being coerced in some way in order to prevent speech. Pro's link on wikipedia seems to argue that lack of access to the internet's content violates free speech. If this is true, then surely all books ever written should be free to all. Clearly, that is not the case either now or was it anytime after 1791. It would seem Pro's argument could also apply to magazines, newspapers, telephones and telegraphs. Yet, these technologies did not need coercion in order for adoption to occur. I should also point out that Pro's wikipedia link is mainly addressing scenarios where government has used force in order to censor the internet. Clearly that isn't the same as a situation were one voluntarily chooses to live where access isn't available or chooses not to subscribe. Regarding the ninth amendment, this is even more of a stretch. Can this amendment really be interpreted to force certain Americans to hand over payment to others so that they may have access to broadband internet? If that were true, then surely the Supreme Court would have used this argument for Obamacare instead of the commerce clause.I personally find irony in these constitutional arguments. Our founders desired a limited government because of the experiences they had with the British crown. Today, we use this same document in order to grow a government that has already grown far beyond it's original intent. In fact, I would argue that allowing for federal funding of the internet may actually lead to abuses of power. (1) http://www.esa.doc.gov...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://www.fcc.gov...(4) http://pewinternet.org...

Pro made a format that was hard to follow. I then made an attempt to follow and Pro forfeits me. Thus, I am a victim of unfair conduct by Pro. And since it is so, to save the debate I showed you a good time. Why should you vote Con? 1)Pro told you that you couldn't vote Con.(You can prove Pro wrong.) 2)Pro is trying to strongarm you into voting Pro. You don't have to take that kind of abuse. 3)Pro has done this exact debate many, many times. Here is an example debate of Pro attacking another opponent. http://www.debate.org... Pro used obscure wording and confounding rules to get an easy win in the debate. Example: Framing a. If I can show that Youtube is better than Netflix on a consumer level, then the vote in this debate deserves to go to the Pro. Con could show that Netflix is more profitable, but that has no impact on consumers such as me or you. Your vote should be reflect which platform is better for you personally b. This debate should be voted on-balance. The debater who best presents the advantages of their platform deserves the vote. If both platforms are shown to be equal, no vote should be cast. * In this debate Pro used the "F" word towards Con at the bottom of round 3. Con did not respond in the next round. http://www.debate.org... * In this one Pro said, and I quote, "All of the topics con offers are frankly awful. We are now arguing about coffee www.debate.org/debates/You-choose-the-topic/20 * And yet another. Ambiguous wording was used once again by Pro to attempt to get an easy win. Con dropped out from confusion of the rules and regulations or even what the topic "really" was. http://www.debate.org... * The point? This is Pro's strategy. Pro doesn't want you to understand the format of the debate. This is Pro's attempt to get easy forfeit wins. I did not forfeit, thus, Pro is frustrated that I made an easily defined topic and format. My way actually fit by definition of the name of this debate. "You Choose the Topic". I did, and Pro did not rebuttle. Pro scampered off into a bed of weeds. The end.

"we sent guns to the drug cartels in the fast and furious program." This is a serious debate not a troll debate, so this point is dropped. So first the constitution has been wrong before. That's why we have amendments, which are changes to the constitution! So by saying that you believe the constitution has never been wrong you are saying that slavery should be legal, and the African-Americans are only 3/5 of a person. That is what the constitution says, and if you believe that the constitution has never been wrong, then you are saying that these two racist things are not wrong. And the constitution has been wrong before, that is what amendments are for! So how do we know that the constitution is not wrong about this, and how it infringes upon our freedom? My opponent admits that the NSA IS STOPPING TERRORISM! So if it is benefitting America, because it is stopping terrorism then how do we know that the constitution is not wrong and we need to change it. I also ask my opponent to show where in the constitution, or in any American law where it says that the NSA can't do this, or it infringes upon our freedom, because it doesn't! It does not hack into our facebooks, and emails, and private messages, it uses meta data, and data mining in which they look for key words that could possibly be said by terrorists organizing a plot. Not just the average everyday person, so it is not infringing upon our rights, and freedom. My opponent also fails to refute my 3rd contention on the prevention of child porn, and my 4th contention of weapon trafficking so those points are extended.

Thank you for your relatively quick response. I look forward to a well-done, cordial final round. Now let's get down to business: Q1: Just because someone was convicted of molesting a child doesn't necessarily mean they're going to do it again. Doesn't everyone deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt? A second chance if you will? I never specified one time offenders. Regardless I simply asked if child molesters should be able to be around children. This includes people who have raped and molested tens or even hundreds of children. Would you trust your child with someone has has molested five children? Ten children? Do you think repeating offenders should have the right to be a teacher or a daycare worker? Repeating child molesters are humans. They are born on this planet and their bodies are made from the same things as the rest of us, they are human, however if one has molested many children do you think they should be denied the right to work with a job that involves mostly children? I don't think they should have that right. This successfully negates your resolution. Q2: Same thing goes for thieves. We all deserve a second chance right? See above. A person like Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrows, Al Capone, and Jesse James (repeating offenders) do not deserve the right to work at a bank. Why? Because they are repeating offenders. Q3: Just because someone has a restraining order doesn't necessarily mean that the stalker isn't going to go against said restraining order and kill or rape that person anyways. Also, there's a difference between rights and laws. It's against the law to stalk someone, therefore punishment (So to speak) is reasonable. Though you are correct that it doesn't always work, it is denying them the right to meet with the victim. Don't you believe it is worth a try? Murder is against the law, but people still do it anyway. Would you make the same argument for murder? Q4: Again, just because someone has killed in the past doesn't mean they're going to do it again. Besides, if you knew the person was a serial killer they'd be in jail for life or dealing with the death penalty and thus wouldn't even be a part of society. See Q1 and Q2... I even said serial killers (repeating offenders). Someone who has killed hundreds of people should not have the right to live amongst regular citizens. Q5: Reasonably you have stooped me here. However, I feel an argument is necessary. Not all 5 year old's are completely immature and uneducated. In fact when I was 5 I knew quite a bit about politics, and I myself had an opinion of who the president should be. Look at the average kindergarten classroom. Most of the boys are probably picking their noses and nearly all of the children will likely not know how to read. They simply do not have the ability to make such informed decisions at such an age. I know five year old's who don't even know their last name! It is still a vital time of learning how to do basic things like read and write and do addition. Plenty of kids can barely do that, let alone vote for the the president. Their parents would likely vote for them, making the votes in this country unfair, bias, and would likely screw up the popular vote's results. Q6: Sex isn't really a right so to speak. It's more of an action. I can't think of a single place where sex is outlawed amongst adults and therefore wouldn't really consider it to be a right. Your misinterpreting what I intended to write. I mean that children shouldn't have the all of the same rights as adults, sex included. I mean adults (18+) have the right to have sex without getting in trouble, but young children shouldn't have that right for obvious reasons. I will gladly go into more detail in this argument in the next round if you wish.Quotes by Pro are in a larger font. My bold thing isn't working for some reason.Back to you, Pro.

Yes people should be able to do those things freely without restrictions! Should we watch over adults in there homes with cameras to make sure there safe?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." do i need to say more? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" Nowhere does it put limitations on what the speech can be.


Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

Network Neutrality
The restoration of net neutrality could potentially hinder the advancement of broadband infrastructure:

The debate over net neutrality revolves around the principle of equal access to internet content, but some argue that restoring net neutrality regulations might actually impede the growth and improvement of broadband infrastructure. This is due to the potential decrease in investment from internet service providers, who might feel restricted by the regulations and thus slow down the development and expansion of high-speed internet networks. Such an outcome would be counterproductive to the goal of providing fast and reliable internet access to all consumers.

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. I accepted this debate because the instigator's opening was very articulate, well-written, and clear, which are my favourite aspects of anything I read. Also, I thought I might have something to contribute to this subject.My opponent expressed an intention to defend the claim that "Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system." As such, she is assuming the burden of proof and placing none on me. Although ordinarily in a debate, I would try my best to defeat my opponent's arguments, in this case, I'm genuinely interested in arriving at the truth. If my opponent convinces me of her point of view, I will concede and gladly hand the victory to her.Utilitarianism in principlePro defines utilitarianism as "the principle that all actions are right if they are useful for the benefit of the society." Ever since utilitarianism was first thought of and given a name, it has come under attack, and the attacks usually take the form of coming up with obvious counter-examples. One only needs to come up with some scenario in which an action would benefit society but still be obviously wrong. For example, it may benefit society to kill an innocent man, but it wouldn't for that reason be right. So Pro needs to give us a robust defense of utilitarianism against such counter-examples before her argument can go through.I'll give her one counter-example to defend against. It would benefit society if all old people who are living off of social security and medicare were put to sleep. Health care is the biggest burden on the federal government with most recipients being elderly people.[1] Putting those people to sleep would be a huge relief to tax-payers, and it would go a long way in rescuing the country from the impending doom from a growing debt and increased taxes. Yet it's clearly wrong to kill people just because they are a burden on society.Utilitarianism in practiceEven if we use utilitarian principles to determine our justice system, Pro needs to show that rehabilitation works. How successful are rehabilitation programs? How would we even measure such a thing?Suppose somebody commits a crime and goes to prison. After undergoing some rehabilitation program, he re-enters society and never commits the crime again. You might be tempted to say the rehabilitation worked, but you can't know that since you don't know that he would've committed the crime if he had not gone through the program. He might not have committed the crime anyway.Some people are repeat offenders and some are not, so it's going to be difficult to determine whether rehabilitation programs work or not.FairnessPro defined retribution as "punishment that is justly deserved." The problem with putting more emphasis on rehabilitation rather than retribution is that it's not fair. Some people would get more punishment than they deserve while others would get less. The reason is because the length of stay or the severity of the conditions of imprisonment would be determined by what it takes to rehabilitate a person rather than what they deserve.Suppose, for example, that in general it took longer to rehabilitate people who smoke marijuana than to rehabilitate people who commit rape. If we emphasized rehabilitation over retribution, then marijuana smokers would get longer sentences than rapists. But rape is clearly a more serious crime than smoking marijuana. It would be unfair to give a marijuana smoker a longer sentence than a rapist just because it takes longer to rehabilitate a marijuana smoker.The 8th amendment to the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment. Depending on what it actually took to rehabilitate somebody, the punishment inflicted on a person could easiliy be cruel and unusual in light of the crime they are guilty of. The severity of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the crime. That is fair. It's also the definition of retribution.Pro's contentionsAll of Pro's contentions presuppose utilitarianism--a presupposition which I have already challenged. But if we grant utilitarianism for the sake of argument, her contentions still seem to be problematic.1. Rehabilitation can help our communityPro quotes an article from the New York Times, but the article doesn't say anything about rehabilitation. Rather, it argues that long prison sentences should be reserved for people who are dangerous to society. The purpose of prison, according to this article, is neither retribution nor rehabilitation, but simply protecting society from dangerous people by locking them up.2. Retribuation has strong negative effects on children and familiesThis is true in some cases, although the article she quotes doesn't support her contention. The article points out correlations between parents going to prison and children dropping out of school, but correlation is not causation. It could be there's a correlation just because of the kind of families these people are a part of. Trashy people are more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes, so trashiness could be the cause of both.Granted, it is unfair for children to have to suffer because of the crimes of their parents, but it is unfair of the parents to have put their kids in that situation. It isn't unfair of the government. In fact, giving criminals what they deserve is the very definition of fairness. And in many cases, putting parents in prison actually protects the children. That is especially the case when the parent is going to prison for murdering the mother or molesting the children.3. Rehabilitation is more cost effectivePro quotes an article saying that it's more cost effective to send a drug user to rehab than to prison. The weakness in this contention is that it takes ones specific crime and attempts to extrapolate to all crimes. The resolution of the debate is that rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in general, not just for the specific crime of drug use. Rehabilitation may work in the case of drug use because people on drugs want to get off. But we can't extrapolate that to all crimes. Muder, theft, robbery, fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, pedophilia, rape, domestic violence, etc. cannot be fixed by rehabilitation in the same way drug addiction can, and prison is more effective at protecting society from these types of criminals than rehabilitation.ConclusionWe mustn't think that it's either retribution or rehabilitation. We can have both. The question is which should be emphasized. Retribution is based on the moral principles of fairness, blame, culpability, and desert. Pro needs to undermine these moral principles and defend utilitarianism.[1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Thank you for accepting and sorry for the inconvenience. many countries have deliberately prohibited the use of "hateful speeches" under intensive laws to ensure the safety of its citizens. we have to take in consideration that the united states should limit the freedom of speech as well as reducing the damage caused by hateful speeches each day. Contention one: Democratic equality>> the united states must uphold the democratic equality in which it stands for. We have to see that the democratic equality provided to the citizen by the government simply cannot be violated with a simple excuse as to the freedom of speech. Sub point one: democratic equality when looking into democratic equality, we often find that there are more issues connected to it than we often tackle. The United states supports the idea of democratic equality and the constitution in which the united states bill cannot be amended in anyway however; when looking into the issue of "hateful speeches" we often find that it is more important to uphold the equality and the human rights of the citizens rather than to neglect the fact that the many citizens feel inferior to others. "The two principles of democratic equality deal with liberty and equality, which is broken down into equal opportunity and what Rawls terms the "difference principle. Rawls argues for basic liberties that are equal for all. Included among these liberties are political liberty, freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, and thought, integrity of the person, the right to personal property, and freedom from unlawful arrest and seizure. However, these liberties are malleable, allowing some to be compromised in order to attain the greatest total liberty. " (http://intjforum.com... Sub point two: Amend not Eliminate when looking into this resolution, we must find that it calls for the amendment of the freedom of speech and not its elimination. We also have to take in consideration that the amendment of the freedom of speech will provide us with the same amount of freedom but protecting the other citizens right. "To argue the case above, one has to dilute one's support for freedom of expression in favor of other principles, such as equal respect for all citizens. This is a sensible approach according to Stanley Fish. He suggests that the task we face is not to arrive at hard and fast principles that govern all speech. Instead, we have to find a workable compromise that gives due weight to a variety of values. Supporters of this view will tend to remind us that when we are discussing free speech, we are not dealing with speech in isolation; what we are doing is comparing free speech with some other good. For instance, we have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on speech than on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm." (http://plato.stanford.edu...) in conclusion the united states must amend the freedom of speech simply by limiting its range.

This is a one-round debate. There will be only one round during which to present an argument. After that, the community will vote.---There are many reasons the 22nd Amendment should be abolished. However, as this is a one-round debate, only one reason will be used.The 22nd Amendment should be abolished so Bill Clinton can run for president in 2016. Of all living Presidents, Clinton has the highest approval rating and would easily win both the popular and electoral vote. Bill Clinton has two-terms of experience, and since leaving office, he has maintained an educated public image.

Due to unforseen circumstances I will not be able to continue this debate. When im off restriction i hope we may resume. I should be able to re do this debate in 10 days. I hope we may continue tyhis once my restriction is lifted

You do have to remember the other principles that this great country of ours was built on. The constitution has three universal rights. The most important is the freedom of pursuit of hapiness which also states that it has to be as long as they dont hurt anyone. Now tell me, are homosexuals really hurting anyone? are they commiting any crimes? They shouldnt be judged on their orientation, but as the people they really are.

As described in the comments, my opponent has accidentally posted their main arguments twice. To allow this debate to go on, and not completely go to waste, I propose a restructure to the debate. We will simply both defer this round, and allow arguments to resume the next round.

Once again, bigwigs messed up the system. If you believe our government does not do the same, you are mistaken. So you should just admit that, if no one is hurt or excessively hungry, it is good. Enjoy your day.

The rules to this debate are as follows. first round you present your argument since I am con. I will post my opening arguments and rebuttals in the second

My opponent has once again failed to bring up some information for me to rebut. Therefore, I should win this debate. 1st Contention: Un-touched 2nd Contention: Un-touched Plan: Un-Touched 3rd Contention: Un-touched

"I do agree with you. But my main point is that internet should be used for homework and research but i mean for games anf stuff the students can do that at home. Plus they can also do their homework and research at home too. "It seems as though con concedes to all of my points. To finish up, he states people can do games and stuff at home. This ignores the purpose of breaks in school, which is to have a break between classes. If people want to use the internet during a break, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. He states homework and research could be done at home too. This is true, but students should also be able to use the internet to do these things in school if they want to. There are plenty of times when this could benefit the student, without any drawbacks. There is no reason to inhibit a student's ability to do homework and research in school. With all the drawbacks of an internet ban in schools outlined, it is evident that this idea should not be implemented in schools.


Question: Should the Principles of Net Neutrality Be Reinstated?

Network neutrality is often portrayed as a solution looking for a problem. The concept of net neutrality is frequently criticized for attempting to fix an issue that may not actually exist.

Net Neutrality is frequently framed as a solution in search of a problem. Critics argue that the principles of net neutrality are attempting to address a non-existent issue, suggesting that the current state of the internet does not warrant such regulatory measures.

It is a disappointment that Mr. Douglas did not make his initial arguments. If Mr. Douglas wishes to continue the debate, he may ONLY publish his arguments in this round, and not provide both arguments and a rebuttle as this would be unfair to myself.I continue to hold my three arguments, and look forward to my opponents arguments on this issue.

I apologize, for my internet has been down for the past few days. I welcome my opponent with gratitude and am looking forward to a knowledgeable debate!

The US constitution protects our property rights. The US constitution considers our personally owned businesses to be our private property. Facebook and other social media sites are privately owned businesses. Facebook and other social media sites are private property and are protected by the constitution. Facebook and other social media sites are not publicly owned, therefore the public has no say in how these social media sites are run. If you, the reader have any qualms with Facebook or other privately owned social media sites, you are free to start your own site.

Thank you for accepting. I'll begin by making my case. 1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Bill of Rights, and almost every bill of rights in a first world country states that all persons have the right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful demonstration, etc. Needless to say, the recent Facebook's decision violates every one of these principles that are one of the main reasons we have come from the dark age to modern civilization (science is dependent on free speech). Now, let's take a look at The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, American Bill of Rights and the Finnish Basic Rights (since that is where I live) and see how many violations occurred. I will not mention some of the not so obvious ones and will focus on the easily provable violations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Articles 2, 3, 17 (section 2) 18, 19, 20, 28 and 30 are violated. There are 30 articles, of which 7.5 are violated. This means that Facebook's decision violates about 25% of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not a good start. The American Bill of Rights: First Amendment, and arguably the Fifth Amendement ("...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" Facebook was depriving people of liberty with no "due process of law") are violated. Since The Bill of Rights is composed of ten amendments, the percentage of amendments violated is either 10% or 20% (depending on how one views the fifth amendement) The Finnish Basic Rights (Perusoikeudet) [in the Finnish Constitution the listing of basic rights consists of sections 6-23]: Sections 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17. Of 17 basic rights, 7 were violated, which means that Facebook's decision violated ~40% of the Finnish Basic Rights! [quote]I will be opposing the motion, thereby arguing that Facebook were within their rights to delete the referenced group.[/quote] If you forget the huge number of documents stating human rights the decision (like the American Bill of Rights) violated, even if it was legal for them to do so, it might not be the right thing to do. I can legally do many things which might not be right, say, play poker with a gambling addict who is has a fairly good life and win 10,000,000 euros. After he gives me all the money he has, he still owes me, say, 5,500,000 euros. Then he would have to sell his house, car, and anything else he owns to repay me, and that might not still be enough, so he would be in debt to me for the rest of his life. Was that wrong of me to do? (Perhaps not the best example, but you get the point.) [quote]P1) Facebook is a private site, which people choose to participate in, and as such Facebook has the right to set out caveats on people's useage of the site. Agreeing to these rules if we join and use Facebook, we do not have the right to criticise Facebook if we contravene them and they punish the individual / group accordingly.[/quote] I addressed the legal right of Facebook to do something vs. what is wrong and what is right above. --- Observations --- In order to join Facebook, one has to agree to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Section 14 says: "If you violate the letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop providing all or part of Facebook to you." [1] In order to create a group on Facebook one is told, at the very first step: "Note: groups that attack a specific person or group of people (e.g. racist, sexist or other hate groups) will not be tolerated. Creating such a group will result in the immediate termination of your Facebook account." [2] [quote]P2) Lots of Muslims - extremists and non-extremists - see Muhammad as someone who should not be depicted, and take great offence at any such depiction. Regardless of the group's primary intention, the creators were aware of the offence that would have been caused - after all, as my opponent pointed out, the group was created in the aftermath of such offence being caused by the South Park episode.[/quote] The group was established to send a message: "We can't be bullied or threatened out of our rights. The killing of Theo Van Gogh and the murders of numerous people (over 100) involved in the Muhammed cartoon controversy may have frightened newspapers etc around the world into self-censorship, but we will stand up for the freedoms that are one of the reasons our civilization works so well! We will live free or die!" The maker specifically stated numerous times that he encourages participants to make non-hateful pictures and focus on funny and smart ones. He also said that the intention of the group was not to insult the average muslim, but rather send a message to those who would suppress freedom of expression. However, I cannot provide the link to such statements as the group has been deleted. However, in the successor group that has about 2000 fans, the description says, as of 21.5.2010, 22:46 (GMT +3): "Racist/insulting messages and trolls/spams will be deleted. This is about having the right to draw whatever we want without being scared of death threaths. We will not give up our freedom!" [quote]Hosting such a controversial group exposes Facebook to risk: the backlash of the Islamic community, plus the political backlash - evidenced in my opponent's Round 1 with Pakistan's action of banning Facebook due to this controversy.[/quote]Do we want to send a message to those wanting to suppress free speech and freedom of expression that it truly is this easy to get us to give up and start self-censoring/censoring? I do't think so. [quote]- Whatever the primary intention, the act of insulting a significant proportion of the Islamic population was inevitable and must have been foreseen by the group's creators. This can be seen as "attack[ing] a specific...group of people"[2], and so is in contravention of Facebook's rules on the creation of groups.[/quote] The group was established to, like I said, send a message: "We can't be bullied or threatened out of our rights. The killing of Theo Van Gogh and the murders of numerous people (over 100) involved in the Muhammed cartoon controversy may have frightened newspapers etc around the world into self-censorship, but we will stand up for the freedoms that are one of the reasons our civilization works so well! We will live free or die!" The maker stated numerous times that he encourages participants to make non-hateful pictures. He also said that the intention of the group was not to insult the average muslim, but rather those who would suppress freedom of expression. However, I cannot provide the link to such statements as the group has been deleted, although he makes similiar statements here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [quote]If just one of these options were true - and I argue that both of them are - then Facebook were justified in deleting the referenced group. Therefore, I urge people to oppose this motion. I await my opponent's response.[/quote] Well, there is something called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, but even if they were legally justified to do so does not mean it was the right thing to do like I've tried to show. Summary: The decision 1) Sends a message we're weak and easily threatened out of our rights. 2) Violates human rights as set forth by the UN and countless nations all over the world. Sources used: 1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org... 2) The Constitution of Finland (in English, the basic rights are sections 6-23): http://www.finlex.fi... 3) The American Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov... 4): Everyone Draw Muhammed Day (back up): http://www.facebook.com...

I am Sorry for my Absense I lost track of the day count(I know a bad excuse but a true one) First of all My opponent proposed no criterion or core value and so mine are seen to stand. First point. My opponent gives the Cannibals and the missionary example. This is irrelevant because the cannibals are not necessarily felons and second in such a situation disfranchisement wouldn't exist because there are no laws. there is also no evidence the vote would be in favor of the missionary. 2nd: the only thing that makes the citizen of a democratic government different from a despotic one is the right to vote. Furthermore this debate does not concern what is currently being done but as to what we should do. So the constitution is irrelevant. re-build my own case (refutation of Marshall quote) I am Not suggesting they are equal but merely they get representation. If we disenfranchisethem we are turning what was once a two way street into a one way street. They are also paying or have paid there debt and further punishment hinders the rehabilitative efforts of society. Also the recidivism point is merely speculation without factual evidence and therefore is irrelevant. 2nd contention The point proposed by my opponent it simply un-democratic. It is turning towards Oligarchy which is, of course, not democratic and therefore denys justice 3rd contention My opponent is merely speculating with the recidivism rates and again therefore those statistics must be thrown out. Also if we were to include those who had not been caught we must consider all non-felons who may have commited a crime and advocate disenfranching them??? this destroys democracy not preserves it. Second the thought process used in felony and the thought process used in voting are entirely different things. Also the fact politicians would play to felons. this is infact not true, not politician would run a capmaign in prisons for the reason my opponent stated, cost. Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The goal of the prison system is, ultimately, rehabilitation or deterrence from furhter crime. Felon disenfranchisement it nither and therefore overkill to the criminal justice system. again in a democratic society there is no such thing as a bad vote or else it would be moving away from democracy While this story is unfortunate it does not prove that felons disenfranchisement is warranted. It simply says felons ought to be punished. That is what the prison system is for and disenfranchisement does not solve the given situation. Because felons are required things of society they must be given all the rights of society and, therefore must vote. If they need government aid this is often times the fault of society for labeling them and not the fault of the felons themselves. Therefore in intrests of preserving democracy the resolution should be affirmed

Thank you for your relatively quick response. I look forward to a well-done, cordial final round. Now let's get down to business: Q1: Just because someone was convicted of molesting a child doesn't necessarily mean they're going to do it again. Doesn't everyone deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt? A second chance if you will? I never specified one time offenders. Regardless I simply asked if child molesters should be able to be around children. This includes people who have raped and molested tens or even hundreds of children. Would you trust your child with someone has has molested five children? Ten children? Do you think repeating offenders should have the right to be a teacher or a daycare worker? Repeating child molesters are humans. They are born on this planet and their bodies are made from the same things as the rest of us, they are human, however if one has molested many children do you think they should be denied the right to work with a job that involves mostly children? I don't think they should have that right. This successfully negates your resolution. Q2: Same thing goes for thieves. We all deserve a second chance right? See above. A person like Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrows, Al Capone, and Jesse James (repeating offenders) do not deserve the right to work at a bank. Why? Because they are repeating offenders. Q3: Just because someone has a restraining order doesn't necessarily mean that the stalker isn't going to go against said restraining order and kill or rape that person anyways. Also, there's a difference between rights and laws. It's against the law to stalk someone, therefore punishment (So to speak) is reasonable. Though you are correct that it doesn't always work, it is denying them the right to meet with the victim. Don't you believe it is worth a try? Murder is against the law, but people still do it anyway. Would you make the same argument for murder? Q4: Again, just because someone has killed in the past doesn't mean they're going to do it again. Besides, if you knew the person was a serial killer they'd be in jail for life or dealing with the death penalty and thus wouldn't even be a part of society. See Q1 and Q2... I even said serial killers (repeating offenders). Someone who has killed hundreds of people should not have the right to live amongst regular citizens. Q5: Reasonably you have stooped me here. However, I feel an argument is necessary. Not all 5 year old's are completely immature and uneducated. In fact when I was 5 I knew quite a bit about politics, and I myself had an opinion of who the president should be. Look at the average kindergarten classroom. Most of the boys are probably picking their noses and nearly all of the children will likely not know how to read. They simply do not have the ability to make such informed decisions at such an age. I know five year old's who don't even know their last name! It is still a vital time of learning how to do basic things like read and write and do addition. Plenty of kids can barely do that, let alone vote for the the president. Their parents would likely vote for them, making the votes in this country unfair, bias, and would likely screw up the popular vote's results. Q6: Sex isn't really a right so to speak. It's more of an action. I can't think of a single place where sex is outlawed amongst adults and therefore wouldn't really consider it to be a right. Your misinterpreting what I intended to write. I mean that children shouldn't have the all of the same rights as adults, sex included. I mean adults (18+) have the right to have sex without getting in trouble, but young children shouldn't have that right for obvious reasons. I will gladly go into more detail in this argument in the next round if you wish.Quotes by Pro are in a larger font. My bold thing isn't working for some reason.Back to you, Pro.

I apologize for the delay in responding. There are no yes/no questions. Trying to solve complex issues with simple solutions is one of our nation's greatest problems. Even with cross-examination in Court, witnesses are allowed re-direct to explain their "yes/no" answers. Businesses should only have the right to refuse service when it is reasonable considering the behavior of the person being refused service. For example, if a patron at a restaurant decided to urinate on the tables, I believe we could all agree that it is reasonable for the owner to refuse service to said patron. Your argument that business owners should be allowed to refuse service because there will always be five other businesses that will take the potential patron's business is severely flawed. History proves this not to be the case. Were their five other businesses willing to take African-American customers during the Jim Crow days in the South? No, there were not. The reason is that business owners just as others in society follow a "herd" mentality. This "herd" method of reasoning stems from a business seeing another business following a practice and fearing it will fall behind that business if it does not emulate the practice. This "fear" of falling behind is the reason we have market bubbles. Intelligent investors such as Warren Buffett have become very wealthy by playing the contrarian position to the "crowd's" irrational fears as well as their irrational exuberance. Since businesses do not behave rationally in the "short run" and people's rights are infringed in the "short run," we must have laws to regulate businesses. Failing to have regulatory laws would be like a football game where there is no "out of bounds." Imagine the game where the receiver could run up into the stands to catch a ball and then go back into the field of play to score a touchdown! The team on offense would love these rules. The defense would not be so enthusiastic. The patrons of the game probably would not care for being run over by football players either. The point is, regulations are an absolute necessity within a free market economy, otherwise, you will have "too big to fail" banks crashing our economy! I will note that sometimes, such banks will even use bailout money provided by the government, to lobby the government against regulating said banks, so that these banks can continue to perform foolish acts without having to be bothered by the government! My point is, the owner should have the right to refuse when it is reasonable. "Reasonable" is what society deems as reasonable. There is no "slippery slope" in having such a common sense solution. The greatest thing to fear about "slippery slopes" is fear of "slippery slopes" themselves. No one ever said governing and regulating a free enterprise democracy would be easy.

You spend so much money buying a computer, routers, and monthly internet usage. You would think that's all you have to spend it on, yet there's millions of hackers and viruses on the computer that might come to your computer without your permission and completely mess up for hard drive, it's bad enough you have to suffer that, but on top of it, buy an anti virus program to protect your computer. how fair is that? shouldn't the internet be automatically filtered for this stuff to protect users? instead of having their ultimate goal keeping users protected, their job and living expenses is counted on people getting viruses. f there were no more viruses, those companies would go out of business... so their aim is to keep viruses on the internet, right? really think about it; what loser just lives to make viruses and Trojan spy-ware? who is just that out of a life? the only person viruses benefit is the anti virus companies that "protect" users. if no one was being affected, why would anyone buy the programs? the internet should be remodeled in a safer and more organized way, but that's out of the question, what at least should be done is to stop the virus makers instead of focusing only on "protecting users" rebuttals are accepted :)

i invite anybody who is for the NSA spying to debate me on this topic. round 2 will be opening statements and round 3-4 will be rebuttal and round 5 will be closing arguments. alot of people here do voting based on grammer but this is the internet so im not going to use proper grammer and i ask, please dont vote based on grammer and stuff like that.

It is important, in arguing any important topic, that it is presented well. Both my partner and I share serious concerns about the direction that the WoD is taking, and we both hope to see much more intelligent policy be implemented going forward. However, exactly because I agree with my partner on so many points, I would also like for him to present a strong case for this perspective – and so I am bound to offer criticisms that I feel will improve his argument in the future. To that end, I am noting the following items that I feel can be done better: “Drug use was not a problem before the 1960’s. Not much was known about cocaine. All around, there was no significant abuse of drugs. So no, there was no unacceptable level of human misery caused by drug abuse.”Here, my Partner attempts to show that there were no overdoses, accidents in the manufacture of narcotics, accidents involving the operation of automobiles or heavy machinery while under the influence, or any other significant or unacceptable pain caused by the use of dangerous narcotics that predate 1959. I believe that, despite the tepid and unconvincing statistics given, that this is an unsupported assertion. “Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt.”I may be required to concede that this point is true. I am in little position to authoritatively second guess this fact. However, it was offered within the context of reassuring me that the rates of usage of dangerous narcotics might increase as a result of ending the WoD, and that there are very likely cases in which the harmful effects of these narcotics was prevented by the WoD. It is therefore somewhat nonsensical as a response. A stronger point is made when he points out that drug use has increased since the WoD has been conducted in earnest. Unfortunately, this is another unsupported assertion; no evidence is given that clearly demonstrates that this increased usage was positively caused by the WoD. In other words, this could be a convincing argument, which would require that I concede the point or lose credibility. First, however, my partner must provide convincing supporting evidence that definitively demonstrates causation. No such evidence is offered. “I can walk outside and obtain a considerable amount of marijuana, MDMA, or LSD within 15 minutes. With this, I feel that discontinuing the War on Drugs would, for the most part, not increase the amount of users.”This is a compelling personal story, but is too small a study to represent a representative sample of the overall population. Again, while I accept that it is my partner’s earned opinion that drug use would not increase as a result of removing preventative drug laws, it is also unsupported by convincing evidence. We require this evidence in order to force a supporter of the WoD to admit that they have made an error. My partner repeats several times that “drug use will not increase if that use is made legal.” This mirrors accurately that assertion that “The WoD is not reducing the use of dangerous narcotics.” However, it is everywhere unsupported by convincing data. Since so many of his key points, critical to building his case, rely on this argument, I am required to examine it a little more closely. “Drug use will not increase if drug laws are eliminated.” Or, “The existence of drug laws do not affect drug use.”This argument requires that we believe that: “Laws do not affect human behavior.” Since, after all, my partner has not explained why drug laws should be seen in any different light than other legal requirements. For his argument to work, then, he will need to also make the case that laws in general do not work – that people are no more, (or less,) likely to stop at busy intersections if there are (or are not,) red lights positioned at those intersections. Or, he would be required to demonstrate how laws regulating the manufacture, sale, or use of narcotics are significantly different than other laws – or perhaps how drug users are less likely to be governable under any circumstances. This is key, so I will elaborate: Many of my partner’s arguments hinge on the fact that “laws do not work” as related to drug users, makers, distributors, etc. This begs the question: Why not? If he is arguing that drugs create an inability for society to govern its members, then the WoD is essential for societal governance. “Criminalizing drugs puts non-violent dealers in a bad position. The government creates negative situations for small-time users and dealers for no good reason. Similarly the War puts cartels in a like position.”This argument reduces to “Criminal penalties harm those who commit criminal acts.” It is understood that penalties for illegal actions will be incurred by those who are found to have committed them. To be convincing, we are required to evaluate why a certain action is harmless. In order to demonstrate that drug use is “harmless,” my partner will be required to do something that is obviously impossible. “I understand that you believe that there is a level of success. But clearly that is not true. Their efforts to intercept drug trafficking makes no difference. Cartels still laugh with their massive profits. Though the DEA may get drug busts every now and then, it is a hopeless effort. In the long run any individual bust is rendered useless. Law enforcement is wasting man hours and lives for no reasonable gain. They could be fighting violent crimes. The cons of the War greatly outweigh the pros.” This is a mixture of hyperbole and unsupported assertions. In order to make this argument, my partner will be required to make the absurd claim that absolutely nothing good has ever, or can ever, result from any attempt to regulate, restrict, control or prohibit the manufacture, sale or use of any ingestible substance. This is in stark contrast to my argument, which is that the WoD should be improved, but all attempts to regulate drug sale, manufacture and use in the US should not be abandoned. Consider his argument, which I reduce to: “There has been no level of success with any drug laws, and no drug laws can ever prove to be a benefit to society under any circumstances. All such laws would increase drug use, and reduce police protections and waste tax dollars.”To demonstrate the wild, undisciplined rhetoric that is being used here, I will point out that my partner has indicated that there has been no level of success in the WoD (“I understand that you believe that there is a level of success. But clearly that is not true. Their efforts to intercept drug trafficking makes no difference.”) Then later, he points out that, “The cons of the War greatly outweigh the pros.” Clearly, if there are any ‘Pros’ at all, then his earlier statement must be untrue. This is evidence of hyperbole, in my opinion. My partner also points out that the penalties for minor drug offenses are too severe, and that these limit the earning potential of persons thereby convicted. Here, he is exactly correct – and he makes a somewhat convincing case for why we should modify our laws that criminalize less dangerous intoxicants. I would like to see him elaborate on this point, as I feel that it is his only strong defense. These rebuttals can be summarized as follows: 1. Laws cannot govern drug users2. The WoD cannot reduce drug use Both of these statements are unsupported by any evidence, and actually argue in favor of the WoD: if “laws cannot govern drug abusers,” then preventing that abuse from occurring in the first place is essential for societal governance. Therefore, good governance requires that we support the modification of the WoD, but not it's complete abandonment. Therefore, the WoD cannot be considered a "failure."