Topic ID,Argument ID,Discussion ID,Premise,Relevance,Is Argument?,Rhetorical Quality,Logical Quality,Dialectical Quality,Text Length,Stance,Combined Quality
10,4,15859,"My opponent is using a huge logical fallacy; he is claiming that because medical marijuana doesn't have medical purposes for all medical conditions that the medical conditions it does have medical purposes for do not count. The fact remains that medical marijuana has several medical purposes such as alleviating neurpathic pain. A ban on medical marijuana would result in the ban of a medicine that works better than any other medicines, resulting in worse health out comes and a worse off health care system. My opponents post is also lying the source i posted studied the addictive potential of some medical marijuana the studies found that certain medical marijuana extracts do not result in addictive properties or addictive behavior. medical marijuana is different then regular marijuana because in medical marijuana they take out the harmful and addictive chemicals and only use the chemicals that have medical purposes. this means that every time my opponent links to marijuana having unhealthy effects he is comparing apples and oranges, and therefore his comparisons are invalid. For example a scientific study found that medial marijuana improved the mental abilities of people with Alzheimers. So basically a ban on medical marijuana would be an example of the government telling doctors how to treat patients. it would also be an example of the government telling millions of sick people that they cannot legally consume medicines that improve their medical condition.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.5350723788957257,0.9522679044804018,0.8817999064814852,234,True,1.2959366627272988
10,6,33373,"Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.07204084612671377,-0.8011509062538279,-0.6273803420316391,48,False,-0.5254410916546814
15,6,1349,"Not ALL commercials are inappropriate, and I cannot understand why you insist they are. In addition, the production costs more and is of higher quality, because why would the companies air commercials for millions of dollars when it isnt worth it? (e.i. poor quality...) The only logical way to advertise during the Superbowl is to make commercials that are of great quality, and that catch the eye of the viewers. You misunderstood my first argument. I was not only implying they are inappropriate, but they lack in variety. This has gone untouched. Since they all focus on one SPECIFIC group, they lack in variety. This is bad. But what you did try to attack was the inappropriateness of the commercials. Your only response is that ""not ALL commercials are inappropriate."" Honestly, the majority of them are inappropriate. Thus, they are bad. And finally, the value of the commercial. I understand what you saying, but you are confusing what is wanted to what is actually done. Here is my logic...again...with numbers this time for clarity. Commercial has a budget of $15,000. Normal commercial cost $2,000 to air. Normal commercial allows $13,000 for production. Super Bowl commercial cost $7,000. Super Bowl commercial allows $8,000 for production. Companies obviously WANT to make super bowl commercials of the highest quality, but they can't afford it. So super bowl commercials lack variety are inappropriate lack high quality",-2.010559408397932,True,-0.6835631290642503,1.4370875651595671,-0.2469087088667672,232,False,0.23319378276549402
8,14,11861,"It is possible to keep a balance between international travel facilitation and security maintenance by introducing electronic means of customs control. Reinforced cockpit doors, sky marshals, bomb-detection machines, and information technology such as positive bag matching systems are steps in the right direction, as history proves. In September 1970 the hijack of El Al flight 217, a Boeing 707 flying from Amsterdam to New York, failed: the aircraft had a re-enforced cockpit door, and armed sky marshals on board were able to thwart the terrorists. More recently in September 2002 an attempted hijack of a Saudi airliner flying from Sudan was similarly prevented by armed security officers on board.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.208934913161709,0.01940059575409044,-0.006187788351822417,109,True,0.47994863682286953
13,3,24960,Good for him. Now before you pontificate on absolutely everyone needing a gun consider the fact that most of us aren't anywhere near a bar at 2AM. And I'd bet you this particular bar was in some armpit kind of place. Am I right? Where was it?,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,47,True,-4.0
9,17,40213,"i think this because, many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook .. etc. and if social networking was apart of the curriculum then teachers could teach students how to use these sites in a safe and harmless way. The truth of the matter is more teens use these social networking sites than adults themselves, and if teachers were able to help the students, teach them how to use the sites in appropriate and safe ways, it'll make a difference. A lot of people miss-use social networking sites in bad ways, either discrimination, or degrading, so if teachers were able to teach and protect their students from these things by teaching it to them and adding it in the curriculum, they could change how teens use the internet in a positive way. Also i feel that, teenagers would like to learn more about social sites, and they would like to know how to use it the right way, so if they were taught at school, this would be a positive thing to do. In conclusion, if social networking was added to the curriculum it would be a positive thing to do!",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.5207682988502824,-0.01742075671415335,0.7381037038929671,194,True,0.47513739589461
9,4,6310,"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Today, I am against the resolution, Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking sites have had a negative impact on the United States. My first conjunctions is as followed; --Social Networking is potentially going to harm to persons using them. One example of this is Megan Meier, who took her life after an old friends mom posed as a boy on myspace and began harassing her. When a social networking site does nothing to protect users of it's site, we see it as unfit. Just as we would see a mother unfit to raise a child if she didn't protect it from danger. ** I can't wait for someone's reply**",-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.7026747680022911,0.19287823661398,-0.2722873897000357,137,False,-0.6584842457819424
9,1,26256,"Arguments: Social networking sites are places where people 'share' or upload details of their personal life to the world wide web , in order to connect better with their friends or personal contacts. Under such circumstances social networking sites become ware houses for large amounts of pervading information into the life of its members which includes photographs, email and other contact details. This information is usually uploaded by members solely for the Eyes of their own contacts. Social Networking sites may find it difficult to maintain huge establishments merely through online applications and add generated revenue. They hence often find themselves compelled to cash in at other places. Multi-national co-operations and sometimes people with malafide intent are willing to pay money in exchange for personal contact details including personal preferences of ordinary people, these details are often used against the best interest of uncanny victims usually for marketing purposes, but sometimes for the more vicious credit card and other monetary frauds. The sale of contact details of millions of such social network users generate enormous income for companies, and grievous injustice and harassment of users. For the above stated purposes , I propose that it will be in the best interest of the users of such networking sites,if governments make it a punishable offense for companies to share private details of individual users for commercial gain.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.1056753605453788,0.6973810317155048,0.9811671327110134,226,True,1.0670615701584916
9,3,33185,"Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful. EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise. Thank you. I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library. 200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011. When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol. If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us? Bad I say! We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray. You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things. Debate closed. Thank you. EllieBub :) I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component! EllieBub",0.4916888247220394,True,0.007996483581637777,0.9789361704705176,0.5132961363952515,210,True,0.5781675295398219
9,5,33185,"I would like to point out that my opponent has said that social networking sites allow people at 10+, that is a lie sites have restricted people to be at least 13 to be allowed onto these sites and that is because 10 year olds wouldn't know what to do if strangers tried to be friends with them or if they became cyber-stalked and that is because they wouldn't be responsible or mature enough to know what to do in that situation. You also said that people do get harmed form cyber bullying so your saying that everyone that gets bullied on the Internet goes how do I put it crazy? you are just putting it out there that you wouldn't be ashamed to say that someone has gone crazy to many people. harmful shouldn't really be the word used to define social networking sites but then again no word would really suit. When you are on social networking sites you can do many things that are good like talk to friends and family without a problem, or share photos from another country. facebook or titer can be used to say in touch with people all around the world for free or you could just call them for say $1 per minute if they're on the other side of the world, then again it would be nice hearing their voice but they'll hear yours when you get the phone bill, but meh that doesn't matter you could just go on facebook and talk to them. That would be so much easier, guess what else it is.... easy to use for all those technology challenged people simple like a wave of a wand or a swish of the wrist.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5579465637043279,0.03100513432195705,0.7695521167151195,288,False,0.520089871897919
9,5,9551,"This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt. Most of the users of social networking websites are teenagers. At that age, they are still kids, therefore, unable to determine who their true friends are. As a result, they are linked to the wrong people. So, reconsidering who their friends are would not actually help them. Because the resolution states ""That, on balance"" that means that the bad has to outweigh the good, or vice versa in order to win the debate. That being said, staying in contact with friends, and so many people dying cannot compare to each other. Thus, I stand Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a negative impact on the United States.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.21772111884312387,-0.28774062539692336,0.1419295894876489,175,False,-0.14841492681935897
9,2,7703,"Social networking has a POSITIVE impact in the United States. Without it, -our economy would not be where it is today -communication opportunities would be smaller -socially we would be closed to trying new things Going on to refute my opponent.. - although social networking sites are just a tool, without them.. businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently - because social networking sites promote people who have brains and can think independently, it can still have a direct effect Although the person has the impact, they would be unable to achieve what they planned to if the tool was not present As a result, PRO should recieve the winning vote",0.8044698538620362,True,0.1554689745636286,0.32575097167444106,0.9356441283574216,133,True,0.5434960854081533
9,2,3382,"There are age restrictions on most social networking sites. The problem is when asked their year of birth, they lie. It is very easy to bypass the system. When you come up with a better one, sell it to all the social networking sites and you'll be rich. On many of these sites like Instagram, you can report what people put our say. It's nothing to do with the sites. It's the people who got to take it into there own hands. What can a pedophile do through conversation? Message rape? I don't think so. And it's the 13 year olds that are probably the easiest to convince to meet in an alley or parking lot because they are more sexually interested. I'm in class right now so I have to end it here. I'm 14 but my profile shows 23. It's that easy to change your age.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.3689605539698811,-0.3449447465753652,0.7513032301575001,148,False,0.020181009032324983
9,18,33075,"I hate to break it to you, but in the age we're living in every social networking site on the entire Internet could be shut down and your personal information would be no less safe than it is now. Public records have existed much, much longer than the Internet itself, let alone social networking sites and those determined to access them for their own purposes will find a way to do so no matter what. Furtheremore, social networking sites are a great way for family and friends who live too far from each other to visit to be able to communicate.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.8360447956547097,0.2069275440891061,-0.4882360583757253,101,False,-0.4303911853484188
8,1,40841,"So I guess almost whole of DDO knows I'm a huge rap fan by now... I also like electronic music and metal too but that's irrelevant for now. Please only accept if you're an extreme rap fan, this is not some ""ooh let's rap about guns money and b*tches type of thing"". So... Here are the rules: Read the Rules. They are not the usual ones for a rap battle. 1) The rappers must be slightly different from each other - IF they both rap in basically identical style, this isn't a fair pair to be fighting with because it's almost two of the same. 2) Any song posted can not be ""featuring"" it must be solos 3) Two songs per round, one of each 4) You must select 1 dominant and 1 recessive rapper meaning that we consider them to be battling with dom vs dom and rec vs rec (rec should be your 2nd place choice) 5) OBVIOUSLY Con cannot choose Tech N9ne or Machine Gun Kelly My dominant = Tech N9ne My recessive = MGK May the best taste-in-rap person win. I advise you to put Hopsin as one of the two but it's totally up to you. RULES TO VOTERS: 1) LISTEN TO WHOLE SONG BEFORE JUDGING IT",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.03574071068720376,0.33792127992523185,-1.1118617175378815,212,True,-0.3003718004289433
9,1,24065,I am for social networking sites and I think that they are good for our society. Con must argue against. Acceptance first.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,22,True,-4.0
13,6,9418,"I accept the challenge, concealed carry is detrimental to the public,I will state my argument after yours",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,False,-4.0
9,1,2381,"Social Networking sites are boon as I know from100% people in world 85% of people uses social networking sits It may affect to many people . CHILDREN ARE USING MORE THAN ADULT As we know childrens having more interest in this type of work.They are using more social networking account and some are also below 18 years some people talk in bad language also,about sex f they listen this there mind goes to the bad things. It is affected also by skin diseases,hacking,blackmailing etc",0.4916888247220394,True,0.4032087270651607,-0.6841116109690113,-0.044461759212133065,84,True,-0.12409127886703399
9,1,24352,Social networking sites are good for our society!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
9,1,7703,"Social Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA... - They are good because they increase communication opportunities Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does. - They stimulate our economy Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities. - They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our ""cliques"" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not ""freinds"" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.2373982581944145,0.6687841237155017,0.5074045488382379,131,True,0.5377768226154788
9,5,18518,"I will state these facts: Case 1: hackers Even if your account is private. Hacker may hack into your account and steal your information. Case 2: Why be on a social networking site if you want it private? That is the whole case of social networking! Case 3: Many kids do not know how to block or make accounts private. Case 4: There are a lot of pedofiles on social networking sites. A lot of kids don't know better, and give them their information. This could lead to families getting robbed or the kids being abducted. Case 5: Your parents should monitor it to make sure you are doing what you are supposed to and keep you safe. These are my opening statements. Thank you!",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.48098698907673904,-0.14986807346199604,0.5017825156538018,125,False,-0.050222883003676534
9,5,24352,"I will just post something to get a win since he forfeited so yeah due to forfeit I at least win 100% on conduct My argument will be simple I am not gonna waste 115-30 minutes researching and preparing a difficult speech if I have no opponent this will be just a regular speech because that is all I need to win. cont 1: threats from social networking sites A survey on mic.com shows that at least 50% of rapes happen from info posted on social media about where they live. Yes it can be avoided if they hide this info but many teenagers are not considering this, or kind of like your house catching on fire, don't believe it will happen to them. cont 2: Some teenagers make social media their life On fox news they interview some people who stay on as long as 16 hours a day because they feel like social media is their life. Their are even some who get the 2 worlds mixed up and have to go get therapy. Ok that's all I am posting if opponent returns I will add more stuff but its not worth wasting time if no opponent just a argument at all is what I need to win so that's all ima do a simple argument.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.5344166759864099,-0.4167521050811058,0.7212424221670848,218,False,-0.08017292854034423
9,4,40253,"The opponent argues that DDO (debate.org, the site you are currently on) is ""similar to a social network."" This is plainly false. Allow me to elaborate. Social Network - ""An online community of people with a common interest who use a website or other technologies to communicate with each other and share information, resources, etc."" [1] It is clear that DDO is a social network. We are all brought together as an online community with the common interest of ""debate"", as the opponent as admitted. Furthermore, we spend a great deal of time communicating with one another and sharing information. Similar - ""almost the same as someone or something else"" [2] Almost - ""only a little less than"" [3] The definition of similar clearly dictates that for two objects to be similar, they have to be almost the same, but objectively different by ""only a little"". Considering that DDO is a social network, it cannot be said that DDO is ""similar"" to a social network, because that would imply that DDO itself is not a social network. I'll formulate this as a syllogism. Premise 1: DDO is a social network. [Definition of social network.] Premise 2: Two similar objects must differ by ""a little"". [Definition of similar.] Inference 1: DDO and a ""social network"" do not differ by a little. [By P1.] Conclusion: DDO and a ""social network"" are not similar. Conclusion I have clearly demonstrated that DDO is not similar to a social network, since it is exactly a social network. Points to Con, thanks for reading. Sources: 1 - - -",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.1568381350729118,0.313394260305657,0.10395375064496593,263,False,0.09270550036195513
9,6,33185,"I would like to say as much as children should be kept away from the computer it can be used for learning! Meaning that it is not all bad and that quote of what she said isn't right it is just a opinion no supporting evidence in that statement. As sad as it may be you say that some scientist thinks that it may be bad for your brain I want proof of this and if your going to say that. You have no evidence of this and I want proof if your going to say this. Many people may log on at home after they get home what if they forgot what their homework was you can't exactly go ring up your teacher and ask what the homework was you could just ask someone in your class online, so much easier than getting in trouble the next day. Many people believe that t.v's and to much computer can rot your mind and I fully back them up on that statement because it does but do people say the same thing with cell phones no they think it is good that you can text people without the worry of having to call them or walk down to them. Cell phones do most of the same things that social networking sites do like you can communicate with others, play games, make calls and listen to music, so why do people believe that cell phones are good but social networking sites aren't one of the only differences between the two is that cell phones are portable and you can get facebook on their for free. Surely if you think cell phones are good for you then social networking is to. I now rest my case.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.9573114468530316,-0.2086188004377368,0.3329157892028687,293,False,0.4204644128550722
9,2,24352,"moses_moses forfeited this round. Con I will just post something to get a win since he forfeited so yeah due to forfeit I at least win 100% on conduct My argument will be simple I am not gonna waste 115-30 minutes researching and preparing a difficult speech if I have no opponent this will be just a regular speech because that is all I need to win. cont 1: threats from social networking sites A survey on mic.com shows that at least 50% of rapes happen from info posted on social media about where they live. Yes it can be avoided if they hide this info but many teenagers are not considering this, or kind of like your house catching on fire, don't believe it will happen to them. cont 2: Some teenagers make social media their life On fox news they interview some people who stay on as long as 16 hours a day because they feel like social media is their life. Their are even some who get the 2 worlds mixed up and have to go get therapy. Ok that's all I am posting if opponent returns I will add more stuff but its not worth wasting time if no opponent just a argument at all is what I need to win so that's all ima do a simple argument.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.4872135048952288,0.4139163810799337,0.30574323934835546,223,True,0.4564783860405426
17,2,27822,"A man gets pulled over by the police for speeding ten miles over the speed limit. The cop approaches the car and taps on the window. The driver reluctantly rolls down the window and says ""I have a gun in the glove box compartment and a dead body in the trunk"". The police officer looks confused and says ""Excuse me?"" The man repeats ""I have a gun in the glove box compartment and a dead body in the trunk."" The police officer takes a step back, drawing his gun and radioing in for back-up. As the second police officer arrives on scene, the first police officer has already gotten the man out of the car and into handcuffs. The second cop opens up the trunk to find there isn't a dead body. He looks in the glove box compartment and cannot find a gun. The second cop asks the citizen ""This officer told me you had a dead body in the trunk and a gun in the glove box compartment."" The citizen laughs and remarks, ""I bet he told you I was speeding too.""",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,184,True,-4.0
9,4,9551,This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt.,-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.8081847259072507,-0.6349390657488481,0.06432279513422481,54,False,-0.534063932530057
9,12,28718,"Given the number of people who actually use Facebook[1] and other social networking sites, these occurrences were remarkably small[2]. These riots cannot be attributed to Facebook; it was the mindset of the rioters rather than Facebook itself which provided the raw determination for these riots to occur. If Facebook had been censored, they may have simply used mobile phones to co-ordinate their actions instead. Censoring these sites would not prevent such events, and would anger those who use Facebook to communicate with friends[3] and share photos[4] innocently. [1] BBC News, ‘Facebook hits 500m user milestone’, 21 July 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10713199 09/09/11. [2] BBC News, ‘UK Riots: Trouble erupts in English cities’, 10 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14460554 on 09/09/11. [3] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic, http://facebook.en.softonic.com/web-apps on 09/09/11. [4] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic, http://facebook.en.softonic.com/web-apps on 09/09/11.  ",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.08191716729892345,0.2282784063527881,0.2257068200494483,139,False,0.13488983496497997
13,5,29430,"I'm having trouble seeing exactly where you are coming from and without trying to cause offence I don't feel you are being entirely sincere. I feel your philosophy is contradictory as I find it hard to understand your concern regarding police brutality but your wish to have them be the only ones who can carry arms. So your position is if they are the only ones allowed to carry them they will be less likely to shoot innocent people...really? Truth is whatever your position which is somewhat deluded I'm far more afraid of the police hurting me then my peers or neighbours! Look G the excuses fly because they are allowed to..if it were not one excuse it would be another, I feel your passion but please..please give it to more worthwhile arguments!! Personally i don't think you do understand the psychology which to me is quite simple...pumped up psychopaths with a get out of jail free card...may kill you..simple. It has nothing to do with there fear. More people comit suicide each year then shoot at the police or commit murder give me a break! The police's paranoia is what some may call deflection... Would I give up my right to be able to protect myself i n favour of the police protecting me...hell no!!! I doubt most would!!!",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.5458500976335383,-0.3464086516698754,-1.5974049193327944,220,True,-1.3362653359125762
9,3,42157,"Thanks for your response. My opponent cited a study which a Doctor Underwood stated that the activities posted in FB are for everyone to see and therefore a bad thing. Not really, since anyone can edit their privacy settings. Facebook, like other social netwoking sites have upsides and downsides. Users may receive positive or negative feedback from others. But does that mean that we should totally ban them to teens? Again, no. I stated that FB can be used for educational purposes, my opponent refuting that statement by saying we have other references like the library is irrelevant. My opponent believes that FB made people more physically distant and gives people a false sense on getting better socially and makes people more closed minded. Since my no sources and accurate references were cited here and it's a he-says-she-says, let me start by introducing the study of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, where they stated that social networking sites helped 60 million people on major life issues via contacting friends and experts online. ( Also, according to the National School Board Association, 59% of students use social networking sites for educational purposes. This highly supersedes my opponent's assumption that teens only use social networking sites for negative stuffs. ( Bottomline, my opponent just repeated her argument which I already previously refuted. Again, just because FB may harm its users does not mean we should affect the majority. Sorry for it being short, really busy IRL. No time to write.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.853024086367501,0.8995420463202141,0.6130106152825107,250,True,0.9046332621966356
9,17,37325,"This image of the Internet drawing people being closer together is simply an illusion. Sitting in front of computers rather than getting out in the world in fact isolates people from one another. Some academics argue that narcissism is the glue that keeps social networks together.[1] If people didn’t believe that their views were important and needed to be heard, then social networks would be unable to function. Social networks encourage people to express what they are doing rather than reading what others have to say. If people want to feel integrated into their communities, they should get out and about and do something active for it. Complaining about things online will not result in direct action solving the problem. Although it is true that people all over the world are now theoretically able to communicate with one another more easily, that is not how the Internet is actually used most of the time. Many Internet users either read digitized versions of traditional information sources, and when they are on social networking sites, they engage most often with real-life friends, with whom they could easily spend face-to-face time. Language is the other major barrier to worldwide integration. While there are translation tools online, most people online will stick to communicating in their native language, and this is particularly true of English speakers. The idea that the Internet is bringing new people together is on the whole a myth. [1] Buffardi and Campbell, ‘Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites’, 2008  ",0.1789077955820434,True,2.176176987843494,0.8382548635779864,1.4092420848877083,250,False,1.714013432574096
9,3,1662,I will give a short rebuttal wich is the fact that ddo is a social networking site. Are these people antisocial? The answer NO they are far from it with many debates on countless topics. The forums where people comunicate about everything there are even ddo hangouts on google+ where people like you and me socialize. Plus we don't spend all day on these sites and a lot of us go to school or work for the most part of the day where we socialize all the time so I disagree with the fact that social media causes antisocial behaviour,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.9021257797365072,-0.5216301933164048,-1.4694628337460975,100,True,-1.118011584229631
9,2,14442,"Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with. 2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of ""social gaming"". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks. 3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with ""Killing in the Name"", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.0835224586887238,1.1567209369003493,-0.08949536986203213,124,True,0.3892121307658476
9,5,14442,"Rupali forfeited this round. Pro Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with. 2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of ""social gaming"". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks. 3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with ""Killing in the Name"", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.03608639029416045,-0.3842439212439566,0.027853593343610514,129,False,-0.13153825102302077
9,7,1662,cxman123 forfeited this round. Pro I will give a short rebuttal wich is the fact that ddo is a social networking site. Are these people antisocial? The answer NO they are far from it with many debates on countless topics. The forums where people comunicate about everything there are even ddo hangouts on google+ where people like you and me socialize. Plus we don't spend all day on these sites and a lot of us go to school or work for the most part of the day where we socialize all the time so I disagree with the fact that social media causes antisocial behaviour,0.8044698538620362,True,-1.0912646186631494,-0.8811746327305431,-0.7947744153314545,105,False,-1.0780675037911216
9,2,11367,"To address your position that DDO is not a social media site, I refer you to the Tufts University definition: ""Social media refers to the means of interactions among people in which they create, share, and/or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks.""(1) By definition, I assert that DDO is a social media platform. As you said, ""it is a site for[...]today's issues."" Well, certainly I agree. And, in fact, I would call this social commentary, despite your objection to the term: ""Social commentary is the act of using rhetorical means to provide commentary on issues in a society.""(2) The DDO community is intelligent enough to vote on merit. Given that DDO is a public social network for all to share their opinions, I believe that the only way to guarantee a free, democratic exchange of ideas is to permit other members to contribute through open dialogue. (1) [ (2) [",0.1789077955820434,True,0.4907212689664052,0.6019467886000031,1.1342938665687932,153,True,0.8544928641102308
8,4,38206,"I ask you, have you ever seen the components of potassium, I.E the electrons, protons, neutrons. You base your claim on the assumption that everybody is right about what 'potassium is composed of' and to be honest, If i am correct we can't even see an electron so we assume that it has an equal number of electrons and protons (provided its in its neutral state), another thing which makes me sceptical of the electron presence is the fact we can't actually determined its orbits around the nucleus. I would also like to mention potassium is a label for an element, there might be another language where they use an alternate name for potassium in which case potassium is not an element in there language, so it is also a matter of perspective.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,133,False,-4.0
9,3,42765,You can't say like that. These sites have influenced our lives so much that people always read bools also only which saves their money. We can consult to doctors abroad through video chat. These sites are very helpful to us so we should see them as a good sign of the progress of the nation. But I also agree with your point that it is killing people as some children use these sites for bad purposes but what can we do? We can do that parents of these children should keep a check on them and then you see how these social networking sites will appear as important as they are now.,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.7909917736903547,-0.4466601618883942,-0.3641059107696408,112,True,-0.6267387245455733
9,1,21908,I believe that social networking sites cause more harm than good because studies have proven that people (generally teenagers) are more likely to bully through social media than other forms of media or the more traditional methods of bullying. SOURCE:,-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.3954839753784588,-1.6455935522699798,0.2947971177705209,40,True,-0.6450518178441574
9,2,24423,"I do not think it is stupid because children have gotten kidnapped because they put things on social networking sites revealing information, when their parents did not have the slightest information that their children were on that site. Maybe complete genius children could get through a restriction on the Internet, but by what I have learned about the Internet is that it is smarter than most of the average adults, so there should not be a problem with making one smarter than children.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.11214800959910301,-0.4324487420209461,-0.7551858850236124,83,True,-0.5080014772331473
13,6,11221,"Yeah,you might be half right.But hand in guns to students,it's possible that the students themselves could become a shool shooter.An example such as Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting which the gunman killed 20 people.According to the U.S.Secret.Service reports says that most of those school shooter has obtain guns legally.And there are some students,who have mental illness,and if they have guns,it could be possible that they can kill people.zi think the best way to stop school shooting,is to stop bullying.Carrying guns would not be the best idea,because there will always be mass shooting happens.",1.1172508830020322,True,-2.173531586344972,-2.480859808894627,-0.7789142677319453,93,False,-2.070262260455022
9,5,17412,"I can see how the internet could be used by companies who store personal data for mis-guided use and/or misuses of the personal data happening if it falls into the hands of unintended parties. As a Web Designer myself I am well aware of how Social Networking sites are being actively used by businesses to capture entire markets of hapless newbies to the web. And yes, really! - their main goal is to get money out of users in small amounts. Just like the old adage invented by the original supermarket owners ""stack em high and sell em cheap"" - meaning that if you get enough customers you don't need to sell a high priced item to them, all you need is a few pence from them. That's why the same people create large amounts of spam ... the 'legit companies will tell you they don't, but I know from attending trade shows that all the big brands are paying smaller companies to create lots and lots of spam. It's disgusting really. More and more untechnically minded people start using the web every year. I've been addicted to using the web since 1994 and I've seen it change, especially in the 00's. If it's of any interest, I never use social networking sites ... they are a security risk for your personal data. Actually that's a lie, I would use them if I had a product I wanted to sell ... is that wrong?",0.4916888247220394,True,0.4900674432547637,0.3599306886801404,0.043729863170733116,244,True,0.33717446157677056
9,9,28718,"In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases[1][2]. Given that both physical[3] and psychological[4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals[5]. Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens[6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this. [1] Moore, Victoria, ‘The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of “harmless fun”’, MailOnline, 4 August 2009, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1204062/The-fake-world-Facebook-Bebo-How-suicide-cyber-bullying-lurk-facade-harmless-fun.html on 16/09/11 [2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1#.T0N_1fFmIQo on 16/09/11 [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582 on 16/09/11. [4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1#.T0N_1fFmIQo on 16/09/11 [5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/white-power-likes-t... on 16/09/11 [6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008, http://www.brownejacobson.com/press_office/press_releases/councils_owe_v... 09/09/11  ",0.4916888247220394,True,0.8213285536234747,1.0393604008399857,0.17961672627796516,289,True,0.7853544318684162
9,2,33185,"As The 'Con' has said, I didn't say they 'allowed' people 10+, but 13, honestly, I know that people go on when they are 9- / +! It is disgraceful! Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'",0.4916888247220394,True,0.9792142465231108,0.4442908042704237,0.405657849897291,209,True,0.7003063465385155
9,2,27227,"I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I would also like my opponent to know that I am very new to this and apologize for my shortcomings. Concerning arguments: On much deliberation concerning the merits of certain social networking sites, I realize that factors are present in the process of communication via internet that allow for not only a ""good"" interaction, but also a ""better"" one. When in a conversation with someone on a social networking site, one is presented with the opportunity to think before he speaks(that is type). This website is a prime example, when a person enters a debate he is not forced to respond immediately but can search for evidence with which he can make his point or points(assuming he knows how to do this). One is given the opportunity to speak freely with peoples of other nations, though it could be argued that this is not better by my opponents definition of the word, it is much less expensive and far easier due to the easy accessibility of online translators. It is easier to be more eloquent when given the time to consider what to say or post. Again will I apologize, for due to the shortness of time, I must post this now.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.7340872228901023,-0.4520936425799466,0.22714465495930475,213,True,0.6188969882352265
9,2,24136,"Hashtags usually used to show that the word used after it is either an internet meme or a current trend. By using it on other social networking sites, it can provide a link that the word is an internet meme or trend and it should be acceptable.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,47,False,-4.0
9,25,2149,"If people want a social networking site there are millions, faceparty, hi5, bebo, myspace etc... facebook IS a fad that will pass, as some person eventually will outdo it, one of these pages will take all it's features and make something better, as myspace has done with bebo, as bebo has done with faceparty, etc.. Anyone could log onto myspace, and minus a few 'pokes', they can pretty much do the same, look at their friend's status updates, chat to their friends etc. Why should facebook be THE social networking site? And also, myspace is the site that seems to get all the hype for getting musicians noticed. So what's the fad for bands? Myspace!",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.04514217978452302,-0.2790726720330091,-0.8762832754370935,115,False,-0.4301823810366741
8,5,24369,"Electronic cigarette is not subjected to U.S tobacco laws because it doesn't have any tobacco in it. Therefore, electronic cigarettes are better than regular cigarettes. In terms of accessibility among minors, they are able to purchase regular cigarettes which is actually violating a law as to purchasing electronic cigarettes. Another reason why smoking electronic cigarette is better than regular cigarettes is because there is no combustion involved while smoking it. There is no smoke coming out of the cigarette, instead there's a vapor that provides similar sensation as smoking traditional cigarettes. This is one of many great innovations we have in our modern time. The mayor shouldn't ban something useful as to alternating smoking cigar.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.7763320989444394,-0.10174113830189786,0.8857897689355859,115,False,0.019881682542770125
9,1,28820,"I am for this! These Social Networking sites are bad for the young ones under 14, I think they shouldn't lie. But as they do, they get Cyber-bullied! It is wrong!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,31,True,-4.0
9,1,42765,Of course it is beneficial since it has influenced our lives in many ways and it has become a part of our life. It lets you get updated with recent activities of your friends and more importantly recent social affairs. It provides you an option for participating in the social activities and a scope to bring a change in the society.,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.5994053011181452,-0.06610098478956404,-0.6250524188200334,61,True,-0.5045925428429672
9,17,30877,"On this point, it may be true that children who get distracted easily use Facebook as an excuse not to study, but that doesn’t mean that social networks are the cause of this phenomenon. These children tend to use them as social networks are very accessible. Almost every single moment you are surrounded by technology that can connect to social networking sites; a smartphone, a laptop or a computer, which you can use to log in on Facebook. Even if it weren’t for these social networks, those kids would likely still be getting 20% worse grades than other students, as they would just find other activities to replace it with. There will be no change in their mentality, perception of learning or process of decision making. If the student is using Facebook at least there is a chance they are using it productively, for example, by participating in a Facebook group created by a professor for students of a particular class, then the social network may have a positive influence. Moreover, Facebook makes students feel socially connected, with a greater sense of community. This can be beneficial in boosting students’ self-esteem. Past studies have shown that students who are active on Facebook are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities.(1) (1) Julie D. Andrews  “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011 http://allfacebook.com/is-facebook-good-or-bad-for-students-debate-roils-on_b41357",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.3504269919529988,0.34660670005470123,0.5468930016620689,227,False,0.8669323625685713
9,3,24352,moses_moses forfeited this round. Con yeah vote me,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
13,1,12226,"So I will admit I got confused on this challenge. I read this as my opponent being Con against what was stated in his starting argument. However, I have no problem playing devils advocate even if it goes against my own personal beliefs. So I will argue my best in favor of Gun Control Laws and give the best debate possible despite the fact that it is against my personal belief. Now, that said, gun crime in the US has reached significant levels. Every few days it seems we hear of a new shooting or violent crime involving guns. In this debate I will argue for multiple proposed gun control laws and attempt to convince my opponent and the readers that these laws are necessary to stem the levels of crime that we have in the States. 1. Ban on assault rifles. 2. Ban on handguns. 3. Requirement for development of ""Smart Guns"" and technology to enhance safety. 4. Federal and State mandated buy back programs. 5. Increase in background check scrutiny. 6. High capacity magazine bans 7. Ammo bans. 8. Closing loopholes. 9. Limiting concealed and open carry laws 10. Changing castling clauses to eliminate deadly force with firearms and institute duty to run laws 11. And the most controversial, federal confiscation measures. Those are the points I will be arguing. I will allow my opponent to challenge these points now.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.21004663029623152,0.4211837694721135,0.3861135659352339,232,True,0.38343034576525586
9,5,4964,Social networking sites enable individuals to move toward making face-to-face meetings:,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,True,-4.0
9,10,4964,Social networking sites allow friends to cross national boundaries and exchange various kinds of information.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,15,True,-4.0
9,5,24423,"I agree that children often do stupid things on social networking sites but being 13 will not automatically make you smarter than a 12 year old and an age gap will only stop them from experiencing what will happen to them in their future. Unless you are a genius that can detect if kids on social media are younger than they say, only a credit card or legal information can prove that a child is under or over an age gap (I suspect around 13 by your reasoning). Children are growing more tech savvy and this will only deter them. Just like adults revealing information on the internet kids need to learn not to expose private information. Most of these kidnappings happen in meetups and not homes anyway. As I said before are youtube , instagram, steam; social media,social media is a very blanket statement.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.4442378734156804,-0.7649127204990246,-0.4883799473365518,145,False,-0.3066781300500721
10,5,33373,"If marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day, then why should it not be legalized for medical purposes? Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. Professor Lester Grinspoon, MD, from the Harvard Medical School, comments ""I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana."" Every drug has side effects, and most have potential risks. However, no other drug can do exactly what medical marijuana would do for a patient. Therefore, it should be legalized in order to benefit those suffering from illnesses such as AIDS and cancer.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.7245713642892418,-0.0769841260253583,0.5420755355319952,144,True,0.45607705789431646
10,4,17781,"Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,48,False,-4.0
8,7,17678,Firstly. I want a reference for that quote. Secondly. We are debating electronics in general. As you notice social platforms like facebook and platforms like youtube start becoming more and more popular. With it comes downfall of our humanity in a sense. Electronics are an amazing thing connecting us with friends and family but sometimes it just goes too far. We surround ourselves with electronics. With TV with so many things just to keep our mind busy. Our habit of stopping and thinking starts to become less and less out of fear of being bored or out of a fear to face reality. It would be amazing to have these two worlds apart but that isn't the case right now. These two worlds are slowly becoming one.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,127,False,-4.0
10,5,380,"""Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills"" assumes that cannabis is better for treating medical conditions than man made pills. While medical Cannabis is proven to help with much pain management and as been proven very useful in some fields it leaves others void of any treatment in which man made pills prove their use. If a woman needs birth control should she take man made pills instead of using cannabis to protect against unwanted pregnancy? No this is foolish If someone has a bacterial infection that requires antibiotics they should use pills instead of cannabis? Of course not. If someone has schizophrenia they should take man made pills instead of just using cannabis? There is good reason why we don't. To say medical marijuana is the be all and end all for medicine is a blanket statement that shows a lack of understanding of empiricism.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.6757820899145297,0.4630506854304444,0.7886416266097687,147,False,0.7355358378813519
10,6,33371,"Look at this from a different point of view. In your argument you stated ""Medical cannabis has been used in easing symptoms of cancer and many other illnesses"" There are many other medications that are being developed and have been developed for quite some time that have effects similar to the effects of cannabis without the risk of being used for the wrong purposes. In many cases the use of medical marijuana is abused by the patient who requested it, they over exaggerate the pain that they are in, it results in a more medication then they would need. ""Medical cannabis can avoid misuse with appropriate tests and papers"" This is not always true as the illness is not always well known and there is little research out for it, sometimes patients request more than is necessary. Medical marijuana is also very expensive and is not always covered by insurance companies. In short marijuana is pointless and not necessary for pain relief. In the least the only thing it would be good for is a substitute for other drugs out there that are better known and are more efficient pain relievers.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.6454076599858818,0.9510574613533058,-0.36785155762308,191,False,0.8884267307986303
1,2,29832,"According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn""t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.6550649710364204,0.5695588842016207,0.9352287869033954,161,True,0.34423170514958196
1,1,37069,"Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. (I will also be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, to keep up with the rising cost of living--a point which my opponent can either choose to refute or ignore.) Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy. I will use numerous reliable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there are other numerous benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate. I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will overall negatively hurt the U.S. Economy. First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck! (Disclaimer: for this debate the use of the comments section to post working links that appear dead in the actual debate will be allowed. Neither debater can use the comments section to extend the debate. The comments section shall be used only for non-scored comments and to post working links to sources that are inactive in the actual debate.)",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.5368731343299066,0.9913338101029056,1.5769575468668828,222,True,0.8177188075925739
1,1,11975,"Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy. I will use numerous reliable, reputable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are also other benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate. I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will negatively hurt the U.S. Economy. First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.013220750502766023,0.5623274483495596,0.2165228744745676,127,True,0.29882749303713296
13,1,76,"There are many, many school shootings nowadays and I believe that students attending these schools should have some sort of protection. Sometimes these shootings are carried out by more than one person and students will need more protection than the helpless, defenseless teachers and faculty. A lot of schools are out of the way and far from the nearest police station. For example, my school is a good 20 minutes away from the nearest station. If someone shot up our school, I'd like to know that there were some students certified and licensed to have a firearm on campus to protect fellow peers. The certification will include a two-week course with local tactical defense specialists (Police). The process will be very thorough and will be tedious, but worth it. The course will be like a CHL Course (Concealed Handgun License) (1). In 31 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun on your person. Although, you cannot carry on school grounds. This license will allow students to carry a small HANDGUN on campus, if it is concealed properly. All students in the school (even non-carriers) will have to wear a name badge while on the campus and the licensed kids will have a special ""carrier"" emblem on the badge. The students will not be allowed to interact with the weapons unless the school goes under actual lock-down. Only then will the students be able to interact with the weapon.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.5785880481842798,0.6830769452547459,0.1656905761746084,240,True,0.5441030820788455
13,6,25325,"1) Are you analyzing morality from a consequentialism or deontology view point? 2) How does negating actually systematically oppress a group of people? 3) If one's ability to protect themselves is downgraded by affirming wouldn't that be oppressive to people who can't protect themselves as well? 4) If affirming creates injustice and unequal societal order can you still uphold any of your framework? 5) In contention 1, you talk about femicide. How are they oppressed when a handgun is the most practical gun for their own self defense due to its conceal-ability and portability? ( would you really want to bring a rifle on your midnight walk? ) 6) In your points about violent feelings and femicide, why is a hand gun any different than other guns. (your own analysis) 7) If a handguns ban is indeed undemocratic for any reason wouldn't it be oppressive to affirm? 8) You argue that a ban reduces crime and black market. Wouldn't it actually be giving the guns directly to criminals and our of the hands of the good since criminals are okay with committing crime and the good would comply? 9) Due to conflicting statistics about homicide should this be considered a mute point in this debate? 10) Are you aware that your arguments about Australia enacted a complete firearm ban, not a hand gun ban?",1.1172508830020322,True,0.14360043117123125,0.4033767223712367,-0.3646385244674373,224,False,0.06624013125052935
1,2,38713,"First off, you question whether "" the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce"" is true. Economics 101 would support that it is true in most if not all cases. Your statement ""raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. "" seems more an indictment of welfare than a cogent argument for raising minimum wage. Here is another opinion (with a citation) From : ""Beginning in 2008, the United States economy entered a recession. Yet, at a time when many companies found it necessary to cut labor costs, the minimum wage increased. Faced with the limited choices of ( remaining in business) or laying off workers, the minimum wage workers were the ones to suffer by being laid off, according to Forbes.com. In 2004, three states that had higher minimum wage laws than were required---Alaska, Washington and Oregon---were among the five states with the highest unemployment, according to an Economic Policy Institute article by Jeff Chapman. "" To clarify, I would support keeping the minimum where it is, but making it beneficial for companies to give ""merit' or ""service"" increases. In other words, keep minimum wage as a STARTING wage, but give increases based on performance. This would be much better than a blanket raising of the wage for workers, some of whom are more of a liability than an asset. On a personal note, I once worked for a Fortune 500 corporation that paid minimum wage plus commission on sales. Those that sold did well. Those that did not produce usually left for another job. Raising the minimum would not have changed anything at all.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.04658343175570893,-0.5961991039809162,0.21987969992916886,282,True,-0.13021860767929586
1,3,33824,"While I believe that everyone in America stands by the right for individuals to earn a ""living wage,"" increasing the federally mandated minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour is not an effective or sustainable way to help Americans support themselves and their families. Based on position statements on the Marco Rubio website, Rubio and other conservative Republicans indicate that increasing minimum wage through federal law would be seriously detrimental to small businesses across the country who would not be able to sustain the increase - and therefore risk going out of business. If that happens, unemployment would soar and the very people who were meant to benefit from the minimum wage increase would find themselves in a much worse financial situation, as a result. The logic that increasing the take home income of Americans will put money right back into the economy is fundamentally flawed based on the fact that it takes significant amounts of time for that money to trickle back up to the businesses that are supposedly sustaining the growth through payroll. Instead, I would argue that Marco Rubio's top-down approach - in which tax cuts for businesses, along with smarter economic policies, would help to create jobs that pay more. Historically, minimum wage laws have not helped the middle class attain more prosperity; they simply deplete small business' ability to sustain economic and fiscal growth.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.3997732030360855,-0.7644251574948945,0.602791652038531,229,False,-0.20721848403611098
1,1,38713,"The current Federal Minimum wage if raised would increase unemployment, increase overall costs, and cause a negative ripple through the economy. Many states have their own minimum wage laws which are higher now. I say leave the federal minimum where it is. If individual states want to raise their rate, that is their decision. But the federal minimum must not be raised.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.6244479994195102,0.4050152937936442,0.6562733175579076,62,True,0.1762205746328465
8,8,39969,"What I mean by lazy is indolent. What I mean by technology is computers, phones, tablets etc. that are being used in school or for school. I realize you have changed your argument of electronics making ""us"" (or everyone) more efficient to just you. ""Electronics make me more efficient."" You said that using electronics to get your work done allows you to finish quicker and work out because of your extra time. But that is just you personally, kids are distracted easily by their device and after they're done with the work, they'll stay on it for hours at a time and there is no extra time to go outside and be active. I never said that you said there aren't books, article and etc that have the same information as Wikipedia, I was asking because your argument is confusing to keep up with at times. And sometimes it seems you are contradicting yourself self, as I stated before",-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.10424131392589736,-0.07286379444764565,-1.071401444558654,159,False,-0.4793850609742792
1,5,12533,"The minimum wage should not be raised because: 1) Price-Demand chart shows that when the price of a good or service increases, consumers will demand less of it. In this case, laborers offering to sell their labor to an employer now must be worth at least the mandated minimum to the employer otherwise the employee is now unemployable and will not be able to work the job even if he would have done so for less than the mandated minimum. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment for unskilled workers, just as raising height requirements decreases the amount of short passengers for a roller-coaster. 2) The current minimum wage is in fact ""livable"", as by the criteria of ""livable"", nobody working at the current minimum wage could do so if it were not. Since the minimum wage is in fact already ""livable"", then the minimum wage has already achieved what it is set out to achieve and thus, does not need to be raised any further. 3) Only roughly 4% of the labor force actually works at the mandated minimum wage. And out of that 4%, 50% are under the age of 25. [1] People who are this young tend to be dependent on other members of their families and so there is no reason to be raising the ""livable"" wage for those which are not dependent on the wage itself being ""livable"". 4) Since only 2% of workers could be said to be dependent on the minimum wage, and the minimum wage is federal policy which is contingent on the current political atmosphere and not sound economic policy, other methods besides the minimum wage should be pursued to better the lives of that 2%. [1]",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.9395454100814872,1.2415934064407887,1.4628576013547896,285,False,1.4000286334684782
1,1,1602,"First round is for acceptance. I shall define the resolution: Minimum wage: A wage set by State (or in this case) Federal government which states that no employer can pay below X amount of money per hour to a specific employee. Increase: 10% increase or more Adverse: Negative, decreased employment, etc. Employment: Having paid work ==> If you need further clarification or want a specific definition changed, say so in the comments ==> This debate is about the current US system ==> Note this is NOT about abolishing the minimum wage ==> NO semantics, and treat this debate seriously Good luck!",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.14615668239119106,-1.1245782969893068,-0.2765279459390769,101,True,-0.5962884293561185
1,3,43000,"Our inflation rate is very low as stated in this article, because the Federal Reserve is pumping trillions of dollars into our economy. You never really give a statistic saying how inflation is high. All you say is that we need to increase the minimum wage to keep up with inflation which is not clear. This evidence that I have stated here claims that inflation is low, and will stay low. Minimum Wage will have no impact on poverty: 2% of Americans are paid minimum wage which is an extremely insignificant number. People cannot act like the minimum wage actually has an impact on the economy. It is just the start pay for a job. Also, you never explain the link between the minimum wage and inflation. Especially, since only 2% of American are paid minimum wage, than how does your link really work in the circumstances of the status quo, You also have not disputed the harms of raising the minimum wage. It is almost certain that if you raise the minimum wage, there will be jobs lost. Here are the numbers: 25 cent raise=30,000 to 50,000 jobs lost. 10% increase=160,000 jobs 2003-Minimum wage=$5.15 2007 Minimum Wage=$5.85 These increases lost jobs, and had no impact on poverty. Con must answer these questions in the next round: How are you going to handle a job loss that is over 160,000 jobs?(Especially with a congress split on what to do in such a situation)? Explain the link between inflation and the minimum wage. Under the circumstance(2% of Americans get paid the minimum wage), how are you even going to raise the minimum wage with inflation already controlled? Thank you again for accepting the debate.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.04137840351052007,-0.11162596240175593,1.526625503050972,283,True,0.5522345048627518
1,3,18018,"My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.",-0.2902637481279517,True,-0.12849621790001187,0.4323539082208719,1.5988527351604602,289,False,0.7531528427811586
1,1,22408,"Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Cases, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense. I will be arguing for the US federal government to increase the minimum wage every year by one dollar. My opponent will argue that the government should not increase the minimum wage.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.7840808471017529,-0.7099378553433079,-1.8240928488859445,40,True,-1.2750314491617334
1,3,38713,"Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say ""The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised"", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that ""The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time.""",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.17795528781433753,-0.10207996550119484,0.6274807919267972,162,True,0.13171511358733573
1,5,38713,"DeepBlue forfeited this round. Pro Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say ""The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised"", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that ""The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time.""",-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.0237772622697183,-0.06356120239734768,0.4374760846236126,167,False,-0.23935361558203316
13,15,39109,"The government has the right, and indeed the obligation, to impose restrictions that increase the security of citizens and encourage peaceful relations between them. The foundation of the social contract is the state providing security for all participating citizens. If the state believes that violent video games increase the propensity of users to commit violent acts, it is obligated to impose restrictions that will prevent such effects. The rights of individual citizens to do as they wish, and play the video games they like most, however violent, is subordinate to the government's right to increase security through the enforcement of restrictions. For example, one accepts the government's right to restrict what we carry onto aircrafts in order to prevent violent attacks. That is not to say there aren't limits to what we can carry on, just as violent video games are still available to adults we can still carry laptops and mobile phones onto aircrafts. Ultimately however, it must be accepted that the government's right to protect society includes a right to restrict the sale of violent games.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.8938836886666177,0.7568784417343982,0.8831489693842443,178,True,0.9690224949698766
1,3,5739,"look at minimum wage. it exists now. the stock market is not crumbles. inflation has not gone through the roof or caused bad problems. i thought that stock market statement wasn't worth dignifying with a response. i'm not even arguing everyone gets the same wages so why did you make that statement? also, as i said, we're not giving them an excessive minimum or the same as everyone else, but just an amount a single person could live off at the minimum without living on the streets, as i said. but, i suppose if i look beyond your words I might be able to salvage some reasoning, even though you did not state the reasoning. the argument of inflation. i'll simply refer you to my already stated argument on that matter. ""also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living or run amok prices for everyone else. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum."" to explain more, mcdonald's for example would charge more, and their suppliers would charge more and everyone else would too. yes inflation would increase. but, this would not be true inflation where everyone's wages is increased, so the increase in the minimum would be more proporitonally to hte increase in inflation.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.256981313825349,-0.4787423561794548,0.0670909740151993,269,True,-0.26537902652673034
1,1,40873,"I will be arguing for a stable federal minimum wage in the United States. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be abolished altogether, as I believe in almost nonexistent government intervention in business. However, I am arguing that we should not increase the minimum wage any higher then it already is on a federal basis. This comes from the fact that Seattle, NYC, LA, and Chicago have all raised their minimum wages to an exorbitant amount, which will eventually end up in loss of jobs and working hours. First round will be acceptance and an overall statement of your intended debate, as well as any definitions you shall use for your debate. If you feel that a word or sentence is vague, please define it using a common dictionary, and then list the name of that dictionary in your overall debate. No trolling, no usage of profanity, and all statements that are not opinionated but are not backed up by sources will be looked over, as I will not believe it unless I see a credible source. Good luck to whomever may accept this debate.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.13873705226346192,0.13082034623771602,0.04059326556242149,187,True,0.003292566057948759
20,12,5407,"Any short term security gain will be offset by growing Palestinian resentment against Israel, which could result in a greater number of suicide attacks in Israel. Israelis and Palestinians will need to learn to live side by side; building an eight metre high wall sends a clear message to Palestinians that Israel is hostile and unwilling to find a permanent solution that would suit both nations. When constructing the barrier through Jerusalem for example the wall splits communities, disrupts everyday life and declares that a shared sovereignty solution is no longer possible for the city both sides claim as their capital. When people’s lives are disrupted by something that they feel is unnecessary and discriminatory it is bound to increase resentment. In this case it is made worse by the barrier being sited on land the Palestinians consider theirs. It should therefore be no surprise if more Palestinians turn to the only way they see that they get any response from Israel - violence. It would be hard to find a better way to radicalise the inhabitants of East Jerusalem.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.1829542078818982,1.0984031746535199,2.1265482467802306,180,True,1.7037247806346085
1,1,26220,"The resolution is whether or not the minimum wage ought be raised. To 10 $ 1. In reality, the minimum wage should be at least 10 that is if the federal minimum wage was indexed to inflation and to our times. However the issue is it is not. (1) 2. That’s first order. 10$ isn’t exactly demanding a monumental pay raise. It’s more of just keeping what should be. The Federal minimum wage hasn’t been raised in over six years, given that if it had kept up with inflation since its peak in the 1960s it would be well over 10$ an hour.(1) Many fast food workers have been protesting and calling for a 15$ minimum wage-Not to say I endorse or support this – just stating this is more inline with what civil rights activists demanded in the 1960s (2) 3. improve the economy. Contrary to falsely held views, research very strongly supports and indicates that given it passed , it would likely help businesses through augmenting demand , lowering turnover , increasing prices and thus significantly improving the economy , due to greater spending money for consumers. (3) (4) 4. It would catapult millions out of poverty Full time minimum wage works in our current economy earn a mere $14,500. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. The wage simply isn’t nowhere near enough to pay a suitable rent in any state. Just a bump to 10 bucks, would catapult 6 million out of poverty. 5. Americans are overwhelmingly in support of it. A poll reported that 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10. (5) Sources 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.329428201430911,0.310705989292956,0.6563774023467613,278,True,0.8867329578496853
1,5,22408,"I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.6253915073888989,0.4136860804844907,-0.2166761748527054,189,False,0.3148563364119317
1,4,33824,"Even right here on Debate.org, the vast majority of people side with Ben Carson in believing that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment. (See Beyond that, raising minimum wage across the board (such as the federal mandate proposed by Sanders) would inevitably result in businesses raising goods and services prices to account for the additional money they are spending in payroll which would not only negate any benefit, (maybe people make more, but if they have to spend more - it's a wash) but would also put even more financial strain on middle-class Americans who were meant to benefit from the wage hike in the first place. As businesses start looking to cut costs (to make up for higher wages), it's very likely that benefits (such as paid time off, employee reimbursement, tuition assistance, and other perks) would be drastically reduced or cut. Employees would then have to pay for these expenses out of their own pockets, further reducing their effective take-home pay. Raising the federal minimum wage is not an effective or sustainable way to accomplish the goals that Sanders is fighting for. Although it seems like a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 per hour would improve the financial situation of millions of Americans, it would actually bring about serious negative consequences for businesses, middle-class American families, and our economy as a whole.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.17562672878561345,1.1913116513890334,0.4070390699586256,226,False,0.5568951798589089
1,2,18018,"One must ask you to clarify what you mean by ""basically stealing money"", How would increasing public infrastructure not ""basically steal money"" either? In an earlier statement it asks, ""Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage?"" This then contradicts a later on statement that says that the US should use the money for something other than minimum wage. Would that not be within the same predicament? If the first statement declares the US can't afford minimum wage, what would change that would allow it to afford anything else? Towards the end of the last paragraph it is stated that there is no leeway for minimum wage to be increased, one must be asked to clarify what they mean by ""leeway""? Does this apply to public infrastructure as well? Also, one must ask you to further to explain what one means by ""no course of action should be taken""? For the entire last paragraph it talks about what to use the excess money on, but then the closing few sentences state that ""no course of action should be taken."" What does one want to see happen? Should minimum wage not be increased because the money could be used for better things? Or should minimum wage not be increased because the US needs to lower its debt?",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.2414835334178564,-0.3182520252360604,-0.0987833431515658,223,True,-0.26395909159556347
1,8,16012,"The above links show how much minimum wage hurts the small business. Raising the minimum wage hurts all business in the sense that when the wage is increased, some workers have to be let off. Now how are the companies supposed to decide to let people off? What if they let off the person who needed the job rather than the person who comes from a wealthy family and is just working a minimum wage job because he enjoys the work? ""If an employee was working harder than another employee the minimum wage has nothing that keeps employee 1 from getting a raise."" The company could not afford to do this without firing another one of the corporations employees because the company still needs profit. People who work at minimum wage jobs, like McDonald's lets say, and want a raise are not thinking ahead. The reason is because to afford this the company would then need to increase the cost of the burgers to pay for the increased wages. Now not as many people would want to buy burgers because of the cost increase, thus either the wage would have to be decreased or jobs would be lost. See the link below for more. Minimum wage hurts all business and their employees, which is why we need to abolish it.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.013313214348540284,-0.3161881449536389,0.2411514210242617,220,False,-0.04117156777870202
1,1,27832,"Resolution: If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease. Definitions: Increased: To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to Minimum wage: T he lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees as fixed by law or by union agreement. Spending: To spend money Decrease: To make less; cause to diminish: Rules The first round is acceptance only No profanity No trolling",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.5064649297425425,-0.4371672577132555,-1.0125737033521616,75,True,-0.7616803083667557
1,2,13593,"Contention #1: Minimum wage increases unemployment. If employers could spend less money on paying each worker in a minimum wage job, they would hire more workers, reducing unemployment. ""In essence, minimum wage increases make it more likely that firms won’t hire new people than that they will fire current employees. For example, movie theaters have stopped employing ushers almost entirely."" [1] In addition, a study done by AEIdeas shows a direct correlation between minimum wage and teenage unemployment [2] as shown in this graph: Every time the minimum wage is raised, teenage unemployment rises with it. Abolishing minimum wage would allow employers to employ more people in minimum wage jobs. Contention #2: The vast majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers and other people who don't need to make a living wage. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15% of employed teens earn minimum wage or less, compared to 3% of those aged 25 or older. [3] This is because teenagers don't have to support a family, or even themselves; thus, they can live on a small amount of money. Adults will find higher paying full time jobs if they have to support themselves and a family, which will happen with or without minimum wage standards . Conclusion Minimum wage standards don't serve their purpose of ensuring that people earn a living wage, and they decrease job availability, which in turn increases unemployment and hurts the economy. [1] [2] [3]",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.8328542352266891,0.2548715852041757,0.9606061400955848,242,True,0.7863445838145389
1,3,30835,"Instead of rebutting your already rebutes statements I will just add onto my case. C1: teenage unemployment rises due to minimum wage: min wage=blue red=teen unemployment I love how when the minimum wage increases unemployment begins to rise. this explains itself. I will show more graphs This goes with my second contention, minimum wage increases, teen unemployment has a slight rise, and so does the minority kids. Also these are both from goverment sources ie the first one is nancy pelosi. The both show hikes in unemployment. C2: raises minority unemployment graph above Minimum wage workers are not well educated. About 40% don't have a high school diploma, and a third have only a high school education. Just 3% of those working at the minimum wage have graduated from college. [1] About a fourth of those working at the minimum wage are married, and 80% of them are women. It's reasonable to assume that most have working husbands, so their earnings probably don't affect the family's standard of living very much. [1] ALso the first source shows that if you raise it buisness lay of teenagers and minorities forst.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.4900766145306141,-0.4255709177306181,0.6238093659393151,189,True,0.2681594074906959
15,1,32569,I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against. Acceptance first,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,20,True,-4.0
1,2,2675,"Contention- Having a minimum wage causes unemployment and/or outsourcing. When a government institutes a minimum wage, it is necessarily going to overvalue some workers. Let's say the federally mandated minimum wage is $4.00 per hour. As long as not every single employee in said government's jurisdiction is worth more(More, not the same because an employee who is paid the exact same wage that they make their employer defeats the purpose of hiring to a lesser degree of losing the employer money.) than $4.00 per hour, the minimum wage law will create unneeded unemployment. Some workers are simply not as valuable as the minimum wage would dictate and thus implementation of a minimum wage gives employers an incentive not to hire as many employees so as to not lose money. Besides unemployment, a minimum wage can also give business' incentive to outsource jobs to workers in countries where there is either not a minimum wage or the minimum wage is lower. The reasoning is the same. When workers are valued by either the market or the employer at a lower value than the mandated minimum wage, it creates a disincentive to employ in that area. The more cost-effective option other than simply not hiring as many employees is to hire employees from somewhere else. To force employers into over valuing their employees simply means that less people living in the territory in which the mandate takes place will be employed. I feel as though this is enough of a brief outline of the basic case against a federally mandated minimum wage. I will wait to see my opponent's own case and specific objections to decide which points to further explain. But for now I pass the debate back to my opponent.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.30754501030029896,1.1803549360443586,1.304097337618359,290,True,1.0789396139813143
10,2,12031,"My opponent concedes that marijuana can have medical benefits. The fact that people use marijuana to get high in no way shows that it should not be legalized. Other drugs can be used to ""get high"", however their beneficial effects allow them to stay legal. English Syllogism 1. Drugs that have more medical benefits than medical costs should be legal. 2. Marijuana is one such drug C. Therefore, Marijuana should be legal. Classical Syllogistic Translation 1. All B is L 2. m is B. C. Therefore, m is L.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.5068679201932845,-0.11140054915169947,-0.6816242384733135,89,True,-0.5087716618924549
1,2,43703,"""This study by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway shows convincingly that minimum wages, because of inefficient targeting of the poor and unintended adverse consequences on employment and earnings, are ineffective as an antipoverty device. The report relies on an impressive array of empirical evidence showing that, however one views the data, in the United States, state and federal minimum wages have not reduced poverty.""[1] you did not really state how poor people are still poor. are people on the minimum wage still poor? yes, yes they are. we are keeping them from being even poorer though. that's the whole point. does it cause the poverty? that study you cited doesn't indicate ether way, but at best we should conclude that it doesnt cause poverty, it just keepts people in poverty.... but it was poverty they were in already to begin with. minimum wage might cause a slight increase in umemployment, but its worth it. if one in ten people dont get a job, but nine people have decent wages, the wage level is worth it. i'm not sure where your cut off it for where youd think itd be worth it, but surely we all have a cut off id think?",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.04750009228238822,-0.07081418613020926,0.16917805420581122,202,True,0.010267416865945584
1,1,196,"Raising the minimum wage results in job loss. A 2006 review of more than 100 minimum wage studies by David Neumark and William Wascher found that about 2/3 found negative employment effects. It hurts low-skilled workers - reduces employment among low-skilled workers (reduces the employment of younger, less-educated individuals). It has little effect on reducing poverty. It may result in higher prices for consumers; a 2007 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that restaurant prices increase in response to minimum wage increases. I think an argument can be made to lower it or eliminate it, but I think society has developed a mental block that a control is necessary to ensure people will work these positions. Unfortunately, people don't understand that minimum wage jobs are not career choices or entry level jobs but rather services to meet a need. Why should a maid get 15 dollars an hour ($30,000 a year) and a new teacher at a public school start at roughly the same wage (if not lower). People need to get into the mindset that demand for jobs will always be there. You are always going to have people who want/need to wait tables, clean hotels, etc. These should not be long term jobs, but rather temporary jobs for students, supplement jobs for low income working professionals, etc. Professional jobs allow the market to dictate salary; non-professional jobs should work that way too.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.009526258186603982,1.0970444155993038,1.0239812704608595,237,True,0.8194491458989838
1,6,31768,"I apologize for the forfeit and wil ltry to make it up this round. My arguments are... As shown here many people need to have low paying jobs to start off with as businesses eliminate jobs to accomodate for the extra spending. Minimum wage hikes will eliminate jobs. A minimum wage hike would reduce the amount of jobs and pro’s claim of the 1968 minimum wage is invalid since this study shows that accounting for inflation the minimum wage would’ve been $4. Also, do teenagers or really anyone really need 30,000 dollars a year for flipping burgers? In conclusion a minimum wage increase would lower the amount of jobs in America. It would make businesses lay off jobs and it would help some, but hurt many living on the current minimum wage and really hurt many living below it trying to work their way up. A minimum wage hike would also only encourage businesses to move work overseas for more cheap labor. Pro’s first paragraph suggests a $15 dollar minimum wage in third world countries though this debate is about the USA and that is completely outside the Us’ jurisdiction, those countries have their own governments. I believe I have also adequeately refuted pros points with my arguments partly since the unemployment increase would increase food stamps and welfare need because of the layed off jobs.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.3607071418347151,-0.060387662675481873,-0.2542326758490244,226,False,0.011558424257765118
1,1,23541,"Resolution: The Federal Minimum Wage Should be Increased Rules 1. Burden of proof is shared. 2. No semantical games -- they will result in an automatic 7-point loss. 3. Con will begin his arguments in round 1, and will post ""no round, as agreed upon"" in round 5. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7-point loss. 4. Forfeitting is an automatic loss. 5. By accepting this debate, you agree to these rules. Let the debate begin.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.6385218880640744,-1.1704658793045997,-0.9649206428871056,79,True,-1.0785806126169242
1,5,6444,"Definitions: USFG - short for United States Federal Government minimum wage - the lowest wage permitted by law raise - increase the amount, level, or strength of Significantly - to at least $10 an hour Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Con rebuts Pro's arguments in Round 2 and vice versa Round 4: Both sides defend their original arguments in Round 2 Look forward to a great debate!",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.4350999187646266,-1.0271234276771228,-1.6795603467521572,70,False,-0.8386929656075574
1,2,40651,"I am playing the Devil""s advocate in this debate by taking the Con position. I actually believe that Governments are required to ensure that everyone receives a living wage, which right now, in America, should be at least $20 per hour for all jobs, including tipped jobs, e.g., waitresses, bar tenders, hair dressers, etc. Here is by Devil's advocate argument for why the minimum wage should be eliminated. The minimum wage should be based on the free market forces and no minimum wage should be set by the Federal Government. If the Market is only willing to pay $5 per hour, that is it. America has a Capitalistic Economic system where supply and demand determine prices and wages. Governmental interference will destroy America's economy; and, fewer people will be employed by requiring companies to pay higher wages than the market dictates. If people can't move themselves up the wage ladder by improving their skills, they deserve to be paid whatever the market forces decide. After all, America is not a Communistic economy. I look forward to hearing Pro's argument for why the government should be setting minimum wages.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.03905646099394695,-0.3306840782644466,-0.11387103865338885,188,False,-0.1653533694167777
1,1,6454,"The debate shall proceed from the standpoint that both Pro and Con wish to maximize the consumption of lower wage earners. My task will be to show that the Minimum Wage Law as passed by the Federal Government of the United States is a poor tool to accomplish this and that this law ought to be abolished (with the implication being that any minimum wage law is suspect, but this will not be part of the parameters of this debate). The Con will try to show that the Federal Minimum Wage is effective at achieving greater consumption for low wage earners and therefore ought to remain in effect, even though the Con may disagree with where it is set.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.19997668940630112,0.3810139464346027,-1.52701798012,119,True,-0.4914017928330033
1,5,9086,"==Definitions== Minimum wage: The minimum wage will be defined as the minimum compensation a worker will receive (from his employer) for preforming different forms of labor. The minimum wage is enforced by government laws. The current minimum wage, in the USA, is $7.25 an hour. Increase: In order to avoid semantics (for example, someone arguing it should be increased by 0.001 cents an hour), I will specify: the person who accepts must support *at least* an increase to $10 an hour. Though, they can argue for an increase of much more if they wish. ==Rules== 1. No semantics or trolling 2. An forfeit will be considered a concession. However, if my opponent were to message me (or hopefully vice versa) with a valid reason as to why they could not debate, I would either 1) ask voters to ignore the FF, or 2) ask voters to leave the debate as a tie, and we could resume the debate at another date in time. 3. All arguments should be in the debate. Sources can be placed elsewhere, but a link to access those sources must be present in the argument (e.g. an external debate, link that debate at the end of an argument). 4. If you have any questions before the debate, post them in the comments 5. BOP is evenly split ==Structure== R1: Acceptance. PRO presents his case. R2: CON presents his case, PRO rebuts. R3: Rebuttals, PRO concludes his case R4: CON rebuttal and conclusion, PRO writes ""No round as agreed upon"" and nothing more.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.07229118006978462,0.15762033142975124,-0.4512063294123126,256,False,-0.1477030642161528
1,2,44220,"The Effects of Minimum Wage on Unemployment Employers hire people to generate profit. Thus, they pay the workers how much they are worth. If you are a worker and you are worth at least $7 and hour to the worker, then you will be paid $7 an hour. You will likely never get a raise or promotion unless you work harder and prove your worth to the employer. A rise in the minimum wage hurts workers its trying to help. Before 2007, minimum wage was $5 an hour. This was more reasonable and teenage unemployment was decreasing. Then during 2007, the minimum wage was raised to $6. The results were negative and teenage unemployment increased rather than decrease. This is because the workers were costing more than what profit they were making for the employer. When the 2008 economic crisis hit, minimum wage was raise to $7 an hour. Teenage unemployment skyrockted to over 25%. This has been proven by many acamdemic studies. It also took a major toll on employment for minorities. It has effect all other employment sectors negatively. [1,2,3,4,5,6] Here is a graph: The Effects of Minimum Wage on Prices Prices rise. You have less of a product so you must do that to maintain profit. [7] Sources 1. Adie, Douglas K. 2008 T ""Did the Increase in Minimum Wage Cause Our Unemployment Rate to Rise?"" . BALL STATE UNIVERSITY 6.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.7640292712429916,0.3889072011289385,0.9180182596117076,234,True,0.2277045394775907
15,8,1203,"Testing animals is basically like saying thay are our dummies and we can make them do anything. If they knew we were testing on it i'm sure they would not be happy and they will be afraid. Why cant humans and animals have peace between each otherI think animals testing for scientific experiments should be banned because they are living things just like us. Just because we are humans and they are animals does not mean they are aliens and we have to kill them to live. In fact we are not much different from each other. Animals breathe, eat, sleep, and dream. We do to. They have family and friends and we do to. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine being used for a scientific experiment. For instance a frog is sliced in half. Don’t you think that would be painful? They do to. Even if it is just a scientific experiment it is so rude to animals that are living creatures like us humans. To me it seems like a crime even if you are learning something with these experiments. Using animals for scientific experiments is called vivisection. Vivisection is actually opposed by lots of people. In my opinion it should be opposed. I think half of the animals are extinct because of using them for scientific experiments.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.9750139887568772,0.4310464702489797,-0.253749978485216,221,False,0.44918651605741167
18,2,12877,"Contention 1: Quality of life Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically. Marriage is not universally an improvement, but it generally is. Because of this, it stands to reason that legalized gay marriage will ultimately prove beneficial for gay individuals. This, in turn, will be better for gay couples, the families of gays, and communities where gays live. Contention 2: Marriage Opponents of gay marriage argue that it would undermine the institution of marriage, but it's hard to see how more marriages would be bad for marriage. If anything harms marriage, it is bad marriages where people don't take marriage seriously - and that's already too common with heterosexuals. If gay couples in committed relationships are able to formalize their unions as marriages, that can only serve to improve marriage overall by providing more positive role models. Contention 3: Civil Unions Some opponents and supporters of gay marriage support civil unions as an alternative, but that's a mistake. For marriages to continue as a stabilizing force in society, they must be genuine marriages - not ""marriage lite"" that carries some benefits without all the responsibilities. Equality before the law means that creating civil unions for gays will lead to civil unions for everyone else and this ""marriage lite"" will be more of a threat to marriage than gay unions could possibly be.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.30783454751312345,2.093170951910853,0.8655577055460456,233,True,1.2808764453262724
1,1,4851,"With the worst recession in a generation still being felt across the nation, state and federal leaders are focused on getting their economies moving again while helping working families make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a key strategy for doing both and should be part of an economic recovery agenda. By boosting pay in the low-wage jobs on which more families are relying than ever, a stronger minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that powers our economy and that local businesses need in order to grow. A robust minimum wage is a key building block of sustainable economic recovery. SOURCE:",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.8973714026832615,-0.7756359917798229,-0.7954556264546829,104,True,-0.23307064710707343
1,2,22010,"I would like to thank Ron-Paul for this opportunity to debate as well as all of you who are reading and will be voting it. As agreed, I will not present rebuttals of his R2 arguments in this round, but will only build my affirmative case. Burden of Proof In this debate, my BoP is simply to prove that one minimum wage law enacted by the federal government is either financially strong, secure, or reliable. Con must prove that any minimum wage law enacted by the federal government is neither financially strong, secure, nor reliable. I am not obligated to defend any raise in the minimum wage, in fact I can advocate for a lower minimum wage and still uphold my burden of proof, which is to justify the existence of a minimum wage that is financially sound. Pro Case Unlike Con’s long and heavily sourced case, mine is extremely simple because the economic rationale behind the existence of the minimum wage is basically common sense. As inflation rises, the cost of living will rise, but wages will not necessarily rise. This translates to a less economic activity because as workers make less money compared to how much it costs them to live, they will be less likely to spend money. Something that works against economic activity declining is certainly a sound economic policy. Thus, it is necessary for the level of wages to be adjusted every so often in order to maintain economic growth. That’s it. I hope the audience will appreciate my keeping this simple argument short and simple rather than overstating my case, and will not hold this fact against me. Back to you, Con.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.7518013124663913,0.6516151720139624,0.9599645912954023,278,True,0.9038243678865753
1,2,18591,"Rebuttals Argument #1: If every worker in the U.S. made more than minimum wage there would be layoffs across the board. Due to the fact that the more their workers make, the more they have to downsize so they don't have to close the doors. Yes. An employee can be taking advantage of their work by only working say, an hour, and make say, $20 (Which for now, we'll assume is more than our current minimum wage). Since they don't deserve it, they'll be discharged, either temporarily or permanently, because of the suspicion of taking advantage of work. So yes, indeed, there must be a minimum wage. Expecially the fact that like said, an employee can work for months and only earn a dollar because, it belongs to the owner. The government doesn't really have any business in that. However, now, out of curiosity: Is this even supposed to be a rebuttal? Argument #2: Although I do support raising the minimum wage limit, I disagree on drastic increases. It just can't be done without whiplashes in the corporate world and in the working sector. My 2nd argument wasn't supporting increase in minimum wage. My 2nd argument was that if a person worked say, an hour, and minimum wage, at the very least, was earned by working an hour, that person deserved that amount. I await my opponent's next set of arguments. Also, I thank Con for accepting this.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.6107425779894187,-0.33018240379094066,1.1725258080011498,238,True,0.5725068983737391
1,2,27510,"SunGod, before I begin my argument let me say thank for accepting my debate, I hope that by the end of this debate you will see the consequences and problems that come along with a higher minimum wage. In a perfect society on a perfect planet raising the minimum wage to decrease poverty levels is a stellar idea, however since sadly since we live nor work in a perfect society raising the minimum wage has consequences that defeat the purpose of the initial raising of the minimum wage. One of these unfortunate consequences is called inflation. ( Today many lower and middle class Americans live under the hope that their minimum wages will continue to rise, they believe that a bigger salary will lead to more purchasing power, which allow them to continue a safe, average life and maybe once in a while that they will be able to treat themselves. Wether this treat be a new car, a Caribbean cruise, or a more affordable education for their children. However sadly, since macroeconomics is not taught in public schools, most of these people do not understand the effects of inflation on the economy. Due to inflation raising the minimum wage is a useless weapon in combating poverty because the economy will simply boost their prices in response to a raise of the federal minimum wage. Below is a link to a list which contains a few items whose prices have been inflated over time in The United States. ( In conclusion, raising the minimum wage does practical nothing as inflation is always on guard, waiting to pounce as soon as the government officials put pen to paper.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,277,True,-4.0
1,6,514,"Switzerland has no minimum wage, yet their average earnings are 6,200 CHF a month {1}, about 6,300$ month in USD. The Swiss are earning more than we are, with no minimum wage, this is because the Swiss have something called a ""free market"" and ""labour unions,"" so they don't need a minimum wage, infact they do better without it and are more productive. Think about it, if you are guarenteed 10$ a hour for your labour, you would be inclined for personal profit, to put in labour worth less than 10$ a hour. Whereas if you are payed according to the quality of your work, you become more productive to earn more money. Also, the tenth ammendment saysa: ""The powers not delegated to the Federal Goveronment, nor prohibbited to the states, shall be granted to the states respectvely, or to the people."" The constitution never grants the federal goveronment the power to establish a minimum wage, so this power should be given to the states through state minium wages, or to the people through labour unions. {1}.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.5970629814946202,1.7969495056410387,1.1418529933366757,177,False,0.9493094466149776
1,3,1615,"As you said, the private sector is profit driven, but that profit has to come from somewhere. A MNE offering minimum wage would be driven out by companies paying higher amounts, leading to potential failure of the company. Most multinational salaries, such as Procter & Gamble, pay wages far above minimum wage. How would the minimum wage increase overall salaries in those companies? For minimum wage to help, those companies should be paying minimum wage. Even if the top 20% own 86% of the world's wealth, then that still doesn't mean that minimum wage is the way to fix that. As I said before, minimum wage doesn't lead to a ""virtuous cycle of growth"", it leads to the opposite. If anything, minimum wage prevents competition in wages, meaning that instead of earning $10000 dollars a year, an unskilled worker with little education would earn nothing. This prevents social mobility, as the same people will continuously be beaten by more skilled workers, working for the same salary. As a result, minimum wage would prevent jobs, at social mobility of those in poverty. Source(s):",0.1789077955820434,True,0.004925447122107278,0.3789114545014489,0.2705975536573537,182,True,0.24415667901477053
1,5,23456,"Since pro forfeited the last round, I'm just going to keep going because I'm not satisfied with my argument yet and there are only 3 rounds. It seems obvious that large companies like Walmart, Target, and McDonald's are taking advantage of the minimum wage to make huge profits, and there is no way these companies are going to pay their unskilled laborers any more then the government mandates. Since large companies currently employ the vast majority of minimum wage workers, it makes sense to increase the minimum wage. Full-time employees making minimum wage would no longer receive government assistance, because they would not need it. All companies should be obligated to pay their employees a living wage without the government's assistance. If all full-time employees no longer needed government assistance, that money could be spent elsewhere. Poverty is linked to a number of social issues including obesity, poor health, crime, and many others. Imagine if you could get out of poverty by simply finding any full-time job. You would be able to move to a better neighborhood with better schools, buy healthier food, or further your education and earning power. In other words, we could reduce poverty and crime while improving the health and education opportunities for those who need it most. Increasing minimum wage would have a huge impact on the poorest members of our society and only a small impact on the cost of goods and services. Totally worth it.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.1618999470227596,0.17186283976922348,-0.4672646955702841,242,False,0.34995114523786447
1,2,23456,"cstew forfeited this round. Con Since pro forfeited the last round, I'm just going to keep going because I'm not satisfied with my argument yet and there are only 3 rounds. It seems obvious that large companies like Walmart, Target, and McDonald's are taking advantage of the minimum wage to make huge profits, and there is no way these companies are going to pay their unskilled laborers any more then the government mandates. Since large companies currently employ the vast majority of minimum wage workers, it makes sense to increase the minimum wage. Full-time employees making minimum wage would no longer receive government assistance, because they would not need it. All companies should be obligated to pay their employees a living wage without the government's assistance. If all full-time employees no longer needed government assistance, that money could be spent elsewhere. Poverty is linked to a number of social issues including obesity, poor health, crime, and many others. Imagine if you could get out of poverty by simply finding any full-time job. You would be able to move to a better neighborhood with better schools, buy healthier food, or further your education and earning power. In other words, we could reduce poverty and crime while improving the health and education opportunities for those who need it most. Increasing minimum wage would have a huge impact on the poorest members of our society and only a small impact on the cost of goods and services. Totally worth it.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.7345619159600264,-0.03542114827201728,-0.3890386434583023,247,True,0.12235160820094967
1,1,29343,"Resolution: The US Minimum Wage should not be raised to $15 an hour. Rules: - No semantics. - The time-frame for increase must be reasonable. - Sources may be in an external link. - Spelling and Grammar / Conduct sources are void. Summary: The topic of the US Minimum Wage has been a hot spot for political and economic debate since it's creation in 1938. Created by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and set to $0.25 an hour, the wage has been the centerpiece of an unchallenged quantity of studies and academia. Pro (LordHelm) and Con (Romanii) will debate whether the Minimum Wage should be increased to $15 an hour within a fair time-frame (as high as 2025). Voters may only use Sources and Arguments to decide a winner. The debate has been reset to allow the opponents a chance to review their arguments, as neither side felt satisfied with their rounds. Romanii has been picked for the debate, as he was the most qualified debater. He may start the first round, and I end in the 4th round. Otherwise, first round is for acceptance only.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.03910148748535787,-0.2365406938282651,0.24732352763769,186,True,-0.018708388590103094
1,3,21879,"I would first like to refute my opponents arguments, and then strengthen my own case. My opponent stated in his first contention that the unemployment rates will increase. He stated that we are hurting the future of America if we raise the minimum wage, which I have already proven incorrect because even though the adolescents are losing jobs to more skilled workers (which they aren't), their parents are making more money. They are making enough money so that the kids don't have to work. Many of the adolescents that are working minimum wage are doing so because their parents aren't making enough money for the whole family. My opponent also stated that the 1996 legislation change is not applicable because the economy has changed, but what my opponent fails to understand is that no matter how bad or good the economy is, the effects will be the same. The varying economy does not change how increasing the minimum wage will do in the long run. This is why my opponents first contention falls. My opponent states in his second contention that raising the minimum wage will lower the incentive to find education. However, this is not true because good jobs still make 10-30 dollars or more over the minimum wage. All this is doing is letting families be able to live of their income, because today, it is hard to find jobs, so finding a minimum wage job is better than no job. This is why my opponents second contention falls. I am out of time, so I do not have a chance to refute my opponents 3rd contention, so I will do so in my next speech. This is why I believe the proposition is wining this debate, and urge for a proposition vote.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.8539844525596697,0.29153723595324954,0.29251519140264753,295,True,0.5493494296595186
11,1,43944,"I think people should take care of their own health and should avoid obesity. Man should do everything moderately.... America paying so much on health care, but its getting double the amount from the other business sectors. There are many countries in which people are paying for their health care not their government. So I think American govt should educate their people about the disadvantages of eating fatty food. And let the healthier people live happily and inexpensively",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.2877870159854716,-0.4288695840601696,-2.0111562488334336,78,False,-1.422504999702913
18,5,12877,"JP123 forfeited this round. Pro Contention 1: Quality of life Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically. Marriage is not universally an improvement, but it generally is. Because of this, it stands to reason that legalized gay marriage will ultimately prove beneficial for gay individuals. This, in turn, will be better for gay couples, the families of gays, and communities where gays live. Contention 2: Marriage Opponents of gay marriage argue that it would undermine the institution of marriage, but it's hard to see how more marriages would be bad for marriage. If anything harms marriage, it is bad marriages where people don't take marriage seriously - and that's already too common with heterosexuals. If gay couples in committed relationships are able to formalize their unions as marriages, that can only serve to improve marriage overall by providing more positive role models. Contention 3: Civil Unions Some opponents and supporters of gay marriage support civil unions as an alternative, but that's a mistake. For marriages to continue as a stabilizing force in society, they must be genuine marriages - not ""marriage lite"" that carries some benefits without all the responsibilities. Equality before the law means that creating civil unions for gays will lead to civil unions for everyone else and this ""marriage lite"" will be more of a threat to marriage than gay unions could possibly be.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.2906545256596212,0.4303459198102709,0.936660251258942,238,False,0.63454089081794
15,1,33362,"Estimated 26 million animals are used for commercial and scientific testing every year in the U.S. Used to determine the toxicity of medication and to develop medical treatments, that is destined for human use. How come we allow these creatures to be tortured and killed? People might think it is a necessary evil to improve the survival of the human race. They might be right too but researches have figured out that animals are a lot more like us. The animals have feelings just like us. They can feel the same pain as we can and I find it is hard to understand why people fail to see that. It has been proven that pigs can feel pain, affection, excitement, experience stress and even feel love. They can get depressed very easily if they are denied to interact with each other or isolated. How is that different from us? Won't we feel depressed if we don't interact with other people? Yes, these tests on animals have saved human lives but for what costs? Millions upon millions of animals that are caged and tortured their entire life. Some of these medications do not even work in the end. The animals died for nothing at all. I can't help but think what if human beings were caged and tortured for experiments?",0.1789077955820434,True,1.422327058611489,0.7669234960165024,-0.3774016525871621,219,True,0.7200651111869053
1,1,3432,"The only way to bring back jobs to the U.S. is by eliminating the minimum wage. By increasing the minimum wage, you increase the cost of living and therefore decrease the quality of life. All goods, virtual and non-virtual require labor cost. We now live in a society where virtually everything we do requires services and these services are the contents of our quality of life.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.1375102567064625,-0.593437399551716,-2.211153204830018,66,True,-1.0958792795654906
1,4,43809,"Minimum Wage laws are cruel and inhumane. They are racist laws and should be abolished. ""[T]he minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That's what the law says. The law says here's a man who would — has a skill which would justify a wage rate of $1.50, $2.00 an hour. You can't, you may not employ him. It's illegal. Because if you employ him you have to pay him $2.50. Well, what's the result? To employ him at $2.50 is to engage in charity. Now there's nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in a position where they can engage in that kind of charity. Thus the consequences of minimum wage rates have been almost wholly bad, to increase unemployment and to increase poverty. Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by minimum wage laws are the blacks. I've often said that the most anti-Negro law on the books of this land is the minimum wage rate."" - Milton Friedman[1] Minimum Wage laws are tools used by politically well-connected labor unions and big business to force their competitors out of competition. The economically ignorant with good intentions support the law because they foolishly believe that it is a help to the downtrodden, when it is precisely the opposite. 1",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0868617296059329,-0.6814952726218522,0.9064549228583568,242,False,0.5317066969771199
1,2,5291,"The Minimum Wage must be increased. Republicans claim it to be a ""job killer"", but they obviously do not know anything about how the American economy works. No person working full-time should have to live in poverty. It is most unfortunate that this is occuring right this instant. Entry-level employees make a certain amount of money an hour, they work full-time, they come home and try to support themselves and their families. With a Minimum Wage of $7.25 an hour (it is higher in some states), supporting yourself and your family would be nearly impossible. This is only my main point. Please allow me to elaborate in the next round.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.10399325086465663,-0.05195615244075949,0.4871393472193645,110,True,0.12197707128092708
1,2,32364,"Allright. Rising the minimum wage to, say, 10 dollars, will obviously rise the price of the product. However, as this higher minimum wage is universal, it will also increase the demand of products as more wealth is allocated to those working on minimum wage. According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2014 77.6 million workers (58% of workforce) were paid with hourly rates, of which a total of 3 million were paid the minimum wage of 7,25$ -or less. They make up for a total of 3,9 % of all hourly paid employees. Rising the minimum wage will rise the overall demand of products quite significantly. In the long run this will lead to inflation, but nevertheless it allocates more wealth to those who are ""poor"". In this sense it also lessens the gap between social classes. As overall product demand rises, the supply must increase as well. Companies must hire more employees and invest money in developement. All this serves to grow the economy.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.4273642648583376,-0.9094559103979406,0.3524863834771784,166,True,-0.37412917768584203
1,5,10925,"I will be Con. My opponent, Xerdex, will be Pro. Round one: Acceptance. No arguments allowed. Pro may contest the definitions if he wishes. Round two: Opening arguments. Round three and four: Arguments and rebuttals Round five: Rebuttals, no new arguments. Definitions: USFG - United States Federal Goverment Raise - Increase Minimum Wage - Lowest hourly rate an employer can pay an employee.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.19823177755502808,0.27011089436325303,-1.8978681216446107,63,False,-0.6620528099362512
10,5,15931,"""Like I said marijuana that is used for medical purposes is not just being prescribed to anyone you have to go through certain steps"" I understand that marijuana is not prescribed to just anyone. I have shown you that because there are so many other available medications, however, there is no reason to want to use medical marijuana unless the patient does have some desire to get high. Heroin is a painkiller. Does that mean that we should administer heroin to patients that are in pain? NO, because there are so many other treatments out there that don't alter your brain chemistry. ""Lets look at a common cold, you can use Vick's or dayquil and many others but sometimes peoples chemistry doesn't work well with that drug and they could be allergic to it. Wouldn't you rather have another alternate out there for example marijuana, that you can take and it could help you out."" As I have already stated, there are many drugs out there that can be used and the chances that someone is allergic to ALL of those is infinitesimally small. Also, I have already addressed this point by saying that scientists have synthetically produced the chemicals in marijuana that have medicinal properties, so if someone is allergic to these, they are also allergic to marijuana.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.093810700732599,-0.06171563709798989,-0.3536806136006506,219,False,0.274135179625175
10,1,42123,"Several states and cities have legalized marijuana; both medical and recreational. I truly believe marijuana should be used ONLY for EXTREME medical conditions, not for recreation. For one, in the area I live in (Greeley, CO), marijuana is out of control in the schools, and is causing major problems. There is one town in my area, Garden City, Colorado, which gets ALL of its tax revenue from marijuana sales. This is disgraceful. I believe the federal government should outlaw all recreational marijuana sales, and only use medical marijuana for extreme life threatening situations.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.2013821076037636,-0.3367241899724599,1.0494582152787542,93,True,0.3613689527610097
10,2,39477,"Scientists and mentally-ill victims of bipolar disorder have independently made the discovery that cannabis can improve this medical condition, whether the mania or depression. It may also reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote). Moreover, 30-40% of patients with bipolar disorder are not consistently helped by or CANNOT tolerate standard medications. Marijuana helps terminally ill people to have a better life because smoked marijuana can give rapid relief from great suffering to some patients, quickly improving such patients' comfort and mental outlook. The terminally ill can still maintain their human dignity and suffer less. Legalized marijuana would provide patients with a quality drug to help their pain. This would make the usage of drug controllable, ingredients would be well known and experts would determine the appropriate healing quantity. Legalization for medical purposes is also necessary to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to invest in further research of marijuana's healing properties.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.896807180099316,0.6658469561218361,1.8128204798322496,160,True,1.6961647297633606
3,5,33283,"I agree no one should have health concerns if they are linked to Daylight Savings, but you have not addressed as to what health issues they are and how daylight savings is the reason for it for farmers specifically. You also state that Daylight Savings has adverse effects on families, businesses, and communities, but how? Premise 1: On the contrary, Daylight Savings has proved to improve family dynamics and quality time. Because the sun is out longer during the day, parents are able to stay longer outdoors playing with their children in the park giving children more time to interact with their parents. Instead of being indoors watching TV or on the computer, it gives families a chance to enjoy the increased daylight leisure by engaging in outdoor activities and dining outdoors. Premise 2: Although we lose an hour of sleep with daylight savings, studies show that it puts people in a better mood. According to the Data Science Team, a study was done on Facebook where people statuses and Facebook ""moods"" were monitored the morning after Daylight Savings. There was a 19% increase of a happy mood and a 21% increase in feeling great and feelings of being annoyed, sad, or bored decreased significantly in comparison to other Mondays before the Daylight Savings time change. Having more sunlight during the day (someone's workday, school, etc.) increases people's positive mood and overall makes people happy. Conclusion: Because Daylight Savings contributes to enhanced family quality time and an increase in an overall positive mood within people, it should not be banned.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.496124503815876,0.3918864786365603,2.639850391031287,260,False,1.7814378179437278
18,4,25181,"CONTENTION ONE: PLAGIARISM Pro has plagiarized Pro's entire argument [1]. This is grounds for a full forfeit. CONTENTION TWO: GAY MARRIAGE ASSIMILATES AND DESTROYS GAY CULTURE As ProCon.org states, ""The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. .... As ... Badgett ... summarizes, ""marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture,"""" [1]. We would not be okay with destroying the culture of any other minority. Why should gays be different? CONTENTION THREE: MARRIAGE IS BAD, GAY MARRIAGE INCREASES MARRIAGES As ProCon.org states, ""Ettelbrick ... wrote ... ""Marriage runs contrary to ... the validation of many forms of relationships."" The ... Gay Liberation Front ... said ... ""[M]arriage as one of the most insidious .... microcosm[s] of oppression,”"" [1]. Marriage is oppression. Gay marriage is oppression. Banning gay marriage helps start a ban of all marriage. REFERENCES [1]",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,151,False,-4.0
3,2,33283,"it may me true that i may have interpret premises 3 wrong and it may me true that there are starting to be more day light in the day but i do not believe that this is the same for the morning people. The reason i say that is that because your article states "" Daylight Saving Time saves energy for lighting in all seasons of the year, but it saves least during the four darkest months of winter (November, December, January, and February), when the afternoon advantage is offset by the need for lighting because of late sunrise"". Since in those ""dark month"" sunrise occurs late it usually dark and that darkness still account for increase chances for traffic accident. Farmers also express health concerns which is linked to daylight savings. Nobody should not have their health jeopardize because of daylight saving. This make daylight savings dangerous toward the U.S population and must be addressed. Therefore, daylight saving should be banned because it will save lives for doing so. Also, daylight savings have an adverse impact on families, business and communities. If this is so, than banning daylight saving will do more good than bad because America strives on strong businesses. Good business gives jobs to people to raise a family. If daylight savings affect business negatively, than business will not function properly which can result in lay-off or loss of profit which could be used to increase a healthier workforce which is being able to higher more people for jobs.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.06107275613308692,0.5304541639529564,1.7653505338321298,252,True,0.9281525607344143
15,5,41457,"First, I thank clajen for giving me a chance to debate this topic. To start, animal tests are really helpful for the development of scientific studies. Animal tests are the experiment that the humans do for such medical development and scientific development. Animals are comfortable, fest, and easy for the humans to do experiments since they have similar body structure like the humans. For example, chimpanzees share 99%of their DNA with the humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to the humans. That may save the time of the experiment. Animal tests may give much help to the life time of the humans. Humans have life cycle, and these animal experiments may expand the humans' life cycles. It is because it deveops the medical curing system for the humans.Animal tests creates the products to be better and safe. Also, science became more and more important these days because of environmental problems and the development of technology. So, improving the science will be helpful. Also, animal tests may even benefit the animals themselves. If vaccines were not developed by animal testings, the animals might have died from some diseases. Animal testing benefits the health of the animals and the medical cares for them",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.536302807046677,0.463041499616552,-0.0031312540253324297,202,False,-0.02988818929595637
3,2,4054,"Daylight savings time puts people at higher risk of crime. They are at the risk because during the morning, when it is darker people are less likely to see a attack coming. While in daylight they may see there attacker. They also have a higher risk of being attacked. When a criminal sees a unsuspecting human, they will have a better chance at not being caught so they will want to attack. Daylight savings time messes up your sleep schedule. If you are used to going to bed earlier, you will wake up earlier. This time you could be working and making money. Although you would get more sleep, but since you are used to sleeping less, you have to sleep later",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.9114858489861488,1.0808498760710423,0.9752513392994184,122,False,1.1366058880650303
3,2,17770,"I don't think i understand the argument, since electricity and lights, productivity can go on 24/7. Daylight savings wouldn't effect productivity...would it? I thought it was to conserve energy, by reducing the need for lights. All the states follow daylight savings time except Arizona, as far as business hours. I guess Arizona isn't concerned about conserving energy. I do agree that the gov't loves to regulate, and re-regulate, and over regulate. But i don't think daylight savings time is a good example of it.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,84,False,-4.0
3,3,33283,"I agree that there is many benefits toward daylight savings, but there is also many dangers as well. Also you are right that the article did not address the type of issue that daylight saving cause on families, business, and the community. To reinforce my statement on the effect of daylight saving toward businesses, a article from the website: states """"People come into town at what they think is 9pm and it's 11.30pm and you miss out on them or you're serving them or checking them in very late. What is really going on is people, especially tourist, lose track of time when they travel from place to place thinking they will arrive to their destination early to shop and fuel the economy with their money. Since daylight saving off set the clock, the tourist comes into town later than expected causing businesses to ""miss"" these customers because of the time difference. Once this occurs many business will see a loss of profit because they were not able to serve these customers at normal business hours. Not being able to serve these customers make business suffer as well as the economy too. Conclusion: daylight saving should be banned because it affect businesses and the economy negatively.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.513684499940506,0.7505588421130454,1.5945189314127333,206,True,1.4880384186548197
3,1,4054,Daylight savings time is the worst thing to happen since the cold war If daylight savings time ends that will make most people not late to their jobs in the morning.,-0.4466542626979497,True,0.2746237920328843,-0.59506407197738,-1.1678925846192063,31,True,-0.5635906501636314
3,3,17770,"I'm mainly posting, because I honestly can't believe that anyone would vote against the statements that you are making. I think that you are absolutely correcting in all of the arguments that you are making. But I would also like to and some more reasons. If you look to the states that abide by daylight savings time, which is the east and west coast. You will see that the midwest doesn't have to recognize DST, because the primary source of jobs within this region are farmers and it doesn't affect their level of productivity. But also the emergence of the profit motive continues to be the main criterion for showing progress and success, which makes it easy for the goverment to want to increase our ""productivity"".",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.11663789661959,-0.11858591292636375,1.8643666862783697,126,True,1.1310378690627239
3,1,12726,Yes! We should keep daylights savings time because when the sun comes up at different times we can tired but with day lights savings time we don't get tired.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,29,True,-4.0
3,4,12726,"losing an hour of sleep MAKES you tired there is no particular need for sun in modern day society, the first daylight savings was made in WWI by the Germans to save money on energy. The first time DST was used in the U.S energy use went up!",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.13038027496809682,-0.6438382698099294,-0.7061529157855608,48,False,-0.4724619580423449
3,6,12726,"the whole point of stopping daylights savings it to get the proper amount of sleep. If there something that has no good points and causes so much problems should we not stop it? I believe we should, and with that I end.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.4272973508521007,-1.8290156340618944,-2.0200159671282725,42,False,-1.6280247216577013
18,4,31294,"You claim that gay marriage is not in the public interest, yet the majority of the public (1) supports it. While private politicians are certainly among those who support gay marriage, by your argument any law passed represents corruption. You fail to explain how gay marriage is not in the public good, so I clicked over to the comments, where you stated that gay marriage wasn't in the public interest because only heterosexual marriages produce children. Yet this makes zero sense as a condemnation of gay marriage; it's not like gay people would be having kids if gay marriage was ILLegal. In fact, gay marriage can help alleviate the problem of heterosexual marriages that don't work and leave children in the foster home system, since gay couples adopt much more regularly and tend to be better parents than heterosexual couples (2). Anyway, only 3.8% of Americans identify as LGBTQ, and whether or not they have kids has very little effect on the population anyway. Unless you're some kind of a spread-the-race nationalist, I can't see why this argument holds water. To summarize, you fail to explain why gay marriage does not represent the public interest, and I had to dig through the comments to find a specific point to rebut. 1. 2.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.7147375442690046,1.6733739701673969,0.06985861021638587,212,False,0.9627024594690834
3,1,17770,"There are other rationales used; when Franklin first thought of the idea, it was to save on candle wax (which could get pretty expensive). I certainly wouldn't want the government intervening in every situation, but I think the reasoning behind most intervention is economic. While productivity does influence economics, there are tons of other factors that the government must consider before intervening.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.04445534963347742,-0.5749248168745629,-0.6906162075293356,62,False,-0.5113261335870836
3,5,2826,"Ok first off your poem Time is something that always changes ( I.E. Daylight savings time) , so people are bound to complain about it. I have heard people say that, and I hear some people warning me that time will go by fast. And people are bound to use their own opinion so if they blame time then let them. That is their problem. Next off I dont see what you are trying to say. sorry. Then my poem 15. 2nd. I have not seen an angel but with what I gather. Angels are beautiful so That is why I am comparing her to an angel Well the rhyme scheme is the one thing that sometimes people see confusing because poets have their own taste in rhyme schemes so we might not be able to interpret each others rhyme scheme. So I cant wait to see what you put for the final round. And good job in this debate",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.1918972892082722,-0.3210346302188958,0.5674850478977532,160,True,0.566880024750893
15,10,31398,"Animal testing is an unfortunate necessary evil in my eyes. I believe that testing vital new medicines are a good cause, the comment earlier concerning animal testing for commercial products such as make up, shampoo etc was outlawed in the UK a while ago now. I can not honestly say that animal testing is the greatest evil of our times when all you need do is watch the news or pick up a charity newsletter.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.6624284227267913,0.5390648659342654,-0.1869277635869636,75,False,-0.1156428475448494
3,2,42370,"In order to get a job you probably have to be older than 18, after the age of needing 8-9 hours of sleep. You can change your schedule then. We change schedules twice a year, with DST (Daylight Savings Time). If you set your alarm you won't wake up at 8 and have it become a habit. You also just proved my point, it's earlier to sleep in than go to sleep earlier.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.08843830195363019,0.015019941241240781,-0.5006790327625832,73,True,-0.22890511961992718
3,5,12726,"This is hardly a matter of losing sleep, records show that the week following DST has an increased amount of crime and car accidents. And how exactly will it help people? This lack of sleep is a change more of a change then just losing some daylight that doesn't matter to us. We have electricity and lights.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.9844174070054328,-0.31989176916202233,-0.7018470854524813,57,False,-0.7804500387256639
3,41,35617,"It is not well to make any comment with the basis of a blind biasness. There should be logical aspects. There are many people who even do not know the positive features of animals to be kept in zoos, but still make arguments in tea-table. According to me, the zoo is the safest place than the wild for the endangered as well as for the others who would get their lunch and dinner time to time. In captivity, animals live longer and apart from all, they can breed safely to save their race from being extinct. In zoos, we can take our children to get proper knowledge about the animals, to learn more about them by seeing them from a very close distance. So, without taking the good factors of animals being kept in captivity, why are people crying falsely in the name of humanity?",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.20669661182390844,0.6920270371170449,1.247232413859175,145,True,0.8287144992046418
3,5,15331,"Wow, dude I can see your totally butt hurt but what ever Alright m8 lets duke this out one more time. Ok search up in google ""Ran over dogs"" With a hamster search up ""crushed my hamster"" Put the pieces together, people make mistakes, people do things. Plus, you ban cages. Now what? I can see the headlines now, ""Baby Gets Mauled by Dog"" ""Kids Eyes Are At Stake"" ""Snakes kill dozens"" ""Lion kills family"" ""Salmonella Disease Strikes"" And theoretically saying, you want all animals to be free? So that whole herd of sheep gets eaten by wolves. That whole herd of cow gets slaughtered. Whats the difference? The problem with you is that you don't understand what I am trying to say. Animals, need to be kept in cages. Humans are animals, we kill, we fight, we rape. So what? Animals are food. If you think about it, animals are our products, we made animals, we bred, and bred, and bred, until we got that cute little puppy. So who says that we can't do what we want with them? We paid, we signed papers, we paid some more. Yet, people hurt animals and that is against the law. You most likely don't adopt pets and give them homes if you do then why are you wasting your time on here when you can be saving animals? Wanna know who is a pheg u",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.1553001599304469,-0.4528748881990615,-0.4872830583391988,235,False,0.10679369800257178
3,19,19998,"This is not going to be the case with all cities for example journey times to Scotland could be reached for much less. With using tilting trains on the East Coast and upgrading to 140 mph running the journey time from London to Edinburgh would actually be marginally faster than using HS2.[1] The figures for the journey savings notably exclude the possibility of faster journeys on the existing routes so the savings would not be as big.[2] Because Britain’s big cities are not particularly far apart journey times are already not long by comparison to many countries. Trains from London to the second city of Manchester take just over two hours, because of the much longer distance from Paris to France’s second city even with the TGV the journey time is about the same while from Tokyo to Osaka takes 2hours 25 minutes. [1] Webb, Jonathan, ‘East Coast Pendolinos could deliver faster journey times than HS2 for Anglo-Scottish services’, Global Rail News, 2 August 2013, http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/08/02/east-coast-pendolinos-could-deliver-faster-journey-times-than-hs2-for-anglo-scottish-services/ [2] Millward, David, ‘HS2 time savings exaggerated critics say’, The Telegraph, 29 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10411885/HS2-time-savings-exaggerated-critics-say.html  ",-2.636121466677925,True,1.2974900238879663,0.13978158050701028,1.949972326470068,182,False,1.327607097635425
3,1,19459,"Saves the time time but makes us fat and thus unable to do as much with our fat bodies in a given amount of time. If, however, I'm advocating it's good then clealry convenience is the main factor and yes it brilliantly saves time on a particularly busy day. The fact that the 'con' has gone against fast food confuses me as to which side I am on.",-2.636121466677925,True,-1.2223701713638504,-0.248481369159268,-1.72280750721341,68,True,-1.2195241493496456
3,3,42989,If you are deceased it does not count as sleeping. Every bit of life in your body is gone. And people sleep in broad daylight all the time,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,28,True,-4.0
13,1,17839,I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.,1.1172508830020322,True,-0.4798564831077543,0.013536342006539012,0.5009112943575176,219,True,0.012581234236896026
3,2,15836,"using whatsapp can save money and more convenient. Second, using smart phone can also contact others in a more comfier way. I think they won't want to call others in all time. Using the apps in smartphone can save time ,save money and more convienient",-2.9489024958179213,True,-1.266087089582638,-0.7655511320866502,-1.4679457657847323,45,True,-1.3562608195744552
3,6,31115,"In my previous post, I argued that the existence of God is a settled issue, because the fact that there is no evidence for God (which my opponent concedes) shows that believing in God is irrational. My opponent conceded this argument, but argued that it only shows that we should stop debating about God's existence, because the debate is settled. This does not address my point that debating the existence of God could help spread the message that the debate is settled. Perhaps my opponent intended to address this concern when he said that not debating the existence of God could save us valuable time, and that firm believers aren't swayed by logic anyway. With regard to the second point, it simply is not true that Christians never become atheists on the basis of arguments. The internet is full of atheists who were once firm Christians, but considered the arguments and decided to give up their belief in God. So, the debate comes down to my opponent's first point, that not debating the existence of God would save us valuable time. The question is whether the time it would save outweighs the political ramifications of theism, including the policies of banning abortion and gay marriage that people base on it (and which my opponent has not addressed). It seems pretty clear that the latter outweighs the former. Banning abortion and gay marriage have substantial concrete effects on millions of people, whereas saving the time we spend debating the existence of God would only save the subset of people who are interested in the issue the hours they spend debating it (personally, I find debating the existence of God enjoyable, not a waste of time). Vote Con.",-2.010559408397932,True,1.236026677116317,0.9031443643914774,1.1425415181936922,286,False,1.2587246042135232
3,20,16557,Whilst the database may save time it definitely won't save money having cost £224 million so far and due to cost a further £41 million per year to run. Surely the government could have put this money to better use than a national database that a lot of the country is appalled with! You would have thought so anyway being a recession and all...!,-2.010559408397932,True,-0.6883197073462204,-0.4577299484081692,-1.2866561801019192,64,False,-0.9421409327754563
15,4,42384,"Pro has not upheld his BoP. His various contentions are merely conjecture. Let's take a look at them one by one. - ""it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research"" First, Pro doesn't go into detail on what exactly these types of scientific investigation even are. Is he referring to testing hair products or cancer drugs, we don't know. Secondly, since Pro has been so incredibly vague on the nature of scientific research which he is referring to, he has in no way actually backed up those assertions. - ""You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals"" This is also unsupported. Why can't we test on humans? On the contrary, it would seem to be a better idea since (a) humans would seem prima facie more comparable to other humans in determining the result of experimentation and (b) humans can actually give their consent, freeing one of the various ethical dilemmas brought on b forced testing on animals.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.6434144444765607,0.3400108050042203,0.12261903388965854,173,False,-0.06952882331851436
3,4,37455,"Once there was a village with a very religious man. He would spend 2 hours a day praying to God. Well, one day, there was a flood in the village. Everyone evacuated, and no one extended help to the God-lover because he kept on saying, ""God will save me!"" Then, a man in a boat came by and asked him if he needed help. He responded, ""God will save me!"" and the guy in the boat shrugged his shoulders and left. Then, a guy in a helicopter came down and said, ""Guy, you're going to drown! Get in my helicopter!"" The man responded, ""God will save me!"" The guy in the helicopter shrugged his shoulders and flew away. The God-lover drowned in the rough flood...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,125,False,-4.0
3,21,16557,"Having such an advanced system that can bring up any information needed in seconds will save an incredible amount of time in the lives of schools, social workers and health professionals. Furthermore, ministers say that it will save five million hours per year that professionals would have otherwise spent trying to contact each other. ( If that isn't enough the government estimates that the benefit of reducing unproductive work time using the database is valued at more than £88m! (",-2.636121466677925,True,0.7051622484397778,-0.2773708489675481,0.06143510823783172,80,True,0.18839987496542177
3,2,26049,"That all may be true but you forgot the idea that aquaman is the king of Atlantis and he also has a trident. As being the ruler of the sea, ocean, etc he has many powers of deep sea life beyond anyone's abilitys. He can send out multiple mega ladies and giant freaking sharks by just telling them to eat this guy. Also in the flash point storyline Barry Allen A.K.A The Flash traveled back in time to save his mom but as he did that, that also changed the corse of the timeline. Aquaman and Wonderwoman are starting world war 3, there is no superman, batman looks like a demon guy, and everything's basically screwed up. As flash and cyborg were fighting against aquaman aquaman threw his trident at cyborg and that killed him almost immediately. As Wonder Woman was trying to kill flash. Aquaman kept beating the crap out of cyborg until he finally grabbed his heart and killed him. Boo yah",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.7566752724657622,0.4900079987233525,-1.6258529628951193,164,True,-0.09005453887935809
3,2,24320,"Circus Acts and Animal treatment ""what of all the acts shown to us? elephants running on balls etc."" Yeah there are circus acts where no harm are done to the animals. No tazing or anything. Animals being well fed in captivity ""i meant the scraps of some animals are given to others, these often being meagre amounts,not ample"" I already showed pictures of lions being fed steaks and seals being fed fish..... Violence of the animals in captivity when approached by humans ""i mean the keeper or the trainer when taking care of them have been known to face injuries to lash out at them in a fit of rage"" Trainers and keepers dont lash out at zoo animals in fits of rage...... If they ever do though then the animal has the right to defend itself and attack the human lashing out on them.... Reintroduction programs of endangered animals ""say u haven't played a sport for several years. im sure that u won't be as good or able to do it properly. it applies for hunting too, as well as survival. "" I already gave a link though showing multiple species that were bred in captivity, released into the wild, and they all were able to learn to survive and adapt.... Heres the link again Animals that are already kept in captivity in zoos should be kept in captivity in zoo's, they are treated well, fed well, get great healthcare, and can save entire species from extinction when reintroduction programs are successful.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.19455265353757686,1.226692221224625,1.5962911282819623,253,True,1.1741568580495831
3,30,18422,"Bu they will not know why they are being kept in, they will not have the reasoning to be able to see why they were kept in. They will only know that they have ti be home for a certain time. Once that restriction goes, they will make the most of it and go AWOL. We need to teach them why they should stay in, not just rule with an iron fist in the hope they merely copy in future life.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.8394537900994248,-0.3227375260012045,-2.331896802285073,81,False,-0.6059415448971908
3,2,9719,"Hello, and good luck in the debate, thank you for your response. I never said that we just suddenly decided to go to war, and yes, even the war on terrorism was handled wrong. I think that if we kept our people in our country that we would have no problem. I don't see how blowing up other countries helps us, especially not when we are going to places like Iraq, blowing them up and then paying to rebuild their country so that they can get mad again and make sure to do more damage next time. That was if you remember correctly when the economy in the United States first began to drop really bad. Also, if we stayed here in our country on our turf, and just defended our country rather than taking time to go to another place that is unfamiliar to us, that we don't know I feel it would be more effective, so no I don't think that it really helps us, if you don't know the area your in and your fighting there, you are the weaker one, because you don't know what to expect. Having said this, to make it a bit more clear. I feel that having our men and women who are fighting stay here I think we would actually strengthen ourselves as well as become more secure, and save money all at once. If we can beat them there, we can do it here too. Thank you, D3uC3s I look forward to receiving your response.",-1.6977783792579355,True,1.2533535782441985,1.2670273006782158,-0.30411834420847245,255,True,0.8754153659395334
17,19,38422,"Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing them to do more important things, such as solving crimes, maintaining a presence on urban streets, etc. Speed cameras pay for themselves through fines and can even provide financial support for other police work. Studies have found that much more money is saved for the state and society through prevented casualties than is gained in penalties or spent on the cameras. The public can be educated to appreciate this benefit, especially as systems which apply penalty points for speeding offences instead of or as well as fines are clearly not solely motivated by greed.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.09568343215820074,0.6731463636127337,-0.5514240643000714,110,True,0.01477766443114194
3,2,8154,"Thegreatdebator, I'd like to cite a quote from your previous argument: ""Mo has all the experience and poise to pitch at any moment in any situation and assure ur team a win."" Let's take a look back three years ago, at the 2004 ALCS. Mariano Rivera at the mound, three outs away from securing the Yankees a spot in the 101st World Series. Three nights and four improbable wins later, it was not the Yankees, but the Red Sox, who were representing the American League in the World Series. If ""Mo"" could've kept stride on the mound and made three simple outs, a short, positive page could've been added to his history book. Instead, he is loved by Red Sox fans everywhere. Let's take a look at Rivera's other mishaps against Boston: In 2004, prior to the World Series, hours after a brawl broke up, he gave up a walk-off home run to Bill Mueller at Fenway. He blew his first two saves of the 2005 season against the BoSox, and posts a career 8.10 ERA against them. Papelbon cleary came off with the better '07 season, comparing his 30 saves to Jonathan's 37. While Rivera may be considered the best closer of all time, he is well past his prime, and Papelbon is and will be the new face of the closing pitcher for years to come.",-2.323340437537928,True,0.9555761695337924,1.5638611550771713,1.4298138834648415,228,True,1.519060981905767
3,2,26671,"I would like to request the opposition to take out time to actually read my argument. I was disappointed with the response as I had already provided appropriate explanations for all the points mentioned above. Yet, for the sake of argument, I will counter your points. "" 1. It saves time."" ""5. It eases taxpayer burden."" ""2. It saves money."" I would like to remind my opposition that the purpose of judiciary is not to save time or money but rather to provide justice. ""6. It can be done humanely."" Killing is killing. We can not award such a punishment to anyone when other better productive alternatives are available. ""3. It can be used on criminals proven without shadow of a doubt such as those who confess to (or are caught performing) of heinous crimes."" ""4. Not all humans are capable of rehabilitation."" In round 1, I have stated how imprisonment can be used as an alternative which will not only be productive for the economy but also provide true justice. If an individual is deemed incapable of rehabilitation, that individual could be imprisoned till he naturally passes away. What is the need of eliminating an individual when a far better alternative is available?",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,204,True,-4.0
3,2,19798,"Grading- My Challenger has giving me her opinion and one little fact. Please write more. Side note- I have already done this so I will post this fast. Argument- Space is not enough for most animals in fact the average space is 15 foot by 15. And living in there 24/7. How would you like that? Image living in your bedroom with a cage or glass that is all dirty and most of the times concrete all around you. In the wild they are free to roam. In this jail they spend most of their time trying to escape and suffer from stress, boredom, and confinement. They also get less exercise and that leads to less life span. Some zoos are so horrible there are incidents of zoo animals of the same species EATING EACH OTHER. Here are some zoos to give you an example. San Antonio Zoo- “For 2 years the unfortunate animal named Lucky was kept in a solitary confinement too small for her. And the zoo decided add another elephant to the tiny space to create a herd.” Oradea Zoo- 4 lions were in a 15 foot by 12 foot cage made mostly out of concrete. Zoo director David Hancoks said, “There is a common misconception that zoos not only saving animals but also providing a safer wild for them. But in reality most zoos don’t try to make their business does that at all. It is just for the money.” Space is not enough for most animals.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.7412692702375905,0.10096325957392704,0.21670375896211186,251,True,0.40336305365642566
3,5,14993,"Time is a reality, a reality that deals with all of us; it has got nothing to do with God. No one has ever seen God and no one has even seen time in practical sense, but time is that very and every moment that we live, love, laugh, work, cry, play, sleep and many things else. God is a belief that we give shelter in our minds, in our hearts and in our subconscious mind, but time is that unseen object that keeps a track out of every move, good, bad, right, wrong or anything else it may be, time is the entire span of our life. Everything that we do and we do not is denoted in the notebook of time. It is time that has kept a record about the beginning of the Universe and everything since then till this far.",-2.010559408397932,True,1.3299399725288374,0.598715367059734,-0.5392733755242518,144,False,0.5593887516892428
15,3,12755,"I thank my esteemed opponent for her quick reply. Before I begin on my rebuttals and substantive, let me start with showing you how I will convince you that Animal testing should be banned. I will prove to you that animal testing is inhumane and ineffective, and whatever my opponent will have you believe, The disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Now, I will start with my rebuttals. My opponent has said that there is no other way to experiment to aid in Scientific breakthroughs, and said that animal testing have 'no cons to humans'. However, there are other more accurate, cheaper and faster methods compared to animal testing. I will touch on these alternatives in the later rounds. She also mentioned that animal testing has no cons to humans. However, According to Cruelty Free International, out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests. Hence, it shows that it may pose danger to humans. I will cover examples of such consequences later on in my points. Now, for my substantives. 1. The human anatomy and body structures differ greatly from animals. This could cause erroneous information to be obtained when we apply animal diseases to human diseases and drug responses. 2. Animal testing is ineffective. due to time constraints, I will continue my arguments in the next Rd.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.4449552582371788,1.1361745192408674,0.5705696400512211,224,True,0.826049917412229
3,10,34626,"Yes, I support the thing that more cars should be offered as hybrids. It could be very much efficient in terms of saving energy as well as giving the proper boost to the engine of the car. A hybrid motor consists of couple of motors-a gasoline powered motor and an electric motor. When the electric motors are kept being turned off, they use no energy and use much lesser energy in a low speed situation than that of the gasoline motors. But at the high speed situation, the gasoline motors are proved to be better in terms of saving energy. Although this motor is capable of producing more power for a limited motor weight. Therefore, at the rush hour stage, when a car needs to be stopped and go ahead numerously, the electric motor would be a better choice and while speedy journey prefers to the gasoline motors.",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.03215876407900204,0.3753999569126218,0.12492114316172287,148,True,0.1968412344400611
3,23,15856,"Ultimately, your life is your own. I think if I demanded that my loved one kept living a life of unbearable emotional or physical pain, in order to save me the pain of losing them, that would be more selfish than them committing suicide.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,44,False,-4.0
3,2,3425,"My other rules are: Source: You may NOT use Wikipedia as a source Conduct: any type of forfeiture results in instant lose of points. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Main Argument 1: Parents are saving money and better education. Sub argument 1: It is a proven fact that kids try to think about what to wear in the morning to get the 'coolest' styles on their wardrobes. Clothing has been a distractionfor pre-teens and teens. Children who come from a less fortunate economic background would not appear to be ""lacking"" or made fun of because their parents could not afford to buy them the newest trendy garment. As children are very often harassed or embarrassed because of their clothes, uniforms won't be a problem. School uniforms would save time for both parents and their children. Children would not have to think about what to wear in the morning and parents save time taking children shopping and waiting for them to get ready. Schools are meant for education, not for a social calendar. Source:",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.38391524793905546,-0.11658409553562042,0.5053008453913111,169,True,0.29250921996953955
3,1,24492,"Hunker down and save your money and prepare for hard times. If you do as Benjamin Franklin suggested "" a penny saved is a penny earned"", you should be OK. Wouldn't be unwise to start storing freeze-dried foods and medicines, and taking a class in wilderness survival though. Better overly prepared for very hard financial times than to be as the fool in Proverbs: ""A prudent man forseeth the evil and hideth himself, but the simple pass on and are punished"". (Proverbs 22:3) Be prudent and save now. Prepare for economic hard times ahead, and the very worst case scenario that could happen from this plan to save? Is you will have a nest egg later on. Never a bad idea. And if really hard times come? You will be ready for them.",-2.323340437537928,True,-0.07385989214817963,0.09718137571010306,-1.0653986219357643,133,False,-0.39686385734254703
3,4,30099,"Why shouldn't movies rely on graphics? it saves time writing a long script, and saves time and money hiring top notch actors and actresses. Graphics are enjoyable to watch and its been proven in many movies. Transformers revenge of the fallen widely criticized for a lack of script and bad acting by critics and even the actors themselves but still racked in over $800,000,000 in the box offices. This shows people just don't care about the acting as long as it's enjoyable to watch",-2.323340437537928,True,0.046348418609367205,-0.4761501975597736,0.21372716574147124,84,False,-0.08849118217772847
18,5,34176,"Gay marriage is not marriage hence,the main aim of gay marriage is sexual pleasure.If in doubt,why cant they reproduce?People who engage in gay marriage are those obsessed with pornography.If you want to show love,show it in a way that you appreciate the person,show concern about his situation and not because you want to satisfy your selfish,immoral interest.If caught in my country,you would spend seven to fourteen years imprisonment and this will make not to join some groups or contest for political positions because you have been convicted of a crime. Gay marriage is not the so-called enjoyment.People who engage in gay marriage do this due to peer pressure,the need to become famous and so on.Which act can they perform apart from sodomy,kissing?People who engage in gay marriage still have sex with females why?Gay marriage is futile,time wasting and future consuming.These questions are for you: -If human rights could be accepted without controversy,why is gay marriage still being debated in different part of the world. -Is gay marriage normal?",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.3822276850595352,0.8242065854110407,-1.020804678392245,168,False,-0.199134439671743
3,1,41851,"I am going to argue that Bill clinton's balanced budget led to a recession, and, if one reads deeper, argue that a federal surplus is harmful to the economy. I am sure my opponent is familiar with the equation for GDP: C + I + G + (X-M) A federal surplus simply shows the government taxing more then it's spending. If we look at the 90's, we see the US trade deficit exploding. This, obviously, caused the trade deficit to subtract from the GDP, and the government, running the ""surplus"" kept sucking dollars out of the private sector when it needed them. What compensated? Private consumption. Notice how household savings collapsed during the Clinton years? Household debt also began to surge. Because when the federal government takes on a ""surplus"" private sector savings are directly affected. The private sector can't survive in negative territory, the private sector, unlike a currency issuer such as the us govt, can't continue to spend more then it brings in. I feel like adding something else to this: When the government is running a surplus, it's not issuing as many bonds. But various entities like treasury payouts and a safe place to park earned dollars. Isn't it funny that fannie and freddie insurance surged in the 90's? This is where debt started being sold like never before, due to a lack of bonds. The surplus went hand in hand with low household savings, high household debt, and the revving up of the fannie and freddie debt boom.",-2.323340437537928,True,1.373301748276675,-0.13904464197363728,1.2052002670277986,252,True,0.9568496895960296
3,2,5119,"Okay first off thanks for debating. Now I'm going to say that hockey can be played year round. Nobody really plays on the ponds anymore. I play all the time in the summer. And ice rinks aren't as cold as you think, they are usually kept at 50degrees and the ice is cooled from below. You where saying that only being able to use your feet makes soccer harder and more unique and I do agree, but hockey is similar. In hockey you can use your hands (but only to bat the puck out of the air) but we also have to control a smaller object far from our body with a stick. We have to be able to know where it is on our stick without even looking at it, and we are doing this while we are on skates. people generally do not realize the amount of coordination you need in hockey. Also the power, agility, and explosivness needed is unbelievable. My last point for my argument is that hockey is faster and more entertaining. Because hockey is being played on skates, it is very fast. Shifts are short so every player comes out fast and powerfull. The ice rink is way smaller than a soccer field. This creates more action near the net and way more shots on goal. The goalies are constantly making huge saves and making big plays. In soccer there are less shots and less action. The physicality of hockey also makes the game more fun. I do think some of those cheap hockey fights are stupid but they are fun to watch some times. So that's all I'm writing for this round thanks again for debating!",-2.323340437537928,True,0.8311646486478022,0.7722819082328946,1.6696178361202427,283,True,1.263129869010944
3,47,35617,"Ya its OK. If it inhumane to keep people in jail? Kept safe, fed for the rest of their lives. Sucks but hey it has to be done. Plus Zoos save endangered animals lives, and gives them a safe habitat to raise a family in.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,45,True,-4.0
3,4,38646,"Salutations. People can express themselves thought there attire, uniforms take away that method of expression. This is not world ending, but school is when people have to slowly find out how they are and what they want to be, so losing one of the ways to explore who you are is not great. Moving on, uniforms do not mean that there will be respect for everyone. They do stop bullying based of clothes, in general, but kids will find other things to pick on that may be more damaging than what someone wants to wear. Uniforms are also not the most effective way to save time, and if one does not want to worry about what to wear, they could wear a similar outfit every day. It would have a compatible effect to a uniform in time saving.",-2.323340437537928,True,0.7723918071476984,0.3745533151806953,0.7735240743493002,138,False,0.7337583339359668
3,10,20726,"Both genders suck at driving. Here's a counter theory, just for fun... Women may suck a little more during the daylight driving because they may be distracted with kids or makeup or whatever. However, men may suck a little more during nighttime because they speed, they drink, their macho side comes out. So your perception of whether men or women suck at it more may depend on the time you're observing the behavior.",-2.636121466677925,True,-0.3881887532634243,-1.0574582043190262,-2.435509368529027,73,False,-1.4611450387243352
15,2,12138,"The 4 main reasons we use animals in testing are: 1. To advance scientific understanding 2. As models to study deisieses 3. To Develop and test potential for of treatment 4. To protect the safety of people, animals and the environment You can see the descriptions of these reasons here: Animal testing is very successfull and neccessary. No one wants animals to be treated badly, but would you rather have your loved one die? Insulin was tested on animals, and that saves lives every day. Scientists even fear that if animal testing becomes illegal, medical research will be stopped entirely. With the erosion of antibiotic effectiveness a real possibility, it is essential that we use every tool we have to a dress the medical threats facing our civilization. You can read about it here: And here is another article that proves my point perfectly, if you'll take the time to read it:",1.1172508830020322,True,0.481203534558089,0.2796838810300346,-0.10114331875377043,152,True,0.24811350879564548
3,1,36957,"I personally see the matter of wild life, as that of human life, the wilderness is their home, and if you are being attacked by those wild animals when you're invading their houses, well it's their right to defend their homes. It's a natural instinct for both animals and humans to protect them selves from predators, and it's well known to everyone that most animals, not to say all of them, only attack when they are scared and feel fear. So if you don't invade their privacy you won't be hurt. As for humans, if they are attacked, they doubtlessly will protect them selves and fight back. We can't argue that if you are attacked by a killer or thief at your home, you'll fight for your safety and home. So in that case why keep them captive, when we are the ones invading their homes, obliging them to attack us. And we can save everyone the trouble and let them be in their natural homes, and ourselves healthy in our cities. Also it has been proved many times, that some kinds of animals if raised from the beginning of their lives they can be perfectly harmless to human kind.",-2.323340437537928,True,0.9525826935176308,1.5971118266319977,0.8125609905032559,200,True,1.2948934916077233
3,14,293,"Children need to get enough hours of daylight or they'll be depressed, it'll be too cold to be outdoors when they finish school and their sleep will be affected. During winter, school already takes up most of these hours and it mostly involves studying indoors.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,45,True,-4.0
3,1,37268,"I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many.",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.0005809689011805997,-0.5882981098141701,-0.8391574542949527,91,True,-0.5537378387052218
3,2,37268,"I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many.",-2.636121466677925,True,-1.3705976297873257,-0.13463046877986487,-0.8659788278925745,91,True,-0.9098890674706247
18,2,34176,"jones_pfeifer forfeited this round. Con Gay marriage is not marriage hence,the main aim of gay marriage is sexual pleasure.If in doubt,why cant they reproduce?People who engage in gay marriage are those obsessed with pornography.If you want to show love,show it in a way that you appreciate the person,show concern about his situation and not because you want to satisfy your selfish,immoral interest.If caught in my country,you would spend seven to fourteen years imprisonment and this will make not to join some groups or contest for political positions because you have been convicted of a crime. Gay marriage is not the so-called enjoyment.People who engage in gay marriage do this due to peer pressure,the need to become famous and so on.Which act can they perform apart from sodomy,kissing?People who engage in gay marriage still have sex with females why?Gay marriage is futile,time wasting and future consuming.These questions are for you: -If human rights could be accepted without controversy,why is gay marriage still being debated in different part of the world. -Is gay marriage normal?",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.5939158389469197,0.4887529260725471,-1.6305440581481287,173,True,-1.0045120588570624
3,3,6053,"Is it not better, that for the overall safety of the people those records be released? Mental health is observed under rational basis scrutiny and therefore it a law differentiates based on this it must serve a legitimate state interest (saving lives) and must rationally relate to said interest (prevent those who might kill from obtaining the tools to do so).",-2.010559408397932,True,-0.6736725274391021,-1.806218939671708,-0.2364849713195399,61,False,-1.0315767536028047
3,1,25692,"I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.19881596740872984,-0.3575918188878912,-1.1833494834530864,91,True,-0.6706893337270097
2,4,7048,"My opponent has forfeited. As adding new arguments in the last round is generally considered unethical, my opponent has thus dropped my case--conceding it as true--and has dropped my rebuttals, again conceding their truthfulness. Vote Pro.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,36,True,-4.0
2,7,7048,"spacetime forfeited this round. Pro My opponent has forfeited. As adding new arguments in the last round is generally considered unethical, my opponent has thus dropped my case--conceding it as true--and has dropped my rebuttals, again conceding their truthfulness. Vote Pro.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,41,False,-4.0
2,1,2430,"To begin with, child labour has its own pros and cons. It may be beneficial for some and may not be so beneficial for others, but when it comes to under developed countries, in most cases child labour is considered essential. Child labour is a major source of income in households that aren't well off, and making it illegal would mean taking away a source of income, therefore must not be banned.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.047479046551277,0.6469789244536156,-0.6439497540196808,72,True,-0.38222559082944846
2,12,43496,"Liberty is one of the highest values human beings strive for. Liberty means that individuals ‘own’ themselves: individuals only decide for themselves what to do with their minds and bodies during their lifetime. Private property is an extension of this, because private property comes about by undertaking an activity with one’s own body or mind: when I pluck apples from a wild apple tree, they become my property through me using my own body to do the plucking. Similarly, free exchange is an extension of this, because it only comes about if both parties perceive the exchange to be beneficial to them: I will only sell the apples I plucked if I get more value in exchange than the value that continued possession of the apples gives me. Free markets are the only system of allocating goods and wealth in society that relies on these basic notions of liberty to operate. If someone becomes rich in a free market, then that came about through free exchange: this person has provided so many goods and services of value to other people, that they gave him or her great wealth in return.  Compare this to the government redistributing wealth: that would require the government appropriating part of someone’s income via taxes. That income is private property. Appropriating private property, not voluntary exchange, amounts to theft, which means that taxes are a form of theft and therefore a significant harm to individual liberty. Free markets don’t harm liberty like this, which is why they are morally superior. ",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.068573609987491,0.5740332642551116,1.2217594654141084,254,True,1.1005140915315916
13,10,16132,"Handguns are specifically worse than most other weapons. They are weapons which are both concealable and portable. Shotguns and Rifles can easily be identified from a long distance making it easier to avoid those who are carrying them or conversely for the authorities check their motives for carrying arms. Handguns, being ranged weapons (as opposed to knives), prevent people from opting to run away if they are confronted by an attacker and being concealable prevent any attempt at avoiding those carrying them. Because of these unique capabilities they make excellent weapons for gang members who wish to remain inconspicuous to avoid being searched by the police. Further, they are also uniquely useful for other criminal actors such as drug dealers who need to be able to protect themselves, but also need to appear unassuming for clients. As such, handguns, where they are freely available, are often used by most criminals for these purposes. Given  that handguns are also more likely to cause accidental injuries- as a result of incompetence or recklessness- than a knife, it seems logical that handguns cause a much larger harm to citizens in places where they are freely available.4",1.1172508830020322,True,0.4418407441486903,0.8656521119147387,0.18661650787516648,193,True,0.5714590543217338
15,32,1203,"There must be some other methods which can be used instead of testing on animals: Scientific experiments using some kind of cells or so on. Also, we can do some tests on humans as obviously people are volunteering for it even they know that could be harmful. Animals are just the same with human, because they can feel and actually suffer from testings. It is so cruel to test on them just because some think animals are less important and smaller than us.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.3629123084552831,0.08462123501443047,-0.3824839707908987,83,False,-0.2625633729441126
2,7,12167,"There are basic standards of justice which merit global application. Certain crimes against humanity offend against basic and universal norms of justice. Therefore, all people have an interest in seeing them upheld and should have the legitimate expectation that this will happen. It is a fallacy to argue that asserting universal rights is a form of cultural imperialism. As long as the universal jurisdiction is focused on serious transgressions that are clear violations of the global judicial code (e.g genocide, torture mistreatment of prisoners of war), issues of differing cultural practices are irrelevant.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.4873272651607982,0.3976625106502587,-0.5506908073295924,93,True,-0.24634180003370712
2,2,7102,"Foremost reason that states rural areas are beneficial is, it provides fresh air to breathe which is actually a basic need for every creature. Secondly, most of the urban areas are polluted which threat our lives. So, nowadays, people prefer moving to rural areas ( Tourism). Rural areas provide us with all the basic needs of our life. In fact, our whole life, whether directly or indirectly, depends on rural areas.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.655721325655607,-0.1126657663702397,-0.4341212975010175,71,True,-0.4715969696772742
18,4,10078,"1. Gay marriage accomplishes nothing: Control over children can be given in the adoption process, the participants won't be deemed in any way different in society if married. 2. Gay marriage has no point: Marriage isn't just an expression of love and love can be shared in many other ways. The purpose of marriage itself is to produce and raise children to adulthood, whereas same-sex partners being parents will significantly alter the child's life: Children without their mothers won't have the emotional security and unique advice without their mother. Girls without their father are more prone to indulge themselves in sexual activity at a younger age, and boys without their father are unable to receive advice that a father may provide in matters such as their ""road to manhood."" 3. Gay marriage could be harmful to the rest of society: More gay marriage = More of society becoming openly and proudly gay, which could thus accelerate the assimilation of gays into mainstream culture. Gay marriage could very well drastically change western civilization. 4. Gay marriage usefulness: From a legal standpoint, marriage is a civil right that prohibits any participants that are NOT a heterosexual couple. From a personal standpoint, I believe marriage is a privilege and should not be used by anyone who can't use the privilege PRODUCTIVELY for the good of society. Marriage is a tool used to procreate, for religion, and for love ; gays cannot procreate, being gay itself violates most religions, and love can be expressed in other ways.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3574158666222937,1.3020491225037747,-0.3164146434069269,253,False,0.5331904139953371
2,54,537,"University graduates might be more succesful in general – but that does not mean everyone who attends university becomes wealthy and well-employed. Many thousands of graduates cannot find jobs when they leave university and many more do not ever find the dream career they hoped for. A higher education does not guarantee of success and so it is unfair that those who do not succeed are still left with a huge fee or debt when they leave university. The basis of taxation is the income you actually have, not what you ‘should’ have. As high-earning graduates already pay big sums in income tax, the system is very fair already.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.4117667736342783,-0.02153115734467153,1.2457056212036273,109,False,0.3319929138799714
2,2,17295,"Surely you would agree that all people, rich or poor, should have the opportunity to go to university and get a good job. Now it is interesting you say that if there was no tuition fees universitys would be paid for out of tax payers money. These are the actual figures of how a university maes its money. 8% Auxilary Activities and service inome. 19% Sponsered Research 46% Endorsement Payout/ Other Investment Income 8% Gifts/ Other Income 19% Tuition Fees This is not for all universitys but the average one. This disproves your original argument and shows that only a small amount of a universitys earning are from tuition fees.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.1514572946252221,0.1688807208685412,0.5442656732372192,110,True,0.21152583059905913
2,3,5533,"=Case= C1. It is good to speak of the Universes creation if a diety exists. This point is quite simple, all (that I know of) religions believe in an afterlife. In many religions, only those who believe in the higher power make it to the best afterlife such as heaven. So if a diety exists, it would certainly be beneficial to speak of the power that created the Universe, because that is the only way to salvation. Now I believe in god, but what proof do you have that God made the Universe? C2. Furthers scientific knowledge. While the new theories on the Universe's creation such as the big-bang, and the string theory, have yet to significantly impact us I contend that the more knowledge the better. A better understanding of our Universe and its creation can only be beneficial. But for now theres no proof in this. Studying is alright ,but, for now there's no proof. The problem is people will always ask ""Why?"". C3. Debating Universe creation is intellectually stimulating. How the universe was created is one of the questions most pondered by humanity. I'm sure we've all seen excellent writings and debates over the existence of God/big bang which would not exist if this topic was not discussed! Clever. But it will never end and that time could be used for AIDS Back to you, pro.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.4816957042645672,-0.7860833803688632,-0.2275626577142616,229,True,-0.19968828526174243
2,7,5533,"It is certainly not pointless to speak of the Universes creation. My Opponent states that since the debate is likely to rage forever, there is no point in having it. Well I would like to show my Opponent, and the judges, this famous quote from Joseph Joubert[1]. ""It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle it without debating it."" =Case= C1. It is good to speak of the Universes creation if a diety exists. This point is quite simple, all (that I know of) religions believe in an afterlife. In many religions, only those who believe in the higher power make it to the best afterlife such as heaven. So if a diety exists, it would certainly be beneficial to speak of the power that created the Universe, because that is the only way to salvation. C2. Furthers scientific knowledge. While the new theories on the Universe's creation such as the big-bang, and the string theory, have yet to significantly impact us I contend that the more knowledge the better. A better understanding of our Universe and its creation can only be beneficial. C3. Debating Universe creation is intellectually stimulating. How the universe was created is one of the questions most pondered by humanity. I'm sure we've all seen excellent writings and debates over the existence of God/big bang which would not exist if this topic was not discussed! Back to you, pro. =Source= 1.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.12320835588105447,0.2921803355182771,0.12094820144190642,240,False,0.10360893418997838
2,1,40287,"Defined Terms: Social Security - is a social insurance program that mainly refers only to the benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death. This essay will mainly deal with the social security program of the U.S. is - linking verb. beneficial - helpful, useful, and is generally good. - United States Citizens - all the legal passport holding citizens inside the U.S. Border that are paying for social security or receiving it. My contention is that social security is beneficial for the U.S. Citizens: Social security provides a bases for which many hard working seniors can finally leave there job and have a secure income on which to rely upon. Though social security has taken small increments of a person's paycheck monthly, it provides a safety net for retirement. In addition to giving benefits for retirement, it also gives benefits for disability and to families whose working member has died or become disabled. This is beneficial as it helps these families survive. My opponent has the burden of proof in that he must cite specific examples of when social security has not been beneficial to the people of the U.S. and must explain why.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.6388315585473134,0.5477769597151134,0.5649415572512715,194,True,0.19110701853327927
2,5,33,"I don't think homework is really beneficial to the school students. Teachers in the school have already given assignments or lessons to the students. The most crucial thing is that the students learn or gain something fruitful from the schools.Some research indicates no direct relationship between learning and homework, whereas other studies state that homework can cause stress in young students and that students from lower-income homes may not have access to the same amount of parental assistance and resources as students from higher-income homes. We just have to ensure the students score with flying colors in their exams and understanding towards all the subjects. As you can seen in above statement, homework causes stress to students. Especially in Asia region, parents like to sign up extra-classes after school for students to brush up their studies. They have to do the homework which is assigned by the teachers from school and extra-classes. If we remain in this state-quo, students will just get too stresses out and give up their studies. Is this the outcome you speculate?",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.005642544093796786,0.09903331647801383,0.4773656106139129,176,False,0.21715506309895222
2,53,537,"University is not important in the same way that a basic education is, and so it does not have to be equally open to everyone like normal schooling. It is hard to succeed with no education but very many people are successful in life without going to university. Also, there has to be a limit to how much education a state will provide, otherwise people could just keep on studying forever and never give anything back to society. Once the state has given everyone the same basic skills it is the responsibility of individuals to care for their education, just as they do when learning to drive or speak another language etc.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.1537740870578193,-0.3561894298613611,-0.7191437166097755,112,True,-0.4815675414094819
2,1,43743,"Well then...I accept this debate. Looking forward to this >.< Before we start, I'd like to point out that beneficial basically means that something does more good then harm. I am trying to prove to you that all in all, the big issues will help you more than annoy you. My opponent only has to prove that there are no benefits or there are more disadvantages. Best of luck to the both of us ;)",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,75,True,-4.0
15,5,12138,"The an of it like answer to your first question: yes and no. We do animal testing for a reason. It's not Like they take the animal and say,""lets stick this needle into it just for the fun of it."" Think of it like this, your parents don't take you to the doctor for a check up because they like paying the doctors money, they do it to make sure you are well. In response to your next question, no I would not because: 1. That guy could be a spammer, he could just wanna steal the dog, how do I know he's a scientist? He could be some ordinary Joe. 2. It's my dog so he has no right to take it. 3. He isn't paying me. If I own him, no one can come to my house and be like,""oh I'm gonna take him to test cosmetics."" 4. Another reason is that I am against animal testing on cosmetics. I'm only for drug testing and other medicine or vaccine testing, and scientific research.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.7667419358359678,-0.4613833381981872,-0.4536874916359237,175,True,-0.6584519304110739
2,7,28420,"My Case Basically my opponent said I was right on economic growth and government revenue. As he says here: ""You have a sound proof for your argument - which is for economic growth only without taking into consideration equity or morality."" This debate was over if raising taxes on the rich would create more economic growth and more revenue, so my opponent has basically lost this debate. However, I will address my opponent's moral and equity arguments anyway. My Refutations Equity My opponent is really confused here. I'm talking about income taxes, not corporate taxes. Because of this, I will not counter my opponent's point because he is simply wrong and is not arguing what were debating. Moral Reason Again, were talking about the income tax, not a corporate rate. My opponent has seemed to confuse the two. He then talks about China, but in fact there not having good economic growth because their a socialist country. Free market capitalism is the way to go if you want economic growth. Also, I have refuted your quality of life argument. Under every tax cut, income mobility rapidly increased. Finally the environment. This has to do with regulations, not taxation. Conclusion My opponent is very confused here. My arguments have been agreed as correct and my opponent's arguments are just plainly irrelevant to this debate.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.07689072668779685,0.08449124597457476,1.1143267019182377,223,False,0.49595063819977564
18,6,2021,"Pro's claim was that gay marriage does not have a harmful effect on American society. Feel free to refer back to me previous links and/or argument. You're statement "" No, VIOLENCE is spreading throughout the world."" does not disprove that gay marriage and gay rights protests do not cause violence. Your blatant and extremely broad statement implies that violence is a result without a cause. For example, your statement would have made more sense if you said somewhere along the lines of this: ""No, VIOLENCE is spreading throughout the world because of or as a result of..."". Gay rights protests (not all) can and certainly could become violent (see links provided in previous argument). From your link ( The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. By linking this, I see that you greatly misunderstood what I said. I'm not using the ""Slippery Slope"" fallacy because I never (and never will) claim that all gay rights protests inevitably end in violence, but rather claim that they can cause violence, thus causing harm on not only American society, but all around the world as well. P.S. Gay marriage causes tensions between Pro and Anti gay marriage activists. Tensions between said activists lead to gay rights protests (not anti gay rights protests because majority of the issue [average of past 10 years] support anti gay marriage, numbers will be below). Gay rights protests lead to even more tensions, some of which can become hostile and violent. Average Pro Gay Marriage: 43% Average Anti Gay Marriage: 52.5% (2nd from top, nation wide poll over the past 10 years)",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5743290388929267,1.6738755117347208,-1.1632712175717317,287,False,0.4851121339448753
2,1,4472,"I assert that implementing some form of universal healthcare would be beneficial for the U.S. government and citizens. Universal healthcare in the United States would encourage citizens to take preventative measures towards ailments, save our country trillions of dollars on healthcare, reduce mortality rates, and create a national database of citizens' medical records for easier access by health providers to medical history across the country (Messerli). I will let my opponent begin this debate. References: 1. Joe Messerli, BalancedPolitics.org ,",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.11507780310990764,0.3458011729443327,-1.1513936058760783,80,True,-0.2511447362132414
2,1,14667,"It is true that the income tax started for the reason of helping to pay for the civil war. To this I must ask, so what? Just because that is how it started, how does that make it any less of a legitimate means of revenue for the government? In fact it doesn't. The government needs to generate revenue to be able to pay for the basic needs of its people, such as roads, police, fire departments, and the like. This revenue is also used to pay for additional social services of which are not ""needs"" so much as ""wants"" of the people. Since the government needs revenue to function (if you don't want the government to function, that is an issue with government, not a tax itself), we come to the question of how should the government generate revenue? Since the wealthy have more income, they have more of an ability to cover the revenue demand, and the only way to accurately tax that, is to tax income (since income is the founding source of the majority of wealth). Income is also the easiest form of tax to make progressive, to regulate, and to audit (to ensure accuracy). I will end with this and allow my opponent to present his argument, so that we may continue from there. Thank you,",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.0668418064252647,0.7937252978334662,1.3640171594503328,221,True,1.238466560501399
2,3,37168,"Okay so basically we are getting to some rambling about how YOU can't have a successful meditation. Well lets look at the big picture, 1. You never refuted : 1. Mediation will bring various health benefits towards the debate team, and will increase their chances of a ""better performance"". And since you did not I should win because this was a ""dropped argument"". This brings me to refuting what you posted in your last argument, In the resolution it clearly states ""will be"" and is talking about the future not the past, so any past problems you or any other debate member has had does not pertain to this debate. Also for your second contention of physical pain, is a headache physical pain ? Is their any evidence showing that trying to meditate causes headaches ? Basically what I am trying to say is that, learning how to meditate as a team and then meditating before a tournament will be beneficial towards our team.",-2.636121466677925,True,-0.2343936732917465,0.2120272392468828,-0.2919741168454496,164,True,-0.12851906729669257
2,1,17344,"very cruel, yet very common scenario in poor countries is that parents considering their children as only reliable source of income. When rich society faces this cruel reality they simply raise their voice and go against it without any second thought. But believe me, income from children can be huge supportive for poor families. In developing countries family income always has been below poverty level and lifestyle remained worst and uncomfortable. Moreover in most cases weak or sick elder members cannot afford medication, accommodation, food and all other basic human needs. To ease the situation some income from mature children can have a big impact on family. At least minimum life style can be ensured with that income. Therefore, I am very much in favor of child labor. But Children should work during leisure and vacations to not hamper their education. - See more at:",-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.7724435437601282,-0.2496240911910677,-0.2359337242963485,145,True,-0.4922625981973241
2,4,20583,"Hello, friend. I'm not sure it's within me to challenge the idea that the study of our universe is beneficial for humankind so I will approach this conversation from a slightly different angle. If you find it doesn't suit your purpose or you feel I'm missing the point in some way I apologize. The following will be my contention. Scientific study and any knowledge gleaned thereby is only beneficial to the one studying until that knowledge is either successfully communicated to and understood by another or used by the one to create something which can be used by others. I simply mean that after study and knowledge have been conducted and obtained it takes further action before it becomes beneficial to the rest of us.",-2.636121466677925,True,-0.2762340934122668,-0.009160791042069743,-0.8439933509943801,125,False,-0.43905583692588296
2,3,24852,"For taxes to be greatly lowered in our society we first need to reduce our spending. Government does not generate revenue, the people do, everything that the 'government' spends money on is funded by the people (their taxes). To cut taxes we need to reduce government spending, this includes cutting major government expenditures such as welfare and warfare (defense spending). By cutting our spending we can reduce our taxes which will benefit the individual and the economy. Any form of tax cut such as the Bush Tax cuts would be beneficial to the economy such as creating jobs and expanding growth. Over the last 100 years taxes have increased greatly and the amount of different types of taxes have also increased dramatically (1). The federal income tax was not even a tax in the United States until the early 1900's through the passage of the 16th amendment which was a controversial amendment to pass. Even after its passage the income tax did not even effect most people until the 1950's and 1960's, up until that point only a certain percentage of Americans payed income tax (2). If we reduce our unnecessary spending through cutting certain programs (privatizing programs) and bringing our troops home we can reduce our taxes and even eliminate most taxes like the income tax. (1) (2)",-2.010559408397932,True,0.8865029035631533,-0.30929409126185115,0.16133677137278654,219,True,0.28892345496594096
2,1,32128,"To clarify this debate arose out of a discussion on the forums. The term social class is used in the socio-economic sense, not the socio-cultural, or socio-political. All individuals have an equal opportunity to advance in their socio-economic class. I will take this time to clarify terms. (adj) equal (having the same quantity, value, or measure as another) (n) opportunity (a possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances) (v) advance (develop further) (n) social class, socio-economic class (people having the same social, economic, or educational status) Educational Socio-economic clases are; High School Degree or GED (basic education) Some College (atleast 1 course) Associate's Degree (atleast 2 tears) Bachelor's Degree (atleast 4 years) Master's Degree (atleast 6 years) Doctorate's Degree (atleast 8 years) Economic Socio-Economic classes are; Upper Class (top 10% of incomes) Middle Class (top 50% of incomes) Lower Class (Bottom 50% of incomes) One could also divide those up even more; Super Rich (top 1%incomes) Rich (top 5% incomes) Lower Upper Class (top 10% incomes) Upper Middle Class (top 15% incomes) Lower Middle Class (top 50% incomes) Working class (bottom 50% icomes) Poor (minimum and part time wages) It would be easier for both sides to stick to Upper, Middle, and Lower classes, rather than the more detailed classes.",-2.010559408397932,True,1.4951571071632164,-0.42488777984008497,1.2275567462319663,211,True,0.916359238061454
2,8,24852,"bcarrnhs forfeited this round. Pro For taxes to be greatly lowered in our society we first need to reduce our spending. Government does not generate revenue, the people do, everything that the 'government' spends money on is funded by the people (their taxes). To cut taxes we need to reduce government spending, this includes cutting major government expenditures such as welfare and warfare (defense spending). By cutting our spending we can reduce our taxes which will benefit the individual and the economy. Any form of tax cut such as the Bush Tax cuts would be beneficial to the economy such as creating jobs and expanding growth. Over the last 100 years taxes have increased greatly and the amount of different types of taxes have also increased dramatically (1). The federal income tax was not even a tax in the United States until the early 1900's through the passage of the 16th amendment which was a controversial amendment to pass. Even after its passage the income tax did not even effect most people until the 1950's and 1960's, up until that point only a certain percentage of Americans payed income tax (2). If we reduce our unnecessary spending through cutting certain programs (privatizing programs) and bringing our troops home we can reduce our taxes and even eliminate most taxes like the income tax. (1) (2)",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.7455382602059799,-0.5370497915804414,1.2090358401707677,224,False,0.5676864075201695
2,4,1151,Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,False,-4.0
15,13,1203,"Animals have a heart, brain,and can breathe just like us. I bet you if animals had the power to talk in our language they would all curse and start a riot. Most of the animals dont even know whats going on all they can think about is can you please let this pain go away. This world is about balance if you use rats then snakes wont have enough food. After snakes go down then hawks wont have enough food either and so on. Its not fair how us humans get to enjoy ourselves while tested animals are suffering.this is basically murder people. We cant abuse dogs or any pets but scientists can abuse animals for human needs. Humans are greedy selfish people. And most animals are cute innocent creatures like bunnies. If us humans wouldnt like to participate in these experiments why do animals. Are we just going to keep testing until the animals are endangered. After the animls are endangered i bet you they are going to make a commercial about saving the bunnies. Donate 5 dollars to this organization.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.4636578205262002,0.4997679487489946,0.1280702616228597,182,False,0.062434089632701945
18,5,30335,"I shall argue against gay marriage: 1) Gay Marriage is not marriage Simply calling a marriage a marriage does not mean it is a marriage. Marriage always has been a covenant between man and woman. It is by nature that a marriage is to unify a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman or a man and a man. 2) Gay Marriage goes against nature. Marriage serves two purposes: to unify and to procreate. A man and a man cannot create another human. Only a man and a woman can do that. Let me give you an analogy: say I have a chair. A chair, defined in a dictionary, is something used to sit on. That is the chair's nature. Not to stand on or throw. Standing on the chair or throwing the chair defeats the chair's purpose. You see, if you do anything else other than sit on the chair, you have a risk of breaking the chair or harming yourself. In a way, this chair is marriage. A marriage by nature is man and woman. Anything other than that defeats its purpose and risks to damage the beauty of marriage. 3) Gay Marriage, even if right in society's eyes, are wrong morally. From a religious standpoint, it is morally wrong and against God's will to support gay marriage. This is not saying that being gay is wrong, in fact, it might a good thing. However, the gay ACTS are not. Thank you for your time. This is all I will support for now.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.4964571410991854,0.5522257004361538,-0.05597863766820972,258,False,0.0005683126321053838
2,6,1151,Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
2,25,12749,"State funding of higher education is actually beneficial to universities. It allows universities to get on with their research and teaching without worrying about competing and spending money on getting students to attend. The money wasted in pursuit of high numbers of students is thus saved, as the state can tend to the needs of universities.[1] The idea that the state will simply neglect its universities is silly, because society relies on having capable professionals whose qualifications have value. It is always in the interest of the state to promote the success of its institutions of higher learning. [1] Greatrix, Paul. 2011. “University Isn’t Just a Business—and the Student Isn’t Always Right”. The Guardian. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/higher-education-netw...    ",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.5482685683975993,-0.4949655059491586,0.07252332404013119,117,False,0.049039924175388244
2,22,22177,"State funding of higher education is actually beneficial to universities. It allows universities to get on with their research and teaching without worrying about competing and spending money on getting students to attend. The money wasted in pursuit of high numbers of students is thus saved, as the state can tend to the needs of universities.1 The idea that the state will simply neglect its universities is silly, because society and therefore the state, relies on having capable professionals whose qualifications have value.  [1] Greatrix, Paul. 2011. “University Isn’t Just a Business—and the Student Isn’t Always Right”. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/higher­education­network/higher­education­network­blog/2011/mar/14/students­asconsumers  ​",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.4347786369914781,-0.7557508431512145,0.33600657086003444,99,False,-0.32765475727563476
2,3,43647,"The title of this debate is Resolved: that 'CFL bulbs are bad for everyone'. To win this debate I must show that CFL bulbs can be beneficial to some people. Pro must show that they can be beneficial to absolutely no one. CFL bulbs are beneficial to those who make money by selling them. People that make money are being benefited by that money. Money can be used to buy food, clothing, and basic necessities. So, one who makes money off CFL bulbs is obviously being benefited. The resolution has been negated as I have shown that contrary to the resolution, CFL bulbs can benefit those who make money off of the sale and distribution of them. Vote Con",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.4759262839332357,-0.3813456067434231,-0.8879230442633772,119,False,-0.681266405153211
2,9,18108,"A graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.3934658279598552,0.15304857582753914,0.9210573455473372,125,True,0.5625617266941357
2,11,1151,Abolishing Income Tax will grow the economy,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
2,15,1151,Income Tax is unjust - none of it goes to any public service,-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.7669655381339627,-1.61073985791315,-2.134693291953545,13,True,-1.7316089104043753
2,3,18018,"My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.",-0.2902637481279517,True,1.4743476643219209,0.4571962913220775,0.4536256359149745,289,False,0.9237341380350583
2,17,2300,"Google’s business is inseparable from basic human rights The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a UN conference, affirmed that access to information is a basic human right, a corollary to the freedom of opinion and expression as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[1] It is a right because access to information is often basic to human life; to how to live in society, to work and to educate ourselves. China ratified the Universal Declaration back in 1948 when it was accepted by the UN’s General Assembly, and was a party to the WSIS 2003 conference. This means that, if China is to be a responsible member of the international community, we can expect them to uphold the principles they publicly declare. Google’s mission is ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful’. Note that this mission happens to coincide with the basic human right of access to information. This is why Google’s choice to interfere with China’s domestic politics isn’t just ‘big business interfering with a state’s sovereign politics’ – it’s a case of a big business whose business model happens to be providing a basic human right the sovereign state should have, by its own accord, provided a long time ago. [1] World Summit on the Information Society, ‘Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium’, December 12, 2003. URL: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html  Last consulted: December 22, 2011  ",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.9474143353190224,-0.13509243481525138,1.805050419086924,245,False,1.0345986450381326
2,6,63,"Equality is a basic principle of democratic societies. From this it is clear that the government should spend the same amount on each person’s university education, regardless of which university they attend.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.33078436403101713,0.05746168937570384,-1.0504424701738957,32,True,-0.5086755054115714
15,8,3593,"Nature can not perform a test. If nature is doing anything and we record the result, it is an observation.[1] Observation is not a Test [2] To skip performing the test would not be the Scientific Method.[3] What you describe is counter to established definition and practices of the Scientific Method as taught by Universities and Science. """"As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes ""common sense"" and ""logic"" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day."" [4] ""Scientific knowledge can only advance when all scientists systematically use the same process to discover and disseminate new information."" [5] To state that some of the steps in the Scientific Method are not used, would break the actual process. That process would not longer be the Scientific Method. [3] The explanations you provide are drawing conclusion from observation with out testing is known as Inductive Reasoning.[6] Inductive reasoning known as universal inference. Inference from instances (I observe people bleed when cut) to a universal generalization (all people bleed when cut). I hope the readers after reviewing the references will see what The Scientific Method is and is not. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.4361092436804466,1.0043480837713612,0.9440457250915544,276,False,0.5985437962838831
18,6,20800,"Thank you for continuing this debate. Gay marriage is unnatural continued- As I have said before, marriage was created for a man and a women to interlock and create offspring. Gay marriage does is unnatural not only to nature, but our society in general. Of course definitions will change over time to suit the paths our society is taking, but this doesn't change the fact marriage was initially created for a man and a women to eventually create offspring. Gay marriage does not create a family: What I mean by this statement, is that Gay marriage does not create a natural family. Gay marriage is unnatural and does not create a proper, strong family. Gay marriage is the assurance of a sterile union to create more sterile unions, natural marriage is the making of a new generation to make a new generation, this is the difference. As for your ""Can't get pregnant"" and orphan argument, a proper family needs a mother and father figure, this is what creates strong future generations. Those who cannot create offspring don't even follow in line with the definition of marriage in the first place. Conclusion: My argument stays the same, gay marriage is unnatural and fails to create a real family. Pro has failed to list points, switched arguments from the actual issue, failed to counter many of my points and reasoning, failed to list sources to back up their statistics, etc. I have proven Pro to be wrong, and organized my arguments and points while doing so. Vote Con.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.6379070452215062,1.100284602388375,-0.1080287113104246,256,False,0.6333012758732823
15,4,34716,"Okay, I agree with everything my opponent said about supporting medical research. However, I also think animal researching should be justified in testing for purposes beyond medical research. I will be attacking the resolutions use of the word ""only"". First, some definitions medical-of or pertaining to the science or practice of medicine medicine is any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy. testing- A basis for evaluation or judgment:: all Definitions from dictionary.com unabridged. Now, I argue animal testing should be allowed for non medicinal uses such as psychology, agricultural and genetic testing. 1-Scientists constantly test animal psychology to better understand how the mind works. This testing has greatly increased our scientific knowledge. Large amounts of information on the mind has been developed from animal testing [1] 2- Farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. This testing has increased the amount of meat and dairy products we can get from animals, resulting in farmers making more money and people having to pay less for food. This positively benefits society as it helps solve world hunger. The less people have to pay for food the more they can eat. 3- Genetic manipulation- This links back to the basis of my opponents case. Its better to risk a 100 rats than a million humans. Scientists are testing various genetic manipulations in animals to see how it effects them. Animals are very similar genetically to humans. This testing could provide invaluable data for future manipulation of humans. Furthermore, even testing for products no meant for humans is beneficial. Farmers could test genetic manipulation on cows, for example, to produce higher meat and dairy product yields. 1-",1.1172508830020322,True,1.4434827130235557,1.426162368671403,0.13660356014688654,289,False,1.170997191588406
2,14,40996,"But what relationship, if any, does economic inequality have with financial crises? In his seminal work on the Great Depression, Galbraith pointed to the severe income inequality in the United States - what he called the ""bad distribution of income"" - as one of the five ""weaknesses"" in the economy that ""had an especially intimate bearing on the ensuing disaster. In 1929 the rich were indubitably rich. The figures are not entirely satisfactory, but it seems certain that the 5 per cent of the population with the highest incomes in that year received approximately one third of all personal income. The proportion of personal income received in the form of interest, dividends, and rent - the income, broadly speaking, of the well-to-do - was about twice as great as in the years following the Second World War. Raymond H. Brescia. The Cost of Inequality: Social Distance, Predatory Conduct, and the Financial Crisis. New York University Annual Survey of American Law: 2011.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.021803671632869732,0.003528432727038865,0.1995207014377092,161,True,0.07725495278392536
2,8,1726,visheshk forfeited this round. Pro Miss universe is held once year because it's a special event the biggest events you have to wait to see it that's what makes it special and other words models only represent what there endorsing while miss universe represent the universe basically,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,47,False,-4.0
2,4,1726,Miss universe is held once year because it's a special event the biggest events you have to wait to see it that's what makes it special and other words models only represent what there endorsing while miss universe represent the universe basically,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,42,True,-4.0
2,10,1151,Abolishing income tax empowers families,-1.3849973501179391,True,-2.3484140401660807,-1.3493440248277908,-2.0106366956190738,5,True,-2.2029488415588157
2,12,1151,Income Tax is a cause of inequity in society,-1.3849973501179391,True,-1.9604938252249409,-1.052429554280398,-2.446975906907665,9,True,-2.0956351385426597
2,18,1151,Income Tax encourages illegal behaviour,-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.3233357085434865,-0.6056943005127583,-1.3728906256380855,5,True,-1.2776201622920587
2,5,37231,"You forget, God wrote history in advance when he created the universe. Basically, if the universe was a computer program, he programmed all of the actions it would take, then he executed it (creation). Therefore, he created the future (omnipotent) and as a result knows it completely (omniscient).",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.5644689789090517,-0.022187222054969903,-0.9648086125912708,48,False,-0.6002882958721334
2,6,9034,"Well, first of all let me explain to you the theory breifly. It is not a theory explaining what caused the creation of the Universe, but a theory relating its evolution. The first instant is defined by scientists to be t=1*10^-43 seconds, and t being the time that passed since the start of the Universe.That's 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, What happens is that in the first instants of the Universe it was so small and dense that regular physics didn't apply to it, quantum physics did. This is known to scientists as quantum cosmology, quantum physics being the branch of physics studying subatomic particles. At this time matter and energy were basically the same thing as subatomic particles. Later on the Universe expanded and cooled a little, letting energy and matter become different things. This is known to scientists as baryogenesis when the observable type of matter, baryonic matter was formed. In this there was more matter than antimatter, so most particles anhialated themselves, releasing photons or light. After this happened it was the beginning of particle cosmology where our Universe's Unified Force separated into the four basic forces of the Universe: -Electromagnetism -Strong Nuclear force -Weak Nuclear force -Gravity. this happened in t=1*10^-11s Then standard cosmology happened in t=0.1 s as the universe kept expanding and it began getting cooler and cooler and soon enough hydrogen and helium atoms formed out of the roaming protons and electrons.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.3972672139086777,-0.07555988224129974,-0.808183856480332,236,False,-0.18351072019028214
2,28,1151,"The government can stimulate change by using indirect taxes to increase prices so that demand is limited. This is already being done for petrol, alcohol and tobacco, but it could be used much wider if, at the same time, direct taxes were cut. This is difficult at present when the government has lost financial control and is therefore desperate to increase taxation in any form. But fuel taxes could be further increased if the basic allowance of income tax and certain social payments were increased at the same time. Then only those who persisted in using fuel excessively would actually pay more. With income tax gone employers can afford to expand thus creating more jobs. The National Minimum wage as it stands is a joke. I was earning about the same 25 years ago for unskilled labour. Instead of taking income tax and then crediting it back to individuals, that must incur administration costs, let everyone keep what they earn, except £20 a week National Insurance, a system that can only work if the majority of the workforce are paying into it, which abolishing income tax will attain. Income tax was originally collected to fund the Monarch's of the day so they could go forth and conquer. Once the war was won the tax was dissolved, that was until the Napoleonic wars when suddenly it became part and parcel of everyday life and has been unquestioned ever since. Getting rid of it gives more money to the pocket of the people who will then spend more, keeping demand high prices low. There's no need to raise other taxes because of this. The tax is unfair and not needed.",-1.0722163209779427,True,1.862059143414512,1.4793249869550915,0.6763267853058618,278,True,1.5544912751855655
18,2,31396,"To begin, I will state my reasons for supporting marriage between homosexuals. my first point is that there is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered ""unnatural"" in evolutionary terms. My second argument would be from an economic stand point. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called ""marriage penalty""), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City's economy and $184 million to the State's economy. Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were ""as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents ."" sources: economic argument: adoption argument: My opponent now has the opportunity to refute what I have said and present his argument.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.3055663384580414,1.5589447417304547,1.7088817192568178,225,True,1.7580789912188637
2,11,29978,"The segregation of children by social class perpetuates income inequality. Education can be thought of as a ‘positional good’, where what’s important is how much you have of it compared to others. The aim of an education is to be further ahead in the ‘queue’ for university places, jobs, and social status. By giving a better education to the children of the rich, the state allows income inequality to pass from generation to generation. If income inequality can be justified, it is surely only because it arises from the differing abilities and hard-work of different people. But if the inequality is being sustained on the basis of parental wealth, it cannot be justified – some people are rich and others are poor simply from the luck of the draw.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.3757048669501435,0.5551419225700867,0.6598908300315808,129,True,0.9978586757104011
15,1,42384,"Because it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research. You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals, and i only think it alright to test on rats not endangered species.",1.1172508830020322,True,-2.1986573031805983,-0.05661067987509664,-2.2703373281689316,45,True,-1.6866139783094551
2,2,41643,"I have to disappoint Con,but my arguments will not be about the observable universe,but the whole universe. Ok,so let's begin We all know that the universe is huge and that it is expanding. So the question is asked,where is the center of the universe? And no matter where you are in the universe,in the two different time references,everything will appear to move away from you at the same rate. Take a look at this example at v Top layer represents 5% expansion. If you were to line up the blue and red dot,it would appear as the center of the expansion (you can drag the layer). You can do that with any other dot,and it will become the center of the expansion,the center of the universe. So basically,the center of the universe is...everywhere. Let's apply that to earth. Since the same can be done with earth,then it is the center of the universe. Earth is scientifically center of the universe. And even you are the center of the universe,we all are. I hope this made you all feel special. Vote Pro. I would like to thank Vsauce for inspiring me to make this debate",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.3111039837354819,-0.07253086732545064,0.24333043442517105,194,True,0.1777003557023233
2,11,1058,"The SIM card taxation is an inequitable model for Tanzania’s poor. The tax fee proposed will have detrimental effects to low-income users, whereby the cost exceeds the amount of money they spend on their mobile. For example considering the cost of tax, living, and mobile phone usage, the poor may be placed in a vulnerable position. Evidence suggests 8 million out of 22 million SIM card owners will be affected - with the rural poor feeling the greatest economic burden[1]. The burden of taxation may simply mean the poor can’t afford a phone. Taxation cannot be promoted without recognising the constraints on household savings and income. Universal benefits are debatable when the initial disposable income is polarised to start - the price tag is not-so-small for some. [1] See further readings: BBC, 2013; Luhwago, 2013.  ",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.13559701844061994,0.30006165491354864,0.8695306750376425,136,False,0.4996394435856653
2,12,42414,"Distinctions can be still be made between those who entered university simply for a more ‘rounded’ education or as a stop gap before working full-time, and those who attended university for the sole purpose of furthering their career. It is beneficial that a crowded marketplace means that people are having to stay on at university longer in order to gain more unique qualifications – this means that those in the top jobs have far more knowledge and education than they would have 50 years ago when further qualifications were not needed for distinction.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.08553871558915521,0.7160921261475145,-0.3564878365442189,93,False,0.17296123481305914
2,9,29546,"Having children is such an important aspect of most people’s lives that it should be considered a right. For many people, their status as parents is a key part of their identity, and their devotion towards their children is indicative of how important parenting is to them. The right to start a family is recognized in article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   However, this right is apportioned unevenly. Couples who are unable to have children naturally, either because of medical infertility or because they are a same-sex couple, are unable to conceive children unless they are wealthy enough to afford private IVF treatment. This may affect many people given the extremely high cost of IVF treatment. Being unable to exercise this right should not depend on income, so the state must financially assist couples who are unable to afford treatment.   And even if we believe this right is not basic, and more a choice of a lifestyle, if the state has the possibility to ensure it to everyone, why not maximize rights and make as many people happy as possible.  ",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.2631347022244386,1.1475595633977254,1.5758481315918522,196,True,1.5316544412949593
2,16,32845,"The policy states that a degree has to be from a 'good' University - meaning that degrees from ex-polytechnic Universities will not be counted. While in theory a degree from a more prestigious University would be worth more as it would be more challenging and better taught, it is also going to depend a lot on whether you have the money to get into the University, whether you can relocate to the University - influenced by income again, distance and quite a few disabilities - and whether that University happens to teach the exact course you want to study. A degree from a less prestigious University is still a sign that you are academically competent and work hard, so why wouldn't it be accepted? Elitism about relevant details - ie. grade at University in a relevant subject - is a far cry from elitism about prestige and keeping up appearances. No child is going to appreciate being corrected for using their regional accent. Regional variations are acceptable in spoken English and children will be taught not to use them in written English no matter who the teacher is.",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.3447432472449872,0.3008685301951001,0.9306226189085146,188,True,0.9949911226234514
10,10,33373,"Medical Marijuana can treat patients of cancer and AIDs, but it leads to more problems. Andrea Bathwell, who used to be the Deputy Director for the White House once said, """"By characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal, state-sanctioned, Saturday afternoon fun, legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. They undercut the goals of stopping the initiation of drug use to prevent addiction.... Children entering drug abuse treatment routinely report that they heard that 'pot is medicine' and, therefore, believed it to be good for them."" Even if marijuana is used for medical purposes, it leads to addiction and that's why it should not be legalized for treatment.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.6400815420351275,-0.15133138458423218,0.3262091621314514,112,False,0.3107404651135392
12,1,39355,"Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.08343921734626103,0.4681019189618008,0.32252251659291264,118,True,0.32901737729769287
10,5,15859,"1)Around half a million Americans use medical marijuana, also this only includes 12 states given that not many states allow medical marijuana. 2)According to everyone who uses medical marijuana it benefits them. Also I've already posted a source that links to a couple dozen studies that show that medical marijuana has real health benefits. Again my opponent is making a huge logical fallacy. He is saying that because medical marijuana doesn't provide medical benefits for every disease that the diseases it does provide benefits shouldn't count. I said this in my earlier post but clearly my opponent decided to ignore it or didn't even bother to read my post. There is nothing wrong with regulating the medical industry; what is wrong is the government banning medical marijuana. This is wrong because it is the government telling doctors how to treat patients and it is an example of the government telling sick people that they cannot have effective medicine. My opponent is using another logically fallacy. Every medicine has its complications, and side effects, this does not make those medicines worthless saying so is ridiculous. My opponent is using another logically fallacy. He is saying that because most societies haven't legalized Medical marijuana that the health benefits of MM are invalid. It would be like saying that in the 1400 since almost no nation had democracy that democracy would be a bad thing. Even my opponent admits there are scientific double blind studies that show MM having medical benefits, therefore even my opponent agrees with my side.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.8950173189494958,0.3781254916028615,0.6783246899821732,256,True,0.7462560199068072
18,4,20012,"Again, the supreme court was never given any of this power, not to define marriage, not to include gay/bisexual people under the 14th ammendment or the Civil rights act of 1964. The Supreme Cout is given very few powers, those are 1) handle cases which have been appealed through the lower courts 2) facilitate law suits between states and against the federal goveronment and 3) enforce the law. Never to expound a law, define a law, interpret a law, etc.For this reason, the supreme courts decision acknowladging gay marriages is null and void, my opponent cannot come up with any clause showing otherwise. The Supreme Court had no power to grant the American people any ""right to marriage,"" as they claimed in Loving v. Virginia, or otherwise, only to enforce the law as courts do, that means they nullified state laws prohibiting interracial marriages as they violate the constitution, they weren't using their power by this since the supreme court has no legal power, they were only using legal power which was already there, i.e. the 14th ammendment. And yes, this debate deeals with wether or not gay marriages should be acknowladged, the resolution isn't that it is immoral, thhis was only a key point backing up another point. Since the original definition of marriage is beteen a man and a woman, this is the correct definition, not definitions assighned later, for tis reason, gay marriage is not genuine marriage, and thus should not be recognized as such. Though gay marriages appeared before in history, they only go back to Ancient Rome, not when marriage was invented, thus, the original definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, and in no other form. For that reason, gay marriage is not genuine marriage.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5770041189393679,2.0819580104430218,0.05104312757743085,294,True,1.076145296772974
10,1,23959,"Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana helps cure cancer so why stop it. Im not saying that marijuana is a good thing in this world, but it helps cure the ill. there is some types of marijuana that are good and some types that are bad. Marijuana has been around for centuries and helped cured lots of people through that period of time.Cancer kills people so why stop that? Medical marijuana can help with alot of types of cancer. There was over 658,000 arrest alone for having the usage of marijuana, that would cost the court a lot of time and money, so why spend more money when the united states is already in debt. There is a lot of people in this world that should use medical marijuana for their sickness/illness. Marijuana is a lot safer than alcohol. that not to say that it is completely risk free, it much less addictive and does not cause nearly as much physical damage. Some people do become psychologically dependent on marijuana, and it doesn't mean that its a cure for substance abuse problems. But, from a harm reduction standpoint, it can help. Marijuana can be used to treat and prevent the eye disease known as """"glaucoma"""" which increases pressure in the eye, damaging the eyeball, causing loss of vision. Some people would agree with my claim, and some people wouldnt. For example people would say that more people get arrested, then get treated with marijuana on glaucoma. It helps with cancer, so why stop, Do you want people to die?",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.7454863870041415,-0.25348401096977297,-0.09368438236570073,257,True,0.575587921225143
10,1,30183,"I want to thank Naraniro for this debate. First you say ""Marijuana addiction is rare"" That's true and 6%-10% of people become addicted to it. However you can't get high on it because of the lack of THC. So getting addicted to medical marijuana is extremely unlikely. Also Marijuana doesn't kill you unlike alcohol. They found in a study it takes about 20,000 to 40,000 times what most people use at once to kill you. Alcohol only takes about 10 times more then most use at once. Aside from that marijuana is used by doctors to treat seizures, crohn's disease, Nausea from chemo patients, and many many more things. In fact there was one story about a child who had almost 200 seizures a day. Nothing the doctors gave him worked except medicinal marijuana. Would you have that kid and thousand like him still go through there major medical issues just because you personally don't think they should they should be allowed to. As for the rest of your argument it's based on the false notion that medical marijuana is addictive which it isn't I'll leave links at the end of this argument. Maybe next time you will do a five second Google search because if you did you would know medical marijuana isn't addictive. Also link your source for your numbers. Sources (Recreational marijuana addiction rates) (difference between medical and street marijuana) (lethal drug study) (medical marijuana uses)",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.445045913058111,0.5796337241177171,0.4145922369162657,239,True,0.5462309596373579
15,6,8334,Animal testing is terrible and honestly has to need anymore because of the new scientific discoveries and id like to prove my point. To stop the horrible testing done on animals,0.4916888247220394,True,-1.343857227076002,-0.7619893519103739,-1.1804860853430357,31,False,-1.2756906937093058
10,1,13557,I challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.5652739441931133,-0.7268181046591049,-0.4334636234286847,75,True,-0.6757701891789246
10,3,28265,"I am talking about Medical Marijuana not all marijuana in general. (Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barley use it but won't use other drugs. ( apparently my opponent hasn't been reading my arguments, because this was brought up in the first round and when I goggled my opponent' sources will causes memory loss and I came up with an info page on Prozac don't believe me here's the link so my opponent basically lied in round 2 and made up something for a different source. Your source for your last round is a police officer in San Francisco who has no experience in the medical field so you can through that argument out the window. You ignore the facts that it's used for the terminally ill. The US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the British Medical Association released several in 1997 on the potential therapeutic uses of medical marijuana. opponent is just being crazy I brought up a source that states if legalized less kids would be tempted to try it and my opponent just says, ""Nope that's wrong."" The Avvo administration is more creditable then a teenage in High School. As my source says that drug cartels would be crippled because their main cash crop is marijuana and once legalized in the U.S. you would see more crackdowns on the cartels.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.0209186620940838,-0.5241273251570846,0.4689641451161847,233,True,0.3859435042942609
10,4,33750,"======== Introduction ======== I will be arguing that Medical Marijuana should be illegal while my opponent will argue that medical marijuana should be and/or remain legal. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as but not necessarily limited to AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc. If my opponent feels that there is something I haven't made clear then tell me during the first round of this debate and I will be more than happy to clarify as best as I can. I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will let my opponent start his argument first. ====== Definition ====== Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. Medical: Relating to the study or practice of medicine.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.2262383084999227,-0.15846465028966822,-0.8452145029824559,150,False,-0.47941751656386417
10,2,13557,"I would like to thank my opponent for responding. First of all my opponent points to where his source says ""medical marijuana is not right for every patient."" If you have ever seen a drug commercial on TV they say that about just about everything, while they are listing off the long list of side effects. Morphine is a drug often prescribed as an anesthetic or painkiller, yet it has worse side effects than marijuana and is more addictive and is an opiate. [1] [2] [3] There are proven benefits with less problems. [4] [5] It helps with cancer and is less devastating to health than chemo. [6] "" Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory."" Which is why people taking it shouldn't be allowed to drive or do certain tasks that require high levels of motor skills, just like some other drugs. ""Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia."" This is also true of many antidepressants when prescribed to teenagers. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke"" There are other ways to ingest marijuana rather than just smoking it. For consistency, if we were going to make marijuana illegal for medical purposes shouldn't opiates such as morphine and oxycodone and codeine also be illegal even as prescriptions? I thank my opponent and look forward to the next round. 1 2 3 4 5 6",0.8044698538620362,True,0.8305073860105185,0.5512904335568453,1.3502256756588071,272,True,1.0511676268304582
10,3,33371,"You say for painkillers, the amount can be changed according to person. Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you take enough of that certain amount you get the same result. Painkillers can be just as addictive as marijuana or other recreational drugs. You're argument seems quite repetitive, but I will try to argue with what I have. Recreational drugs, the one we're debating marijuana, can kill just as painkillers do. Yes, if you get hooked to medical marijuana you will need more and more for each high, same goes for painkillers. Everything in this world can be misused. The intentional purpose of medical marijuana is proven to help, and why keep something off the market that helps? If medicine was so effective why do they keep making more? My point exactly. Medical marijuana can be helpful when used correctly, and medical marijuana is now being grown in a special way to lower the ""high"" chemicals one wants.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.5389805663547331,0.4607483985649445,0.27203493272207857,160,True,0.48193467495117004
12,2,5096,"Well it depends on your nature, where you from, and what is your blood type and many other things. But we all are different and i cannot say for sure that we all should eat meat or be vegetarian. But i can say that everybody has his/her own preferences. For example, some people feel themselved better when they become vegetarian, bot some people cannot live without meat.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,67,False,-4.0
10,9,32236,"Response 1: What supports your claim that marijuana dealers should be the least of the issue? Saying what would happen to the drug if it was legalized does not address my initial premise which raised the issue of the dealers being unemployed if marijuana was legalized. It doesn't look like my P1 was actually addressed. Response 2: Cigarettes were used as an example by me because they were brought up by you. However, the issue itself does not involve them. My argument was that marijuana increases the probability of lung damage and the eradication of cigarettes is not relevant to it. Your red herring is furthered when you bring up the cost of something that has nothing to do with the legalization of marijuana. Response 3: While you have given no proof of the side effects of legal medications that can replace marijuana, here is proof that marijuana is no exception when it comes to negative side effects: Marijuana, if legalized, would not necessarily be a better alternative to other medicines because just as other medicines, it has risks and side effects. Response 4: I would expect society to have trouble utilizing marijuana with closed eyes. My argument is that marijuana should not be legalized. I did not bash medical use nor did I support drug dealers. Bringing up the issue of putting thousands of street dealers out of a job supported my argument as did my claim that marijuana's medical use is not more effective than that of other medicines. My initial arguments stand to support my conclusion that marijuana should not be legalized. This debate is over as we are only supposed to have 3 rounds. Let's both write ""ok"" for the next round so that the debate will be concluded and move into its voting period.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.1797438529761102,1.1556625542446264,1.221072704449126,299,False,1.3638808228558115
18,1,15636,"Preface This is only my 2nd debate on gay marriage, the first of which I lost. Please be gentle =) Full Topic In a just society, gay marriages would not be permitted. Terms Just - based on what is morally or ethically right and/or fair Gay marriage - a legally binding union conferring on two same-sex partners the same legal rights, status, and benefits that ""traditional"" marriage would typically confer upon opposite-sex couples. Traditional marriage - A typical marriage that was found in 1950s America Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. No Kritiks 5. No trolling 6. No semantics abuse 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 8. The BOP is on Pro: Pro must uphold the idea that same-sex marriages ought not to be permitted. Con must negate to the point where there is no logically sound reason to be Pro for being against gay marriage 9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Structure First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used the discretion of the debater. Don't go too hard on me ;)",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.4745959444516056,0.4793681307118358,-0.19632915367760256,234,True,-0.07470394777803106
10,3,26412,"The long term effects of using Marijuana is upper respitory problems, immune system problems and may play a roll in causing cancer. My opponent pointed out erlyer in round two that I only had listed short effects off marijuana. They are still side effects from the drug and can still harm some people. Marijuana is good for treating anxiety disorder but there is a drug called Lexapro(excitalopram oxalate) which does the same as marijuana would do. Why would we need to legalize marijuana when we already have drugs to treat illments that marijuana can treat? www.Lexapro.com Schedule I drugs have a high tendency for abuse and have no accepted medical use. This drug has a high tendency to be abused even by medical users, as any other proscription drugs it would add to the amount of quote ""Frequent flyers"" that come to a doctors offices and emergency rooms just to get the drug. I would like to point out to the voters of this debate that my opponent has yet to post why marijuana should be legalized. He keeps saying that my argument wont hold. He has yet to persuade me on why it should be used as a medical treatment. The whole spew of how my argument has no meaning may be true but can you expect the readers to vote for my opponent if they know no facts on why it would be a good drug? I urge all readers to vote for pro due to the fact that my opponent has given little fact to the effectiveness of marijuana as a medical drug.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.590030741930643,0.8115733642323623,1.6624851627598731,266,True,1.5675068330295263
12,30,25519,Nowadays it is becoming a trend that people are becoming vegetarians and at times many reports are also coming out in the newspapers which illustrate the usefulness of vegetarianism. But this does nowhere mean that food items which fall under the non-vegetarian category are not needed. In fact it is rather more advisable to have a balanced diet with proper inclusion of meat and other non-vegetarian items. Non-vegetarian food items are also having certain nutrient value and they are also highly required for our health. Thus having a diet which fully avoids non-vegetarian items can never be a complete diet for any human being. One should always know the difference between a vegetarian diet and a non-vegetarian diet. A balanced diet should always have a proper combination of both of these. Thus being vegetarian is not so good for health.,0.8044698538620362,True,0.9135868530131888,-0.16401694056125274,-0.3978275820388487,140,True,0.14449167182746273
10,2,14506,"Thank you for laying down those rules. Some of this is of my own knowledge. Many of the things that Marijuana helps It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health according to a study published in the Journal of American Medical Association in January 2012, marijuana does not impair lung function and can even increase lung capacity. Marijuana use can prevent epileptic seizures, a 2003 study showed. A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading, researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported in 2007. Most well known is that weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite (2) Marijuana is known to DECREASE nausea, vomiting and any stomach discomfort. They you medical marijuana for chemotherapy clients. (1) Second Argument Conclusion Many people are sick and marijuana is way that can help them, but are unable to get it. Legalizing marijuana will make it available to those in need of it. Good luck on your rebuttal! I'm looking forward to seeing your argument. Sources: (1) (2)",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.9116831614580182,0.4487211756872727,1.0013759184968134,180,True,0.9054698670308675
15,26,17204,"Independent enquiries!? There's too much money at stake for an enquiry to be independent. About as independent as the enquiry into the Saudi/BAe corruption scandal. Those who regulate vivisection are few and overworked. That is if they have not already been corrupted - as is the case in the US with the FDA and other regulatory bodies. With the millions spent on lobbying governments this situation is unlikely to change soon. £11 million was enough to buy the British Government. Are we supposed to applaud that most research is done on rodents? They feel pain and fear just as much as humans. -------------- Animal-experiments have never been scientifically evaluated: The Toxicology Working Group of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in 2002 recommended that ""the reliability and relevance of all existing animal tests should be reviewed as a matter of urgency."" The recently published Nuffield Council report on animal experiments recommended: ""At present, there is a relatively limited number of useful systematic reviews and meta-reviews that address the question of the scientific validity of animal experiments and tests. In principle, it would therefore be desirable to undertake further systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate more fully the predictability and transferability of animal models"" This Government came to power promising a Royal Commission on animal experimentation. Yet Home Office Minister Caroline Flint stated in 2004 that the Government ""has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so.""",1.1172508830020322,True,0.039021768056640455,0.359780206546854,0.5867654335676707,253,False,0.37350892408681874
10,1,28265,"1st off Medical Marijuana can treat Alzheimer's Disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Crohn's Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome. ( Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barly use it but won't use other drugs. ( Not only that, but 800,000 people each year are arrested for possesion only and if legalized it will decrease the jail birds and it will decrease drug cartel crime in america. Already 17 US states have legalized the drug, meaning that these states have found use in the drug. Your move!",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.7767411222620385,0.4524831821124645,-0.53435087480211,103,True,-0.3248987998388625
10,5,24565,"If you wish to accept, please apply in the comments section. 4 rounds, 10k characters and open voting with a minimum ELO of 1,500. Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana. Definitions: [1] Medical Marijuana- Marijuana used to relieve pain and treat disease. [2] Legal/ Legalize- actions or conditions that are permitted or authorized by law. Structure: Round 1: Con's rules and TOU while Pro accepts. Round 2: Opening Arguments, NO Rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion. No Semantics No trolling No profanity Sources 1. ( 2. (",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,94,False,-4.0
10,1,19652,"Marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. 15 of 50 US States and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. Scientific studies show that for many years marijuana has pointed to medicinal help. Six of these studies sponsored by U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrate that smoking marijuana reduces nausea and reduces pain for many patients, especially those facing cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. Plus thousands of patients and their families and doctors have experienced and witnessed the medical benefits of marijuana. They have testified at public hearings and appeared in the media with these findings. Too many people are suffering from these diseases and if marijuana can help them, we should legalize it so they can get better.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.3034897374189094,0.5590187861992447,0.987904350407886,143,True,1.0960082272441118
10,1,4186,"I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure: Round One: Acceptance and stating your stance Round Two: Main Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals and Conclusion Both jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5089168640664884,-0.8595136936128754,0.09110865699382313,98,True,-0.0911510068404324
10,2,37174,"Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects. Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them, especially Americans suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects. Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana's side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug. Marijuana use is the result of informed consent in which individuals have decided that the benefits of use outweigh the risks, especially since, for most Americans, the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.753845229912612,0.8328644135770878,2.4681695577364424,240,True,1.9648907540621188
12,2,40356,"First, you can't base your theories on our ""cavemen ancestors"" We live in a new era where development is key. Just because cavemen ate rocks doesn't mean we should start serving rocks to each other. And if you really believe that meat tastes good go ahead just remember that meat from mcdonalds promotes cancer.Yea, that McChicken can kill you Vegetarians in your mind might be anorexic, but you can't base you reasoning of stereotypes. Vegetarian people become vegan for all kinds of reasons. If you go back and see my claim it says the lifestyle is better not necessarily the people who Choose it. Animal cruelty only begins because there are so many people who demand to eat meat that no one cares for the animals. It works this way demand goes up then care for animals goes down. I apologize for plagiarism i truly thought that using the statistics and Harvard study results was permitted even after I credited Harvard. Please truly pick who you think had the more organized argument and good refutation. May the best man/woman win. Thank you for your time.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.38078892178046136,0.8297599086671114,0.6279444355152529,185,True,0.7020099219977831
18,2,30375,"I was under the impression that we were debating whether gay marriage should be tolerated in any place, apparently pro just wants to focus on the United States, which I'm fine with. My argument on female gay marriage still stands however. Also, what negative effect would gay marriage have on AIDs transmission? When any couple get married they (mostly) become monogamous, banning marriage would only lead to cases where couples that would have otherwise only been having sexual relations with one person, would now be having casual sex with more. Getting married, whether gay or straight, leads to the elimination of the high risk behavior that exposes all of us to things like STDs. ""Researchers estimated that constitutional bans on gay marriage which are currently in place in 31 states raise the infection rate by four cases per 100,000 people"" (Milan, Francis, 09) [4]. In addition, legalizing gay marriage reduces the stigma surrounding homosexuality, removing barriers to access for HIV testing. An estimated 10% of people infected with HIV don't even know it [5]; reducing the need for these individuals to hide from society increases our ability to get them treated sooner and more effectively. ...If Con has any other reasons for denying same sex couple's the right to marry, I'd still love to hear them. [4] - [5] -",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.26530838135541474,1.6610725278663128,0.3168678087280308,220,True,0.6871685369645527
10,8,33373,"The FDA recently reported that there were not scientific studies that support The use of medical marijuana. If a physician prescribes it in an area where it isn't even legal, they could lose their licenses. There wouldn't be a problem with the FDA is there wasn't an issue with using medical marijuana as a treatment.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.8334749472690165,0.7002571100292507,0.3610683332256421,55,False,0.10282158685666176
10,6,17781,"The FDA recently reported that there were not scientific studies that support The use of medical marijuana. If a physician prescribes it in an area where it isn't even legal, they could lose their licenses. There wouldn't be a problem with the FDA is there wasn't an issue with using medical marijuana as a treatment.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.09501364887945728,0.6048521568331829,-0.5903761964523142,55,False,0.04607685559162823
10,1,4718,"Definitions: Medical marijuana: marijuana used for medical purposes Effective: successful in producing a desired result I don't think clarification is needed. First round acceptance, (and for pro): definitions, and rules. I await a fun, and appropriate, debate.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.1103335088062365,-0.16754693512368682,-1.213470606734637,37,True,-0.9585008024209175
10,6,28265,"Marijuana is a major concern to the United States. Marijuana, if allowed into the country, would spread like wildfire throughout the US. Recovering addicts would have relapses, more addicts would be created, and rehab facilities may be forced to stop taking in marijuana addicts. Also, Marijuana is unnecessary. Other, less powerful medication can accomplish the same thing, though to a lesser degree, without the major negative repurcussions of Marijuana. Marijuana must not come back to the US.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.7586557767578357,0.6419120133375493,-0.18651276500775704,77,False,0.46879848365048304
15,7,8334,"People say that animal testing is okay because it helps us. But it doesn't really help us anymore. The inner workings of a rat and a human may be similar, but they are no means identical. When it comes to drug discovery and development, these limitations can jeopardize every segment of the pharmaceutical pipeline, from synthesis to prescription. Side effects are missed, and millions of dollars are wasted. Even if a new chemical entity is deemed safe at the animal stage, it still only has 8 percent chance of being approved form human use. Also, the ultimate crash test dummy has been invented by military scientists and will eventually replace live testing on animals such as pigs which are regularly blown up and dismembered in the search for more lethal mutations hundreds of scientists are making medicines from chemicals found in sea plants and animals. Once scientists find useful chemicals, they can often copy them in a lab without killing any animals. Plus,less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals. According to the former scientific executive of Huntington Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree ""5% of the time."" Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%",1.4300319121420288,True,0.8893660890160499,1.3533874574190818,1.4591436439402303,218,False,1.4231777359629878
10,4,32236,"Addressing P1: If you want to keep marijuana illegal, the marijuana dealers should be the least of the issue. if it was legalized like it is in certain states like Colorado and California it could be moved from the black market and taxed.< Addressing P2: According to your argument it raises your probability of getting lung cancer, being around a person smoking such as second hand smoking could also raise your risk however I don't see society trying to eradicate cigarettes. Especially at the fact that it is very expensive.< Addressing P3: A lot of legal medications have side effects and though may treat symptoms may cause problems in other areas which would make an individual get hooked on more addictive medication. With people with terminal illnesses it subtracts that.< Addressing P4: Medical marijuana use is actually unique off the fact that it has been utilized in higher amounts since society has opened their eyes. Your argument also goes from supporting the drug dealers to bashing medical use.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.5681571445154308,0.2265116755998027,0.8032478146863924,168,True,0.6103168020113872
10,3,10611,"Bringing Marijuana into a school is an ignorant and pathetic act and you condoning it and using it as an argument is quite sad. Not everyone who gets caught with marijuana commits suicide, this is an ignorant generalization. As for the deportation if they were not legal citizens it is more than just to deport them. Marijuana is still a drug and bringing it around minors is irresponsible in the first place. In order for marijuana legalization to work the people must start to take full responsibility for there actions. One major reason why marijuana is not legal yet is the dumb stoner stereotypes. See drug testing can still be done even if marijuana's legal. An employer should be able to test for whatever they want. Now lets stick to the topic of marijuana. Could you imagine the amount of jobs the marijuana industry could create? Coffee shops that supply and employ those 18 and older. A significant tax revenue from each of those coffee shops could help save many economically struggling cities. Look what the medical marijuana industry has done to California. Its capitalism at its best although i know you don't like money but most do. I will now allow my opponent another round of his babbling.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.1846303602693575,-0.12546312840388182,0.4008743891746913,209,True,0.569969771418711
10,1,39477,"Medical Marijuana has been clearly demonstrated by many studies to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of our most disabling medical conditions including multiple AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.3707322958609441,0.13211304280134506,-0.3611295653362568,35,True,0.05004398704189376
10,2,31038,"I am assuming rebuttals in Rd 3, so I will make my own contentions in this round. 1. Marijuana is a non-lethal drug. Virtually no one has died from smoking marijuana. Stephen Sidney, MD, associate director for research for Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., in the Sept 20 issue of The British Medical Journal states that ""the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality,"" No one dies from a 'fatal marijuana overdose'. Since it cant kill you, why make it illegal? 2. Marijuana has relatively mild side effects. It is also non-toxic to humans. Dr. Mark Sircus says this in regards to marijuana use, ""...a low risk profile is evident from the literature available. Serious complications are very rare..."". 4. Marijuana is almost never addictive. 'In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research to be performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their conclusions: they found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in the medical sense of the word. They also did not find any evidence marijuana led to morphine, heroin or cocaine addiction.'- CNN News .In fact, tobacco is three times as addictive, according to Dr. Sanjay Gupta. 5. Alcohol and cigarettes are addictive, but they are legal. If we want to be consistent in our values, then its a no-brainer that marijuana should be legalized. 6. Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If we can have guns, and cigs, and beer, and play football (linked to CTE and fatality), then why not?",0.1789077955820434,True,1.6546820538909488,0.843406708939395,0.4030672199804171,262,True,1.124876862330703
12,7,226,"Rebuttal #1 It's basic economics. In a free market production is determined by supply and demand. If less people eat meat businessmen will respond by making less than they otherwise would, and so raising less livestock over time. Saying vegetarianism is wasteful because they aren't using the meat is like saying abstention from any given product is wasteful because the individual is choosing not to buy the product and put it to use. If that really was wasteful we'd be in trouble, because as much as we consume each individual still does not buy even a majority of available products in the economy. Rebuttal #2 If one more person is vegetarian it tilts the market towards it being more productive to use that grain and other resources for other purposes such as bread for humans, so there is no waste. See my point on #1 about the market. Rebuttal #3 Iron and Protein can easily be supplemented in health food stores. Some would prefer not to do this, but that's a personal decision. Rebuttal #4 There is no waste being made by vegetarianism. Whether or not vegetarianism is big enough to make any real changes to the economy it is not wasting anything, because the market takes care of changes in people's preferences. Furthermore, not every vegetarian cares about the slaughter houses. Some vegetarians are apolitical and simply do not like eating meat. Saying vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat is like saying disliking onions is a bad excuse to not eat onions. A person's personal preferences regarding food are never a ""bad excuse"" to not eat it, because our personal tastes are subjective.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.1318288459062657,1.2445514374087718,1.9376738150207489,277,False,1.2990316641798345
17,4,8030,"UM, I NEVER SAID THAT POLICE OFFICERS CANT HAVE GUNS!Do you even read my arguemnts?In my second mandate I say this-""Guns will only be able to be obtained by police officers or other law enforcement branches with consent from either the chief of police or the head body of that organization. ""This says the police officers get their guns, but the unstable ones or the ones that can't do their job will not be allowed to keep their guns.So in other words, every police officer gets a gun. Only those that can no longer do their job will not keep their guns.Today, police offficers are dissmised if they cannot do their job.So there goes pretty much all of your arguments...U still haven't covered ANY of my argumets or my CLEARLY stated two main assumptions.I don't need to back up any of my arguemts because you haven't torn them down.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-1.563996502182239,-2.0754361883412207,-1.1881328296501446,149,True,-1.8658615485658399
10,7,18344,"Harm Cannabis causes much more harm than caffeine. The active psychoactive compound in marijuana is THC. Recent studies have shown several negative side effects. Such as marijuana increases likeliness of mania symptoms. (1) It changes the structure of the brain. (2) It causes permanent loss of memory (3,4) It also is an immunosuppressant (5). Propaganda The Pro-marijuana movement's propaganda has spread a lot of myths. You hear that marijuana isn't addictive yet it has an addiction rate of 9%. (6) They claim it is harmless yet it causes several harms which I stated above. And they claim it isn't a gateway drug yet recent studies prove otherwise. (7) Medicinal Uses Cannabis does have several medical uses but that doesn't excuse using it recreationally or medically without a doctor's permission. My opponent claims that it has an ant-tumor effect, this isn't true for all cancers and for the average cancer marijuana actually has a negative effect.(5) There are certain compounds in marijuana that can help with brain cancer but they work better when combined with radiation therapy. Opponent claims that we should replace radiation therapy with marijuana which is just plainly a bad idea. (8) Regulation Tobacco is currently regulated but drug dealers still sell them to minors. If there is a black market for cigarettes then definitely there would still be a black market for marijuana. Legalizing marijuana causes another problem. With marijuana legal, more people would be using it with other recreational drugs, such combinations are dangerous, addictive and even lethal. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.5154338923072816,1.3794242007128743,0.3370440993595528,261,False,1.252941781567236
10,6,31038,"Contention 1: Marijuana should not be legal for recreational use because the side effects that are brought by it can be life endangering. One statistic suggests that smoking marijuana can increase one's heart rate by as much as two times for up to three hours.[1] The recreational use of marijuana could endanger the lives of those who may have heart conditions. Another side effect found in marijuana would be from the aspect of smoking the drug. The smoke will cause the lungs to be irritated and may lead to respiratory issues in the future.[2] It can be claimed that marijuana may lower pain of certain cancers and diseases, or even to be used as a medical substance, however I ask that this claim is not brought in as a contention due to the fact that this debate's main focus is regarding the recreation use rather than the medical use. If a doctor feels marijuana can be a healthy medicinal supplement, then that would be a different story. The claim that marijuana can be taxed and help our country make some much needed capital is also invalid given the fact that the health risks behind marijuana are by far much more important to worry about rather than allowing the focus to be upon tax revenue.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.058167815492241,1.7782723386152754,0.4532721036309825,214,False,1.2760977738338015
10,2,34833,"Marijuana should not be legalized for disposal of all. I say this because we would have a world of crazy people running around delirious trying to do harmful things. We have enough issues already with DUI. We can't enable people to do worse. Marijuana has long-term and short-term effects. It's addictive, it's not a one time thing. However, Marijuana should be medically legalized in every state and only be at disposal to medical professionals. If it helps people, let's do it. If it hurts people, let's trash it. Marijuana does both. Therefore, should be legal, but managed by qualified professionals. Thank You!",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.13558678783803946,0.6539270748356752,-0.007370210068383899,102,False,0.19415190247515318
10,2,2889,"A pleasure to be debating Larz. Excited to get the debate underway. EVIDENCE: E1) As said in an article by journalist Raymond Cushing, and as forwarded by The American Medical Marijuana Association, in 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who were funded by the National Institute of Health, learned that THC shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice and the results were recently repeated by further research in 2000. [1,2] E2) Marijuana components, including THC, have been found to inhibit the growth of the most common, and aggressive form of brain tumor, a glioblastoma, according to a study published in a 2010 issue of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, under the American Association for Cancer Research, which was repeated by Patients for Medical Cannabis.[3,4] E3) According to a 2009 study recorded in The Journal for Clinical Investigation, cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. [5] E4) As reported by Science Daily and the Huffington Post, in 2009 Guillermo Velasco and colleagues, at Complutense University, Spain, have provided evidence that suggests that cannabinoids such as the main active component of marijuana (THC) have anticancer effects on human brain cancer cells. [6,7] E5) First-hand account of cancer treatment via cannabis. [See video] SOURCES: S1) S2) S3) S4) S5) S6) S7) CONCLUSION: The evidence is clear. The sources are reliable. What else can I say?",0.8044698538620362,True,0.9603127607340994,0.7914011924080024,1.3395726243070143,231,True,1.1868947247904635
10,1,7851,"Marijuana is a less harmful drug than alcohol and if used responsibly it does less harm. The article examines closely how alcohol provides safe use for the user such as ""Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not."" We can see that by this article and you can view more of the safer methods your self alcohol does damage to the brain while weed does not. You pointed out how weed is harmful because it causes illusions which could be unsafe while driving but what if an individual using the drug is not even driving than who is at risk if the substance user is sitting in his basement or house with a few friends smoking a joint. So why should we make marijuana legal? We should keep it for medical purposes, many people are ill and in pain with cancer and most of the time medical marijuana alleviates the pain and puts them at ease. These people with cancer are suffering and they feel sick and they have these symptoms Stimulate appetite and alleviate cachexia.Control nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapyDecrease intraocular pressure.Analgesia.Neurological and movement disorders. If weed can help them out why not keep it for them to use to let the suffering ease up a little bit. As you stated in your first argument you wanted me to address your points and bring up my own, hope I met your requirements and look forward to finishing this debate with you.",0.4916888247220394,True,2.170633834663556,1.2193037284996415,1.1822513603705325,245,True,1.7667388059652485
15,2,35713,"Well, first of all, thanks for accepting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To begin with, experimentation it's a very important part for scientific development. We can't test on humans primarly because of the moral. But if we can't use humans, why can we use animals? My reasons for using animals on research and/or experiments are: Most of the animals are breed in laboratories specifically for testing (like flies). This doesn't affect a species population. In fact, the species used are really common and aren't endangered. Animals (specifically mice) can be breed for a special experiment. An animal life could help the human race to find a cure, understand how certain organs work or even make a progress in the genetics area. Testing on animals allows us to know if a drug is safe for selling it. Scientists care about the animals. They use them just in really necessary cases and they use techniques that cause the least harm, stress or pain to the animal.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.07313546777371391,0.2593376051203199,0.08376701757006808,160,True,0.15115679303548127
10,2,14435,"One thing drugs are man made and you can overdose from them. Marijuana is an herb from earth and you cant overdose from it. Also you said that ""society"" does not want drugs but why is alcohol and cigarettes legal? They are both drugs in society but yet it is legal. If Marijuana was harmful to peoples health why would some states have medical marijuana to give to a cancer patient. Marijuana slows down the cancer growth, not only that but, it also help curve the appetite of somebody who has HIV/AIDS, it helps people with chronic pain, and helps vision with people who have glaucoma. Marijuana can also help cigarette smokers stop smoking cigarettes. And if somebody want to have a good time and actually know what they are doing the whole time instead of blacking out, throwing up, getting into violent confrontation, and/or wanting to drive home under the influence I would prefer marijuana (if it was legal). Some people say that marijuana kills brains cells but that is not entirely true. The lack of oxygen from holding the smoke in is killing brain cells. Like swimming, swimming does not kill brain cells but the lack of getting oxygen while holding your breath is. Marijuana only gives you short time memory loss when you are under the influence. And only certain types of strains will have the effect. 'Skunk' type strains will give you short term memory loss while, ""Hash or herbal cannabis blends performed equally well whether they were stoned or sober,"" according to",0.8044698538620362,True,1.3583620618341212,1.1613947062500496,0.6831937940051647,257,True,1.2314789055171
10,4,13538,"many believe that marijuana is an ok or great drug but marijuana has a dark side to tell that not all people know. The affects can be very damaging both physical and mental. some people also think that it is a natural and good solution compared to the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies make or hospitals or other forms of retailing medical drugs but that is not the truth base on current evidence, marijuana is an dangerous drug drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same pain relief and other medical symptoms without the nasty side effects that occur when consuming marijuana. This depends on how much you consume but getting high tensed to last longer then being intoxicated and we as humans does not jest drink alcohol from fermented fruits other animals do it as well like monkeys, elephants purposely consume fermented fruits to get intoxicated so it is perfectly normal to consume alcohol unlike marijuana! According to scientific studies the active ingredient in cannabis is ""THC"" which remains in the body for weeks. This ingredient is also used in most rat poisons. The immediate effects of taking marijuana are rapid heartbeat, disorientation, possible violent vomiting, and lack of physical coordination. Afterwards other symptoms which follow are depression, sleepiness, and some users suffer from panic attacks and anxiety which can lead to bodily harm. These are some of the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.4555795066727639,0.8248437506619939,0.8776425741792299,240,False,0.8255288422451226
10,4,33564,"Medical marijuana hasn't been proven to help any otherwise treatable disease, and is pointless really. Marijuana also disconnects you from the outside world and is a depressant (Like alcohol) which makes you relaxed and not wanting to do anything, not wanting to get the treatment either. The proper treatment.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.2883527129161958,-0.5022026805308636,-0.530041270182997,49,False,-0.5195090536060024
10,1,33373,"It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.03790664396096816,1.8457505006863728,1.2295567553308746,65,True,1.1956340192458306
18,17,39952,"Gay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness. 1. Ott, (2005) 2. Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, & Kane, (2007), p.25 3. Kostigen, (2009)",0.8044698538620362,True,0.9540727350821656,1.854082573861053,0.13214340612336986,211,True,1.1518779073316534
10,1,17781,"It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3762894287273038,0.8778989349693881,0.6205049813774882,65,True,0.7164412973039046
12,20,30958,"Many people in the U.S. have a front yard. People grow grass, flowers, and gardens. If everyone had their own vegetable garden, the amount of healthy raw food in the country would increase significantly within a year. If everyone in the world could do this, and if neighbors exchanged their produce, vegetarian dishes would be available for everyone.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.3286664701996476,0.5697773629522762,0.371754025889714,58,True,0.48124456697298545
12,14,8567,"Its true that humans should eat more veggies. People can get most if not all of their daily nutritional needs from vegetables and plants. Many people under the illusions that vegetarians are ""weak and malunutritioned"" are wrong. There are many vegetarian athletes out there. Humans are not made to eat large amounts of meat and instead most of our food should come from plant produce. But not everyone can afford this type of diet and even less would want to change their diet to include more veggies. Frankily, i'm a total meat addict even though i know that vegetables are better for me. Meat is just too d@mn tasty.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.5744331326916969,-0.8649765696970388,1.087363348007616,109,True,0.33625037662297336
12,5,9008,"Since my opponent forfieted the round for some unknown reason, i shall state something else. The question of Whether vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet, can only be made from an extremely spoiled point of view. We, as citizens of a first world country, have access to a variety of foods. Yet, people in third world countries, or even second world countries, dont have access. Therefore, having a vegetarian diet is not only fatal to their health, they would even go to the point of starvation without meat. And yet these people who eat meat, such as those living in china, live to be well over 90 years old.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.2855747894262575,0.12903051705052546,0.3585383649306139,110,False,0.07206383828764733
12,1,226,"This is a fun-ish debate, but if we start to get into it, then let the gloves come off! =Positions= -Pro: must say that, people who say ""I am a vegetarian"" is a bad excuse to not eat meat Con: must say that, people who say ""I am a vegetarian"" is a good excuse to not eat meat =Round Rules= 1. agreement and questions or concerns about the topic 2. case construction, no attacking, yet 3. case attack (no attacking the attacking, and no defending) 4. defending and final remarks I would thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and good luck.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,102,True,-4.0
12,3,14705,"My opponent has assumed that the world will be saved by Christians, Muslims and vegetarians because these people have a policy of non-violence and pacifism. I contend that when the oil, fertilizer and coal runs out, that agriculture will no longer be possible. Thus, both religious pacifists and vegetarians will all starve to death or be cannibalized by those people who are not vegetarian. Humans are still animals and will act like animals when they are hungry enough. Civilization as we know it, is only possible when there is a plentiful supply of food. Once the supply of food is cut off, humans will turn into horrible beasts and stalk one-another until there are no humans left on planet Earth. The study of metamorphism has nothing to do with this topic. I am not proposing that humans will physically turn into dinosaurs or any other beast. The beast or animal nature of humans is inherent to our DNA and will be released when no other options are available. The movie -' Lord of the Flies' is a demonstration of how humans will act when the food supply runs short.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.2443965844075977,1.0621155135756375,-0.11969079768270666,189,True,0.46202755765522496
15,8,31398,Personally if I have a child and they need a prescription or something of the medical sort I want to know that it will work and not have deadly side effects. If this means that the product was tested on animals then that is saving a child and no one can argue with a child's life being saved. Personal hygiene products are also tested on animals and personally I think that that is great because without them some people would really have a hard time functioning in society. Deodorant boost personal image and some does makeup. If makeup means that someone out there feels better about themselves then really is one animal that has been bread for that purpose really a bad thing? I feel not. If and when I have a teenage daughter and she wants to wear makeup I will not tell her no. I will tell her to make a smart decision about her choices and if this means that an animal needs to be used as a scientific experiment and not my daughter then so have it. I would rather have a lab rat or something of the sort be tested on then another human being. If you would rather a human be tested on then an animal you really need to step back and take a look at your priorities.,0.8044698538620362,True,0.07789560338374941,-0.12556929705344538,-0.4506553272196938,225,False,-0.19977450550485842
12,7,25519,You should read about people like Arnold Ehret or Kellog (past) or Gary Null or Dr.Macdougal (present) who heal people of their illnesses through vegetarianism. You'll find it enlightening.,1.1172508830020322,True,-0.7901428127129954,-0.4327171546632886,-1.3472699098239642,29,False,-0.9939504187724427
12,2,9008,"jack_samra forfeited this round. Con Since my opponent forfieted the round for some unknown reason, i shall state something else. The question of Whether vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet, can only be made from an extremely spoiled point of view. We, as citizens of a first world country, have access to a variety of foods. Yet, people in third world countries, or even second world countries, dont have access. Therefore, having a vegetarian diet is not only fatal to their health, they would even go to the point of starvation without meat. And yet these people who eat meat, such as those living in china, live to be well over 90 years old.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.2157072198991756,-0.2491317473515306,-1.1961586935901976,115,True,-0.6390505249815362
12,2,11200,"You said that fat is not bad for you in controlled quantities well in a vegetarian diet there are some vegetables with fat in them like Avocados, Olives etc. Here is a link that shows vegetables with fat in them and how much fat is in them: So some vegetables have fat in them but they are controlling that fat content in controlled quantities.Which is very good for there diet. You also said I see no reason you cannot eat meat for the benefits it has, and vegetables for their benefits as well. But if you have a vegetarian diet it has benefits of meat as well.So why not just eat veggies. You also said, Your point is valid, however the survey conducted would have had skewed results. First off most people eat meat, so there is obviously more heart problems found among them. ALL surveys are done fairly they get 5 vegetarians and 5 meat eaters test there diets and see there risk of heart disease.So if the test is done fairly then its obvious that vegetarians have a lower risk of heart disease than a meat eater. you also said that we also have to remember that vegetarians are not gaining any good cholesterol. Well vegetarians are gaining good cholesterol. On the link there are foods that give you good cholesterol.Now I know that some of them are NOT vegetarian foods but MOST of them are vegetarian foods. So in conclusion A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.0958274404502517,0.41896762406413424,0.44455851376839134,253,True,0.361964047764525
18,2,28644,"There are many different pros to gay marriage. Gay marriage can increase the number of children successfully adopted, and it will diminish teen suicide. Every day people are scared to come out because they are afraid of being judged but if society were more accepting, we could make it easier for them. Now for those of you concerned with RELIGIOUS REASONS, listen up. There is a separation of church and state. Religious perspective should have no place in federal or legal matters in the US. And for people offended by gay marriage, tell me how exactly is gay marriage affecting you. Gay marriage has had no impact whatsoever on heterosexual communities. Let's also remember that this is an issue of EQUAL RIGHTS. Denying marriage to two individuals who love each other is to deny them a fundamental freedom. There is no reason to deny gay marriage other than religion (still not a good reason though), but as I have already said - church stays out of state (separation of church and state).",0.8044698538620362,True,0.7866961871888716,2.1824412203704378,-0.6900103175021034,172,True,0.9442505389768939
12,4,28724,"I accept your challenge and will debate with you on whether or not being a vegetarian is a good life-style. Seeing that opponent has already chosen pro, I would logically take con and be against the life style of that of a vegetarian. I am against vegetarianism because it discourages people from eating the other food groups; it prevents them from getting the right amount of nutrients only available in other food groups; and vegetarians still eat meat - they claim to be herbivores, but are, just like the rest of us, omnivores as many of the foods they eat are still eaten by carnivores. I believe that it is a negative lifestyle that negatively affects one's health and should not be used unless one is extremely healthy or ill.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.4112685729581161,0.1362143497461915,0.1578728853275263,130,False,-0.05129189227679803
12,2,21934,"Yes, I know what global warming is. The mass killing of animals contributes to global warming because they need factories to produce the products made from them, and those factories contribute to global warming. Also, the workers at the slaughter houses are usually lower class people who are paid poorly for a job that they really don't want. It is scientifically impossible to eat meat while on a vegetarian diet, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the vegetarian diet and thus would not be called a vegetarian diet. A lion usually does not shove the zebra into a cage and torture it. I have been a vegetarian since birth, and I am perfectly healthy. I get protein and other vitamins and minerals from a variety of plant based sources.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.08125159638637035,0.03173719931628752,0.10566912201390652,131,True,0.07446678735040034
12,1,42495,"I, for one, have familiarized myself with the pros and cons of vegetarianism. I am convinced vegetarianism comes off as being much more agreeable with one's morality/conscience, health, and the world in general (i.e. could help stop world hunger and the environment). I have looked up similar debates on this site recently, and am displeased with the debates other people have waged in favor of vegetarianism. So, I shall attempt to argue my viewpoints on the subject, and hopefully it'll be a good debate.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7917934253989334,0.2204513311496454,0.05349596227326833,84,True,0.40723889601572855
12,2,33953,"Simply being a vegetarian is not specific enough to make that statement. If you eat all french fries then you are a vegetarian but it is hardly good for you. Also you must look at genetics. Northern European peoples have eaten a certain amount of meat as a regular part of their diet for at least 10,000 years. They have adapted to it and therefore eating a healthy vegetarian diet takes a little more care than someone with a Indian (India) heritage would have to take.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3556044379619684,-0.4859496153439618,-0.203794177432498,86,False,-0.13197348210002158
12,1,33086,"I believe that global Vegetarianism would benefit our nation and bring back a sense of humanity again. I remember when I was told how meat was made and felt very disgusted at how we slaughter innocent animals although we have plenty of other food options and sources. Other food sources may include: grains, nuts, vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates and in certain Vegetarian diets dairy products and eggs are also consumed. Going Vegetarian benefits the animals as 2.5 million innocent animals are being slaughtered everyday in the UK alone and most are killed in extreme conditions and are treated with lack of respect beforehand. Between the years of 2010 to 2012 the numbers of Vegetarian adults and children, between 1.5 and 18, has increased significantly. In 2010, 583 children and 548 adults reported as being Vegetarian across the UK. In 2011 this figure increased to 1095 children and 1031 adults. Rising to 1582 children and 1491 adults in 2012, shows that Vegetarianism is becoming a more and more common necessity in people's diets. In this debate I will be arguing that Vegetarian is the way to go and the position of Con should argue that it is not. I hope this will be an interesting debate. Good luck. Sources:",1.4300319121420288,True,0.4285686266490459,1.5034963246105877,0.6952573981331499,207,True,1.0160251307093848
12,3,34850,"""Also being a vegan will cause you to naturally eat more carbohydrates which will cause you to become overweight as well"" This is about vegetarianism not veganism. Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans. ""Beans and nuts DO have protein but a person can't live with dairy foods, beans and nuts."" That is their form of protein but with that and fruits and vegetables they can get a complete diet with everything they need in it. Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with. So why not prevent the problem to not need a solution (omega 3 fatty acids as the solution) to begin with? You seem to argue that vegetarians can not be healthy due to a lack of meat protein and other nutrients found only in meat. However the existence of healthy vegetarians suggests that to be incorrect. Here is a list of famous vegetarians. It is a rather long list that includes people from all walks of life. Some are even professional athletes like Herschel Walker, obviously a healthy man. As with an omnivore diet, vegetarians must watch what they eat and have a well balanced diet. They can be healthy and are many times less likely to suffer from the many ailments associated with meat consumption.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.0460058881618721,2.030512191553185,0.5548348156687939,237,True,1.412211877794006
12,10,8567,"If we were meant to be true vegetarians ( by the way, that means no meat or fish [ your soy/legume input will replace all your protein needs and spinach (amongst some) will replace your iron needs] and the term 'vegan' should be used), we would be born with 4 tummies so we can process cellulose as well, I mean why leave grass out of the equation. Some vegetarians practise ova-lacto vegetarian where they consume egg and drink milk to get their Class 1 proteins whereas most vegetarian Hindus/Buddists will only consume milk, not egg. Vegans I know don't consume any animal by products as in honey, milk products or eggs. The description above (sub heading) is not someone who is vegetarian, just someone who has given up red/white meat. Homo sapiens are indeed omnivores, who should consume a balanced meal of both veg/grains and meat/fish. That is how we are designed and we have the digestive enzymes to go with it, just like the other creatures on the planet. So people, stop feeding your cattle blood feed and dogs/cats brocolli and spinach!",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.20173976678546504,-0.21750145974901688,-0.05743951237620616,183,False,-0.19389780569497553
13,1,27248,12 states have adopted Constitutional Carry -- Missouri becoming the latest one to do so on Wednesday. And for anyone who was watching ... Wow! ... Legislators in the Show Me State did it in grand fashion. Republican legislators overwhelmingly overrode Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a GOA-backed Constitutional Carry bill (SB 656) -- legislation which protects the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns without first getting a permit.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,71,True,-4.0
15,5,12755,"Animal testing should be banned. And then we should start testing on who? Humans? Like any human would allow that. Obviously those who disagree with animal testing don't like the fact that animals are being tested on but they have completely disregarded the fact that human lives have been saved by testing on animals. Who else are we suppose to test on? Other humans? It comes down to three choices, we either stop animal testing and medical science slows down by a long shot, we stop animal testing and start testing on humans which would probably speed up medical science, or finally we just stick to animal testing. There are no cons to humans when it comes to animal testing unless you're extremely obsessed with good morales. Firstly animal testing has aided in the process of finding cures. If there was no animal testing, medicine as we know today would not be the same. Even the simplest things like a cut could have killed you if it weren't for animal testing. Animal testing has played a role in every major medical advance in the last century. Take that away and imagine how slow our medical advances would be. Many would die before we even found a cure. Is that really worth saving a couple of animals. Insulin was discovered by the use of animal testing. Without it, many people with diabetes would be in trouble. More than 80% of animals tested are mice an other rodents. 0.15% of animals tested are monkeys. Is a rodents life really worth more than the hundreds of thousands of human lives that it could save?",1.4300319121420288,True,0.8957197826503611,1.3351015334049618,0.32127801743485496,271,False,0.9850410766886403
12,4,8402,"My opponents definition for vegetarianism is incorrect. What he described is the vegan diet. vegan: a person who does not eat meat, fish, or any animal products such as cheese, butter, etc. vegetarian: People who do not eat meat of animals such as chicken, pigs, cows, etc. Also they do not eat fish and seafood. But they do eat eggs, egg products, milk and other dairy products. Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 � HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006 Depending on where you go to school, school lunches have different prices and cost different amounts to make. Vegetarian foods may contain no cholesterol and lots of fiber, but they lack in protein. Also, as I stated, you can always bring you lunch to school if you are dissatisfied with the menu. Last time I checked, 2% is less then 5%. So as you can see, my opponent cannot count or read. Also, there are not 1 million children in each school who do not eat meat. You have to consider that these 1 million children are dispersed all over the country. So yes, food would be wasted. ""Schools in many areas have responded by adding salad bars as well as more fruits, vegetables and meatless entrees"" This statement has no impact on my opponents case what-so-ever. Nor do any other quotes from this source that my opponent included. If your friends are dissatisfied with the school lunches they can bring their own. My opponents rebut to ""I sit with 2 vegetarians"" still had no impact for the pro side. Wikipedia is not a credited source, as anyone can post anything on there. For these reasons I urge you to vote CON",1.1172508830020322,True,1.262830376298123,1.4475844010321923,1.0339257422309842,281,False,1.4378902851793283
18,6,16193,"Gay marriage is wrong. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Gay people are exposing society to behaviors that are not okay. Gay marriage is stopping the human race from reproducing,and Gay marriage causes non-discrimination laws which keeps people from believing what they want to believe. In other words it's influencing society and making people be forced to not speak out against gay marriage.",0.4916888247220394,True,-1.4545971076091495,-0.3689149352157964,-1.070856867420831,67,False,-1.115226257795945
12,4,25519,"No, some vegetarians are vegetarians for religious reasons. Forcing people to eat meat is immoral, and disgusting. Vegetarians don't try to force you to eat like them, so don't try to make vegetarians eat like you. There is nothing unhealthy about the vegetarian diet, as long as it's a ""healthy"" based diet, like not all fast food, or candy.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.8039862981022861,-0.036926048139320614,-0.6248963111890025,59,False,-0.5697741300711064
12,1,27972,"Although I do believe we are evolved to be an omnivorous species the truth is several variations on diet are possible provided proper nutrition is monitored. Vegetarian can be done, and if it were not possible there'd be a whole lot of dead vegetarians everywhere, especially in places like India where some people spend 100% of the days of their lives vegetarian.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.17338524578642578,-2.1143598248574325,-0.09154145097312788,62,False,-0.8743313488322111
12,19,25519,"There are plenty of healthy people who are vegetarians. HOWEVER, our species genuinely is omnivorous and I believe it's easier to get all our nutrition be eating a wide range of foods which would also include meat. So although vegetarians can be healthy I actually do NOT think it is at the top of the healthy diets. In fact if they're not careful they can become seriously deficient in certain nutrients.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.13626220625260166,-0.3715188325810853,0.3679745967778865,71,False,-0.0585269368182859
12,1,34136,"However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - ""All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy."" I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5711595147480313,0.5873569694836104,-0.1073529706712123,120,True,0.4018830042076525
12,18,1819,"The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals.  “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem.[1] Research done in Australia concludes that ""There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores"".[2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999  ",1.1172508830020322,True,1.321999282825013,1.2546386156213996,0.5456688270568513,185,False,1.2025888876116224
12,2,34850,"Although I am far from a vegetarian I do see the health benefits in that lifestyle. However one can not just go and eat just anything vegetarian and think that is good for them. ""According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians are also at lower risk for becoming obese, due to diets with significantly lower levels of saturated fat and cholesterol. It is important, however, to plan your vegetarian diet so that you are consuming sufficient levels of all necessary nutrients."" Too much meats in our diets are the cause of many health problems. However if a vegetarian lives off junk food like soda and potato chips of course he is not going to be healthy. Most vegetarians, especially those who actually studied nutrition, are much healthier than the average omnivore. As for the proteins found in meats, foods such as beans and nuts have protein as well. I am not denying the benefits of meat protein but I am saying it can easily be substituted in a vegetarian diet. That way they get the benefits of the proteins without the health risks associated with meats. America has a high meat diet and a high obesity rate. All medical evidence in the field of nutrition would suggest that that is not a coincidence.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.7515821701323001,0.9595997341060444,0.8728367227703326,213,True,0.9885609853414905
12,5,15711,"First, my opponent focuses on the risk of E. Coli bacteria in animals and the risks it posses if not dealt with. E. Coli is only dangerous if the meat is under-cooked. The infections are quite rare and E. coli is not really a reason to not eat meat. Plus, E. Coli is found in cow intestines. There are lots of other meats out there other than cattle. My opponent then goes to list a lot of different health advantages with a vegetarian diet, while not citing a single source. Therefore, just about all of that is invalid. I request that my opponent provide a source. There are many important nutrients that a vegetarian diet simply cannot provide. For example, Vitamin B12. It is particularly important in the production of blood and function of the brain, but cannot be found in any plants. This poses a serious health risk for vegans. In fact, a study showed that 92% of vegans are deficient in this nutrient. Studies also showed that vegans are deficient in Creatine. This has a detrimental effect on muscle and brain function. Generally, vegans also have lower testosterone levels than meat-eaters. A vegetarian diet can also be the cause of infertility. 18 healthy, normal-weight women aged 19 to 27 years who had regular ovulatory menstrual cycles volunteered for a study. Nine women followed a vegetarian diet and nine a non-vegetarian diet. Both groups lost an average of 1 kg body weight/week. Seven of nine women in the vegetarian group became anovulatory while seven of nine women in the non-vegetarian diet group maintained ovulatory cycles with no changes in cycle length. I await my opponent's response.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.5890855942951203,1.4856231805579694,1.8305542128805283,277,False,1.8859307238745175
12,1,550,"Animals are being abused all over the world. A few days ago, a gorilla got shot for ""attacking"" a child. But when we eat a cow, you don't see anyone killing us. We have an unfair advantage. If one person becomes vegetarian, that wont help. Many people should become vegetarian. There is an animal called the amur leopard. It is the most endangered animal ever with less than 60 individuals left. This problem conspicuous yet noone does something about it.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.13396313338434618,0.3136158999493807,-0.448165694188641,80,True,-0.004159340866784303
12,1,11200,"I believe that a vegetarian diet is better than a meat eating diet. My 1st point is that meat eaters say that a vegetarian diet is bad because you need meat because you need protein.Well there are plenty of vegetables that have protein in them like Soy beans,Broccoli,Cauliflower,Watercress,Sweet Corn and there is a lot more. My 2nd point is that a vegetarian diet is much more healthier than a meat eating diet because there is hardly any fat in it and it has a lot of vitamin c,protein,iron,Magnesium,Calcium and a whole lot more. My 3rd point is that studies show that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, click on this link: If you did not click on the link than it shows that vegetarians have a lower risk of heart disease and that they have a lower cholesterol. There fore I say that a vegetarian diet is better than a meat eating diet. Thank you.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.07761244968302793,0.30056318707158663,0.7090854544776972,155,True,0.3557953510166273
15,9,35485,"Animals are not necessarily helping us because they have no choice to participate in the testings. Again, we are in an period of time where we have improved our technology and our lab work to create synthetic materials that could be used to test chemicals on. What also poses the issues of animal use if the way that they are being treated, and whether or not their living conditions are inhumane. Many animals that are being tested are placed in conditions that are unhealthy and will harm them, whether or not the testing itself is physically or mentally harmful.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.5690171734806313,-0.36591850610589977,0.3663200929917461,99,False,-0.22019140935081458
18,2,997,"I'll start this argument by clearly stating my definitions. [1]. Marriage: The legal binding of two individuals that results in recognition of their unity. [2.] Relationship: Two people who agree to be bound in legal marriage, for whatever their purpose. Marriage, in this respect, has nothing to do with any concept of family or love. The purpose of legal marriage is to enable certain rights to two people who bind into a relationship. Legal marriage also allows for insurance of property and finances if said relationship fails. You can argue for days about family-values and God, but the fact is that legal marriage is merely a legal affair. There is nothing to do with what family-values or religion the couple identifies with. The argument of God's plan for man and a woman would imply that atheists, or any person who does not believe in God, should not be allowed to get married either. Marriage cannot b held in the same view-point of values in the legal form as it is in the religious form.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6465363979502681,1.08237952291881,0.3203631388320983,174,True,0.7868824278476428
12,2,26366,"Actually, growing the animals for meat IS becoming a huge problem. For example, McDonald's. To provide all that meat, they need several billion cows a year, and they need huge ares of land to grow all those cows. Also, there aren't much distinction between lands of nature and lands for growing animals. Forests, fields, and lots other places with the right conditions can be used for both growing nature and growing animals. Forests ARE pretty good for animals, since there is water, fresh air, basically everything an animal needs to survive. Secondly, vegetarianism might not the only way to save nature, but it may be the biggest way, don't you think? I said that you could be vegetarian, not forced to be. I meant that vegetarian would be the best choice. You can choose not to be vegetarian, but I think it's the best choice. Also, the other methods you showed me are for good lifestyles, and have nothing to do with the other problems of eating meat, so that doesn't really count (no offence), and can you suggest some things that might prevent the other problems of not being vegetarian? I think that vegetarianism is the only ethical choice because first, by eating vegetables, you can get all the minerals needed, like vitamin C, D, E, etc. Also, I don't think it's moral that all those animals are dying out only to give us food. Third, the minerals needed from meat can always be replaced by something else, like tofu or mushrooms, so meat isn't actually necessary.",1.4300319121420288,True,1.4605321304152823,1.6148830487468544,1.09670285444583,258,True,1.6040703299011583
12,5,34011,"In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.5216816355155349,-0.05594369323591839,0.030275147237596337,148,False,0.18524644291299114
12,2,5150,"That's what I meant that eating Lacto ovo vegetarian or Lacto vegetarian for ethical reasons is hippopotamus! Each year 400,000 dairy cows are killed in Australia alone. How is this any different than eating beef? ""Most recent industry figures indicate that around 400,000 unwanted dairy calves, not wanted for herd replacement or rearing for pink veal, are slaughtered each year in Australia as 'waste-products' of the dairy industry""animalsaustralia.org ""Based on this estimation, someone with a desire to modify their diet to reduce the number of animals killed for their food, or someone who is interested in gradually moving towards a plant-based diet for ethical reasons should start by removing chicken and eggs from their diet, but the most animal suffering and death can be prevented by following a vegan diet. "" animalvisuals.org Effectively by still purchasing and drinking cow's milk you are contributing excessively and endorsing animal cruelty. At least meat eaters aren't hippopotamus. Some Lacto vegetarians proudly state ""I am not responsible for any animal deaths."" That's hippopotamus! Not only are Lacto vegetarians responsible for animal deaths, they are straight out telling a falsehood. If you want to save the most animal lives go vegan. If you think animals can be raised humanely look at the humanemyth.org website. Not only are lacto vegetarians responsible for animal deaths, they are responsible for animal suffering. Finally, there are plenty of perfectly health vegans. Calcium and vitamin D can be gained from other sources. Calcium from leafy greens. Vitamin D from the sun. ""experts say going outside for 10 minutes in the midday sun""in shorts and a tank top with no sunscreen""will give you enough radiation to produce about 10,000 international units of the vitamin."" usanews.com ""Collard greens, cooked1 cup357"" vrg.org",0.4916888247220394,True,0.06715757231168293,1.7316476292708942,-0.19182235585573448,289,True,0.6506202932458313
12,3,25519,"Vegetarians are healthy, there are supplements available, as well as many tasty alternatives. Vegetarians are very healthy, there is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. It depends on what you eat regardless. Both diets can be unhealthy, but if you eat right both can be healthy. Vegetarians are not unhealthy.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.17376787309323505,0.5571587718860987,-0.6077882233783276,50,False,0.051065642745449016
12,6,30716,"Humans are naturally omnivores. Some of the proteins in meat are difficult to impossible to obtain from other sources, or if they can, require eating large amounts of substituted foods. Many vegetarians tend to be smug and self-righteous about it. They'd be a lot more successful if they stopped saying ""Don't eat meat"" and started saying ""You can only eat meat if you kill it yourself."" If people had to kill the chickens, fish or cows themselves, few people would eat meat. Meat is so prevalent in the western diet because the killing has been depersonalized. For every hundred people who read what I'm saying, I doubt more than five have at least once killed an animal for food. I have, and it's not a pleasant experience. .",1.4300319121420288,True,1.177664336877054,0.3197092948611415,0.641875992074857,128,True,0.8231254214447049
12,1,7149,"Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More Than not Being a Vegetarian. Vegetarian: ""the exclusion of meat (In the context of this debate: non-human animal meat)...from the diet"" Environment: ""The natural world, as a whole"" Helps: "" To contribute to the...improvement of"" Being (state of being/verb) More: ""a greater... degree"" (debatable) 1st round: Simply greetings and acceptance. 2nd round: Main arguments 3rd round: Rebuttals/counters/additional points 4th round: Rebuttals/counters/final points Rules: - No abuse of semantics. (This is standard since I gave definitions) -No trolling. - A forfeit is an automatic loss. -Cite sources. Sources: - - - - -",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.1235196591471515,0.4435304933602803,0.17266944098167902,98,True,0.18332655722308974
12,5,34850,"""Also again depression, Alzheimer's disease, baby development and asthma have NOTHING to do with meat. I thought you count low brain function, constipation, diarrhea, pale skin... (In argument 1) as medical conditions. They are not diseases but they are bad medical conditions."" I have never heard of any research to suggest that any of those disorders are in any way connected to vegetarianism. Since there are plenty of vegetarians out there and I have never heard of any of them suffering from those conditions I would conclude that they are in not connected. I am sure some vegetarians suffer from those conditions but I have never heard of any connection in the two. A Duke University study has shown depression is best treated by regular exercise. I do however see a connection in meat consumption and heart disease, obesity and multiple other conditions. I do eat all of those meats you mentioned. However I think I would be healthier if I did not eat them at all and ate a healthy well balanced vegetarian diet.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3985235821454648,0.8732338495783906,0.9068201327716164,175,True,0.8344571078448827
12,5,11200,"I concede your point of some vegetables have fat. I also concede that the survey wouldn't have been off if it was split 50/50. However your source says explicitly, ""studied a total of 76,172 women and men living in the United Kingdom, United States and Germany. Of this total, 27,808 study subjects were vegetarians,"" which would mean that only a 1/3 of the participants were vegetarians. This would vastly skew the results, since those who eat meat were given double the participants. I concede your point on cholesterol. So far this means that both diets are the same overall, but you never addressed my point about vitamin B12 deficiency. Let me start by bring up some other common deficiencies. Vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and calcium. Iron and zinc are somewhat common as well. I'll admit that the calcium one depends on the type of vegetarian. For the purpose of this debate may you state what you are defending? As in, can you eat dairy products? I would also like to point out that since the opponent needs to prove that vegetarianism is better, if I prove they are equal then I should win. Thank you.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.3701090667687763,0.6270665234170147,0.7909493757491028,196,False,1.072406389284005
12,10,34850,"True carbs are not bad for you, but having low fat and protein is bad for you. I was mainly putting blood fat into the list because it was a fact. True it depends on the fish, bit still you get Omega 3 anyways. It does not have anything to do vegetarianism. Also again depression, Alzheimer's disease, baby development and asthma have NOTHING to do with meat. I thought you count low brain function, constipation, diarrhea, pale skin... (In argument 1) as medical conditions. They are not diseases but they are bad medical conditions. There is one thing I agree with vegetarianism and that is they are good for a short time, if you want to lose weight. Another thing I have to say against vegetarianism is about the new lifestyle. Lets say you walk into a restaurant and it says they have steak with a lot of delicious spices. Well that would be mouth-watering, and if you are a vegetarian, you won't be able to eat it. Also at home you are going to have to abandon a lot of foods like sausages, steak, bacon, roast chicken, chicken nuggets, fish fingers, fish... Thanks for debating. A thing I'd like to say is that I'm only 11 years old, not 24. My mum allowed me to use it LOL. So if I made a lot of grammar mistakes that is probably the reason. Hehe but whatever thanks for debating.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.15075994702373546,1.7932592690624092,0.4119157078127604,239,False,0.8197079704014781
12,1,11438,"In my opinion, kids born to vegetarian households should be allowed to try meat out. Because it is their decision if they want to eat meat or not. If they do, then when they go out to eat or over to a friends house they should be allowed to eat meat. I'm not saying that the vegetarian parents should cook meat on their grill, oven, etc. what I'm saying is to let the kid eat what he wants when He out to eat. And if the kid doesn't like meat or he truly does believe that meat us murder, then he can choose to live that lifestyle. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some parents would say that you can make your own decisions when your older. But by that time since the kid has never had meat. They will get sick from it everytime they try to eat it. Plus, kids can get bullied at school fir being a vegetarian. Or worse, kids could try to force them to eat meat. Which could mean a lawsuit. I will get into much more detail with each of these things as the debate moves on. And once again, I'm not against people being vegetarians.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.7454224878316857,1.6820093693738292,0.16557184195177954,203,True,1.0124455059009576
15,1,1820,"I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. Since I am Pro, I am for animal testing. My opponent has not defined animal testing; therefore, I shall offer a definition I think we can both agree upon. Animal Testing: Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in experiments [1]. I eagerly await my opponent’s opening arguments and wish him luck. With that said, I affirm the resolution, “Animal testing should be allowed”. [1]",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,76,True,-4.0
18,6,997,"DocPenguin forfeited this round. Pro I'll start this argument by clearly stating my definitions. [1]. Marriage: The legal binding of two individuals that results in recognition of their unity. [2.] Relationship: Two people who agree to be bound in legal marriage, for whatever their purpose. Marriage, in this respect, has nothing to do with any concept of family or love. The purpose of legal marriage is to enable certain rights to two people who bind into a relationship. Legal marriage also allows for insurance of property and finances if said relationship fails. You can argue for days about family-values and God, but the fact is that legal marriage is merely a legal affair. There is nothing to do with what family-values or religion the couple identifies with. The argument of God's plan for man and a woman would imply that atheists, or any person who does not believe in God, should not be allowed to get married either. Marriage cannot b held in the same view-point of values in the legal form as it is in the religious form.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.1922209539626012,0.9972969005696528,1.1705656093702037,179,False,0.9114218366322921
15,4,27245,"Since my opponent has not adequately defined the resolution, I will elaborate: my opponent must prove that it is morally permissible to perform potentially harmful scientific experiments on non-human animals of the class mammalia (since when we refer to animal testing, what we really mean is mammal testing). I must prove that it is not morally permissible. ======== Contention 1: Animals are conscious. Conscious beings have the right to life; animals are conscious, and so animals should not be experimented upon. Contention 2: Animals are capable of suffering. All mammals can feel pain, have emotions, and can suffer. It is inhumane to conduct dangerous and potentially harmful experiments on beings that are capable of suffering. ======== [1] [2]",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.11817119437995773,0.4746940517248477,1.3458034233015346,118,False,0.6673739620745692
12,1,43209,"Meat definition ""1. the flesh of animals as used for food. "" [0] I will use vegetarian and abstaining from eating meat interchangeably from now on. First, lets clear the air and claim that vegetarian diets are safe. Warrant: [1] Impact: vegetarian diets are safe for humans of all ages including children, infants, and unborn fetuses. Claim 1: Meatless diets are better for the environment. Warrant: Common knowledge. Impact: This is additional incentive to become vegetarian. Claim 2: Avoiding meat saves animals from suffering. Warrant: Common knowledge. Impact: This is good for many reasons, in general causing pain to others is considered to be immoral. Claim 3: Buying meat produced in factory farms causes animal cruelty. Warrant: No need to cause suffering to animals, thus cannot claim survival. Impact: Animal cruelty is bad for a lot of reasons and avoiding this gives additional incentive to eat meatless. Claim 4: Vegetarian diets are better for your health. Warrant: Common knowledge. Impact: Saving on your health is not only incentive, but helps alleviate health care costs. 0. 1.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.5051398005913846,1.377332569544085,0.482440896674441,176,True,0.9128492882764592
12,19,30958,"a lot of water and energy is needed for meat production, and it also pollutes our world a lot. because of meat production, an acre of trees are being cut down every few minutes. meat production is extremely hard on the envorinment, using up lots of water. did you know that it takes 40 gallons of water just to produce 1 pound of beef? growing crops takes a lot less water. meat eating is also unnesccary, because our bodies are designed to live on plant foods. i read in a book that the winner of some male beauty contest was a vegetarian. the only reason some vegetarians ruin their health is because they're not doing vegetarianism correctly. if u go veg properly, you can be 958035 times healthier than a meat eater. being vegetarian is a good thing as long as you do it correctly. if you go vegetarian, you can save over 100 animal lives in a year according to peta. it's been a long time since ive done rescearch on this, but try to visit peta or petakids's website, because they have a lot more information about meat production and the envoronment than i can remember. if you go veg properly, you can live about 10 years longer than the average meat eater. it's even beter to go vegan, because i also believe that dairy products are harmful and unesscary. americans and europeans consume the most dairy, and therefore have the weakest bones. i read about that in the book called ""the asian diet"".",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7585555703159995,1.2660585488378195,-0.5756989991220253,256,True,0.5829756799793707
12,4,5150,"Lacto ovo vegetarian = hippopotamus: A lacto ovo vegetarian diet excludes meat, fish, and poultry but includes dairy products and eggs. So you say hippopotamus is lacto ovo vegetarian. Great! We have a place to start. Under your definition hippopotamus eat eggs, milk and cheese, but they are strictly vegan; they are just faking eating eggs and cheese to be cool. Hippopotamuses munch on grasses, water plants and such things. Yes, they sometimes bite on a person or alligator who get in their faces from time to time; but they do spit them out, just yucky. Did you know that a hippopotami""s closest relative is whales and porpoises, who are not non-vegan? They will eat just about anything that moves. So much for cousins taking up the ethical family""s eating habits in an effort to save animal lives. Also, the word hippopotamus is from an ancient Greek word (strange alphabet that does not cut and paste) which means water horse. A horse is a vegan also; yeah! Hippopotamus are classified along with other two toed animals such as camels, cattle, deer and pigs. Camels and cattle are vegans, pigs not so much; non-vegans. But, camels are related to llamas and alpacas; cows have their cousin the bison, deer are related to elks and gazelles; all are vegan. Bonus points for this group. So there you have it, horses, camels, deer, cattle, bison, alpacas, llamas, elks, gazelles and hippopotamus are hippopotamus therefore, vegans pretending to be Lacto ovo vegetarians who care about ethics by not eating other animals. Whereas, whales, porpoises, and pigs are unethical meat eating non-vegan nasty folk, also known as carnivors.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,273,False,-4.0
12,1,21934,"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?",0.8044698538620362,True,0.08840153760662793,0.26443299148720023,-1.883309228758029,78,True,-0.5435625959574891
12,11,25519,Many vegetarians eat fish in there diet ans stay healthy. I have been a vegetarian once in i did pass out once or twice because i was low on protein but you can also you can get meals that are for vegetarians that keeps them healthy.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,46,False,-4.0
12,1,33370,"Definitions first: When I say vegetarian I mean ovo-lacto vegetarian. This type of vegetarian eats no meat or any other by-products from slaughter. The 1st round is to accept the challenge, the 2nd and 3rd should mainly consist of arguments and the 4th and 5th of rebuttals.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,47,True,-4.0
12,21,25519,"Can i just say to all people considering it, to not think its for decrease weight or whatever. I have been a vegetarian for a year now, i recently did go to hospital though cause my iron levels were low. I knew there were tablets but refused to take them. Being a vegetarian isnt a game. You have to realise what your cutting out of you life, and what your body NEEDS! I am not skinny; but i am not over weight either. If you think you are thinking of taking tablets then do it. I also believe god intended all humans and creatures to live. Not to be eaten. Meat-eaters may strongly disagree, but i wouldn't want to be cut open only to be eaten. You have to think of yourself in a situation like this. Vegetarianism inst a life threatening occupation. In some cases, it's the main cause of weight-gain.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.8507565258799711,-0.3979609935658466,0.3622538386867528,152,False,0.31968682146672617
12,3,11647,"I'm a vegetarian, and am perfectly healthy. I have many veggie/vegan friends who are also very healthy. Meat has so many bad things in it...and the truth is, humans don't really need THAT much protein...meat eaters usually make that up as an excuse (""you need protein and other nutrients, thats why you should eat meat""...etc.). You can be vegetarian and still get more than enough protein. Did you know that some vegans are actually getting more than enough protein? That would be because of the amount of soy and tofu (which is also made from soy) products that they are consuming. Soy and tofu have a ton of protein in them. I think it's just silly that meat eaters decide to bash vegetarians...why not just respect our beliefs and leave it at that? (thanks for reminding me about hummus, forgot to add that! :) )",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.4902811114600624,0.17640080797417046,1.0805044741458467,145,False,0.30948604111155076
12,4,463,"I accept the debate! I would like to thank my opponent for offering such an interesting topic, and I hope that we may have a thoughtful discussion on the matter. Purely for the sake clarity, I shall offer some definitions as provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary [1]. Vegetarianism - ""the theory or practice of living on a vegetarian diet."" Vegetarian - ""a person who does not eat meat."" Vegan - ""a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also: one who abstains from using animal products."" I accept my opponent's first two points. I question the third because grocery stores are not the only places where meat can be purchased, if we separate famers markets and other similar locations from them. I plan to use these in my arguments as well. I thank my opponent again, and I am also anticipating a great debate! [1]",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,148,False,-4.0
19,1,14987,"People are born with their sexual orientation already determined, just like they are born tall or short, it may not be apparent at birth but it is there.",1.4300319121420288,True,-1.3601482460694725,-0.8575186534531326,-0.6713866327815956,28,True,-1.1206995886833853
12,23,38905,"There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. A vegetarian diet reduces the risk of serious diseases and, because it is low in fat, also helps to prevent you becoming overweight. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron.",1.4300319121420288,True,2.1618939571787155,2.0382459702036884,0.06821630012581391,140,True,1.685434927268869
15,1,2239,"Using live animals for research purposes serve a purpose. Using animals to research help create cures and treatments for diseases (procon.org). Using animals for research is the best option because they simulate animals as close as possible. Not only that, but using live animals for research purposes helps science advance. A lot of the biggest scientific discoveries were made with the assistance of live animals as test subjects (procon.org). Also, using animals as live test subjects has saved lives (procon.org). Most drugs have been tested for safety by using animals. This proves that using animals as live test subjects is alright because it serves a purpose",1.1172508830020322,True,0.7776189418652811,0.767898508801644,0.2049970336743308,106,True,0.6701047935047262
12,4,34850,"Despite what that Atkins guy says carbs are not bad for you, they are best in the morning though. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. The risk of vegetarians getting blood fat is very slim to none. As for the fish that depends on the fish, some has high levels of mercury while others have absorbed toxins from pollution. Again thought the problems that are helped by the Omega 3 comes from meat products thus still not an issue for vegetarians. I honestly do no know of any medical conditions from vegetarianism, just from poor eating and no exercise, which is common for omnivores as well. ""The researchers found that a low-fat vegan diet leads to weight loss of about 1 pound per week, even without additional exercise or limits on portion sizes, calories, or carbohydrates.",1.4300319121420288,True,1.10433465756415,0.775435835400054,0.09528883953538574,183,True,0.7625209647805185
12,5,42495,"I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. my first round will be dedicated to clarifying this debate, and a brief over view of the arguments I will be making now onto some definitions vegetarian a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, and in some cases any food derived from animals, such as eggs or cheese { herbivore } In this debate I believe pro is arguing that vegetarianism is better in four aspects, its better morally, provides better health, decreases world hunger, and is better for the environment. For my opponent to win this debate pro must prove all these point. first it is almost impossible to say that something like eating meat or not is morally better because morals are constantly changing from place to place and time to time. someone who lives in the desert where very little grows there main source of sustenance is live stalk, how would you possibly tell them that what they are doing is wrong. I will hold off on the health aspect till you make an argument as to why vegetarianism is healthier. How does eliminating a food source help stop world hunger. The environment is another topic I will hold off on till my next round.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.9837774760594324,0.7689325922542998,0.42097425200158667,216,False,0.8325620690591139
12,1,41068,"I am trying to say in this that if you don't eat animals because you are allergic, t makes you feel physically sick, you don't like the taste etc. that doen't matter. I would even go as far as to say If you really want to be a vegetarian I would be happy just contentiously disagreeing with you but I find this debate worthy because I disagree with the people who think that I should be a vegetarian because of the moral issue of eating meat and that I am wrong to enjoy and eat a lot of meat with no guilt. Please if you have those views that I should be a vegetarian then please accept this debate. I am a first time debator in this website and would like to add that I would love to have someone accept this request soon and I may not write much, personally I don't have much experience but I doubt I will run out of space. Soo.... what do you think. Oh, and please try to remove as much biases when voting. Oh, and finally, I wrote vegetarianism is wrong as the subject because I do think it's wrong and it is about it. I just hope I didn't confuse anyone into thinking differently from what's written above.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3523618073020273,0.2931249433082353,0.3782336533801098,217,True,0.38548643452266573
12,13,1819,"There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.”[1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009  ",1.4300319121420288,True,1.0416356166296017,2.8540975756379914,0.19490872794893133,234,True,1.632786282077417
12,3,5150,"""I will not argue that a vegetarian diet is healthy or in practice attainable for human heath but, you fail to connect that such practice is ethical. Presently you tout animal ethics is preferable without regard to the cascading effects that would precipitate greater harm against the human that is also an animal."" Con An interesting point of view. Indeed there is vested interest in the meat industry. Yet, this doesn't mean change has to happen overnight. A chaotic situation would arise if massive change happened over night. A more gradual change could be implemented. As for the economy there are some who think people are much healthier on a vegan diet. That health care costs would be reduced. I know in the USA health care costs keep rising. ""$245 billion: Total costs of diagnosed diabetes in the United States in 2012"" diabetes.org To stay on topic though the main point is vegetarians indirectly cause animal deaths. Vegetarians have animal blood on their hands. It annoys me that some hold their-selves on their high horses thinking they are so grand. If you want to save animals go vegan. As you can see eating eggs is one of the highest causes of animal deaths from the below graph in the animal visuals link. Milk is much higher than vegetables, fruits, and grains.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6679561836204763,1.04388010242775,1.858134941865752,221,True,1.381827196504915
12,1,34168,"Eating animals is part of our life. We eat animals because it helps out bodies and our health. But there's alternative ways to eat other food then just meat. We should just eat vegetables,fruits,pasta. We could eat anything but we choose to eat meat. We kill animals but we know it's wrong. Animals are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those animals are in need of help. We need to stop eating meat so we can save more animals in the near future. If we do so the earth would be a better place. So we should be vegetarians.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.36684117875858174,-0.7394001698282744,1.03715631564392,114,True,0.27706299613131513
12,4,39355,If you are irreligious does not mean that you think life has no meaning. How prejudice. My point still stands. Would you eat a dog? What about a cat? Also people have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to be a vegetarian or not. Being a vegetarian is a choice.,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.9416092013639308,-1.4797675444967031,0.8262404726343526,48,True,-0.5670506274236793
12,1,26366,"I think that vegetarianism is the only moral choice in the 21st century because eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. what do you think?",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.2904239031990672,-0.6563167158863733,-0.04357324451954795,96,True,-0.3888280615261039
19,2,9345,Ok here are my reasons why I think Homo-Sexuals should be allowed to marrry 1 They cannot help being homo-sexuals. If they are in love with the same gender they cannot help it. Its not like a homo sexual can choose to be straight their genes makes them a homo-sexual. If we don't allow these people the basic fair chance to marry then how is this fair or equal to them? You should not leave out homo-sexuals from marriage because they were litteraly speaking born to be homo-sexuals. 2 Studies show that in countries where homo sexuals are banned HIV rates go up and homo sexuals have more stress and anxiety. (Conducted by emory university) 3 Society is changing polls are showing that with each passing year more people want homo sexuals to marry should we ignore their opinions? 4 In the case of people saying homo sexuals have bad families there has been studies that show families arn't affected by the parents sexual orientation. Sources,-0.7594352918379461,True,0.2939536151960429,-0.40048371396753457,-0.7291267114152408,166,True,-0.32204278158382016
12,4,3394,"ok lets be real here this next argument i have is about vegetarians i think we ll know that vegetarians are just racists... they use ""i don't eat meat"" as a way to avoid black people. we all know this worlds supply of fried chicken is supplied by the blacks and the vegetarians don't like that. they will stop at nothing just to avoid the blacks. don't eat meat? F dat i see those nigs eating meat all the time just not with the blacks. p.s. it's ok im not racist i have a black cousin.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-2.5053491946005426,-1.4453287651809923,-1.71590314799853,96,True,-2.1846725546442136
12,2,3713,"good option for vegans/vegetarians, people with protein deficiencies and people who cannot afford meat",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,14,True,-4.0
15,4,28147,"Granted, the affirmative can provide multiple reasons why animal testing is beneficial and should be around it is important to remember the negative consequences of animal testing must be acknowledged. The purpose of animal testing is to apply products to animals before testing them on humans. While this can be important for the safety of the human subject the results for the animal subjects can be horrifying. While there is good reason for this testing it is important to note that research via animal testing can be misleading. Dr. Ray Greek supports this assertion in a recent news article saying, ""...research with animals is misleading."" A few examples include: drugs that would not have harmed humans did harm mice and were consequently not put on the market, researchers working with monkey models of HIV tested a vaccine on the monkeys and subsequently gave the vaccine to humans who were harmed as a result. The harms of animal testing (as proven by the previous two examples) can go both ways. Furthermore, many positive changes have not occurred due to animal testing. The National Cancer Institute has stated that society may have lost cures for cancer because of animal testing. The whole moral debate aside, the entire medical field could have been revolutionized, but animal testing stood in the way. Ultimately it doesn't matter how you approach the topic. Whether from a moral or practical stand point, animal testing ought not be affirmed. Because of all that has and has not happened as a result of animal testing, I urge you to vote negative. Thank you",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7492143455291705,1.4351238759992901,0.5773041542927743,264,False,1.0640747166900144
11,1,26959,"Advocates of increased government involvement in health care frequently cite the profits of private health care providers as a major part of the costs of health care. An example of the criticism is that of Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY), speaking on the Rachel Maddow show, who said, speaking of proposed legislation that would heavily tax the health insurance industry: ""Well, the one behavioral change we are clearly not going to see is the insurance companies aren't going to suddenly start saying, 'You know what, we are going to stop making 30 percent profits and cut it down to 10 percent or 5 percent because of this bill.' "" So are the insurance company profits really 30%, as claimed? Fortune magazine rated the health insurance industry as the 35th most profitable of 53 industries surveyed for 2008: 35 Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care 2.2% In 2006, in better economic times, health insurance company profits were 7.1%. In the Yahoo Finance ranking of industries (they divide ndustry into more categories than Fortune) by profitability, ""Health Care Plans"" rank 84th, with a profitability of 3.3%. Total insurance company profits were $12.87 billion in 2007 and $8.40 billion in 2008. Total health care spending in the United States was $2.2 trillion in 2007. Insurance company profits were therefore 0.59% of total health care costs in 2007. Since total costs have been rising at about 6%, the insurance company profits would be about 0.36% of total health care costs in 2008. Because insurance company profits are much less than 1% of health care costs, they are not a major factor in healh care costs in the United States. The resolution is affirmed.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.5715310736792878,2.278084155146985,1.8987887485473984,278,True,2.2146562702259467
11,11,3539,"There are several reasons why health care should not be considered a universal human right. The first issue is one of definition – how do we define the services that need to be rendered in order for them to qualify as adequate health care? Where do we draw the line? Emergency surgery, sure, but how about cosmetic surgery? The second is that all human rights have a clear addressee, an entity that needs to protect this right. But who is targeted here? The government? What if we opt for a private yet universal health coverage – is this any less moral? Let’s forget the institutions for a second, should this moral duty of health care fall solely on the doctors perhaps?[1] In essence, viewing health care as a right robs us of another, much more essential one – that of the right to one’s own life and one’s livelihood. If it is not considered a service to be rendered, than how could a doctor charge for it? She couldn’t! If it were a right, than each of us would own it, it would have to be inseparable from us. Yet, we don’t and we can’t.[2] We can see that considering health care as a basic human right has profound philosophical problems, not the least of them the fact that it infringes on the rights of others. [1] Barlow, P., Health care is not a human right, published 7/31/1999, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126951/, accessed 9/18/2011 [2] Sade, R., The Political Fallacy that Medical Care is a Right, published 12/2/1971, http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/sademcr.htm, accessed 9/18/2011  ",0.8044698538620362,True,0.8357135965369666,1.0568698799687957,0.18023744867427272,259,False,0.7982002747747116
11,3,43829,"to wrap up this debate what I'm trying to prove is that we should adopt universal health care modeled after the French because as I have stated earlier that we have a 2.3 trillion debt due to health care and France has a 9 billion dollar deficit do you can clearly see the difference between the two and I do agree with my opponent that we would go bankrupt with this universal health care but what I'm also trying to say is that even if we don't take in the universal health care we still would be going bankrupt. but by taking in universal health care we wouldn't go into bankrupt so quickly. my second point is that it could be possible to work universal health care in the united states, in Kentucky they had done a similar thing like universal health care but they stated it did not work due to the low number of citizens. so if we were to take in universal health care which would include every one then we could possibly work universal health care into our system this are my two main points on why I should win this debate thank you masterzanzibar for such a great debate no one has ever bring up this kind of information and you should tell me what framework has to do with this debate",1.1172508830020322,True,0.2748890609850001,-0.21619542166189787,0.9180416855983984,227,True,0.3793633823426681
11,14,32593,"Privatising health care cannot be discussed without raising concern over inequality. The privatisation of health care promotes exclusive health care, and is failing to bridge the gap between accessible care for low-income groups and the elite. The model remains unaffordable for many, and therefore ineffective. Even where affordable options are available the quality of care deteriorates. Quality assurance, and affordable care, is needed. For example, taking the case of South Africa. Health care is provided through both public and private systems. However, the pricing of private health care: whereby better facilities and speed of treatment are found, leaves a majority out-of-pocket and excluded (All Africa, 2013). Prices need to be controlled and affordable options made available. Although formal employers have been involved in supporting access and coverage to health insurance schemes, to prevent a two-tier health system, a majority work within formal employment. If everyone has a ‘right’ to adequate health care, privatisation neglects their rights to health[1]. [1] See further readings: War on Want (2013).  ",0.8044698538620362,True,1.4229359401997197,0.8111331613648739,-0.10824226013367333,167,True,0.8325792781825792
11,1,42405,"Hi! INTRO/EXPLANATION: Because of the sometimes astronomical cost of health care, the Affordable Care Act includes a new provision that makes many preventive services available patients. These services will not require co-pays or deductibles, and will apply to both self-inusured and fully insured plans. Among these preventative services are FDA-approved contraceptives for men and women, with some restrictions. This provision was included as a way to drive down costs, to reduce pressure on overburdened systems, and to remove cost barriers - ensuring that more women maintain access to preventative health care. [1] Only half of Americans have historically sought health care as a normal preventative measure, and this has driven up medical costs in the US exponentially. [1] Additionally, women's health care needs in particular can be difficult to meet, especially in relation to reproductive health, where the health of an infant may be necessarily included. [2] Hopefully, this debate will help to explain some of the reasons for including preventative health care and reproductive health care in particular, as part of any new health care reform laws. I look forward to an interesting exchange! --------------- For the record, this is a link to a DDO Opinions section that covers this subject: [1] [2]",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,204,True,-4.0
11,1,43342,"Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient. Because they are bill patients and not the government doctors will be less likely to price gouge. Doctors who were trained in other countries would be able to practice because we would eliminate licensure and take away the special privileges of the doctor's cartels. After abolishing licensure pharmacists could also compete with doctors. Instead of rationing health care - as all nations which practice socialized medicine do - we would not ration health care. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available).",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3628907502741697,0.8503834490635483,-0.3249919847098969,218,True,0.3461712352921755
11,2,39438,"Ok I thank you for providing such great info in your rebuttal. Alright I'm going to address the Canadian hospitality first. Well In my own words I say that what if this long patent waiting does not have anything to do about health care, I myself would blame this problem on there environment, as says So many people get sick because of there filthy environment. Secondly why people would have to wait so long is their lack of hospitals, for an ex look at France no problems there are hospitals all over in France, says that ""French hospitals are easily accessible."" Now on to the cons of having free health care. First we would save a lot of money, and going back to the Canadian health, with out free health care we are just like them, only we don't wait we have to pay because a company would not pay it for them, now they don't have money they lose there job, and their house, then soon after their life. Living with free health care would help us, , this site tells you that people have lost jobs, just because they wouldn't pay for someone's health, those people die, the worker then blames their selfs, so not only does non free health care kill others, it also places some in a maniac depression. That is my rebuttal thank you for reading what I had to say.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.2728342151340636,-0.7021469136090609,-0.19874678346175467,236,True,-0.46050953445871723
19,7,7401,"Pro says that homosexuals are born that way, despite giving no evidence to support the claim. 1. People aren't born homosexual The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence denies the existence of a ""gay gene."" This is illustrated through the following report by the daily caller. ""Journalists trumpet every biological study that even hints that gayness and straightness might be hard-wired, but they show little interest in the abundant social-science research showing that sexual orientation cannot be innate. The scholars I interviewed for this essay were variously dismayed or appalled by this trend. For example, historian Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said ""no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight."" And cultural anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: ""Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it""s impossible that that""s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures."" While biology certainly plays a role in sexual behavior, no ""gay gene"" has been found"" [1] 2. Even if people are born with homosexual urges, they shouldn't act out on them. My opponent didn't address the point I made in my last speech, showing that some people are born with tendency to become angry more easily. However, just because a feeling exists does not mean you should act on it. Pro asks how I know homosexual behavior is destructive. I will refer my opponent back up to my conceded first contention, where i demonstrated that homosexuality increases STD's, suicide rates, and damages the immune system. Furthermore, it is gateway toward the legalization of beastiality and polygamy. Sources 1.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.5021408681152646,0.7768065963235963,0.23909202648861594,280,False,0.5790333124765021
11,4,30793,"Following suit with Pro, I will briefly cover my position in round 1. Note that I will use the term ""health care"" to mean health care and/or health insurance, and the term ""Obamacare"" to mean any federal government health policy changes implemented under President Obama. Pro's uses the word ""good"" in the resolution, which I will take to mean an on-balance improvement in the lives of American citizens. Rather than take the position that some alternative government plan, or perhaps the status quo, would have been better than Obamacare, I will be taking the more radical position that there is a direct correlation between government involvement and a reduced quality of life related to health care. If this is the case, the resolution will be negated, since Obamacare increased federal involvement in health care. I will accomplish this by refuting Pro's claims and covering the following: 1) a theoretical basis for free market health care 2) real world examples of free market health care 3) negative affects of government involvement in health care, in theory and practice Since Pro mentioned medicaid expansion, I don't want to be accused of dropped arguments, so for now, I will just briefly state that I will be challenging any study that shows Obamacare results in a statistically significant decrease in death rates.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6999696139382005,1.6899217905951096,0.1808169823741208,218,False,1.0039292388170473
11,3,22423,"In conclusion, Americans need to have affordable health care. This is the first step of many to find the easiest, most efficient, and most cost efficient health care. This is not nationalized health care. It is not for people who can't work. It is just health care that Americans can afford if their employers health care is too expensive or if their employers don't offer health care. It is worth giving it a try. It may help you, your kids, or your friends. It is customer driven. If one insurance company is not competitive, it will not be picked, and sooner or later it will have to drop its price. It is the way Americans do business. We have been strapped with what our employers offer for too long. Now we have a choice.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.4731440757886496,0.420116542115919,-0.3409871175186789,134,True,0.21115886156049415
11,6,22423,"bocaj427 forfeited this round. Pro In conclusion, Americans need to have affordable health care. This is the first step of many to find the easiest, most efficient, and most cost efficient health care. This is not nationalized health care. It is not for people who can't work. It is just health care that Americans can afford if their employers health care is too expensive or if their employers don't offer health care. It is worth giving it a try. It may help you, your kids, or your friends. It is customer driven. If one insurance company is not competitive, it will not be picked, and sooner or later it will have to drop its price. It is the way Americans do business. We have been strapped with what our employers offer for too long. Now we have a choice.",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.1995325169790518,-0.2503210931557002,0.020653443374946304,139,False,-0.5455295592309024
15,1,35485,"The use of technology does not think like a human. I understand the advancement of technology and volunteered cadavers, but what about studies that involves the specimen to be alive? In psychology, many case studies involve the naturalistic studying of animals, others they are being tested on so they can be compared to the human body and mind. Technology cannot provide that kind of information for us. I do not necessarily believe in the potential harming such as the testing of make up on animals, but research for the mind and behavior should not be ruled out with the rest of the potentially harmful studies.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.6858974296355566,0.10745970145175264,0.4533384846617279,105,True,-0.04515756612246633
12,3,26366,"Firstly, I can't see why you aren't supporting other kinds of eating styles, and only stating why I am wrong. Please say why you think other kinds of food choices can be good in the 21st century. 1. I would like to stand in the ""Vegetarian is just the best choice,not the only choice."" (Thank you for reminding me.) 2. Also, I agree with you on the fact that the choice is the person's decision, but if a lot of people don't turn vegetarian, big problems will come in the future. Would YOU like a future with huge air pollution, all the forests cut down, etc?",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.25583822007911555,-0.1609062421885815,-0.08328334299585326,106,True,-0.20292904551038501
11,1,23789,"I would like to thank ConservativeRepublican for posting this debate. For the purposes of this debate, I will be advocating for an American system of nationalized health care. I want to stipulate that this is not a debate specifically about the recently passed piece of legislation referred to by many republicans as Obamacare. Nor is this a debate about Romneycare. This is a debate about ""National Health Care."" To avoid a semantic argument I think it's also prudent to establish what we mean by ""National Health Care."" For the purposes of this debate, I propose that ""National Health Care"" and ""Universal Health Care"" be interchangeable -where both mean the implementation of a system whereby health care is provided to a majority of citizens by private or non-private means as a result of governmental action. Again, I thank ConservativeRepublican for the debate and I look foreword to its commencement.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,148,True,-4.0
11,6,10872,"Health care most assuredly should not be free for all Americans. Most of the reasons why health care is so expensive are reasons that can be solved not by providing the health care for free, but through more stringent regulations upon insurance providers, hospitals, etc. There are indeed many problems with health care in this country today. Almost all these problems are factors in driving up costs of the health care. The reform that is needed in this country however is not that it should be free, but instead must reform the system to make the process simpler, more easily understandable, and more competitive so consumers can make wiser, more informed decisions. In this debate I will be arguing that our countries problems with health care can be solved while still keeping the market ""private."" I will use statistical and literary evidence to support my claims and will do so clearly and concisely with sourcing to verify my claims. I look forward to this debate as well as look forward to clarification upon your assertions and evidence that supports. Thank you for creating a debate with such a great topic.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.3683502897882944,0.5181157314560618,0.1706600713539707,190,False,0.12134956144472095
11,8,23789,"Thanks to my opponent for a great debate with many good ideas. Now onto my conclusion. In conclusion, socialized medicine, by means of the government providing health care to all is a major threat to our country. National health care drives out doctors, encourages unhealthy lifestyles, and endangers the lives of those who need it most. In addition, national health care will only further increase our never-ending debt, driving us further and further down a road we are not prepared for. It may seem easy to readily compare France and the United States about how much each spends on health care and the amount of satisfaction, but the truth is our health care system can not easily be compared to that of many socialized countries, such as France, because the population difference is so great. Finally, I believe that national health care is just one more step towards socialism and away from capitalism. Capitalism is the very way we run our country and is what allows us to remain the worlds best economy, and runs on the idea that you must work hard to get what you want, and have things provided to you by the government. Once again, thanks to my opponent for a great debate.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6639468282397165,-0.4148388768554884,1.2378935770301889,207,False,0.590273681756976
11,6,29416,"Universal health care was achieved in Mexico in 2012. Public Health care delivery is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Therefore, Mexican health care is subsidized via a system of health care facilities operating under the federal Secretariat of Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA) agency. US citizens don't even have universal health care, which Mexico now has, and build within that is the SSA which also acts as a CDC as it is the head of governmental health services in Mexico. The CDC in America was largely privately funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, which is kind of private funding US is not responsible to create a CDC for Mexico, nor is it the US's responsibility to. Mexico has a completely different system and needs to support itself and create it's own forms of institutional systems.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.023045432868866133,0.9336431830578692,0.5765300477293133,165,False,0.5899734805348695
11,8,3539,"With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests and check-ups before they feel ill, so that conditions can be picked up in their early stages when they are easy to treat. For example in a recent study 70% of women with health insurance knew their cholesterol level, while only 50% of uninsured women did. In the end, people who do not get preventive health care will get treatment only when their disease is more advanced. As a result their care will cost more and the outcomes are likely to be much worse. Preventative care, made more accessible, can function the same way, reducing the costs further.[1] In addition, a single-payer system reduces the administrative costs. A different way of charging for the care, not by individual services but by outcomes, as proposed by Obama’s bill, also changes incentives from as many tests and procedures as possible to as many patients treated and healed as possible.[2] We thus see that not only does universal health coverage inherently decrease costs because of preventative care, much of the cost can be avoided if implemented wisely and incentivized properly. [1] Cutler, D. M., Health System Modernization Will Reduce the Deficit, published 5/11/2009, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/05/health_modernization.html, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Wirzibicki, A., With health costs rising, Vermont moves toward a single-payer system, published 4/7/2011, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/04/vermonts_single.html, accessed 9/17/2011  ",0.1789077955820434,True,0.7109823628251151,0.9779269315772244,-0.2290791971311172,227,True,0.5686874643586433
19,2,25341,"Sexuality is a term used to describe the sexual characteristics of a person, which is different from sexual orientation. Regardless of somebodies sexual preference we all display some or varying degrees of sexuality. This is whether we are comfortable with contact sports, for example. Some people for instance wouldn't even feel comfortable raising their hand in class to ask a question. Going up to strangers and giving them a hearty hand shake and asking how are you to-day, might be impossible for some people regardless of whether they are Gay or straight. One of the questions you should ask yourself is which of my parents was more physically demonstrative, my mother or my father. If it is your father you are more Physically sexual. If not you are more emotionally sexual. If you aren't already confused. You get your sexuality from your father. Nothing to do with being gay though. Like straight people, Homosexual people are either emotionally sexual or physically sexual in different degrees. As far as the alter boy scenario, well the jury is out on that one. It could be argued that the alter boy was at boarding school, some boarding school lads have some sort of sex with each other some most or all may well go on to live a straight life. I think being Gay is rather more circumstantial than learned.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.4494908101790008,0.2904956150693092,0.2055133229506731,227,False,0.014236063291139477
11,10,32593,"Private-sector investment will provide crucial training for health professionals, infrastructure, and resources to improve maternal and child health care. Providing affordable maternal care acts as a means for promoting gender equality, and empowerment. Jacaranda Health[1] operate on a business model, meeting the demand, and need, for affordable and high-quality maternal care in East Africa. Through mobile clinics and new maternity hospitals Jacaranda Health is empowering women and children. Within the first year Jacaranda Health provided care for 4,000 women, and changed the lives of 20,000 families. Additionally, free maternal care holds negative side-effects. As Burundi shows, the social policy ideas implementing ‘free’ maternal health care resulted in overburdening the health resources and understaffed facilities; and putting vulnerable children at greater risk (IRIN, 2013). [1] See further reading: Jacaranda Health, 2013.  ",1.1172508830020322,True,1.0115476408065418,1.4052851582966552,0.8643378525778552,131,True,1.26021240138127
11,3,20786,"...other countries have better health care pay their drs less Did you just come up with this assumption? If you did not i would like to know which countries have better health care than us and i would like to know why you say they have better health care. Until you prove the fact that our health care system is inferior you have no argument. >>> the stats are there on the internet. the US rates only in the middle of quality of health care and pay too much .... we would get people who are not into for the money Everyone is in it for the money. The doctors have to pay off their bills from their extensive schooling. They have to pay for food, housing and medical care just like the rest of us. I am sure some doctors get into for the satisfaction of saving lives but if they were not making money they would still leave so they could pay their bills. >>>> Drs salaries after all the expenses are very high and about twice as high as candana france britain. its all googleable >>>>> have you researched this?",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.29418666984549485,-1.0240048109794986,-1.9147064846468835,193,True,-1.2304756634512761
11,2,13892,"Thanks mongeese for taking this discussion and for the welcome. I have been on Debate.org before just not in a long time. As I said, I don't care who wins and I will vote for you. Also I am not too worried about the semantics about debate. Just as long as we make arguments and counter arguments. I guess this begins with the fact that a lot of my friends are Christians and because they are Christians they feel they have to be republican. Which I completely understand. However, this seems to carry over into the debate on health care. The jest of my argument is this: 1. If Jesus were here, he would support universal health care. Since Christians are followers of Christ, they too should support health care. 2. Jesus would also support social programs as in the health care plan proposed by the government. Thus if anyone is a follower of Christ, they should in fact be in support of the health care plan that was accepted by the Government. If they don't they are a hypocrite. I now this is brief but I can expand it in future rounds as the discussion develops. Also please feel free to expand the debate as you see fit. In other words, it doesn't have to stay around these two claims. Feel free to expand the debate to , politics etc. Let me have it, have fun and remember you already get my vote.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.12236781606674572,-0.18273486999513894,0.7905837614675619,244,True,0.28137470968047745
11,5,13119,"Thank you for accepting this debate, and good luck. There are several flaws in my opponent's argument, which I will attack in this round. Rebuttal: One flaw is that ""Billy"" could not afford health insurance and needed free universal health care. Universal health care is not actually ""free"". The way the government funds universal health care is through taxes. Every worker in France pays about 50% of their paycheck each month into health care. If the United States had universal health care, Billy would not be able to even afford food, and it would be unfair to the U.S. as a whole because every worker would have half as much money, and would also be paying for other people. Secondly, is the idea that he got turned away from the hospital. That would be impossible, as it is illegal for a hospital to refuse emergency medical service due to a lack of insurance or money. Even so, Billy could have received free treatment from a non-profit or government-run hospital.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6283089898161573,0.3820844971377914,0.17286947444063125,169,False,0.44897939000001647
15,7,7862,"Once again, I""m not sure you fully understand. I am against Animal Testing as a whole, therefor I feel that an alternative to Animal Testing should be found and I am for (Pro), that we find another alternative for animal testing. So, in fact you have just helped me to prove my argument, which I appreciate, because we feel the same way regarding this topic. :) As I understand, the person going (Pro) for, this argument should then state why they think that a alternative for animal testing should NOT be found, and prove that animal testing is a good and civil form of medical research. Since they are then (Pro) for, Animal Testing. (I am (Con) against, animal testing, therefore I am (Pro) for, finding an alternative to animal testing). Or should the Pro and Con depend on the subject of your topic (an alternative for animal testing should be found) rather than the the topic itself (Animal Testing)? Then, I fully understand the confusion. This is only my second debate, so I've I'm doing it wrong you're more than welcome to inform me? :)",0.4916888247220394,True,0.7463536137535348,-0.1311149519629376,-0.5088067843350137,186,False,0.04701000126922796
12,1,30716,"It obviously makes sense to vegetarians. I guess that lifestyle, diet wise, if correctly executed, can be healthier. I also understand when people sympathize with animals. It is after all one of the feelings that distinguish us from other animals.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.3368548006850663,-1.3349825690641828,-0.9702563846256655,40,False,-0.7385598764695945
11,4,32880,"Resolved: A limit on the costs of health care does not result in a limit on the benefits of health care. Limit - amount that may not be exceeded by law Costs of health care - what a person pays their health insurance company, as determined by contract Benefits of health care - what the health insurance company does for a person after that person needs the benefits, as determined by contract Now, here's some common business logic: the quality of the product directly corresponds with the cost of the product [1]. Therefore, when a health insurance company is no longer allowed to charge high prices, it also has no reason to provide numerous benefits. A health care company would not give an average of $20,000 in benefits to a man paying only $10,000 in costs. That would go against business logic. The company would start losing money, and soon go out of business, and nobody would receive any benefits at all. With that, I'll leave my opponent to argue in the contrary. Good luck to whoever accepts. 1.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7409328981604079,0.04185357762011674,0.5702603052694093,179,False,0.5175464586987718
11,7,13892,"My opponent brings up two important points. They support his argument rather well. However, their main flaw is that they are not backed up by anything. I suggest using a source (the Bible would be nice) to show where Jesus showed any inclination to support something like the health care bill. Now, I'll make two points: 1. Jesus wasn't really into political coercion. As God, he would support the free will of the people. Note that different denominations have different opinions of free will, but it is false to say that all of Christianity would be against the exercise of free will. 2. The bill does not help the poor at all. The bill requires health insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions indiscriminately [1]. This means that they must raise premiums for everybody to be able to afford to insure those who will cost more to care for. This rise in premiums will turn the healthy people away from buying health care, resulting in adverse impact [2], driving health care prices higher and higher. When a healthy person suddenly becomes ill, he can apply for health insurance anyway, calling his sudden disease a pre-existing condition. The company would be forced to accept him and pay for for his health care. This would make profits for health insurance companies practically impossible in the long run. This in no way benefits the poor, the rich, or America as a whole. With these two points, I will turn the debate over to my opponent. Remember, sources! 1. 2.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.4176689560090237,0.7317289182925877,0.6661252942451238,257,False,0.6922955969518303
11,1,26528,"Veterans Admistration provides a fully government funded health care coverage for Military Veterans. Medicaid is a fully government funded health care for the poor and children. Medicare is a fully government funded health care for the elderly. Bugman you don't know what the heck you are talking about. We have three functioning federal health care system that no one complains about. Well a lot of people complain about health care for the poor because ""its their fault"" for being poor. They need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.2560827807136615,-0.057087943205975274,-0.1842601117406424,89,False,-0.002382135126876738
11,4,40069,"well here is what i belive is wrong with universal health care is that i will pay x amount in taxes because of how much i make and lets say that is $5,000 dollars lets say bill gates then pays $100,000 for his health care but both of us get the same amount off attention from the doctors. The element of universal health care also takes out the competition of hospitals which stops them from trying to serve us and makes them do as much as they think nesscary not to get fired. If universal health care was to come about i think there should still be hospitals were i can go put down my dollar and get the attention i need cause i can pay for it yes people may die cause they are poor and cant afford health care is this the goverments fault or there fault?",0.4916888247220394,True,-1.8871403877505568,-1.0661836402167504,-1.1122577750294975,149,False,-1.571125480398398
19,2,16061,"It may all be fall on what is looked upon the society we live in today. But we as human being have not right to judge upon sexual orientation. Like years before with Racial matters we are going with the Sexual orientations. It shouldn't matter if negro, if we are white if we are Mexican or what ever we are. Love is love and hate is hate. Even if our society is dependant on child bearing. Even if they are gay or what ever they can always have children. Being heterosexual is somebody who is sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and being gay is just being attracted to someone who is of the same sex. It may be economic for the married couples so they can bring more people into this world. But with the way our economy is who is saying we should bring more people into this world. We could always adopt kids who really need good homes. The study by Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld says that children who are raised by the same sex parents are children have nearly the same educational achievement as children raised by married. So there is no difference between having parents who are straight between parents of the same sex. Go!",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.30284975095738764,0.5083723585807789,0.6911637127476097,212,True,0.34683624826135756
11,14,3539,"One of the countries lauded for its universal health care is France. So what has the introduction of universal coverage brought the French? Costs and waiting lists. France’s system of single-payer health coverage goes like this: the taxpayers fund a state insurer called Assurance Maladie, so that even patients who cannot afford treatment can get it. Now although, at face value, France spends less on healthcare and achieves better public health metrics (such as infant mortality), it has a big problem. The state insurer has been deep in debt since 1989, which has now reached 15 billion euros.[1] Another major problem with universal health care efficiency is waiting lists. In 2006 in Britain it was reported that almost a million Britons were waiting for admission to hospitals for procedures. In Sweden the lists for heart surgery are 25 weeks long and hip replacements take a year. Very telling is a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court, another champion of universal health care: “access to a waiting list is not access to health care”.[2] Universal health coverage does sound nice in theory, but the dual cancers of costs and waiting lists make it a subpar option when looking for a solution to offer Americans efficient, affordable and accessible health care. [1] Gauthier-Villars, D., France Fights Universal Care's High Cost, published 8/7/2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Tanner, M., Cannon, M., Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets, published 4/5/2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2681638.story, accessed 9/18/2011  ",0.4916888247220394,True,1.1383753708653124,1.3887789001999935,0.6476832961066785,239,True,1.2213751800594739
11,6,41309,"I'd like to start with the first issue you stated the effect the individual mandate has on jobs. Now let's begin with what the Individual mandate does it's a law that requires all citizens to buy health care and because of this more costumers means more people have to provide for those costumers it's actually basic math. There are currently 40 million uninsured in America let's assume every single one of them decide to get health care the average American according to the average American family pays $414 a month now let's do the math that is an estimated $16,560,000,000 [ sixteen billion five hundred sixty million ] per month for the health care industry and let's accumulate your estimated loss of 3.5 billion that'd be 13060000000 { thirteen billion sixty million} Still a huge increase of net for insurance company who's dancing their way to the bank. Sub point B - Current mandates decreases Government spending on individuals. Currently America pays more money per person on health care then any other country in the world including countries that have insurance mandates. You may look at these graphs to see how much we America really pays for health care compared to other countries and there's a clear link between mandated countries and non mandated countries. Yes the impact is clear - Thousands of jobs will be created because of insurance mandates South Korea who has an insurance mandate currently has an unemployment rate less then 4% seems it isn't effecting them much. There are six clear professions that will see a huge impact with an Insurance mandate I'd also like to ask what do you mean the government shouldn't force people to buy health care is this from a legal standpoint or a moral standpoint?",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5951925016704952,0.8235733669720599,0.9670159649181758,295,False,0.9128503254416376
11,10,30330,"With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests and check-ups before they feel ill, so that condidtions can be picked up in their early stages when they are easy to treat. For example in a recent study 70% of women with health insurance knew their cholestrol level, while only 50% of uninsured women did. In the end, people who do not get preventive health care will get treatment only when their disease is more advanced. As a result their care will cost more and the outcomes are likely to be much worse.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.0316336429164177,0.7507018635572538,-0.008027681034765439,99,True,0.6859194897422819
11,5,20786,"...other countries have better health care pay their drs less Did you just come up with this assumption? If you did not i would like to know which countries have better health care than us and i would like to know why you say they have better health care. Until you prove the fact that our health care system is inferior you have no argument. .... we would get people who are not into for the money Everyone is in it for the money. The doctors have to pay off their bills from their extensive schooling. They have to pay for food, housing and medical care just like the rest of us. I am sure some doctors get into for the satisfaction of saving lives but if they were not making money they would still leave so they could pay their bills.",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.6990021883136126,-0.2593138224219079,-0.15701398893393306,142,False,-0.7963723533621194
11,11,37104,"free health-care means more patients which means more test subjects equating to better quality research. The U.S has been very backward in not having free universal health-care and it's about time the country had a sensible head over her shoulders and got down to business. Against the ""No"" point on protesting free health care in no way means worse health care, NHS is free and the quality of health care is very good. Might be a little bit slow but it does the job and thats the most important thing. Making sure that everyone can access healthcare when they need it. On the issue of poor quality care: Cuba (an entirely socialised country) has one of the highest standards of healthcare in the world.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.5909348025762843,-0.07121488022407696,-0.11664231079523925,124,False,-0.3076260328015612
15,5,1264,"Animal testing- Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops). Pro can't neither spell nor counter my argument and attempted to point out feeble flaws. The question is rather generalized as well, it depends on your definition of animal testing. The extent where animal testing is a bad thing needs to be drawn somewhere. The line should be drawn where it brings harm to the animal itself. As stated before, There will always be the first human who has to take this test no matter what tests are done. You could do a test a million times over and still there will be the first human. Sure, there will be eventually some 1 or 2 good causes out of animal testing. But at what cost? Millions of animals dead, and more than 95% of the time for no reason at all. Some animal tests that were pronounced good actually led to deaths of the first human tested. Sure you can say ""we learn from this"" maybe we shouldn't do it to begin with. It would save 16 billion dollars that could be put to a more practical use, like education and health care. How about its time for an argument? Or is it because you have no argument? I'll see you in round 3! Thank you for debating this with me!",0.8044698538620362,True,0.7021471593880251,0.14010373512311186,0.8586401713214373,259,False,0.6522311533906734
12,4,21934,"Lassiepie forfeited this round. Con In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty.",1.1172508830020322,True,-2.282859829941958,-1.848140827968897,-0.7999331224930917,29,True,-1.888093492888375
11,4,43107,"Seeing as my opponent mongosse has posted a debate that is by most standards would appear to be unwinnable, so therefore this debate will have to fall victim to semantics. Fox News did not show Obama's address to Congress about HIS health care plan because Barack Obama does not have a health care plan. There are two health care plans in the legislature to this date. HR3200 which is America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which is consideration in the House of Representatives[1]. There other is one in the Senate which has been recently passed by the Senate Finance Committee[2]. Seeing as Barack Obama did write any of these bills they are not respectfully HIS and therefore FNC (Fox News) did not show Obama's address to Congress about HIS supposed health care plan. Thank You. [1] [2]",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.7256350183821048,-0.2809143051862901,-0.3023598778109488,138,False,-0.5131602563977108
11,9,30330,"Universal health care will cause people to use the health care system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources. As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up.",1.4300319121420288,True,1.2770022406294692,0.1896683268669533,0.4982729949486639,70,False,0.7603972882698286
11,3,23533,"As I have already said, this is not a bizarre idea, many countries have free health care. How is it immoral? People are able to go to hospital for free (governmental not private) in many countries, hospitals aren't only built on tax payer money, they get other sources of income as well. Henceforth, if there is a proper allocation of tax, thereby funding sectors that actually need the money and which are important such as health care, people would be able to receive free health care. If you are wealthy enough to afford private institutes, then that's good for you. However, many of us will need to use the hospital some day e.g. on our deathbed, accidents, births etc. so this is NOT theft because everyone gets sick, therefore you'd be able to go to the clinic because you have a cold and not have to pay money which you could have used for other things. THIS IS NOT THEFT.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.1547111782978375,0.0957513322304517,-0.16891435266710755,160,True,-0.09722432828245622
17,1,37493,"I will gladly challenge you on this debate and explain why it is a good idea for police officers to hand out tickets if you aren't wearing a seat belt. I will also explain the differences between what is our ""right"" and what is our privilage when it comes to driving and wearing our seat belts. I believe strongly that we should obey the rules of the road, which include wearing your seat belt, whether you're a child in the back seat or an adult behind the wheel. Let's take a look at your first question. You asked if anyone else thought it was completely rediculous for cops to write tickets to those not wearing their seat belts. I don't think it's rediculous at all. A police officer's job is to serve and protect their citizens according to the law. Therefore, I do not believe it to be rediculous at all. The cop is just doing his/her job to protect the lives of those on the road. Even if that life does not wish to be protected. You also stated that the only reason they (the cops) do this is to prevent us from not dying, not anyone else on the road. Not everyone dies while not wearing their seat belts. They could also be preventing a debilitating injury, not only to yourself, but to others as well. I look forward to debating this with you in the future rounds.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.1939914269380445,0.1691901555873251,0.9964990593211872,240,True,0.9120913828528359
11,5,43107,"Quote from my opponent's R1 opening argument: ""I have heard many uninformed liberals claim that FNC [1] did not show Obama's address to Congress that was supposed to be regarding his health care plan. This is a blatant lie."" Within the opening argument the word 'supposed' was used exactly zero times, and once in the title. He then provided a video of Barack Obama's Address to Congress as proof of this despite the fact that that he doesn't have one. So as it stands all the evidence he has that FNC did cover Barack Obama's Adress to Congress on his health care plan is a definition for the word supposed, making his R2 argument pretty weak. Mongoose presented the video of Barack Obama's address to Congress under the pretenses that it was covering his health care plan (see quoteabove), not his SUPPOSED health care plan. Thank You.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.061742224327759214,-0.7099021428628007,1.148101222462406,147,False,0.21613561834075187
11,7,3539,"While the idea that better access to preventative medicine will quickly and drastically lower general medical care costs is an incredible notion, it sadly is just that – a notion. As an aside, the same argument – lowered costs – could be made for simply improving the existing tactics of preventative medicine without the need to invest into universal coverage. Returning to this proposition though, while it might be realistic to expect some reduction in costs from improved prevention, those would very unlikely ever amount to a significant amount – and certainly not an amount that would make introducing universal health coverage a feasible strategy.[1] Universal health care will cause people to use the health care system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources. As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up. [1] Leonhardt, D., Free Lunch on Health? Think Again, published 8/8/2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/business/08leonhardt.html, accessed 9/18/2011  ",0.4916888247220394,True,0.8086094125371736,0.2330757987425215,0.5760077513096857,190,False,0.617944454854966
11,1,10958,"This debate is impossible to accept at this time However, if you do want to participate, please tell me in the comments section. I will choose an opponent in about 3 days time. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments and Rebuttals Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4: Final Refutations and closing arguments; no new arguments Definitions: Universal Health Care: A National Health Care system which provides health care and medical financial protection to all its citizens. This system has been successful in the Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, and even in Canada. **Notes** Universal Healthcare does not imply coverage for everyone for everything, but ensures essential medical services for all its citizens.[1] Implementation of Universal Health Care will be taken into account, but we will disregard the Obamacare controversy. This debate will be about the effects of implementation in the U.S, and it's benefits to the country. Burden of Proof On me, Pro. I will do my best to affirm the claim. With that being said, let's have a great debate! Source: 1.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.2514812719255952,-0.30473294230140435,-0.45914350358387895,179,True,-0.4018339325781827
11,1,13892,"This is for those Christians who believe that because you are Christian you have to be against the health care bill. I don't really care much for the actual debate, you can win I don't care. I will vote for you to win. What I care about is a good honest discussion. Traditionally, Christians are against universal health care because traditionally Christians are republican. I however believe that if a Christian is against the health care bill than that person is a hypocrite and going against the teaching of Christ. This of course presupposes Christianity is true and the Bible is true. We don't need to get into all the deep definitions unless you feel it is necessary. Good luck",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.2382467669724981,-1.5295422596932575,-0.2622678409861691,120,True,-0.5764392272037714
11,2,23533,"How is that a burden on tax payers? The allocation of tax should be properly accounted for to help the working class/students. Moreover, instead of spending a lot of money on the armed forces for example (America), there should be government operated hospitals/clinics that cater for medical emergencies/check-ups or so what have you, for free. This idea is not bizarre, tons of countries in Europe and other continents (where there really is the bloody ""American dream"") have free health care. Don't look at Greece or Italy (cause they're bankrupt), but look at the UK, Germany, Sweden, Iceland. Norway, Spain, France, Malta etc. where the health care is free. On the other hand, citizens that have free health care are usually more content with their lives and in turn they have more money to sustain themselves instead of having to pay for medical insurance. Thus is it possible to have free health care without increasing taxes, because by using the funds properly, the government would be able to take a more direct helpful role on people's lives instead of institutionalizing everything.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3722236437670829,0.007719809928791625,2.0009954745132656,180,True,0.949973764712017
11,4,26186,"Electronic equipment used in health care often contains hazardous substances that can harm human health: from chlorinated plastics in cable wiring, to lead in cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, to brominated flame retardants in computers and mercury in LCD displays. Improper disposal of electronic equipment poses a significant threat to public health and the global environment. When electronic products are incinerated or dumped in a landfill, they can release heavy metals and other hazardous substances that contaminate groundwater and pollute the air. Some hazardous e-waste is being exported to developing countries that are less equipped to handle the hazardous materials "" even though, in many cases this export violates international law, as well as domestic laws in the importing countries. See Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia (pdf). As a large volume buyer, the health care sector has the power to shift the electronics market toward greener practices through its purchasing choices. Health Care Without Harm is collaborating with health care systems to promote healthier purchasing and disposal practices as a means to improve public health and protect the global environment.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.4139185714835067,1.3649186334602592,1.0657707384836028,182,False,1.4763659228608608
15,18,5325,"I think that would be a good way to stop animal crulity. If they are on death row there is no reason why they can't be used for a good cause like scientific study instead of waiting to rot in jail. For the prisoners on life sentences, same. I think that's a really good idea and I really think that it makes sense and was a topic well thought out.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.7948149105396966,-0.8115423991634646,-0.2797322290575284,70,True,-0.7349035290203741
11,1,8542,"Illegal immigrants should be granted all educational and health benefits that citizens receive regardless of their legal status. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that undocumented children have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as U.S. citizens. About 1.6 million undocumented immigrants are children and allowing them education is allowing them a future in life. Not doing so, however, restricts the success which they may have otherwise received as a result of education. Also, preventing immigrants from gaining basic health benefits is actually a technique that will only increase health care spending and add to a sicker U.S. population. Lawmakers have authorized a special Medicaid fund that mostly goes towards providing emergency treatments for undocumented immigrants. The program costs about $2 billion per year, and most of that money is used on delivering babies for pregnant, undocumented women. However, since the $2 billion provided for undocumented immigrants is only set aside for pregnancies, there is still a large gap in the services provided for these people. The lack of access to care services is a problem given that low-income undocumented immigrants tend to have specialized and chronic health care needs such as diabetes and obesity. Everyone deserves a chance at life, even illegal immigrants reasoning that they should be given a chance of education and a chance to attain health care. Works Cited ""Should Children of Illegal Immigrants Have the Right to an Education in the US?"" People. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. ""Why Undocumented Immigrants Should Have Access To Taxpayer-Funded Health Care."" ThinkProgress. Web. 15 Oct. 2013",0.1789077955820434,True,0.52165985864416,2.095511989017919,0.3855636503228621,266,True,1.1816058355569148
12,14,25519,"You can be perfectly healthy and be a vegetarian, just as you can be if you eat meat. There are far more relevant factors to peoples poor or good health",0.8044698538620362,True,0.4493745752102134,-1.512499106325656,-0.25380012054241696,30,False,-0.4789509081683581
11,23,30330,"US health care is the best in the world. For example, cancer survival rates are very much better than those under the universal system of Britain’s National Health Service. Almost all new drugs and surgical advances come from the USA because its system encourages excellence. Changing to a government-run system would “level down” health care, making it worse for most Americans while failing to actually improve it for the most badly off. Very often poor health is linked to poverty because of diet, lifestyle and housing issues, and universal health care will do nothing to solve these problems.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.6921727265565749,0.2378476561010004,0.9628230237475888,98,False,0.7260413674702001
19,2,23680,Sexual orientation is something that people are born with.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
11,18,32593,"The ideas driving private health need to be deconstructed. 65% of expenditure received for health care was from the for-profit sector (USAID, 2012). Health care is not a business or market - patients become customers and needs become sidelined by competition when in the private sector. Private health care involves adopting a neoliberal approach to care; competition is central and markets volatile. The market logic focuses on what is a good investment, will the elderly be included when they are a high risk population? This is why even in private systems like in the United States the elderly need public funding. The privatisation of basic services, across Sub-Saharan Africa, has been shown to be a failure[1]. Access to health care should be based on need, rather than ability to pay. [1] See further readings: UNDP (2007).   ",1.1172508830020322,True,0.8151686125313221,-0.3510699604012656,0.8833420356965273,137,True,0.528256716458429
11,7,27961,"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, an endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People cannot live without healthcare, and people have the right to live therefore healthcare is a right. The first part can bee right if you say you are equal to the person next to you depending on hes statue in life, been able to look after him self. Liberty does not have anything to do whit Health care as fare as I know.It was not invented then back in 1800. The White House does not provide any Health care. You can get Food Stamp to live on, Health care is not free",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.31852736176990176,-1.1492158662498742,-0.7385072105071043,124,False,-0.8551606194675562
11,4,32725,"For argument sake, I'll go with American health care, since that's the big hot topic trending. First to say that government health care suck we need to look at costs. Without insurance everyone ends up paying. Uninsured people more often than not, cannot afford to pay their medical bills. These unpaid bills end up being compensated by the government (taxes), or by hospital charging insurances more to make up for the deficit. When people are uninsured, more often than not they wait until 11th hour, where treatment is both crucial and costly. Had they been insured, preventative care would have saved everyone the cost they can no longer afford. The way Obamacare works is that everyone pays based on income. The healthy can afford insurance for when they need it, and this pays for the cost of the unhealthy who are also paying. While individual costs may be irksome on an individual basis, overall we are saving money on health care costs since hospitals are getting reimbursed and patients are getting more preventative care than they were before.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.24617720899331105,1.391363020559596,0.6102921087872473,178,False,0.6925587229045251
11,18,17099,"Access to a small loan provides benefits for the poor’s ability to access high quality health care. A lack of access to banking facilities - loans and credit - may mean the poor are left excluded from health care services as these are usually not free. Microfinance institutions accept the irregularities of the poor’s income, so enabling health care to be affordable to the poor by providing access to finance. As Ofori-Adjei (2007) shows the integration of microfinance institutions within healthcare systems in Ghana is required to resolve the issue of inaccessibility. Ill health should not put a household into a state of poverty - microfinance provides this protection. Microfinance schemes not only provide loans to access health care but are now integrating non-financial services, such as health education, within their finance schemes. ",1.1172508830020322,True,0.7530478635545174,0.8317147044884708,1.2199783618238491,133,True,1.075647317100435
11,5,42700,"Since the definitions of words were not provided prior, and you wish not to argue over such things, I'll provide the general definitions that I plan to adhere to in the round: Definitions Government: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. (Merriam-Webster) Ought: since you said we would be debating the moral value, we believe ought to mean 'moral obligation.' Provide: to supply. (Merriam-Webster) Minimally: the least possible. (Merriam-Webster) Adequate: of a quality that is acceptable but not better than acceptable. (Merriam-Webster) Health Care: efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals —usually hyphenated when used attributively. (Merriam-Webster) Citizens: a member of a state. (Merriam-Webster) Observation: 1. The affirmative must prove the truth value of the provided resolution. A. Thus, the negative burden is to disprove the resolution through one or numerous ways. i. For example, the negative can prove that government's have no obligation to provide health care,that the health care they do provide does not have to meet any standard, that the health carethey provide should be greater than minimally adequate, etc. 2. The affirmative must accept definitions of terms within the resolution for the sake of clarity within the round. If not, my opponent's first observation must be dropped and my opponent must offer alternative definitions. 3. Because it is a debate of morality rather than practicality, both sides must provide a value/criterion structure or a cohesive framework as a weighing mechanism for whether or not their presented morality is being fulfilled. Response to Rules: 1) I'm assuming you mean after round 2, because by the logic of the round 1 rule, neither of us can win. 2) Concede. 3) Concede. 4) Also a concession. However, if we abide by rule one, we're forever tied.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.15713487156595954,1.1583121474681588,0.27686799250687544,300,False,0.6160299027867924
11,6,25366,"Compared to the hundreds of other taxes that Americans pay, the Affordable Care Act is minuscule. Saying that we do not need something just because we haven""t needed it yet is just plain ignorant. The same people that are protesting the Affordable Care Act are going to be the same people that are complaining that health care costs are too high when something inevitable will happen to either them, or on of their loved ones. Health care cost is not the only price tag that keeps increasing. As previously stated before, this act is not attempting to lower the cost of health care but rather is attempting to insure that everyone is covered despite the rising costs. In response to ""Middle-class families can barely afford health insurance and it would be more tragic if they were getting charged for more money by their premiums"", which do you believe is more expensive? A slight raise in premiums to protect your family in case of an emergency or footing the entire doctors/hospital bill? Out of all the taxes that we pay this should be one that is the most beneficial and most important for everyone. Lastly, a few months back everyone was complaining about the lack of jobs, now that the Affordable Care Act is providing jobs the complaints have been moved somewhere else.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.6541597801499001,0.3370167802798908,-0.06984171029035227,222,False,0.3507985025011957
11,1,16126,"The topic I have chose to debate is the need for Uiversal Healthcare. This is an extremely volatile issue, due to our way of life in the United States. We live in a society based on free enterprise, and free choice. While at the same time we are one of the richest countries on earth, we have tens of millions of people who don't have Health Care. There are thoses on both sides of the issue that feel that they have are right and their way is the best. The United States provides the best medical care in the world, but many wonder if we should adopt a government administered Health Care system like Canada provides to its citizens. After you have heard the arguments that are for and against Uiversal Health Care I think you will be able to make a more informed decision.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,145,True,-4.0
15,27,43662,"The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures. Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments. Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.8247395658651948,1.7868139347952736,1.071039165154963,186,False,1.4211527084784026
11,9,3539,"A range of health programs are already available. Many employers offer health insurance and some people deliberately choose to work for such companies for these benefits, even if the pay is a little lower. Other plans can be purchased by individuals with no need to rely on an employer. This means they are free to choose the level of care which is most appropriate to their needs. For other people it can be perfectly reasonable to decide to go without health insurance. Healthy younger adults will on average save money by choosing not to pay high insurance premiums, covering any necessary treatment out of their own pockets from time to time. Why should the state take away all these people’s freedom of choice by imposing a one-size-fits-all socialist system of health care? Human resources professionals will still be needed to deal with the very many other employment regulations put in place by the federal government. Instead of employees being able to exercise control over their health care choices and work with people in their company, patients will be forced to deal with the nameless, faceless members of the government bureaucracy.  ",0.4916888247220394,True,0.7155841334040213,0.8524302959003479,1.3136527800130784,191,False,1.1066173246370707
11,5,26959,"According to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings the 10 major private health insurance companies reported a 428% increase in profits from 2000 to 2007 (the companies are listed in the Corporate Library�€?s �€?Insurance Health and Disability�€? category). In the simplest terms, profit represents the difference between revenue and cost of production. So what are health insurance providers selling? Administrative services. A major accounting difference between other types of business and private health insurers is the inclusion of policy holder money held in �€?trust funds�€? for the future payment of medical claims. This money is represented by a medical loss ratio, a number that usually ranges from 75 percent for the most cost-effective and efficient plans to more than 100 percent for the losing plan (Washington Post). Business costs associated with the services offered are typically around 15% of their revenues. It would therefore be more appropriate to calculate profit margin based on a business model of providing only administrative services, and not on funds held in trust which incur only slight expenses and provide long-term investment income for the company. The 2% to 8% profit margin alleged by my worthy rival includes the funds held in trust. If the accounting methods used were attuned to include only the costs associated with the operation and marketing of their administrative services, the reported profit margins would be much closer to 25%.Moving private health insurers onto the Fortune 500 list of profitable firms and placing them in front of the network and communications equipment industry (reporting 20.4% profit). My opponent is correct; reducing national health care expenditures by 1% would have an insignificant impact. However, the elimination of a 25% incentive on a product designed to limit access to health care we all need would have a considerable impact!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,297,False,-4.0
19,11,30100,Sexual orientation is valid as a type of social group,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
12,13,8567,"BlahBlah I like your username, by the way. ;-) it would suit ALOT of people who come in here, but anyway, on to your topic: Yes, vegetarianism is good and healthy and ethical. But, meat is awesome three times a week for taste and protein. Also? For women who menstruate, the heme-iron is good for us.",0.4916888247220394,True,-1.6082174448473114,-1.972494021814664,-0.7940323790519561,56,True,-1.6836091238728876
12,1,11647,"I am vegetarian and I can tell you now, I'm a hell of a lot more healthy than the vast majority of omnivorous people I know. I take vitamin supplements and get all of the basic food groups. However, vegans are horribly unhealthy and may as well go bask in the sun and try to photosynthesise, it'll do them more good.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.7235792661953132,-1.4857736216828434,-0.8171798201714834,61,False,-1.1718130519219243
12,6,12310,"You said: ""Besides, I'm afraid of that you can't get enough Vitamin B12 by eating vegetables only."" True that the highest source of vitamin B12 is meat, however cheese, eggs and other dairy products are also very high in it. Also, vegetarians do not just eat vegetables. Due to not getting protein from meat we must eat nuts, cheese, milk, etc to get it instead. I am also not American, however I got my figures from american sources, that are quite similar to British figures. You also said: ""About the meal-time pleasure part, think about it, human eat meat=cruel, but animals eat meat=natural?That doesn't make sense!"" I'm don't think I mentioned animals eating meat to be honest. Because that argument would be completely separate to the one we're having now. However, I agree with what you said at the end about a longer life. Another reason why being a vegetarian is good, is that giving up meat actually isn't that hard to do! Many people just presume that by being a vegetarian, you have to eat vegetables and nothing else. Clearly, that is not true, because to be honest, a meat-free diet doesn't feel that different. Of course, it is different due to not eating meat, however I can still eat most of the foods that I've always enjoyed! Giving up meat is easy because you just stop. Temptation to return to meat eating, doesn't really occur with many people, to be honest! :p",1.4300319121420288,True,0.18001356540838412,0.3595069319776613,1.0181152330442502,244,False,0.5988209661510298
6,64,17885,"Pupils all around the world have worn school uniform for many years. Many schools in Japan, France, USA and Israel, oblige pupils to come to school with a uniform. The school uniform is very important. It is imporatant because it shows that a student belongs to a certain school. When a student wears a shirt with the school's symbol, everyone knows where the student studies, a thing which may help to create a feeling of belonging and school pride.Moreover, the school uniform saves money.When everyone wears the same uniform, the students don't need to spend much money to buy expensive brand names. In addition, school uniform saves time in the mornings because you don't have to think much about what to wear. In addition, schools claim that school uniform is important for good education because pupils need to obey a certain dress code, a thing that helps the students be prepared for the army and any other framework. So I think that school uniforms should be weared by pupils!!",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.2164355169483044,-0.059729883631562224,0.00025140360446052583,169,True,-0.11615719894537857
6,6,43194,"School Uniforms promote school staffs control over the students. Students are no longer given the tools need to succeed and are instead forced to conform in order to succeed. Wearing school uniforms can cause stress on a student to dress and act like everyone else in order to abide by the rules. Public Schools should not be able to enforce uniform dress codes because they are free institutions open to all. Uniforms cannot be totally enforced in public schools because it can then violate the open policy of accepting students. Students who cannot economically afford a student uniform can become discouraged from attending school and feel unwelcome. Student Uniforms do little to improve a students education. If students aren't distracted by their clothing choices they will find something else to get side tracked with. Student mandated uniforms will take away from student expressive individuality. Some students express themselves through their clothing choices and find common interests with others based on shared fashion choices. If a student can""t express themselves through their outfit choices their personal identity and individuality is compromised. Thought school uniforms would aim at increasing students success, the solution is too controlling and the benefits wont out weight the means. If all students are forced to wear uniforms what would be next? Administrative approved backpacks?",0.8044698538620362,True,0.6413303562162369,0.936888902652542,0.5435558858535976,217,False,0.8111168279144652
6,6,28367,"Refutation to your arguments: 1. Not wearing a uniform will let the student express who they want to be, thus increasing their self-esteem. I see what you mean by others who cannot afford uniform, but no one wants to wear them. 2. If school wasn't as boring as it is, then teachers shouldn't have to worry about their students being distracted. If faculty does more to help students become hands-on learners, they wouldn't have to worry about wearing uniform. 3. It won't reduce bullying, if a bully wants to bully a kid, he/she is going to do it, with or without uniform. Everyone that goes to that school is apart of the same school. 4. I see where you're coming from that, but for closed schools, it shouldn't be a problem since you have to go through several security guards standing at the gates. 5. Even if you don't have the latest fashion, no one will make fun of you. I wear age-old clothes to school, and people think I'm stylish. 6. By not wearing school uniforms, the students have more opportunities to express themselves, and boost their imagination. Even by not wearing uniforms, their academic standing will stay the same. But if you implement uniforms on them, they will get bored by not having things to do, or talk about. 7. Wearing uniforms have no real correlation with those statistics",0.1789077955820434,True,0.4047742345590586,-0.07172019081060882,-0.388467366048161,231,False,-0.025294983991443438
6,6,24031,"School Uniforms promote school staffs control over the students. Students are no longer given the tools need to succeed and are instead forced to conform in order to succeed. Wearing school uniforms can cause stress on a student to dress and act like everyone else in order to abide by the rules. Public Schools should not be able to enforce uniform dress codes because they are free institutions open to all. Uniforms cannot be totally enforced in public schools because it can then violate the open policy of accepting students. Students who cannot economically afford a student uniform can become discouraged from attending school and feel unwelcome. Student Uniforms do little to improve a students education. If students aren't distracted by their clothing choices they will find something else to get side tracked with. Student mandated uniforms will take away from student expressive individuality. Some students express themselves through their clothing choices and find common interests with others based on shared fashion choices. If a student can't express themselves through their outfit choices their personal identity and individuality is compromised. Thought school uniforms would aim at increasing students success, the solution is too controlling and the benefits wont out weight the means. If all students are forced to wear uniforms what would be next? Administrative approved backpacks?",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,217,False,-4.0
6,5,29702,"We already have catholic and private schools - usually those schools require their students to wear uniforms to attend that certain school. Then we have public schools - which do not require uniforms. At the current state we are in, everyone has the CHOICE if they want to go to a private school and wear a uniform or go to a public school and don't. Ammendment 1 grants every american citizen the following freedoms: Speech, Press, and Religion. People dress to represent themselves as a person. Their clothing tells peers who they are through expression. How someone dresses is their freedom of speech, because they are speaking of themselves through their clothing. If all schools required students to wear uniforms - then our younger generation will have their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. This is against the law and is not allowed - or puts a good name upon our country in question - USA. At least where we are at the moment, students have the CHOICE if they want to go to a school that requires them to wear a uniform or not. They CHOOSE if they accept the fact that if they go to a spacific school, then they may not have all of their rights while atttending. Where we are now is fair, everyone have freedom of choice, and the choise of what to do with their rights; and that is what being an american citizen is all about. Even if schools did want to require their students to wear uniforms - where would they get the money to buy such uniforms on manufacture them? You see, if this were reality then it would be a MAJOR financial, and constitution violation and issue.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.5376157620720494,0.881610520120722,-0.4138298225142219,285,False,0.39515589829067815
13,2,31934,"For organization's sake, I will break my argument down into numbered points. 1) Everyone remembers the tragic school shootings that have plagued the U.S. in recent years. Columbine and Virginia Tech are only two among multiple other shooting rampages that took place on school campuses. While police responded as quickly as they could, they were unable to stop the shooter(s) before they could kill dozens of students and teachers. Had there been a student or teacher on the school's grounds however, there is a very real possibility that the shooter(s) would have been stopped in the very early stages of their tirade. 2) Utah was the first (and I believe only so far) state to universally allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry while on college campuses. Thusfar they have had no major incidents that have resulted from CHL holders on college campuses. Other individual college campuses around the U.S. (Ex: Colorado State University) allow concealed carry and have similarly suffered no major incidents from CHL carriers. 3) The only people who would be allowed to carry concealed while on college campuses would be (based on proposed states' legislation) the same people who could normally own and carry a gun everywhere else. To conclude my argument this round, adding concealed carry to college campuses has yet to cause a problem, and therefore, the state has no right to not allow people who already carry concealed elsewhere to carry on campus.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.9808353768454442,1.1056105237103409,0.4497316724915024,241,True,0.9740112922690721
15,2,40693,"""If you want to test cosmetics, why do it on some poor animal who hasn't anything? They should use prisoners who have been convicted of murder or rape instead."" -Ellen DeGeners V: Equality VC: Justices for istitution 1. Why we need to stop animal testing. My first point is that animals are not the same as humans. We react differently in every situation. Also our bodies are very different. Here are some facts on animal testing. 2. How they test on animals. This website should provide some answers you are looking for. They take these animals and hurt them. There is also a video from a doctor from Great Britian. Animal testing is very bad. 3. What A: Animals test. How can you test on animals in hopes that humans react the same? B: Alternatives. The following website has some concerns about animal testing and has some alternatives. Conclusion: These are innocent animals being tested on. People do this to hope to protect humans from diseases. They test them in cruel locations and in even crueler ways. We as humans react differently than animals. There is problems and I have the solution and alternatives to animal testing.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.5246179951474066,-0.420709809063882,0.856595725304993,197,True,-0.021433079130035837
19,15,4544,"The fact that these celebrities opted to not out themselves means that they are the type of person who would be the worst ambassadors for the cause of gay rights. Celebrities who have not outed themselves are definitionally uncomfortable discussing gay rights in public, are not comfortable enough with their orientation to be open about it in public and are the ones most likely to be hurt by the scrutiny and judgement of society about their sexual orientation. The impacts of this are damaging both to the celebrity and to society. For the celebrity, their lack of comfort over the issue generally indicates that they are still struggling with the reality of their sexual identity. Catapulting them into the public arena to be ridiculed for it is damaging to their capacity to accept their orientation, but can also lead to suicide, such as when a student, Tyler Clementi, was outed as gay and killed himself the next day out of fear and shame[1]. Moreover, this is bad for society because they are unlikely to tout the cause of gay rights, will be used as an example of “even gay people are too embarrassed to be themselves”, and instances of self-injury over these outings will, again, set back the movement. Therefore, the outing of these particular individuals is extremely harmful both to them and to the cause itself. [1] Pilkington, Ed. ""Tyler Clementi, student outed as gay on internet, jumps to his death."" Guardian 30 Sep 2010, n. pag. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/30/tyler-clementi-gay-student-suicide>.  ",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.9099080681913454,0.4047385729112949,0.3958854645363158,254,True,0.6539008449063517
6,3,10712,"I accept this debate. I will be taking the Con side (students should not have to to wear uniform). Firstly, uniforms restricts a student's individuality and identity. Forcing students to wear uniforms constricts their creativity and freedom of expression. Clothes do not detract from a student's ability to learn. School uniforms are completely unnecessary. Secondly, people tend to believe that if everyone is wearing the same clothing, it will decrease the chances of getting bullied for what you wear, but this is totally not the case. Bullying is a huge problem that effects many students whether they are in schools that require uniform or not. Forcing children to wear the same uniform does not make issues such as this magically disappear. Schools want children to make good decisions and take responsibility for their actions, but how can we expect the children to do so if we do not give them decisions to make in the first place?",0.4916888247220394,True,0.7817127376611128,0.15019800384921286,-0.14794779690693516,157,False,0.3012747771238152
6,2,6841,"We already have catholic and private schools - usually those schools require their students to wear uniforms to attend that certain school. Then we have public schools - which do not require uniforms. At the current state we are in, everyone has the CHOICE if they want to go to a private school and wear a uniform or go to a public school and don't. Ammendment 1 grants every american citizen the following freedoms: Speech, Press, and Religion. People dress to represent themselves as a person. Their clothing tells peers who they are through expression. How someone dresses is their freedom of speech, because they are speaking of themselves through their clothing. If all schools required students to wear uniforms - then our younger generation will have their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. This is against the law and is not allowed - or puts a good name upon our country in question - USA. At least where we are at the moment, students have the CHOICE if they want to go to a school that requires them to wear a uniform or not. They CHOOSE if they accept the fact that if they go to a spacific school, then they may not have all of their rights while atttending. Where we are now is fair, everyone have freedom of choice, and the choise of what to do with their rights; and that is what being an american citizen is all about. Even if schools did want to require their students to wear uniforms - where would they get the money to buy such uniforms on manufacture them? You see, if this were reality then it would be a MAJOR financial, and constitution violation and issue.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.009604053198372198,1.4375182360209036,0.1979765911809168,285,True,0.6404557960270666
6,2,29822,"I am arguing that students should not be forced to wear uniforms in school. First, if students have to wear the same thing as everyone else, then there is no way to express your personality. Your clothes are a way to show who you are to others. Next, this would be another thing to buy. People will say that you will not have to buy as many outfits, but although you do not wear these clothes to school, you still need clothes to wear around town and at home. You buy clothes as it is, so why not get more use out them before you outgrow them. You will never wear your uniform after you're done with school, so why not pay for clothes that you can re wear over sand over again. Also, some people may feel restricted and uncomfortable in these outfits that they are forced into. Everyone has a different body shape and type. Why should we force everyone to look and dress the same? Some people also say that clothes can distract students from learning, but if they are uncomfortable in the uniforms, they will not learn. We should allow student to dress in clothes that they are comfortable in. Lastly, I believe that it can draw away from school spirit. If you have to wear uniforms, you cannot wear a specific outfit with your sports team. You do not have the option to show team spirit when you are forced to wear the same outfit as everyone else. I believe that there are some pros to having uniforms, but the cons outweigh them. Your clothing is a way to express yourself and is a freedom that should not be taken away from you.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.8689042798307696,0.47656734374777204,0.3179678912470445,288,False,0.6354883276622434
6,3,42203,"I accept School uniforms are important as students don't worry about being judged for their clothes, they are all wearing the same uniform and therefore there is one less thing bullies can use against you: ""In America, where a majority of schools do not have a uniform, roughly 160,000 children miss school every day due to fear of attack or intimidation by other students. This might not be directly linked to what they're wearing, but having a uniform can be a safety net for many students who might otherwise suffer from bullying. A strict uniform gives the impression that rules are strict too, perhaps helping maintain a sense of order at school.""-The Guardian Sure, the bullies will pick on people for different reasons but this is one less reason for them to pick on people! There have also been many non-uniform days for charity here and everyone gets distracted when we have our own clothes, uniforms stop us from getting distracted. It's also great to clean as you can have it cleaned at the weekend ready for the week whereas with clothes you might not even find something you can wear and can't even go to school due to having no clothes to wear into school. That's when you could be bullied for many of the reasons Pro has posted. Additionally, wearing a school uniform identifies you with your school; it's really useful on field trips and other events where pupils may be lost! To sum up; Uniforms are essential as they can reduce bullying and create a sense of identity to the school Source(s):",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.016100035406041432,-0.44743872500155696,0.7079707931429162,265,False,0.09742407263341185
6,5,22396,"I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge. It violates the first amendment because it says you have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Both are not what you lose when you attend a school with no uniform. Racism and genders being discriminated is obviously going to be not allowed, because schools are supposed to be good places, and not places where people use racist terms. My opponent also says uniforms instill good discipline. This is not true, as many people don't wear the uniforms anyway, so therefore, get in trouble for not doing so. Students may look professional, but they might not act professional. I know many who have been forced to wear uniforms and they still saw jerks. Many kids take good care, but like all other clothes, have to be cleaned and it does not work well in the washer and dryer, according to many who have had school uniforms. My source is some of the comments on here about this topic: My opponent also says that students tend to perform better. You my friend are wrong. The two biggest high schools in my town are one that has no uniforms, and one that does. The one with no uniform gets better grades than the one that does. Going to public schools, I would still disagree because NONE of the public schools in my town have uniforms, and many of the students are good. And one last thing to bring up, they don't look professional in uniforms. In the high school that wears uniforms (I've been there for a field trip), they are terrible looking uniforms. They didn't even look professional. My clothing was far more professional looking than their uniform.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.3273437027316297,0.914454420631178,0.3889229498550393,285,False,0.38152166581439473
6,3,21336,"School uniforms should happen because schools can be identified due to the uniforms Wearing uniforms enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit. A 2007 study from Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom found that uniforms ""often directly contributed to a feeling of school pride."" [45] Christopher P. Clouet, Superintendent of the New London, CT school district, stated that ""the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride."" [3] A 2002 study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform ""reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group."" [33] Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Centre for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, stated that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: ""There is a sense of belonging."" [31] A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that after uniforms were introduced, ""Teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... Throughout the school"" and said ""students are made to feel 'important' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform."" [20]",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.4243158165417394,0.2563950257165994,0.3509482738583811,187,True,0.38874678180109534
6,3,911,"What percentage of kids who do not wear uniforms kill themselves because of bullying about their clothes? Please back up your claim with clear evidence. If kids are being bullied because of what they are wearing - then they have several options before taking their lives: 1. telling a counselor or adult 2. switching outfits 3. defending themselves. Just because someone insults someone's outfit does not mean that they are going to kill themselves - and if that is the case then please prove it to me. The school systems right now in our country are an option - you can either go to private or public school. Under ammendment 1 of the constitution - every citizen in the united states has the freedom of speech, press, and religion. What clothes we wear is considered to be freedom of speech since we are expressing whom we are. If we make all schools provide their students with uniforms - then we are taking away the student's rights of freedom of speech, violating ammendment one of our constitution. Making this action highly unconstitutional. We should leave it at a choice for a parent to decide for their kid to go to a school where they wear a uniform or not because then freedom is still in everyone's hands and they can choose if they want to wear a uniform or not. Making kids wear a uniform will not decrease the amound of suicide in our youth - it is a much more complex issue then that.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.566089406779572,0.4607791160272478,0.05452716669701434,254,False,0.41041636434330825
6,8,28402,"I extend my arguments which you didn't rebut: "" In the adult world students have to make their own choices and school uniforms exclude that ""training excercise"" of having to choose what clothes to wear. [1]""; ""School uniforms send out a sense of anti-individuality that goes against our personal liberty and freedom of expression--a Constitutional belief. [2]"" Now, time to rebut: ""For the one time cost of $500, the student will be able to wear that same uniform in the span of four years of high-school."" Not true, children can have growth spurts and outgrow the uniform, and because such new uniforms need to be bought. In addition, after uniforms are bought, old clothing is practically useless, only to be worn during weekends, only 2/7 of the time. This ratio amplifies over a big time, and soon enough, the difference between how often the uniform is worn compared to the normal clothing is in the hundreds. Years make that number high up in the thousands! "" The way that you hold and portray yourself is much more important than the clothes that you wear."" Which is exactly why school uniforms aren't needed. Nobody cares about your clothes except yourself and your parents, and that is the reason why school uniforms aren't needed. Why should they be required? That only makes the school administrators' jobs tougher--they have to make sure the uniforms are worn the whole day, and students have to bring checks to school to buy the uniform. If uniforms weren't required school administrators won't have to worry about making sure all students wear their uniform and student's don't have to annoyingly bring checks to school to buy uniforms. Your turn, pro!",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3662777772410689,0.20313247588260008,-0.4531909181678637,282,False,0.042077554298709935
6,1,26089,"School Uniform Pro 2: Easier Mornings for Parents When there's no debate on what a student is allowed wear to school, then that makes mornings easier for parents and for kids. Everyone knows exactly what the kids need to wear, their regulated school uniform. This can lead to a decrease in morning arguments. 3. School Uniform Pro 3: Dress Code Control Schools without a school uniform policy still have rules on what clothing is and is not allowed in school. There are usually rules regarding modesty issues, visible logos, offensive text on clothing, gang colors and symbols and more. Teachers and administrative staff must monitor the students' attire. This is of course avoided when all students are in uniform. School Uniform Pro 4: An Even Playing Field One of the most obvious argument for school uniforms is that by having all children dressed the same, there is a decrease in bullying and teasing. In this era of status brands and high-fashion trends, clothing has become the definitive status symbol for children and teens. By evening the playing field with uniforms, there is less opportunity for children to be picked on or shunned for their clothes. 5. School Uniform Pro 5: School Spirit Many experts believe that when the entire student body is dressed in uniforms, they develop a stronger team mentality. When they are all dressed alike, their all-for-one-and-one-for-all comradery is boosted.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.8959169950409845,0.5531964910848779,-0.7314719746543302,232,True,0.29491136174581756
6,3,9620,"How can you confidently say that people don't wear the same quality uniform? Do you have any evidence? Ok, even if people don't wear the same quality uniform, then this might result for the principal to setup some consequences like detention, seeing the student back home, or even expelling the student ( which I believe nobody wants this to happen). 2. How can wearing uniform increase distractions when everyone is wearing the same outfit? No one will be distracted because students know that they are wearing the same outfit as everyone else, so why bother looking at others uniforms when you have the same one!!!! 3. And the concern that how does it increase self confidence, there is a simple answer to it. In a non-uniform school when middle and lower class children wear something and the rich children wear famous, expensive clothing, the middle and lower class children feel excluded, negative things about themselves, and the fact that they can't afford these type of expensive clothing. That is the main reason why bullying happens in public schools. But if everyone wears uniforms, then the rich children will wear the same uniform as others wear. And if everyone wears the same uniform, children will have self confidence that they will not be targeted as a victim of bullying of any other bad activity. In conclusion, I believe that by wearing uniforms, we can make our lives easier and reduce the chance of being a victim. I have made my points that logically lead to proving that uniforms should be worn in schools and my opponents has not provided any convincing points or evidence. North, South, East or West ... Everyone knows that the Pro is the best. So vote for Pro!!!!!!!!!",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5296587894919037,1.6299847320967291,0.4180636637722196,291,True,1.0016849509488088
15,2,22188,"""It's a scientific fact that Beliebers have no sense of knowledge, and have never been useful to society. However there are forms of testing that require knowledge and everyone knows that beliebers have absolutely no knowledge."" Careful, Beliebers arent braindead, they are brainwashed.... Its a big difference. You know how North Koreans are brainwashed by their dear leader Kim Jung Un, or how people who watch Fox News are brainwashed by what Fox News Anchors call 'facts'? The same thing is happening to Beliebers, they do have brains, but are simply being brainwashed by their dear leader, Justin wont-hit-puberty-until-he-turns-30 Bieber.... And animals/people who can be brainwashed make FAR BETTER test subjects then those that cant. Also, not all experiments factor in intelligence. Since Beliebers dont have souls, they can be used for experiments that if animals were used would have caused protests. Now scientists can finally learn what would happen if we shot a living thing into the sun, or what would happen if someone was forced to let a large spider crawl in their mouth and lay eggs in its throat! If we did those things to mice or monkeys, people would be mad, but if we let spiders lay eggs in the throats of Beliebers just to see what happens, nobody would give a f*ck! Therefore, since Beliebers are complete tools who have no souls who nobody cares about, they make far better test subjects then animals, and therefore we dont need to test products and experiments on animals when we have 30 million Beliebers to work with instead :D",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.7883440124071565,-0.7294826366135012,-0.6356122841141874,262,True,-0.8417032450770199
19,31,35006,Gay men and lesbians are those few people in our society who are born with a different sexual orientation and they do not react in the way as other people do. Though they are very normal in their each and every activity but they just differ from us in one single way and that is they choose to have a romantic association with the person of their same gender. They can not be blamed for such a reason because science has proved that it is a hormonal matter which makes them different from others in sexual orientation and they can not help it anyway. Gay men get attracted and fall in love with men of their type and the same happens with Lesbian women who choose their romantic partners who are women like them and they live happily with each other.,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.0803257610202454,-0.3423623883619984,0.05643179824816672,141,True,-0.14993937442225305
15,1,37084,"First off, I look forward to this debate and thank my opponent for creating it. First, I would like to start with some statistics. According to CIA world factbook 2012, 100 million animals are burned, crippled, and killed in labs every year. Why would that be right to continue doing? Also, according to the same source several cosmetic tests commonly performed on mice, rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs include: skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed on shaved skin or dripped into the eyes without any pain relief. repeated force-feeding studies that last weeks or months, to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards. widely condemned ""lethal dose"" tests, where animals are forced to swallow large amounts of a test chemical to determine what dose causes death. So now that we know the destruction of Animal testing, let us explain why it would not effect our environment. First, a great many companies are advertising ""no animal testing."" This seems to be something that is growing larger and larger due to the drive to save animal's lives. In addition, scientists are creating molecular compound breakdown devices that can predict the result of a drug without testing it on a living thing. This is done by examining the structure of a molecule and the effect it has on the cosmos. This technology will continue to increase and animal testing will become less necessary. So the plan I am proposing is this: By one years time, animal testing will become illegal to where no IPA drugs or medicines are tested on animals. One years time will be plenty of time to break our reliability on animal testing. The murdering of animals is something that must be stopped, which is why it should be banned. Thank you",1.1172508830020322,True,1.7338662833986342,0.7840748885755757,0.8375574548488267,298,True,1.2960912372452085
6,5,43194,"Being forced to wear school uniforms will do little to prevent bullying from happening. If a student isn't being bullied about their clothing they could get picked on for what shoes they wear or what accessories or backpack they have. School Uniforms don't create a safer environment but instead enforce a more hostile one. Students who violate the uniform dress code can be taken out of instructional time based on their outfit. Some students might also stress over having enough uniforms or how much money they spent on their uniform, these feelings exist with both regular clothing and uniform apparel. While uniform policies try to even the playing field among students, students find ways to break the dress code or modify their uniform to outshine each other. Uniforms don't even the playing field instead they create a whole other playing field that students still compete on. School uniforms enforce unrealistic expectations of unity amongst a large number of people. In the real world you don""t dress exactly the same as the person next to you. Everyone strives to be their own person in society and one way of showcasing your individuality is through uniforms. Students can begin to lose a sense of individuality by continuously looking like everyone else. Students should have the right to express themselves through their choice of dress as long as it abides by the safety dress code regulations. Uniforms can""t fix the bigger picture of creating a safer environment for students to attend.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.0162080471140422,0.4359597092154277,-0.6602055747857457,248,False,0.32313227346145285
6,5,24031,"Being forced to wear school uniforms will do little to prevent bullying from happening. If a student isn't being bullied about their clothing they could get picked on for what shoes they wear or what accessories or backpack they have. School Uniforms don't create a safer environment but instead enforce a more hostile one. Students who violate the uniform dress code can be taken out of instructional time based on their outfit. Some students might also stress over having enough uniforms or how much money they spent on their uniform, these feelings exist with both regular clothing and uniform apparel. While uniform policies try to even the playing field among students, students find ways to break the dress code or modify their uniform to outshine each other. Uniforms don't even the playing field instead they create a whole other playing field that students still compete on. School uniforms enforce unrealistic expectations of unity amongst a large number of people. In the real world you don't dress exactly the same as the person next to you. Everyone strives to be their own person in society and one way of showcasing your individuality is through uniforms. Students can begin to lose a sense of individuality by continuously looking like everyone else. Students should have the right to express themselves through their choice of dress as long as it abides by the safety dress code regulations. Uniforms can't fix the bigger picture of creating a safer environment for students to attend.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.841756229356096,1.4229438055566122,-0.020195159547741384,248,False,0.8759507431044806
6,1,10712,"I think students should wear school uniforms. It is because in schools where students are allowed to wear whatever they want, there are school bullies that make fun of other students who may not have a good taste in fashion. But if they all wear the same school uniforms, they can't make fun of one anothers' fashion senses which prevents this type of bullying from happening. And also, if students can wear whatever they want, they might take a longer time to leave their houses for school due to taking too long to choose what they want to wear which may cause them to be late for school.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,108,True,-4.0
6,1,3303,"Hi, thank you for debate with me. First our topic is ""Wearing school uniform at school"". My position is pro. Your position is con. We choose this topic because, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students need to wear school uniform at school. What is your opinion about this hot burning issue?",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.4261354055699119,-0.6115044298002202,-1.3479152563603771,100,True,-0.921646628644818
6,26,17885,"I'm certainly against the school uniform and there are many examples and a lot of reasons out there to be against it but to start up with my arguements I would like to respond to the other sides arguements. So you say that the school uniform is discipline, but what does the uniform has to do with the actual discipline? The school uniform will not change the students behaviour, and thats the first point-school uniform will not change the students personality. The uniform would certainly look good in school but what we have to think about more carefully is that is the school uniform comfortable enough. You know like in many schools the uniform consist of ties, shirts, blouse and other cloth that are not actually very comfortable. Another point of the opposite side is that when pupils wear uniforms thay are all equal, no one is wearing expensive and stylish cloth, but disagree because if a student likes to show off in school he/she would certainly find a way to do so, like there are many different expensive brands that produce school uniforms. Im totally against the school uniforms because as I mentioned, in every school its all about the student not about his cloth!",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.21170174174261136,0.9447005407547228,-0.17159375655046588,206,False,0.2231450780764092
12,10,21934,"In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.786005519139551,-2.124668075136309,-0.19493031384171167,24,False,-1.167741047634809
6,2,12888,"You have stated that school uniforms violate freedom of expression, and that is the only thing you have used as evidence for your whole argument. I agree with that uniforms violate the freedom of expression. But your conclusion is not very strong. You have said,""if you implement uniforms on all schools, people will begin ignoring the laws because if the government can break it, then they can."" I do not believe the federal government will ever force all the school districts to wear school uniforms. It has always been and will be more of a school-based thing. The statement I have just made proves your whole conclusion wrong. And also, many of the disputes concerning school uniforms in court have to do with gang behavior. In Oleson v. Bd. of Education of Sch. Dist., a high school student has presented the case of the male students not being able to wear earrings because it relates to gang behavior. The government sided with the school because the school provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and the resulting violence in the schools there. The school and government made the right decision, in this case, because their decisions repressed gang behavior. Now there are also reasons to promote school uniforms. There are also many healthy reasons to enforce school uniforms, such as reducing peer pressure of wearing high-quality clothes, identifying intruders, diminishing social barriers between students, and many more. This is why I promote school uniforms.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.9074972829727326,0.9962754898919912,0.8230916714675854,245,True,1.0436209202673083
6,1,3344,"First, let me start off by explaining myself( although it is mostly self explanatory): school: an institution where instruction is given to persons under college age. uniforms: an outfit or style worn by members of a group, or in this case, students in a school. First of all, Uniforms are worn at schools so there won't be any gang colors being worn, and also so no one can make fun of you if you wear clothes from Wal-Mart, or a place that isn't ""popular"" like Hollister, or Aeropostale. But if someone is going to make fun of you because your not rich, they can still make fun of you. Uniforms don't hide how much money you have. And if someone is going to make fun of your clothes, and you have a uniform on, they will find something else to make fun of you for. And gangs can't be stopped just because they have to wear a uniform to school. They can ""throw up"" gang signs and stuff like that while they are at school, uniforms or not. It is also not fair to the people who followed the dress code before the school got uniforms. If they had always worn what they were supposed to they shouldn't have to wear a uniform just because alot of other kids at their school didn't follow the dress code. They will feel like if they follow the rules, they still might get punished. It will also make the kids, and some parents angry at the school. The school will get alot of calls from angry parents, and some of the kids might rebel, and stop doing their schoolwork. I look forward to whomever I may be debating, no matter if I win or lose, it will be a fun debate.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.0167263058386855,0.5389027744642408,1.1379533138851377,298,True,1.034053562879006
6,3,26089,"Wearing a uniform is a badge of pride, creates an identity for a school and is an important part of being a school student... A school uniform teaches students to dress smartly and take pride in their appearance... Perhaps most importantly, a uniform means students don't have to worry about peer pressure when it comes to their clothes. When everyone is dressed the same, worrying about what you look like isn't so important. There is no competition about being dressed in the latest trend, which would put a great deal of financial pressure on students and parents. Potential bullies have one less target for their insults; it's hard to make fun of what someone is wearing when you're dressed exactly the same... My uniform might not be what I would wear in my own time, but it gives me a sense of belonging, takes away the pressure of what to wear and deters the bullies. School uniform isn't fashionable, but that's exactly why I think it should be here to stay.""",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.8460543385117991,0.9438691061726312,-0.0032580081435054967,171,True,0.05730945145655671
9,14,30877,"Every single day, there are millions of users sharing photographs, messages and comments across Facebook. Unfortunately, this type of “online socialization” that Facebook has initiated is nothing but detrimental to the teenagers, the most frequent users of the platform. The emotion which is most common when staying online is envy. “Endlessly comparing themselves with peers who have doctored their photographs, amplified their achievements and plagiarised their bons mots can leave Facebook’s users more than a little green-eyed.”(1) Not only do they get envious, but they also lose their self esteem. As a result, they have the tendency to be isolated and find it harder to socialize and make new friends due to the bad impression they have for themselves. In a poll, 53 per cent of the respondents said the launch of social networking sites had changed their behaviour - and of those, 51 per cent said the impact had been negative.(2 ) One study also backs this statistics up by finding that the more the participants used the site, the more their life satisfaction levels declined.(3) In conclusion, daily use of social networks has a negative effect on the health of all children and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders.(4) (1) “Facebook is bad for you”, The Economist, Aug 17th 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21583593-using-social-network-seems-make-people-more-miserable-get-life (2)  Laura Donnelly “Facebook and Twitter feed anxiety, study finds” The Telegraph,  08 Jul 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9383609/Facebook-and-Twitter-feed-anxiety-study-finds.html (3) “Facebook use 'makes people feel worse about themselves' “, BBC News, 15 August 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23709009 (4) Larry Rose ”Social Networking’s Good and Bad Impacts on Kids“ American Psychological Association August 6, 2011 http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/08/social-kids.aspx",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.1618138021713807,0.5127760206578758,1.324567283202216,268,True,0.7751110684633672
6,6,4085,"Ok i will start this off, to me if my school made us wear uniforms i would not be happy for one that would be a drastic change for me, because i have never had to wear a school uniform other than CPI but thats not school thats trades. on the other hand i feel that your cloth tells about a persons personality and it shows what they like to wear. and i feel that a uniform constricts them from there creativeness in cloths. But i know that some people may wear inappropriate cloths and i hopeful they get that taken care of and just because someone wears something that is not school appropriate that does not mean you should jump the gun and mandate uniforms but what they should do is make rules about what type of cloth are appropriate like no shorty shorts, and no perverted cloths, one those students are about as old as 18 and under and there just not old enough to be wearing that kind of wardrobe. So thats what i have to state now its your turn, make it good.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.1401200147689768,-0.5591951267759318,-1.4807178766147704,187,False,-0.8326481538126944
15,7,11192,"Thank you for accepting my debate Empiren. ""Why it is unnecessary"" The reason testing cosmetics on animals is unnecessary is because there are plenty of other alternatives. The other alternatives are less costly and more accurate. ""What other alternatives there are."" EpiSkin- EpiSkin is a model of reconstructed skin. When tested on, it predicts corrosivity and irritation. Its accuracy is between 90-95%. EpiDerm- Cultured human skin cells. When tested on, it can detect chemical irritants. It detected all chemical irritants. When tested on rabbits, 10 out of 25 tested had were wrong. 40% error rate. To test toxicity, animals were forced to ingest chemicals where 50% of the animals died. As an alternative, donated human tissue is tested on to target where specific organs are affected. This alternative is 85% accurate. Testing on animals is 65% accuarate. InVitro International""s Corrositex- Non animal testing is less costly and less time consuming. InVitro can detect corosivity in 3 minuted to four hours. Animal testing can take two to for weeks. DakDak is used to test the effectivness of sunscreen. It can give results in days where animal testing can take months. It can also test five to six products for less than half the cost. Animals testing costs million of dollars where as alternatives are a fraction of the cost. Just to add, animal testing is harmful to the enviroment becuase of the disposal of so many dead animals. Not to drone on, here are plenty more alternatives. It provides alternatives that test skin sensitisation, carcinigenity, toxicokinetics, and reproductive toxicity.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,258,False,-4.0
6,2,21323,"It wasn't specified whether the first round was ""acceptance only"", so as part of this post in which I accept the debate, I will briefly outline my major arguments and why I feel my opponent's ""main point"" is not sufficient grounds to ban school uniform. 1) Uniforms act as an equaliser, and help conceal problematic divides such as class differences. 2) They therefore are also better for families which have less money, as students do not feel pressured to buy expensive designer clothing. 3) Non-uniform clothes can contain offensive or derogatory language. Uniforms remove this problem. 4) Students who wear uniforms are, on average, better behaved, and perform well academically when compared to their non-uniform counterparts. 5) Students wearing a uniform are identifiable as school students. This makes them less likely to truant, as they would be at greater risk of being caught. Onto some brief refutation: Yes, some students do indeed struggle to express themselves through music, art, poetry, and various other methods. This single point does not outweigh the above points, which are much more solid reasons to keep school uniforms. It is also worth noting that school is not necessarily an appropriate time to express oneself through fashion- this can be a considerable distraction from students' academic pursuits, and students can easily express themselves through fashion outside of school.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.0224632575310821,1.026538027520694,0.5972574441138825,222,False,1.0143765735942865
6,6,26089,"Confidence is a huge part of life especially for teens. Uniforms look different on everyone. Some people may feel they don""t look good in their school""s uniform. Because of this feeling, they worry all day long about what everyone else is thinking of them. Having confidence can be of great importance. Weather it""s a simple project presentation at school or a big job interview, confidence is key. While wearing uniforms, confidence is sometimes a hard thing to accomplish, but this isn""t the only distraction of wearing a uniform. Uniforms can be quite distracting during the day because of all the restrictions. During the day you constantly have to worry about having your shirt tucked in and keeping everything according to code. While worrying about tests you are also constantly worrying about getting caught with a uniform violation. After enough uniform violations there will of course be consequences such as a detention. I personally am not always thinking about what I should be, but instead checking my uniform over and over to make sure not to get in trouble. Students have enough stress in their lives; why add more? With so much stress about getting good grades and getting everything done on time, we shouldn""t have to deal with the stress of uniforms. Students already have so many things taken away from them during school hours, individuality and confidence shouldn""t have to be hidden by uniforms. Having a few dress code guidelines is quite an easy fix to these issues. I believe that students should not have to wear uniforms.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6017137941119602,0.7539995601795734,1.0058387224567418,259,False,0.9037235130003592
6,6,43097,"No, my response was indeed relevant. My very first acceptance post stated that I will take the side of schools deciding for themselves (via the free market). I'm sorry that your copy/paste response was not tailored for my counter-argument. Also, you don't seem to understand the fundamentals behind a free-market education system, which is what private schools are. If parents think a school and its rules are terrible, they don't send their kids there. The school administration can write the guidebook, but if the parents don't approve, the school will not get any students. The topic of this debate was not whether or not school uniforms have benefits for the students or not. It was if private schools should have their students wear uniforms. It's a question of what is good for the school. A school without any students isn't not a good school. The free market is the only deciding factor in this question. Many private schools do implement uniforms, and many do not.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.18377973708622986,0.3759434656365472,0.14428213849826307,165,False,0.12293623236832446
6,4,6901,"I accept the challenge. I will argue that wearing the school uniform should not be mandatory for teachers. The primary purpose of the school uniform is to establish a sense of order. That sense is fulfilled by creating a hierarchy between pupils and their teachers. If a person is seen wearing a school uniform, then that signifies them as a student in that school. A teacher should not be seen as a student, for that signifies that they are on an equal level with the student. This perspective might undermine a teacher's authority, as it might lead students to percieve teachers as students of the school just like them, and not an authority over them.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.6532954354295525,-0.6252797818948445,-0.19314297160785726,115,False,-0.5758923204933629
6,5,3303,"To my mind, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students don't need to wear school uniform at school.",0.1789077955820434,True,-2.4499781159929803,-0.6683875380375953,-1.8380413438412482,66,False,-1.8869156719576756
6,1,48,"School that have uniforms have more intelligent and efficient students, because they have uniforms. When schools have uniforms kids focus more on they're studies not on they're clothes or how they look. If everyone wore the same clothes no one can say theirs is better and no one will be teased of what they wear. When everybody wears the same thing their will be less prejudicism and more nationalism. Kids will get along better and create more social groups. Students spend less time deciding what to wear, because no one will judge what they choose because they're all wearing the same thing. Nobody likes to be mocked when you choose the best clothing you had and then the other laugh and bully him for trying. When theirs the uniform policy kids will be friendlier and smarter because of the intelligent decision the school made for the kids own good.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.15761684045215932,0.05431459571995706,-0.11324508196467845,149,True,0.0287857167265637
6,4,21034,"I also believe that students at other schools and members of the public may judge students by their uniforms. When I was a kid in elementary school we had to wear uniforms. When I got to Middle School and did not have to wear a uniform all the kids their judged me and bullied me because they thought kids that wore uniforms were snobs. I don't know why they thought this, I guess it was just implanted into their brains by society. Therefore, not wearing uniforms will help prevent students from being stereotyped. Also, uniforms are often dry clean only and that can be expensive for the families.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.8422666144901613,-1.272705381635561,-0.8653899204385671,108,False,-1.1588840483019547
6,4,10712,"We should be focusing on the performance of the students rather than the way they are dressed. Uniforms provide almost no benefits whatsoever. The only valid benefit for school uniforms is the safety they bring. They prevent outside intruders from entering the school unannounced and they make it easier to spot a student that is lost. Even so, most schools have scanner machines so that students can use their school district ID's to sign in. If someone that was not a student at the school happened to trespass, they would be caught immediately. Personally, I think dress codes would be better. They allow students to wear want they want and to be creative, but still restrict students to wear only school appropriate attire.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.7116898608538058,0.3371783124199828,0.06331606820256165,123,False,-0.11872758714521015
9,6,10638,"I agree with you when you state that we shoudln't punish social media. In order for us not to punish the invention of social media we can't allow 10 year olds to be on social media. My third contention is that we don’t need more kids being attached to social media. Kids 13-17 spend at least 3 hours a day on social networking websites. 39,757 years of time have been spent on social media. Teenagers use social media 20% more than adults. The average American spends ¼ of their day using social networking sites. It’s bad enough that teenagers are already addicted to social media. Therefore, if we lower the age restriction we are passing on social media addiction to younger children. Teenagers have the average of 7.4 social networking apps on their cell phones. 18% of teenagers can not go for more than a few hours without checking their cell phones and 24% of teenagers check their twitter feed before getting up in the morning. Why are we allowing social media addiction to now begin in younger ages? Cell phones have replaced watches, clocks, and news. We shouldn’t let it replace our close friends and family. I hope all of you see that this has gone to far and kids under 13 can not use social media. This has been a fun debate.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,224,False,-4.0
6,2,29438,"Contention 1 - Equality One of the most obvious argument for school uniforms is that by having all children dressed the same, there is a decrease in bullying and teasing. In this era of status brands and high-fashion trends, clothing has become the definitive status symbol for children and teens. By evening the playing field with uniforms, there is less opportunity for children to be picked on or shunned for their clothes. Contention 2 - School Spirit and Identity Many experts believe that when the entire student body is dressed in uniforms, they develop a stronger team mentality. When they are all dressed alike, their all-for-one-and-one-for-all comradery is boosted. Contention 3 - Simple Economics Buying a few school uniforms instead of a new school wardrobe every fall is much more economical. School uniforms are designed to stand up to everyday wear and repeated washing so most parents find that they can get away with buying a few sets. Contention 4 - Unity Educators and experts who are pro school uniforms believe that uniforms contribute positively to students' behavior. They believe that when students wear uniforms, they feel more professional and behave accordingly. Many educators believe that students can become distracted by fashion trends and status symbol clothing. Therefore, when all students are dressed in regulation uniforms, there is less focus on fashion in the classroom and more focus on learning.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.08156909041547042,0.6750803901456787,1.4226945690581083,230,True,0.848098019773677
6,2,44259,"Sigh, my opponent does not comprehend debate etiquette. I said first round acceptance, which means first round no arguments are to be presented, you must only write if you accept the challenge or not. Now you have more debate rounds then me, nevertheless I will continue. Rebuttals: ""School Uniforms aren't the best because kids can not show their uniqueness, and their differences from everyone else."" In doing so, people will not get teased for being different. Arguments: First of all, we all understand what school uniforms are. So now I will explain how these school uniforms can better a school. In using school uniforms, you are preventing bullying. In the U.K. over 50% of school girls bullied are because of their appearance. [1] Appearance include clothing. So if all people in a school were to wear uniforms, it would prevent the amount of bullying significantly because everyone is wearing the same thing. You can't bully someone because of their clothes if you are wearing the same ones. Secondly, it would prevent inappropriate clothing in the school. Schools have rules, and sometimes these rules are broken. Some people could go against the clothing requirements, and wear inappropriate clothing to school, exposing skin. With uniforms, you are required to wear them, eliminating the possibility of inappropriate clothing. Thirdly, it would be cheaper to have 1 piece of clothing than to buy many. With a uniform, you would buy less clothing. IN doing so, you are helping low income families. Since I am aware of con's short argument, I decided to make mine short as well. Source:",0.8044698538620362,True,0.4874410485072799,0.6262232118649811,0.47280142621634297,264,True,0.6030719647187552
15,2,41457,"clajen0112 forfeited this round. Con Since my opponent forfeited this round, it will somehow be unfair for me to write a long refutation. I will refute my opponent's argument as brief as I can. . Animals have their own rights. -freedom -life -happiness -protection Animal tests violates these rights. What do you mean in this case? How does the animal testing violate this rights. Please specify. I think my opponent is saying that the environment for the experiment of animals are harmful. However, it is highly regulated so the animal testing is done safely. Also, for the happiness and protection, without any animal testing, it won't be able to cure the diseases of animals, either. So, animal testing will worth more and more animals being cured and protected from diseases, and that will give surely more happiness to the animals. 2. Animal tests are replaceable. -inaccuracy -alternative What does it mean for inaccuracy and being alternative? How are animal testing replaceable. Please clarify this. Living things like humans and animals are too complex that there are not any appropriate things to replace the animals.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.09648893522442056,-0.1206930820586356,0.16791946573805305,184,True,-0.028095951877159884
6,5,13443,"Well, it doesn't matter if they wear uniforms or not. Students will still change the uniforms into a clothing style that they want. There will be no difference in how they do in school with or without uniforms. Uniforms is just a type of school spirit dress code. As my opponent said about being sexy, girls will do the same thing with uniforms. Its just like when you play soccer. You use pennies to differentiate teams. Players dont wear their pennies the right way. They wear it just like they wear their regular shirts. My opponent makes no point with this argument. Therefore I shall make a superior statement in the final round",0.4916888247220394,True,-1.2933781377334594,-1.2982033773471884,-0.32960577610953984,113,False,-1.1252289882570634
6,7,26712,"School Uniforms shouldn't be required for many reasons. For one School Uniforms oppress the creativity and the freedom of speech students have to wear what they like when they like. Secondly forcing students to wear school uniform may still cost more, the average price for a school uniform for secondary school in the UK is ""285 and for primary school, is ""156.[1]Thirdly the fact that uniforms are all the same may suggest to children that we must all conform to the same standards. This fact alone combined with the other points I am suggesting clearly shows that school uniforms are an unnecessary expense. Sources: 1)",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.22259658531152626,-0.4687472492529174,-0.4967641269813253,105,False,-0.4681187298613241
6,8,3303,"Finally, also it's my last time for say my opinion about this topic. In general, still i think students don't need to wear school uniform. Nobody can't say ""Oh, you have to wear school uniform"" or something else. It's their own liberty. So, i think students don't need to wear a school uniform at school.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.8504068115791704,-1.3065138914758272,-0.9279271755010194,55,False,-1.1991976102199582
6,2,21034,"Being bullied by kids because you wear uniforms does happen a lot, but If all schools started having their students wear uniforms it would be less of a problem. So if you wore uniforms in 5th grade and then switched to 6th there wouldn't be any discrimination towards other students. Also, whether you wear uniforms or not you will always be stereotyped, wearing uniforms prevents you from being further stereotyped based on the style of your clothing, if everyone chose their own clothes, one kid may be called gay because he likes to wear pink shirts even if he is not gay, or a girl might be called poor if her clothes are all stained and worn and she might just be living with parents who don't take the time to buy her new clothes. Wearing uniforms prevents kids from judging each other because they are all put on the same level wearing the same thing.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5220966114218819,0.3703928650913951,0.20117250537268114,156,True,0.4133949893128461
6,63,17885,"Children will be that much less focused on appearance and more on learning while wear uniform. Theoretically it is unclear how uniforms might affect students’ achievement and behavior. Uniforms could improve student outcomes through a few mechanisms. First, it makes easy identification unauthorized visitors to school which can be not from school and also it prevents theft some expensive or brand clothing. Second, uniforms may instill respect for authority in students which could improve behavior and reduce classroom disruptions. Third, which more important for adolescents which more shy or new abroad students, because it leads to unite with their classmates and it also make them easy to communicate with each other. Uniforms help avoid much of this problems by requiring students to wear the same clothing. According to research which made in LUSD(LUSD is an urban school district with more than 200,000 students and close to 300 schools) elementary schools have got opportunity easier adaptation to uniform and take it easy in middle and high schools, but if students find uniform in middle and high schools in the first time for them it is always harder to accept it. Another research also shows that in elementary schools it has impact on attandance and disciplinary but for older students, especial for girls, it has diametrically opposite influence.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.642168194958172,0.052226590703081464,2.309580619334719,216,True,1.1984456372669345
6,1,26786,"School uniform should definitely be banned for many reasons. First of all, pupils should be able and should be encouraged to express themselves and be creative with what they wear. Everyone wearing the same uniform takes away their individuality and the right to be able to wear whatever they want. Own clothes are more comfortable and in the cold, school uniforms aren't warm enough. Surely we can wear badges to say which school we are from, especially on school trips! If we are comfortable wearing our own clothes in class we should be able to focus better in class. School uniform can be very expensive as compared to our own clothes as well as if not washed quick enough it can pose a real problem. No matter what you dress students who bully others will always find a reason to do so. Making everyone wear the same clothes is not going to make the problem magically disappear. To conclude, students wearing their own clothes will be able to express themselves, show individuality and spend less money.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.4605267164062625,0.3467405498927477,0.35598998185425224,176,True,0.4394681843744229
6,3,22417,"School uniforms have been around for many years. I believe it's time to drop the uniforms, and allow students to wear as they wish. Many supporters of this highly-debated topic say that school uniforms keep students, especially the ladies, modest. I don't see how a short skirt is keeping the girls modest, and isn't that what the regular public school dress code is for? Keeping their students dressing appropriately? School uniforms are doing nothing to benefit the education system. Making students wear the exact same outfit every day has no effect on grades, performance, or testing. Also, imagine if there were a kidnapping somehow during a recess/break, or in the restroom. Clothing is a great way to identify and track down the victim, but if all the children are wearing the same thing, it'll be way easier for the kidnapper to successfully change their look. Just an insane scenario, you know? In the long run, I think students should be allowed to wear their choice of clothing to school, as long as it's appropriate.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5041012773177068,-0.5345691786398199,0.15371743959013898,174,False,0.04829283079762708
9,6,4964,Social networking sites create great opportunities for professional networking.,-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.8921928406448775,-0.5069496986250407,-0.3917682197318007,9,True,-0.699080861736279
6,2,9620,"By saying ""Cliques lead to all sorts of problems, such as bulling, exclusion, and more."" you are saying that not wear uniforms can lead to bullying and the act of excluding which is as same as my point. Thanks for supporting me anyways. The fact that you say that uniforms are just there to identify that this member belongs to this school, club,etc. you are absolutely correct. God made everyone equal and it won't make a big difference in school if you wear school uniform because: 1. You are representing your school 2. You get to be noticed by the community that you belong to such a school society 3. Depending on your actions, nature, and manners your society, parents, and relatives might be impressed and be honored to be a proud parent of a student at that school. Remembering that we are all equal, I believe that school should set up policies to wear uniforms in school. Back to The CON",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.5203681273973827,0.13386035051489187,-0.36991884458635615,162,True,-0.2976197414472604
6,5,2865,Let me start of by saying that children should wear uniform to school . My reasons are listed in nice order and hope my opponent gives me a great debate . My links will be put in the bottom of my argument . Reasons why students should wear uniforms. 1 . Not all students will be able to afford nice cloths so there would be a lot of bullying for those who can't afford it . 2 . Bullying has been found responsible many student suicide and making it a law will increase suicide rates . 3 . There would be an increase in rasisiam in my opinion meaning I don't have much evidence to prove it but its based in the taught that if you say something an giants one person of a race then evreyone will think that that's true about the entire culture . I hope my opponent sees these as plausible reasons to why students should wear uniforms good luck.,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.56226794748223,0.6856697767851094,0.07301964627200744,164,False,0.08075691956895692
6,6,5804,"While school is most definitely for learning, it is also about finding out more about yourself and who you are as a person. Being able to choose the clothes you wear is important in the process of maintaining individuality. I do not believe that individuality creates a disruption in the classroom unless it is either very suggestive or inappropriate. Something as simple as being able to choose the color of your shirt is important in finding one's self. Also, you make the point of whatever you are wearing takes the focus off education, but rather, I believe it can enhance it. According to research done on the subject, there is no effect on academics, substance abuse, or absent days, when students are required to wear a uniform. Students tire easily of repetition, and it is necessary to create diversity in their schooling in order to keep them interested and to be ready to learn. For your next point, students will get bullied regardless of what they wear. Bullying can happen even in uniform based schools. For example, uniforms can often cost a substantial amount of money, and if the parents don't have the income to provide the same quality of uniform as everyone else, they may get bullied. Bullying will happen regardless of what they wear, and very rarely is bullying focused solely on clothing. Sources:",0.4916888247220394,True,1.1442996237395162,0.5869320653697598,1.4684997139407416,226,False,1.2329666559013384
15,3,41457,"clajen0112 forfeited this round. Con Since my opponent had forfeited this round again, I will just state my opinion and extend my argument. My Opinion As I have stated, animal testing should not be banned. Animal testing may save the lives of living things, and it will develop medical treatments and science. Also, animals will get to benefit from animal testing since animals get better medical treatments, and those things could even save their lives. Also, the environment of animal testing is not harsh since it is highly regulated. Also, even though we do not do animal testing, there is no another thing to replace the animals for the experiments. It is because the body structure of humans are highly complex, and the animals are very similar to the humans. Questions to my opponent Please clarify your reasons, and answer my questions I wrote in round 2. To conclude, for these reasons I disagree to the topic that animal testing should be banned. To add, I will extend my arguments I wrote before since my opponent forfeited this round!",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.08711930599718795,-1.1247878602524977,-0.2212347900897851,179,True,-0.5507782592998215
6,7,23415,"Thanks for the apology, what whats done is done. I still firmly believe that school uniforms should be banned. For one of my points I think that they are detrimental to adult development. How we express ourselves through our clothing helps us define ourselves. Wearing the same clothes every single day takes huge toll on our transition into adulthood. Wearing a uniform also is a big factor in youth depression. Imaging being a teen girl, staring into the school bathroom mirrors with tears in her eyes because a couple of the ""popular girls"" were just making fun of her. Uniforms main purpose is to make everyone look homogeneous (the same) but in fact they do the exact opposite. When everyones wearing the same thing you would image they all look the same. Thats totally wrong. Everyone has different body types, weights and heights. After a recent study I have discovered that almost every girl that wears a school uniform is often embarrassed to go to school wearing those clothes. Also most people think that uniforms try to desexualize youth, It does the exact the opposite. When those students come home they feel ugly. They're looking for someone to think that they look attractive, it drives them to wear less and less clothing every day.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3918046873578533,0.23366019871852384,1.4357059763301807,214,False,0.8016030677700078
6,4,48,"As per your statement about students being more intelligent and efficient if they have uniforms, that is a common misconception. I point to Memphis City Schools as my evidence. Cordova High School has a very strict uniform policy, yet a very high fail rate. I know because I attended that school for two years. Out of the 500 people in my class, only half were passing. At my new school, we have no uniform policy, yet, it is praised as one of the top 5 schools in the State of Kentucky. You are also wrong when you say, ""When schools have uniforms kids focus more on they're studies not on they're clothes or how they look."" Once again, I use MCS as my evidence. Every single day, girls would come into class and put on their makeup and guys would comb their hair with their hair picks, in total disregard for what the policy states. At my new school, everyone does their work and they don't really care about what other people are wearing. Kids are not friendlier when there is a uniform policy in place. In fact, students are more hostile. In the minds of students, they are being forced wear something that they do not want to. Because they feel like they are being forced to do something, tensions can escalate quickly. At Cordova High, fights were almost an everyday thing.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.3458502417255158,0.9082019201187188,2.6431563074710764,233,False,1.9087879860514025
6,1,31986,"Children wearing school uniforms is far from 'nonsence'. It could save a child's life. Imagine a little kindergartner, wandering willy-nilly out of their school. Without their school uniform, nobody would know that they were missing from the school. And think how much grief that would bring to their parents. Besides, if representing the school somewhere, pupils can't just wear Nikes and a hoodie. They should wear their school uniform because they want people thinking 'Wow, how polite these people are. I think I should send MY children to this school.' School uniforms are a necessity.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.09772647143524926,-1.216103463522188,-0.009608647785552135,95,True,-0.42446543574511625
6,1,9620,"I think uniforms should be worn in schools. To support my statement I will lay out some points: 1. When all students have to wear the same thing, none of them can brag about wearing the latest, most expensive fashions. 2. Whether they're from the upper, middle or lower class, all students dress the same. 3. Uniforms can increase self-confidence when students don't feel pressured to wear a certain type of clothing. 4. A study by the University of Nevada found the middle school students felt safer and more confident when wearing uniforms. 5. School uniforms lessen distraction in the classroom so no one is sidetracked by someone's T-shirt message or where a friend got new leggings. 6. Studies have shown an increase in academic test scores in schools that have enforced uniform policies. I will now allow the CON to lead out their points and arguments.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.14394978621600618,-0.25265442351848955,1.3634732996061265,147,True,0.5009473422816314
5,12,28774,"As the data obtained about tests is over ten years old and tests have been reformatted and improved, the statistics may not be wholly accurate. The resolution does not give specific standards for the test. We could choose to improve the quality of the tests by including styles suited to a broader spectrum of people (multiple choice or short answer sections as well as essay or analysis sections). It is not having standardized tests alone that is discriminating against minorities, but it is the way the tests are created. Minorities are given the same public school opportunities as majorities, so they should be tested like everyone else. We should focus our efforts on assisting them to reach the necessary level rather than eliminate all testing. In 1999, Montgomery County, Maryland, discovered the way to eliminate effects of biased testing. "". . .closing the gaps in test performance is the best way to quell the argument over the place and purpose of standardized testing"" [[Meserve, Jeanne. ""Standardized Tests under Fire."" CNN. June 15, 1999. 24 Sept., 2009.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.20564638199980545,0.34572734779795034,0.5872659059227753,176,False,0.27715180490602614
5,8,7474,"Alright, wrap up. Standardized testing fails at assessing every one's knowledge to full extend due to the lack of open answer questions, which has been proven to be the ideal way to asses knowledge. Standardized testing favors and rewards proficient students (scholarships when you get a perfect SAT score) and discriminates and punishes students under proficiency (getting put into special ed programs, not getting into colleges that they wish to attend). Standardized testing is riducously expensive ( and that money could go towards much better programs that actually improve the education provided in schools. So my question to you is, if it is proven not to truly asses a students knowledge, if it barres lower scoring students from succeeding in life, and if it cost an absolute absurd amount of money every year, money that could be better spend on other projects, why do we still have standardized tests? (Good luck on your debate, good idea of doing this on here before you have the real debate, that way you can really see your opponents viewpoint and main arguments, and you can fine tune your own argument. I will see you around!)",0.8044698538620362,True,0.4875269778667527,0.4021563246562954,-0.11368327086140576,192,False,0.293702321971073
9,8,30877,"One of the most crucial elements in any child's development is the ability to socialize with peers. By having a large circle of friends to talk to and share interests, the child gains trust, self-esteem and self-confidence. If you have people to talk to when you have a problem, it is much easier to overcome any problems. Facebook and social networks in general help teenagers on multiple levels to maintain and expand their circle of friends. Firstly, it lets you remain in touch with friends even if you are very far apart. As we live in an increasingly globalized world, friend circles tend to be broken up very easily. As a result, individuals need to be able to keep in touch in spite of the physical distance. Facebook enables them to do that. (1) Secondly, by allowing people with shared opinions, hobbies or interests to gather, social networks allow users to expand their circle of friends, something that is more applicable the bigger the social network. Thirdly, it allows young people to spend more time with the friends and people they already know through chat conversations, shared photos or status updates. As a result, people who are engaged on these social networks have more self esteem, more confidence in them, feel more appreciated and tend to be happier in general due to their wide circle of friends. (2) (1) Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012 http://www.jcr-admin.org/files/pressPDFs/112712180022_Stephen_Article.pdf (2) Brittany Gentilea, Jean M. Twengeb, Elise C. Freemanb, W. Keith Campbella “The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation” 2012 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563212001409",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.3379251859677237,1.1795245136829628,-0.21663802055039647,278,True,0.2582505903759796
5,2,7832,"While I do agree with you that stress is not always a bad thing and can lead to results. I must question the practice of putting 8 year old children under such stress or children with disabilities that do not know how to handle themselves when in stressful situations. While I believe many adults have coping mechanisms to handle stress, I do not believe that children have the tools to deal with a stressful situation that they may feel they can not escape. With the emphasis being placed on test scores, teachers do not have time or room in the curriculum to teach those coping skills. I also understand that there needs to be a way to assess students in order to show growth and areas of deficit, however I believe that there is an over reliance on standardized tests. A standardized test is a snapshot of how a student is achieving on a particular day at a particular time. It does not take into account a student's physical or emotional state at the time of testing. In addition, standardized tests do not reflect other areas of growth such as emotional growth. In addition, if the government is requiring this testing, they should be funding schools so that they have the resources needed to administer the tests. In summary, I believe there is an over emphasis on standardized testing and I think schools should use standardized tests as a piece of the puzzle rather than the end all be all way to assess students.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6631290129571845,0.7993613027069602,0.5902983991926143,254,True,0.7833609459833895
5,13,42955,"Unlike other regional blocs in Africa the EAC has been keen to work on the improvement of education among member states. It has policies such as the introduction of the inter University council of education to ensure the quality of University education, and an ongoing process of harmonising education curricula in all member countries (1). However, Africa still remains the continent with poorest quality of education and has the lowest skilled/educated labour. A large number of children fail to access basic education (2). Enlarging and deepening the EAC will therefore enhance education standards on a large part of the African continent; such policies will lift weak academic institutions in DRC, South Sudan and Somalia which are typical of their poor education systems. (1)  East African Community Education, ‘Harmonisation of education and training curricula in East Africa’ eac.int,  http://www.eac.int/education/index.php?option=com_content&id=53&Itemid=106 (2)  Kevin Watkins, ‘Narrowing Africa’s Education deficit’, brookings.com, January 2013,  http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/01/foresight-africa-education-watkins",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.2206767468829129,-0.05209080338434013,0.09619514387258477,149,True,0.0929442230016537
5,3,40583,"Con may have misunderstood that I was suggesting that you could pass a class without learning the material. Con presents the hypothetical scenario that a student could no all of the appropriate material and then fail the test due to overstudying and stressing themselves out about the test. I understand that this is a possible scenario, but one hypothetical scenario is not a fair basis to condemn the entire testing process. As I stated in round two, a retesting opportunity would ideally be the solution to such a scenario. However, in order for Con to win this debate, they would be required to have disputed my arguments, and given some reasonable logic to substantiate the claim that standardized testing is unfair. Con argued on the basis of personal opinions, personal experience, and hypothetical scenarios, while offering no credible evidence to support the claim that standardized testing is unfair. If Con had provided some concrete reasoning for how someone could pass a class and fail the exam, or justification for why this is an unfair process, then Con would have a much more firm argument. In conclusion: It is possible to pass a class without learning all of the proper material. Standardized testing measures students' knowledge and ability before admitting them to the next level of schooling. Standardized testing does not warrant any judgement as unfair unless it can be successfully argued as discriminatory or unreasonable. Failing a standardized test results in a student's inability to proceed on to the next grade level. Con has not successfully disputed any of these points. Please vote Pro.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.5947960272411171,0.3747464260078911,-0.5443321839426846,264,True,0.16810512181794168
5,2,7474,"Okay first of all, standardized testing is needed to see where each individual is at academic wise. Standardized testing is proved to be the only way to see that without having to do one kid at a time and not having control over the classroom. Second of all, standardized testing helps see which teachers should remain teaching. Let's say that you have a really clumsy teacher who does not teach anything at all. And you know that nobody will believe you if you tell them that the teacher is not teaching. Standardized testing is a good way to see where the teachers are at, as well as the students. Standardized testing is also not expensive at all! The average amount of students in a school is 800 and each student costs $7 for testing materials and booklets. $7 times 800 equals an average of $5,600 dollars per school with testing, which is nothing compared to what the schools make! And with the money they give to the school systems, they know that the cost is beneficial to their school.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.0084166302165638,0.03998106488581489,-0.505574456822943,179,True,0.2219284936352545
15,7,41457,"Since my opponent had forfeited this round again, I will just state my opinion and extend my argument. My Opinion As I have stated, animal testing should not be banned. Animal testing may save the lives of living things, and it will develop medical treatments and science. Also, animals will get to benefit from animal testing since animals get better medical treatments, and those things could even save their lives. Also, the environment of animal testing is not harsh since it is highly regulated. Also, even though we do not do animal testing, there is no another thing to replace the animals for the experiments. It is because the body structure of humans are highly complex, and the animals are very similar to the humans. Questions to my opponent Please clarify your reasons, and answer my questions I wrote in round 2. To conclude, for these reasons I disagree to the topic that animal testing should be banned. To add, I will extend my arguments I wrote before since my opponent forfeited this round!",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6443344502089647,0.4197690828808645,0.29746885201262113,174,False,0.5170742930307866
5,2,21022,"I must say I am impressed by your argument, however the statement,""One of the most important skills a person can acquire is social interaction skills"" is borderline off-topic. This is because we are talking purely about education standards and test score improvement, and although your statement relates back to school into the fact that social skills are mainly developed in schools and that both male and female students are needed for these skills to develop which, in fact, does relate back to school. However, relating back to the topic of single sex schools increasing test scores and improving grades an Australian study of 270,000 students found that students of both sexes performed significantly higher on standardized tests (1). Also, social interaction skills can be built outside of school and therefore cannot be used as a valid point because of the ability for the students to interact as much as they want in the hours outside of schools. Also, the detrimental effects of single-sex schooling (Sexism and stereotyping) are definitely outweighed by the benefits (increase in grades and standardized test scores) which is proven in an article on greatschools.org, where the statement appears,""students of the opposite sex can be a distraction.""(2) This statement tells us that single sex schooling can remove the factor of distraction of the other sex, and using logic we can figure out that less distraction leads to more focus, and then focus leads to a higher rate of efficiency and productivity. I will now give my opponent the debate to state rebuttals. (1) (2)",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.23891092791025045,0.26714466872453796,0.3054243008510905,257,True,0.12236421478709919
5,5,17427,"Standardized testing costs 1.7 billion per year, this would save taxpayers a lot of money ending the madness. These tests are unreliable when measuring a student's performance. In 2011, a study found that testing does not improve student achievement. The United States has dropped in Math, Reading, and Science. The testing only measures a small portion of education. Teachers are in classes teaching a test as opposed to teaching from a book. This is only hurting education, the teachers and students should not be held accountable for poor test grades. Not all students test the same, some students test poorly, but at the same time know more than they are showing on the test. These tests do not bring a positive learning environment for the student or for the teacher, both of which are stressed. The student is stressed fearing they may not pass and can not move up to the next grade. The teacher may lose their job if some of the students do not pass this test. Testing is good to see what level students are at and what the school or teacher need to work on, but it should not be a deciding factor on anything.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.0732591743222533,0.4656274770145832,0.6838449504537268,199,False,0.46584798651294285
5,57,25233,"On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the supposed standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.1183697097317598,0.4520716654254477,0.1168077278031018,118,True,-0.19544318725479484
5,1,7832,"The increase in standardized testing over the last few years has been harmful to students, staff, and the community at large. Students have been exposed to mandated state testing, district testing, and everyday curricular tests given by the teacher to assess acquisition of skills. According to Cox (2015) ""Increased pressure on students has resulted in more test-taking anxiety. Sleeplessness, loss of self-esteem secondary to poor performance and lifelong mental blocks can be seen in individual children"" (p. 1). Parents are also affected when the children come home from school feeling frustrated or exhausted from days of testing. With the mounting pressure for high performance on these tests, teachers have changed their teaching approach to focus more on test preparation than educating the whole child. Lastly the community has been forced to take on the burden of standardized testing as well. Many schools, especially large inner city schools, have had to totally revamp their technology infrastructure to accommodate the thousands of children that need to be tested each year. Cox, E. (2015, November 16).Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Standardized Tests Making our Students Sick?. Us News and World Report. Retrieved from",0.4916888247220394,True,0.022298863816086263,-0.0868398563435417,0.7596694249408844,191,True,0.2664801299284582
5,19,35456,"Standardized testing is not perfect, but it helps to sets useful standards that help student learning. It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their education. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade, where the average student is expected to be. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across society, so that governments can help guide their national educational system onto a globally competitive path.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.1809998169651523,-0.5064148468330665,-0.5920135021035224,100,False,-0.5024144880041734
9,7,20575,"Nawadays there are huge number of different social networkings. And I admit that I also use some of them often enough for communication and news. But as I realize that so many people use these social networkings too much than normal, I become upset. Because there are a lot of people, who are kinda addicted to social networkings. They spend their whole day just by sitting in front of the computer, chatting or doing other silly things. Futhermore, now tecnology is developed, so we have access to internet in our cell phones everywhere we are. I was a witness of many boring meetings, where everybody was obsessed with their phones. I want to say that, social networks are just for killing time. It may negatively affect on people's jop productivity, students' grades, people's relationships and so on, becaue while person work or doing sth, notifications of messages, likes and coments distract him, and he can't concentrade on his work. However, I can not say that social networkings are totally bad thing, but while it is used overtime, it may cause some troubles.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0632701897497927,-0.20406554905738514,-0.029856619553826475,182,True,0.3280539232003239
5,4,10692,"I believe that Standardized Testing is not beneficial for students K-12 in America. Standardized testing is not beneficial to students. All it does is take away from class time and cause unnecessary stress. Standardized testing does not affect student's grades grades. All it does is provide the state with how much students at different schools are learning. I think that this is an ineffective way of calculating a school's efficiency. The state should look at students' overall grades instead of forcing them to take a long test where their focus is usually lost within the first half hour. Students don't especially care about how well they do on the test, because it won't affect their overall grade. Therefore, a solution would be to (as I said before) use the students' overall grades to calculate data, or make the standardized tests part of their overall grade. Also, it usually takes around a week to take the tests. This time could be spent learning.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.2156290967160364,-1.214897817611544,0.5785640638843882,162,False,-0.307112374076357
5,6,29978,"Busing children would reduce the overall quality of education children receive. Under the status quo, schools face all sorts of incentives to improve their standards. In some systems (such as the one used in the UK), schools compete against each other to attract children to their school (with funding ‘following the pupil’). In almost all systems, parents have some element of choice, as well as ways of complaining to schools about the standard of education their children receive, and can remove their child from the school if standards drop below an acceptable standard. By removing such possibilities in the cause of engineered social diversity, busing would protect schools from parental choice, and reduce any incentives the school has to improve. As a result, each child may receive the same quality of education, but this equality may come about from ‘levelling down’ – i.e. bringing everyone down to the lowest level in order to have equality. The reduction in the quality of education received by the children of the rich wouldn’t be matched by an increase in the quality of education given to the poor, so nobody would be better off.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0623831295443542,0.4233740673830136,0.40178755270517896,190,False,0.7242370484557256
5,6,18251,"Conclusion SATs damage a student's potential and future. They jump to conclusions at a young age by a single test score, causing them to shove young children into classes that are often too easy, or too hard. Once this cycle begins, the child will either fall terribly behind, or learn at the prescribed pace, no faster, causing them to have a ruined future. The test taking skills that SATs teach students are stressful and not suited for many children, and the oppurtunities for improvement at tests is limited to none. There is no flexibility, despite extenuating circumstances for some, and the stress level often causes poor scores. SAT's do not improve test scores, as numerous examples and studies have proven, and can sometimes even make them worse. They also cause a teacher to teach to the cirriculum poorly - one of the reasons for our failing education system. (Thank you, by the way, Pro). I, too, have the same sources as last time.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.3770966922811825,-0.5315211957072385,0.4615131282740892,163,False,-0.5347642904698118
5,2,29704,"1) a 2010 study in Rochester showed that children placed in an expeditionary learning school resulted in substantial and statistically significant achievement advantages for elementary students in English/language arts (ELA) and math, and for both years of middle school ELA. ""Effect sizes suggest that the EL schools in this study are substantially closing achievement gaps for students eligible for free or reduced price lunch, English language learners, and African-American and Hispanic students. In many cases, the achievement gap was completely closed. "" 2) In schools, standardized tests are the way to measure quality of education. Standardized tests show much information the student can retain, how well the teacher are presenting the material, etc. 3) Of course there could never be a 100% fix. I am not sure where you obtained your information, but according to my source, test scores actually went up and it is working on our children. The gap in achievement is closing. With changes made and more progress, the NCLB Act could help improve children's quality of education among other factors as well.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.436278664439739,-0.5509319486934217,0.6480902582586199,176,True,-0.1239701578471317
5,7,13720,"No worries about information; this is my first debate as well. Back to the discussion of standardized tests. Coming from a state where the HSPA is not given (nor required), I cannot say that I am arguing against the HSPA directly. However, with the knowledge of other standardized testing (even going so far as to include the SAT and ACT), I will argue that these tests do offer a measurement of ability. Of course, one cannot define oneself off of one score, but these tests are not designed for students to fail. Often times, even with those that have difficulty testing, many are able to achieve passing grades, or the comparative college-readiness levels. Concerning the HSPA testing, with scores ranging from 100 to 300, and a passing grade of 200, there is a high chance that many students will be able to achieve a passing level. Whether these individuals acquire a grade they are pleased with is a separate question, but when looking at the number of individuals able to pass, these numbers should be higher. Yes, I will acknowledge that testing does not come easily to all individuals, and that even the smartest of people will not test to the same ability that they show in the classroom. Yet these students should be able to test well enough to hit a passing mark. Please correct me if I am wrong or ill-informed about the HSPA test; we are not administered this test in Illinois.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.25294647777655344,-0.2320547120889134,0.2774035753173754,245,False,0.10833464677060475
15,6,34716,"First, animal testing for mental effects is needed to isolate variables. If we simply watch and study then it will not in a controlled environment so it will be difficult to isolate what variable effects what aspect of the mind. Second, he dropped my genetic testing argument. We need to conduct genetic testing on animals to best improve the species. Third, his only argument about farmers testing for yield is that we are testing methods, not the animals themselves. This is false, we test methods ON the animals. With medicine, we are not testing the animal itself, but the effectiveness of the medicine on the animal. There are two ways to view his argument then. One, testing medicine on animals is not the same as animal testing, meaning his entire case is based on a false premise. Or two, testing medicine on animals is the same as animal testing, in which case testing different methods of raising animals is animal testing. Either way, the resolution is false. In summary, the con only has to prove one scenario where the resolution is false. I provide three. If even one of the three points I bring up stand, then the resolution ought to be negated.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.8922195726767184,1.6153058994524818,0.1861070328989142,203,False,1.048607094498495
5,2,30106,I believe that standardized testing should be taken out of schools. Some kids have a hard time with testing and I think this is unfair because they try hard to study but they just cant get it and everything. They could be really good with in class work and homework and stuff but have a hard time testing on it. The tests that are timed have a a lot of pressure on someone who is bad at testing they feel pressured to going fast and rushing which may cause them to lose some points on there test. If they were gonna keep the testing in the schools let kids if they qualify for it to have more time on these tests and make sure that they do better. To qualify for extra time you gotta prove that you have a problem with the testing like that and need more time. Also I think that the reason they keep the standardized testing around is to get moneys for the schools. I know to that they can use them to decide what classes you can take or what schools you can get into. There are other ways that you would be able to decide that. That's why I think they should take it out of the schools.,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.8942621143053708,-0.26602386465827843,0.19751361079044988,215,False,-0.3700076080808534
5,7,10196,"We are here today to discuss equitable funding for schools. The question here is equitable to WHOM? As the system stands, money is distributed to schools both by the federal government and by the states. Federally, money is currently determined by the inane standards set by No Child Left Behind. I would not be surprised if my opponent is with me in standing against that failed policy, both for creating unequal financial distribution amongst schools and doing little to actually improve educational standards. But, while No Child Left Behind is inequatable, attempts to equalize finances amongst different schools would also be a disaster for very much the same reason things are so uneven today. To explore this more deeply, let us look at how States typically fund schools. In most states, some portion of tax revenue goes to funding education, and in most states, whether that piece of the financial pie is large or small, it IS actually disbursed equally between schools in different areas. While this is well-intentioned to level the playing field between schools, it's folly lies in different levels of wealth in the areas recieving money. We'll get into more detail on this as the debate progresses, but to keep it short for now, it is my contention that funding schools UNEQUALLY to favor and compensate schools in poor-er neighborhoods will have better results for education than funding rich schools and poor schools equally. Unequal funding is the only way to create fair results in our school system, otherwise, as with so many aspects of our society, education will only continue to help the rich get richer at the expense of poorer students.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.5668705757504984,1.3354154531218687,0.5652220699270489,276,False,0.9502046401321692
5,3,7832,"I believe that standardised testing is beneficial to students. Indeed, there will be an added amount of pressure and stress, but I believe that this helps them propel them forward toward striving for success. Stress is an important catalyst in one's motivation to work and if wisely wielded, can be a powerful tool in the advancement of education hence it is not necessarily a bad thing. Standardised testing is a means for a government to know where it stand in terms of further educational and holistic development and is also highly useful in education analysis. Without standardised testing, it will not be known if the students of a certain level are performing up to par, and without the proper Intel to make due changes and altercations to the education system, this can be dangerous for a country to be grooming substandard future population which would inevitably hinder society and have drastic implications on the work force. For example, in Singapore, there are standardised tests that occur twice each year on the average in primary, secondary schools and even junior college. These tests give the schools and government information on the amount of resources that should be diverted toward education sector, whether the Budget should increase or decrease, and also gives insight on the effectiveness ok current curriculum and providing incentive for change or improvement. Standardised testing has proved to be extremely beneficial to Singapore, and it is one of the most educationally advanced and successful countries in the education sector that many other countries tend to go on a pilgrimage for.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.0768200551687034,0.4596526460583827,1.1069366291533789,261,False,0.6347321584182914
5,16,35456,"The idea of national testing may seem like a good idea until you start to actually try to agree the standards that teachers must teach to. Agreeing what must be taught is difficult enough in a local setting; nationally such agreement is probably not achievable. Which historic figures should all students learn about? What parts of history are most important? Should creationism be taught in science or religious education? Maribeth Wilkerson, a graduate student of education, argues 'public schools are serving a particular community, so for that community to not have a say in what's taught and how doesn't seem right'1. Also, and partly as a result, good standards are difficult to come up with. Standards are either too vague so that the test-makers and teachers do not know what material to focus on, or they are too detailed so that teachers and students are swamped by the large number of subjects that must be covered. For instance, in the United States, standards are expected to improve with time, leading to fears that even if schools and students improve, they will not do so quick enough to meet national expectations2. Some even fear that 'by 2014, virtually every school across our country will have failed the unrealistic mandates of No Child Left Behind'2, the program that enforces national testing. 1 Curtis, D. (2011, July 11). Local educators want to take back schools: Will march on Washington July 30. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Fosters: 2 RDF. (2011, July 10). 'No Child' has schools left behind. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Redlands Daily Facts",0.8044698538620362,True,0.025942611781775617,0.12870696337961182,0.3424772742111876,263,True,0.18297830173775373
9,7,4964,Social networking sites estrange people.,-0.7594352918379461,True,-2.521252696780344,-1.2623754538924092,-2.3622764590656105,5,False,-2.3614711067504284
5,4,5220,"Challenge accepted, Standardized tests should not be used from Grades 1-12 as they discourage critical thinking skills, take away valuable time that could be used to educate students in a classroom, and fail to accurately assess a students academic progress. These reasons are just my starting point and only scratch the surface of the problems associated with standardized tests. I have many more reasons against the use of standardized tests, however, I will save those reasons for when the debate officially begins. Best of luck to you Heavenly Panda, Sincerly OAK",1.1172508830020322,True,-1.7950378139795715,-0.6831678229352737,-0.1393218665641307,91,False,-0.9911301881865566
5,21,25233,"To rebut the points made by the proposition, universities were in the past claimed to discriminate. This now does not happen: Oxbridge chooses students solely on the grounds of academic merit and gives ample assistance to those who would not normally be able to attend university. Businesses choose on merit alone as well, and we make our own social opportunities by how we each live our lives. The (unquoted) statistics that the proposition claim ""prove time and time again"" their point do not in any way prove it; what the prove is the benefits of the private system and the failures of the state system to educate our children. If state education is to be improved, the government must improve it: abolishing private education will not improve the standards of state education. Remember, those who attend private schools pay twice: they pay for the state system through taxation and private school fees. The amount of money available to state education, currently woefully low, cannot increase unless the government increases it. Therefore, abolishing independent education would not create equal opportunities for all that were of benefit: it would create equal, poor opportunities.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.15163208564626726,-0.5558289334850005,0.446646590386582,191,False,0.01657578299376303
5,25,17917,"There should be national standards, and national system of accountability.  Standardized tests go along way toward assuring a better educated nation.[1] A national curriculum is needed to unify a population.  According to E.D. Hirsch, there needs to be a core of shared knowledge for people to communicate with each other and with the increasing mobility of citizens, education needs consistency throughout a country.[2]   Local control often brings too much variation and diversity in curriculum.  That curriculum may be designed to suit the religious, political or personal beliefs of only a certain group of citizens while excluding others.[3]  The fracturing of educational policy across localities which may be poorly or badly governed is a “recipe for permanent inequality.”[4] National standards would set learning outcomes for all students wherever they were educated.  The national certification of teachers would better insure the quality of teachers across a nation.  Local control of teaching standards leads to too much variation in hiring and retaining teachers, thus diminishing the quality of the national teaching force. [1] Paige, Rod and Bennett, William. “Why we Need a National School Test.” [2] Fermoyle, Dennis. “Should Education be Nationalized?” The Atlantic Monthly. 1 March 2008. http://publiceducationdefender.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/should-american-education-be.html [3] Whitson, Alex.  “Are local school boards Obsolete?” Childhood Education, Vol. 74, #3, 1998. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002286123 [4] Carey, Kevin. “Toxic Combination.” http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/86547/education-reform-nclb-boenne  ",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.09029800360194433,0.6646506120198795,0.3459547649099846,217,True,0.3508484449611513
5,4,5585,"I'm taking the Con side of the debate, and I contend that private tutoring for the SAT should not be banned. First of all, it is not unfair at all. It deals mostly with learning how to take the test: time management, multiple choice strategy, and quick reading comprehension. These strategies and information are readily available for free on the internet to anyone who wants to prepare for the test. There are also full practice tests offered on the SAT website for anyone with an internet connection [2]. After a 30-second search on YouTube, I found an entire channel devoted to math SAT prep with videos that give an entire virtual course on it [3]. All it takes to prepare for standardized tests is commitment and hard work, whether someone is rich and privileged or not. Even a rich student who goes to the most expensive tutor available still has to take the time to absorb the information and practice to improve their score. I would argue that the test is not only, like you said, ""a measure of pure intellectual strength;"" in addition, it is a measure of how hard the student is willing to work in order to achieve. Colleges do not want to fill their halls with students who are geniuses yet have no drive to accomplish anything. [1] [2] [3] If private tutoring for standardized tests is unfair, then why shouldn't we also ban private tutoring for regular school? A high school college applicant's GPA is just as important as their SAT/ACT score. Private tutoring for school is sometimes only available to people with the money to pay for it, yet it would be ridiculous to try to ban students from trying to improve their chances of success in order to ""make it fair.""",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.21237004443248075,-0.06752410488940411,1.1862883195553102,298,False,0.3622523127830586
5,10,13147,"If universities are expected to become increasingly self-funding (in the case of many nations they already are entirely self-funded) it is unfair to restrict whatever advantages they may have to succeed. Equally those universities in a country which simply aren’t up to scratch should not be guaranteed the luxury of an inbuilt base of domestic students. A free and open market would improve the education provided to student both domestic and foreign by refining the tertiary sector through competition. Those universities which are failing will have to improve standards if they are to retain their students. At the moment foreign students often pay more, for example for 2012/13 entry into Oxford to do biological sciences overseas students pay £18550 while home students pay £9000.[i] Therefore the real rate the university would charge if it was attempting to break even while making a level playing field for global talent would be somewhere between these two levels. As a result there will both be more competition to get into the best universities; so driving up educational standards among school leavers, and more among universities who will also be competition for the domestic market. [i] University of Oxford, ‘2012/13 University tuition fee rates’, 7 September 2011  ",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.12711749815912465,0.8586299031851703,0.905438044552815,204,True,0.634760593137015
5,13,23029,"Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. In the US racism between students and teachers is still a big issue, as minority groups are consistently placed on slower academic tack and in 38 states “black students are twice as likely as whites to be labelled as mentally retarded” (University of Washington2003).  Thus Private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality. On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them rather than punishing those schools that do just that. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.8043967886723207,0.3205348467310709,1.366651319921998,264,False,0.9622369779998422
15,6,41457,"Since my opponent forfeited this round, it will somehow be unfair for me to write a long refutation. I will refute my opponent's argument as brief as I can. . Animals have their own rights. -freedom -life -happiness -protection Animal tests violates these rights. What do you mean in this case? How does the animal testing violate this rights. Please specify. I think my opponent is saying that the environment for the experiment of animals are harmful. However, it is highly regulated so the animal testing is done safely. Also, for the happiness and protection, without any animal testing, it won't be able to cure the diseases of animals, either. So, animal testing will worth more and more animals being cured and protected from diseases, and that will give surely more happiness to the animals. 2. Animal tests are replaceable. -inaccuracy -alternative What does it mean for inaccuracy and being alternative? How are animal testing replaceable. Please clarify this. Living things like humans and animals are too complex that there are not any appropriate things to replace the animals.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.6004341034528936,-0.22153037169040388,0.435102711584251,179,False,-0.1487672443049899
5,4,35060,"In today's bustling society, technology is advancing at an exponential rate. With this rapid growth of technology, students are becoming smarter than ever. For example, not only do students have the luxury of researching things at the click of a button but students also have accessibility to a wealth of information which once would have taken days to find at a library . Because of the ease of researching , school tests and quizzes can no longer be a harbinger in determining the potential success that a student can achieve. Therefore to determine what can be accomplished by a student, a policy of taking standardized testings should be ensconced. Not only will this provide a fair and equal opportunity for all students across the United States of America, but it will also allow job employers and college admissions people to have a relative idea on whether the student would be a 'good' asset to the company. In addition by taking standardized testings, it will allow the college admissions and job employers to quickly asses the students scores and not waste more time than the admission staff has to use. Therefore, establishing standardized testing will not only allow the people to have a quick assessment of the student but it will also reduce possible wasted time on both sides of the party.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.07478953222054706,2.621245241026612,0.4522486399633053,221,False,1.27201219655006
5,24,19384,"Students come from very different backgrounds and have very different skill-sets. This makes the attempt to define a measuring system that covers all cases a bureaucratic nightmare. Even if this succeeds, it is still very difficult to define what a 'good performance' is, because a student's individual performance is determined by many other factors than the teacher and also because an individual student's 'performance' is actually a complex set of attitudes, skills and abilities which are in and of themselves hard to operationalize in a standard test. And even if this succeeds, then the questions is how much of a student's performance is attributable to what specific teacher: oftentimes, at least in high school, students will have many different teachers, making it impossible to gauge what teacher was responsible for what test result. Finally, it should be noted (per the argument included above) that merit based education does not encourage the dissemination and normalisation of best practice. A merit-based pay scheme is likely to collapse when too many of those who work under it meet its criteria for bonus payments, making it too expensive. Once merit based pay becomes part of the structure of an institution, it will become hard to attract and retain staff if it is removed. Concurrently, performance at the same level will be expected by the public, although an institution may not be able to afford it. For the reasons stated above, good ideas are unlikely to be shared by teaching staff under a merit-based status quo, for fear that they may be giving away a competitive edge over their colleagues. It might be better to raise standards in education by investing sustainably in improved training for teachers and improved facilities in schools, rather than creating an unsustainable merit-based reward system.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.9324561614982572,0.5472675531485985,0.5599537206568624,295,True,0.779620587284142
5,1,28498,"STANDARDIZED TESTING IS A BEAUTIFUL THING. WITHOUT IT, KIDS WOULD BECOME DUMB, AND DUMB PEOPLE ARE LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE THINGS THAT HARM THE EARTH AND ARE MORE LIKELY TO PRACTICE THESE THINGS, LIKE LITTERING. WITHOUT STANDARDIZED TESTING, DUMBNESS WILL DESTROY THE EARTH WHICH IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE. THUS DESTROYING STANDARDIZED TESTING DESTROYS THE UNIVERSE!!! THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME!!! BACK TO CON! >:P",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.9827106407017756,-0.6275382453551526,-0.6341978944495524,65,True,-0.8753840481438355
17,4,8201,"Hey! So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the safety value these lights. It makes some people safer, better drivers. And it makes others more of knuckleheads than they already were. The part where I disagree is the use of our police officers and adding other employees to monitor the cameras. For one, I think it is better to have real cops out taking care of other things, rather than having them sit near stop lights. Let them do other law enforcement duties that are more important than traffic duty. Suffolk cops make huge salaries and I would rather they were out to better use. And if a few more jobs are created by the camera venture, then I am cool with that. We need jobs! And the government needs money, so let them raise some funds by snagging a few redlight runners! PS - I hope the fire dept. or police test went well, I forgot which it was. But I hope it went well!",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.2583173066661203,-0.4630720112472155,0.20849950546102747,169,True,-0.002342606181771129
5,2,28498,"SHENANIGANS! IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY PSEUDO-SCIENCES THAT STANDARDIZED TESTS LET YOU LIVE LONGER AND HEALTHIER AND REDUCE STRESS! MY FRIEND'S, NEIGHBOR'S, COUSIN'S, DOG LIVED 100 YEARS BECAUSE HIS OWNER TOOK STANDARDIZED TESTS. THUS, IT IS CONCLUSIVE, YOU NEED STANDARDIZED TESTS OR YOU WILL DIE YOUNG. GOOD LUCK BEATING THAT KIND OF LOGIC, CON!",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.2708649807258985,-2.999368906474968,-1.2771550204685864,54,True,-1.6804440524875088
5,20,35456,"Any system of standardized testing (where everyone is given the same test) assumes that all students learn at the same rate. But this is not the case. Talented students and un-talented students should not be measured by the same test. Handing down a standard national test from the top is bound to end up with a ""one-size-fits-all"" result that doesn't suit the weakest or the best students. In the United Kingdom, national testing was introduced in 1988. By 2002, 90% of students at the best schools got the top grade, whilst 300,000 of the United Kingdom's worst pupils failed to pass. The national test 'has not only become too easy for the academically able, but it is still too difficult for the bottom 40 per cent, who cry out for… courses to help them make sense of their last three years of compulsory schooling’[1].  A ‘one-size-fits-all’ national test does not adequately measure the ability of the student, and fails to motivate students in their education. The best students find them too easy, the worst students find them too difficult. [1] Clare, J. (2003, August 5). One-size-fits-all exams fail the worst as well as the best. Retrieved July 11, 2011.   ",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3463425497114942,0.27630406160850696,0.01936804290884725,199,True,0.2390798599462214
5,49,17369,: NCLB raises standards and testing without improving education,-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.9485893451285108,-1.6874320026257943,-0.9388506425106341,9,False,-1.3829789853469783
5,2,10168,"In this debate, I will prove that my opponent's statements are incorrect. Both myself and my wife are teachers...her at the elementary level and myself at the middle and high school. My arguments in this debate will come from our experiences as well as other credible sources. I will quickly discuss the three statements that my opponent has mentioned as a basis for her argument. My opponent states that the amount of homework given has increased over the last decade. I remember being in elementary school having about two or three hours of homework a night. I can guarantee you that none of the students at our school has that much homework each night. Secondly, there is not very much pressure in regards to standardized tests. Yes, there is more of a push for results on standardized tests, but the pressure is being felt by the teaching staff, not the students. In fact, our school has set up programs over the last year to try to motivate students to take these tests more seriously. Even many high school seniors who are trying to get into college do not stress over taking tests like the ACT. I have seen very few cases where students are ""stressing out"" over a standardized test. To discuss the third topic in regard to mental illnesses, I will need my opponent to explain further as to what in particular they are referring to. I will provide more arguments and sources in the following rounds.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.7577889627817282,0.4086476973182672,0.3164504052340216,248,False,0.564790462038264
5,4,28498,"STANDARDIZED TESTING K-12 EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES your claim has to be... a) random b) crazy c) funny ex: STANDARDIZED TESTING IS HORRIBLE BECAUSE IT IS MADE OF PAPER AND PAPER IS FROM TREES AND TREES ARE FROM THE GROUND AND THE GROUND IS FROM THE EARTH AND THE EARTH IS FROM THE UNIVERSE, THEREFORE WHEN STUDENTS TAKE TESTS, THEY ARE ULTIMATELY WASTING THE UNIVERSE. i will let the aff go first. so accept this debate, and write your claim(s).",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.7060710851729819,-0.6454677162441297,-1.3614146442760575,81,False,-1.0514034195782977
5,9,13720,"Once again, extremely valid arguments. However, I would believe that things would run similar to the ACT and SAT. When applying to colleges, most (if not all) look only at the highest score achieved over all test dates. This being the case, they would only look at the highest score on each section, which would be passing, even if it took several test dates. Also, the HSPA is used to ""measure whether [the students] have gained the knowledge and skills identified in the Core Curriculum Content Standards."" These scores and results are also used ""to determine the appropriateness and strength of the local curriculum and to develop remedial programs to help students improve their knowledge and skills."" With this knowledge, these tests are truly administered for the benefit of the students, not for acceptance decisions of colleges. Furthermore, these tests do in fact reflect situations in a post-collegiate setting. In many professions, especially those that require a higher education, there are periods of time that come with time restraints and in turn plenty of stress. One must learn to adapt to these stresses, and while a single test may not be entirely reflective of this, it does provide a certain aspect of urgency and demonstrates one's ability to perform under pressure. Sources: Same as previous round",-1.0722163209779427,True,1.316018467467177,0.2847261404940039,0.38261274426714265,216,False,0.7678688315555579
5,27,35456,"National tests will not improve educational equality, for they will be tailored towards the dominant group. National tests are written largely by the ethnic majority within states (e.g. white men and women in the United States) with a certain unintentional bias toward these ethnic groups, putting minorities at a slight disadvantage. National testing also effectively penalizes schools that have a diverse population of students. Because diverse schools more frequently have statistically underperforming minority groups, non-native speakers, or disabled groups, they are much more likely to ""fail"" and be penalized. National testing, therefore, effectively penalizes diversity in schools.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.7222253694011221,0.2738942648182367,0.7224930819313817,97,False,0.6563077942891352
15,3,7862,"It seems that you did not even read my reply. Since the resolution says an alternative for animal testing should be found, and you are con, you are against that statement that ""an alternative for animal testing should be found."" If you were just to debate about animal testing, the resolution would be ""animal testing"". Therefore, I have not argued for you, but rather you have argued for me. Pro: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Con: An alternative for animal testing should NOT be found. We must always follow and debate the resolution, instead of just the general topic. Here is another example: Resolution: The death penalty should be abolished. Pro's argument: The death penalty SHOULD be abolished. Con's argument: The death penalty SHOULD NOT be abolished. Therefore, even though you are against animal testing, you have conceded according to the positions and resolution. I hope you understand.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.04492003223490772,-0.0595756592007202,0.15747473138019122,151,True,0.010976545381278582
5,25,35456,"National testing does not ensure students learn the same, important skills and information. Many essential skills, like the development of confidence, public-speaking skills and innovation cannot be tested. However, the focus on standardized testing encourages teachers to just teach skills and information that will increase test results rather than focus on deeper understanding and life lessons that can be applied in life generally. National testing does not inspire a love of learning. The most important part in education is that students develop a love of learning, so that they seek to learn on their own, outside of school. National testing, however, makes learning such a strict process that it does not inspire such a love of learning, failing the most important test of a good educational system.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.26018958271936704,0.15316244249429645,0.2547742248988637,127,False,0.049878396206671255
5,1,3834,"The purpose of school is not to learn. The purpose of school is to see how well students can show patience, obedience and the willingness to work, so that colleges can pick out the people that are going to work hard. If you ask any college senior, they will have completely fotgotten everything they learned throughout school. If you ask any adult about what they learned in school, they barely remember. That is why even some adults suffer when asked to help their young children with homework. 10.7 percent of Americans who claim they can speak a language ""very well"" according to Gallup, only 7% of them learned it in school. Almost every adult has took a foreign language in their life, but if you ask them if they still remember it, only a few can. If the purpose of school was to learn, why would they make us do standardized testing? Standardized testing is not used to see how much students learned. It doesnt require any aspect of education except memorization. Standardized tests are made to see how much work we will put in to achieve a goal. The purpose of schooling is not to teach us things, but to take us through a process where we get graded on how much work we are willing to put in.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.25236823975649264,0.6487515148445464,0.6621061113800545,220,True,0.595821015256563
9,12,4964,Social networking sites are a major distraction from learning.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
5,1,26969,"The proposition is that Standardized Tests, such as the SAT and ACT, are ideal for the college admission processes. I will argue in favor of this proposition. Layout: 1. Only accepting debate, and defining terms. 2. Opening Arguments & Rebuttals 3. Final Rebuttals With that out of the way, I would like to define ideal as the best or most advantageous [1]. This will not be to only one aspect such as thoroughness, or practicality, or any other single aspect but the overall of all aspects presented. And as for standardized tests, that is a test that is the same for all test takers, allowing for comparision of each individual's results to that of others [2]. Sources: 1. 2.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.2110124179649528,0.1771903053114931,-0.4178017505836262,119,True,0.390210570705536
5,15,3529,"Increasing the required standard of business and labour will result in increases to the current standard labour and business standards even before aid is entirely tied as countries implement changes to ensure they get the most possible aid.  Simply setting an expected level of labour and business standards will therefore create improvement in those standards. In the case of the Decent Work Country Programme for Bangladesh 2006-2009 Bangladesh has been implementing the program due to its positive benefit towards achieving the millennium development goals. This is despite challenges such as the lack of employment opportunities in the country. The programme has been successful in improving social protection, working conditions and rights for female, male, and children workers in a few sectors and areas[1]. [1] International Labour Organization, Bangladesh: Decent Work Country Programme 2012-2015, 2012 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/program/dwcp/download/bangladesh.pdf  ",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.25238832323853505,-0.5853276413008354,-0.4906267371533343,136,True,-0.3198512510740247
5,6,8624,"That's completely fine. I was busy before so I'll post this in the last minute so to give you time. Since you're busy, I'll just have something light and easy. US Education spending US spends with an average of 1.1 trillion on all federal, state and local(1. Its expenditure far outweigh other nations as US spends more than the average developed country(2. The enormous amount of money dumped into education ensures the quality it deserves. Unless it is under funded like the NHS, of which doctors have serious complaints, but the system is well funded and this ensures all the necessary needs of teachers and students. Standardized tests helps raise standards State governments mandate standardized tests as one of its requirements(3. The advantage of this is that it allows weaker schools to compete more successfully. Teachers are not expected to be heavy weight thinkers like professors, they are expected to follow standard procedures. This allows poor teachers to pick up the pace and be student- centred as they don't have to research endless into the subject. Education isn't about the teachers, its about the students, and standardisation does just that. Standardisation allows easy classification and proffers an easy simplified system which teachers, of all background, can rely on. That would be all. I have waited as long as I could till the last 5 hours. Till then, I await your reply. Thanks",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.6483402927056742,1.037681116137018,-0.1327625571567196,232,False,0.6030228177938787
5,4,32053,"I assume you are arguing for standardized testing. I will rebut from that angle. If i am wrong feel free to correct me. My biggest issue with standardized testing is that it forces the teachers to teach to the test. I was the first generation to feel President Bush's No Child Left Behind Legislation. From 8th Grade to Senior year all of the Curriculum was set so that students would pass the Ohio Graduation Test. On the face of it this doesn't sound bad. You have to know X to graduate. The problem with this is the teachers and students to pass the test have to regurgitate memorized information. The test have a hard time with critical thinking. The ability to think outside of the box and analyze is more important in real life and in undergraduate work. It made it hard for teachers to make a good learning environment. It was an environment with a constant threat hanging over everyone's head. That is not to say that you should be able to graduate no matter what. I think the decision on where a child is should be determined his/her teacher who spends so much time with them not a bureaucratic test. Schooling is a STATE issue, the federal government has no business interfering. ""A five-year University of Maryland study completed in 2007 found ""the pressure teachers were feeling to 'teach to the test'"" since NCLB was leading to ""declines in teaching higher-order thinking, in the amount of time spent on complex assignments, and in the actual amount of high cognitive content in the curriculum."" -",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0319661129234128,1.2879854732513747,0.3445117640202489,266,False,1.0276922569380131
5,28,35456,"National testing helps narrow the achievement gap for minorities. It seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations and standards for all. It also often requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and minorities. In the United States for example, the gap between Hispanic students and their white counterparts has not changed since the 1990s1. Whilst many previous government-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between white and Hispanic students, national testing has publicized these differences. As a result, the stated goal of the Obama Administration regarding education is 'to make the educational success of Latinos a priority. America's future depends on it'1. If they succeed in doing so, national testing should be thanked for its role in highlighting the problem. 1 Fuentes, J. (2011, July 10). Solve Hispanic education crisis. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from News Press:",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.2020259309317928,1.117035523192041,1.1038639277648823,177,True,0.9357710165650237
5,21,17992,"Fully national testing under federal control would actually lower standards. Handing down a standard national test from the top is bound to end up with a “one-size-fits-all” result. States such as Arkansas and Massachussetts that have done the most to improve their school systems would actually end up with a dumbed-down test weaker than the local ones that are sat now. National standards could also become a political football, with each new administration changing the tests to suit their own values.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.08013562018460216,-1.5824862240165425,-0.5811798083942621,81,True,-0.785893653676857
5,5,29704,"P1: The educational achievement gap has not closed. The White "" Black score gap in reading was wider in 2013 than in 1992. In both subjects, White and Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher on average than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students in 2013. ( P2: Standardized tests oversimplify knowledge and do not test higher order thinking skills. One size fits all standards either dumb down instruction to the lowest common denominator or doom students to failure who cannot perform. P3: Test scores went up across all categories but the educational achievement gap still persist. The No Child Left Behind Act, was intended to raise educational achievement and close the ethnic achievement gap. The law has failed to achieve these goals, and has number of negative consequences which frequently harm the students the law is most intended to help. Among these consequences are a narrowed curriculum, focused on the low level skills generally reflected on high stakes tests, improper evaluation of ESL students and students with special needs; and strong incentives to exclude low scoring students from school, so as to achieve test score targets. (",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.7276857681258472,0.6536633314058583,0.8892875192266729,187,False,0.8676317878539777
5,8,35098,"A student’s academic record tends to measure very different things from what a standardized test does. GPA tends to be based on repetitive assignments such as homework, and in many cases students receive at least some academic credit for simply attending class. By contrast, standardized tests reward ability, by seeing whether or not at the end of the process students actually learned the material in question.  Performance under pressure is an important skill to measure, especially for top institutions, while sifting through the differing standards for what goes into the grades in different school districts is simply not possible.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6631949730239043,0.3321086477674557,0.923425645012832,99,False,0.7343540425300442
15,2,8056,"Hello, Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal in an extremely bestial way. And their only ""crime"" is not being able to talk. There are many reasons to as why animal testing is without doubly wrong; animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours. If a type of food for example was eaten by a human, would you say that it is harmless to them? An example, cats and dogs are dangerously intolerant to chocolate, if they eat it, they can die. For humans, we indulge in it all the time. Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable. Animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don""t work or are dangerous, and of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabelled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7564943849802985,0.1873212596559437,0.8352086833279836,180,True,0.6817532496316994
5,6,40583,I never said you could pass a clas without learning the material maybe you could do all the work . And pass the small test but when it comes time to take the standardized tests. The student studys too hard there in which opposing the fact that they did learn the material. But studied too much . The fact that we have to have 21 credits alone to pass highschool . The standardized test should not exist . Ther in proving they are not fair,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.2396106669986648,-1.2073155976767542,-1.1339357613155712,85,False,-0.9948056082921869
9,13,4964,Social networking sites are a great place to exchange information.,-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.8438536419690259,-1.2746626090248534,-1.422026029162804,10,True,-1.3738479336258405
5,10,28514,"I am going to sum up my stance to voters. Voters, I do not support the integration of technology into public education. Before we started reshaping the classroom to fit the wants of the students, the US public education system was solid. When we started to consider student entertainment, we began to drop. And drop. And today we are only ranked ""average"" compared to other international leaders when it comes to education. Technology is an example of this reshaping being done in the classroom. It hasn't proved successful. It also will come with an extreme price tag, lots of tax money. My opponent argued that a fundraiser could take place. Sounds good, but it would be a huge flop to schools that have live in poor areas and possess a high number of free-and-reduced-lunch students. Since it would be a voluntary situation, you would see huge gaps between race and gender when it came to test scores; these new scores would not be positive, though. I provided evidence as to why a nation like Japan is so much more advanced than we are. They use the same books, standards, and other educational material around the country. They also don't spend much at all on things other than absolute necessities; but, they are much higher than us academically. The reason we are lagging behind is because of the introduction of a varying education system based on state-by-state, district-by-district, city-by-city. We need consistency throughout our schools to improve educational standings, not introduce inconsistencies. Technology is an inconsistency since some students could afford it and some could not. I hope the voters have listened to both sides, and - by now - have picked the winner.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.1177933446265274,0.6742948117823513,0.05990743536934739,283,False,0.7156495700888317
5,5,28514,"stickghost forfeited this round. Con I am going to sum up my stance to voters. Voters, I do not support the integration of technology into public education. Before we started reshaping the classroom to fit the wants of the students, the US public education system was solid. When we started to consider student entertainment, we began to drop. And drop. And today we are only ranked ""average"" compared to other international leaders when it comes to education. Technology is an example of this reshaping being done in the classroom. It hasn't proved successful. It also will come with an extreme price tag, lots of tax money. My opponent argued that a fundraiser could take place. Sounds good, but it would be a huge flop to schools that have live in poor areas and possess a high number of free-and-reduced-lunch students. Since it would be a voluntary situation, you would see huge gaps between race and gender when it came to test scores; these new scores would not be positive, though. I provided evidence as to why a nation like Japan is so much more advanced than we are. They use the same books, standards, and other educational material around the country. They also don't spend much at all on things other than absolute necessities; but, they are much higher than us academically. The reason we are lagging behind is because of the introduction of a varying education system based on state-by-state, district-by-district, city-by-city. We need consistency throughout our schools to improve educational standings, not introduce inconsistencies. Technology is an inconsistency since some students could afford it and some could not. I hope the voters have listened to both sides, and - by now - have picked the winner.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.5463551312687247,0.4739391645103886,0.9215537270388404,288,True,0.7421907508765154
5,11,35098,"Standardized tests are inherently skewed in favour of high-income students. Tutoring is and industry unto itself and the resulting rise in scores among high income students skews the scale against students whose families cannot afford it. By contrast, even if the money is available, the impact that tutoring can have on a student’s academic performance is limited. A tutor cannot write papers or take tests for them, and nor can they answer questions in class, or participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. As a consequence, eliminating easily tutored standardized tests helps even the playing field between richer and poorer students.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.6579070854558198,0.5234554565663405,0.3454984460147264,100,True,0.5806858022883269
4,1,18442,"I appreciate the chance to argue this topic. For semantic clarity, the two possible debate-friendly meanings of this debate's title read as follows: ""Corporal punishment is being reintroduced to schools"" - versus ""no it isn't."" ""Corporal punishment should be reintroduced to schools"" - versus ""no it shouldn't."" ""Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools"" is like saying ""Flowers being picked."" One cannot agree or disagree, the sentence is worded as hypothetical. Based on my opposition's first round arguments, until otherwise specified, I will assume he means to use the latter, *should be* phrasing. That said, although public schools do not typically practice corporal punishment, it was never legally un-introduced from schools. 1. Parents are entitled to corporal punishment ""Corporal punishment of minors within domestic settings is still lawful in 49 of the United States. Delaware outlawed it as child abuse in 2012"" 2. Teachers are entitled to the same teaching methods as parents according to ""In loco parentis,"" a legal doctrine adopted by both the United States and Britain. ""this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent"" A doctrine that was never removed cannot technically be reintroduced. To 'reintroduce' corporal punishment, we would have to first ban it, then reintroduce it. I argue that we should not reintroduce it because that would require us to take the time to unnecessarily ban it.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5581213044877945,-0.016551907531048828,1.1729637547040213,241,True,0.6652070781409575
4,1,38038,"Before I start, let me just say this much: I'm against corporal punishment, this is just for fun since we just did this debate at school. Corporal punishment is when a teacher punishes a student physically for a mistake, and it needs to be brought back to schools. It is true that it has been misused in the past, but with new rules, corporal punishment would be a new and healthy part of a student's life. In this case, the ruler shall not be used, or any other tool used to strike the student, including the hand of a teacher. Instead, the punishment will be carried out in the form of running. Depending on the severity of the student's mistake and his/her physical status, the student will be required to run a certain distance. By doing this, it will not only ensure the student will not be abused by a teacher, and it is also good physical excersize. According to running will help build strong bones, strengthen muscles, improve cardiovascular fitness. burn plenty of kilojoules. and help maintain a healthy weight. This way, not only is the student punished, it also helps maintain a student's good health. This form of punishment will also avoid missing classtime, which is a problem caused by detention or suspension. The running will be done before or after school, therefore no classtime will be missed, allowing the student to learn everything he/she is supposed to learn. It also costs no money to use this form of punishment. It is efficent both time and money wise. Therefore, corporal punishment should be brought back to schools in the form of running.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.3623145482535706,1.0435743589715794,0.3255836091668985,274,True,1.055115861500832
4,24,42549,"Corporal punishment offers any easy way out for teachers. Rather than trying to engage with disruptive children in order to find out the cause of their misbehavior, they can send them on to be physically punished so that hopefully they will not speak up as much in class. This serves only to mask the underlying problem in many instances. Often the students who act out most in class suffer from domestic abuse, or are from unstable households 1. These students are the most vulnerable in the classroom, and corporal punishment does nothing to help them, but rather serves only to compound the problem further. Teachers will often take the easy solution, so that when given the option of passing troubled students on for more stringent discipline, they let down in the greatest need of help. This is played out in the United States, where in states that allow corporal punishment test scores tend to be lower. 36% of states that allow corporal punishment have a state composite score average above the national mean; compared to 89% of those where it is banned scoring above the mean.2 This has been attributed to lack of attempted engagement by teachers with students, who instead choose the violent, confrontational salve of corporal punishment over more constructive engagement. Clearly, corporal punishment does nothing but encourage teachers to take the path that is easy for them at the expense of their students' wellbeing. 1 Newsweek. ""The Principal and the Paddle"". 2 Stophitting, ""Facts vs. Opinion: School Corporal Punishment"". accessed 20/6/11",0.8044698538620362,True,1.4225121936378773,2.035161201746848,1.1125005214559551,254,True,1.762831113915307
4,3,7807,"""Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not."" There are exceptions sure but exceptions don't count. "" Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively."" This is a common or in other words a commonly heard case when children are abused. There is no evidence of this in schools when corporal punishment is applied nor in average families, instead this practice is held due to its quick and effective nature. ""Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong."" Same objection as above. "" Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay."" As I have pointed out, under the spoiled section theres a link where we read that society is becoming more and more violent. Extra Arguments: 1."" Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously"" Both statements are unheard of when corporal punishment is moderated. 2. ""They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions."" Elaborate. 3. ""Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones."" I proposed controlled corporal punishment and not battering.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.17595469285206106,-0.7420982668593741,0.5101601976215351,274,True,-0.015422977124540766
4,4,33833,"Hello all. This debate is on whether or not corporal punishment should be reintroduced into the education system, to be used by teachers and school administrators. I will be arguing in the negative, and my opponent will argue as a proponent of the reintroduction of corporal punishment into the school system. Definitions corporal punishment: a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain in order to punish a person convicted of a crime or as retribution for a perceived offence, including physical chastisement such as spanking, paddling or caning of minors by parents, guardians, or school or other officials. school: an institution for educating children. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that this policy will apply to all of these institutions, not just ones under the jurisdiction of the state. Format R1: Acceptance R2: All Main Arguments and Contentions R3: Rebuttal R4: Response and Summary of Previous Rounds/Conclusion Please note that this debate will be conducted in a formal, respectable manner with extended and well-developed arguments. Each debater will be allowed 8,000 characters to formulate a statement for each round. ----------------------- I await my opponent's acceptance.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.4833759932124054,0.9600002790602464,0.9051252352688248,192,False,0.8996265764636984
4,4,36962,"NOTE: You didn't say USA only so I shall use statistics and facts from aroudn the globe (mainly UK). Now onto the main debate. In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement [1], 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests. It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime [2]. Children’s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain. A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of “but you can't take away my freedom”, “you have no right” or “I have rights”. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior. If this is the only effective authority a teacher has for an out of control student then that teacher is and probably knows his/her authority is rather pitiful. Sources [1]",0.8044698538620362,True,0.689321087297709,0.5334577717736548,0.1170230594491758,299,False,0.5107572048186839
13,2,25406,"For organization's sake, I will break my argument down into numbered points. 1) Everyone remembers the tragic school shootings that have plagued the U.S. in recent years. Columbine and Virginia Tech are only two among multiple other shooting rampages that took place on school campuses. While police responded as quickly as they could, they were unable to stop the shooter(s) before they could kill dozens of students and teachers. Had there been a student or teacher on the school's grounds however, there is a very real possibility that the shooter(s) would have been stopped in the very early stages of their tirade. 2) Utah was the first (and I believe only so far) state to universally allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry while on college campuses. Thusfar they have had no major incidents that have resulted from CHL holders on college campuses. Other individual college campuses around the U.S. (Ex: Colorado State University) allow concealed carry and have similarly suffered no major incidents from CHL carriers. 3) The only people who would be allowed to carry concealed while on college campuses would be (based on proposed states' legislation) the same people who could normally own and carry a gun everywhere else. To conclude my argument this round, adding concealed carry to college campuses has yet to cause a problem, and therefore, the state has no right to not allow people who already carry concealed elsewhere to carry on campus.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.2942760644976992,1.1966556338166487,0.3607855580777995,241,True,1.1008711940104372
15,6,12755,"Firstly I never said that animal testing was the only way. I said it was linked to most of the great medical science breakthroughs of the last century. Then my opponent goes on to say the same old ""it's inhuman and not effective"" point that everyone says about this. So how about we test on humans? That will be inhumane but the thing that mainly matters is that it will be 100% effective. Or we don't test on anything and our medical science research goes at a snails pace. This two options are what my opponent suggests. Yes animals and humans are not the same. You really think that the scientists aren't aware of this? Animals are substitutions for humans. Better to test on a rodent that a human right? Mice are considered the best test subjects because they have 99% similar human genes in them. Then my opponent goes on to say that animal testing is not accurate. Well that's kind of the point of testing. They test until they get it as accurate as possible. If they tested on humans it would be accurate but so far nobody's signed up to be tested on. Not testing on animals will slow down the advances of medical science research.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.06317717383334805,0.4046685838426996,0.7802450639637037,209,False,0.4299269100221354
9,1,20575,"I agree that use of social networks can badly reflect on people, especially their sociable consciousness or health, as they waste their time and get addicted to meaningless chatting. However, when used properly it provides people with lots of advantageous opportunities such as meeting new people, finding a job, promoting your business and even overcoming your timidity. I dare say that all the problems concerning social networking service depend on how person decides to use networking facilities. Unlike smoking or drinking, social networking has lots of advantages and can be very useful in many ways. It is not the case when no matter how you use it, it only leads to harmful outccomes. This is my idea concerning the theme and that is why I would not judge social networking as a totally bad thing.",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.2664155851773913,0.32120744632106857,-0.6748577810114113,135,False,0.37782921066749736
15,3,40055,"I agree humans are more important than animals, but we are not sacrificing just ""a few"" lives here. 115,000,000 is not a few. I didn't mention what type of testing because these statistics are from every types of animal testing, such as in the medical field or toxicology testing. First off, we don't test animals to help them. We test animals to help us. Animals testing isn't done to discover how animals act and how to help them in the future, it is so we as humans don't have to do it. We are forcing dangerous chemicals onto animals that could definitely kill them and/or make them suffer. We need animal testing to an extent, but there has to be more regulations and give the animals suffering pain killers at least. We need to lower the amount of animals dying and suffering in these tests. I did not specify the animal since the statistics were based on all tests, though usually the animals are easy to obtain ( So nothing exotic) but it really depends on the study.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.5263554837472558,0.2919120323439795,0.6712217686397683,178,True,0.5666943961718128
4,20,42549,"Being hit, even in a controlled environment, is a jarring experience, particularly for young children. Even if it were effective in reducing anti-social and disruptive behavior, the negative effects of corporal punishment outweigh the benefit1. Physically being struck is painful and unsettling. Bruises and welts represent painful reminders of punishments that a student might well feel to be unjust. The lasting pain thus makes corporal punishment a much more serious cause of resentment than do less physically taxing punishments as detentions. Furthermore, the psychological harms of such punishment can be long lasting, creating in some children resentment toward authority generally. Worse, it can create resentment and negative psychic impressions of school, and thus education generally, further weakening the ability of the school and the teacher to impart knowledge .1 American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health. 1984. ""Corporal Punishment in Schools"". Pediatrics 73(2): 258.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.839288037503245,0.4707210342965416,-0.5000482581191372,145,True,-0.32723589014256865
4,2,14005,"Ok, so sorry for the delay, I had school exams and stuff but their almost over. First, some definitons and background info: Corporal Punishment is the infliction of physical pain as a consequence of a criminal offence. By Singaporean law, Corporal Punishment can only be sentenced to a male offender between the ages of 18 and 50 who has been certified to be in a fit state of health by a medical officer. Juveniles may also be sentenced to Corporal Punishment, but to no more than 10 strokes. Offenders below the age of 16 can only be sentenced by the High Court and State Courts. Anyway, Corporal punishment IS an effective crime deterrent. The fundamental basis of deterrence from anything is: If you do this, bad things will happen to you. Since imprisonment in itself isn't a good deterrent and the effects of a criminal record on your future career options is intangible, Corporal Punishment represents a direct incentive to refrain from crime due to the physical pain caused. The medical effects can be viewed here: I would also like to state that caning is not taken likely by the judicial system in Singapore. Singaporean law allows caning to be ordered for over 35 offences, including hostage-taking/kidnapping, robbery, gang robbery with murder, drug abuse, vandalism, extortion, rioting, sexual abuse, and unlawful possession of weapons. Caning is also a mandatory punishment for certain offences such as rape, drug trafficking, illegal money-lending, and for visiting foreigners who overstay their visa by more than 90 days (a measure designed to deter illegal immigrant workers). Furthermore, it is illegal to cane women, Men above the age of 50, offenders deemed medically unfit by a medical officer and offenders who have been sentenced to death.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.3694384347675213,-0.17399589909180796,0.5313799856715327,290,True,0.2758688780617302
4,46,24511,"Assuming the person punishing knows exactly what they are doing and knows how to control themself, there should be no problem with Corporal Punishment at all, the rules of Corporal Punishment would need to be altered, obviously. Because as they are they could hurt the child, But if altered it would be perfectly reasonable to administer corporal punishment I would say speak for yourself, or at least what you know. If the majority of administered corporal punishment was done incorrectly then the history of child protective services would be a whole lot more radical. Corporal punishment has been used by a majority of households and education centers for thousands of years until very recently. There will always be those who abuse the system, but that does not mean the system does not work. Now that society- at least Western society is claiming to be so much better, or wiser than previous societies then at least it can come up with a more regulated and consistent implementation of such a practice.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3880282201677144,0.3165083296635458,-0.08479362732227687,170,True,0.23181330734682853
4,3,3464,"In my opinion, corporal punishment is brutal and too severe a disciplinary action. Corporal punishment can often be very traumatic to the person it is inflicted upon. So much so that a child subjected to corporal punishment more often than not grows up to abuse physically not only his own family but other acquaintances as well. Thankfully, this practice has been banned in several nations and is a punishable offence in a few others. There are more humane ways of admonishing a child. Take for example grounding him or her. This leaves space for the juvenile to ruminate over his or her bad behaviour and even offers a chance for reformation. However, if a child is beaten up in order to drill in some moral lesson, there is a high chance the innocent will fall back on its lesson and commit a similar offence, leading to a vicious cycle. In summary, corporal punishment is detrimental to a child's overall growth and can impair his/her self-esteem and cause lasting damage.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.9906988614009165,-0.1303414728624452,0.2308762679538822,169,False,0.4236948315183014
4,49,24511,"Many countries out-lawed homosexuality, female workers and abortions, but this does not mean that all of those countries were correct to do so. It only means that these countries were in agreement against something, it does not mean that what they were all advocating was logical or reasonable. The amount of countries that do or do not have corporal punishment out lawed has no bearing on this debate. Yet have any of these countries provided effective supports to parents in helping them discipline and punish out-of-control children? They tell parents that corporal punishment in wrong, but when their child acts out or gets in trouble with the law, they blame the parents. Is that fair? If they want to outlaw corporal punishment then they need to provide supports that are just as effective in deterrence as corporal punishment for parents and teachers to use. Since they have not (other than waging a war on kids with zero-tolerance laws and imprisonment) then what right do they have over how a parent disciplines his/her child or wants his/her child to be disciplined by teachers? The only thing I can agree on is providing regulatory law like Section 59 of New Zealand's Crimes Amendment Act of 2007, that allows only corporal punishment used for reasonable disciplinary action to legislate against other forms of child hitting or California's right to discipline laws, to protect against potential abuse. Of course, as it applies to parents it should apply to teachers as well.",-1.0722163209779427,True,1.5070262502039382,0.7057658897416941,0.554623050203793,247,False,1.068283176156664
4,17,42549,"Abuse is a separate problem from corporal punishment. Careful regulation of its implementation should prove able to prevent bleeding of corporal punishment into the home, or to cross the line into outright abuse. Responsible adults should be perfectly capable of assessing that line effectively. Teachers are usually caring and attentive professionals who would never seek to abuse children. Corporal punishment is simply a useful tool in maintaining order in the classroom.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,71,False,-4.0
4,1,42703,"I am going to go pro on this on, but not all the way. Let me explain, I believe that some slight forms of corporal punishment should be allowed, but not to the extent that you are talking about in your argument. In schools, children do not learn as much when they are being disrupted by other classmates. If a classmate is being a distraction, the others don't learn. If there are some very mild forms of punishment like a slap on the rust with a ruler or some other form of mild physical punishment, the student will be more likely to stop and quit being a distraction at other times. If physical punishment is only used as a last resort, being punished will become a thing that students (especially young students) not want. If a student knows they will only be lectured, they will be less likely to stop behaving that way than if they were lectured and mildly punished physically. When a student wants attention, sometimes they act out to get it. If they gen punished corporeally they wont resort to acting out in school to get the attention that they yearn. Also if it is used less often, and more conservatively, the student will not be psychologically harmed in the process.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.4900869116223565,-0.8247042850150443,0.1952034414925896,214,True,-0.045455654530782735
4,3,36962,"This article shows the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment in schools. In closing, corporal punishment should be banned because it is ineffective and lowers students' IQ's. Other forms of punishment should be explored and tested. Good luck.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.07722721807426615,-0.927696757866674,-0.3459573605636089,36,True,-0.46200998566961804
4,39,24511,"Not to call you old, but the 1950s/1960s was a long time ago. As time changes, so do problems and the way you deal with them. A recent Dr. Phil show explained the effects of corporal punishment perfectly. Some children respond to it but others respond negatively to it. If a child really responds negatively to it, then you have a worse problem than you started with. Mental illness is much more prevalent today than it was in the 1950s/1960s. If a student is acting out due to mental illness and they are punished for it, that will make the mental illness worse. If we have a student that is about to become a school shooter, a few smacks is not going to stop them. It would just make them more angry and aggressive, if anything. Also, culture had become more ""me centered"". People are much more self-centered and selfish now than in the 1950s/1960s. It's a lot more likely now that a teacher will abuse their power than in the 1950s/1960s. If a teacher abuses their power, students will be abused. This will cause even more trouble than the corporal punishment was suppose to fix. Also, a student can falsely claim that they were abused by a teacher. This could ruin the teacher's career and lower the chances of them getting another job. I could continue with the problems of corporal punishment but I won't for time's sake. There are too many problems for corporal punishments to be brought back in all schools in today's society. Actually yes, if you're looking for years that far from now, you are probably reallllllly old.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.0557123048109986,-0.7480793995516023,-0.4651654227166484,273,False,-0.03442258013911367
9,8,4964,Social networking sites make it possible to maintain fictional identity.,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.0730469057880363,-0.21744296531623888,-1.131547239295302,10,False,-0.934714126345233
4,19,42549,"Mentally, children are of tougher stock than some give them credit for. They will not break after a short bout of corporal punishment, and they will hardly need therapy. Rather, the punishment will serve its purpose: enforcing discipline and disincentivizing future misbehavior. A lengthy detention or extra homework could well breed just as much resentment as corporal punishment. The physical reminders of corporal punishment, however, is a more lasting deterrent to recidivism and misbehavior due to the imprint that lasts for at least a short while after the act of discipline takes place1. 1 Chmelynski, Carol. 1995. ""Is paddling on its way back?"". National School Boards Association.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.6044884330351556,-0.5609730337230284,0.34312429073485995,107,False,0.1535607440699042
15,20,37074,"Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it?",1.1172508830020322,True,0.20272251047152354,0.4466886012666491,0.10962798178052544,56,True,0.2843080778278383
4,12,20182,The general standard of student behaviour and test results in many schools has declined since the state banned corporal punishments. Many teachers (in Britain) believe that is because corporal punishment was an efficient way of dealing with misbehaving students. Corporal punishment should be an option available to teachers – but not the only option and not one to be used all the time. A ban on corporal punishment would simply takes away from teachers a very effective disciplining method.,-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.3807010319749514,-0.13593406232156935,-0.5045980508627359,79,False,-0.40316134629072803
4,14,42549,"It is often the case in classroom environments that the vast majority of students are eager, to various extents, to learn. Disruption almost always originates with one or a few students who act up for attention or to cause problems. Corporal punishment deals effectively with these unruly individuals who make learning more difficult and school time less productive for the rest of the class. Without effective disciplinary mechanisms, these troublemakers impose costs on all of their classmates. By introducing corporal punishment, troublesome students are forced to internalize the costs, disincentivizing similar behavior in future1. It is deeply unfair to the rest of the class that the teacher's time and effort be sapped by dealing with uncooperative students at the expense of more interested classmates. Application of corporal punishment demonstrates a dedication to the right to education, which should not be disrupted by unruly individuals seeking to undermine the authority of the teacher. 1 BBC News. 2000. ""Should Corporal Punishment Return to the Classroom?"".",0.4916888247220394,True,1.2277443658496514,1.3208217837030318,0.29823536775269155,162,True,1.1009638089552882
4,54,24511,"A low self-esteem is one of the principle problems brought on by corporal punishment and can result in anxiety difficulties, alcohol dependency, delinquency and insecurity. Victims of this physical violence also tend to be more shy and resentful than those who are not subject to physical harm. Furthermore, corporal punishment sees the deterioration of the relationship between the victim and the person exercising the violence, whether that be a parent or guardian or a teacher. Nevertheless, this means that corporal punishment can ruin the lives of children through its negative psychological effects. Additionally, undoubtedly it destroys the rapport of the child with whoever conducts the corporal punishment due to a lack of trust.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.5284097364104897,0.09879218283339557,0.7842327242643347,113,True,0.539618507059661
4,51,24511,"This argument lacks statistical backing. There is a reason for this. Because the statistics systematically show that after corporal punishment was made illegal, crime increased, by 67%. The statistics are firmly in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment. In late 2009, American psychology professor Marjorie Gunnoe published a report that found that corporal punishment is good for kids- although since she was going against the grain of popular psychology most journals would not publish it. Nonetheless, her research was not meant to serve as a green light for parents to spank their children, but rather a red light for those groups who want corporal punishment banned. Here are some articles describing her findings:",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.2328243128774208,-0.5309220979352309,-0.0025123758672104804,114,False,0.2910142265724695
4,52,24511,"Corporal punishment can be associated with higher rates of aggression, more substance abuse and an increased risk of crime and violence as many victims of corporal punishment tend to lash out and repeat this abuse as they don't know any better. In other words, it teaches children to use physical violence. The fact that corporal punishment increases crime and violence has been supported by the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) which has stated that ""the more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse and the more marital conflict they experience as adults."" Hence, corporal punishment not only starts a vicious circle of violence but also affects the childs life and wellbeing once they become an adult. The government needs to work towards a less violent society, not increasing the amount of violence in society by reintroducing one of its founders.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.6959683493183364,0.450209140552004,1.4364744886810028,164,True,1.3888533180043383
4,55,24511,"So by having this atricle you are stating that parents can not punish their children or teachers can not punish their pupils for misbehaving and causing a disruptance in class rooms and at home? If we all were to follow this article and not punish our children by ""striking the fear of God into them"" as some say how are we supposed to punish the children? Children are already violent already, by not ceasing this to happen and using corporal punishment it will be come a ""living hell"" as my father says. I know for a fact cause I was a child at first that slaping a kids hand or grounding them does nothing to cease the problem but makes them more defiant towards rules. By doing this how are we supposed to prepare them for the real world because after you make a big mistake the cops are not going to smack you on the hand and put you in the corner. NO there will be much bigger concequences. So do you want a diciplined next generation or a misbehaving unlawful generation? You tell me... You do realize that most people who beat their children are doing it because it worked for them when their parents used to beat them as children? Also, what makes the U.N. transcendant and all-knowing. I agree with its sentiment, but it is largely mistaken if it thinks that corporal punishment is abuse. Abuse kills, corporal punishment does not.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.2012768718898634,0.017847684414667955,0.6602965095393636,245,False,0.7287331484971554
4,1,36962,"Corporal punishment has shown to be ineffective by many studies and health care experts. It has also shown that students that have been subjected to corporal punishment have lower IQ's. while it is on the decline it is STILL legal in 19 states including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In all 50 states it is illegal to hit a prisoner, animal, or someone in the military, yet it is perfectly legal in those 19 states to strike a child. I welcome your arguments.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.6811376924299981,0.16187948793660756,0.03830789165877434,100,True,-0.1877185227476159
4,6,7807,"Sorry for forfeiting but I was stuck without Internet for about one week because there were some malfunctions without the connection. Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not. Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively. Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong. Pro also states that undisciplined kids may Become tyrants. Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay. EXTRA ARGUMENTS: 1. Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously. 2. They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions. 3. Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3578564429658198,-0.4967616542053797,0.8411058153624332,203,False,0.27852139656528685
9,9,4964,Social networking sites distract from quality interpersonal connections.,-0.7594352918379461,True,-2.0060364320284285,-0.7097316541405903,-1.1963174328739004,8,False,-1.502300228729586
4,1,3464,"Should corporal punishment be be banned or kept in schools, daycares, etc? I am a student and I think that with the way children/teens act in today's society they need to be disciplined in some way shape or form. Give me your opinions, should we bring it back or not? If we have more punishment in schools and daycares just think how much more respect kids would give their parents. I think it should be brought back, and kept .",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.8814853572685737,-0.6684232933826149,-0.19641020380147434,80,True,-0.6796351703656929
4,6,34769,"""Criminal sanctions include capital punishment, imprisonment, corporal punishment, banishment, house arrest, community supervision, fines, restitution, and community service."" [0] ""and on the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be imposed on an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure."" [1] Yes, prison can be one of the punishments for this crime. Yet, there is so many others, including capital punishment, corporal punishment, banishment, house arrest, community supervision, fines, restitution, and community service. I agree that she shouldn't just get a slap on the wrist. Yet, I disagree that prison is the correct punishment. I don't know how sensitive these emails were. If there were sensitive enough the situation would warrant execution. Otherwise fines and community service seems adequate punishment. Thanks for the debate. 0. 1.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.3661444341928097,0.9361796648819428,1.0208721975846906,129,False,0.6266812968924889
15,2,307,"Apology, I should have, again, made the character count larger. At first, since as everything is economic, the rich people would be the first to try and use HGH (as they use HRT today more commonly). How would we know it works? We would know that it would work through scientific testing, lab testing, finally human testing. Etc. It would be a long process. Eventually everyone would be able to afford it as technology improves. The upper class having exclusive rights to these technologies would last a few decades at most. Perhaps less. I do not support cruelty to animals, but animal testing happens and it can prove very beneficial to humanity. Would I sacrifice some animals for humanity getting smarter and better off in the long run? Sure. Why? Because, the smarter we get the more we will understand animals and, in the long run, treat them better... Overpopulation is a problem today purely because we, as humans, aren't smart enough to control ourselves and our reproductive abilities. We can't manage ourselves. With increased intelligence, this would no longer be a problem. Science has proven that higher I.Q. and education leads to less children, and having children later. Would a child be picked on for being altered? I can't imagine how they would, since no one would even have to know. Moreover, in time, nearly everyone will have genetic alterations so it won't matter. I, for one, do not believe that we should refrain from using genetic therapy to cure depression, make people happy, make them live longer, healthier, etc. all because there is some chance some one might be made fun of somewhere. It seems nonsensical to me. I don't know why you are bringing cloning into the issue. I never mentioned cloning.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.9101808762434596,0.9029577110937628,0.2303243788565952,295,True,0.7848635812993097
4,2,36962,"First of all, thank you latentdebater for accepting the debate. Also, I am only talking about the US. While one in five is a lot, has the students' academic record changed? I'm assuming you're from the UK so I pose this question to you, do parents have the option as to whether or not their child can be paddled? Here in the South most of the schools have forms stating the guidelines of corporal punishment. Speaking of detention, there are numerous ways you can make it effective. I'm in college now, but when I was in school, detention was copying the handbook. Most students were never back in that detention room. Most students who were paddled, however, were in there lots of times because once again I will say this, corporal punishment is ineffective. Once again, thank you for debating me.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.20850539378821653,0.6332305895494066,0.988446286121996,141,True,0.7025093512459811
4,11,42760,"Societies with a collective mentality need less strict punishment laws than societies without; the USA doesn’t have more crime than Singapore because of the lack of corporal punishment but precisely because of the lack of a behavioural norm. When the USA or UK allowed corporal punishment in the past, there was still plenty of crime.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.3638682601215814,-0.000884017864992181,0.08678286312112272,55,False,-0.11521350296991723
4,1,28554,"Greetings. I will argue that domestic corporal punishment is always immoral. Definitions (my own): Domestic corporal punishment: the intentional infliction of physical pain by a parent/guardian upon a child, meant to punish him/her for poor behavior Immoral: behavior that does not conform to what is generally accepted as right Format: Round 1: acceptance Round 2: main arguments Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: rebuttals Round 5: conclusion I look forward to an interesting, civil debate.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.3072595044652761,-1.0253936813236633,-0.057983714007822235,74,True,-0.2910885974051229
4,1,29365,Thank you for the debate. I will offer an opinion on corporal punishment in school which supports its us,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,True,-4.0
4,4,42549,Prohibiting corporal punishment in school (and at home) has been demonstrated to reduce rates of abuse,-0.4466542626979497,True,0.10999384187673887,-0.7102476184079017,-0.6582065897587926,16,False,-0.4877095255598975
4,2,29365,My support for corporal punishment in school rests on a single premise. There may be times even if rare when the use of the strap or other implement is necessary and beneficial.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,32,True,-4.0
4,8,29365,"Let me begin by saying that you have no evidence to support your claim. Your entire argument (despite how small it is) it is based entirely on an opinion. If we are spouting opinions I do not think hitting someone is necessary. I believe other punishments can be found for the child other than causing physical pain. "" even if rare"" If it is a punishment is with rare benefits, than you should weigh the estimated 2230 children in need of medical attention in 2005 alone, the 2 that died, and however many more that are emotionally scared by corporal punishment experiences. Society for Adolescent Medicine",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.351568131506502,0.41247615933685017,-0.1792459135157278,106,False,-0.04954520011147947
10,2,17781,"Although marijuana poses some danger, so do most other drugs prescribed by doctors. It is a powerful drug, but the dangers associated with it are the same associated with smoking cigarettes. Also, many patients only would need medicinal marijuana for a short amount of time, and therefore would not receive many negative smoking effects. The harms of this drug are within the range tolerated for other medications. Cannabis is one of humanity's oldest medicines;China used it in medicinal tea, and for thousands of years people have used this drug without knowing any negative effects. With this being said, the positive effects of marijuana outweigh the slight risks.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0270410014439262,0.5002451143239455,0.9418286886273914,107,True,0.9466380842365374
4,16,42549,"Generating a natural respect for authority is a necessary priority of the state, and thus of education whose purpose is to prepare young people to be effective members of the state1. To do this it is necessary to maintain the threat of, and to have the capacity to make recourse to, corporal punishment. There is nothing wrong with students having a bit of fear with regard to teachers, just as it is right to have a healthy fear of the state, insofar as transgressions of the law will be met by serious repercussions. Coddling children and limiting the level of punishments that can be leveled against them too strictly does not prepare them for the real world in which infractions of the law have serious consequences. It is this lack of respect that is often blamed for increasing crime, Estelle Morris, then UK Education Secretary in 2002 blamed a ""cycle of disrespect"" between schools and home that leads to crime.2 The existence of scholastic corporal punishment hammers this reality home at an early age and better acclimates children for their future as adult members of society. 1 Bloom, Scott. 1995. ""Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child? A Legal Framework for Recent Corporal Punishment Proposals"". Golden Gate University Law Review. 2 BBC News, 2002, ""Bad parenting 'causes child crime'"",",0.8044698538620362,True,0.8611768571156663,0.5665687552500457,0.8934317364973086,218,True,0.8877980647679292
4,5,8659,"Why is it today it is an abusive act while not that long ago you could of been whacked across the head very easily and that was the least they could do. Kids now a days think that it is OK to talk back and disrespect there elders or parents. That is why are society is so corrupt. Second Point:- There is a difference. There is a clear difference between clearly abusing your child and disciplining them. Discipline should involve a punishment backed by love, not an action taken out of anger. If you are hitting a child out of anger you are not disciplining them. Children do not learn from things like time outs, because there is nothing to associate to with misbehavior. Corporal punishment offers a quick stimulus that helps the developing brain associate misbehavior with pain. I was spanked as a child, not abused, spanked. I'm am thankful every time I think about it that my parents disciplined me properly. It has made me know how to act in public. Whenever we would be in a restaurant as kids, there would be screaming children all around, and my brother and I would be the ones sitting at the table eating our food. Again, I will clarify. Corporal punishment is done out of love and is solely for discipline of misbehavior. Child abuse is an act of aggression done out of anger meant to actually harm the child. There is a difference.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.354245202079396,1.4470250926015027,1.0485289304361716,244,False,1.4786437473151766
4,5,38660,"I thank ScarletGhost for the challenge, and gladly accept. I will be taking the con position, defending the use of corporal punishment, as defined below, by parents. In debate, it is important to have definitions and rules to properly outline the position taken by the participants, and how the debate will be conducted. Since none were provided, I'd like to offer the following definitions and rules. Definitions Corporal punishment: Spanking on the rear, or smacking the hand or behind of a child. A non-abusive punishment used by parents, designed to correct harmful behaviors in children who refuse, or are not able to process, logical commands (i.e. Don't stick your fingers in a light socket). Children: Youths, ages 0-18. Child-rearing: Parenting; providing a nurturing and constructive environment that promotes growth and development in a child or children. Rules Videos may be used, provided that enough commentary is provided to explain the purpose, and relevance to the argument. Videos are not mandatory, and neither participant should be penalized for not using a video. The final round will be used for rebuttal and summation only. No new arguments will be introduced. A forfeit of any round equals a forfeit of the debate. Again, I would like to thank ScarletGhost for the challenge, and look forward to a fruitful discussion of this controversial topic.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.4185986048272809,1.0402829268183298,1.190099195722503,220,False,1.019207400934826
15,2,19560,"I never said that they should have the same rights as humans. That's crazy. But animal testing and animal abuse shouldn't be legal. Killing an animal shouldn't have the same charges as killing a human but there should be charges. Not roadkill, not wild animals, but pets and scientific research shouldn't be harming and killing them",1.1172508830020322,True,-1.1558976369686016,-1.5871653446032459,-0.6570828003403262,56,True,-1.3141297853763123
4,5,29365,I will concede the debate. I prefer debates as an exchange of opinions and not as a listing of competing links. That's fine but I prefer debating our own opinions not posting those of others and calling them facts. In addition Con had the much stronger case. As a general rule corporal punishment in schools is a poor idea. But that doesn't mean there aren't times when the strap or other implement shouldn't be used.,0.8044698538620362,True,0.08618947856082661,-0.8507369072693829,0.3352474135799067,75,True,-0.16058322453693982
4,6,42760,"Criminals must be punished, and any form of punishment recognises the fact that on committing criminal acts they surrender some of their rights as humans. Why, logically, is corporal punishment any more of an infringement of these rights than prison? Corporal punishment is an easy, strong, visible, and therefore effective deterrent as well as a proportionate punishment for certain crimes.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.053491015809639976,1.3732754098399265,-0.2498282880100649,60,True,0.4722560177349513
4,25,24511,"One in five teachers? That is the also the figure then of how many teachers need more training! The only reason why a minority of teachers want to see a reintroduction of corporal punishment is because they do not have any effective discipline methods under their belts. The answer? More training, not resorting to corporal punishment. Also remember that school is for learning and it is the teachers job if the students are doing poorly. Corporate Punishment is just and excuse for teachers to whip and hurt people",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.35574565045611223,-0.047409403482252435,0.5618179616187311,88,False,0.05961094785774489
4,44,24511,"Breaking a rule at school resulted in corporal punishment being administered. We were caned, and that was that. No offence was either intended or taken. So, we learned to respect the rules, customs and norms of our society. Kids are not going to go up against their parents after being subjugated to corporal punishment. Also, it is perfectly natural for kids to become rebellious when they reach a certain age. The buck stops when that kid has reached that age and has learned nothing. When that adolescent gets big enough to try and go up against his/her parents- then that child is no longer a child and needs to leave the protection and shelter of his parents and make his own.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.0741833777207686,0.8598340963394792,-0.14124261390883586,121,True,-0.11091133416447677
4,2,18442,"Delaware children are too soft for corporeal punishment, but many children in other parts of the nation have much duller feelings. There's a plague infecting close to one fourth of Oregon that causes the auditory perception of children under eight years old to undergo static overload when verbally instructed to change their behavior, and they can become lost souls without getting other clear forms of communication from adults, such as all-out beatings. The ones in my home state of Texas are made of rubber, and punching and scratching are our 27th and 28th letters of the alphabet - we would lose a historically significant portion of our culture without it. We need to continue to bridge the generation gap between adults and their children, and corporeal punishment is a key element of that plan.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.6937340271335585,1.1782043837193552,0.4605125392192298,134,True,0.8957931160158404
14,2,20935,"I don't think I have anything to say to that. My opponent presents a history of the death penalty. That is fantastic, but it is totally irrelevant. P1-Not an effective deterrent My opponent offers 0 evidence to contradict anything claimed about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the death penalty. If the death penalty is not effective, it should not remain legal. P2-Mistakes My opponent has failed to address anything about the mistakes made in sentencing and conviction of death penalty cases, or the instances of mistakes in actual the actual executions. If the death penalty cannot be administered constitutionally, and the law cannot be applied fairly without error, the death penalty should not remain law. P3-Cost My opponent didn't respond to any of the multiple studies about the expensiveness of the death penalty, or the fact that other means are cheaper. If the death penalty is not deterring crime, and many mistakes are made, then there should be no money wastefully spent on the death penalty because other means are cheaper. Barring any response to these points, I think the votes will have to go my way. The death penalty is not effective, it is not applied correctly, and it is not cheap. For these reasons it should be repealed.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.2915604812137948,0.4229478782085193,-0.4107715413963669,211,True,-0.11006091035295869
10,6,3927,"I do agree with marijuana being used for medical purposes, but making it 100% legal is just an awful idea. Can you imagine college kids being able to obtain marijuana as easily as alcohol? Marijuana should not be legal, for very obvious reasons. It should ONLY be used for medical purposes, and quite honestly, there are few medical purposes for it anyway.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.733290885086995,0.060136800568310986,-0.15636975676906267,62,False,0.24418374016464425
14,5,27718,"Since I have nothing to refute, I will address my opponent's first argument. I would like to note that it seems like my opponent simply added some ""smart"" sounding words to buff up her argument. ""The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill"" I do not see how killing someone allows the defendant to control his own destiny. ""But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west."" I agree, but this argument does virtually nothing to support the death penalty. My opponent has, in reality, done almost nothing to support the death penalty. I have no more to say, so I will sum up my arguments: 1. Death penalty is very expensive 2. Death penalty is unnecessary 3. Death penalty can be regarded as mercy, putting the guilty ""out of their misery"" instead of making them sit in jail 4. Death penalty goes against many religions 5. Death penalty does not ""scare"" criminals out of doing bad things 6. Death penalty is used randomly. It depends on the court, not the offense or crime that was committed 7. Innocents have been executed wrongly 8. There are no benefits to death penalty and my opponent has failed to convince me otherwise by providing very vague arguments Thank you for the debate.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.5758846015372312,0.4328323811926008,0.12822910891022307,249,False,0.43110092281936624
14,2,27718,"briauna forfeited this round. Con Since I have nothing to refute, I will address my opponent's first argument. I would like to note that it seems like my opponent simply added some ""smart"" sounding words to buff up her argument. ""The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill"" I do not see how killing someone allows the defendant to control his own destiny. ""But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west."" I agree, but this argument does virtually nothing to support the death penalty. My opponent has, in reality, done almost nothing to support the death penalty. I have no more to say, so I will sum up my arguments: 1. Death penalty is very expensive 2. Death penalty is unnecessary 3. Death penalty can be regarded as mercy, putting the guilty ""out of their misery"" instead of making them sit in jail 4. Death penalty goes against many religions 5. Death penalty does not ""scare"" criminals out of doing bad things 6. Death penalty is used randomly. It depends on the court, not the offense or crime that was committed 7. Innocents have been executed wrongly 8. There are no benefits to death penalty and my opponent has failed to convince me otherwise by providing very vague arguments Thank you for the debate.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.22214356994278384,0.33548105176747883,-0.2722818228177432,254,True,-0.06703982447006945
14,1,32178,"The death penalty is counter productive because in a criminal justice system like the United States people are bound to slip through the cracks who did not commit a crime, and be executed for a crime they didn't commit. Legal experts and statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania used the latest techniques to produce a PEER REVIEWED (that is very important for validity) study that showed that at least 4.1% of people who were given the death penalty since the 1970's were later proven as well as anything can be proven to be innocent. This is an impressive figure, because what this shows that, if the point of the death penalty is retribution for families of victims of murder, the death penalty is counter productive when people innocent of that crime are executed. Keep in mind, if you are pro death penalty you are accepting that some people who were innocent will slip through the cracks. Article: Study the article was based on: On top of the counter productivity, I have heard the argument that the death penalty actually costs less than a life sentence, but this is false on every front. 1) Until some one is finally executed the regular prison price is being paid while they are on death row, meaning a death penalty does not get rid of the prison cost. 2)It costs $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in tax revenue for each death penalty case for trials and appeals, while for an entire 40 years in prison it costs $1,000,000-$1,250,000. So the death penalty is much more expensive than a life sentence.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.4368757260934475,1.6176540081005597,1.3032389416416204,263,True,1.6742283245344094
14,4,44381,"USA is the only western country in the world who has death penalty. 38 states in USA have death penalty. You cannot get a death penalty for every crime you make. The only crime where you can get a death penalty is if you commit a premeditated murder. I think that death penalty should be illegal in all the states in America, one of the reasons is, I think it is moral wrong, to kill another human no mater what the person has done. The 10 commandments say that, """"You shall not murder"""" I know that a person who get the death penalty have committed a murder but when the government kills a person with death penalty is that not a murder or what? I do not think it should be legal even though if you are the government. I think that it is human to make a mistake and a lot of the persons who get the death penalty have not committed more then one murder, so why shall they be killed for the crime they have committed, maybe when they have been drunk or something like that, I do not say that a person who has committed a crime do not have to be punished. I think that if you have committed a premeditated murder then you shall be sent to prison for lifetime instead of being killed (life time shall not be for the rest of your life only for a long time) and then they can sit in a prison and think about what they have done wrong. What do you think? I would like to hear your version of the death penalty:",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.3028783936774041,0.502342033373066,0.7702511430952669,277,False,0.3762207351782955
15,3,43677,"First, I said animal testing FOR COSMETICS IS WRONG. BoP for me is not to prove all animal testing should be allowed, but some, in this case medical testing on animals. Rebuttal ""if it was by medical reasons we all have different blood cells and tissue."" Rats have 99% same genes as humans. [1] Chimpanzees are 96%-98% the same has humans genetically. [2] Arguments Animal testing has led to more understanding for malaria, eradication of polio, development of insulin, vaccines, and other cures. [3] Conclusion Animal testing is needed for medicine. Not all animal testing leads to abuse.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.2564335825408695,-0.1910304497188687,0.5860442094904399,98,True,0.24735304794301033
14,6,25600,"This is a debate concerning the death penalty and as the side arguing against it, I would like to make the following points: 1. The death penalty is costly When I say costly, I mean that according to NBC it costs about 1.7 million dollars to execute someone. New Jersey got rid of the death penalty because it costed 4 million dollars per inmate and they hadn't executed anyone since 1963. Plus, inmates staring into the face of the death penalty are entitled to two lawyers which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars alone. 2. What if they're innocent The fact that the risk of ending the life of an innocent person should not be permitted, Killing an innocent person is morally reprehensible, so why should our justice system allow that possibility to exist? By eliminating the death penalty we eliminate any chance of this happening. 3. Does the death penalty deter crime ""There's no credible evidence of deterrence,"" concludes John Blume, a law professor with the Cornell Death Penalty Project. (Excerpt from the Denver Post). There's no way to tell if a murderer was aware of a state's death-penalty status when the crime was deliberated, or what impact the knowledge had. (also from the same article). In, conclusion I believe I have shown the death penalty to be more of a hindrance than a help There's my argument(s) and I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. (vote con)",0.1789077955820434,True,1.215836645055154,1.2194056687464594,1.1447716654824889,240,False,1.3729959216214274
14,7,20935,"To start off, I will discuss the history of the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, boiling, beheading, burning alive, and impalement, etc. In the 10th century A.D., hanging became the peculiar method of execution in Britain. In the following century, William the Conqueror would not allow persons to be hanged or otherwise executed for any crime, except in times of war. This trend would not last, for in the Sixteenth Century, under the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed. Britain influenced America's use of the death penalty more than any other country. The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. Today, the death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy, but the number of people that are for the death penalty continues to grow. An example of this is the law that passed in 1994. As part of an omnibus crime bill, the federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses. Among the federal crimes for which people in any state or territory of the U.S. can receive a death sentence are murder of certain government officials, kidnapping resulting in death, murder for hire, fatal drive-by shootings, sexual abuse crimes resulting in death, car jacking resulting in death, and certain crimes not resulting in death, including the running of a large-scale drug enterprise. This is not cruel nor unusual.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,293,False,-4.0
14,1,12591,"The death penalty should be abolished. Death penalty-the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. ""The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrant, and the appeals process is expensive and cruel to the survivng family members.""-Martin O'Malley ""The death penalty issue is obviously a divisive one. But, whether one if for or against, you can nt deny the basic illogic, if we know the system is flawed, if we know that innocent people are on death row, then until the system is reformed, should we not allow the death penalty to protect those who are innocent?""-Richard LaGravanese ""My objection to the death penalty is based on the idea that this is a democracy, and in a democracy the government is me, and if the government kills somebody then I'm killing somebody.""-Steve Earle",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6886924729080335,0.8241188863009216,0.25597548113690816,137,True,0.6764533387568216
14,8,10684,"Sorry about the forfeit, I have been very busy with finals. #1- It costs more for the death penalty than the cost of life in prison. California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978. California spends an additional $184 million on the death penalty per year because of the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row, and legal representation.The study""s authors predict that the cost of the death penalty will reach $9 billion by 2030. #2- Innocent while on death row. The above link proves that inmates have been proven innocent while on death row, and sadly some have been killed and then later found innocent. #3- Who gets the death penalty? The above link shows that the majority of inmates are African Americans. Another part to the article shows that only people with little wealth who cannot afford a good lawyer get the death penalty rather than life without parole. #4- Deterrence. This link PROVES that the death penalty does NOT bring down crime rates. So why then would we implement a law that clearly is not working? The below links show the many other problems associated with the death penalty.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.5307171962389342,-0.958991557623792,-0.059760388811711924,203,False,-0.6003933712753262
14,4,10858,"First of all, I would like to address my opponent's claim that the death penalty helps the economy. How is this even possible? Good economic policies and the industrial jobs in China have helped its economy, not murdering people. He/she also ignores the intention behind my statistic that America carries out a large number of executions, as it was merely to show that the death penalty is an important issue, and nothing more. My opponent also claims that the death penalty is cheaper, and the cost of execution is quite cheap. However, the legal process and the decades criminals are on death row make it the more expensive choice. It is also quite clear that racism influences the death penalty. According ""Such a study was recently conducted in Philadelphia. The results are dramatic, particularly for a state outside of the deep south, a region where racial disparities in the criminal justice system have a long history. The researchers found that, even after controlling for case differences, blacks in Philadelphia were substantially more likely to get the death penalty than other defendants who committed similar murders. Black defendants faced odds of receiving a death sentence that were 3.9 times higher than other similarly situated defendants. My opponent also is claiming that mistakes happen, and therefore it is okay that a few innocent people are executed. I must ask, how would you feel if you were on death row for a crime you didn't commit? What about a family member? Finally, my opponent ignores the fact that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates. In conclusion, the death penalty is a racially biased, mistake-filled, ineffective, and an expensive alternative to life imprisonment. I rest my case, and may the best debater win.",1.4300319121420288,True,1.085501624988908,1.359776265389077,-0.5417598854077803,292,True,0.7636082615142908
10,2,33373,"Although marijuana poses some danger, so do most other drugs prescribed by doctors. There are always going to be some sort of side effects. It is a powerful drug, but the dangers associated with it are the same associated with smoking cigarettes. Also, many patients only would need medicinal marijuana for a short amount of time, and therefore would not receive many negative smoking effects. The harms of this drug are within the range tolerated for other medications. Cannabis is one of humanity's oldest medicines;China used it in medicinal tea, and for thousands of years people have used this drug without knowing any negative effects. With this being said, the positive effects of marijuana outweigh the slight risks.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.1180915182178992,0.9598025471328159,0.7189427494312596,118,True,1.0718137527556328
14,5,19580,"First off lets define Death Penalty: (A sentence or punishment of death by execution.) The death penalty should be used for ""cruel& unusual"" crimes, serial killers and the string of cops that seem to keep murdering their girlfriends/wives, when there is no doubt as to their guilt. It's not about wanting to ""get back"" at someone or even deterring others, it's about protecting our society specifically from that person and not wasting our precious tax dollars on someone who can't be released or rehabilitated. Yes, you could argue that the punishment itself is cruel & unusual, but in some cases, it is a necessary evil. The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don""t.While the death penalty should be maintained, it is important that stipulations be made on how it is implemented. Many people wonder if victims and their families should have any say in whether or not prosecutors seek the death penalty. In the Holmes case, Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler personally talked to 60 family members of the Aurora victims and his office as a whole reached out to about 800 relatives of the victims in order to help them make this decision. It is my personal opinion that victims and those related to victims in any way should not have a say, because then you are dealing with vengeance, not justice. Once that line is crossed, it is not fair to say that someone should be put to death because it is not decided by an unbiased, unrelated third party. Sources:",1.4300319121420288,True,0.4283173804067801,1.8553952198077144,-0.4921709480257761,298,False,0.73293081939359
14,12,12897,"There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For one thing, many criminals may actually find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and thus, less effective as a deterrent) than spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by execution is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in prison can be seen as a much more intensive punishment. Moreover, even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death penalty, it's not clear that a harsher punishment would effectively deter murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of the moment, with little consideration for their legal repercussions1. Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not the case with the death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in acquittals2. Finally, the empirical evidence regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty is at best mixed. Many of the studies that purport to show the deterrence effect are flawed, because the impact of capital punishment cannot be disentangled from other factors such as broader social trends, economic factors and demographic changes in a region2. Other studies have even suggested a correlation between the death penalty and higher crime rates. States such as Texas and Oklahoma, which have very high execution rates, also have higher crime rates than most states that do not have the death penalty2. 1 Amnesty International. ""Abolish the Death Penalty."" Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 ""Saving Lives and Money."" The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7547080478071261,1.4728623302881227,-0.09770209547562077,263,False,0.8350077622427611
14,3,19853,"My opponent speaks no form of fact or statistic but morally on his/her opinion. I could sit here and talk about how I think the death penalty is good. But i'm not using facts or sources. If you need a reason on why the death penalty is a good idea; here are a few. One small but important reason on why the death penalty is a good idea is that it decreases the prisoner population, which saves even more tax payers money. Another reason why the death penalty is a good idea, Once a criminal is executed, he cannot kill again. The case for this would be Kenneth Allen McDuff who was on Death Row when the death penalty was declared unconstitutional in the 1970's. His sentence was commuted to life and he was eventually released on parole and killed again. He has since been executed My final reason for this round is that the death penalty is actually a very good deterrence. If you look at this link: You see a chart. The chart is documenting the number of yearly homicide rate per 100,000 population. The chart also documents the years 1950-2002. Lastly, the chart documents the yearly number of executions. The death penalty is actually considered a deterrent. My mistake.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.0017689893197413745,0.600700015907792,-0.35797919062131084,212,True,0.09202028281477642
14,2,31788,"There are several purposes to any punishment: retribution, deterrence and protection of society. The death penalty adequetely satisfies each of these. Justice The death penalty is just. When a person inflicts an evil upon society, he merits evil towards himself. This is why when people rape, rob, cheat and lie, they are punished. Indeed, if they go without being punished, we suddenly feel the injustice. The punishment should also reflect the severity of the crime. A person who steals $5 should be punished less than a rapist. Thus, a murderer should be punished very heavily. The only thing that can equal life in value is life. Thus, in the case of murder, the only just penalty is death. Deterrence The death penalty also deters crimes. Many studies have shown that as the death penalty increases, murders decrease and vice versa. /> /> Protects Society The death penalty protects society because it not only decreases murder rates, but also because a dead person is infinitely less dangerous than an alive person. A person who is dead cannot ever murder you. Conclusion For these reasons, the death penalty should remain in place. Thank you.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.06767434872434339,0.3678152370602074,-0.07797470269617278,192,True,0.0782502536788141
14,1,36052,"I argue for the use of the death penalty for many reasons, the first of which is its' effectiveness. If we legalize the death penalty and actually put it into use, people who commit crimes will think twice about actually doing them. Right now, in most states, if you commit a really bad crime, you get to go to jail. However, if the punishment was the death penalty, people would probably be less likely to commit crimes because the punishment is severe. A second argument for the death penalty is the other punishments. If you commit a severe crime (that should be worthy of the death penalty) in some states, you just get a lifetime sentence to prison. So, basically, you spend the rest of your life in captivity with plain food, constant surveillance, etc. and who would want to live a life like that. So, I don't see much of a difference between the death penalty and a lifetime sentence because, in both cases, you are taking the rest of their life away from them. A third argument for the death penalty is the cost of prisoners. According to the link below, the total cost to feed and supply housing for prisoners per year is approximately $63.4 Billion. All that money falls upon tax payers to pay. And that is a lot of money to pay for people who are spending the rest of their lives in vain. Link: Thanks, DESTROYERZV",1.1172508830020322,True,0.2544030773214279,1.078455574165341,-0.14277772154802,242,True,0.4640915711370453
15,4,17961,"Point 4: Animals also benefit Testing on animals most definitely benefited animals as well, for like rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus would have killed millions of animals. Animals like the California condor, the Tamarins of Brazil, and the black-footed ferret were saved from extinction due to animal testing. The koala species of Australia are endangered and suffer from the spread of the sexual disease chlamydia, right now tests on animals are being done today to help slow down or even stop the extinction the koalas. Testing like this helps pets, livestock, zoo animals to live longer, healthier, and happier. If it weren’t for animal testing, your dog could have been diagnosed with heartworms (and infection painful and deadly for dogs). Since multiple animals, who are genetically similar, are being tested both that animal and humans will be able to live a longer, happier, and most of all a healthier life. Which can also prevent some species going to extinction. href="" target=""blank""> href="" target=""blank"">",1.4300319121420288,True,0.3088811242934508,-0.2521411986356907,0.007396294826313181,170,True,0.017757733960630184
14,6,32245,"Imagine if your daughter was raped and then killed. Would you rather let the criminal spend time in jail, knowing that he is still alive, or have him brought to justice? In November, 2008, Dominc Cinelli was charged with life sentence after shooting a security guard during an armed robbery to feed his heroin addiction. Only spending 2 years in jail, In 2010, Cinelli was granted parole after stating that he ""is a changed man."" Only days later, did Cinelli fatally shoot 60 year old, Officer Maguire while robbing a Kohl's Department Store. Cinelli did infact lose his life, during the shooting. If this man was given the death penalty, Officer Maguire wouldn't have been brutally murdered. There are dozens of cases in which murderers are granted parole, only to be found committing a similar homicide crime. If these men and women were brought to justice, many innocent people would still be alive today. The death penalty does in fact take a person's life, but it also save others from horrific crimes brought upon them. Also, the death penalty sends a message to all the criminals roaming the United States of America. The death penalty sends them fear. If a person knew that if he committed a certain crime, he would then have the potential to be sentenced the death penalty, chances are they would not commit that act. If the death penalty is legalize throughout the United States, order would be brought in place; saving more lives than killing. Yes, taking a life is horrible, but the death penalty assures innocent people to be safe from harm.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.4110814626587549,1.028412942417982,0.13742744175730445,268,False,0.6067648833885559
14,1,34706,"Now let's keep it simple.This is just for practice.For the first two rounds let's state our points and the third the rebuttals. I shall state my argument.The Death penalty should be kept and in fact enforced.Let me tell you why.As we all know every crime should face its punishments.People should pay for what they've done.Yes,even now with the death penalty being enforced in certain countries and states people are still committing crimes worthy of the death penalty.However,they who commit those crimes are obviously unaware of what it feels like to be sentenced to death or rather they are too emotionally affected that nothing matters during the crime.This is where the Death Penalty should come in,to remind the people of what would happen if they did such crimes deserving death.Without it,can you imagine how chaotic the world could become?People would never fear committing crimes ever again!Criminal activities will soar to an all time high and there would be nothing to stop it!Why?Well,the answer is simple.Even if you caught the criminal and proved him or her guilty,could you kill him or her?No!Why?Because you removed the death penalty.Crime rate will increase because no matter what you do to the criminal he or she would never be sentenced to death!More people will not think twice anymore about what they're about to do because they'll never be killed by the law!This is why I believe the Death Penalty should be enforced.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.9900943969218148,0.6364573418487225,-0.4340403132157874,236,True,-0.2872615198268852
14,1,16720,"The death penalty, i.e. capital punishment, is ""execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense."" [1. Currently 32 states and the Federal government have a death penalty. [2. Background information on capital punishment and the ongoing national debate on the subject is given in a Wikipedia article. [3. In this debate I will argue that a death penalty should be maintained as part of the U.S. system of justice, and my opponent will argue that the death penalty should be abolished. I will argue that the death penalty should be limited to use for the most heinous crimes and that suitable provisions should be made to ensure those accused are well-represented by legal counsel. My opponent will argue that the death penalty should not be an available punishment under any circumstances. The first round is for acceptance, definitions, and clarification only. The Pro case will be presented at the start of Round 2. DDO site rules apply to this debate. The first round is for acceptance only. All arguments and source citations must be made within the character limits of the debate. All words not specifically defined are defined by the ordinary dictionary definition that best fits the context. No new arguments may be made by Con in the last round of the debate, because Pro has no debate round left to rebut them. I'm looking forward to a good debate.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.12054988057083366,0.8345074123503916,-1.5426268804703758,241,True,-0.17856877611205696
14,13,12897,"The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime. The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them1. Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise2. On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it is today. For instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its deterrent effect in the United States1. In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people. 1 Muhlhausen, David. ""The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives,"" August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Liptak, Adam. ""Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate."" The New York Times. November 18, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2011",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5742109531324366,1.4773710408709069,0.3962755409298192,248,True,0.9475682292788978
1,22,41308,"Politicians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society.[1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws. [1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010  ",0.1789077955820434,True,1.188851987285766,-0.015228544960556119,1.4780629675445085,270,True,1.0365564037287234
14,6,34706,"I see your argument completely. I understand the point you are trying to get across. That criminals should be sentence to the death penalty, if they in fact commit murder. That is, in my opinion, barbaric. I do not believe one death should result in another, one sadness in another, one eye for another. That is a way of the past that we should abolish. The death penalty doesn't always JUST kill criminals. Innocent people are tried for crimes and may be convicted even if they didn't commit said crime. Then they are put to death. Now, not all people who are sentenced the death penalty are innocent, many are guilty of said crimes, but what crimes here are appropriate? You want statistics, here are mine: 7 countries have the death penalty for being gay (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc...) Countries have the death penalty for rape, robbery, drug possession or trafficking, adultery, treason, etc... How about some of the inhumane ways it is carried out: Hanging Firing Squad Beheading Public Stoning to death This is the barbaric truth about what the death punishment is. And the fact is it shouldn't be allowed. No human should be subject to this. Life is valuable and should not be left to the hands of the judicial system to decide. My final argument is that mistakes are made. Innocent people are killed, and was it really worth it? All of those lives ended because you couldn't just settle for locking them up for life?",1.4300319121420288,True,0.5840048640399624,0.3158053540053365,0.2994936102385909,251,False,0.45419286796325997
14,2,41774,"I look forward to a great debate! Good luck to my opponent! The death penalty should be done away with because there is an alternative to that: Life in prison. Here are some of the costs if the alternative is not taken: - ""The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)""[1] - ""Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made""[2] However, if the alternative is taken, if an inmate is later on proven innocent, it can be; He can be released from prison. Some of death penalty's advocates claim that it is a detterent to all crime. However, as recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, ""there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty.""[3] There not only is no conclusive evidence to its detterent value, but logically thinking, criminals know that their life is over. Thus, they just make the last of it and commit more crimes while they can. Most of society support death penalty, yes. However, that does not instantly mean that the death penalty is effective. You have to logically think it yourself AND hear out the opposition. The resolution is affirm. I await my opponent's arguments. [1] [2] [3]",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7609625763968684,1.0097733583631705,0.5067252989627143,242,True,0.8720181941885436
14,1,27068,"For some, the death penalty could be less worse than jail. The death penalty is only used when absolutely needed, and sometimes it is the only rational/moral option. Even if a criminal was released from the death penalty/jail, it would be very hard for them to make a living. The death penalty can be painless. The death penalty provides disclosure for victims. If the death penalty is not in use, then America will end up spending more money trying to contain criminals from the outside world. Many lives could be saved by each execution of a guilty killer.",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.1635672621440172,-0.1895055204864413,-0.7185245547902743,98,True,-0.8004712705036962
14,1,1364,"For some, the death penalty could be less worse than jail. The death penalty is only used when absolutely needed, and sometimes it is the only rational/moral option. Even if a criminal was released from the death penalty/jail, it would be very hard for them to make a living. The death penalty can be painless. The death penalty provides disclosure for victims. If the death penalty is not in use, then America will end up spending more money trying to contain criminals from the outside world. Many lives could be saved by each execution of a guilty killer.",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.3441846959005763,0.07758017771038264,0.02126215127198806,98,True,-0.4650509768089328
14,4,27068,"I accept this debate and will be against the death penalty in all states. We must weigh both sides and see which is a better choice. My main problem with the death penalty is the cost. Defense costs for death penalty trials in Kansas averaged about $400,000 per case, compared to $100,000 per case when the death penalty was not sought. (Kansas Judicial Council, 2014). Simply put, the death penalty cost more than if you put them in prison for life. It makes no sense to peruse the death penalty which is one of the reason that states are stopping it themselves because of the cost of the trials and poison used to kill the criminal.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.6097365348196159,-0.017897984166768906,-1.139247332878844,116,False,-0.6797101915636683
14,6,31850,"My opponent has unfortunately forfeited his third round. I extend all of my points across the flow, I. Life imprisonment is as immoral, if not more, compared to death penalty, in one way or another. Both are amoral treatments in one sense or another. II. Death penalty eliminates the risk of failed rehabilitation. III. Death penalty conserves scarce economic resources. Voting Issue: I have proved that the incarceration alternative to death penalty is even more immoral than death penalty itself. After, I have showed the practical, municipal advantages and societal benefits of death penalty which its alternatives lack. I urge a vote for the Con. Thank you.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.171215373576621,0.14437804410466482,-0.9429868171205532,107,False,-0.23649240274672398
15,1,22741,"As the name says that cloned meat comes from cloned animals. Though it is still not that much available in the market but the FDA has assured us that cloned meat will not be harmful to us in any respect. There will be absolutely no problem in having cloned meat. Still there is a doubt in many around as to whether this cloned meat will be really good for us or not. As we all know that cloned animals are not born in the very natural process and rather they are scientifically cloned to become one, so it generally works in our sub-conscious mind that the meat of such animals may not be good. Such meat should not be sold in the market but on the contrary when scientific tests are giving you the security then it is for sure that they will not be harmful either.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.8216581155779541,-0.2669711088442106,-0.3841176418372856,147,False,0.07280598359873791
14,3,31850,"arando319 forfeited this round. Con My opponent has unfortunately forfeited his third round. I extend all of my points across the flow, I. Life imprisonment is as immoral, if not more, compared to death penalty, in one way or another. Both are amoral treatments in one sense or another. II. Death penalty eliminates the risk of failed rehabilitation. III. Death penalty conserves scarce economic resources. Voting Issue: I have proved that the incarceration alternative to death penalty is even more immoral than death penalty itself. After, I have showed the practical, municipal advantages and societal benefits of death penalty which its alternatives lack. I urge a vote for the Con. Thank you.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.8973919951514178,-0.4779110131914117,-1.1038733638320766,112,True,-0.9635021169702492
14,4,27718,"First, the death penalty is very expensive. In fact, more expensive than keeping the criminal in prison for life. In 2011, it was found that California spent a whopping $4 billion on capital punishment. This money could have been used to help the families of the victims instead of killing the offender. The death penalty goes against many religions who regard it as immoral. A study has shown that death penalty plays virtually no role in deterring criminals. Finally, one of the most obvious points, innocent people have been wrongly executed. This is a mistake that you cannot fix and is a terrible occurrence. If the death penalty was not in place, this would give investigators the time necessary to realize and declare the person innocent instead of just killing them. The death penalty is actually ""applied"" almost at random. It depends more on the politics and judges of the court than on the offense itself. Frankly, I see absolutely no benefits of the death penalty.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.06371868640781649,0.040520122139131545,0.4597491393193182,166,False,0.16150918574124784
14,5,912,"My opponent only said what he think that I responsed wrong, he never defended his statement about the death penalty. Now to defend my statement, talking about the speeding ticket and parking ticket, that was just an example of why there should not be a death penalty. Here is my best reason of why there should be no death penalty. Some people who have commited a deadly crime, they are usually masterminds and can escape the scene and disguise themselves to never be caughten. In this case, there are some other people who look just like them and maybe considered a possible suspect. If you watch ""Law and Order"" Episode 103, one guy was sentenced to a death penalty but he was not the victim, he was the twin of the victim, but later the twin who was the real murderer felt guilty and didnt want his brother to bear the pain so he pleaded guilty. Now if there was a death penalty in which my opponent agrees to have, that honest person and truthful person wouldve been sent to jail for just being a twin and then you have a murderer gone free. Therefore a death penalty should not be taking into consideration",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.1255851272370876,0.2635292731754714,-0.4506598565837774,204,False,-0.4976944092757709
1,6,7411,"Thank you for your speech. I look forward to a good and informative debate. To begin, I do not think my opponent understands minimum wage based on his statement: ""minimum wage pays 10.10 to pizza guy. If McDonald's doesn't raise it price to the manager of McDonald's which is about 10.00 in Illinois to 13-16 dollars then no one will take the job. So in reality everyone gets a raise."" To raise the minimum wage you legislate a law where EVERY COMPANY must raise the wages of all of its workers to that wage or above. If you change the minimum wage to $10.10 no company can pay a worker less than $10.10. On a completely unrelated note, the American dream is meant to be for Americans. People immigrating from mexico to america do not deserve anything, and especially should not get to decide on our wages. I will not actually explain what happens when you raise the minimum wage. If you raise the lowest amount a person can get paid, the company must pay them more. To compensate for this, the company may raise the prices of its products. Due to this, the only product of a raise of minimum wage is inflation, it does not actually benefit anyone. But raising the minimum wage actually harms people. Companies cannot afford to pay the workers more, will replace them with machines. Then the workers are unemployed. Once they are unemployed they claim more unemployment benefits. Coupled with the fact that the government cannot actually replace their workers so pays them more, the government will lose money. The costs of raising the minimum wage are high and it provides no benefits. This is why the minimum wage must not be raised.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0385289305303929,-0.03069547651139764,1.7812785286476776,290,False,1.0966937194397297
14,6,28759,"Thank you for the debate, now the task falls to me to refute, friend :). First of all, excellent definition of the death penalty/capital punishment. Spot on there :). Let's look at this...crimes resulting in the death penalty to start. Again, spot on here, good job. The morality argument is a valid one, I admit. However, you need to take into account the family of the victim. They most likley would want justice for the death of their family member...that is to be expected. Inhumanity argument refutal Yes there is a certain degree of the death penalty (crucifixion, stoning) that can be torture. But keep this in mind, my friend, that the killer probably did some very cruel things to their victim/s to end up on death row. Not to say I condone any crucifixion or stoning, or otherwise brutal modes of death but think about it a little bit more :). Worthy Crime argument refutal There are a lot of very valid points in this argument. However, there are sometimes major loopholes. I respectfully say that not every country is as coruptt as it seems with their use of the death penalty. Now, I do agree, we should not sentence minors to death however. Innocence refutal Yes, there have been a lot of exonerations, that is true. No need to refute this. Deterrence refutal Pakistan, and Bangladesh seem to have a good deterrence mechanism in their death penalty. Cost refutal no need to refute it, it is expensive thank you for the debate :)",0.4916888247220394,True,0.21933083086323105,0.4599704088704939,0.4510146183555406,255,False,0.42728694329587563
14,1,43645,"Hi, I wanted to discuss a very important issue: the Death Penalty As a progressive I'm against it and my view is getting more and more support as I see that those in favor of the Death Penalty have little or no valid argument. Here are some fact: _The Death Penalty costs more than life imprisonment _There is absolutely no evidence that it deters crime (just look at crime rates in the US compared to Europe wich abolished it) _For every 100 executed prisoners there are likely 4 innocent people being executed _It diminishes society to the same moral level as the criminals _Human behavior is mostly determined by the environment and can be changed by a caring environment (in approx. 80% of violent criminals) -The countries who abolished it usually have lower crime rates then those who didn't _The Death Penalty creates a society that promotes revenge and bloodthirst After all these arguments I know no Death Penalty supporter who was able to give me a valid reason why I should support it. So I'm asking the the Death Penalty supporters in the Debate.org community if they are able to do so (I don't think so but I'm an open-minded individual)",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7893150154822237,-0.40402754343604297,1.350265047409838,202,True,0.6896812344631992
14,6,9099,"I will again chronically rebut all your points one by one show you why they are redundant 1) You've in your first line mentioned on whether we want criminals living in our society! the criminals who've committed grave crimes. OF COURSE WE DON'T!, that's why I have clearly stated, the law breakers deserve a punishment and that punishment is not the death penalty but it is imprisonment. So the first one is redundant as you haven't stated the punishment for the people. And I'm just saying the punishment shouldn't be the death penalty. 2) And it is highly incorrect on how you blatantly stated every family has a role to play in their children becoming a criminal. You can't generalize like that. That point can't be even considered as it is a fallacy 3) You also stated more people will learn if there was the death penalty. But let me prove you wrong here by taking the example of the states who implemented the death penalty in around 33 states I guess. Now before the implementation of the penalty, the crime rates were very high, over 12,000 registered. And after thee penalty was implemented, there was no reduction in the crime rate! so your point is not valid as the fear in most of the criminals is gone. In fact most criminals are ready to die after committing a crime than rather go to prison. So by giving him the death sentence is giving him the ticket to heave. But by giving him a life imprisonment, well that's the punishment. So having proved your points in your last argument are also redundant, I strongly stand against the death penalty. I would like to conclude saying, a second chance is a must.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.054964006882584966,0.8723040674941128,-0.4202391578669593,291,False,0.16026187497203342
14,1,4646,"I'd like to thank Abdab for the challenge. The resolution is slightly confusing as Abdab stated that he/she is against the death penalty yet he is Con against the notion of ""Imprisonment for life is a better punishment than death penalty"" but no matter, here is a few easy clarification. Please ignore the original Con/Pro positions as well as the resolution and take these into considerations. Abdab will be against the death penalty, I will be for it. Abdab you ready? Let's begin. Argument I - Death penalty is more sane than life imprisonment Let's assume that all convicts are guilty. Prisoners are likely to commit suicide based on the study conducted by fellow psychologists of the University of Manchester ( The most common method of suicide used are self strangulation, hanging as well burning etc. It is unclear as to what the actual reason for their suicides but results show a disorder that exists amongst prisoners. Most prisoners, in that study specifically, commit suicide just 7 days into their prison life. Moreover, this does not concern a small sample, but it represents a large sample which is highly representative to society, as suicide and murder rates soar( for years. That is just 7 days. A life imprisonment is much more severe and traumatic for the prisoners. If the prisoners are guilty and that they deserve the most severe form of punishment, it is better to choose the death penalty rather than being insane for the rest of your life. Hence the death penalty is better for the serial killers rather than life imprisonment. Assuming that they do deserve severe punishments. I will present my rebuttals in the next round. Back to you, Abdab. Thanks",1.4300319121420288,True,0.6854288107995793,0.45015466990415903,-0.32796525015583483,285,True,0.31251033931531746
14,1,32440,"=Resolution= This debate will be about whether the United States should abolish the Death Penalty. ""The death penalty, i.e. capital punishment, is ""execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense."" [1. Currently 32 states and the Federal government have a death penalty. [2. I will argue that the U.S should abolish the Death Penalty. while Con would argue against it, and support keeping the Death Penalty. No K's",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.5488030991625658,-2.6950262950248765,-0.7265179843280631,78,True,-1.4808652993720939
14,27,12897,"Juries are imperfect1, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of ways. First, implementation of the death penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, gender-based or racial biases2, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and adding a certain arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study found that the death penalty was three to four times more common amongst those who killed whites than those who killed African Americans or Latinos, while those who kill women are three and a half times more likely to be executed than those who kill men2. Regional differences in attitudes towards the death penalty can also introduce elements of randomness into sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in a rural area than in Cook County2. Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by biasing juries towards returning an innocent verdict when they would otherwise be deemed guilty3. When they are told that the consequence of a guilty verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of reasonable doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of that criminal. This means that more criminals who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged. In this sense the death penalty can pervert the goals of justice and prolong the difficult process for victims' families. 1 ""Saving Lives and Money."" The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2Turow, Scot. ""To kill or not to kill,"" The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011, 3 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.20401246468920997,1.1206551081742815,1.0006718589787258,276,True,0.8971384447483027
14,4,4646,"Death penalty should not be used as a punishment for any crime. There are many reasons for this argument, firstly in a lot of cases (admittedly in the past, but it is still an issue) innocent convicts have been put to death. This may be the result of lack of evidence to prove the case otherwise, death penalty being imposed before all the evidence has been found, or unjust power (such as is the case of Sacco and Vanzetti) Another reason that the death penalty should not be legal, is that new drugs being tested on convicts are inhumane, as with the recent cases heard in the news, one where a man suffered for over 10 minutes before he finally passed away. I realise that these are bad people, and in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes off the mass majority, they need to be punished, however, we must remember that they are still people at the end of the day, and killing them because they killed somebody else does nothing for anyone. An eye for an eye makes another man blind. We should make criminals realise the error of their ways with imprisonment, and the prison systems should be harsher, but Ibelieve death penalty is not the right way to go about it. I am starting as CON because I am against Death Penalty, I would like somebody to start PRO and show me why it should be used.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.9617647954508042,0.3802737072403302,1.0337566641279037,243,False,0.9123291940290966
15,4,1264,"While it is true that animals are under the dominion of man, animal testing is done half the time because of curiosity and for no reason. Also, no matter how many animal tests are done there is always going to be the first person that has to take this test. Animals are in no way shape for form similar to a person so you cannot compare which will happen to one or the other. Take the chemical ""Penicillin"" for an example, is fine for rabbits but kills guinea pigs. Also, ""Morphine"" which is a depressant for humans stimulates goats, cats and horses. The FDA did a research that 92% of the chemicals done through animal testing failed in human testing. The point is, animal testing is useless as a human still has to be the first one to try it and we are just wasting millions of dollars on this.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.2676882471967841,0.03896559665046742,0.2367162413194012,150,False,0.20043581171122432
14,1,32207,"In my opinion the death penalty in the United States should be abolished because of its current extreme financial costs and the possibility of accidently executing innocents. Executing criminals is not worth it if the cost of doing so is radically more than simply confining them for life and the chance of mistakenly executing an innocent. DNA evidence has already proven some thought to be criminals as innocent. New inventions in technology may also free innocents as DNA technology has, but If they have already been executed it is too late for them to freed. The small deterrence effect of the death penalty is nowhere near effective enough to justify the financial cost of the death penalty in the United States nor the possibility of executing innocent civilians. Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008) ""Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."" -",1.4300319121420288,True,0.8752108512983309,1.439339447272985,0.09684118190182753,231,True,0.9377226363948139
14,5,13342,"The death penalty is not immoral. Think of a murder charge: the family of the victim will never see there loved one again, and want justice. The death penalty has been around for centuries, and many guilty people, that actually did do a crime, will be convicted and justice will be served in the form of a death penalty. Yes, some innocent people were killed for acts they did not commit. But killing murderers and others will rattle some future lawbreakers and, shown the punishment, wont even think about attempting to do it again. Another reason the death penalty is good is overcrowded prisons. Prisons these days are getting overcrowded, which can lead to more violence and death of guards or other prisoners. Certain prisoners , such as serial killers, among other things, will easily kill other prisoners or guards if they wanted to, or that said person annoys them or gets on their nerves. Why waste all that food, supplies and space for people that are serial killers and child molesters, when they can hold it for more petty crimes, like robbery or assault. This could potentially also lower the amount of casualties in prison riots, as with less aggressive people, there would be less cause for such a thing to even take place to begin with. My claim remains that death penalty is a good idea and we should continue this practice.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.5459356399335953,0.8144370601575028,1.4350764217046883,234,False,1.4614882539994842
17,1,19871,"I am honored to debate with you today! In your in argument here you are generalizing police officers, but its true that they can be rude and that can be a good thing. In some cases being harsh and rude to us civilians is unnecessary. If a police officer were to be nice and kind to the person their giving the ticket to it could help with the current rioting. A police officer being kind to a person will change the negative view they have on police officers and help them understand that not all of them are ""bad"". But I do agree that in certain situations you have to be harsh and invasive such as a criminal running away on foot. Though having a friendly officer tell you that you were going to fast and he will need to write you a ticket without seeming threatening will help people and police officers to understand each other. So to wrap up with what I'm saying is that there is for sure some cases where rude or harsh actions need to be taken. But in other cases it's unnecessary. Thanks!",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.4922719442785067,1.445401963373357,-0.2952012792762813,189,True,0.6522382959205106
14,26,12897,"The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital punishment. If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves just as often in cases where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or spend decades in jails for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be abolished. Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be corrected. Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty cases1. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in sentencing for white and non-white victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored into the study1. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found. Finally, jurors must be ""death- qualified"" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable sentencing someone to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty. 1 Muhlhausen, David. ""The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives,"" August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Haney, Craig. ""Juries and the Death Penalty."" Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26 no 4. October 1980.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6420864254746779,1.8894987277839337,0.18195175779277287,247,False,1.0658298376826831
14,3,34756,"Just debate all rounds, even the first one. We are killing a person! What if that person was innocent? There are many cases of innocents. It shows that there are 148 cases of this, and 4.1 percent are innocents! href="" target=""blank""> This is a lot of people! If we kill any of these innocent people, we cannot return them. We should rather but these people in jail, not killing them. This is because the death penalty costs a lot, look at this. ""Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million."" is a lot of money!!! We can just put them in jail, it saves a lot, and if they are innocent, we can take them out of jail, put we can't take them out of their grave!!! So death penalty should not be allowed!!!",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.5653526586897348,-0.6378563500592298,0.2545802482198294,144,False,-0.3667252066462351
14,4,32178,"I'm formally extending this invitation to SocialDemocrat after watching his debate with Queencop. It was a fun debate to spectate, and I would like a slice of the cake :) According to Merriam-Webster, death penalty is defined as ""execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense."" Today, 32 states, and even the Federal government uses death penalty. My stand: Death Penalty should be maintained as part of the US System of Justice SocialDemocrat's stand: The death penalty should be abolished My arguments will be that death penalty should be maintained, but limited to use for only the most atrocious crimes, and that the receiver should be ensured to be well-represented by a legal counsel. First Round is for acceptance, definitions and clarification only. Opposition may not bring up any new arguments in the last round, as I will not have any rounds left to rebut them. I'm looking forward to your acceptance :)",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.03394927775627028,-0.1606931653554842,-0.013983495989632905,163,False,-0.09040498377267803
14,2,17279,"Who said that death penalty do not reduce the crime It makes people think twice. Lets just say, for example, that a little boy gets murdered. The criminal gets away for about 7 years. The police find him and give him the death penalty and it kills him. If the death penalty stops, there will be non stop murder. See, if the death penalty is given to acid attackers then there would be less acid attacks in the city. And if u say that they should be kept in prison then it costs more to keep prisoners in prison. It is expensive to keep the hopeless people imprisoned and we not only provide the food and water, we also have to hire wardens and officers in advance, which also is connected to the usage of government taxes. Furthermore, citizens are afraid of ex prisoners that came out from prisons because they could do unexpected things. Citizens will live with anxiety. The death penalty would decreases the acid attack crimes. If the the criminal has a risk of death, they will think twice about what they are doing. Also if they go to prison they will be out within 30 years, which means they could repeat it again.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.00012419017154498768,-0.050107122800046984,1.3031259193644922,207,True,0.4957580040574193
14,4,7227,"FINAL ROUND I'm aware that I only acknowledged that your arguments were there, the important argument of yours hinges on whether or not Justin Bieber did the capital crime. My opponent does not really make any suggestion that JB is in fact NOT part of an assassination plot, so my argument still stands. As for Obama not hating JB, I have a video that suggests otherwise. In addition, Obama doesn't even have a single JB song on his iPad. [1] Thus it can be concluded he is definitely not a fan and at the very least does not like Justin. Locking JB in the stockades and allowing the public to paddle his Bieber buns: the biggest problem is those people who go too far. Do we really want to allow him to get castrated? Well, we stopped the murder plot, so this much is obvious--we don't want him castrated. The people might beat him up to death anyways in YYW's counter-plan, fulfilling my punishment of the death penalty. Moreover, there still remains the problem of the fans JB has. They'll probably revolt against the public and attempt to stop them, as well as talking about their minority rights. Although the majority rules, I think that if we put him in a more secretive area and only allowed haters inside, then JB will definitely be tortured enough and we will allow him to get the death penalty via the people who hate JB. IN CONCLUSION -Obama Hates Justin along with the majority of the public -JB deserves all his hate and punishment -The people will kill him in YYW's counter-plan anyways, fulfilling my punishment of the death penalty This was an interesting debate. Vote me. [1]",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.4126429092499873,-0.2087698787280993,-0.3615019395269369,285,True,-0.06442317105675473
14,15,105,"I agree for the simple fact that I am against the death penalty. I would prefer to see someone suffer in prison than put out of their misery by the death penalty. When one is left to live in prison, they should also not be allowed to watch TV, play video games or take classes like many prisoners are allowed to do. They should be left in room alone, with books to read and nothing more. They should eat, sleep, bathe, and everything in the same room. They should have to suffer while they are in prison and not be allowed to have any life luxuries. I am against the death penalty, so I would be for life in prison before I would agree with the death penalty.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7144674171390387,0.015359226657890974,0.4866264423303695,128,True,0.46458840838733423
14,4,12748,"The death penalty should not be allowed as you know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop people committing, killing is a crime.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.07948656300225529,0.006631447537895475,-0.4814031716108886,34,False,-0.15911881612752962
14,3,26902,"The question isn't when is the death penalty acceptable and when it is not, it is if the death penalty is preferable over life without parole. There is no chance that a prisoner can rehabilitate him or her self and be freed. They are put in jail for the rest of their lives with opportunity to better themselves in jail, but what is the purpose of that? That is our tax paying money to fund someone who has committed malicious crimes. Sometimes the death penalty isn't always the appropriate method, but if the suspect is of relative young age and the two options are ether the death penalty or life without parole the death penalty would be the better option fro society.",1.4300319121420288,True,1.0195401720847073,-0.7641260338833065,0.06816855797536259,122,True,0.14534931624437394
15,6,12138,"I think animal testing needs to be abolished. First of all, symptom between human and animal can be different. For example the pregnant who took'thalidomide' birthed deformed child. Also, there are 30,00 diseases that people suffer from, but from among those, only 1.16 percent of illnesses are showing the same symptom. Secondly, animal is an organism. Just for people's life, annually 5 hundred million animals die. Many of you guys will know about the Germany's Holocaust. I don't think there is difference about imperialism's Holocaust and animal testing. Finally, we can't say every animal testing is fair. There are 8,000 different natural ways to check the safety of cosmetics, but cosmetic companies are just doing animal testing because it's cheap and easy to do. I guess it's not fair to do animal abusing called ""ANIMAL TEST"".",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3845134697954918,-0.1607294090886746,0.6134867693295419,136,False,0.3193317087874289
14,1,22496,"should there be death penalties? yes I do partially believe there should be death penalties but only for horrible crimes. I believe that if there is a death penalty, the person should be killed by an injection, this is because of many reasons. 1) if we use a shocking chair, it uses up a lot of power. 2) it is less expensive. 3) it is a natural ay of dying instead of being shocked, starved, or what ever else they do to people, but back to the death penalties. if people do something horrible like kill multiple people then they should get one if there was no reason. But, if there was a good excuse i.e. if one feared his own life or the stand your ground law, then no death penalty should be sentenced, but if lied about or not good enough, one should be stated",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.39263910205844416,-1.0045161171809849,-0.7573365964177992,147,True,-0.8384142070692183
1,5,41551,"Closing Remarks Dropped Points There are many aspects of my argument that Con has failed to address. These points are therefore DROPPED and cannot be rebutted by con. I will enumerate those now. -My entire point A Argument: The current minimum wage does not account for inflation -My entire point B Argument: The current minimum wage (by historical standards) is quite low. -Con partially adresses Point C: He claims that raising the minimum wage will hurt small business owners. He does not adress my points, though, that raising the minimum wage will help the lower and middle classes. -Con cedes that the impact of raising the minimum wage is difficult to predict, and cannot be determined with much accuracy. Pro points out, though, that if the predictions of impact made by various econmists are graphed, then it can be seen that the vast majority and the median impact is negligable. -Point E is DROPPED as well: Raising the minimum wage will not likely increase the costs of food. Remember, DROPPED points CANNOT be rebutted in the final round, except with cross examination with previous arguments. Therefore, I forward these points. Con's Case The only real case that Con has made against the resolution is that raising the minimum wage could possibly maybe hurt the economy. His points are mostly speculation without much backing. Significant doubt is also cast over these arguments, as the pro has shown evidence to indicate that the negative impacts of raising the minimum wage are likely negligable. Summary Con does not provide a compelling argument against raising the minimum wage, and fails to address many of my points. Therefore, you must VOTE PRO!",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.023516904942006558,-0.05570153311710944,-0.17879322097662098,277,True,-0.1094677140837198
11,1,23533,"The right to getting proper care is a right, how efficient that right is another matter. Thus, people should have access to free health care, no insurance, just go to the clinic and get yourself patched up. Moreover, this also counts for accidents, and not getting broke after.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,48,True,-4.0
11,8,27961,"This is my body. I have the right to my body. If I do not want to be sick or injured, I do not have to. It is wrong to force people to suffer. Yes or no: Do people own their bodies? We are talking about free Health care here. not what ewer you own your body, so I advice you to look into The Health care System where you are.Nobody have to suffer in this World, but illness is something you your self can or not control, all depends of the serverness of it",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,95,False,-4.0
11,6,14510,"I accept the debate and I thank the opponent for picking such an interesting topic. I am actually on the fence about this issue. Perhaps this debate will allow me to learn enough to take a defined stance. For the purposes of this debate, I will argue against the resolution. My starting points shall be: Every human being ought to be good stewards of their own body, responsible for their own health and well-being. I argue that a Government is no more responsible for your health care, than it is for raising your children. To demand Government health care, would be shifting the burden of personal health accountability. Health care costs money. The only way to pay for health care is to maintain an employed work-force to contribute taxes for social programs like health care. That makes Government sponsored health care an oxymoron. If you are employed, you have access to company health care. The only people who who actually benefit from Government sponsored health care, are the unemployed. Private health care creates healthy competition between medical providers. It serves as an incentive for doctors to practice quality medicine. Social health care programs would eliminate competition and remove incentive for doctors to provide above-standard care. The patient would lose their person-hood and be regarded as a case number to be absolved, so that an annual health care audit would not flag the case. Social health care would create an assembly line ""rotating door"" system. (See military Tricare for active duty military personnel).",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6219146063532107,0.4656459573897245,1.2483682305938144,252,False,0.8984815295427876
11,133,34949,: People have a right to pay more for better health care,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,False,-4.0
11,5,33502,"""It's worth what you pay for it"" - hick proverb. Somehow people get the idea that we can have quality health care without paying doctors or that it's cheaper to pay for it with taxes than to pay for specific visits. If we were to tax everybody and give health care to people who were not paying taxes (poor people) we would be robbing healthy people and throwing their money away on people who don't benefit society.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.2549375420848152,-0.8084323372551615,-1.0745942602812937,77,False,-1.2201046276302177
13,36,12043,: Handguns should be banned due to their uniquely dangerous concealability,0.4916888247220394,True,-1.7851602009292642,-1.101106747200759,-1.4535664744044867,11,True,-1.681290588469557
13,5,22746,"In conclusion, the massacres at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and the 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook, illustrate that military style assault rifles and easily concealed handguns equipped with large capacity ammunition magazines are now the weapons of choice for mass shooters. These semiautomatic weapons are far more powerful and lethal than standard issue law enforcement service weapons. There had been more mass shootings of four or more people in the US than days in the year. The common denominator in almost every one is an assault rifle and high capacity ammunition magazine. The prevalence of mass shootings has people rightly wondering if they are safe sending their children to school or going to malls. An assault weapon ban would not end all gun violence in this country and it might not significantly reduce the average 90 Americans killed by guns each day. But it would help reduce the daily mass shootings. It might also help us begin living without the fear of being massacred in a public place. In conclusion, the banning of assault weapons and high capacity clips would do a lot to decrease gun violence in the United States. I do agree that some assault rifles should be allowed for civilian ownership but only for use for target shooting and/or hunting. But these would be pistols specifically made for target shooting, and hunting rifles. It is for the reasons that I have described above, and the reasons I will outline, that I as side pro believe that this resolution ""BIRT assault rifles should be banned,"" must and will stand and I would firmly encourage a vote in support of the resolution.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.384044911578232,1.2807725664077485,0.3366724152517636,277,True,1.1611401178562373
13,7,44315,"The act of 1994 actually did very little to stop any crime, as seen by the statistics: as it was concealed permits that lowered it, and that was before 1994. Hunting rifles will still, if shot in the head, will still kill some one as well, so it doesn't matter much. It doesn't matter whether or not 3 or 4 people die, it matters if one person plus another person plus another person dies. If you think about what happened in Paris, if one of the people who were in the line of fire, do you really believe that as many people would have died as the amount that did? Just to show how bad gun control is, Honduras is the murder capital of the world, and guns are banned there. Yet in Switzerland, one of the lowest gun rates in the world, guns are necessary for citizens. For the average citizen argument, it doesn't take that much training for anyone to take a pistol or a handgun and shoot someone else in the head, killing them. Back to the murder capital argument though, if you look at the crime rates compared to the amount of guns: it is in the favor of anti gun control. Why would Mexico and Honduras, where guns are flat out banned, would have such high gun rates, yet Switzerland the exact opposite if guns are banned?",0.4916888247220394,True,0.9631068070026794,0.5760755823399828,0.04878540201737847,232,False,0.6111147429710184
13,5,794,"Thanks, Pro. Pro asserts, to quote him: ""handguns like a barreta or M9 for example should be outlawed for private ownership uses due to the vast majority of the united states gun ownership is common and there is a high percentage of people misusing it or involved in a death or injury accident or incident."" Am I to take it that only Beretta handguns (M9 handguns are manufactured by Beretta) (1) should be banned from private hands, according to my opponent? If so, then surely Pro has already negated the statement in the title through his own argument. If Pro is not proposing a ban of just Beretta handguns, but handguns of other make besides Beretta, then which ones are ""like"" Beretta handguns? Perhaps more specification is needed. If my opponent is not making such a claim that only Beretta handguns should be banned from private ownership, and rather that all handguns should be banned from private ownership, well, why should that be so? Based on my interpretation of my opponent's argument, Pro has not yet given any evidence against private handgun ownership. Pro seems only to have thanked me for pointing out the need for specification, and indicated that he agrees he must present statistics that pertain solely to handguns. He has not seemed to actually make an argument against private handgun ownership. As no argument against handgun ownership has been given, I do not need to address an argument against private handgun ownership. Sources: 1.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3061882838175847,0.9818515885330944,-0.18259224795418247,247,False,0.429718792334509
15,1,17961,"Point 1: Cures and Treatments The California Biochemical Research Associates pronounced that almost every discovery in medicine within the last 100 years have been resulted from animal testing. For example the discovery of insulin was resulted from dogs getting their pancreases removed. Due to polio vaccines being tested on animals the world occurrence of polio reduced from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases by 2012. ""We wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis c without chimpanzees,"" stated the Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center""s animal research facility. There are lots of other animal testing labs that help find cures and treatment such as; stroke from clot retrieving devices, childhood blindness by finding a certain enzyme that are in humans in mice, radiation therapy on mice help treat cancer, and much more situations. Therefore if it weren't for the exposition of animal testing many people today would have diseases and conditions that are yet untreated for. Also considering that not a whole lot of animals are being tested on, only very few compared to their population number, few animal tests can fail, but after a few it will result in treating millions of humans and animals.",1.1172508830020322,True,2.9339549000149163,0.8907887614552324,0.620834392857975,199,True,1.7610222811590517
15,3,12138,"Animals are living things and react to things so if we test on them we will have an idea on how we will react. They are also good models because, you will see on the link you provided on your previous argument, mice are 98% similar to humans. And apes share 99% of there DNA with humans. The way animals in labs are treated is pretty unfourtanate. But we don't need to ban it, we just need to make stricter rules, such as to give the animals anesthesia when doing painful experiments, and they have to eat a decent amount. In reality, animals and humans aren't equal. They are weaker, and a death of an animal that would be dead anyway can't be more important then the death of a human. More animals die due to slaughter houses (99% of animal tests are caused by farmers, 1% is scientists. Also, animals will survive longer throughout the experiment. Humans are more likely to die before it's even half over. My source: Animal testing also improves human health, ensures safety of drugs, and scientists test animals because they are the closest thing they can find to humans: Testing humans would not be as successfull, humans would find a way to break out. Humans have thumbs, brains, and more, so they would find a method on getting out. (Ex: Bust the bars, savotage the security cameras, pick the locks.) and, no one would want to do it. Also, tell me who you'd rather risk: A. Rats B. Your family.",1.1172508830020322,True,2.2262089330222445,0.8288849220338622,1.2602171389199617,256,True,1.6742654592300772
1,10,41308,"Businesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace.[1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities.[2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery. [1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009 [2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000  ",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.9004783350239081,0.4972842488869009,0.18408520474999632,296,True,0.6057571229202334
13,4,794,"I accept the debate. I assume that, because my opponent has argued based on the statistics pertaining to gun homicide in the United States, my opponent means that private handgun ownership should be outlawed in the United States by the statement in the title. The argument pertains to handgun ownership prohibition. My opponent lists statistics pertaining to all guns, not just handguns (which were never specified). I assume this because as there is no specification in my opponent's statistics as to which type of gun is being referred to. I have to conclude that my opponent refers to all types of gun collectively through the use of his statistics. My opponent is arguing against handguns, according to his position and the title of this debate. For my opponent to make a case against handguns in particular, in terms of gun violence, he would have to show how prohibiting ownership of handguns by private individuals would achieve lesser rates and cases of gun violence. Why should I or any other person accept an anti-handgun position until a case is made against handguns in particular? My opponent's assertion that ""Private Handgun ownerships should be outlawed"" is not currently backed by any evidence pertaining to handguns in particular in this debate. Therefore, as my opponent has yet to prove the statement given in the title, I do not require evidence for my position on handguns. I can merely dismiss my opponent's claim because it lacks data pertaining solely to handguns.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.6928174509647544,0.4051637663846786,0.3726322843607093,247,False,0.559197702422236
13,2,3245,"Let's start with my opponent's arguments. My opponent's first point is the firearm purchases at gun shows require a background check. I do not see how to is relevant to banning handguns, as firearms not requiring background checks wasn't a point made to ban handguns. The problem is that handguns are used for crime, and gun shows aren't the problem. My opponent's second point is that gun shows have law enforcement presence, however, again, the problem with handguns are primarily used for crime, and gun shows aren't the problem. Next, again, is about background checks, which aren't the problem, it's crime. The fourth myth is not topical, it's not a reason not to ban handguns. Neither is the fifth myth. Or the sixth, since crime is the issue. The seventh myth isn't a reason to not ban handguns either. On to the eighth myth: just because people don't want to ban handguns, it doesn't mean we shouldn't. The majority of the people didn't want to end slavery, but with did because it was morally justified. The ninth myth says we should look to the Constitution, but there's an elastic clause within the Constitution, meaning the Constitution is not a justified moral system, so we shouldn't take action based upon it. And the tenth myth is not about handguns. On to my points. My opponent does not respond to any of them, meaning... My opponent concedes that banning handguns will reduce homicide and femicide. Limited handgun accessibility means less criminals, and a smaller illicit market. Banning handguns reduces crime. You should vote for banning handguns because my opponent concedes that I reduce homicide and femicide.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.7114591869950504,0.8823252750077951,0.8039341365300631,274,True,1.3112841457336635
11,16,33502,"When it come to how much money we spend of all things health care should be free!! People below the poverty line should also have the same rights as the 'higher class'. I say this because the people in the poverty line can not afford health care. So they get sick. And in turns get more sick because they don't get any help! The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs",1.4300319121420288,True,0.26557740140441205,0.04592490529920104,-0.3435379505300135,163,True,-0.018753434651859968
13,12,16132,"Aside from the fact that handguns are uniquely dangerous weapons, when the handgun ban was in place in DC, there was a reported decrease in crime in the area. In 1977 the year immediately following the ban the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen in DC sharply. Further, in 1991 the University of Maryland published a study in the New England journal of Medicine suggesting the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, claiming that the ban had prevented 47 deaths in DC per year.5 It is theorised that the handgun ban does this because it makes other police tactics, such as stop and search, significantly more effective. If criminals wish to get the tactical advantage of power that opposition mention then they have to carry hand guns in order to do it. However, it means that if they are caught with a gun they become very easily identifiable and can easily be arrested to prevent harm coming to the populace of large. Specifically, the handgun ban means that the police have a much lower burden required in order to arrest suspects and given that a lot of the time the police have a strong idea of who the criminals are, but simply can’t pin them for arrest, such a tactical advantage helps them get dangerous people off the street.  ",1.4300319121420288,True,1.3663220895977592,0.7832587560450059,0.7100254449578458,231,True,1.0991956688015514
13,1,14866,I am from Texas and i think it's a stupid idea to allow open carry. I'm even skeptical about concealed carry. State your reasons why youre for this and I will respond,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,32,True,-4.0
13,9,33106,"I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit. All sources here : Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern. ""According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department""s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time."" This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties. These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.8402065012050758,-0.5632732070433103,0.6931763830906799,147,False,0.3869499671687443
13,4,33106,"ANichols0063 forfeited this round. Con I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit. All sources here : Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern. ""According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department""s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time."" This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties. These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.2277224372109897,-0.4113852810863135,0.9992107809006516,152,True,0.15148360434677868
15,4,32569,"I accept, best of luck Pro! I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me. I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,53,False,-4.0
11,24,4806,"Statistics are often difficult, but not impossible, to correctly compare. However, if a country has 50 million people without health care, and you compare it to a country with universal health care, it's pretty easy to see the poorest people are better off with universal coverage, it's better to have some health care than none.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,55,False,-4.0
15,5,40055,"I don't mean to say anything bad, but humans are more important than animals. And if killing a few animals will help the human civilization, it is probably worth it. By the way, you never mentioned what type of animal testing you are talking about. There is a wide range of tests, and you did not clarify that. I love animals, but I can't think of any reason why banning animal testing would help our world. Animal testing helps us find out things that we never knew such as how animals act, and animal testing could help animals in the future. We could learn things during testing that will let us know if animals need to be treated in different ways, or if we need to help animals by doing something that we aren't.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.5853448592292305,-0.9026525029670264,0.057459399605381135,134,False,-0.5529846887825054
1,12,41308,"Without a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices.[1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition.[2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies. [1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000 [2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009  ",0.1789077955820434,True,0.5399906209539221,0.6487143856131443,0.4135030405750354,288,True,0.6093985276739596
1,5,33408,"First, lets consider what the minimum wage is intended to do. It is intended to prevent bussineses from ""exploiting"" workers. If we don't have it, workers will be paid next to nothing. This is simply not true. Very few workers even work the minimum wage, this is because the more they work, the more value they gain and there wages will rise. People have a choice of were to work, if they want a very low paying job, its because they feel its the best choice. Also, if bussinesses start paying people barely anything, people won't work there. Bussinesses will try to offer the best wages possible to compete for workers. They will also raise the wages of current workers or those workers will find higher paying jobs. The minimum wage harms people in areas where their is high enemployment and the ecomy is bad because bussinisses cant pay minimum wage. In areas of high enemployment people are desprete for work and will work for far less then the minimum wage. The minumum wage keeps them out of the workforce. If you don't have a skill that is worth the minumum wage you are also shut out of the economy, no one will pay you the minimum wage if you are an unskilled labor who isn't producing enough. It stops bussinisses from expanding and hiring others because they must pay minimum wage. In general it is governments attempt to fix what the free market does fine.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.023965468241324117,1.4052064259216148,0.3938962516489489,246,False,0.6953733085324638
1,2,21879,"I am in strong affirmation of the resolution, which states that the national minimum wage should be increased. I will now give my contentions. Contention 1: A $15/hour minimum wage won't result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it -- thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. In 1996, we raised the minimum wage, and businesses predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. (Robert Reich, Professor of Public policy, California University Berkeley) Contention 2: Working full time should produce enough money to support a family. In 1968, the minimum wage was high enough to keep a family of three out of poverty. In 1980, the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a family of two out of poverty. Today, the minimum wage leaves a working parent with one child in poverty. This is fundamentally wrong. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) Contention 3: By under-paying workers, corporations are shifting the real costs of doing business to the general public. According to a study released this October by the University of California and the University of Illinois, 52 percent of America's fast food workers receive assistance from public programs like food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Medicaid, thanks to their poverty-level wages. As a result, taxpayers are contributing $7 billion per year to pick up the cost of supporting these fast-food workers. These taxpayers are paying enormous amounts to support the impoverished employees of Wal-Mart and other giant companies. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.1412457925466737,0.3245137929586479,0.3917661007872458,298,True,0.7149971610614688
1,6,33408,"The two points of this debate are does no minimum wage allow for worker exploitation and does it hurt bussiness. As for worker exploitation, that means that countries with no minimum wages will have higher poverty rates.Germany is one of the only countries without a minimum wage. Their poverty rate is the exact same as ours. In fact, new Mexico and California have minimum wages higher then the rest of the country. The national average is 15%. Calafornai has a poverty rate of 18%. New Mexico's is 21%. The city of San franisico has a the highest minimum wage in the country and it has a poverty rate of 23%. So places with high minimum wages can also have high poverty rates. Not having a minimum wage lifts people out of poverty because it makes it easier to find a job. As for making it more expensive more bussinesess, that's comment sense. You can have less of something that cost more. Any one in us who produces less 7.25 an hour is unhireable. You will not make a profit. With no minimum wage you could pay a worker that produces 7 dollars an our 6 dollars and they could learn job skill and eventually earn a higher wage.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.3165656568416181,-0.09194953949300808,0.7104693101192877,208,False,0.11773466122759696
1,6,25711,"This subject has many opinions between different people, my opposition has brought up many points, some that I disagree. First, he believes that small businesses won't benefit from the minimum wage. But, as I researched more into this subject, I found out that most businesses do in-fact prefer the minimum wage. Because, giving more money to the people lower in the economy will let them be able to buy commercial goods again, meaning that money will now flow through businesses quicker and better then without the minimum wage, making this statement that my opposition told, a myth. Second, we should actually be raising the minimum wage instead. Since 1938, the US have raised the minimum wage an astounding 22 times through the years, and yet at the same time, they had their real GDP per capita raise as well! This is an example that we should acknowledge. Third, I have already talked about this subject, but it is such an important subject. How do we expect to get the economy going when people aren't paying for stuff. Not having a minimum wage means that people could pay less then the amount that is needed for money to go around. Minimum wage is also used to have a pay that will give a good amount of money and also encouraging them to use it on buying more stuff. Also making the money flow from the businesses to the people and back again to the businesses. This is why the minimum wage is top priority to any country, how do we expect a company or even a country to run without a good economy. This has been my end of the discussion, and would like to thank my opposition for this chance to argue for this side of the argument.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.012993254977271666,0.9396817967599098,0.8366039153250368,298,False,0.6810878015101312
1,17,41308,"The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation.[1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action. [1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000  ",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.8062701367514756,-0.14246589354629596,0.8341544453753191,236,False,0.5799859088473972
10,1,31991,This is for a devil's advocate tournament. I hope for a really fun debate - I'll try and offer something different from the usual boring old arguments that always seem to get presented for medical marijuana. This first round is for acceptance. I'll start my case in round two.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,49,True,-4.0
10,1,39470,The resolution: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Public Consumption. This means for non-medical use as well as medical. Marijuana (cannabis): Please use the first round to accept the terms. You have 72 hrs to argue after you accept the challenge.,-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.8568789949086758,0.9148493379479044,-0.3471318622896141,42,True,-0.089358421000969
17,16,22921,"The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. Recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, an easy target for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.8423897506973177,-0.6239063267077459,-1.5154777345537045,79,True,-0.4540147034549868
15,7,17961,94% of all drugs that passed in animal testing failed in human clinical trials. Over 100 stroke drugs did not work in humans. Therefore the tests do not provide accurate research. Over 85 HIV vaccines that passed non-human primates testing failed in humans. Along with the low predictability in the animal testing and research areas has allowed a direct comparison between mice and human beings. The data causes doubt about the predictability on human saftey which causes more doubt on the effectiveness of animal data testing. animal-testing.procon.org Round 1 sources: animal-testing.procon.org neavs.org/research/harm-suffering,1.1172508830020322,True,0.5635792491900015,0.15250663268371198,0.7610911030657581,92,False,0.5641382544139814
10,7,15859,"Oh ok I'm sorry I need to learn to read. Ok change of topic: Medical Marijuana. I'll take take con. The resolution is: resolved: Medical Marijuana cause more benefits Than harms to society. It's says you are pro med marijuana so I'll take con. For the record, I was trying to say it was a government organizations but of you want to say its Al Qaeda a 8 month CIA investigation Saying that there is no conclusive evidence to say that Al Qaeda did not do the attack on 9/11 and the clip of him saying he did wasn't actually translated properly. Plus, even if thy admitted to it, that doesn't mean they actually did it. This isn't important though switch to the newly proposed resolution...",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.11388640631398225,-0.8538482562151101,-1.2855569990729547,126,False,-0.8658685657060483
3,6,33283,"Daylight savings time actually helps the economy. According to Daylight Savings Time allows for more daylight hours which entice tourists to stay out later and spend more money. Since people stay out later during the summer months, it boost sales for taxi and public transportation. The same applies for tourists. They may experience losing track of time when they travel, but that only happens the day the clocks are changed. The following day everyone is all caught up with what time it is. As far as businesses are concerned, they cannot expect to lose that much money if they lose business for an hour. In fact the revenue they receive from the shoppers buying later than usual in the summer months completely outweigh whatever revenue they miss from that hour of confusion. Daylight savings actually helps boost our economy and help with business revenue. Conclusion: Daylight Savings time should not be banned.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.16336591952492371,0.6790488328350146,0.8590359951622695,152,False,0.5320079247948408
6,62,16223,"Wearing a uniform helps to prepare students for the world of work, where uniforms are often worn. People like nurses, soldiers, shop assistants, the police and railway staff wear uniform as part of their job. Many other workers are expected to wear suits - really just a grown up sort of uniform, with little choice about it. Just like these adults, students should dress in uniform when they are in school, getting on with work. After all, students and adults can both change into their own casual clothes at the end of the working day, when they are “off duty”.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.3547197779409894,0.6866290153098789,0.6987484140698925,100,False,0.40174649671830776
3,3,39328,"""The son dies on the cross"" - This means that the sun, in the northern hemisphere, stops moving south; and for 3 days it stays in the same position, then, the sun is reborn and starts moving back in the opposite direction. Thus, Jesus is a figurative version of the sun's movements. Note - All figurative representations of Jesus have a sun halo over his head. The celebration of Christmas, which is globally universal, occurs on the 25rd of December which is the exact date of the transition of the sun's movement. Easter is also a transition point. Easter marks the time when daylight wins the battle over night. The days are now longer than the night hours. Thus, Easter is a celebration of the sun's victory over night. The twelve disciples represents the zodiac of twelve symbols. The fish symbol of Jesus represents the age of Pisces. Pisces is the precession period of Jesus.",-2.323340437537928,True,0.2742862177259381,0.8308104257871323,-0.07318458816277887,155,True,0.3963432460487481
3,5,18997,"Roasting can be rather problematic, as although most of the time our troll brethern seems to prefer roasting their food whole, this decision almost always results in the food escaping and slaughtering every troll in sight. To avoid such a thing from a occurring, we can chop up the dwarves into bits and pieces, which would most certainly ensure that they are actually dead and not secretly planning their daring escape. Moreover, a good roast is always a slow roast, and a slow roast takes a lot of time, which will take us very close to daylight, something we cannot risk. If we mince the dwarves, the meat will cook much faster, and even if we should run late and petrify during the day, the meat will still be there because the dwarves will have no possibility of being alive. Dwarves are also known far and wide for their habituous drinking, and there result of this is high amounts of carbon dioxide inside the stoumach. If we should roast the dwarf whole, the gas will not be able to escape and the dwarf will eventually explode, which means no meat and a huge mess that will attract deadly scavengers and possibly other trolls that may come to steal our gold.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.3316534028914381,1.3861550728674503,0.5614278776780655,210,False,0.8814675584615395
3,1,21023,"Home work is an effective way to reinforce what has been taught in the classroom. According to what is known as ""the Learning Pyramid"" Lectures only give a child a 5% retention rate on what has been taught, demonstrations give a 30% rate. What is known as ""Practice by Doing"" has a 75% retention rate on what has been taught. It also helps parents keep track of what their child is learning... If a child were to not bring homework home, the parent would have no paper evidence of to what the child is doing in class as well as if the child were actually learning. Homework is also a way for teachers to check for understanding, tests are not effective because some people are ""bad test takers."" While my opponent brings up an interesting argument on staying fit and healthy, however with 12 hours in a day and 6 being spent on school there is a large amount of daylight for children to enjoy nature, as well as the fact that compared to other countries 6 hours a day for 5 days a week is pretty low... Some places have 6 days of school or even more. While homework is a time consuming venture, there is plenty of time for exercise in a 24 hour day, 12 hour sunlight period... So in conclusion, Homework is an effective way to reinforce what has been taught as well as a method of communication between parent and school. It is also a way for a teacher to check for understanding. Sources:",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.2635800428612963,-0.20012594550009552,2.107321771433845,259,True,0.8820863085666216
3,5,37492,"If you watch the below video from round 4 you will see that from the north pole you can see the sun rising and falling but not falling below the horizon for the entire summer. In the winter the sun can't be seen at all.The only way that is possible is if the earth is spinning. When the sun sets it doesn't get smaller and smaller to a vanishing point, it goes behind the Earth itself due to it being curved i.e. spherical. There are periods of 24 hours of daylight in the south pole too, but obviously not at the same time. The below video explains why the northern hemisphere is hotter",-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.4789152256129603,0.3630891643493137,0.24483936073207915,113,True,-0.30431196194357757
3,1,43692,"I""ll come in hard and fast on the debate right from the start.(lol) A werewolf lives a lifetime""a vampire lives (or unlives) forever. Mortality is off the table for the vampires which means centuries of fun (assuming one avoids the stake). Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can""t go out during the day. Big deal. You know who goes out in the daylight? People who need to work, that""s who. You know who goes out at night? People about to have a good time. So it is a very small trade off in my opinion. Living forever is just a lot longer than living a lifetime, so vamps 1 werewolves zero.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.6958506025811898,-0.1873276585312335,-1.4164439799104431,109,True,-0.8824757881641896
3,11,21719,"I’m going to answer this on a literal level. I once saw a British guidebook to the U.S. That called downtown Los Angles a guerrilla warfare zone, to be avoided at all times. What a joke? Yes, there are parts of the U.S. That are dangerous to be about in. I have been warned in Mexico City to not go to the zocalo (main plaza) in broad daylight, to never walk at night in Belize City, and that Cape Town is the most dangerous city in the world. As a single-woman traveler, I’ve walked about all three with equanimity. Granted there are truly dangerous places, but to walk in fear is to invite (or manifest) attack. Yes, America has way too many guns in the public’s hands, but there are overwhelmingly more decent than dangerous people here just going about their business -- even in downtown LA.",-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.4366707975615898,-0.9196815587237708,1.0593365865940458,147,False,-0.08333264301791736
3,3,293,Not enough hours of daylight during winter.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
15,4,36254,"I agree that in some cases people don't call the number and donate money, but that is not the only point of theses commercials the main point it to spread awareness. My beast friend adopted a dog from the humain society the other day because she knew that she was helping and animals because of all the sad and cute commercials she has seen. Many can even save a human life because of all of the commercials about the sad consequences of smoking. Normally people will not research the effect of things like smoking, animals being abused, and drunk driving, theses commercials teach people thing. That might save there lives. Why would you want to ban them if they benefit us so much? These commercials are the only commercials that should not be banned. How would you in force this ban? It would be impossible; what is considered sad music? Who will choose the adds that are allowed? What will be a sad commercial ? What will be the punishment for publishing such a commercial?",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.33818294140850064,-0.8893699491698133,0.4338046397116743,175,False,-0.034306328992211886
17,20,5236,"The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. To the contrary, recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, as easy targets for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.047283899072172716,0.9467589161474828,-0.3577237405493573,86,False,0.21683363943634015
3,20,33239,Teachers should be allowed to beat the living daylights out of the children in their care. It is the only way they are ever going to gain the kind of cringing respect they deserve!,-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.1918011864711853,-0.8984088360727638,-1.4749570220673416,34,True,-1.3836705994411056
3,3,27628,"There are always ways that vampires can survive. Who says that they have to only drink human blood? There is no reason why vampires can""t drink animal blood. I am pretty sure that animals are not all going to go extinct anytime soon. ""Yes vampires can drink from humans AND animals."" (1) Not being able to go out in the daylight outweighs that fact that you can choose who would like to spend your time with. I would much rather give that up then have to stay with people just because I am a werewolf. My argument for ""The best sex you""ll remember"" still stands because my opponent never addressed it. All my opponent would have to do is Google vampires and there would be a wide variety of attractive vampires to see. Are Vampires stronger than werewolves? ""Yes, Vampires are stronger because they have more chromosomes then Werewolves and also some Vampires are gifted with special abilities and werewolves are not."" (2) Further more vampires get stronger with age whereas werewolves are as strong as they get from the beginning and that never really changes. Moving around to avoid changing on a full moon has to get expensive and why would a werewolf want to do that for the rest of there life? I certainly wouldn't. (1) (2)",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.7765678542071315,0.9041776354808898,0.4544018066813898,219,True,0.8167071673177344
3,3,42491,"1. ""Our World?"" Does our world exist? We may think it does because we are in it, but that is assuming we exist. Our reality has yet to be proved by the CON. 2. Cyclic? That would require and infinite number of cycles, once again unprovable. 3. How do you know that we think? How do we know our thoughts aren't already written for us? Prove we don't walk into daylight, our actions and paths prewritten for us.",-2.323340437537928,True,-1.3803249818191785,-1.0327959114743628,-0.9952459895883023,78,True,-1.3247758199915687
3,1,23965,"Here is the scenario Batman ( in street clothes with no weapons, gadgets or armor) and Bruce Lee walk into a large vacant space (like a parking lot) in bright daylight from different directions and stand 10 feet apart, face to face. There are no foreign objects available and the fight goes until somebody taps out, or is beaten unconscious/dead. First round accept Second and third round debate fourth round conclude",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,71,True,-4.0
3,26,370,"I 100% agree with this. SHAC support animal rights. And i think more people should be aware of what happens in places like HLC where they test on animals. They are not just tested on, they are wrongfully mistreated, cut up, used and left to die - dogs, monkeys, rabbits etc used for their work, put through pain, misery, not ever getting the chance to see daylight stuffed in a cage a lone waiting to die after being used in a foul way for things such as perfumes disgusts me. Imagine yourself as one of those harmless animals. What they go through and the state they are left in is disturbing. Something needs to be done about this. It is not right. Nor is it in any way humane",-2.636121466677925,True,-0.17798444069742458,0.4345337805383437,0.7741563313760677,129,True,0.3968070305538506
3,3,32367,"The way you rap, you should never stand in booths I'll Show Col. Jessep that I can ""handle truth"" My battles get kind of gruesome son, they're so awful That my lyrics could be mistaken for a Poe novel You said I look like Al Capone homie, but why bother When I've been sonning you so bad you can call me the God-father If you ever diss me, you'll end up with a slit throat 'Cuz I write every lyric in pen on my Death Note So I'm Light Yagami, which makes you Rem as well Because in this battle, you'll be the one catching an ""L"" Shoot you in the face in broad daylight like I'm Dick Cheney Grab the wound, and pour bleach on your head like you were Slim Shady",-2.636121466677925,True,-1.7995923898087391,-0.3274405142737765,-0.491297881523282,133,True,-0.9940264164817636
3,1,19573,"There was enough evidence to at least take aspects of the case to trial. This is not a racial issue. This is not about political agenda's. This is about the simple fact a teenager was murdered in broad daylight. 15 witnesses say Brown had his hands in the air when the last shot was fired, 2 do not. Officer Wilson says he was in fear for his life ""It was like a 5 year old vs. Hulk Hogan"" but was not bleeding and did not have any visible facial injuries (besides a dime sized pink mark). This is not about personal opinion. I am not saying he was guilty of murder.. but there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. I find it hard to believe that there is anyone out there who thinks a cop can shoot at the back of a teenager as he runs away, kill him, and face no repercussions.",-3.2616835249579177,True,-0.6271076435010849,-0.3890342168861713,0.601668583743787,155,True,-0.15354856399878553
3,7,22444,"Paper, like the wood it comes from, has a warmth and a charm like nothing else but cloth. A book only needs daylight to read it, not electricity. On the other hand, try lugging 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of books around a college campus and see if you enjoy it. I would rather have carried a PDA or netbook with PDFs than hardcover textbooks. As well, electronic books are quickly searchable, unlike a printed book. Even if a book has an index, it may not list the word or topic you're looking for. For people with visual impairment, ebooks allow them to enlarge the text font so it's readable. That means and they don't have to buy expensive ""large print"" editions, and they can read any book, not just the limited selections of ""large print"" books. And for the blind, ebooks can be read aloud by computer software, meaning they don't have to depend on CDs or tapes of books being read out. Paper is better, but both have value in the right circumstances. .",-2.010559408397932,True,0.0925702610698586,0.14132290757334154,1.7445034781872824,175,True,0.7861956154550103
3,2,18302,"Thank you for accepting this debate. You should know that earth based solar panels are not the only method of solar energy. There have been designs for a bell shaped satellite that is completely made of solar panels in geosynchronous orbit. This satellite can be adjusted so that it is in sunlight for all but 44 hours each year (Either Nat Geo magazine or Scientific American). The energy that it sends to Earth is at a constant stream in the desert somewhere and is no more intense than the midday sun as to not damage anybody's eyes. Places like Antarctica are legitimate concerns, but how often is there a person there? When one region of the world is in daylight, it sends excess energy to places in darkness so there is no waste. If there is still enough energy to make a difference in how much is needed for the next day, this energy can be sold from the country that collected it to relieve deficits. Energy can also be used to repair the solar panels and steer clear of other dust and debris. I know a guy who has a model car that drives itself using gears. When the car gets a push, it uses a process that involves redundant gears to reporter itself. This is the same concept.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.16247350657596876,0.4214410718577256,1.8308117334194958,220,True,0.8351094549730557
15,4,37638,"Animal testing should not be banned. The use of animal testing is the only reason that we as humans have been able to make so many medical breakthroughs. We have horses to thank for the tetanus shot, and rats, mice, and monkeys for the polio vaccine. Rats are also to thank for one of the most effective breast cancer treatments in use today. Humans are the most advanced species on the planet; we are superior to all of the other animals, which is also taught in Christianity. If we cannot test on animals, then we must test on humans. However, that makes no sense at all, for human lives are more important than animal lives. Testing humans on their deathbeds would not work, because their body is not in an acceptable state for testing. Therefore, our only option is to test medicinal drugs and other products on animals.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.0425731079791634,-0.8149100499382286,0.7928231299166318,148,False,0.02281328403474984
3,2,36302,"A rated R film requires a parent or guardian to be present with anyone under the age of 17 in the theater. A rated NC-17 film does not allow any one under the age of 17 in the theater. To say this movie should be rated NC-17, you are asserting that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it. Who are you to make that decision? Who is anyone that is not the parent of the child in question to make that decision? The decision should be left to the parents, thus this movie, and all other movies should not be rated NC-17. This is about semantics, not emotion. Fresh has many things that make it an NC-17. It's not so much the violence itself. Clockers, Silence of the Lambs, GoodFellas all have R-rated violence, but it's more because it's nothing we haven't seen before. Fresh has one very vicious slaying that happens because a kid beats a punk at basketball, so the guy shoots him in broad daylight. That is not a normal thing. But yet again, it's jealousy, which is worse than revenge. The boy did nothing to this guy to deserve that. Another thing that makes this movie NC-17 is the nature of the drug dealings. It's very graphic, but it also involves a young 12-year-old caught up in this problem. It's not an 18-year-old or even a 17-year-old. Fresh is very similar to Kids, minus all the sex (this movie has sex but not as much, it's very brief). Fresh is not an R movie, but an NC-17 one.",-2.636121466677925,True,0.5087215823674518,0.5685496821604985,1.5769012967802931,268,True,1.0280521184796387
17,1,17595,"I feel that the police officer was out of line in the way he treated the young African-American teenage girl in the video. It was clear that the girl did not have a weapon, she was dressed in a bikini bathing suit, and appeared distressed. I could not hear the conversation well from the video, but the body language and what I saw was an example, I feel, of police using excess force to subdue the crowd. I also saw the same policeman, a Caucasian, brandish his gun and point it at some other teens in the crowd.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.04375774126852802,0.05150389412974685,-0.01984747552198119,98,True,0.019135066553384022
3,4,23946,"If I buy that all airplanes circle East to move West etc., does that mean that 1) all forms of transportation do this (boats, cars etc.)? 2) Do the people operating these things have a secret cult that knows the Earth is flat and I don't hear about it? Do all pilots have a training session when they become pilots that says ""hey, we just circle in the air."" Also, time and distance refute this principle. Lets say the ends of the Earth were the Mississipi River. Cut the globe there and lay it flat. Why does it take me an hour to fly from Chicago to St. Louis instead of it taking me 25 hours to fly all the way to the other side of the world? You have this problem no matter where the ends of the earth. Why do satelites and astronauts orbit the spherical earth? I could, if I had the money, go travel in 360 degrees around the Earth. This makes it spherical. Due to new technological advances the way we experience the world is sheprical. We arent required to rely soley on stoires and pictures. We have the ability to experience the entirity of the world as a shperical nature. As far as the sun orbiting the Earth, this would defy the seasons and changes in daylight duration we experience. Basically, even if all of our science is somehow flawed, all of our EXPERIENCES indicate the spherical nature of the Earth. I could sit here and cite you hundreds of years of science which would also support this claim, but simply, I can just experience the world as a sphere. I realize I haven't covered all the bases here, but I'm looking forward to your response. thanks",-2.323340437537928,True,0.8899733189880851,0.7755254338245802,2.3525949425502084,293,False,1.5684856867814083
3,3,21425,"Firstly I""d like to say that its good people your age are entering discussions and thinking about these difficult topics. If we don""t think about them we only can have the views fed to us by the media and our parents. Now, to my response. You stated that ""killing a human is wrong because they have feelings and interests but a fetus does not"". Also you stated ""If you are still in the womb, then I think abortion is ok!"" These claims I believe are contradictory because just because you pop out of the womb does not suddenly mean you now have interests. Either your second point is correct, in which case the consequence is that some newborns do not have feelings and interests. Or your first point is wrong and fetuses do have feelings and interests. What about premature babies (I am one)? Do they not have feelings and interests because they are born too early? Or do they suddenly get interests when they first see daylight? ""What is really the difference between 8 weeks? A fetus is still growing, and it is not yet fully developed. Same with twenty weeks. So, why should they cut eight weeks?"" I think we need to cut 8 weeks because the 28 is not the morally relevant dividing line. If done on interests then I believe that 20 and certainly 24 should be the dividing line as then they have interests as they can feel pleasure and pain. You are not suggesting when fetuses feel pain they do not have an interest for the pain to stop? Thats my response. What are your thoughts?",-2.010559408397932,True,0.06364920677425566,-0.19515046252926047,1.2572715551285456,272,True,0.44716531124353914
3,6,23397,"First, you have significantly altered the debate with your statement that you are ""referring to terminally ill patients that doctors say will be dead in a couple months or so."" That was not mentioned in your opening statement. However, I believe that all of my arguments still stand because it is not impossible for a cure to be discovered in that couple of months, or for the disease to go into remission, or even for a miracle to happen (even if you don't believe in God, quantum uncertainty and the laws of probabilities make it possible). I disagree with your statement that a contract and further tests would ""bypass the doctors' ethical obligations."" If physician assisted suicide was legalized, it would solve the LEGAL problems, but it would do nothing for the ethical issues. I still hold that a doctor knowingly allowing a person to kill themselves is a breach of ethics under nearly any circumstances. (there are exceptions such as warfare, but none that are relevant to this debate). In completely agreeing with my second argument, are you also agreeing to the part that says ""The desire to commit suicide could actually be considered a mental disorder in and of itself, as it displays a violation of the survival instinct."" ? Augustine's point stands regardless of actual innocence. It is just as illegal for me to walk up and shoot a terrorist in broad daylight as it is for me to do the same to a child. This argument is based more in philosophy than in enforcement. Obviously, I am not arguing that there should be a penalty for committing suicide, but rather that it is wrong to do so. It is therefore wrong to help someone do so.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.9930893422420519,0.2132252294636144,1.4531766576095668,290,False,1.0312625724769797
3,5,36409,"Impressionism and Impressionist poetry are not the same thing. Impressionist poetry is a subjective style of writing that displays the reaction of the poet to what they are describing, not just listing the colors and lights off. ""here is my proof so tell us why it is not impressionistic-based upon your example of impressionist poetry"" This is not an example of impressionist poetry, so using it as a standard to compare to itself does not validate it. Your argument is circular logic. I think this is X because X. There has to be a Y or a Z to prove it, and so you still have not submitted evidence. Here is some Impressionist Poetry, from a coincidental Irish Geraldine Shadian; Scenes of the Seasons Spring has arrived the trees are green Sprinkled with tiny blossoms of life anew The gossamer of dewy sheen The flora's offspring in colorful hue Summer brings heat and light The flowers on the saplings bloom The hot winds blow through day and night Floral fragrances fill the room Autumn appears with clouds and rain Trees are clothed in a fiery gown The days get shorter as daylight wanes Oak's golden tresses come tumbling down Lastly frigid Winter makes its presence felt The leaves are gone, the branches crack Snow covers all boughs in a pure white pelt Seasons follow seasons right on track Awaiting your response, Duncan.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.2216438685753154,0.5298519217967875,1.2647381456182811,232,False,0.7792234216885283
3,2,28667,"Winter is the #1 cause of the flu. The flu is a major killer of vulnerable people. Ages from 65 and older have a higher death rate by the flu And with other long term health conditions, Including diabetes, and kidney disease, are at high risk. In winter you are at risk of the cold, sore throat, asthma, norovirus, painful joints, cold sores, heart attacks, cold hands and dry skin. There is also a very good chance of getting frostbite. Frostbite is when your tissue(usually skin) gets frozen and reduces the flow of blood. The tissue also changes color. children, elderly people, and people with circulatory problems are at a higher risk of getting frostbite. Frostbite most likley will effect parts of the body away from the core. It most likely effects the ears, nose,fingers, hands, feet, and toes. There is a higher chance of getting sick, frostbite, and even death in winter. Winter is also a cause of depression. During the holidays you use up more money and it makes you worry more about it. Soon your bills will be coming in and you will have to spend even more money. The sun setting earlier and less light makes you have a sad feeling. The cold temperature makes you curl up and to remain lazy. In summer you don't need to worry about curling up or spending a lot of money. There is also more daylight so you can be outside running around and having fun.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.20406007922484645,0.7058686101505822,2.336573688058187,247,True,1.2873562400064769
3,2,36977,"your choice of lyrics closely mimics mine guess that means that I can write a rhyme Bout to show you the light make you go blind make a brother stumble in a way you can't find since you talked about Moses, let me give you a history of Israel you lack the feel of ancient steel so let me show you that it's real see back in the day, people couldn't write from the bottom of their hearts, they memorized till they got it right like what I'm doing right now, killin you in broad daylight to the dead of night life and death is in the power of the tongue, so I say this battle I've already won I'm not divine, but I'm your personal father rebuking his own stubborn son the wicked lady a snarefor the righteous so come take it from the hands of your waitress I aint God, but I know your flow doesn't exist because I move it like the ocean and it doesn't resist so we going back to the main creation you should have never mentioned my nation as if you are going to receive any salvation deep down inside, you act like a freemason like Moses, I shall smite you with vengeance then you will know what it means to beg for repentance I'll steal the life of your first born, make your head shorn have your ligaments torn and make you blood sworn But we both know i must follow the good rabbi that's why I can't leave you dead exposed in a drive-by I show compassion on you, next you're going bye bye",-2.323340437537928,True,0.26730473665324245,-0.09242232337214228,0.9433638402581112,273,True,0.4322266518925632
3,4,1817,"If Batman and Spider-Man were to fight, Spider-Man would beat the living daylights out of Batman. First, Spider-Man has superhuman abilities. Batman is an Olympic level human in terms of physical attributes. Clearly, Spider-Man is superior in this regard. Second, Spider-Man has the advantage in terms of intellect. Whereas Batman abuses his billions of dollars to buy fancy gadgets, Spider-Man actually creates his sophisticated devices (while using an extremely limited amount of resources) whenever he needs them. He is also well known for coming up with advanced battle strategies on the spot. In fact, due to his intelligence, Spider-Man was able to defeat the villain known as Fire Lord (a villain almost as powerful as Silver Surfer) in Amazing Spider-Man issues 269-270 without needing a rematch. Third, although Batman knows plenty of martial arts, Spider-Man has managed to develop his own unique fighting style that even Captain America (who is regarded as the best martial artist in the Marvel Universe)(someone who Batman thought of as being superior during both comic book crossovers) cannot help but praise. Fourth, Spider-Man has his spider sense, so Batman won't be able to count on surprising Spider-Man. Taking these four points into account, our favorite web head would mop the floor with the Dark Knight any day of the week. Some of these points may need elaboration. I now stand ready for my opponent's case.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.32914755448012445,1.0783000645583003,0.7242750527200937,230,False,0.8185113183841686
3,4,24320,"before I begin I would like to state I'm in primary OC and wish to test my skills against someone older than me please ignore grammatical errors anyway An animal is a living thing. we humans are animals too. the topic of discussion is animals should be kept in captivity as the negative side I am undoubtedly sure that animals should not be cruelly kept in captivity. it is utterly in humane and they are often violently whipped and shocked with weapons. they r forced to unnaturally do acts and are often starved for weeks on end to perform tricks for our enjoyment. they are not cared for properly and are often fed scraps. behind the scenes shocking deeds are happening. would you enjoy something at the cost of another being? they definitely shouldn't be kept in zoos Further more it is dangerous as the natural instincts will be curbed and may kill or attack humans. there have been many death concerning this matter where the victim is mutilated in the act of the animal's rage of being kept in captivity. although breeding programs have been organised to try to lift the animal population, when they are again released into the wild they will have no knowledge of how to hunt and survive. sorry but I can't think of any more arguments for now someone please debate against me",-2.636121466677925,True,-0.6985502188925268,-0.3081449925116553,0.6691933585379564,229,False,-0.12105947881075264
13,3,14866,"Saying the open carry is a stupid idea does not negate the 2nd amendment. Nor does concealed carry negate the 2nd amendment. Let's look at the difference: 2nd amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Open carry: the practice of openly carrying a firearm on one's person in public. concealed carry: the practice of carrying a concealed firearm on one's person in public. As you can see, the 2nd amendment, requires neither open, nor concealed carry. My opponent is tasked with explaining, just how open carry is, as he put it, a right, given the above definitions. Simply Citing the 2nd amendment as a reason to support open carry, shows a complete ineptitude of the second amendment itsself 1. 2. 3.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.04785637484566012,-0.7709401561727667,-0.07476990053968555,142,True,-0.31053832989593233
11,6,28902,"A government run health care system would lead to the lowest common denominator: The government would determine the cheapest way to provide all the services the people demand. Meaning: 1) innovations would be stymied in favor of cheap alternatives- no new drugs (why bother, the government will demand a sub-market price), no new equipment (why bother, the government will establish price controls), no new techniques (why bother, the government has a handbook of approved techniques from 1997); 2) doctors would be encouraged to use their time ""efficiently"", seeing as many patients in an 8-hour day as Congress shall mandate, meaning the doctor is more likely to treat problems than promote wellness; 3) government would ration health care to people because those people would have no incentive to ration their own health care because ""someone else is paying; (see examples in Canada, UK, Australia, Sweden...) 4) your right to sue for malpractice will be greatly restricted because the government doesn't want to pay more than it already has to. I'll stop at four.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.08516615388237024,1.1686869870383023,0.6920015787298739,172,True,0.7523384729075778
6,62,17885,"I'm for school uniform! One of the advantage is equality between students, to avoid teasing and violence which kids experience in schools due to social status. Also it's convenient for kids and their parents as they don't need to think what to wear because of limited amount of choice available. A school uniform makes it easier for the school authorities to recognize students belonging to their school. Authorities find it easy to reveal any outsiders. In addition, wearing a uniform students can find another way to showcase their creativity.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.104360303021631,-1.2271619543491863,-0.4545821493171371,89,True,-1.0790170016905378
2,2,14667,"""The government already receives enough income from other taxes, and income tax seems unfair to those who already make little money."" That is a personal opinion. Obviously, given the massive deficit, the government is not making enough money even with the income tax, let alone without it. And since the income tax is prorated, those that don't make much money at all, don't even pay an income tax. Thanks to deductions for children and the EITC, a family of four making $30,000 a year is likely not going to pay any income taxes to the feds. [1] I feel the need to correct my opponent. Our first federal income tax was signed into law in 1861, and modified (into a progressive income tax) in 1862. This tax expired in 1866. [2] ""And be it further enacted, that the duties on incomes herein imposed shall be due and payable on or before the thirtieth day of June, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and in each year thereafter until and including the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six and no longer."" It wasn't until 1894 that the income tax was revisited and applied as a peacetime tax via the revenue act. [3] So your claim that they lied to us is false. They correctly said that the income tax would end after the war (which it did) and it was a different government over 30 years later that brought it back on new terms. That refutes all arguments posted so far. Thank you, [1] [2] [3]",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.982286423867162,0.9860785429253288,1.4653910850474623,255,True,1.3191094112012058
17,8,8201,"Sorry for taking so long! Been crazy busy! I do agree with it helping save lives, Rich. But I still see the cameras as more of a hazard to us then helping us. I think it definitley makes people act more moronic because of the cameras. I do see what you're saying about people knowing where the cameras are, but call me old fashioned- I would still rather have an actual human tell me that I am doing something wrong versus a camera snapping a picture! To me, I think we would be better off as a community if the streets were patrolled more. Maybe- instead of making jobs for people to sit behind desks and monitor the cameras, we can have police officers more frequently patrolling the area. I do, though, see the positives to having the cameras in place. I just think that it becomes mroe hazardous to us because now- everytime someone goes under a yellow light, they are cringing because they don't know if they are being put on candid camera! It becomes a sticky situation with me now because I can see both sides of the argument, however, I still see it as a money making scheme for the government's benefit and a hazard to us. Take it away, Rich.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.4662921710498776,0.17050081380450371,0.0505623071522206,215,False,-0.10033236496785555
2,2,12422,"What is more basic and understandable, human language or mathematical language. Your answer will determine how you vote in this debate. The hypothesis of the possibility of parallel universes is based on the idea that the universe contains everything. And all that has happened is happening and will happen. In short there is only one universe. The hypothesis of parallel universes (HPU) suggests that each of us lives in a separate universe unto themselves and that there are copies of your self thought the universe also living in separate universes unto themselves. The hypothesis of parallel universes is about perception not dimension. Unless you want to call perception a dimension You will never see a copy of yourself in this universe other than to imagine it. You will never see a copy of yourself in another parallel universe because you will never be in another universe unless you imagine it. (HPU) requires the rejection of reality in order for it to be considered. (HPU) is born from the unpredictability and inability to explain aspects of quantum mechanics. How particles react at the subatomic level. (HPU) is based on a quantum mechanics level not a ""people"" level so to speak. You will only know one universe and you will perceive it the same way everyone else will. We will avoid semantics here. If I see the gulf of Mexico you see the gulf of Mexico and you and I will never occupy the same space. Unlike what has been observed in quantum mechanics. There is only one universe unless you want to imagine there are more. But you will never see them or enter them. There are no parallel universes",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.8486677283307466,1.1438004943507882,1.350819158117907,279,True,1.2836984955914634
2,4,9916,"Let's do this. You assume the burden of proof by making the positive claim. I know that you have a powerful rebuttal waiting even though your first round makes it appear as though you don't. You'll just appeal to logical possibility. I'd like to make this debate somewhat interesting rather than an automatic bait win (lol). There's an important stipulation in the resolution: ""Video games can *actually* be beneficial"" Actually: ""1. as the truth or facts of a situation; really."" -adverb My contention is that nothing can *actually* be beneficial unless mankind has an objective purpose. If human beings have no objective purpose, video games cannot *actually* be beneficial because whatever is beneficial would be entirely subjective and not representative of true or factual benefit. If I wanted to die early it would be beneficial for me to do things that harm my health. The burden of proof rests on opponent so he must show that objective purpose for the human race is logically possible in order to show that video games can *actually* be beneficial. I will argue that objective purpose for the human race is logically impossible and therefore videogames *cannot* actually be beneficial.",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.06631877182004364,0.10827635552999758,0.3825280712496715,196,False,0.20628312743599733
2,6,7075,"Pro is missing the point. If it is considered income in the US, that doesn't make it considered as income in other countries. Therefor taxes can be evaded easily. PROPERTY IS NOT CONSIDERED CURRENCY BY THE IRS. Pro misunderstands my statements. Bitcoin is not affiliated with the United States or the IRS, so it should not be taxed as income. IRS does not tax any other currency than USD. Bitcoin is decentralized and therefor, should not be considered income. They are still unemployed even if they do mine bitcoin. Bitcoin mining is not considered a job/profession. c-1. IRS Virtual Currency Guidance : Virtual Currency Is Treated as Property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes; General Rules for Property Transactions Apply.[1] READ THE ONE BELOW c-2. Bitcoin is not in any affiliation with the US government or the IRS, so it should not be considered income to mine it. READ THIS ONE OMG READ THE NEXT ONE TOO c-3. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Taxing bitcoin would be near impossible. It would also apply only to the US in this debate, so someone could take a vacation to Japan and mine bitcoin without taxation. If you mean only considered s income and not taxing bitcoin mining, then other countries do not have to consider bitcoin mining as income, because the IRS only affects the US. READ THIS ONE OMG a-II. As I have said, if someone mines the bitcoin outside of the country, then this does not apply to them, the other countr(y/ies)'(s) income decision applies. This doesn't mean that the person has to leave the country, it just means the device used to mine the bitcoin does. a-II. Bitcoin mining/transactions are untraceable and would cause more trouble than not to try to trace someone's mining to find their identity. [1]",-1.6977783792579355,True,1.319214138783416,1.8029774263280287,0.6140299558086127,299,False,1.4455539009754588
2,30,1151,"Income taxes are progressive and sales taxes aren't. In Canada, studies have shown that the richest 1 per cent of income earners pay 33 per cent of the tax. In fact, the richest 5 per cent pay well over 50 per cent. This is the same in the United States. ( As a proportion of their income, low income earners spend more money on consumption than the rich. With a flat consumption tax, the poor pay a bigger proportion of their income in taxes. This makes it regressive and unfair. The rich pay more than their fair share in income taxes. You eliminate the income tax system, it effectively eliminates the ability of governments to redistribute wealth (which is one of its main responsibilities).",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.2640671185290544,0.8604486045304869,1.0005320986638533,124,False,1.1986464388141722
2,10,4864,"Rebuttal Since the debate is about whether junk food is beneficial to you NOT whether junk food is mostly beneficial to you, I only need to prove completely that in one case junk food is not beneficial to you. Junk food might be partly beneficial to you ie. the taste (the reason why you eat junk food), but it does pose as health risk, that even you have partly agreed on. A small junk food meal can easily grow into a big one; no one is immune. So this is a slight risk, and this leads to the statement that ""junk food is not beneficial"". ""My perceived risk for getting cancer or heart disease is extremely low."" Extremely low is not impossible. ""Chicken McNuggets are just one type of junk food (that I have never had) and not representative of junk food as a whole; my opponent only asserts that a lot of junk food contains artificial things. Even if he showed this to be representative of what I eat, this is the same argument I already refuted."" This is an article on other common artificial things. Conclusion Junk food is NOT beneficial to you in one way or another as all the health risks described are possible to ANYONE even very healthy people. Muscle stiffness, cancer, heart disease etc. are all POSSIBLE to ANYONE. Even in little doses, the artificial things found in junk food can easily pose health risks. Thank you.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.09016934220953207,0.5877491523972753,1.0924903412441471,243,False,0.6830265184490711
6,48,17885,I'm for uniforms due to the fact that a test was run in a school. They made some students wear uniforms for 2 days and other students wear regular clothes for 2 days too and there was increased work effectiveness with the students who were wearing uniforms then the ones that weren't.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,52,True,-4.0
2,12,33586,"Any system which attempts to promote equality by giving low income people money will necessarily create a disincentive to work. The negative income tax reduces that disincentive because there is a reward to work on the margins. Suppose that the negative tax rate is 40%; for every dollar that a low income person earns within the negative tax bracket they will take home 60c (the remaining 40c is deducted from the supplementary income payment, as the 'No' argument correctly identifies). Under a system with an unemployment benefit however the incentives are far worse; as the benefit is removed or substantially reduced if any work is taken up. This means that in order for the incentive to take a job to exist the incomes have to be substantially higher than the unemployment benefit (i.e. you actually LOSE money if you take up a part time job); which is unlikely as the vast majority of people on the unemployment benefit lack the skills to earn high incomes.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.9890204103137952,0.9569294347284828,0.33471446012911,165,True,0.8758676137216402
11,9,40747,"Health have already become society needs. The increasing of medicine price have make a lot of people really worried. In this case we're not just talking about people that have enough money that can provide their needs, the main problem right now is the poor people . Poverty and healthy standart are two important thing that effect a country, to change the status of a country from least development to development and to developing country. So in this case we can see that poverty and healthy have a very big role in a country. If this poor people can't provide their needs because the price of the health care it self, we can make sure that country will have a low standart of healthy because that country can't guaranteed the needs of the people, and if this poor people can't get free health care which is mean they can't recover from the disease, and imagine if it happens in least developing country that have 75% of poor people.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6598043171394206,0.3990112657698252,0.7395564712586351,168,True,0.6858264586702901
2,40,34518,"A tax on the value of land is extremely progressive but does not suffer the drawbacks of high income tax. Because land can not be hidden a tax on it can not be evaded. Because land is fixed in place it can not leave the country to base itself in a low-tax nation the way money and people can. Because the tax is paid out of Rental income rather than Capital or Labor income (I use these 3 terms as Adam Smith did) it does not discourage work or investment (the ""Laffer curve"" issue). Land tax also has firmer ethical foundations than income tax, eg: Land rents can only be collected by individuals because the state records and enforces land titles. Land values go up with population growth and government expenditure on infrastructure such as roads, not anything to do with the efforts of the landlord (which are capital improvements, not extra Land). Ownership of goods is founded on the idea that a thing belongs initially to its maker and may then be traded freely, but Land was not made by anyone. Many philosophers and economists have said the same: Locke, Paine, and Mill for a start. Since a land tax can achieve all that a high income tax can without the negative effects, a high income tax can not be the best option.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.8167691438399166,0.7682163549144946,1.1600864744687314,224,True,1.052003965297889
2,5,571,"This is a part of famousdebater's tournament. The resolution is ""The United States Federal Government should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax."" -Pro argues that the United States Federal Government should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax -Con argues that the United States Federal Government should not replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax Rules... Round 1: -Con gives definitions and sets up debate -Pro provides opening argument Round 2: -Con gives opening argument and refutes Pro's Case -Pro refutes Con's Case (feel free to address rebuttals as well) Round 3: -Con responds to what Pro argued -Pro responds to what Con argued Round 4: -Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote. Definitions: United States Federal Government (USFG)-Government established by the Constitution of the United States ( Should-""used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions"" ( Welfare-""Welfare is a government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves"" ( Negative Income Tax-""a system of income subsidy through which persons having less than a certain annual income receive money from the government rather than pay taxes to it"" (",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.6477922040053539,-0.4889645722688927,0.0383429224243164,201,False,0.07852496162741315
6,5,32278,"Since a private school is not controlled specifically by the government, they are free from a lot of standards and tests. Schools should choose what kind of environment t they want to create for their students. Not all private schools should have a uniform. Some can, but that's not my point. When wearing a uniform, it not only takes away a lot of creativity, but bullies can't tell you your clothes look stupid, so they'll focus on things you can't change, like your face. Dint get me wrong, uniforms can do good to prevent students from breaking the dress code, but they can cause a lot of stress as well.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.6971670995821778,-0.6499952812483699,-0.572361354856116,110,False,-0.7514227272209287
17,4,18095,"There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled ""Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy"", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?",0.1789077955820434,True,0.9058673978475384,1.3884579254972371,0.7574742306372411,155,False,1.1726966038311026
2,6,1039,"I accept. Before we proceed to the debate, I must clarify a few things, begining with the defining of terms. Spank (v): to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., especially on the buttocks. [1] Smack (v): to strike sharply, especially with the open hand or a flat object. [2] Is (v): to be. [3] Beneficial (adj): conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful [4] Harmful (adj): causing or capable of causing harm; injurious: a harmful idea; a harmful habit. [5] Pro's resolution: ""Spanking/smacking children FOR disciplinary reasons is more beneficial to them than it is harmful."" *The term ""is"" is absolute and unchanging. Therefore, due to the nature of the word ""is"", Pro is implying and suggesting that smacking children for disciplinary reasons is ALWAYS more beneficial to them than it is harmful. *Therefore, my job in this debate is to argue that it is either equally beneficial than it is harmful or that it is less beneficial to them than it is harmful. Sources: 1. style=""text-decoration: underline;""> 2. style=""text-decoration: underline;""> 3. style=""text-decoration: underline;""> 4. style=""text-decoration: underline;""> 5. style=""text-decoration: underline;""> Over to Pro.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,187,False,-4.0
2,19,1151,"People will always seek to avoid paying tax whether it is a tax on income or on sales. Besides, we can’t abolish tax just because some people don’t pay it. Instead we should look at cracking down on the loopholes, seeking greater punishment for lawbreakers, and giving support and encouragement for those who do pay their taxes. In the case of Spain, till today both employers and employees and especially the real estate business tend to declare wages and house prices cheaper than what they are worth. They do so to evade taxes, although not completely. The additional money in the transaction is therefore free of tax, typically called money under the table, or B money. Interestingly enough, this has given the Spanish people that bit of extra money to spend. Taking the multiplier effect into consideration, even if this form of tax evasion is illegal, it may be claimed that it had a beneficial effect on the market.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.8526509739155619,1.7624222964924008,0.2892432566691583,159,False,0.516811775199313
2,3,12567,"Con writes ""My opponent claims that we have mostly stayed the same for most of the time."" This is not what I said. I stated that ""...most of the traits that nature views as 'favorable' have more or less remained the same in [the time humans have existed]."" Of course our height may have changed a bit and our immune system has certainly developed; I am talking about the most basic traits. It is still beneficial to have legs and to have eyes. I am saying that the baseline traits and behaviors that have kept our species alive over the last 200,000 years are still at work today. For example, crying is another innate behavior. ""Scientists who study evolution say crying probably conferred some benefit and did something to advance our species - because it's stayed with us"" [1]. It is accepted that crying has evolved as a way for the mother to know when her child needs help, something that is still very much beneficial today. My opponent states ""...our behavior could greatly change in the next couple hundred to thousands of years or maybe much sooner."" Perhaps, but this debate is concerned over whether ""Human Nature Exists,"" as in the present. I believe I have shown that it clearly does. To conclude round three, I will write my own premises in a way I believe is more accurate than that of my opponent's. Premise 1: Humans have exhibited the same basic behaviors despite changes in nature. Premise 2: These behaviors have evolved to better human survivability. Premise 3: Human behavior is passed down genetically and socially. Conclusion: Humanity still exists, therefore ""human nature"" must be innate. Source 1.",-1.0722163209779427,True,1.701034100758808,1.52702459816783,1.7763642850321888,280,True,1.923738339800967
2,8,1039,"-Furthermore, it is certainly not beneficial to spank mentally disabled children for doing something wrong because they would likely not be able to comprehend that they are being hurt for doing something wrong. ======================================================================== -When a child is hurt for disciplinary reason, it is true that they may start to have more discipline, but also at the cost of being physically hurt. That is why most of the time spanking a child for disciplinary reasons is equally beneficial than it is harmful. To achieve something, there must be a cost that is usually equal to the achievement. If you have a choice as to whether you should work out at the gym or go eat at your favorite fast food franchise, there are equal benefits and costs for both choices. If you choose the gym, your physical fitness is improved, but you lose the pleasure of your favorite food. If you choose the fast food, you get the pleasure of eating your favorite food, but your physical fitness degrades. The child may have learned discipline, but at the cost of having endured physical pain, which balances out the benefit and the harm. -Furthermore, hitting a person, no matter if they are children or not, is a violation of a person's bodily integrity and autonomy, which is arguably a basic human right. ======================================================================== -Pro has conceded, there is no need to go on.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.6649122439584545,-0.6725962569547292,-0.5101001256339988,232,False,-0.7234591717758756
10,14,19740,: Medical marijuana is usually not seriously abused,-1.0722163209779427,True,-2.7602704780545757,-0.7751704756515841,-1.1648194164413408,8,True,-1.775263068445165
10,67,19740,General statements against medical marijuana,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
11,84,34949,A right to health care violates the rights of physicians,0.4916888247220394,True,-1.0707911876255145,-1.0909197237432775,-1.2624625775544855,10,False,-1.3323626831722297
10,85,19740,: Medical marijuana prescriptions are often fraudulent,-0.7594352918379461,True,-2.4789409375820624,-1.3795429718913068,-2.861864436260991,7,False,-2.576760671609762
10,9,19740,: Medical marijuana will be abused by druggies,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
10,10,19740,: Legalizing medical marijuana does not increase use and abuse,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
10,15,19740,: Legalizing medical marijuana is not legalizing recreational use,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
13,2,24960,"The incident happened around 2 AM Sunday morning. A customer was kicked out of the bar, but then came back shortly after with a shotgun and fired two rounds inside the bar. That’s when one of the bar employees, armed with a concealed handgun, fired at the man. The man died after being shot by the bar employee.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,58,True,-4.0
17,2,38422,"Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,16,True,-4.0
10,17,19740,Legalizing medical marijuana would make roads more dangerous.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
10,72,19740,General statements in favor of medical marijuana,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
10,90,19740,: Medical marijuana dispensaries are professional institutions,-1.3849973501179391,True,-2.1940555588488024,-1.5126874750141088,-0.8627794970858761,7,True,-1.7551302722181412
10,64,19740,: Marijuana is a safer alternative to many medications,-1.0722163209779427,True,-2.6054302000134917,-1.131289866078937,-1.5402319263901016,9,True,-2.021481141909032
11,3,19867,"Alright so the issues rests; if you think decreasing wasteful health care spending, expanding health care to millions of people, improving the quality of health care, and eliminating abuse insurance practices are good things then you would have to vote for the pro position.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.9845394723154836,-0.6156959872960039,-0.3940316179119651,44,True,-0.7767791403278655
10,5,19740,": Legalizing medical marijuana normalizes drug, increases use",-0.4466542626979497,True,-2.012998480110071,-1.4248700585413832,-2.247823347942844,8,False,-2.197929506682518
10,12,19740,: Doctors should be trusted to check abuse of medical marijuana,-1.0722163209779427,True,-1.7835151884572058,-0.6941070549081675,-1.5992030139596498,11,True,-1.56978336760588
10,28,19740,"Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-2.110958373634384,-1.1927459382136745,-1.7361213242339373,11,True,-1.9470961094647565
10,73,19740,: Allowing medical marijuana shows compassion to the suffering,-1.3849973501179391,True,-1.2846171988114992,-1.5099512423505876,-1.59292585457544,9,True,-1.703834471569378
10,81,19740,Medical marijuana is unrelated to crime that surrounds dispensaries.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
10,1,19740,: Medical marijuana should not be allowed just to grow state revenues,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,False,-4.0
17,2,19871,"Haven't you noticed that recent officer causalities are because of the whole police brutality argument going on. The reason why some police officers are in danger is because they are not in a good relationship with the people they are protecting. Some people think that the police force is against them (which I don't believe myself) and are trying to be cruel to them. You can see this by all the rioting and protesting going on all over America. The more rude or harsh police officers will only enhance this current issue in America leading to more rioting, protests, and untrust in the police force leading to more casualties on the Police forces side. If the police would treat people kinder it would calm all of the rioting and protests and help restore trust with citizens and police officers. Those studies are back in 1992 and are not recent enough to provide the evidence that this is the case during this time being. Like I said if it's for the safety of the public to be rude then its ok.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.18643793322104274,0.3812323814970121,0.08677009736295012,180,True,0.24360710925831477
10,3,19740,Legalizing medical marijuana will increase state revenue.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
10,4,19740,Legalizing medical marijuana will reduce state spending.,-1.6977783792579355,True,-1.3851345769199817,-1.8792022677047675,-0.963714868714822,7,True,-1.6339544351043203
10,77,19740,Medical marijuana dispensaries can hurt surrounding businesses.,-0.4466542626979497,True,-2.2895231619154,-1.4303637263415454,-0.8131914131824091,7,False,-1.7362398318339245
11,3,40165,"Obamacare has actually helped many people and many people have signed up in Kentucky, New York, Washigton D.C and California. These are few of the things Obamacare does for the people of America. "" The Affordable Care Act expands the affordability, quality, and availability of private and public health insurance through consumer protections, regulations, subsidies, taxes, insurance exchanges, and other reforms. "" The fact is ObamaCare does not replace private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid. "" ObamaCare doesn't regulate your health care, it regulates health insurance and some of the worst practices of the for-profit health care industry. Thank you for this debate i enjoyed it",0.1789077955820434,True,0.4519775700840954,0.5196056168893274,0.22522903024077706,105,True,0.4531654204326704
10,6,19740,: Legalizing medical marijuana may cause crime and safety problems,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.8841927930161173,-1.2173384410846906,-1.6921960141465846,10,False,-1.8565010038890486
10,7,19740,: Medical marijuana can act as a gateway drug to harder ones,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.777332379271316,-1.6408390574600566,-1.1817260709604438,12,False,-1.782598135690953
10,21,19740,Illegal medical marijuana forces sufferers to purchase on the black market.,-1.0722163209779427,True,-2.03587021401208,-0.8999350707392729,-0.9202486980593076,11,True,-1.4809715730976483
10,68,19740,"Legalizing medical marijuana opens door to bad definitions of ""pain"".",-0.13387323355795333,True,-3.1774751884842103,-0.8955424624593591,-2.30881997100749,10,False,-2.4105580430167284
10,69,19740,: Unhealthy effects of Marijuana outweigh medical benefits,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
10,1,39007,Marijuana is the best drug to be put into medical use since it was ranked lowest for withdrawal symp...,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,True,-4.0
10,29,19740,: Marijuana is not addictive,-1.0722163209779427,True,-2.5931936651238154,-2.223183577032477,-1.822275282550676,5,True,-2.5672572234066977
17,6,26632,"Contacts are then glasses because when it rains you do not need to have an umbrella. Contacts allow you to use your peripheral vision, unlike glasses which you must turn your entire head to look at something. This is not good for many professions. I want to be a police officer and wearing glasses would impair my peripheral vision. Glasses are not always a safer than contacts. When you are out walking down the street and your glasses crack there is potential for the lens to go into your eyes. When you wear contacts you can wear sun glasses. In the summer it is necessary to wear sunglasses so you want to have the ability to put on contacts.",-3.2616835249579177,True,-0.29341631312092176,0.4572762271516053,-1.5846039430714831,119,False,-0.5157332745089079
10,1,380,I believe that for terminal diseases such as cancer Medical Marijuana should be used as much as possible in place of man made drugs,-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.5958630974744813,-0.39962923264172456,-0.5353337426834408,24,True,-0.6010181368213501
10,8,19740,: Marijuana is a gateway drug,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,False,-4.0
10,2,28265,"You ignore my argument that it doesn't cause memory loss. Lets look at the facts 1/4 of crimes are drug related. War on drugs costs $100 billion a year. 15% are teenagers ( and as brought up in my last speech 800,000 are arrested for marijuana possession. *Note I am only solving for Medical marijuana not decriminalization of all drugs and the above are marijuana facts not others ei meth.* If Medical Marijuana was legal here are the benefits: drug arrests would drop (as I said 800,000 just for marijuana possession), less kids would try it, violence would drop, states would have more money (taxing marijuana), Mexican drug cartels would be crippled ( My opponent drops the argument of that 17 states have legalized medical marijuana meaning that they have found it safe and useful don't let my opponent try to bring this up next round.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.20420061991363625,0.4896394878758986,0.5613593478836016,146,True,0.32378337034426624
10,46,19740,"Marijuana might have some toxicity, but so do other drugs.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
10,19,19740,Marijuana use directly threatens other's liberties.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,False,-4.0
5,49,14694,: NCLB raises standards and testing without improving education,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
5,6,6723,"Although single-sex schools improve grades, test scores, and college acceptance, the U.S. Department of Education found in 2005 that there was insufficient evidence to suggest single-sex improves educational outcomes for students. Additionally, researchers find it difficult to test and determine whether single-sex schools are superior to co-ed schools. Source:",-1.6977783792579355,True,1.1324576062721694,0.12042135091082892,0.08510268387501732,49,False,0.5198919471026214
5,3,6723,"Sk8 forfeited this round. Con Although single-sex schools improve grades, test scores, and college acceptance, the U.S. Department of Education found in 2005 that there was insufficient evidence to suggest single-sex improves educational outcomes for students. Additionally, researchers find it difficult to test and determine whether single-sex schools are superior to co-ed schools. Source:",-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.4615015689855669,-0.7020179749364354,-1.1360032875631636,54,True,-0.8934957996889543
12,3,30958,Vegetarianism makes food available to more people,0.8044698538620362,True,-1.4074662935249682,-1.2974007437046682,-1.7718449386629047,7,True,-1.7366521329843474
12,3,34168,Ok I give up. I got nothing. Good debate.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
12,15,39928,Vegetarians are healthy due to their health-consciousness not vegetarianism.,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.8888182183552702,-1.8072911504649007,-0.5824613966591674,9,False,-1.2589933947548626
17,14,22921,"Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture e.g. Great Britain. This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career.",-2.636121466677925,True,0.3280606661303717,0.4894988475307974,0.07533001008076542,115,True,0.33650887141885605
12,2,1334,I wish people didn't forfeit rounds..,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,True,-4.0
11,5,4472,"Obviously I agree that people with a handicap can't take care of themselves. However, not every person in the country has a handicap. You said that people would pay through taxes for the health care for themselves, and others because it's the right thing to do. I hate to be the one to point this out, but not everyone in this country is that nice. No one should be ""entitled"" to anything. We should ALL work to achieve what's best for us individually. As for the preventing ailments, I stick by what I said. Even with what you just said. With having there be no lab fees, no co-pay, no monetary worries, people will still take advantage. They will be more inclined to see what they can get out of the system. I still find the always available records are dangerous. I will agree that they would be handy for patients and doctors. However, having a ""lock and key"" doesn't guarantee safety of records. I can tell you that if I was a patient, I wouldn't allow my information to be posted on these records. I don't trust the security that you are suggesting. I don't think that universal health care would reduce mortality rates. Having unlimited access to doctor's won't do anything. It isn't going to cure cancer patients, or any other incurable disease.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6314441209798317,-0.8647944294925465,0.8390936303539409,225,False,0.25662516173772604
12,5,6730,Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat a lot of meat.,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.3783776284393843,-1.6395443347185141,0.11279028916238898,11,False,-0.7123741774510842
5,6,33100,"You don't it, you have to provide PROOF you did better on the standardized tests after your marijuana use, the links you provided tell us what the standardized tests are, they don't have your scores or anything. All you have done is said you did better after marijuana use than you did before, that isn't proof. I strongly urge a con vote because my opponent hasn't provided credible evidence that Cannabis Sativa has in any way improved his life Vote Con!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,81,False,-4.0
12,4,38905,"Humans might have the physical equipment to eat meat, but we do not have to do so. People should ma...",-0.13387323355795333,True,-2.01819640250096,-2.313465951176317,-1.390426379964912,20,True,-2.2099504801605585
12,58,39928,: There is no evidence that vegetarians are more compassionate,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,False,-4.0
12,5,43039,"""Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding."" ??????????????? So becoming a vegetarian is immoral and wrong? I challenge that that theory..... ;)",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,26,False,-4.0
12,5,1334,134340Goat forfeited this round. Pro I wish people didn't forfeit rounds..,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
12,2,1819,There are problems with being vegetarian,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,False,-4.0
12,11,39928,You don’t have to be vegetarian to be an avid environmentalist.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
12,26,39928,:A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans,1.4300319121420288,True,-2.731623118695201,-0.8909761071811447,-1.3741706218085117,7,True,-1.8982351536147775
17,15,5236,"There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture.  Presently 1.8 million legally held guns are accounted for in the UK.[1] This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career.[2] If being a police officer is a safer job, then there will be a larger applicant pool to choose from, and thus better, more qualified police forces. [1] Legal Community Against Violence, ‘Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines’, 2011, http://www.lcav.org/content/large_capacity_ammunition_magazines.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011 [2] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Armed police in the UK’, 8 June 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10260298, accessed 20 September 2011  ",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.10098659327030328,1.0286102866859446,1.0440934793185568,175,True,0.8401618984781257
11,17,8176,"Ron Paul claims that health care and education are not rights but things that should be earned. [[ ""For Rep Ron Paul (R-TX), education and medical care are not rights but rather “things that you have to earn.” In an exchange about U.S. credit policy with MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur on Wednesday, Paul was asked whether people should be able to borrow money to buy a house, or car. “Oh, in a free market, you can do that,” Paul said, but only so long as that credit is backed up by real money, and not something that “comes out of thin air.”""",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.09987508160942707,-0.2353171739440608,0.5813602023251521,101,True,0.09237752555525501
12,10,38905,Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main...,1.4300319121420288,True,-0.7713386440611276,-0.7458924742817313,-0.04829901321010487,17,True,-0.6079764499450202
12,6,1819,Being vegetarian helps the environment,1.1172508830020322,True,-0.8618827822767441,-1.1654389994240504,-1.4149748466380037,5,True,-1.3365002332644176
12,13,39928,": Vegetarianism generally environment, ecosystems, and animals",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
12,14,39928,: Vegetarianism is important in the fight against global warming,0.8044698538620362,True,-1.8566182429771318,-0.919364048181145,-0.9527188887816644,10,True,-1.4380221187649946
12,21,39928,: Vegetarian diet can provide all essential nutrients,0.8044698538620362,True,-1.9195297509308082,-2.7925940456664646,-1.3911335651667418,8,True,-2.3435394459490824
12,29,39928,Vegetarianism would cause the extinction of domesticated animals.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
12,32,39928,: Vegetarians adopt a proper philosophy toward animals,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
12,10,25519,"I am a vegetarian.....so, no. I disagree with this.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
12,17,39928,Vegetarian foods have as many health risks as animal foods.,1.4300319121420288,True,-0.8732841184126291,-2.1916714361789893,-1.010840890627126,10,False,-1.5611213631372942
12,1,8567,Um... If you eat some meat... YOU'RE NOT A VEGETARIAN! Thought I ought to point that out.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,False,-4.0
17,4,17595,"I assume the first round is for acceptance, and I'll outline my case just as my opponent has created an outline, though I maintain the right to deviate from the outline, should any research on the subject bring me to a better argument. I disagree with the notion that the officer used excessive force in gaining compliance. Once he gave a lawful order for her to get on the ground she is required by law to comply, and if she fails to comply, the officer has the legal authority to use force. Force often times looks ugly, it isn't a pretty thing, but as a society, we've granted the police the authority to use it under certain circumstances, in this circumstance the officer's actions fell with normal police procedure. With that said, I have no doubt the officer could've handled the situation in a way that could've had better results and would've never led up to this incidence. Him coming in hot headed and using filthy language was inappropriate, but once somebody fails to obey a lawful command, and officer of the law is authorized to use force, in order to get the individual to comply, the officer did nothing wrong in his attempt to subdue the girl. Not. That the debate isn't about events leading up to officer in question applying force to get compliance, the debate is about whether, in that instance when he applied force, whether it was wrong. Good luck to pro.",-2.323340437537928,True,0.22236898605911729,0.5950239546192646,0.8379019104408135,246,False,0.6329169341543588
17,4,19871,"1,000 characters. 3 hours between arguments. Do not accept the debate if you can't handle this. Full Resoltion: Police Officers should be friendly and polite when approaching citizens on the job in most circumstances. Background: Often police officers can come across as rude, they are often short with people and skip the pleasentries as they say. Some people really dislike cops because of their bad attitude and think there is absolutely no harm in an officer being polite and friendly while writing them a ticket or taking down their witness statement or even arresting them. My goal is to prove that police officers should generally engage in behavior most would find rude. You don't want a friendly officer out there writing tickets. Even if he knows when to cut the friendly off. Police shouldn't just be harsh when dealing with suspected criminals, but also when dealing with trivial matters, such as writing a ticket, directing traffic or handling the scene of an accident.",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.19191335429854395,0.7108196962043444,0.503634214280847,163,False,0.5357526513752197
12,15,25519,"It can definitely be unhealthy, but it can also be healthy. Same with people that eat meat.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,False,-4.0
12,5,30716,I agree with OP. Vegetarians don't make sense to me either.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,True,-4.0
12,8,37732,Vegetarians don't eat living stuffffff,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
11,112,34949,Whether health care is a right under i-law is inconsequential.,-0.13387323355795333,True,-2.3352855518930293,-1.8239902248985709,-2.4183606483238647,10,False,-2.545933262080348
11,108,34949,: Government-funded universal health care is no right,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
11,124,34949,Health care is considered a right in international law.,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.8971115977523598,-0.8425754067117996,-1.699490889444523,9,True,-1.3286042414743573
11,126,34949,:Health care is a basic human right or entitlement,-0.2902637481279517,True,-3.0,-3.0,-3.0,9,True,-3.4868389544615375
11,1,40849,: US 2010 health care law restricts abortion rights,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
5,13,30771,"There is a growing body of evidence linking a healthy lifestyle, comprising of both adequate nutrition and physical exercise, with improved memory, concentration and general academic performance.[1] A study has shown that when primary school students consume three or more junk food meals a week literacy and numeracy scores dropped by up to 16% compared to the average.[2] This is a clear incentive for governments to push forward for healthier meals in schools for two reasons. The first obvious benefit is to the student, whose better grades award her improved upward mobility – especially important for ethnic groups stuck worst by the obesity epidemic and a lower average socioeconomic status. The second benefit is to the schools, who benefit on standardized testing scores and reduced absenteeism, as well as reduced staff time and attention devoted to students with low academic performance or behavior problems and other hidden costs of low concentration and performance of students.[3] [1] CDC, 'Student Health and Academic Achievement', 19 October 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/health_and_academics/, accessed 9/11/2011 [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Too much fast food ‘harms children’s test scores’’, The Telegraph, 22 May 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5368637/Too-much-fast-food-harms-childrens-test-scores.html accessed 20 September 2011 [3] Society for the Advancement of Education, 'Overweight students cost schools plenty', December 2004, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2715_133/ai_n8551551/?tag=mantle_skin;content, 9/11/2011  ",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.5700278672245163,0.4002697310796427,1.3468032652555972,206,True,0.8941899769655453
17,7,8201,"I see what you are saying as far as the safety goes, but I still see it as a way for the government to make money. I feel that instead of having a camera watch us, we should have traffic police or Suffolk police watching the intersections just the way they used to. I find it to be annoying to have to now think about whether a camera is going to snap a picture at you, obeying the law, but being under a yellow light through an intersection. While it might make some people more cautious, safer drivers, I think that too many people are retarding traffic because they are fearful of getting a ticket. I feel that the money that they are spending to put all of the traffic lights in is almost a waste of time. By the time the government hires people to put them in, pays for the camera and the electric to run the thousands of cameras, hires people to monitor and scan through all of the pictures, and sends out tickets, it is barely worth it to even have. I think that the cameras have become a hazard to the everyday drivers and the government is taking advantage of our privacy, in a way. What next? We have cameras at every corner now, who's to say they won't start bugging our hotel rooms like NK!!",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.059107943278896825,0.5399741958096701,-0.29901030808120554,231,False,0.0673631060017992
11,42,34949,Costs are inconsequential if health care is considered a universal right.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,True,-4.0
17,4,30,"Toilets should be equipped with the latest in ""log-detecting"" technology."" The labor and cost of putting these toilets and cameras in every establishment would be costly to stores and businesses. They would have to take time out of their day in order to check the logs and cameras to see who the offenders were. Furthermore what if there is a malfunction in he system and the system prints out a ticket when there was never a violation?? A person is not going to pay for something they didn't do in the first place. You would also have a problem with enforcing this fine as well. What police officer is going to go into a bathroom and argue with someone on weather or not they flushed their waste down the toilet?? Police are there to protect us, not argue with someone about waste flushing. My third point is this the 20 dollar ticket violation shouldn't be a ""disturbing the peace"" ticket, this is not disturbing the peace. The ticket should be public deification because the individual neglected to flush their own waste in a public establishment. I ask that you vote CON because this system is simply flawed and would be hard to enforce. I would also like to wish my opponent the best of luck!",-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.04368437504323957,-0.10003889451039856,1.2296545837399266,215,False,0.4305099693567555
11,119,34949,": Free, universal health care is an illegitimate ""positive"" right",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,False,-4.0
11,30,33502,I think health care should be free. What if poor people cant afford for the cost for health care? It is quite unfair.,1.4300319121420288,True,-1.5518462301661582,-1.7537494163587537,-1.028812572214866,23,True,-1.6781598154722681
11,5,37104,An equal right to treatment is better for everybody's health,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
11,26,33502,"Yes. Health care is not a privilege, it is a right. In the USA, everything is a commodity, including the precious gift of good health. That's disgusting. I'm so glad I live in Britain.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.1284189150051656,-0.4001050553686704,-0.2915514620027594,34,True,-0.32611702542429516
11,118,34949,The necessity of medical care does not make it a right.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
11,4,23533,Is it now? So you have a right to enslave people to pay for your healthcare? Where do you fools get these immoral ideas?,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.4823044914032264,-2.165916954415441,-2.1800226098477467,24,False,-2.253937905279946
5,44,537,"The argument that tuition fees are good because they improve the level of education received completely neglects those people who are unable to attend university at all because they cannot afford it. The selection process must be merit-based in order to keep standards up. It is simply wrong to allow students whose parents have money to spare on a college education to continue to receive have such an advantage. The problem should be solved by the government making higher education a bigger priority when deciding what to spend the budget on, not by expecting poor students to pay.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.8031643259191338,0.0009305815652619892,0.00558962771983931,98,False,0.31075158003867404
11,36,25373,": Premise of insurance mandates, that health care is a right, is false",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,False,-4.0
15,7,35485,"The comparison between animals and humans are not anatomically the same. How does the brain and the function of the brain of animal even compare to that of a humans? In psychology, what is the purpose of studying when it is not to benefit for human progress and evolution? The use of observational research of humans and case studies will provide you with the same needed results. Observing animals in research does not help the benefits of a human due to the different characteristics and environment. Harming of animals in testing is unnecessary, but using animals in a non harmful way for research is not reliable because of how different they are. Humans may have evolved from apes, but there are differences in the overall makeup of the specimen.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.387385063514094,-0.16836423686492247,0.6600270745442791,129,False,0.7378446999564949
17,10,7233,"The G20 summit in London has been described by Scotland Yard as the capital's most challenging police operation in a decade. [[ The Metropolitain police are streched to thier limits as an alleged 5,000 police officers drawn from more than 30 forces are in place to control the anarchists and environmentalists, and 2,500 Police officers are patrolling the Square mile alone [[ Some have even said that figure is an understatement designed to make protestors complacent. According to estimates the policing is costing around 10 million. As well as this being a massive expense in a time of economic hardship, other events such as the England world cup qualifier at Wembley demand a police presence which is probably not forthcoming in the volume required, due to the thoughtlessness of these protestors.",-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.2279004694050625,1.50674560761455,-0.020797165204929857,131,True,0.509169988296006
11,115,34949,": Securing a ""right"" to universal health means impeding on other rights",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,False,-4.0
11,8,30330,"With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests a...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,16,True,-4.0
17,4,24155,"Mufti: plain clothes worn by a person who wears a uniform for their job, such as a soldier or police officer. See: Therefore my opponent's arguments are incoherent and make no sense. Gold coin donations are irrelevant to school uniforms. Uniforms bring a sense of unity and discipline. It works well in the military and bullies cannot bully you on what you wear because they are wearing the same exact thing.",-1.6977783792579355,True,-1.0202597811161385,-0.5004534203221145,-1.1213501996199084,71,False,-1.0260096639855107
11,69,34949,: Free universal health care motivates people to seek preventive care,0.4916888247220394,True,-1.355276787029533,-1.7420129638591209,-1.2903991010323106,11,True,-1.7023638101665737
11,7,33502,Not all health care should be free . Because their are rich people and they should pay to give money to the doctors.,0.4916888247220394,True,-1.5375615853922269,-3.5802843050385538,-0.7192558623670773,23,False,-2.1614147320347468
11,25,34949,Universal health care is not free; people pay with their taxes.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
11,49,34949,Universal health care makes people healthier so more productive.,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.8101969549406782,0.15849746286405025,-0.6983330742222105,9,True,-0.5202325066160459
11,7,37104,Healthcare should be a human right,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.8161962317131551,-1.011228511606562,-2.056875329197478,6,True,-1.4908641035463344
11,26,18010,Ya they are no 1 if they dont care about their health at least care about others i hate it when i am walking down the street and smoke comes right in my face it makes people cough and is bad to inhale and it is a badd influence,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,49,True,-4.0
11,25,40849,: Health care reform limits costs of health care,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
17,17,5236,"Armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. In the UK 28 gun crimes are committed every day.[1] Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this.[2] The sight of armed police officers patrolling the streets will not only deter gangs from harassing residents, but will instil in communities a confidence that they are being properly protected. Gangs are not interested in fighting the police; they are more concerned about attacks from other gangs in their area who are willing to break the law and attack them unprovoked. People feel safer when they see armed police, especially if they perceive them as a response to a heightened risk. Thus, for example, police officers at British airports routinely carry sub-machine guns, although there is no evidential pattern to suggest that this high-visibility weaponry offers any situational strategic advantage over a more subtle arming.  [1] Hope, Christopher, ’28 gun crimes committed in UK every day’, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html, accessed 20 September 2011 [2] Shearing, Clifford et al., Lengthening the Arm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century, (Cambridge Studies in Criminology, 2008)   ",-2.323340437537928,True,0.09763889333502722,1.770691965953349,-0.9106440783012812,204,True,0.4283754135538802
11,5,28500,Health care professionals have a right to safe working conditions.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,False,-4.0
11,7,4966,"Many people are in debt because of medical bills. So do you think only idiots get sick? You're right, though, that there's no good reason for this. People should not be preyed upon by insurance companies and astronomical health care bills.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.5114278672000143,0.17036057758124953,-1.1481681818568508,41,False,-0.567702499779126
11,1,5604,Health care should be provided by the state. the government should pay for all health care expenses.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,True,-4.0
17,5,16271,"I accept. Definitions UK - United Kingdom Police Force - an organized body of police officers responsible for a country, district, or town Routinely - regular course of procedure Armed - Equipped Handguns - any firearm that can be held and fired with one hand accurately All definitions are from dictionary.com NOTE: In the rules it states that I have to accept all definitions however there are no definitions provided by my opponent so I have provided them. Good luck Pro.",-2.323340437537928,True,-1.448086609863764,-0.2956085939188847,-0.1876437502484133,81,False,-0.7360166374052743
5,30,35456,"National testing helps reveal failing teaching methods and forces schools to make changes, for the benefit of the schoolchildren. The focus of testing is to point to teaching methods that are working and ones that are not. It does this by providing common standards, making it possible for teachers and schools to adjust their methods accordingly, based on whether their students are reaching these standards or not. As Claudia Wallis describes of American national testing, everyone can 'agree that the law's greatest accomplishment has been shinning an unforgiving light on such languishing schools and demanding that they do better'1. At Blaine, an American primary school with a history of failure, the number of fifth to eighth-graders reading on grade level or above rose from 13% to 36% after the introduction of national testing1. The pressure placed on the school to be accountable, and the threat of sanctions and sackings if they did not improve, can be thanked for this improvement. 1 Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3367980781253707,1.6644458740366683,1.0571245439323511,182,True,1.1868945921859149
5,10,17062,"State-educational provision is failing, despite increasing investment in it. Children are locked into bad schools, particularly in inner-city and under-privileged areas. Parents must be given the opportunity to escape from bad state education systems if educational standards are to improve.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.7018843264305676,-0.7474430577515851,0.43967858240111857,40,True,-0.3820223155008958
6,1,41347,"I go to a charter school in California here at my school we do not wear uniforms.I have to write a paper on this subject,""Should Students wear have to wear uniforms?"". Please back up your evidence.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,36,False,-4.0
6,5,16554,I accepted bossnegotiator's challenge. I will be arguing that students should not be forced to wear a school uniform.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,False,-4.0
6,6,3303,"For me, we have to respect each of students personality and fashion for style. Due to the fact, contemporary people are open-minded. So they have duty for show their fashion. Therefore, i think students don't need to wear school uniform at school.",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.2248835348453972,-2.20696093359227,-1.9815700837119523,42,False,-2.088842273546198
6,2,3303,I think some student cumbersome to wearing civilian clothes. Because If we wear civilian clothes when going to school.... We will have to worry what to wear every morning. So in the end late school. In my opinion when we go to school we need wearing a school uniform.,-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.6755921473225296,-0.3142587564707121,-2.276693304777913,49,True,-1.224770030929772
17,4,13544,"Police agencies have traditionally provided services to schools, but it has only been over the past 20 years where the practice of assigning police officers to schools on a full-time basis has become more wide-spread. Criminal justice and education officials sought to expand school safety efforts""which included assigning law enforcement officers to patrol schools""in the wake of a series of high-profile school shootings in the 1990s.4 Expanding the presence of SROs in schools was also partly a response to rising juvenile crime rates during the 1980s and early 1990s. S.R.O (School Resource Officers) are sworn, licensed police officers with the ability to exact Probable cause in school. Not only would the cost of the SRO be consequential to the schools funding but it creates a bad environment as well. The students are put into the justice system most of the time caused by minor offense, not only does that cause complications for both student and parent but it ruins there success in life by giving them a criminal record.",-2.323340437537928,True,0.26889380585254263,1.3901059987673607,-0.5297434259834172,169,False,0.460763283225457
5,28,25233,"If the well educated, affluent and motivated parents who currently send their children to private schools had no choice other than to send their children to the local comprehensive school they would become actively involved in raising the standard of these schools. Imagine the impact of all the funding currently received by the private sector in fees and charitable donations being ploughed into public education.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.15923847376513814,-0.16549282356637424,0.261047901397924,65,True,-0.03234501821613757
6,7,41448,you keep repeating your self and in what way will the students benefit from uniform? Tell me what uniform will add to the performance of schools.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,26,False,-4.0
5,16,17992,"Developing acceptable national standards is not easy, but other countries have demonstrated that creating good standard tests that inspire students and teachers is possible. Excellence is created by bringing together the right people, examining textbooks, and looking at standards already put in place by many national teachers’ associations. In the United States, the quality of education that students receive depends on what state, county, and town they live in. This breaks the principle of equality that is a key part of the values of our country. If all teachers are expected to achieve the same standards, the quality of education for all children can go up.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.2448783038850337,0.6010325621382255,0.8173926090139296,106,False,0.4550045241942461
6,1,26185,"School uniforms are costly ( contrary to popular belief), destroys personality, the list goes on. The truths are self-evident that students should not be forced wear uniforms, and in the case were schools make uniforms mandatory the students do not even have a say in the matter. It is unjust to make students go through such an attack on their freedoms.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.01750571775002603,-0.9803562047901494,-0.9051481464546424,61,True,-0.7333849999511071
17,11,26605,"The police in the UK should be armed. The events of the rioting in the summer of 2011 proved that they were powerless to protect the public.Recommendations ahve already been made by senior police officers that this is what should happen. I live in Calgary now and the police here are armed. It is a far far safer city. Criminals know if they attack an officer they will be shot ndin some case they have been shot and killed. The police here are real police. When I lived in the UK people kept saying the British Police are the envy of the world, since I emigrated, I can tell you they are not. They are laughed at and people I speak to here cannot believe the UK police are not armed. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear - only the criminals. The criminals have guns and so should the police. To say this will increase gun crime is wrong. Gun crime has been on the increase for years in the UK. A police officer in the town where I lived turned up to a bank robbery and the thieves turned round and shot the officer. The police need to be able to repsond. Its time the UK woke up, kicked out political correctness and civil liberties and brought in common sense and justice. I feel very safe in my adopted city knowing the police have the upper hand.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.7395998573193585,0.2639226419320822,0.2070496983066284,239,False,0.460772979725221
6,2,22803,"""having to wear uniforms lessens the chance of being bullied by other students"" Wearing another shirt doesn't change the personality of someone. Bullies before uniforms will still bully kids when they have uniforms. Clothes doesn't make a big difference. And your statement ""Uniforms are a student's pride."" Is odd. It's about pride? Isn't there pride in being able to wear what you want during school, and having the right to express your own beliefs? That's pride. Pride isn't being forced to wear something because someone else made you. Uniforms will restrict one's beliefs and will chain the freedoms of a student to the solid concrete foundation of oppression.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5374174732360553,-1.3513119069647304,0.5691699466596238,108,True,-0.05758709452133385
6,4,43097,"Private Schools should have the right to decide their own dress code, whether that involves a uniform or not.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,False,-4.0
5,15,35456,"Developing acceptable national standards is not easy, but other countries have demonstrated that creating a good standard of tests that inspire students and teachers is possible. Excellence is created by bringing together the right people, examining textbooks, and looking at standards already put in place by many national teachers' associations. In the United States, the quality of education that students receive previously depended on what state, county, and town they live in. This broke the principle of equality that is a key part of the values of the country. If all teachers are aware of the expected standards their students should be attaining, the quality of education for all children can go up.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.14734699817170532,0.10910467614974513,0.06178515011783454,113,False,-0.0002434958602992528
6,22,16223,Why do we need the uniforms. It would just cost the school more money and not all kids can get a new clean unifrom in one day. if they wear it once and get it dirty it might take a few days to get it washed. Then if the school were to but two uniforms for the students then it would cost the schools even more money. (Think about how many students are in schools) School uniforms would be a wate of money and time.,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.3685431306704477,-1.2182724052804934,-0.7017172095738502,85,False,-0.8864745655950106
6,4,37308,Students should be able to express themselves through what they wear.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
17,7,43139,"It is part of the nature of journalism that it tends to say and reveal things that many people would rather remained unsaid and concealed. On the subject of working with police officers, papers have held the feet of police officers to the fire over many investigations including the Stephen Lawrence murder. It is further worth bearing in mind that the collusion of senior members of the Metropolitan police with tabloid journalists was revealed not by a police investigation but by an investigative reporter. Police and politicians may like their incompetence or corruption to take place behind closed doors, but that is the very reason for fostering and protecting a vigorous and interventionist press that is willing to bend the rules to find the truth.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.1206762157678811,0.5851584638189237,-0.04126388190589569,125,False,0.159128982535995
6,1,11782,"Yes, we're all equal. School Spirit, Right? I think teachers should have to wear uniforms because we, as students, wear uniforms everyday. When you walk in school you see navy and khaki on students. And then you see the teacher in a purple flowing dress or a green skirt. Our school colors aren't purple or green. Our colors are navy and khaki. And that's what the teachers should be wearing. Navy and Khaki. Show some school spirit, educators! also Setting aside cultural and religious issues that can arise from ""business casual"" dress.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.19553849407510968,-1.0074082977353578,-0.3120973651756852,92,True,-0.5874953386888797
6,7,16554,I understand what you are saying that it makes the school work better as a whole but what about the 1st amendment? Making students wear uniforms takes away their right to express themselves. Also forcing them to give up their individuality. Students don't want to look like the person sitting next to them. They want to be themselves and not some clone the school system is forcing them to be.,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.3788256797736678,-1.7869732905716855,-0.5395356686894045,70,False,-1.4236483688310797
6,23,39873,"Researchers have actually found that having to wear a school uniform does not make children better behaved. For example, Brunsma and Rockquemore[22] looked at data for more than 4,500 students and found that those who wore a school uniform did not have fewer behavioural problems or better attendance. School uniform does not encourage discipline, so there is no need to make children wear one.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.4835377865055135,0.9198438551008504,1.4626559379994517,64,False,0.7601196012239624
6,4,22396,"Schools should not force students to wear uniforms because it violates freedom of expression and freedom of speech, which are in the First Amendment. It also will not prevent bullying as people can still bully based on disability, gender, race, etc.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.2144581197974936,-1.8206142344482603,-1.5762389061881634,41,False,-1.3722988663412092
5,3,5220,My opponent is worried that students will only do well on standardized tests and it won't improve anything. The problems with tests is that their different. Tests are different between each school and each teacher often. This allows for some student not to have learned things while others have. Which creates an unbalanced classroom where some students are struggling to learn material and others are bored because they had already learned it. In fact a study has shown that 79% of students think that standard tests are fair. My opponent is also worried that it restricts creativity of thinking. A test is to test your knowledge. Grades 1-12 are there to teach you the basics of a wide range of knowledge. Tests are there to see if you get what you are learning. Standard tests already have questions that promote creative thinking. Teaching for the test is a good thing. It eliminates time wasting activities. It focuses on the content and that way the students will all learn the same thing and no student will be left behind. Standardized tests do not narrow the curriculum. It focuses the curriculum. The multiple choice is actually helpful in improving the education system because it produces accurate information. Also the markings for standardized tests are fair. Teacher markings are not fair because the teacher may not like a child and mark their test harder than others. If you don't believe me China is living proof that standard tests work. They have a set of standard tests and they are leading the world when it comes to academics.,-0.13387323355795333,True,1.3836618186093774,1.4652313000141493,0.32908116255716874,264,True,1.2316438199822108
13,2,15780,"There are an infinite amount of scenarios that could go wrong. Just because something can go wrong does not mean that it will. You can not say that something should not happen simply because it could go wrong, unless there is proof that it will go wrong more times than not, which is not the case. 30-34% (70-80 million people) of adult Americans in the USA admitted to owning and regularly carrying a gun at some point. 4,346 murders were committed with a legally owned firearm in 2010. .0054% of the murders were committed by legal gun owners That is not anywhere close to a problem. That is like saying gasoline should be controlled and only kept available to certain qualified people because there are arsonists that will uses the gasoline to start fires potentially killing people. Qualified citizens having guns is not just a right but the opposite of a problem. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will only cause more crimes to be committed. People will start illegally importing guns at much more of a vast rate and continue selling them to everyone including murderers or people who should not own guns. Statistics show that when gun control is implemented violent crimes increase. Example: Washington DC Sources:",1.4300319121420288,True,0.25502431660944874,0.05696567017425961,0.16392999245836615,212,True,0.17416876199279338
17,1,33275,"In July of this summer, during the annual rainbow gathering, law enforcement officers aggressively entered kid village to arrest someone. When a lady asked the officers to take their guns out of kid village, they violently detained her as well. Looking to instigate a riot, they prematurely began firing rubber bullets, pepper spray balls, and using tazers on the gatherers. People had welts all over their body from the close range barrage of pepper spray balls. They randomly shot with no discrimination even shooting people who were trying to calm the riot; the people who were holding people back from attacking the officers. This all took place in kid village where kids were everywhere. Kid village is where all the families with kids stay. A little girl was shot in the face with a pepper spray ball. The rainbow gathering is about love and harmony, and they were posing little or no real threat to the officers. People have the full right to exclaim their opinions to officers, and do not deserve to be shot at in response. If anything, their crowd control methods only made the situation more dangerous, rightfully angering the people that they would start a fight in kid village. The police were completely responsible for the riot. If they had done a better job, they would have arrested the man somewhere else than kid village, and they would have quickly and discreetly gone in and out, without starting the riot. -Harlan",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.3911857769213195,0.21162230230589127,0.6032162079470702,245,True,0.45726788285668163
5,2,35456,National testing will improve educational equality,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,False,-4.0
5,63,17369,Standardized testing sets useful baseline achievement standards.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
5,17,25233,Removing 'choice' will improve the overall standard of our schools.,-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.8642461913874115,-0.8309120933413079,-2.907531150991115,10,True,-1.7237714358271907
11,6,7705,"My opponent is arguing that the US health care system is (1) a disgrace and (2) worthless. S/he must prove both (1) and (2) for his/her argument to be true. I concede (1) that it is a disgrace. It is not, however, (2) worthless. For something to be ""worthless,"" it has to be worth nothing, zero, zilch. The US health care system does treat some people -- maybe not enough, but some -- and there is value to that. The people who can afford doctors get to see doctors. Even some people who can't afford doctors get to see doctors under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. Are these programs perfect? No. Are they even decent? Doesn't matter. At least a few people are treated and that's worth something. Also, even if there are superior alternatives to the US system, it doesn't make the US system worthless. This is just like how the SuperSoaker 150 was still worth something (though not much) after the SuperSoaker 2000 came out. Your move, Bond.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.32870677653600144,-0.998638935844124,0.12193480521735928,169,False,-0.20170097662843336
5,5,42955,Education standards will be improved across the region,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
5,9,17369,Standardized tests may have cultural biases.,-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.8497574573850485,-1.2867320261654702,-1.5779602603639975,6,False,-1.4390615508968208
5,57,17369,Standardized test info is more essential than music and arts.,-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.9091049638329448,-1.877924449653877,-1.167681906980296,10,True,-1.5266066105865894
5,4,18186,"Resolved: on balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,14,False,-4.0
5,24,17369,No Child Left Behind subjects disabled to same test standards.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,False,-4.0
5,58,17369,Standardized tests ensures students learn essential information.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
5,8,7772,Extend all; no response needed beyond that.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
17,29,15584,"Illegal Immigrants don't want to be caught by immigration officers and detained or deported. This policy gives greater powers to officers to simply stop people on the street and detain them if they don't have the requisite papers. To lower the chance of being caught by police officers, illegal immigrants will be less willing to interact on a regular basis with the rest of society. They will simply go into hiding and avoid being out in public or places that would expose them to police officers. This will firstly make the policy virtually ineffective as police officers still don't (and will never get) the ability to march into peoples' homes and demand immigration papers, but also forces greater ghettoisation as the immigrants will have greater incentive to form their own societies away from police. This will also have an effect on the people who employ illegal immigrants, as they do not want to lose the cheap labour. They will further want to hide their employees to stop them being caught and to stop themselves from facing prosecution. This will create a poorer relationships between these businesses and the police. Finally, the immigrants will not want to use services such as the police to help them with criminal issues. They will have to turn to other enforcers, such as gangs and associations that take the law into their own hands. This will therefore cause illegal immigrants to further dissociate from society and potentially increase crime in areas with illegal immigrants.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.6890348792196358,0.2288007765823133,0.326682621447439,249,True,0.4728917236235467
5,41,17369,: NCLB standardized tests are a poor measure of school performance,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
5,62,17369,: Standardized tests poorly measure real student learning,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.1365538316613868,-0.9948494394731954,-2.3210582690992356,8,False,-1.7060552642307227
16,3,10887,"thank you for accepting, what i was saying i mean bottled water should be banned in supermarkets, dairys etc. that is why this argument is listed in the society category water is free in your tap bottle water companys scam people into think their water is so called - spring - water from mountains in mt Fugi our something bottled water is not water getting transported to overseas countrys with problems, bottled water is what im talking about is in the supermarkets that cost $2!!!! it is a SCAM EVERYBODY! why buy it!? its wasting your money just like that you basicly drinking rubbish factory water that is stored in PLASTIC bottles. HERES A QUESTION! If you had Beer/Coca-Cola/fruit juice coming out of your tap for 3c a Lt would you still buy it up the shop.....? 99% of people would say NO",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.5276822640113756,-1.0691584830596337,0.43412771441347947,143,True,-0.8017775549823115
5,12,17369,: Education standards between states are inconsistent under NCLB,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
5,6,6910,"As mentioned, no standardized testing results make it challenging to determine how well this school educates its children.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.7822168576282139,-0.4057357383847409,-2.0021801620369977,18,False,-1.2123723060342089
5,3,35098,Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
5,2,34929,Standardized testing is an objective measure of learning.,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.9866578558696992,-1.268779494222023,-1.7314657727245617,8,True,-1.543936368113441
5,3,10725,"Well it seems to me that you kind of helped my argument. You're saying that if one state chooses to omit certain aspects of American History from its classes that the students would do poorly on the AP tests. So basically states shouldn't be in control of Education because they would be setting up their students for failure, whereas if the Federal government was involved, they would have a national curriculum and know what they are doing as far as tests go because they would be standardized.",-2.323340437537928,True,-0.8537490144460945,0.9294056552421422,-0.5769798147849365,87,True,-0.1676000715127406
5,3,6910,"lamyukching forfeited this round. Con As mentioned, no standardized testing results make it challenging to determine how well this school educates its children.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-1.1992447475801002,-0.8622195820120266,-1.292307385573387,23,True,-1.303422894725207
5,17,35098,"The importance attached to such tests leads to teachers actively “teaching the test.” The result is that many teachers, rather than instilling useful skills or providing a balanced curriculum, end up trying to focus on things that occur on given tests. While this is not a huge problem with the SAT itself, it is a serious problem with subject tests like the SAT 2s, AP Exams, and the British A-Levels. This undermines the provision of education in the country.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.4533143629990055,-0.1811961842900357,-0.08674551384917242,78,True,0.06605277388100644
5,5,35098,Standardized tests discriminate against minorities,-1.0722163209779427,True,-1.3648201446777966,-0.3190975834240744,-1.2939261103078823,5,True,-1.1457903562435108
17,2,8880,"Hello and I gladly accept your challenge and it'll be a hard one for me because I don't completely oppose the ban of guns from police officers, but I chose it . Cops are in the line of fire everyday from criminals , people who are psychotic and downright evil but at the same time cops encounter law abiding citizens , normal people like getting caught for speeding and traffic infractions . But that's no reason on why to draw your weapon . I do understand sometimes especially at night it's a lot harder to identify what the person you pulled over or the person who apprehended on what they may have or have but that's why you search them instead of straight up aim a gun and threaten and perhaps even go as far tackling , pepper spraying, taserinh or throwing the person down because you feel they did wrong . Police officers are here to serve and protect not shoot on sight . Not even soldiers in Iraq do that because shooting a person atleast for a normal person is scarring and could change a person mentally and emotionally . Honestly a police officer can't just point a weapon because they're ""scarred"" or feel that the person is suspect. Police officer should approach a more peaceful approach such as maybe talk to the person and from there on as the situation escalates gets more physically but a gun is a last resort .",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.055004581535991366,-0.4240247380746591,-0.0076286186322847786,245,False,-0.15290799204443103
5,4,26969,Standardized testing is not ideal for college admission.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
10,9,15859,"There are 2 stats I would like him to bring up. 1) How many people actually use medical marijuana? 2) What percentage in real life actually benefits from it? The link you provide directly showed that on human studies, te majority of studies didn't actually benefit people. I suggest you read his source voters. Also: what is so bad about the government regulating the medical industry? When it wasn't regulated by them back in the earlier 20th century, companies were known for making false meds until the food and drug administration act was passed to make sure fraud was nonexistent. Ever since then, their regulation of meds has led to very little fraud in the medical industry. So, I'd like an explanation of how governments actually hurt the medical industry. As for the falsified info: What his case is advocating is that marijuana can still provide harms, regardless of whether or not it is filtered or not. The relatively split nature of studies as well show that medical marijuana may not provide the benefits people believe it does. Plus, if it was so beneficial, why hasn't it been legalized worldwide and in the United States? The majority of studies say that medical marijuana reduces pain, but that is an extremely subjective issues because sometimes pain is just mental, and can go away without medicine. Plus, there are many different forms of medicines that can treat pain, so pro will need to show that medical marijuana is superior in this area than the vast majority of other pain medications. For these reasons, a con ballot is urged. Thank you.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.4068677431421135,1.4220811243990603,2.7121264227327617,268,False,1.7889136079281711
5,1,32482,This debate follows the standard rules of parliamentary debating. for rules 1st round acceptance only. 2-4 are debate.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,18,True,-4.0
4,18,42549,"When corporal punishment is considered acceptable in school, it has a tendency to become an accepted practice in the home. Parents seeking to discipline their children may resort to violence, an outcome made more likely if those parents were educated in a school system that condoned physical punishment for misbehaviour1. For example, in Sweden, since it banned corporal punishment in schools in 1979, the percentage of parents supporting corporal punishment in the home fell from over 50% to 11% and domestic abuse rates have likewise fallen2. When corporal punishment is banned in both school and the home, parents and teachers are forced to devise alternative punishments that do not involve potentially abusive physical discipline. Such punishments, like detention and reduction of allowance money, can be just as, if not more, effective than corporal punishment while avoiding all of its potential side effects. Furthermore, when physical discipline is not considered a socially acceptable means of punishment, abuse rates tend to fall, as individuals become less prone to resorting to physical castigation. 1: Green, Frederick. 1988. ""Corporal Punishment and Child Abuse"". Project No Spank. 2 Durrant, Joan. 1996. ""The Swedish Ban on Corporal Punishment: Its History and Effects"". Project No Spank.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5909432945744528,0.44482944919227296,1.8058523071351973,199,True,1.1073742535394486
4,3,42549,The physical and psychological harms of corporal punishment are long-lasting and outweigh any benefits,-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.3875746672378035,-0.25383260829528226,-0.7181614875336516,14,False,-0.9079682609045626
4,2,20182,"It is not as effective as other methods of punishment. Detention, out-of-school suspension or Sunda...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,15,True,-4.0
4,1,519,It should be aloud in school so children will have better discipline and pay attention more. Studies show that since corporal punishment was banned discipline in children has gone dramatically down.,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.0228105843850333,-0.4195071448838401,-0.586822843657384,31,True,-0.7899139447242902
4,1,20182,"It is hard to draw the line between punishment and abuse. Teachers, willingly or without realising ...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,True,-4.0
4,2,519,Isaiahk14 forfeited this round. Con No becuase it's just another form of bullying and bullying is wrong so if Corporal Punishment is used it makes things worse for a bullied child,-1.0722163209779427,True,-1.2203193140052475,-0.9687358114426212,-0.9077924067247832,31,True,-1.205215231271603
4,6,33833,My arguments extend. I have nothing to rebut.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
4,7,33833,My arguments extend without response.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
17,4,21142,"I'm going to debate this simply because your argument for the ""Baltimore Police Department"". First off, it was not the entire police department that committed this act. If you read the full story and get facts straight before saying the police department did this as a whole, you will see that this act was committed only by the responding officers. Mainly in this situation, the first officer on the scene is full a adrenaline and rage from chasing down a criminal, that they sometimes forget to follow protocol. In this situation the first responding police officer is in charge of the scene until a superior commander reports to the scene. Therefore, this ACCIDENT was caused by a young police officer who forgot how to handle his job properly.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.055666632308992235,0.6871578701840536,0.3035711004704732,128,False,0.35633458079135266
16,1,10887,Bottled water should be banned!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,True,-4.0
4,1,33833,I accept. I wish luck upon my opponent!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
4,7,20182,Many students who misbehave in school come from unstable families. Some of them may already be abus...,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,True,-4.0
4,5,519,Littlelarge15 forfeited this round. Pro Isaiahk14 forfeited this round. Con No becuase it's just another form of bullying and bullying is wrong so if Corporal Punishment is used it makes things worse for a bullied child,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.0193252913737163,0.3841995673845417,-0.9378882354574818,36,False,-0.5924492421431132
4,8,42549,Discipline is more important than enjoyment in the classroom,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
4,4,20182,It damages the trust that children have in their teachers. If a child is afraid of his teachers or ...,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.5092983046065611,-1.188118265444352,-0.6933323663719905,20,True,-1.312578049480442
4,10,29365,"Seeing as my opponent has forfeited., failed to follow he rules of the debate, and has not defended his case. I will urge a con ballot. I have followed the rules of the debate, I have argued every round, I have defended my own case, and I have attacked my opponents case, I believe that corporal punishment should not be implemented in schools. Thank you for this debate and thank you to anyone who votes.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,75,False,-4.0
4,5,36962,"You have supplied zero evidence. I, for now, will remakr that we can consider all your assertions of corporal punishment's ineffectiveness and detention's effectiveness false. You are not permitted to suddenly limit it to one nation unless it is in you rdebate guidelines, which it wasn't.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,46,False,-4.0
4,3,42703,I end my argument. I feel that everything important to say has been said.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,14,True,-4.0
4,2,33833,AlexanderOc forfeited this round. Con My arguments extend. I have nothing to rebut.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,True,-4.0
4,3,33833,AlexanderOc forfeited this round. Con My arguments extend without response.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
11,127,34949,A right to health care is not necessary in taking care of sick patients.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,14,False,-4.0
17,8,36432,"So how many deaths does something have to cause before we ban it? What is the magic number? My opponent hasn't explained why guns should be banned, but bathubs shouldn't. He simply insists that they're different. My opponent states that Washington DC has a low murder rate because they banned guns. Well, look, Indianapolis has a much lower murder rate, and guns aren't banned there. There aren't even bans on assault weapons in Indiana (1). What basis do we have to believe that gangsters and shooters couldn't get guns if we banned them? Also, if we banned guns from police officers, they wouldn't be able to enforce the law. What if there were a female police officer going up against an enormous gangster? What if the gangs still had guns, and the police don't? Banning guns won't make guns magically disappear. Drugs are banned, but they still get into the US. So gangs will still have access to guns, and depriving police officers of guns will make them essentially ineffective. What are you going to do when a gang member has a gun, and is shooting people, but none of the police officers have guns? A Harvard Study concludes that there is no clear correlation with banning guns and with decreases in murder, suicide, etc. (2) My opponent simply hasn't met his burden, and what he's arguing for has absurd consequences. (1) (2)",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.2482974582214173,0.7756069572714541,0.4341277253583739,233,False,0.37152360105071097
4,5,20182,"If teachers and parents weren’t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways. ...",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.7571570530274326,-0.16364427162573095,-0.5760936746525123,17,True,-0.5845598781637672
4,7,42549,The threat and capacity for violence is essential for efficient conflict resolution,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.3372568693987514,-0.4267008697281682,-0.8656515343866087,12,True,-1.0171223653899035
4,6,20182,Allowing children to be hit when adults cannot be hit sends the message to society that it is OK to ...,-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.7897432320699134,-0.4169762085395861,-0.6269667234930812,21,True,-0.7169898932542252
4,1,42549,It serves as an excuse for lazy teachers to not engage with potentially troubled students,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.2222453779951452,-0.4721522028533475,-1.345793029485869,15,False,-1.1749061262440619
4,2,42549,The threat and use of force undermines the benevolent nature of the student-teacher relationship,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.5062290271038132,-0.4889423326581862,-0.9777164359203148,14,False,-0.7690216059085553
4,3,20182,It can teach children to use physical violence to resolve disputes. They will later use violence to...,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,True,-4.0
4,3,519,Who cares people might grow up not being a bunch of p*ssies now.,-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.2959398443424762,-1.298205391743226,-2.1956448342491783,13,True,-1.43423234277111
4,6,42703,Littlelarge15 forfeited this round. Pro I end my argument. I feel that everything important to say has been said.,-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.979122383440085,-1.0198217836139825,-1.3709124912406083,19,False,-1.3098441706410737
4,6,42549,Keeping the few unruly children in line makes learning possible for the majority of students,-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.7774002665420541,-0.2288312264223358,-0.04886863935633708,15,True,-0.4118873129606882
16,9,22586,Use a GLASS water bottle like a used Sobe drink bottle and then wash after every use. Never use plastic drinking water bottles it leaches. Plastic is made from a petroleum by-product.,0.4916888247220394,True,-1.5794616528283498,-0.3308215612150264,-0.3844716602184271,32,True,-0.8757166356458955
4,4,3464,"That sounds good, what with my being completely against corporal punishment. And if you need any more points against corporal punishment, feel free to ask me. All children in India know how it feels to be smacked. :D",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.016706784124978717,0.7638447619573733,-0.7324078450536651,38,False,0.017237453643891374
17,5,21142,"The coroner came out with the verdict that the death resulting injury was spinal related. After looking at the video posted by a bystander on the street, you could clearly see that the police officers that were putting him in the van were following correct protocol. He was being detained by officers holding his arms behind him in a professional manner, as well as swiftly taking Mr. Gray from the public eye and putting him into the police van. In situations like this it is hard to tell exactly what happened to Mr. Gray. However, when this case does reach a federal court in a criminal case, the jury and the judge will have to dismiss the case due to a lack of evidence. There was no clear evidence that Mr. Gray was harmed by the officers. I would like to think to myself if I was one of those officers, I would not kill an innocent man in front of a crowd of people. I know humans do some crazy things, however this is a very rationale situation by the police officers by DOING THEIR JOB. Yes, the officers may have been a little rough in handling Mr. Gray and putting him into the van, but why should the officers be arrested? If this is that case for ""being too rough"", then lets go back to the 1970's and arrest every teach that paddled students for doing something bad. This entire case is a big accident that was never meant to happen. America needs to get over the whole media attacking police forces, because this country could simply go into Marshall Law, and the federal government would control all.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.3701947135056479,0.5727156265259123,1.868250245206224,280,False,1.0992313785763572
4,25,4425,": Corporal punishment should be limited, but not abandoned",0.4916888247220394,True,-1.1032204283604317,-0.5752755208341982,-1.0971370512390834,9,True,-1.078400125631878
4,32,4425,: General statements against corporal punishment,-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.272252611754648,-2.334955915771036,-1.5116033945954772,6,False,-1.9730370767253136
4,8,25104,Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited this round however I still thank him for a fun and interesting debate.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,18,False,-4.0
14,4,24856,should the death penalty be allowed?,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,False,-4.0
14,1,12748,"The death penalty is not ""wrong"". It is just.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
14,4,13624,Resolution: The death penalty should never be allowed as a form of punishment. capital punishment  –noun punishment by death for a crime; death penalty.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,24,False,-4.0
14,3,37315,unless someone has done something terrible like mass killing then the death penalty should be allowed. not for doing drugs or selling them.,0.4916888247220394,True,-1.4113612588894149,-1.7844972407997632,-1.3325010724716415,23,False,-1.7567517850722771
14,20,10526,: Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows for death penalty,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.544778978730085,-0.6409150406360878,-0.8715592006483016,10,True,-1.1816187001423037
15,3,34716,"Okay, luckily I am back and can continue. my opponent argued that scientists test animal to see how the mind works. You do not have to test animals to see how the mind works. you can simply watch and study them. (not the same thing as testing). my opponent also argued that farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. That is true, but the farmers are testing different methods of raising the animals, not actually testing the animals. all new medicines are required to be tested by animals. First they must show that the drug is safe, therefore, animals wont get hurt if their tested with medicines that are safe to be tested. Thank you I look forward to hearing from you.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.1274090518533159,-0.5479611821921334,-0.6735645071010484,134,True,-0.5278537791720145
16,8,42602,"HA ARE YOU KIDDING ME? OF COURCE TAP WATER IS BETTER THAN BOTTLED WATER, WHO WOULDN'T THINK THAT. RETARDS OF COURSE.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-4.028049120745303,-2.7768983348023797,-1.817924687920584,21,False,-3.274828290425157
14,10,10684,First off I would like to thank Valar_Dohaeris for debating this issue with me as I had lots of fun. I would like you to please view the link to show how the death penalty does not act as a deterrent... My main issues with the death penalty is the people who get it. It is the poor and blacks and this link shows that as well. The death penalty should never be allowed because of the inequalities that come with it.,0.8044698538620362,True,0.32337692600919216,-0.2829863947480105,-1.1087779774584705,82,False,-0.4021032137419338
14,5,38841,"In conclusion, I completely agree that death penalty shouldnt be allowed. I really shouldnt have accepted this debate, hm?",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,True,-4.0
17,1,39824,Sandra Bland's altercation with the police officer recorded on camera specifically showed the great deal of racism and injustice led in this country. I believe she was murdered as opposed to committing suicide.,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.29114724360018,-0.1489583070091153,-1.325426106780867,33,True,-1.0593472909727162
14,4,26902,"Life in prison without parole is a better option than the death penalty. The death penalty takes away all human rights. Life in prison without parole costs less, allows the murderer to be punished, and is less inhumane.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5048340923077874,0.25769987227748875,0.9802967048395822,38,False,0.6681376552850233
14,5,34819,"Asides from a bloated sense of vengeance, you don't really make any case for allowing the death penalty. In what way does 'repaying what they did' serve society? It seems to me that you look to the courts for revenge, not their actual purpose of maintaining civil law. Finally, you contradict yourself. In round 1 you say 'an eye for an eye' but that would only justify the death penalty for murderers. Yet now in round 2 you allow it for grand larceny?",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.2031657566769836,-0.7484675884522648,0.23397842959408624,83,False,-0.27770917047263527
14,4,17824,I accept the challenge for the debate. Good luck!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
14,1,885,"(Hi there. Just for the record I agree with you. I just want to practice debating, and see if I can argue against what I believe in.) First of all, the death penalty is for those who have committed horrific crimes against humanity. It's hard to imagine how much the family of the victims hurt after learning about the murder/other crime committed against someone they love. The death penalty allows them to feel that they have gotten even. And when serial killers end up serving a life sentence instead of taking the death penalty, things end even worse. There are many records of them being killed brutally in prison, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, who ended up being bludgeoned to death.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.9124054818704682,0.5933896631214234,0.7103209855488215,120,True,0.8469855944575343
14,17,10526,: 5th amendment of US Constitution allows for executions,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
14,108,10526,: Capital punishment does not allow for repenting as life imprisonment does,0.8044698538620362,True,-1.4337154743960905,-2.1729362916180692,-0.20285225498506995,12,False,-1.4379703582078351
14,2,34819,"The death penalty is a useful and fair punishment. It shouldn't be used just to get rid of someone, but to repay what they did to someone else. If you murder, death penalty. Breaking and entering along with grand larceny, death penalty.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.19954820427237466,-0.7612487846523761,0.18648835369163608,42,True,-0.3001768011235625
16,6,4439,Its not stupid.. Id rather drink bottled water then drink it out the tap..even though it costs money to buy bottled water... I think it tastes nicer :P,0.4916888247220394,True,-2.6822039929660297,-2.3735250021494494,-2.1418088869541623,28,False,-2.786796622695964
14,2,13624,"aaiiee. It says up there the resolution is ""death penalty"". You are con, therefore it would make sense that you are against the death penalty. Then I thought your argument was ""the death penalty should never be used as a form of punishment"". That was very confusing.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,47,True,-4.0
14,7,21712,"However, there are other punishment that can make the murderer painful. Death penalty isn't only method to punish the murderer. Death is an unusual punishment. There are flaws in death penalty. People who are poor are the one who gets death penalty. People who are rich escaped from the death penalty or from the law.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.018645878679568673,-1.7028442304197555,0.5935949418030702,55,False,-0.37426893522359944
14,3,12748,"What you think is not relevant. You have done nothing to show the death penalty is wrong or evil. And the fact is that those in prison have shorter lifespans than those not in prison, which means even your prison sentence is a death sentence, but you prefer the slow and torturous method and me the quick and easy method. You also want to make the criminal suffer. That is evil. I just want justice. I win.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.4869262035045169,-0.3794194920208538,-0.4912629608964437,77,True,-0.5343513099526549
17,2,21142,"thatkiidsean forfeited this round. Con The coroner came out with the verdict that the death resulting injury was spinal related. After looking at the video posted by a bystander on the street, you could clearly see that the police officers that were putting him in the van were following correct protocol. He was being detained by officers holding his arms behind him in a professional manner, as well as swiftly taking Mr. Gray from the public eye and putting him into the police van. In situations like this it is hard to tell exactly what happened to Mr. Gray. However, when this case does reach a federal court in a criminal case, the jury and the judge will have to dismiss the case due to a lack of evidence. There was no clear evidence that Mr. Gray was harmed by the officers. I would like to think to myself if I was one of those officers, I would not kill an innocent man in front of a crowd of people. I know humans do some crazy things, however this is a very rationale situation by the police officers by DOING THEIR JOB. Yes, the officers may have been a little rough in handling Mr. Gray and putting him into the van, but why should the officers be arrested? If this is that case for ""being too rough"", then lets go back to the 1970's and arrest every teach that paddled students for doing something bad. This entire case is a big accident that was never meant to happen. America needs to get over the whole media attacking police forces, because this country could simply go into Marshall Law, and the federal government would control all.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.23155276446199785,-0.4677580641703933,0.3580557509112435,285,True,-0.1348205522909503
14,6,9575,"I would never say that it is wrong to kill people if it hadn't been written in the bible that killing a human is not allowed, but it is. And an other point is that there were people who had been punished by the death penalty ,who hadn't fault on the crime ,which had been discussed. But they were already killed so you had no chance to rehabilitate them.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.6374695611870776,-1.7808805643156456,-0.04705577740717592,69,False,-0.9298112961758851
14,5,12748,"And why is it just? If you are trying to stop killing, it makes absolutely NO sense to kill people!",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.5378882337588682,-2.160904965285084,-0.5978192736379148,20,False,-1.6419985791349943
14,5,40078,"Hi Sara, I wish to debate this. May the best debator win :D",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,False,-4.0
14,5,21712,i disagree death penalty. Death penalty is immoral and it can kill innocent people too.,0.8044698538620362,True,-1.1451114420162158,-1.7377989896437198,-0.5082402071568076,15,False,-1.3036340922856127
14,5,40325,"That already happens, godbot. It's called the ""death penalty"".",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
14,5,13624,"Pro, we're arguing the same thing. I'm not arguing against the death penalty. I'm arguing against the resolution which is against the death penalty. Nice argument though.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,27,False,-4.0
7,16,42041,"The right to vote is enshrined in the constitution or legislation of all democratic states and their collective parts. Governments, national and state, and their elected officials are charged with passing the changes to such documents that would permit or deny the right to vote to specific groups in society. In the United States, only two states, Main and Virginia, have laws allowing incarcerated felons to vote1. In Australia, a 2008 High Court ruling passed the right to vote to all felons serving sentences of three years of less2. Both examples prove the capacity of the state legislature to rule on the issue of the prisoner's right to vote. 1 Gramlich, J. (2008, September 23) Groups push to expand ex-felon voting. Retrieved June 21, 2011 from Stateline: 2 Maley, P. (2008) High Court lets prisoners vote. Retrieved June 21, 2011 from Wall Street Journal:",0.8044698538620362,True,0.459342701054131,-0.013770463815317952,1.4664846668542018,144,True,0.7493270692586208
14,5,37315,in americaca we belive to live however unless it hurts others killing over simple drug use is wrong,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,18,False,-4.0
14,9,25671,"Your opinion has no say in this, a mentally ill person will be sent to an asylum, where they can receive help and care, regardless of their wrong doings. they would never be given the death penalty unless they where 100% aware of what they were doing. And do to your argument of its still a crime regardless, your right it is a crime, and their punishment is to be sent to an asylum, the death penalty is too extreme and, it is not worth the hundreds of dollars spent to kill them. Mind you yes it costs more to keep mentally impaired people alive, the reason to do it out weighs the costs of money, the reason being moral value, to take a life is wrong, so I guess it could be said that your committing a crime by allowing the death penalty to be done.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3935791874464605,-0.13197318404991562,0.2743609436125077,147,False,0.19987279474840622
14,1,401,Actually the death penalty is when you die and we have the death penalty in place because some people have done such awful horrible things that they need to die,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.868811483926881,-1.4827451296685037,-1.080628616047907,30,True,-1.7152123970629705
14,2,11794,"The death penalty has a purpose. People who have killed many and even thousands cant be sentence to death? Death penalty should exist because when someone commits a crime that's so violent the end result can cause hundreds to die. If there is no death penalty then the maniac will still kill more people. Death penalty is used to get rid of bad people so bad that hundreds die. If you think the Death penalty is bad because it kills people you must not know what the purpose of it is. The death penalty is a way to put fear into the criminal and to put fear into others. Crime has decreased and the death penalty still lives. Several tests have shown that the death penalty is an effective deterrent of future crimes. Do people who commit heinous crimes, such as the bombers, really have human rights. To say that we are lowering ourselves to that level is wrong. Killing over 200 innocent lives. We have to look as well at the possibilities of these criminals committing crimes again. In Australia murder, on average, is imprisonment for 12 years. This means many murders are set free, able to commit further crimes. Benefits of death penalty - decreases jail over population - puts fear into other criminals and shows a purpose - It avenges innocent lives - It decreases crime. Without the death penalty -Over population of crime in jail - More criminals roam around - citizen would be feared. Probably could cause strikes on government, - Crime rate goes up It is on to you now",0.4916888247220394,True,1.9201211873246269,0.3993972621122608,0.6986011730498509,266,True,1.178630660612924
17,5,32182,"Racial profiling is not intended to solve murder crimes. It in fact harms the prosecution of murder crimes by reducing community trust in the police, reducing the police ability to gain useful evidence. Racial profiling is primarily used to prosecute drug crimes, which as I demonstrated earlier, are in fact not more prevalent in Latino and Black communities. Additionally, while Blacks commit a large portion of murders, the degree is consistent with what you would expect from the racial profiling ""boost"" in numbers. In Ferguson specifically, traffic stops routinely targeted Black residents of the city despite the fact that there was not a statistical basis to believe that they had a higher level of criminality than white residents. This has created a situation in which the police force and the community they serve have an antagonistic relationship. This makes police officers more likely to resort to force, and it makes the community more likely to object to that force being used. This hinders the ability of the police to operate, and makes them less effective as a crime-fighting force. In a situation where the police and the community are antagonistic, the officer and the individual being stopped are both more likely to feel threatened and take poorly-considered action. While the police officer might have felt threatened by their loss of control of the situation, the individual being targeted by the officer likely would feel threatened as well. Communities that are not targeted by the police usually have a much less antagonistic relationship with the police. If you know that the police are not going to assume you are involved in criminality, you are much more likely to cooperate with police and provide them with information, assisting in the prosecution of criminals.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.815202806431659,1.179707277961979,0.6572222351669295,291,False,1.017033864359177
14,94,10526,: The death penalty is not cruel,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
14,6,20170,It would only be moral to stop those who deserve the death penalty by giving them the death penalty. Why would we let a murderer go free?,-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.16204070424846198,-1.3313299464037325,-0.17582604184651918,27,False,-0.6364725321213016
14,68,10526,: Criminals fear death and the death penalty,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
13,5,25406,I accept the challenge and negate today's resolution.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
13,5,31934,I agree to everything that my opponent has mentioned in his challenging statement. Please enjoy the debate!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,False,-4.0
7,2,4194,Petitioning can't replace voting for ex-felons.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,True,-4.0
13,8,25406,Please do not vote on this debate. My opponent and I have agreed to repost it for voting soon.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,False,-4.0
13,6,33106,I'll take this up. I await your opening arguments.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
13,5,33106,ANichols0063 forfeited this round. Con Vote Con.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
13,4,25406,tornshoe92 forfeited this round. Con Please do not vote on this debate. My opponent and I have agreed to repost it for voting soon.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,24,True,-4.0
13,1,24960,Why post debates if you don't want anybody to respond to them?,-1.6977783792579355,True,-1.4684910873424903,-2.5039342651005616,-1.532884360175252,12,False,-2.120898963355124
17,2,19353,"Most people in America do understand Police officers have good intentions, while others may scrutinize unrellentlessly the motive of one, some even have a violent dislike towards police officers which is becoming more and more appearant in Social media.The news thrives on this controversy and condems ALL Police Officers of matters which are brutality and groups self-defense with the former.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,60,True,-4.0
13,1,37288,Welcome to this quick debate and wish my opponent luck.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
13,3,37288,"Thank you for posting this, it's an interesting topic. You can make your arguments first.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,15,False,-4.0
13,4,43001,"I accept. (I presume the first round is for acceptance, so I will start my arguments in the second round.)",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,20,False,-4.0
13,5,34972,"I accept. This is my first debate against someone of your notoriety. I hope I will be able to provide a challenge. Good luck Pro, and good luck to myself as well. I'll probably need it more than you do.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,40,False,-4.0
7,1,4194,Ex-felons retain the right to petition.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,False,-4.0
13,5,33977,"What we need is criminal control. Disarming law abiding citizens was something that Hitler did. States where concealed carry is the law of the land, criminals don't attack as much.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.976629463922238,-0.8227385281006321,-0.6039696259903196,30,False,-0.9370156801187943
13,8,11221,"But some people argue that countries with most gun control ,are far less violent than the U.S.Here are some table statistics,that I will show you.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.2139992677529097,-0.9574801797090936,-0.6756976630934477,25,False,-1.1068537978129966
13,1,11221,"I see you are against teachers possessing handguns on school grounds. I would like to debate this topic. Round Structure R1-Acceptance R2-Opening Arguments R3-Rebuttals R4-Defense of Arguments and Closing Statements I'll respond as fast as I can, but I'm about to be in a tournament, so I'm kind of busy.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,50,True,-4.0
13,3,9418,"Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round. I wish to remind everyone of the Fort Hood shooting that just occurred. How did it end? The shooter met armed resistance and killed himself. Unfortunately, since the armed resistance was from a police officer, the shooter had 15 minutes uncontested. Point being, the shooter could have been stopped much sooner if the military retained the right to keep and bear arms.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.27807741143886844,-1.1375359889210646,-0.07444179393854777,69,True,-0.5727443300863047
13,7,11221,"I can give you some videos about people who are against guns.Anti-guns advocates argue that countries with most gun control,is the most safest place.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-2.4336181902021674,-2.790029265860458,-1.3694973901745002,24,False,-2.5300448763249688
15,13,17204,The medical and scientific advances far outweighs the minor inconveniences,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.9147791379910388,-1.19357723313255,-1.66666139183546,10,True,-1.4619981457693547
13,2,36249,"We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word ""infringed"". [1] The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government. In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower. The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms. References 1.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.2849026603702827,0.10626021174408598,0.3695195356531191,132,True,0.06784191950106355
17,7,8030,"okay, i think i get it now. I do see some things wrong with your bill. Your bill takes away guns from people, as well as lower class police officers,(unless consented from a higher up source grants them)but their have been many cases where a smaller amount of police officers have come across a much bigger amount of thugs. Guns give the police a big advantage, but if you take away the guns, the police lose a lot of protection. And though the bill will create a unit to confinscate guns, their will always be illegal sales of guns. So police will not only be going against unarmed people, but also people armed with guns, while they have close to nothing. For example, around last year uprising in baltimore had a huge problem with riots and uprisings. They called in about 1,000-3,000 police officers to help. Thousands of people were rioting, and some people and police were hospitalized. ~ If the police didnt have guns, they would have probably been beaten and killed. Their have also been many terrorist bombings from ISIS and some unknown groups. Police would have a extremely hard time keeping control and diminishing these types if things without guns. The bombings and killings would also become more likely.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.08046023153043938,-0.2737403479591123,0.6636667732210239,212,False,0.1801761514133527
15,4,40055,"Testing animals shouldn't be banned. Testing animals helps identify things that are either harmful for humans or helpful for science. Animal testing helps us identify diseases and how animals act. Animals aren't usually killed or tortured during animal testing. It doesn't hurt animals, and it helps humans.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.5022684438112054,-0.6460663731077226,0.4082857852623653,47,False,-0.2830041012311664
15,32,10642,Animal Testing should not be on any animal at all. Imagine if animals tested on humans. Either way its wrong.,1.1172508830020322,True,-1.1488046798421525,-1.7827151050275698,-0.6095734133170799,20,False,-1.3629216588098767
7,4,11323,"No, it is a lack of good because good can exist without evil, but not vice versa. Just like laws can exist without felons. No, it varies. Is a felon who murdered multiple times, raped his victims, killed officers of the law, and stole multiple times on equal footing with a grandmother working at a soup kitchen and giving cookies to her neighbors? Of course not. The laws of countries that are sane recognize this.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.34291612499275553,-1.0959683865513037,0.09721986816576483,75,True,-0.5136408263278616
15,53,17204,if its called animal testing and we are animals then you can test on us,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,15,True,-4.0
15,10,12138,"Ultimately, I agree with you. Realistically, In nowadays, we really needs drug testing and other medicine or vaccine testing, because there isn't any way to replace animal testing. But animal testing for cosmetics doesn't. They have many ways to commute animal testing. But they are still using it because it's cheap and simple.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.5310392154105283,-0.15829965408749813,-0.3766497830402453,53,False,-0.420453480082475
15,25,370,Animal testing is WRONG how would you like been in a lab and having different things tested on you ? No animal should have to go through tests to make sure things are ok for humans,-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.4280078253804065,-2.31247025573928,-0.9980148126503195,36,True,-1.819995534526343
15,33,370,Animal testing is absolutely disgusting. We don't test on ourselves; so why should we test on animals? They have the same rights as we do.,-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.5555685960114009,-1.46183854959019,-2.2244236979605048,25,True,-1.6173599910532799
15,1,41457,I believe animal testing should be banned. 1. Animals have their own rights. -freedom -life -happiness -protection Animal tests violates these rights. 2. Animal tests are replaceable. -inaccuracy -alternative,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.9516556359429869,-1.4353467570595293,-1.8180986031146429,29,True,-2.017478734692536
15,2,11097,"Animals have plenty of ways of communicating. Think of service and hunting dogs just for starters. The mirror test is just one of many tests. In some ways chimps are smarter than humans. [1] My opponent has not addressed my r1 claim "" Animals are sentient and mistreating them paves the way for human oppression."" Animals are sentient according to the scientific evidence. New Zealand recognizes animal sentience [3]. Links. 1. 2. 3.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.5741836481083425,-0.1672032147199655,-0.28832370582392763,73,True,-0.40609688963823865
15,1,15316,"Animal testing should not be stopped, because there are many animals whose anatomy does not differ much from our own. We are able to test cures and vaccines for the good of our species.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.09523983043578856,-1.5511849579750372,-1.0013105012595456,34,True,-0.9297954280038517
15,6,30715,"Millions of animals are tortured everyday because of cosmetic companies. Their legs and other bones are broken to test painkillers.. etc... it should be illegal for cosmetic companies to test on animals. Alot of great companies don't test on animals, so it shows you there is another way. Please help stop animal testing.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.8503059108001659,-0.04988239887377547,-1.7603364244309143,53,False,-1.006840323017207
17,1,779,"All lives matter. Be it white, black, brown or yellow we are all human beings but for some reason some members of the black community feel differently. They openly rant about there hatred of white people, especially the police. What happened In Dallas when the sniper started shooting people? All these black lives matter members RAN BEHIND WHITE POLICE OFFICERS FOR SAFETY. Some of these morons actually think some police officers wake up everyday and go to work in hopes of killing a black person. HOW STUPID CAN PEOPLE REALLY BE? Anyone curious why I have never been shot or tazed by a police officer? It has nothing to do with the color of my skin, when a cop is behind me and puts there lights on I pull over, when they ask me for my license or whatever I give it to them. I don't give them attitude or suck my teeth or do that chicken head move blacks do when they get angry. I also don't make sudden moves for my phone or my wallet or whatever else, I do what is asked of me. Police officers are people to, they have feelings and emotions, families and friends, dreams and values. They are just at work and want to do there job and return home safe to there families. COPS LIVES MATTER as does everyone else but if your gonna act like a N$%er REGARDLESS OF THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN then you will be treated like one. Anyone reading this who hates America please let me know, I will buy you a one way ticket back to your motherland.",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.4557963080420339,-1.6255202788479992,0.14896314651262169,272,True,-0.35401147029789465
17,2,3652,: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
7,1,14078,"If you are not eligible to debate and wish to do so, please do not hesitate to contact me via PM or other. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments + rebuttals by Con (optional) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion Definitions Compulsory:Required by law or a rule [1] *Felon: a criminal who has committed a serious crime [2] Database: a comprehensive collection of related data organised for convenient access [3] Just: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair [4] (*This debate is about non-felons) Rules -All arguments must be posted in the debate (source links can be posted in comments if needed) -No trolling -No source spams -No forfeiting -Failure to observe or acknowledge these rules/definitions will result in an automatic forfeit. Citations [1] [2] [3] [4]",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,137,True,-4.0
17,9,3652,"Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
17,7,5236,Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves,-2.636121466677925,True,-1.4178089083651972,-0.9257618631081608,-1.686422253610031,13,True,-1.5602415014677251
17,8,4756,Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves.,-2.9489024958179213,True,-0.7105655955882962,-2.1696488122124653,-1.2792441575313809,9,True,-1.5926662348216096
17,14,3887,"The police are a lot more heavily protected than the protestors: the protestors wear t-shirts whilst the police wear stab vests and shields. The police would be injured if they did not have such protection, as bottles and other items were thrown at them during the summit.",-2.636121466677925,True,-1.2193052668091775,-0.2909988172584606,-0.12725786382543536,47,False,-0.628498417482588
17,3,4756,"This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations,",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,True,-4.0
17,1,22921,"This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,18,True,-4.0
17,3,22921,Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gu...,-0.4466542626979497,True,-2.865739150273897,-2.97943387664349,-1.1224322195509295,16,True,-2.6473578029959874
17,18,22921,"This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g. at airports and when providing security for political leaders or institutions. Already rapid-response units of armed officers are available to deal with armed criminals, but these need to be specially summoned and authorised. Often, they arrive too late to do any good.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.07141240028799438,-0.6461401176039079,0.24576082519289386,60,True,-0.12841517980668166
17,6,40799,Yeah the cameras aren't for security but to make sure no one gets hurt! There hasn't been a good reason given to force people to wear something on the heads. It's their choice! Who are you to reject them?,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.4883320471212834,-1.6995408854983212,-0.7425651993272221,39,False,-1.1246627601840655
17,6,21049,So a police officer should be mandatory in every school you are saying. A police officer with a gun is understandable because they know when and when not to use it. A teacher with a gun though is much different and is a big liability to the teacher and the school. Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns on them or in their desks for any reason at all. Nothing that bad happens in a school where a teacher needs a gun and if there was a police officer in the building or on campus then there wouldn't be a reason to. Most public high schools do a have a patrol officer on campus which is enough.,-1.0722163209779427,True,0.5100356534226924,-0.15501927497107112,0.6547317554329489,118,False,0.38698531981032225
10,2,35082,"socialpinko forfeited this round. Con Medical marijuana has serious side effects, although many argue it can stifle pain, I argue pain is healthy although it may not feel like it because pain relieves body stress. Marijuana is infamous for being detrimental to a person. Now I know you are arguing medical marijuana my argument is that legalizing the medical use of marijuana allows this deadly substance to be obtained by normal people, exposing them to the harmful effects of this deadly poison, plus this drug doesn't realy do anything, all it does is relieve pain temoporaily and then send you into a state of depression.",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.035046138600243,-0.20595829897046147,0.6095332781761696,105,True,-0.22734858901516464
17,1,8325,"Taxation is theft and since police officers are paid by state taxes, they are therefore paid with stolen money. It is immoral and therefore we need to privatize the police force.",-2.010559408397932,True,-0.7137075410645957,-1.6343198143105782,-0.8102852358810791,31,True,-1.2190955647074282
17,5,27874,"The actions taken by the police officer were a normal part of his duty and he should not be held personally responsible for them. Protests often turn violent, and pre-emptive action is necessary to clear streets and to show force. The consequences of this particular officers actions were tragic, but Tomlinson's death was caused by police tactics and not one officers decision.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.08838417449239283,0.30607917114639643,0.19014717176583207,62,False,0.14906242889589033
17,2,20395,Great job. Baltimore survived and no police officers were killed. No big deal.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,True,-4.0
16,5,10887,i meant bottled water is a scam,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
16,10,8210,Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water,-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.1765513064857476,-1.3796028952414043,-0.10745095683364307,12,True,-1.0192480321231907
16,1,22586,I don't think that it is safe to re-use the water bottles over and over because you drink the water and then recycle the plastic bottle or just throw it away!,-0.7594352918379461,True,0.000604349848794035,-1.7044365964594956,-0.24045949819672005,31,False,-0.7260412023896519
16,7,8210,Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway,-0.4466542626979497,True,-2.1437099992253708,-1.6933682360608449,-1.3772778319874042,7,True,-2.0174759596953793
16,9,8210,"Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,True,-4.0
16,11,4439,"Water from a tap undergoes much stricter controls than bottled water. Then again Evian is naive backwards, so I guess that is who it is aimed at lol",-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.5686387498718275,-1.447032140929431,0.03986032739818443,28,True,-1.1252962254686367
16,11,37993,"It is much better for people to get water bottle (not plastic 7) and refill with tap water, than plastic bottles that you probably won't recycle.",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.1300226544411305,-1.1204263750088992,-0.544807432514105,26,True,-1.0851064778483506
7,4,36961,"It is stupid to think that disarming innocent people will somehow protect innocent people, it is already illegal for felons to own guns, so whatever felons do have guns are doing so illegally, and a gun ban won’t affect them very much. So felons are just as armed as before, except maybe more because when you ban something you create a whole new market for it, while law abiding citizens are disarmed. This is supposed to reduce crime how? Liberals would point to Brittan having fewer homicides than we do, about 4 times less proportional to their population. But correlation is not causation, just because I can find a place where guns are illegal that has a lower crime rate than one where they are legal doesn’t prove anything because hat nation where guns are illegal might otherwise have a lower crime rate. You are also picking up the nation with the highest crime rate of those nations where guns are legal and comparing it to the nation with the lowest crime rate of those nations where guns are illegal. You have to compare very nation where guns are legal to those where they are illegal, and compare times with higher gun ownership to those with less gun ownership in the same nation. Which gives you the following statistics,",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.3669111026867449,1.024396003648109,0.5410614810096205,219,False,1.128800501080318
17,4,36432,"Note- Do you know that wikipedia is a unreliable source. It says right here So that most defiantly brings you down on most reliable sources especially in R2 you never put your sources. Rebuttals- Also, if we banned guns from police officers, they wouldn't be able to enforce the law. What if there were a female police officer going up against an enormous gangster? What if the gangs still had guns, and the police don't? I am sorry what part of banning guns did you not get. They should not have guns and police officers would carry a weapon still. I never said they could not. Just no Guns.",-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.2711622684202379,-0.5077556755542911,0.6461806679918501,109,True,-0.04692820778062913
16,1,3447,Bottled water is healthier and better than filtered water,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.028995291298616,-0.3468093260917328,-0.7734190524626486,9,True,-0.8353801756693398
16,1,40559,"I strongly believe that bottled water is in every way better than tap water. Tap water has been shown to cause things like abnormally large head growth, unicorn horns sprouting, and getting ""Beiber-Fever"". Tap water sucks.",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.2568444480884653,-0.7658771763576708,-0.5013218682138836,36,True,-0.9789205399269033
16,9,37993,"In the developed world, which is clearly where this debate is referring to, tap water is clean. Tap water is just as suitable for consumption as bottled water. The entire bottled water industry is in many ways a confidence trick.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.24956211790248914,0.5190991200735223,0.10919051309943403,40,True,0.33069361264643926
16,11,22586,"Cheap, disposable water bottles can potentially erode if left out in the sun too long, which can be dangerous. Whether that's true or not, bacteria can build up if you don't wash your bottles often enough",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.5129200393737129,-0.5209466458950889,-0.1764250808470023,36,True,-0.47604754293443513
16,2,40559,"Tap water has been shown to cause wide amounts of dehydration among children and young adults. Bottled water has been known to increase awesomeness. (Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD)",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.9650480974149356,0.3005749746871518,-0.642235353925423,38,True,-0.49739618517946815
16,18,4439,"It is pretty crazy but in some parts they buy bottled water because the tap water isn't fit for consumption. It is pretty stupid buying botled water though. I went to a restaraunt once and my friend said 'can we have some TAP water please' and we laughed at him, but he saved us quite a bit. Good for him",0.1789077955820434,True,0.3244429054963896,-1.1653155496812342,0.13674791250007545,60,True,-0.256053717966573
7,3,995,Con wins this debate i surrender,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,True,-4.0
7,7,20582,I extend all my arguments.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
7,2,24969,and find baby Jesus. Who will help...,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,True,-4.0
7,8,22418,"Accuracy on things these days, like tests and how much money your friend owes you is important in this world. So would keeping accuracy on comparing DNA and keeping track of the DNA gain be important too? In Arizona of 2001, Kathryn Troyer, a crime lab analyzer, ran tests on Arizona""s DNA database when she saw genes of two felons that almost matched. They matched 9 out of the 13 locations on a chromosomes, or loci. Loci are usually used to compare DNA because they are easily distinguishable. The FBI estimated the odds of finding unrelated people having similar genetic loci to be 1 in 113 billion. Troyer found the felons were unrelated and of different races. Troyer has found dozens of similar ""matches,"" showing that the accuracy of the base isn""t as clear as thought. When Troyer discovered this, many states looked for only 9 or fewer loci when looking for suspects (most try to compare 13 loci when evidence is reasonable). Troyer and her colleagues believed that a 9-locus match could mislead investigators to finding the wrong person. ""We felt it was interesting and just wanted people to understand it could happen,"" Troyer explained. ""If you""re going to search at nine loci, you need to be aware of what it means. It""s not necessarily absolutely the guy,"" added Troyer""s colleague, Phoenix Lab Director, Todd Griffith. Inspired by these findings, defense attorney Bicka Barlow sought to find out if there might be other matches in a DNA database. She started a new search of the Arizona database, she found that there was 122 individuals that matched at the same 9 of the 13 loci with 20 people that matched 10 out of 65,000 felons. So it can""t be all that secure if many of the flaws are getting through.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.8923126383090731,1.6543025071958133,1.360716540487566,300,False,1.5044280002412453
7,7,995,Opponent concedes to all my contentions and drops all of his. My contentions still stand.,-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.9115827400421482,-1.2705534964564773,-1.4195859167843596,15,False,-1.398441971714828
17,6,19871,"I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on ""community policing"". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.5325417082847207,0.23867417428747004,-0.4553715837284914,133,False,0.12178986531505638
7,25,24563,": Depriving prisoner vote ""disenfranchises"" only because more minorities are felons",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.698265067624934,-2.3090295419625098,-1.1737077233955429,11,False,-1.9964613685742576
7,41,24563,": Felons have bad judgement, should not help elect reps",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.4006661187857494,-2.834729888774712,-1.7319538493862108,10,False,-2.2881533570352457
7,3,20582,kasmic forfeited this round. Con I extend all my arguments.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
7,5,20582,I accept this debate challenge. Best of luck to my opponent!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
7,1,21225,"Once upon a time there were two girls switched at birth. One belonged to a royal family, the other to a mother and father who are alcoholics...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,27,True,-4.0
7,1,13118,Unless mentally insane we should have guns to deafened ourselves against intruders and there are some who like guns. And being a felon says nothing about you . you can be arrested for fighting does that mean your violent . no you could have been arrested for defending yourself,-2.323340437537928,True,-0.013515859831206518,-0.8974761334868491,-1.3656358523744854,49,True,-0.8698485409100764
7,3,13118,No But it is still a felony so all where arrested or should have been except for the girl but felons you said none should have guns.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,27,True,-4.0
8,9,39623,thevanthi.t forfeited this round. Pro Vote for pro.,-1.6977783792579355,True,-4.6081269733092896,-1.5813268589916982,-1.8237835621402207,8,False,-2.957822576912201
15,6,7862,"Clearly there must be some confusion. I do state that an alternative for animal testing SHOULD be found. You state that I need to prove ""that an alternative for animal testing should NOT be found,"" when my original argument is AGAINST animal testing and the fact that we should find an alternative for animal testing. Your conclusion states that it ""is definite that we ought to find an alternative for animal testing."" Hence, you were only endorsing my statements and argument. I""m not sure that you understood YOU had to prove why we should NOT find an alternative for animal testing. Unless I""m completely wrong here?",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.5055645780491752,-1.3580964921182903,-0.5586064572871542,106,False,-0.9362182996977384
7,8,4194,Depriving ex-felons of the right to vote alienates certain minorities,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.1677803417570831,-1.6200991779801368,-0.5243241081245232,10,True,-1.2764322647801993
8,6,11928,Error 404: Opponent not found. Kindly vote accordingly.,-2.010559408397932,True,-3.478209260086053,-1.0790791853718094,-1.5108134357531648,8,False,-2.275356712366129
8,3,33553,Well this is unfortunate Vote Pro I guess,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
17,19,5236,"Police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations. This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g. at airports and when providing security for political leaders or institutions. As mentioned earlier armed police have even been used before on routine patrols in areas where there has been gun crime.[1] Already rapid-response units of armed officers are available to deal with armed criminals, but these need to be specially summoned and authorised. Often, they arrive too late to do any good. The next obvious step would be to have many more police armed so as to make this response much faster. [1] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2734997.stm accessed 20 September 2011  ",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.8233857197909454,0.2632968685931014,0.4889808730980402,128,True,0.601550188209111
8,6,24582,"As expected, a cowardly forfeit. Vote Con",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
8,3,11928,ianlawton forfeited this round. Con Error 404: Opponent not found. Kindly vote accordingly.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,True,-4.0
8,5,33553,the_abard forfeited this round. Pro Well this is unfortunate Vote Pro I guess,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,False,-4.0
8,3,24582,"mariozxy forfeited this round. Con As expected, a cowardly forfeit. Vote Con",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,True,-4.0
8,6,24643,All arguments extended. Vote CON.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
8,2,24519,Dude i like soda and stuff but i also like people to be healthy so i is voting no,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,False,-4.0
8,8,1068,I guess now we vote...,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
7,9,4194,: Depriving ex-felons the right to vote is generally undemocratic,-0.4466542626979497,True,-2.2020247297629525,-1.5505349346287165,-0.05038718115415322,10,True,-1.4254560836875645
8,2,29852,Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
8,7,3224,Popular vote would improve the choice of candidates,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
8,3,9613,"As you can see, my opponent has failed to back up his argument. He has instead decided to simply forfeit the rounds, destroying his credibility in the process. Vote Pro in the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG voting period...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,35,True,-4.0
17,14,5236,"When a police officer carries a weapon, she faces the risk of having that weapon turned on her by a criminal. It is also more obvious to a criminal that they need to shoot first against an armed officer whereas against an unarmed one they may be more open to listening and less likely to try and pre-empt being shot. So arming the police can sometimes make the police more vulnerable, rather than more protected. If, as the opposing argument suggests, legally owned guns are part of the risk profile facing the police, measures ought to be taken to reduce the risk and restrict levels of gun ownership.  The police have had a National (legal) Firearms Database since 2006 allowing them to assess whether someone they will be dealing with is a gun owner or whether the premises they are attending contains licensed firearms. Criminal misuse of illegal firearms is a different matter although, as has been argued, protection and safety are not the same as ‘armed’ and more armed police will probably mean more shootings and, equally probably, more mistakes and armed confrontations.[1] [1] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed  response.  Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.  ",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.6566538586478433,0.3088512266658289,1.0687876693145688,202,False,0.7810431608691524
8,3,24643,italia4356 forfeited this round. Con All arguments extended. Vote CON.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
8,10,26470,"Well, I don't have much more to say but thank you for accepting the debate as you did not give me anything new to refute. Vote con! Once again, thanks.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,30,False,-4.0
8,5,25913,The education system will be improved.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,True,-4.0
8,5,9261,Can't do much without my opponent. Vote me if you wish to vote as my opponent refused to follow the rules forfeiting in the process. :/,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,26,True,-4.0
8,1,26667,"Batman is awesome, just doing this to get past the ridiculous 3 debates to vote process. -_-",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,True,-4.0
8,6,9613,"aydinm2001 forfeited this round. Pro As you can see, my opponent has failed to back up his argument. He has instead decided to simply forfeit the rounds, destroying his credibility in the process. Vote Pro in the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG voting period...",-2.010559408397932,True,-2.62189772074876,-1.6500761567293185,-2.314526979414653,40,False,-2.5422775972684115
7,7,4194,Depriving ex-felons of the right to vote gives an unfair advantage to the Republican party,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.3424481818082363,-1.3108513296839752,-1.3039398792969292,15,True,-1.1391723555291229
8,4,37942,"Please leave this debate a tie, as Chandermohan explained the circumstances and we restarted the debate. If you want to read and vote on the restarted debate, please follow this link.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,31,True,-4.0
8,5,22456,"The government is made up of the people. Everyone was voted into the government and can be voted out at any time. Its not just the people that aren't helping it could be anyone. It was a regular process, they were only voting people out for the best. Eventually everyone will voted out and replaced with someone new. Like I said it was what was best for the people.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-1.0291975582751196,0.11890233903621872,-1.8931261549112723,69,True,-1.049719798898136
8,8,10140,"Bummer, well BOP is not entact. Vote con!",-1.3849973501179391,True,-3.4033069131374707,-3.2556875092569326,-2.4980122702513845,8,False,-3.5343858493903935
20,12,25908,"A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.",1.4300319121420288,True,1.2503671973503632,1.9340260628465118,2.4114446909518987,228,True,2.162749662631932
17,11,33583,"State employees- including members of the security and police services- encounter conflicts of interest throughout their working lives. A police officer may become involved in a case in which a member of his or her family is suspect. A civil servant or local council worker may be required to determine whether friends, family or a partner should receive a state funded subsidy. The impartiality of state servants may be called into question in circumstances where their own background, whether personal or professional, may appear to undermine their ability to impartially implement the decisions and policies of the executive. Structured, accountable and responsive civil service organisations recognise that such occurrences are routine and inevitable. Consequently, all western liberal democratic states incorporate a degree of flexibility into official bodies that wield delegated powers. The size of organisations such as the police means that conflicts of interest will continually threaten their impartiality, but employees of these organisations are made aware that their roles and duties may be restructured in order to avoid such conflicts. Police officers can be deployed to duties that will not bring them into contacts with families members or friends. Moreover, internal procedures in most public sector organisations punish attempts to conceal possible conflicts of interest, but go to pains to point out that the fact of the conflict’s existence will not prejudice an employee’s chances or promotion or make their position less secure. Judges are educated and trained to recognise even more remote and tenuous forms of personal bias than a familial link to the defendant or claimant in a particular case. Judges have frequently recused themselves from trials based on past personal experience, the content of academic articles published earlier in their career.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.92933928514092,0.4779547748800447,0.3089290098995917,285,False,0.6566937814511045
20,67,1627,: Defeating Hamas is key to long-term Israeli/Palestinian solution,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.4792502516204245,-1.6232664538951198,-1.4882293354481055,9,True,-1.3800579601773497
20,62,1627,: Israeli strikes ignore history; no military solution with Palestinians,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,False,-4.0
20,3,19188,Most Islamic terrorists traditionally support their cause by citing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,True,-4.0
18,1,3246,"I accept, hopefully this will be a good debate Since my opponent has failed to specify: Pro: For gay marriage being legal Con: Against gay marriage being legal Good luck!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,30,True,-4.0
18,1,16193,"Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US for homosexuals and/or bisexuals. Homosexuals should be able to legally marry whomever they choose, no matter if the individual is of the same sex.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,32,True,-4.0
7,6,29042,I accept your challenge and will be arguing that convicted ex-felons should not be able to vote in all US elections. I look forward to debating with you :),-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,29,False,-4.0
18,1,9276,"Gay marriage should be legalized. To my future opponent: Thank you for this debate, I'll be looking forward to what you have to say.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,24,True,-4.0
18,1,3416,Gay marriage should be legal. There is no valid reason homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as as any other citizen of the United States.,1.4300319121420288,True,-0.02212765121028689,-0.58793640672614,-0.6929480098008859,25,True,-0.5081659191299848
18,1,11848,Please tell me your opinion of why gay marriage shouldn't be legal in America.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,14,True,-4.0
18,1,40829,I challenge ViceRegent to this debate on whether gay (same-sex) marriage should be legal. This is not about States' Rights or whether the Supreme Court was in the wrong or whatnot. This is about whether gay marriage should be legal. May the best debater win!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,45,True,-4.0
18,1,3683,I believe Gay marriage should be legal all over the world. It isn't a sin and it isn't wrong.,1.1172508830020322,True,-1.3441452720505962,-1.5110353172070896,-1.7004757085652982,19,True,-1.7685009650353116
17,18,5236,"The large majority of policewomen and men go through their whole career without handling firearms. The numbers in the firearms authorised officers are low, only 6780 in 2007-8 out of more than 100,000 police,[1] and even these have been criticised by SAS officers who stated “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.”[2] Any expansion of the numbers of police carrying firearms could result in many more unsuitable police carrying guns. [1] Coaker, Vernon, ‘Statistics on police use of firearms in England and Wales 2007-08’, Home Office, 2 March 2009, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/non-personal-data/police/police-firearms-use-2007-2008?view=Standard&pubID=807224, accessed 20 September 2011 [2] Winnett, Robert, ‘SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police’, The Sunday Times’, 18 September 2005, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article567961.ece, accessed 20 September 2011 (original article is no offline but the quote was not picked up by other newspapers)  ",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.0478470852298991,0.1359068517879201,0.3644198766409936,159,False,0.5962847154884924
18,4,27410,"Gay marriage is actually already legalized. In all 50 states. Maybe you mean gay marriage shouldn't have been legalized, or it should be delegalized. Either issue I'm comfortable with discussing. I look forward to your opening arguments.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,37,False,-4.0
18,5,11608,"I accept your debate. I will be arguing that gay marriage should not be legal, because there should be no kind of legally recognized marriage, because government should not be involved in marriage. Good luck.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.6872034331879839,-0.9004278753772493,-0.9645621893729412,35,False,-0.9951025086878226
18,9,8173,Gay marriage is a serious offense to the Lord our God,1.1172508830020322,True,-1.8044302934303549,-2.3914680255044938,-2.26776239247016,11,False,-2.502313777138871
18,1,29127,Gay marriage should have all the same rights as straight marriage. Gay marriage: recognition by the government of two people of the same sex to be in a union with legal benefits. Straight marriage: recognition by the government of two people of the opposite sex to be in a union with legal benefits.,1.4300319121420288,True,0.34798225059130683,0.019255643237268968,-0.7112703227740748,53,True,-0.13147819514381515
7,4,4194,Other democratic countries do not disenfranchise ex-felons.,-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.979101886477296,-2.1379617347536106,-0.8979357234182478,7,True,-1.9263008266424393
18,4,15398,"I am not advocating for the government to tell the church what to do. Legalizing gay marriage does not command the church to act in one way or another, it only requires the government to permit gay marriages to be granted -by the government. Marriage, as an institution, is subject to tremendous governmental regulation -at present by individual states. It is taxed, subsidized, incentivized, and even defined -by every state other than MA and a few others, as between man and one woman. It is that definition, and only that definition, that legalizing gay marriage will change. Legalizing gay marriage will permit one man to marry another man, or one woman to marry another woman -as the government recognizes marriage. Wether the church should desire to perform gay marriage, endorse gay marriage, or support the practice of gay marriage is a matter entirely for the church to sort out. While it was originally the case that marriage was a religious thing, it is more than that now. That it was once only a religious thing does not mean that it has not transcended its origins. Christmas is celebrated by atheists, just as much as non-religious people get married (even if they are straight). As to the health insurance effects of gay marriage, I'm not sure it is appropriate to be discussing the finite details of intercourse on this medium and so I will abstain from doing so. I will only say that there are exceptionally effective means to prevent the spread of disease that are readily available at any pharmacy, grocery store, or gas station.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.4978470622015368,3.0300020559087573,0.28878012860401275,265,True,1.5438922653733902
18,53,8173,"Of course gay marriage should be legal. If you have a problem with it sucks for you. You have no right to say they can't neither does your ""god""",0.8044698538620362,True,-3.24242234445194,-1.8259193490353844,-0.1889094067602275,29,True,-1.9322287561619824
18,2,32721,Gay marriage should be legalized because being gay is a natural part of life.,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.8340331685662759,-0.9699841951382208,0.15004202593549168,14,True,-0.63374060932873
18,18,17563,Gay marriage's legal benefits would strain taxpayers,0.4916888247220394,True,-2.2166136337084708,-1.907972209703652,-1.998744553741775,7,False,-2.3743341609217317
18,3,17563,: Legalizing gay marriage will incite attacks on Churches,0.8044698538620362,True,-3.1892127766704546,-2.7737993137361387,-2.7547971272026777,9,False,-3.374544487848202
18,25,8173,"I'm sorry, but I do not accept of Gay Marriage",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,False,-4.0
17,9,36432,"My opponent says wikipedia is an unrealiable source... and he goes on to use Yahoo! answers to prove this. I'm not sure if this is meant to be a joke. Anyways, if you want a source other than wikipedia for Indiana state laws, look here: Banning guns will not necessarily make guns impossible to obtain. Many drugs are illegal, but they're very easily obtained. What makes my opponent think that guns will be any different? Most guns gangsters use are bought illegally anyways (1). But if gangsters have guns, and police officers don't, then police officers will probably be shot down by gangsters. What is the police officer going to do? Taze a bunch of gangbangers? I doubt it. (1)",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.27661580257533785,-0.7449962814716542,-0.7109544785419829,120,False,-0.4521143009958829
18,6,25854,Geeze Liberals can never defend their own beliefs and yet Gay Marriage is legal inall 50 state- idiots.,-0.13387323355795333,True,-3.614702817668094,-2.098588891198143,-1.9309496487828897,18,False,-2.9186141098796017
18,5,17661,"Well, now that gay marriage is legal, isn't nice to know that it's a logical position to take?",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,18,True,-4.0
18,6,16547,Gay marriage is wrong and it shouldn't be legal,0.1789077955820434,True,-2.8330825272223907,-1.8738997388252645,-2.094430943673097,9,False,-2.624905725522091
7,6,4194,Disenfranchisement of ex-felons amounts to an extrajudicial punishment.,-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.0721108344005046,-2.5827860335166646,-0.7417994721381196,8,True,-1.6650279918569257
18,4,30657,"I think gay marriages should be illegal. A marriage is between a woman and a man, and that should not change.",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.6047385175123248,-2.373577238229821,-0.35120927704282284,21,False,-1.6356574797695027
18,45,8173,If anybody has taken government they would know the government shall not be influenced by the church. The only reason why gay marriage is illegal is because the CHURCH says so. Gay marriage is perfectly constitutional therefore it should be legal. I say its a sin to denie who you are and lie to yourself. Its also a sin to hate against gays just because their gay.,1.1172508830020322,True,-0.003754332687577071,0.3557898196348189,-0.3400444724811054,67,True,-0.0007498753091047873
18,1,12530,"Title says it all, the question here is on Gay Marriage and should it be legalized or not! Standard DDO Conduct Rules Apply Uhrah!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,24,True,-4.0
18,4,31866,"I assume that when my opponent says ""America should legalize gay marriage"" he means that it should be put on legal par as traditional marriage. Just to clarify, this is what I shall be arguing against. As requested, the first round is for acceptance. Over to my opponent!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,48,False,-4.0
18,4,29080,gay marriage is not right prove me wrong first round is acceptance,0.4916888247220394,True,-2.7612223750825886,-2.6626112238660498,-2.427375123696833,12,False,-3.0415112438301866
18,5,32721,albinstany forfeited this round. Pro Gay marriage should be legalized because being gay is a natural part of life.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,False,-4.0
18,1,27410,"Just to clarify, I am arguing that gay marriage should not be legalized in the US. A political context is necessary for this debate, since we are debating the governance of this issue.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,33,True,-4.0
13,9,16132,"Opposition agrees that handguns have unique advantages over other weapons; however, banning handguns in this area would lead to worse problems which are mentioned here as well as in the first point of opposition. The biggest issue with banning handguns, especially in a city, is that handguns will still be available to criminal classes willing to simply import the weapons from elsewhere. Due to their concealable nature it is very easy for them to smuggle handguns into an area where a handgun ban has been imposed. This is problematic because law abiding citizens in this area will now not have guns to defend themselves with. As such an asymmetry of power has been created where the people who bear guns, mainly criminals have weapons which give them significantly more power than the citizens in that area. Under the status quo, the legality of handguns means that although they are more dangerous than other weapons, their availability works in citizens’ favour. This is because the asymmetry of power mentioned above is then weighted in the other direction. If a large proportion of the population have handguns for self-defence then there will be a greater chance that criminals attempting to commit violent acts will encounter individuals carrying weapons, resulting in an equality of power between both attacking and defending parties. The asymmetry is then pushed towards the defensive parties because presumably there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. As such those who wish to use guns for defensive purposes outnumber those who want to use guns for criminal purposes, weighting power in favour of those defending themselves. This is verified by the incredibly common use of handguns in self-defence; roughly 80% of self-defence actions involve handguns.4",1.1172508830020322,True,0.8281107197955778,0.15597918445333525,1.0381272774030321,285,False,0.7788262645073577
17,3,36936,"No matter how many people complain/riot against the police they won't be able to stop police brutality. This argument has con and pros for both sides. My cons have already been stated. The police are just doing what they are paid to do, and if stopping a women/man from damaging city or putting others at risk then they are authorized to use force. The people need to understand that many of the people the may have been ""victims to police brutality"" are just overreacting. There's a video where a police officer tazed a man for no reason, in the video you could clearly see that he was getting aggressive towards the officer. When some one is starting to get physical with an officer they are obligated to use force.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.53867330778852,0.2327180852160915,0.14164468893808474,129,True,0.3442785082831673
18,10,17661,"KCole forfeited this round. Pro Well, now that gay marriage is legal, isn't nice to know that it's a logical position to take?",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,23,False,-4.0
7,3,4194,"By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate a disrespect for the law.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,False,-4.0
18,1,10078,Gay marriage should be legal in all states. Love is love no matter what shape size or gender.,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.9810334413261452,-1.1214261602727948,-0.8185014890642369,18,True,-1.1374674615966744
18,1,21791,"I don't believe by making homosexual marriage legal that it will lead to the legalization of pedophilia or bestiality marriages. Children and animals cannot consent to marriage or sex, therefore, the argument that gay marriage will lead to these things is absurd.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.2241847339098781,-0.7944867915603921,-0.002798172825796143,42,True,-0.2201930676800168
19,30,20257,"Masturbation is just a sign that one is a sexual being, has nothing to do with sexual orientation.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,18,False,-4.0
19,20,24396,Sexual Orientation does not affect the rights of others,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
19,63,23212,": Troops should be judged on ability, not sexual orientation",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
19,3,23680,Why did you accept my debate if you agreed with me? Um.....,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,False,-4.0
19,24,30566,: The relevance of causes of sexual orientation to policy is dubious,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,False,-4.0
19,21,23212,There are good reasons for servicemen to keep sexual orientation secret.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
19,7,26554,PhilosopherOfYou forfeited this round. Pro I think I win,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
17,1,19353,More and more often with internet growth videos displaying 'rouge' police officers arouse hate amoung communities in the U.S and Police Officers are condemmed/scrutinized for self-defense or even worse... the actions of other said 'rouge' officers.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,36,True,-4.0
7,5,4194,Disenfranchisement does not deter ex-felons from committing new crimes.,-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.7609416953226469,-1.781771803781107,-0.982061402982874,9,True,-1.7485713883791132
19,15,36372,People don't choose their sexual orientation. They are born. They are what they are. They like what they like. They're attracted to what they're attracted to.,1.4300319121420288,True,-0.3492840466761105,-1.8536154997015235,-1.0971256226972121,26,False,-1.2603589398422397
19,4,30100,Lives of homosexuals are still not guaranteed,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
19,5,30100,Widen the spreed of STDs and HIV,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
19,19,35006,Sexual orientation is not a choice.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,False,-4.0
19,3,2442,"Sexuality is not ""Black and White"". It is more like sliding scale. The sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex of the people are not always consistent across time. That's why nobody can determines someone's sexuality. You can prove it here: -benshine7-",1.1172508830020322,True,0.3953164317374642,-0.6642558395169134,-0.4609249158576766,46,True,-0.27949772554633767
19,3,4900,"The person certainly does not have the right to determine his/her own life because they did not determine their birth; God did. So why would they be able to have a right to determine their death? Dying will never make things better because it is not your choice, rather it is something that just happens like birth. If the person can determine when they die, why can't anybody else? It does not make a difference because nobody has that right to take away somebody's life, not even the person.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.3208191474756289,-0.41063107178120345,-0.30441428601952564,89,True,-0.4100902215576921
19,3,30100,Recent asylum claims granted do not promise hope,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
19,10,30100,The government is incapable or unwilling to stop or prevent discrimination against LGBTs,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,True,-4.0
19,5,2442,"moeloreo forfeited this round. Pro Sexuality is not ""Black and White"". It is more like sliding scale. The sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex of the people are not always consistent across time. That's why nobody can determines someone's sexuality. You can prove it here: -benshine7-",-0.4466542626979497,True,-3.5045265502070344,-0.9521776330165606,-0.191121379086147,51,False,-1.6688183623623467
19,8,30100,The laws and practices of the originating country of asylum-seekers is irrelevant,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,12,True,-4.0
17,4,21004,"1. No, don't even go there with the stupid logical fallacies, I can't **Flashback** This guy attacked me on here saying that all I used was logical fallacies... I'm going to ignore that. 2. There's already a fund for the body cameras. 3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie. 4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game. 5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves? I can't break down and analyze your argument at a cellular level because I'm a full- time college student, so sorry for the short responses.",0.4916888247220394,True,-1.8130235505734271,-1.079459934980365,0.38678033974135456,130,True,-0.9252841345046896
17,6,27874,"Mr Tomlinson was an innocent newspaper seller who was not involved in the G20 protests. The actions of one police office resulted in him either having an heart attack or suffering from internal bleeding. He died soon after. There is evidence showing what happened that day to Mr Tomlinson. The police office was filmed hitting Mr Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him to the ground. This police office has so far escaped criminal prosecution. There are two reasons for this: the length of delay after the incident. The protests occurred in April last year and the conflicting medical evidence. There is disagreement over what contributed to Mr Tomlinson's death. Despite the disagreements, there is evidence to show that Mr Tomlinson was at least assalted. The person responsible walks free. [[",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,131,True,-4.0
19,4,11986,This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
19,12,11336,What have fags got to do with gays? Anyone can smoke cigarettes regardless of their sexual orientation,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,False,-4.0
19,12,35006,"You can't choose your sexual orientation, although you can be aware of it.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-2.4928451030934813,-2.2617374882961183,-2.2417527043305583,13,False,-2.7118239104758923
19,1,5209,"AIDs isn't sexually specific. And it did not orientate from homosexuals, even it high numbers of that group had it in the past, which is going down. And no it didn't orientate from heterosexuals, just to repeat what I said first. HIV is the mutation of SIV.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.6136492109196792,-0.19581925518896445,-0.14332823810482784,47,False,-0.3754813542579239
19,1,11986,Asylum is not the best way of dealing with discrimination against LGBT people.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,False,-4.0
19,6,11986,This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
19,7,11986,The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,True,-4.0
19,18,40606,I doubt this could be true. It has not affected me: I would tend to not believe that one's being homosexual makes any difference to anyone else or not as to what they are of and in themselves oriented towards. Everyone's sexuality is inside themselves as is.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,47,False,-4.0
19,14,36372,"I'm continually amazed how many things people think are choices. Sexual orientation is not a choice. You're born with a tendency, then experience pushes you one way or the other. I've been straight my whole life, since before I was old enough to make choices.",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.0794433564914407,-1.964007378678792,-1.5542145219753882,45,False,-1.7772406139890042
7,4,9819,"As the argument is literally impossible to argue against (it's irrefutable fact), I shall argue that homosexuals are capable of practicing both their preferences and Christianity. In today's America, homosexuality has become accepted to some extent, by Christians and atheists alike. So why do others still believe that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity? Anyone and everyone is sinful by nature, so what singles homosexuality out as irreconcilable with Christianity? Is a felon completely incapable of being a Christian, just because he's sinned? I'm not saying that a homosexuality can be non-sinful (it is an abberation), merely that homosexuals are no worse than anyone else, thus no less needing or deserving of the Grace of God.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.30824913712745305,1.0085904558986651,0.8823557266346285,115,False,0.6207098828881688
19,3,32054,"When I said media nudity I didn't mean sexual oriented nudity, I meant education oriented nudity. When an ex-disney star decides to go looney, that's not good, but if we just show nudity, not explot it, just show it, no strange videos accompanying it, what's wrong there?",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,47,True,-4.0
17,4,18755,"I accept this debate. While I do think that the idea of a special license plate is quite good, you are being a bit harsh about the other parts. Random stops by the police is a bad idea, especially since you are saying that all of their immediate family would receive the same treatment. That is just wasting the officer's time and that family member's time. Imagine you had a brother who murdered someone. The police found out and made you wear a special badge indicating that YOU were the one to do it, as there is no difference in the badges. So from now on, the police can stop you at any time and say, ""Sorry sir, I'm afraid I have to check your internet history and any items you have on you, just in case you murder someone again"". Do you understand?",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.7620274081736526,-0.3117596995186802,0.02759313395093568,144,False,0.18599480362810608
9,4,33185,"Social networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. ""Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.1713356677165798,0.1739996686942407,0.4775243047673337,268,False,0.7036447413054151
9,4,24352,I accept debate and await pros argument,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
9,4,4964,Social networking sites do not allow for trusting professional relationships to be established.,-1.3849973501179391,True,-1.1861507860156586,-0.30214081969751266,-1.3203892171060214,13,False,-1.082039794723715
9,11,4964,Social networking sites create great opportunities for making friends.,-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.780808201117428,-0.8146771477950581,-1.5078934608483898,9,True,-1.2016674504915141
9,14,4964,Social networking sites give too great of access and control to governments.,-1.0722163209779427,True,-1.2583793060182815,-0.2010058784951119,-1.5068357641985797,12,False,-1.135342728696794
9,3,4964,Social networking sites have agreements that explicitly say that information can be used commercially in any way.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,17,True,-4.0
9,1,4964,It is unethical for social network sites to use personal information to enable advertisers to better target you as a consumer.,-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.3837381687508349,-0.3734584023865408,-0.2695993547541648,21,False,-0.40655830336098736
9,4,4954,"Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,14,False,-4.0
15,2,43677,"Rebuttal "" 99% of the animals that are tested are dead and thrown in the garbage"" I highly doubt that is true at all. You have no source backing your statement. For all we know, you made up that statistic. "" now imagine someone tested perfume on you."" You made it unclear whether we are talking about animal testing for cosmetics or all animal testing. I agree that testing cosmetics on animals should be banned, but does not merit animal testing for medical purposes being banned. Argument [2] medical progress requires animal testing.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.11638110517023748,0.5170023515486674,-1.1869336014465663,93,True,-0.2844282836388307
7,1,995,Im going pro for the resolution that guns should be allowed to feons,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,True,-4.0
9,4,40273,Soicial Networking Sites are a Time-Waster,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,True,-4.0
9,7,30696,It will be difficult for people who are not accustomed to social networking sites.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,14,False,-4.0
17,2,42668,"On July 5th, 2016, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police after being called to the scene for an individual threatening a homeless man with a gun. There were two different videos taken from cellphones that showed two different angles but both videos told the same story. After Alton was taken to the ground he continued to resist the officers knowing he was in felony position of a firearm. It is reasonable to assume that after threatening someone with a gun he was illegally in possession of, Alton knew there was a good chance he was going to be arrested and chose to resist the officers. It is also reasonable to assume that if someone has just made threats with a gun and then refuses to comply with officers, that person might be willing to turn that gun on the officers as so many people do especially in recent years. It is not unreasonable to believe that these officers were in fear for their lives given Altons resistance and the fact that he had a gun in his pocket and was seen reaching for it as the police officer screamed ""he's going for the gun."" in the video. Alton has an extensive criminal background including battery, resisting an officer, and pedophilia (he impregnated a minor) In order to make the claim that this shooting was not justified, my opponent has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alton did not intend to use the gun on the officers despite his criminal records and obvious refusal to cooperate with police.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,260,True,-4.0
9,3,4954,Con has failed to continue this debate and explain as to why social networking is bad. Therefore I have explained in great amount why it is good. Thanks for the debate!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,31,True,-4.0
9,50,2149,"Your argument is invalid. Did you even read the topic before posting? Its not saying social networking will die out, its saying (like myspace) Facebook will fade to the next amazing social networking site",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,34,False,-4.0
1,1,18018,The minimum wage in the US should be increased each year to help provide a higher income to those working on minimum wage.,-0.4466542626979497,True,0.0937286573665536,0.5175475517669733,-0.7060102508795499,23,True,-0.03170277282031377
1,1,14552,I accept. The US federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.,-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.8733030371673781,0.026206631788538687,-1.9162376213227783,14,True,-1.037425327105079
1,1,10637,Resolved: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Shared burden of proof.,-0.7594352918379461,True,0.2458005685718985,-0.5247509817874247,-1.4616667387500355,15,True,-0.6525290229423298
1,1,11452,I believe the minimum wage should be raised on a federal level. Con will argue the opposite.,-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.1291585217312402,-0.4484121039720976,-1.1869698133124356,17,True,-0.6796384937438593
1,5,19017,"I'm interested to see how this goes. Just to clarify, I signed up believing that you were in favor of abolishing the minimum wage laws; that is, removing federal and state minimum wage laws.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.3741302648665004,0.2933932688089487,-0.2398884326895271,34,False,-0.12905072213560917
7,6,13118,"Please correct me if I am incorrect, You think that unless you are mentally insane we should have guns to defend ourselves against intruders and criminals, however, you think that being a felon says nothing about you, because you can be arrested for fighting, but that does not mean you are violent, and you could have been arrested for defending yourself. I think that being a felon does say a little about the person you are, If you got drunk and went for a drive and killed someone, that means you are irresponsible with your drinking habits, If you got high and killed someone, you are responsible for that, If you flat out killed somebody, INTENTIONALLY, and you go to prison for INTENTIONAL murder, then that could prove you to be mentally unstable, because I think that if you look somebody in the eye and say, I could kill you, and do so with a clear conscience and think it was OK, then you are absolutely bonkers. Yes you can be arrested for fighting, that could potentially be an issue for people who tried to defend themselves, but there is no need to beat the attacker to a pulp because of what he/she did, if it comes to it, knock the attacker out, and run away, if you use a gun to defend yourself, injure the perpetrator and then run away. As a guideline, we should injure attackers before you kill them.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.2968915850057127,-0.14781712909494668,1.1959517458232647,242,False,0.5268531234775157
1,1,33335,"Raising - Increasing Minimum wage - A minimum wage mandated by the government, currently ~7$ 1st round acceptance..... No trolling please.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-1.1301377300074922,-0.32055962640628743,-1.8409750469183883,21,True,-1.2565784538257463
1,1,14341,"Acceptance! ^_^ The minimum wage should be raised to benefit families, immigrants, and middle class people all across america.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.9691361824831292,-0.7442903379063374,-2.8077157023699884,19,True,-1.6984995821496236
1,5,21879,I accept this challenge and negate the resolution which is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage.,-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.2114064211335519,0.21333849356916806,-1.0823251266374292,18,False,-0.4099531446221586
16,25,8210,"Just because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because ""we don't need it"" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.4435002265517787,0.22379670294243384,0.10526382255662116,86,False,-0.04935224443536119
1,5,1602,"I accept. Noting the comments others left, I will take this debate on in what I believe to be the spirit you intended, and will not resort to cheap tricks like only considering a one-penny increase. Proceed, honored opponent.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.550219026400176,-0.4072019012551344,-0.6175491479273116,39,False,-0.9891632966262184
1,5,14552,"Simple debate on whether the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. I'm Con on this, so Pro will debate for a 15 dollar minimum wage in the United States. Rules BOP is shared 1st round acceptance No K's Any violations of rules will be result in an immediate loss.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,51,False,-4.0
1,10,5291,I still maintain that it should not be increased,-0.13387323355795333,True,-1.1502361855011216,-1.3387925249039083,-2.555133979132333,9,False,-1.9316981336453156
1,4,40873,"I accept this challenge to debate upon the fact that the minimum wage should be raised. It is unjust in my opinion that millions of the working class will have to partake more than one job to support their families. I will be arguing on the basis that the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2009. And the fact that numerous citizens will have to survive on meager means from the minimum wage pay. I acknowledge you for providing this debate so I can provide my opinion on the issue at hand. Okay, that sums up what I'm gonna do.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.3122583466756417,1.0703046300543566,0.5805560967055381,104,False,0.7536693890049354
1,8,22408,Harry Truman wins by knockout!,-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.33733902052545073,-2.5234248168629785,-1.9110045327428884,5,False,-1.795187786771942
3,1,29496,Should we save you if you're hungry and sick?,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
7,1,42095,"The punishment should fit the crime and that's why, as part of their sentence, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other people found guilty of anti-Semitic hate crimes should be forced to promote Jewish-owned businesses in their local communities. But how, in practice, would this worthy notion be achieved? Well, Jewish businessmen enjoy a well-deserved reputation for honest, straightforward dealing: potential customers and clients know they can rely upon a Jew to provide excellent service and quality at a fair price. Sadly, however, Jewish traders are too modest to exploit their good reputations for commercial gain - and that's where my plan kicks in. Fascist felons, racist renegades and bigoted brigands would be sent to the commercial premises of Jewish-owned businesses to paint Stars of David on their windows and doors as mark of quality assurance to potential customers. Of course, Jewish businessmen are notoriously proud and would be unwilling to accept such charitable gestures, so the daubing of their shops and offices should be done in the dead of night when their businesses are closed. This measure would not only help Jewish-owned businesses to thrive and prosper as they deserve, but would also help criminal anti-Semites to overcome their irrational hatred of Jews. Thank you.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.8189016043566474,1.2754523896412762,1.1266240849638764,204,True,1.2361270521223675
3,34,31398,When i was a kid i read book and it told me a lot about how the animals are kept in their own filth how can disagree?,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,27,True,-4.0
3,6,27623,what are you talking about soccer? can u leave my debate ur wasting my and other peoples time be more considerate!,-2.9489024958179213,True,-2.2848254221062394,-1.8792794648033448,-5.496520692870861,21,False,-3.521367157567457
3,1,25565,"I understand what you mean when you say we are taking animals from their natural habitat and I totally understand that. But sometimes animals have to be taken from the wild. It is sometimes because the animal is injured and needs to be taken care of for awhile until they are back at full health. And also, most of the time, the animals are kept and nursed to health and then they are released back. So I feel that taking them for awhile is the right thing to do.",-2.636121466677925,True,0.7875695905319229,-0.29789848490827503,0.5319486967798528,89,True,0.3966287354804531
3,4,19459,When we eat fast food is saves the time,-1.6977783792579355,True,-1.6818840733651526,0.185989571650938,-4.145023829277482,9,False,-1.967298947417461
16,2,10887,"it should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular basis ignour it, and your wasting your money.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.7812626755927061,-0.5673603542307104,0.07174274048538233,57,True,-0.4953830478548074
3,3,36555,"People take out loans because they cant save enough money at one time to buy a house. Can you save 200,000 dollars for a house. No its easier to pay for it a little at a time.",-1.6977783792579355,True,-1.0887550607393124,-1.5061215033361877,-0.8111524406169685,37,False,-1.3205056558691481
3,13,16557,It will save time and money.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,True,-4.0
3,1,37416,"Save time, money. New Opportunities.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
3,10,1308,"If only Noah had kept records of everything that got on the ark. We'd have a list of every organism on earth! Maybe he could have used all that time on the water to study them, too.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,37,False,-4.0
3,2,5281,Modern zoos are good. The animals are kept in areas that resemble their natural habitat. They are fed and get veterinary care. People get to see animals that the normally would never see in their life time.,-2.010559408397932,True,-0.5792241148954481,-0.19786595762986034,-0.8837997104930819,37,True,-0.6468446376758029
7,2,20895,If you are tried by jury of your peers and the Jury has no felons on it then its not your peers.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,22,True,-4.0
3,2,26055,"Since my opponent forfeited, I will make a quick argument to make things fair, and to save time. When stores are open on the holidays, things go on sale. When things are on sale, people can get items for less. This is better for people, and saves people money.",-2.010559408397932,True,-0.7161482502521925,0.5336850628857679,-0.6733155857629616,49,True,-0.32064978796457855
3,3,12726,If they are having car crashes maybe they should go to bed earlier . :),-1.3849973501179391,True,-1.2868500636839757,-1.3650453784505243,-6.37882234841261,15,True,-3.0411835569778467
3,2,17155,"Some kids don't enjoy playing and running at recess, but I do agree that the portable device may get lost. I have done this before and did not get in trouble or lose my device because I kept it in my coat pocket at all times.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.5840209298654018,0.6722195034592111,-1.141745977124734,46,True,-0.38254235255218483
3,2,41840,"It actaully increases populations with breeding programs, and most animals are happy in zoos. Animals shouldn't be kept in zoos that don't feed them the right food, don't give them challenging games to give them excerise for the brain and body, and have small enclourses. The highland wildlife park where I live has a HUGE enclosure for just one polar bear, and it snows often where it is, so she has a wonderful time.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,74,False,-4.0
3,2,13291,Are you listening to yourself? dude this is an argument whether it should be lowered to 18 or be kept at 21,-1.6977783792579355,True,-1.6640913028077788,-0.8839728851870771,-3.484903699128296,22,True,-2.254901744411727
16,1,1280,"I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water. 1. Health benefits Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. ""Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride.""[1] Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses. Plus, bottled water isn""t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous. 2. Environmental impacts ""Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled.""[3] 3.It is expensive! Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3] 4. It does not even taste better than tap. ""D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.""[4] 5. Conclusion Bottled water : Less regulated Costs more than tap Bigger carbon footprint Not as good for you as tap Tastes worse than tap [1] [2] [3] [4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.2667991715575062,1.5511743227630024,0.4274185334663213,233,True,1.2555620453289937
3,2,43876,"Well, a question is not really an argument but what the heck. If an animal is attacking you, then it is the only time to abuse them. However, any other time it is not morally justified. Same with humans, since they are animals. If the animal is attacking you, then go ahead and abuse them to save yourself. Thus, animal abuse is good in that situation. Or if your trying to save a group of people from an animal.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,79,True,-4.0
3,7,26055,"grube130 forfeited this round. Pro Since my opponent forfeited, I will make a quick argument to make things fair, and to save time. When stores are open on the holidays, things go on sale. When things are on sale, people can get items for less. This is better for people, and saves people money.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.08506672344014225,-0.1982146618464944,-0.5164073533968306,54,False,-0.2496878793909727
3,1,38036,Pitbulls should not be kept as pets. They can attack you anytime and they have a characteristic to when they grab on to something they don't let go,-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.8314280216973716,-0.12411162721530693,-1.963635006245856,28,True,-1.1009786762107667
2,3,1151,A sales tax is regressive,-2.010559408397932,True,-2.113740704604037,-2.2920583479700056,-3.4161720319593227,5,False,-3.005739155529529
7,8,20582,I extend all arguments. Vote Con!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,6,False,-4.0
2,7,1151,Reduces the price of goods,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,True,-4.0
2,8,1151,Take money out of Politics,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,True,-4.0
2,13,1151,VAT is an empowering tax,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,True,-4.0
2,2,1151,Disincentives to spend spell economic disaster,-1.6977783792579355,True,-4.207760962641723,-1.7202594692508468,-2.7975427463082987,6,False,-3.2964826546162254
2,14,1151,Indirect taxes can be used to motivate change,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
2,16,1151,Indirect taxes allow us to modify public behaviour,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
16,13,4439,"While granting exceptions for those not living in industrialised countries, and those struck by a sudden thirst while out for a walk, I think buying bottled water in general is certainly stupid. Successive studies have shown that it is no better than tap water. In many cases, it literally is tap water. I suppose it's a great triumph of marketing to get people to pay a premium price for something they can have for almost free out of the tap. Ridiculous slogans and marketing strategies are applied to this very ordinary water. It is called ""iceberg water"" or water from the Antarctic or other various supposedly extremely pure places. In reality, of course, it is straight out of the tap most of the time. In some ways, this is very comical. But it becomes less so when you think that people elsewhere in the world would love to have purified water on tap as we do in the West; and that significant resources, including energy resources which contribute to global warming, are expended in the whole process of marketing and bottling up what's already readily available. I'm tempted to call for a ban on bottled water even, but my libertarian impulses restrain me.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.4140232177371344,2.028010791293565,-0.6466196746995408,203,True,1.1390100046239502
2,17,1151,"Indirect tax, such as VAT or sales tax, is fairer",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
2,5,537,University is not important in the same way that a basic education is.,-2.323340437537928,True,-1.8515450286197488,-2.027425323465489,-0.8506505023362383,13,False,-1.8186917683468429
2,4,30330,The United States as a whole spends 14% of GDP (total income) on health care. This includes the amo...,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,True,-4.0
7,9,24563,": Denying felons a vote sends a strong message, deters crime",-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.6550233556101237,-2.5936711138255304,-0.6397916825562251,11,False,-1.8545536360317862
2,5,10958,"I accept with the understanding that Pro has the BOP. I look forward to a great debate and to being devil's advocate, and thank Pro for choosing me as his opponent!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,31,False,-4.0
2,5,12167,There are basic standards of justice which merit global application. Certain crimes against humanit...,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,14,True,-4.0
2,3,7947,"It is not desires that ground human rights. It is the universal need for basic bodily security, for ...",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,19,True,-4.0
2,126,34949,:Health care is a basic human right or entitlement,-0.2902637481279517,True,-3.0,-3.0,-3.0,9,True,-3.4868389544615375
2,1,9936,"When taxes are lowered, the government has less income. When the government is poor, it cannot fulfill all its duties rightfully. When the people see that the government is poor, they become even more conservative and don't spend their money. If they do not spend their money, the econonmy cannot be stimulated and the status of it will become worse. Therefore, lowering taxes hurts our economy.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.7047521627027917,-0.31536806883145946,-0.141684548532521,66,True,-0.45553231035071756
2,2,33537,"In light of the stall, I will hold my arguments until such time as the Instigator posts an argument. Failing that Pro will post a basic premise of their position.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,30,True,-4.0
2,47,1151,This is assuming that other taxes cant be progressive. Other progressive taxes could be put in place. For example estate tax and inheritance tax. Even sales tax could be made progressive by having higher taxes on more luxury items and no tax on basics.,-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.03945425104284899,-0.8453459075062478,-0.7448037208451116,44,False,-0.6317129710563971
16,6,2871,Hi I Go to BHS. Today they Banned food and drinks at school. It made a lot of people mad. if you have a water bottle you get an office referral and iss and whatever. so people in the school have diabetes. I have diabetes and I am allowed to eat because my sugar will get low and I have to bring it up. and my friends will turn on me because I get to eat and drink and they don't. I have other medical conditions that require me to drink water and eat bc I will die or whatever. but I think its stupid that they are banning food and water. our little town has unclean water the water fountain are nasty. but they are also banning bathrooms too. if you ask to use bathroom we get our cards sign and have to have detention. But I have to take medicine at school and I use they drink I have to have and one of them requires water and I use my water bottle but now I'm not allowed to use it anymore because its banned. but anyways. tell me how you guys think this is wrong or right :),-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.7963002910216568,0.05683465616395314,-0.9171164667679736,201,False,-0.6384920205397798
2,4,31092,"So basically ISIS! I mean right?! They are trying to come to the US and make us communists, take our religions and income. The US was taken over by the English in hopes for freedom of religion! So it would be stupid to stop the reason we came to what we now know as the United States of America.",-2.323340437537928,True,-1.4805406738153823,-1.3709351861135208,-2.1629111046963265,59,False,-1.938622866790585
2,7,22797,"A special tax on graduates would accelerate the brain drain abroad, as many new graduates would use their university degree (for which they have as yet paid nothing) to find jobs and a higher net income in states without the graduate tax.",-2.636121466677925,True,-0.511361270149807,-0.33849423939956896,-0.9413759618331106,42,False,-0.6980673390319088
7,4,20582,kasmic forfeited this round. Con I extend all arguments. Vote Con!,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,True,-4.0
2,5,33537,"Mizztaurus86 forfeited this round. Pro In light of the stall, I will hold my arguments until such time as the Instigator posts an argument. Failing that Pro will post a basic premise of their position.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,35,False,-4.0
4,21,42549,"Children work best in a structured environment. There is nothing wrong with teachers trying to get to know and understand their students; after all the best teaching is done doing so. The problem is when discipline fails and the structure is lost. Teachers require a mechanism by which to assert the authority of the school over the students, and sometimes, corporal punishment can be the most effective instrument. Corporal punishment should by no means be the primary disciplinary tool, but is a tool to be used in extremis. As to reporting on bullying and abuse, students are smart enough to recognize the difference between structured, organized corporal punishment and outright abuse. Furthermore, some tough love on the part of teachers will not, generally speaking, undermine a student's ability to talk to them if they are in trouble.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.23165265642716376,0.7736277851561817,0.8286546874090455,137,False,0.7023711860744506
4,5,18442,"rolandbeja forfeited this round. Pro Delaware children are too soft for corporeal punishment, but many children in other parts of the nation have much duller feelings. There's a plague infecting close to one fourth of Oregon that causes the auditory perception of children under eight years old to undergo static overload when verbally instructed to change their behavior, and they can become lost souls without getting other clear forms of communication from adults, such as all-out beatings. The ones in my home state of Texas are made of rubber, and punching and scratching are our 27th and 28th letters of the alphabet - we would lose a historically significant portion of our culture without it. We need to continue to bridge the generation gap between adults and their children, and corporeal punishment is a key element of that plan.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.00711223034604458,0.1824749685066615,-0.6969549134939715,139,False,-0.1975480075141384
4,50,24511,"Corporal Punishment has now been completely banned in 24 countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela. Furthermore, there are numerous countries which are on their way to banning it such as Italy and Nepal, who have forbidden it by the courts but not by law as of yet. Corporal punishment is becoming widely discussed all over the world and the consideration to completely ban it is becoming a frequent query. Therefore, corporal punishment should not be reintroduced as evidently the fact that so many countries are against it portrays the negativity it brings and the banning of it in so many countries must be for a good reason. If there were any doubts all these countries would not have banned it and the UK would not have banned it in schools in the first place! To reinstate something which has already been thoroughly discussed years ago and of which the outcome was negative, would be absurd!",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.563225857651365,0.3116587300932269,1.0620391414418184,178,True,0.7434859676050117
4,2,38038,"First of all, not all children can run, thus it would make any form of punishment unfair. 1 mile for a fit student is not the same punishment as 1 mile for a overweight student, but giving a child a larger punishment for being physically fit is also discrimination. Secondly, teachers would need training in this area which would cost money. Third, If a student had an injury or anything went wrong parents could sue costing schools more money. Fourth, just because rules are in place doesn't make it impossible for abuse of laws. Teachers hit students all the time. As a student who has to do 16 hours of service for texting while on a school sponsored volunteer trip, I know that schools can abuse the punishments, but imagine having to run 16 extra miles or something that could put your health at risk. The system that we have now is not perfect, but there is not a cure all for punishment and detentions and suspensions are the only way for schools to enforce rules with out putting the school or the students at risk.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.04142144614610187,0.3299702534998557,0.3968359353224588,186,False,0.28805982085634174
4,8,20182,"Teachers can be trusted to use corporal punishment as an option. They will think about what to do on a case-by-case basis and try to understand why a child is behaving a certain way. Then, if they think it is appropriate and it would help, they may choose to physically punish the student. Sometimes students who misbehave come from families who are too soft on them and do not discipline them enough, so their teachers need to take the task of setting boundaries. For this type of students, corporal punishment may be very helpful.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.0958569842420296,0.046157374548423835,-0.7420158516733198,94,False,-0.3089036673235378
4,6,29365,Round 1: acceptance only! round 2 speaker 1 (me): present argument/case round 2 speaker 2 (you): present argument/case NO REBUTTING IN THIS ROUND YOU MAY NOT ATTACK MY CASE IN ANY WAY YOU MAY ONLY PRESENT YOUR CASE. round 3 speaker 1: attack your case round 3 speaker 2: attack only case not my rebuttal. round 4 speaker 1: attack/defend rebuttal round 4 speaker 2: attack/defend rebuttal round 5 speaker 1 : conclusion round 5 speaker 2: conclusion I do not believe corporal punishment should be implemented in schools. Please always state sources. if you run out of space you may post them in the comments with a note on the formal statement that you are doing so.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,118,False,-4.0
14,6,33933,"The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons: 1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical. 2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional. 3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out. 4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance? 5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment. I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.060534410902415424,0.8043781499125745,0.5305423381729859,137,False,0.4894886651696551
13,4,29430,"No not really my point is quite simple....whatever the law regarding concealment an officer can and is likely to continue to use the same old excuses. Your angle is confusing, it appears as though you accept that unlawful police killings occur but you feel that the excuses they use are passable because people are allowed to carry concealed guns. I'm sorry but as you are aware guns are easy to come bye...right? Then why would the police feel more comfortable if people are not allowed to conceal them. Don't you think that the officer may still feel a bit anxious that someone is not actually abiding to the rules. Come on drop me out!",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.7919544373013431,-1.07055133818794,1.5089962004593809,114,True,-0.06853447951088096
16,8,1280,"Yes! I am admitting to something. I effectively equated the quality of tap water to bottled water, thus negating the resolution. The argument is valid because I do not have a BoP. All I have to do is to show that tap water is NOT better than bottled water. I do not dispute their equality and I do not advocate bottled water. A water fountain is a water fountain is not a tap. A water fountain""s purpose is solely to give drinkable water (Hence many fountains have a ""For drinking only"" sign). A tap""s main purpose is to supply water. Period. I do not dispute that there can be harmful chemicals in bottled water. I dispute, however, that there can be no toxic chemicals in tap water. Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. Thus, I have shown clearly that tap water is not necessarily better than bottled water.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.1425605944089765,0.8571161247771532,0.19461418440875106,233,False,0.8461278757901702
7,7,30489,"No, no, no, sir. The operative wording is ""the two are normally cops"". which implies a buddy cop film isn't restricted to both lead characters being ""police officers"". They can be FBI agents or CIA agents as in ""This Means War"" which grossed a whopping $156,491,279. As long as one lead character is a ""law enforcement agent"" that is ""teamed up"" with someone ""opposite"" his/her character and the ""two work together to stop a crime"" it will be, may be, or is considered a ""buddy cop film."" Your grievance that Cates is too disrespectful to Hammond is irrelevant to the heart of Cates's character and status. He is a redneck cop, so of course he's going to ""dislike and disrespect a black convicted felon."" Is it logical to assume that a redneck cop is going to cuddle a black felon, invite him over for Thanksgiving, and name a son after him? No. The character opposition made sense. As Ebert stated in 2004 about 48Hrs: ""The two men start out suspicious of each other in this movie and work up to a warm dislike. But eventually, grudgingly, a kind of respect starts to grow."" Citing Another 48 Hours is not relevant since your premise restricted the movies to LW, DH, and 48H, and not their franchises. It would be irrelevant to base this argument off your premise: that LW4 centered around an American superiority in its cliched representation of thuggish, martial artists Asian organization, therefore LW did not launch the buddy cop genre. That sir, would be a silly argument.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.5438183760205828,0.7935126088997194,0.27798658294235906,259,False,0.616390800301735
14,4,37315,"well marijuana is harmless nobody has ever died from it.death over something that doesint even kill is nonsence. i agree with you death penalty should be for inhumane crimes. and drugs are not inhumane. every body in the world has a drug of there choice (caffeine, booze,weed,nicotine,ect) Albert Ienstien even did DMT and LSD. Unless Given poison like from frog snake(yes considered drug) then should death penalty be in forced, because thats trying to murder. all people are close to one another 1 guys knows this guy that knows that guy ect. there going to get hurt also for what being nice and giving someone something. anyone in possesion of DMT are called instantly for death penalty no court. and there still yet to find one thing wrong with dmt. what if it was in your pocket someone had you hold on to it. and your found with it you will die and cant say idk what it was or your holding on to it you die.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.7334795930392617,-1.448864090710786,-0.2176224252457905,167,False,-1.2952520416523374
14,3,35449,"Death Penalty - Capital Punishment - Resolved: The death penalty should be used at times as punishment for a crime. I negate the resolution. I reserve the right to make new contentions in future rounds. Contention 1: Costs Too Much [1] The government spends millions of dollars paid for by the taxpayers, just to try to get a person killed. This is, to put it simply, a waste of money. It costs much less money to keep people convicted of high felonies locked up under maximum security, and it would also create jobs in security. Contention 2: Risky People are often released from Death Row through DNA evidence that previously was unavaliable. [2] ""In the U.S., as of June 2002, 108 people including 12 death row inmates, have been exonerated by use of DNA tests."" This means that the death penalty has most likely killed at least one innocent person. Keeping people under maximum security would allow for the release of a person later discovered to be innocent. The death penalty, however, once delivered, cannot be repealed. That should do it for now. Good luck to my future opponent. 1. 2.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.7610703720315235,0.23917070722293124,0.8848270427701538,191,False,0.7224291856554195
14,1,17824,Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of not allowing the death penalty in the United States. This is how the debate will be layed out: 1st round: Acceptence only (anything more will be an automatic forfeit)! 2nd round: Opening argument / statement 3rd round: first round of counterarguments 4th round: Final counterarguments and closeing statement Any violation to the setup will result in an automatic forfeit.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,74,True,-4.0
14,1,40078,Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of not allowing the death penalty in the United States. This is how the debate will be layed out: 1st round: Acceptence only (anything more will be an automatic forfeit)! 2nd round: Opening argument / statement 3rd round: first round of counterarguments 4th round: Final counterarguments and closeing statement Any violation to the setup will result in an automatic forfeit.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,74,True,-4.0
14,1,12107,"There is no justification for allowing the death penalty to continue if innocent lives are being lost. According to a recent study, if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely at least 4.1% would be exonerated(1). As a result, we must pause to consider how many innocent lives have been mercilessly taken by the death penalty and those who instigate it. How can we justify such senseless killing and mask it as some twisted form of justice? With all the technology we have in our possession in this day in age, you would be forgiven for thinking such mistakes would not be possible. And yet as early as 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham(2) was executed only to be found not guilty in 2006. (1) (2)",1.1172508830020322,True,0.4062005224054821,0.9342543853692268,0.5459118551406587,126,True,0.7213840369124124
14,2,2743,"I think that what you are saying is that because we don't have a good way to deal with people who cannot be trusted to be a part of society, so the only thing we can do is kill them. Even though people who might be sentenced to death have done terrible things, their lives are still worth something. If extra money is needed to provide an environment where they can live in acceptable conditions and not be a danger to others (solitary cells, special facilities for high-risk criminals, etc.) then it should be raised and spent. Whether or not the death penalty is less or more expensive than life without parole is irrelevant because it would be unethical to decide whether someone lives or dies based on which option is cheaper. If there was an alternative sentence for criminals bound for death row that allowed them to exist in an environment where they posed no threat to others, would you agree that the death penalty should be abolished? In other words, do you think that the death penalty should be legal because it is the only practical option for some criminals or because some criminals deserve to be killed for what they've done?",0.4916888247220394,True,0.9148373542792946,-0.2159769403821305,-0.09137757202870672,204,True,0.23916712108651408
14,5,3701,"Closing Statements My closing statements will be short, as I feel I have covered almost everything, as well as Con forfeiting the last round. I hope to have been able to have shown why the death penalty should not be abolished, as well as provide reasons of why it should be allowed (to take away someone else's human rights is to forfeit your own). Con's entire case relied on one reason, and that reason was the death penalty being immoral. Con used that argument, but barely used any reasoning to show how it is immoral. Con also didn't rebut many of my arguments, as is apparent in the previous rounds. Again, I hope to have shown that the death penalty should not be abolished. I would like to thank Con for partaking in this debate with me, and the voters and readers for also taking part in this fascinating debate.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.1568125959942598,-0.14920603784026756,0.10794482162709836,150,True,-0.08569164554819851
14,9,3701,"Vortex-Blue123 forfeited this round. Pro Closing Statements My closing statements will be short, as I feel I have covered almost everything, as well as Con forfeiting the last round. I hope to have been able to have shown why the death penalty should not be abolished, as well as provide reasons of why it should be allowed (to take away someone else's human rights is to forfeit your own). Con's entire case relied on one reason, and that reason was the death penalty being immoral. Con used that argument, but barely used any reasoning to show how it is immoral. Con also didn't rebut many of my arguments, as is apparent in the previous rounds. Again, I hope to have shown that the death penalty should not be abolished. I would like to thank Con for partaking in this debate with me, and the voters and readers for also taking part in this fascinating debate.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.0688770571403182,-1.0688169518709354,0.22842071803816266,155,False,-0.3429334490366827
14,2,12748,"I note that you have failed to establish that the death penalty is ""wrong"". I assume you are dropping that claim, which means you lose the debate. And no, the purpose of the death penalty is to punish capital criminals. And no, killing is not a crime;., murder is a crime, with murder being defined as the unlawful taking of human life. Surely, you do not believe killing animals for food is a ""crime""? Nor do you believe that killing man to stop him from raping your wife would be a ""crime"". It is certainly not in the U.S. Capital punishment is just because God says so. And I am not trying to stop killing. I am trying to punish capital criminals. I have no problem with killing, especially cows and chickens. You will have to do better than that.",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.1514369108114806,-0.5553575813315129,1.2991713380702854,140,True,-0.10373693128667295
14,1,33089,"Resolution The death penalty should be abolished. The Burden of Proof (Use its abbreviation, BoP, in case of future reference) is shared. Rules 1. The first round is only for acceptance. This rule serves to confirm that my opponent has read, understands, and agrees to follow the terms of the debate. You may request an amendment to the terms of the debate. However, it should be done prior to accepting the challenge. 2. Minor trolling is allowed, as long as it is not done consistently. Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture. Definitions Death Penalty - punishment by death. Any crime that is serious enough to warrant a death penalty is known as a capital crime or a capital offense. abolish - formally put an end to Debate Structure R1 - Terms and Agreement R2 - Opening Arguments R3 - Rebuttals R4 - Rebuttals R5 - Conclusions This debate structure should be strictly followed. I look forward to a clean and friendly debate!",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6833377805894965,-0.7752824996485709,-0.5983816903151814,167,True,-0.2517106847017056
8,4,41294,"I think I would be wrong if i say that man is a slave of the machines or technology as the nature of the human being is to make life better and better and for this he is making machines or using new technology to give us better and better ,and there is nothing wrong if we care about our comfort .Now the man has become the friend of machine and gain total control over it .He is using machine for the improvement in the mankind .There are many people across the world who's life is completely dependent on the machine and one of the great example is of the great scientist-Stephen hawking(who cannot even speak without the help of the machines) The machines have completely changed the living standard of the people it has modernized the world .Now we cannot even think our life without the use of the machine .Technology have lighten the world .It has being successful in growing the mentality creation of a human being .The technology has given the power to the man to control over natural hazard over great extent and if it doesn't stops the hazard completely at least it makes the people aware of the disaster and the amount of the misshapen to be created by the disaster ,so that people can either migrate to some safe place or can take steps which can reduce the amount of the damage created by the disaster. So, can we say that the man is not a slave of the machines but he has made the use of the technology for a better life, mentality, comforts, etc.......?",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.034249834215958244,0.6181415704729141,0.13868031143838944,272,False,0.2991896202657658
16,1,14658,"Before starting the debate, here are a few rules: 1. Please do not write things that are too off topic. (Things that are off topic, but related are okay) 2. Please, do not be rude. Argument 1: A lot of bottled water are actually just filtered tap water. Buying a pitcher water filter is cheaper than buying bottled water in the long term. [2] ""In 2006, the Earth Policy Institute , a Washington-based NGO, found that around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water with minerals added later on, questioning assumptions over its special health impact. Similarly, research carried out by the University of Geneva for conservation group WWF in 2001 found that bottled water is not safer than tap water unless consumed in areas where water is contaminated. "" [1] 2. Tap water contains fluoride, which is good for your teeth unless overdosed. ""According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, infants begin to need fluoride supplements when they are six months old. If your local drinking water (tap water) contains at least 0.3 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, then it is usually best that they get that fluoride from fluoridated water. While you can instead give your child fluoride drops, there is the risk that he will get too much fluoride if he also drinks fluoridated water and gets too much fluoride, which can cause tooth staining."" [3] 3. Bottled water is 10,000 times more expensive than tap, can be distributed without meeting tap water standards or testing for E.coli. Bottled water is also more wasteful, only 1 in 5 are recycled. [4] [1] [2] [3] [4]www.onlineeducation.net/bottled_water",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,272,True,-4.0
16,4,1280,"Thanks to my opponent for a fun debate! ""Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli"" But wait! What about the remaining from the other 60%? (40% of them are processed tap water.) Plus, bottled water gets processed before being sold, and how do you guarantee that the processing plant is free of E.coli? ""I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water."" Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water. With this logic, we can also conclude that: P1.Unicorns have glitter. P2.Unicorns produce the glitter. C. Unicorns are real. Therefore this rebuttal is false.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.7709486278895389,0.3430649521874911,-0.2985713307294902,178,True,0.3158486698456827
16,7,3447,"You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it’s beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.835707654184182,1.3436768685928129,1.01864977686535,183,False,1.6174150305513917
16,3,40559,"I assume this debate is from an American point of view of tap water, as apposed to say, a Somalian. It is regulated Tap water in the US is ""federally regulated and screened for dangerous pollutants""[1] so you can be assured that your head growth claim will not be true. Nor do I beilive there have been any cases of Unicorn horns or Beiber Fever due to unregulated tap water, just going out on a limb here. Health Benefit Flouride, added to tap water to increase dental health. ""fluoridation started in the late 1940's and over the years led to a reduction in cavities in children from 50-70%""[2] It is cheaper Bottled water is up to 2000x higher in cost then regular water[3]. For the cost you would think that you are getting cleaner water right? WRONG. b""ottled water plants are exempt from standards for certain toxins and cancer-causing chemicals that tap water plants must meet.""[3] Plus, E-Coli and many other viruses, regulated in tap water, aren't regulated in bottled water. Better for the enviroment More than 80% of bottled water goes into landfills each year[4] and contributes to billions of bottles going into the landfill. Also transportation of these bottles realeases co2 into the atmosphere. They also take years upon years to decompoze. [1] href="" target=""blank""> href="" target=""blank""> href="" target=""blank"">",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.1270658907113191,0.8718271609276782,0.6185004329767769,221,False,0.17539660666285778
16,4,3447,"Bottled water is big business. Estimates in variously place worldwide bottled water sales at between $50 and $100 billion each year, with the market expanding at the startling annual rate of 7 percent. The global bottled water sales have increased dramatically over the past several decades, reaching a valuation of around $60 billion and a volume of more than 115,000,000 cubic metres (3.0⁠×⁠1010 US gal) in 2006. U.S. sales reached around 34 billion liters in 2008, a slight drop from 2007 levels. The global rate of consumption more than quadrupled between 1990 and 2005. Spring water and purified tap water are currently the leading global sellers. By one estimate, approximately 50 billion bottles of water are consumed per annum in the U.S. and around 200 billion bottles globally.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.3656388413276763,1.5298327991026517,-0.026949863375705447,128,True,0.7355848546991159
16,33,8210,"There is a growing movement against bottled water. All kinds of folks from newspaper columnists to religious groups to city governments (for example, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) are eschewing bottled water. Here's why: * 86% of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter. That means less than 15% are recycled. * Transporting heavy bottled water uses lots of oil for shipping. More oil is used to make the plastic for the bottles. That means more air and water pollution, and increased dependence on petroleum products. * 40% of the bottled water is just over priced, high-falutin tap water. Read the label.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6683321589565284,1.4821002352728334,-0.5506967986837389,107,False,0.646264920246098
16,5,4439,"It depends on the brand and on the client's motivation for purchasing the product. Some bottled waters do, indeed, come from the tap. I remember that a few years ago, Dasani bottles sold in Canada (for $1.50 from dispensers) had a little disclaimer on the label about how the product originated from the public water source of Calgary. In general, people should avoid buying bottled water packaged by either Pepsi or Coca Cola. The only exception in the western world to buying bottled water is if it's actually natural mineral water, and not just filtered tap or spring water. I don't drink carbonated mineral water because I am fearful of the quality of that which comes from the tap, but simply because I enjoy it as a beverage. It's really a personal choice; while others buy bottles of Pepsi, Coke, Sprite and Fanta, I stick to fizzy mineral water. Unlike North Americans, continental Europeans enjoy these in great abundance and if you travel a little east of France, you will find them to be very well priced and just as good quality as if you were to pick up a Perrier.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0193407327525996,1.1258248460952858,-0.41612436323683344,191,False,0.68494422832411
16,2,3447,"My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We’re always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we’d be set. Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6951754884077994,-0.4884903006613402,1.296609052500209,136,True,0.6009871134803195
16,9,1280,"If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water. There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli. ""Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water."" Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior. Pro""s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.2738350179829204,0.4166183473943513,0.21220508955320933,115,False,0.33906032462271224
13,4,15780,"Honestly you really can't compare gasoline to a firearm. For an arsonist it takes a longer time to kill someone, but for a murderer it's just hit and boom the person's seriously injured or dead. Plus to be an arsonist you have to place the gasoline, which plenty of people can see them while they do it. The fact that we can't prove that something will or will not happen, scares people. When people are scared or worried, we do what seems right and to people, banning firearms is the right thing to do. Washington DC is where the president lives, not everyone likes the president. Which can lead to higher violent crimes, people trying to kill the president, people just showing their hatred, and etc. The .0054% of murderers that were committed by legal gun owners, is a problem. People still have to watch their backs where ever they go, they have to wonder: Does that guy have a gun I can't see? Will he kill people? What if he does? It is a huge problem!",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.2092436654116766,-0.048824457368768295,0.007356530743231614,177,False,-0.10641715846145154
17,3,21004,"You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.7879742364859553,-0.9648497365560444,0.8749197969765341,151,True,0.30021058925559196
16,5,3447,"According to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), special treatments to remove impurities—such as distillation or coronation—are performed on top of municipal filtrations by certain bottled water manufacturers, such as Aquafina and Dasani. Bottled water offers consistent quality control, as each bottle is of the same quality as the previous one. Lead levels for tap water are lower for bottled water than tap. According to Mama’s Health, tap water is set at 15 parts per billion (ppb) and bottled water is set at 5 ppb.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.418637655111292,0.6559031934095959,-0.35920321257473137,83,True,0.6816272676526891
16,24,8210,"It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there’s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0644370164727226,1.5669877760609097,-1.018199063740898,186,True,0.6818314020215335
16,8,3447,"My reason are still more valuable than yours, just because different companies provide varieties of flavors this still doesn't disprove my point that water bottle's cause a danger to the environment. The process of making plastic water bottles uses approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil, and according to the Earth Policy Institute that’s enough to run 100,000 cars for an entire year. Also 80 percent of water bottles are not recycled, resulting in 38 billion water bottles clogging landfills taking 700 years to decompose.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.42795804092781103,0.5353492765649916,1.338270977072855,84,False,0.8879394880739424
16,1,42715,"There is a knock off brand for almost everything. Mountain dew, Doritos, chetos, heck, even water bottles. Off-brand items are not only cheaper, but just as good tasting as the more expensive, well known brand. If I want to go get a bottle of water, what is the difference between buying a $3 bottle of FIJI water, and buying a $4 pack of 28 store brand water bottles? Yeah, Fiji has some crazy story about how their water is the finest around because it is filtered through volcanic rock and never comes in contact with humans, but lets be real. It's water. So is store brand water. Why should I spend $5 on a ""Doritos"" bag, when I can spend $2 on a different brand that is nearly identical in every way?",0.1789077955820434,True,0.6239765776815533,0.8754105264057603,1.960120473758188,132,True,1.34383348431103
16,21,8210,"The proposition forgets that most bottled waters marketed in this country are ""mineral"" or ""spring"" waters. For a water to possess the name of ""mineral"" or ""spring"" water, it must come from a spring in the ground and be bottled at source. Waters such as Dasani are unpopular - Dasani itself was itself completely withdrawn from sale in the UK. The bottled waters popular in this country, i.e. Evian, Volvic, San Pellegrino, Buxton, all come from natural springs and contain natural elements, such as iron, potassium etc, which are all necessary for the human body to function healthily. Often, some natural flourides occur in mineral water. Fluorides are only sometimes artificially added to tap waters, and in large quantities this has the undesired effect of staining teeth instead of improving their health. Tap water is often highly chlorinated. Bottled water does have a health benefit and is better than tap water.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.5329242449022875,1.0372299922560986,1.327247454874522,151,False,1.4976647963370104
16,22,8210,"The source of your bottled water is likely to be the same one that serves your home. Coke revealed last year that the source of it´s highly publicized Dasani Brand water was London's municipal water supply (with a 3000% markup). PepsiCos Aquafina Brand bottled water is treated tap water coming from 11 different wells around the USA. Mostly the only difference is that bottled water has added minerals and salts, which do not actually mean the water is healthier. Drinking water is better for your teeth as it contains flourides. Bottled water does not.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.0382439728375752,1.2318140208785415,0.6385837931747245,94,True,1.1168001844815956
16,6,10887,I accept and will be arguing that bottled water should not be banned,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,13,False,-4.0
16,20,8210,"Why when it comes cheaply out the tap would you pay 1,000 times more? Volcanicity perhaps... Take, for instance, Pepsi’s Aquafina or Coca-Cola’s Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than one cent per gallon. Now consider another widely-sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that’s why there’s no shortage of companies which want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.3655463510125877,1.4647779441887718,0.17707184097955994,186,True,0.7829185854396004
16,5,14658,"jdjv forfeited this round. Pro In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1] [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.0361197425451685,-1.1272164161242828,-0.7147941848801034,70,False,-1.1198995005032615
16,3,14658,"In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1] [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.1733500110395152,-0.7156740558050118,-0.03899156545418672,65,True,-0.7414296606691905
15,6,13485,"The topic of this debate is whether animal testing is essential. I will argue that animal testing is in fact NOT essential. We can start of by putting aside all arguments concerning the testing of cosmetic products on animals, since these products are hardly 'essential' to humans. It therefore follows that the testing of such product on animals is not essential either. Animal testing also occurs in the case of medicine, where most people would perhaps view it as 'less wrong' than in the case of cosmetic. But what a lot of people don't know, is that there are alternative methods of testing medicines; 1) CeeTox, which predicts the level of toxicity and the chance of success of a new drug. 2) Organs-on-Chips are chips that virtually reproduce a specific organ in order to predict its reactions to a certain drug. 3) Testing human blood and human cells is also a good way to predict the effects of a new drug. You can find more alternative methods here: It is also important to note that animal testing is not always efficient; many animal-friendly drugs have turned out to be harmful to humans. That is the case for HIV, some cancers, diabetes, heart problems, and many others.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.4499581600746408,0.6945827603670882,0.7435505965267643,206,False,0.7202288177250176
8,5,37942,"I think I would be wrong if i say that man is a slave of the machines or technology as the nature of the human being is to make life better and better and for this he is making machines or using new technology to give us better and better ,and there is nothing wrong if we care about our comfort .Now the man has become the friend of machine and gain total control over it .He is using machine for the improvement in the mankind .There are many people across the world who's life is completely dependent on the machine and one of the great example is of the great scientist-Stephen hawking(who cannot even speak without the help of the machines) The machines have completely changed the living standard of the people it has modernized the world .Now we cannot even think our life without the use of the machine .Technology have lighten the world .It has being successful in growing the mentality creation of a human being .The technology has given the power to the man to control over natural hazard over great extent and if it doesn't stops the hazard completely at least it makes the people aware of the disaster and the amount of the misshapen to be created by the disaster ,so that people can either migrate to some safe place or can take steps which can reduce the amount of the damage created by the disaster. So, can we say that the man is not a slave of the machines but he has made the use of the technology for a better life, mentality, comforts, etc.......?",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.5151648663653836,0.18055071777358966,-0.17329518753146672,272,False,0.6071833420997254
13,1,23952,"Qualified students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. There is no good reason to deny capable students with permits the right that they are afforded everywhere else. The issue is about student safety. Needless crimes happen everyday because students are not allowed to defend themselves in the most effective way: with a gun. According to the Department of Education, 25% of crimes that happen on college campuses are rapes and 39% are assaults. These numbers would be significantly lower had these victims been lawfully armed.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.4916256602083728,-0.2615582959766037,0.07103492582925107,91,True,0.11170904354534843
16,10,4439,"It is very stupid. There is no difference in bottled water and tap water. People are stupid. Tap water goes through a water treatment plant before it gets to your tap. So chances are that your tap water may actually be a little cleaner than bottled water. But overall, there is no difference. We all drank tap water as kids and no one died from it. It sustained our healthy life as it should have. People are crazy to go out here and pay a freaking dollar or more for a bottle of water, when they can get the same thing from any tap.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.3033755775842661,-1.804313914480404,-0.2651491065714573,104,True,-0.8944313722081416
16,23,8210,"In the UK the terms 'natural mineral water' and 'spring water' denote water from an aquifer or underground source, with rules on hygiene and mineral content. Similar laws on how you describe your product exist in the US. If you're stupid enough to pay a premium for something which just says 'water, product of the Coca-Cola company' then you probably deserve getting the hefty dose of bromide that came free in bottles of Dasani. More importantly, whether or not the bottled water comes from the tap, there is still the convenience of being able to purchase, albeit at a premium, water without having to carry a bottle around with you. Moreover if you were, say, travelling in India, or any similar area, the very process of filtering the tap water is rather useful given the reputation of the country's 'potable' water supply.",0.1789077955820434,True,2.1679408837640675,1.355630058645829,1.4410087568175318,142,False,1.9144081344139092
16,7,42602,"Dude. How am I going to say Botle Water is better than Tap water? Dude, of cource it is better, god unless you have something to say about bottled Water, go ahead. Because plastic would kill animals and it is bad for the envorionment, the only good part is the fresh water. So what? Our sanity sewers make tap water still fresh. Plus, bottle water is 40% fresh water, and it is ripping us off. Dude, I don't like troll questions, don't post these, or I will report it to an admin or a mod.",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.2516087740199104,-2.411785087845684,-0.6065928640781887,95,False,-1.6219722192662902
16,1,4439,"Bottled mountain spring water is a lot better. However, just depends on which type you drink. There was a recent case in England where a certain water companies drinking tap water was contaminated. Lot of people got sick, and everybody started drinking bottled water by the tanker load. Also tap water still flows through lead pipes to many properties, picking up impurities along the way. Add to the fact that a lot of it is recycled waste water, treated with all kinds of chemicals and hit upon with bacteria then I'd state catergorically: ""It's good to have the choice!"".",0.8044698538620362,True,1.382073836526899,0.5021800295498786,0.07575160213848664,99,False,0.7631916445481371
16,14,4439,"Bottled water. Tap water. It is all the same. People who have extra money to spend or don't want to take the time to fill up a bottle at home pay these prices for WATER. There is nothing special about bottled water. In fact, the water that comes from the tap is probably better for you. It is also better for the environment to drink from your tap.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.3597755341914233,-0.6318610150413181,-0.4697606814508883,68,True,-0.573847459080564
16,3,4439,"I don't think so. If your out and about and want a drink, a bottle of mineral water is always cheaper, more thirst quenching and healthier than a bottle of fizzy drink. But i do think its stupid to buy bottled water in bulk for use in the home. In the UK at least we have a fantastic clean, cheap water supply pumped straight into our homes and anyone who doesn't make use of it is just being a snob (or unhealthily paranoid sometimes).",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.056463959674774085,-0.15756079108708365,0.09832785429340904,84,False,-0.05410780886464254
16,15,8210,"so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.5471623569202345,-2.1389948660072644,-0.9136587735052132,67,False,-1.3702370727831008
16,30,8210,"It is conceivable that should the demand for bottled water dwindle, manufacturers would have to shut down production in many factories. This would make bottled water less widely available and therefore more expensive. It logically follows that this added expense and dwindling availability would effect aid and charity agencies who rely on cheap, readily availabe bottled water supplies for helping with widespread floods, and other natural disasters.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.2385146445279427,1.4466986255792778,0.4889957507380248,67,True,0.8444970615574615
16,8,19307,"Continuing from your argument about ""water bottles"" however bringing water bottle is a good idea, however from all the schools i've been in so far. how often do you see students bringing water bottles? As for the second argument i was wearing skinny jeans at that time so yeah pretty much i'm doubting that you are correct. as for my final compliant there is a right for self-defense for ""harsh flirting""",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.8215839765734229,-1.5732014687357057,-0.4659993170996245,71,False,-1.1015676734671804
8,2,21590,"Distractions 1. Even though they may be a source of disctractions, they are still proven to improve test scores. 2. Just like schools make us turn off our cell phones now, we can do the same to other electronics. Teachers will not be letting their students use their electronics all day. Cheating 1. Right now, schools restrict us from using notes during tests. They can restrict us from using electronic devices during tests also. 2. Just because we are allowing electronic devices in class doesn’t mean they always have to be on the student’s desk. The teacher can easily tell students to put away their electronics. 3. There will always be dishonest people who decide to cheat no matter what. Even if there weren’t electronics, there would still be cheating going on. Theft, violence, and Cyberbullying 1. our resolution states in the classroom so their point is invalid 2. Our opponent does not give any example of this actually happening 3. there is such a small chance that cyberbullying will occur in a classroom",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.6714718775937162,0.5777833554165299,-0.9762265959331128,174,True,0.12815707197148038
16,27,8210,"Walking in the countryside, playing chess or swimming may improve one's sense of well-being - but these activities have no detrimental consequences for the wider environment. This is not just a reference to the scientifically debatable concept of 'carbon footprints' &c. involved in bottle production and transit, but to the landfill and litter that the consumption of bottled water inevitably produces. If it is the feeling of wellbeing one seeks, then purchase only one bottle, and re-fill it, as required from the tap, or perhaps a tabletop water filter. One doesn't need to keep purchasing bottled water to feel good.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5460078021657616,0.20844601317193964,0.2295712900585037,100,False,0.37141795060645305
13,3,40774,""" Concealed carry laws do not make guns less bad as guns are not bad to begin with. Concealed carry laws only make guns better."" the evidence i cite says more guns, more homicides. that means those laws at best can make the bad presence of guns not so bad. guns are causative, so they are not good to begin with. "" Concealed carry laws only insure that it is only the good citizens who get access to the guns."" the laws might deter criminals, but it doesn't ensure only good people get guns. ""Even if they were not able to obtain a gun illegally if they wanted to kill someone they likely would do so anyway just with a different method"" the evidence i cited shows that overall homicides go up with more guns. that means people aren't just killing with different weopons otherwise the rates would be the same.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.1039401223203361,0.27575346219466795,-0.6591029956642259,151,True,-0.1896243453535432
16,29,8210,"Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world’s major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere.",1.4300319121420288,True,1.2965015147228178,1.9191889894623184,0.3016998805196391,132,False,1.3717368948056692
16,5,22586,"Have you never thought of washing out bottles before reusing them? Whether purpose made or ""disposable"" bottles, almost all bottles can be reused safely by a three step ""shake and rinse"" cleaning process: (1) a few millilitres of bleach with water (2) dish soap and water (3) water alone Do not use bleach with stainless steel bottles, it will cause them to rust. But with anything else, from glass to plastic to lexan, this will work and kill bacteria.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.21495337682934176,0.453556435533462,-0.4359736181825672,79,False,-0.07796490241413803
16,7,24367,"Thanks to my opponent for her round. Before continuing, I'd like to request that you show your opponents a little more respect in your argumentation. I've had a look at some of your other debates, and you do the same thing: copy and paste quotations for the absolute vast bulk of your rounds. Your last round consisted of 98 words, six of which were your own. That means that your work is just over six percent original. Even with citations, this is blatant plagiarism and is disrespectful. These debates are much more fun and engaging when they're between two people with counterposing ideas, beliefs, arguments or positions, rather than between one person and a series of pasted elements of other people's work. _________________________________________________________ Rebuttals Not much to be said, other than you didn't finish reading your own source (emphasis added): "" (We suspect that people who are not cleaning their hands or the bottle tops before opening are causing this infection). So please clean the tops before drinking."" Didn't think I'd check, did you? My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. -> Not can be harmful -> Not has been harmful -> Not the Potential for Harm but to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. Next!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,210,False,-4.0
16,5,34935,"What this debate has come down too is Evolution vs Religion however they are one of the same. Evolution is just the study of gods creatures and how they have evolved over time. My opponent keeps mentioning her bottle water analogy so i would like to spin it in a different direction as my partner stated in the first round is that the bottle is full but we don't know how long the water has been running. Now that's exactly why evolution is being studied. We have the proof our in the case the water but we don't have the how and the why which is the how long did it take the water to fill. Yet in the end result the bottle is still full and now we have to study how it got this way in the first place. It was evolution when Eve and the rest of women would half to suffer the pain of child birth. Evolution can be as simple as a baby to a man. Evolution is more than just Darwin's theory. Everything changes overtime. It evolves to adapt to its environment its part of life, So just because we don't know how long it took the bottle to fill we know that the bottle is still full. So I hope that you still stand in firm negation of the resolve.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.0594773754795412,0.8008116846174702,0.44928831419781945,227,False,0.8855177001975219
16,10,37993,"People buy bottled water like it is going out of style and it is no better than tap water. Plus, all those plastic bottles are bad for the environment. If we want to be ""greener"" than we have to use reusable plastic bottles for tap water instead of spending this ridiculous amount of money on bottled water.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.5099392657870154,-0.4127393160120532,-0.10687954701585783,57,True,-0.005263622097253752
16,16,4439,"Bottled water? It has the same taste with the tap water. So, there's nothing special in it. Why people had to buy them for drinking. Didn't your home boiled any water & fill it in your own bottle & bring it out. Besides, buying a bottled water is wasting money.",1.1172508830020322,True,-1.4235440208632797,-1.4363943163897006,0.4677654248241741,50,True,-0.8838986792734724
16,10,1280,"I will explain my logic a little to spare confusion. 1. Tap water tastes better than bottled water. 2. All water has impurities. 3. Pure water ideally is tasteless. Conclusion: Tap water has impurities which causes its taste. Applying this to unicorns. 1. Legendary history are nicer to hear than fact-based history. 1. Legends have unicorns. 3. Pure history is boring. Conclusion: Legends have unicorns which cause it to be better to hear. Thus, unicorns are not proven. Conclusion: Conduct: Pro He is far more courteous than I. Spelling: Tie There isn""t much in the way of a difference here. Arguments: Con Pro has basically dropped all arguements Sources: Pro Con provides almost no sources. Thanks this has been an interesting debate",0.1789077955820434,True,1.1183461615639432,-0.8566996610078915,0.7889709989187453,122,False,0.437520653692276
16,1,32583,"The TSA should be reformed. They have a liquids rule that only allows you to take a maximum of 3.4 fluid ounces onto a plane. That is ridiculous! Then they charge you a few dollars for a bottle of water. You could buy a gallon of milk with that money! There have even been lawsuits because of the prices of bottled water being insane. According to the Wall Street Journal, a 20-ounce water bottle costs less than a dollar at convenience stores, but can cost up to five dollars at the JFK and Seattle-Tacoma International airports. How is this fair? How is this logical? Anyway, what if someone were to somehow sneak a weapon onto a plane? The Transportation Security Administration states that not even airplane staff are allowed to carry weapons. So, does that mean that everybody is just supposed to get killed by the one lunatic that has the weapon? I sure hope not.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.4003377112284836,1.1528193655253214,0.8182247851001644,156,True,1.2953018367376872
8,4,18212,"I accept, I will be arguing that Xbox One is superior to Playstation 4 on gaming standards. Since the resolution is loosely defined, here are the definitions and explanations. Gaming(1) ""Gaming is the running of specialized applications known as electronic games, especially on machines designed for such programs and, in a more recent trend, using personal computers on the Internet in which case the activity is known as online gaming"" Standard(2) "" a level of quality, achievement, etc., that is considered acceptable or desirable"" Since consoles are tending to be more like PCs, it is justifiable that I argue beyond what the definition dictates, as it is only confined to 'electronic games'. Categories that should be taken into consideration (besides electronic games) are Specs, Applications and Services offered by both companies. I will argue how Xbox one is superior in each category. Without further a due, I invite Pro to present his case. Sources (1) (2)",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.4438230257087048,0.6244664505572872,0.10978482166400146,156,False,0.4475778918902448
16,2,22586,"It is safe to use them over and over again if you wash them. But most people do not wash them, that is the problem. They think, it is only water, why do I need to wash it? But the bacteria from your mouth, say you just had a bite of a chicken sandwich with mayo, two things that both cause salmonella poisoning and then you drink from your water bottle, did you wash your mouth first? So, chances are you left bacteria on the bottle, if it then gets heated, it could become poiseness. I had a friend get violently ill from this.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.2425647267186953,1.2773303582492448,0.4635360034743546,104,False,0.766916434263996
16,5,1280,"""Pro's logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed."" This is exactly your logic in the taste argument: Unicorns have glitter. (Tap water tastes better than bottled water in D.C.) Unicorns produce glitter. (The taste is from the impurities in the water) Therefore unicorns are real. (Therefore the taste argument is refuted.) Your logic is flawed.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.6926026235381473,-0.5075954087391203,-1.190042451629646,72,True,-0.9282012960752948
10,6,35082,"Medical marijuana has serious side effects, although many argue it can stifle pain, I argue pain is healthy although it may not feel like it because pain relieves body stress. Marijuana is infamous for being detrimental to a person. Now I know you are arguing medical marijuana my argument is that legalizing the medical use of marijuana allows this deadly substance to be obtained by normal people, exposing them to the harmful effects of this deadly poison, plus this drug doesn't realy do anything, all it does is relieve pain temoporaily and then send you into a state of depression.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.8070295449514769,0.27055101818554056,0.4718054944009315,100,False,-0.016749315215432332
13,4,40774,"After passing concealed carry law, Florida""s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below. In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages. I would also like to point out that some of your sources use data obtained based off of fire arm related crimes rather than crimes a a whole while crimes committed with a firearm may decrease because there are decreased firearms available the crimes and suicides could still being committed just without a gun and this debate was to argue whether or not more guns means more overall homicide not just firearm homicide",1.1172508830020322,True,0.12873193206396233,0.7228627656767876,0.5109616806731714,125,False,0.5196605991715911
16,10,3447,The care for these public water sytems has been forgotten in many places and because of easy access to water bottles they switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Then little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. I believe I have showed more information that goes against bottled water than my opponent.,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.009983463970238287,0.1752424804039455,1.2570016953633405,59,False,0.5566345780174413
16,6,3447,"Bottle water is not the better choice it's expensive, wasteful and not any healthier for you than tap water : 1.Its not a good value 2.No healthier than tap water 3.Bottled water brings harm to the environment 4.Brings less attention to public systems. 5. Effect local economies. I will explain these reasons throughout the debate.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.9379522621494584,0.20952569803310997,-0.27793478086016243,55,False,-0.38557459157671725
16,2,34551,"Even though the debate fomat is philosophical, the word ""prove"" comes from science when man made their first discoveries/experiments. Thus I'm going to use some examples from science throughout the debate. Imagine a scientist. He's trying to prove that oil floats on water. He has a bottle of water and a bottle of oil. He pours the oil onto the water and the oil floats. He does this 10 times and the outcome is always the same. He doesn't know the reason for it so he discovers density. He does the same experiment with other liquids and measures the density of water and oil. He got proof on paper that water has more density on oil.Now, what if another scientist came along and did the same experiment (with the same water and oil) and the water magically started to float on oil? How can you effectively prove that this would never happen? There's an infinite number of attempts you can do on the experiment. How can you possibly prove that water can and will never float on oil? The concept of ""proof"" was made by man to rule out the invalid, or more accurately what we thought was invalid. So in conclusion the concept of proof that we mechanically constructed exists, however, proof of anything in the universe does not exist. In an infinite number of attempts to prove or disprove anything, any attempt can be the exception.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.0098289880241278,0.6717444859955668,1.189312355278607,238,True,1.1014269099607712
16,1,34935,"Imagine I had a water bottle. I fill the water bottle up half way from the faucet and then turn the water down so it is simply dripping into the cup. You walk in the room. I ask you how long you think that cup has been under the faucet, and you measure how much water each drip drops into the cup, then you calculate how long that speed of dripping would take to fill the cup to where it is. What you don't know is that I used the faucet first at a high speed and then turned it down to a drip. Why don't you know that? You weren't there. Your theory is perfectly acceptable, and so would the theory of someone who said that I filled up the bottle quickly before slowing the flow to a drip. My point is, the theory of evolution is just that: a theory. And no matter how much you try to prove it by calculations and science, no one is alive that was there during the creation and development of the Earth, and therefore, it will never be stone cold fact. Therefore, the teaching of evolution in schools is the teaching of a religion. if the teaching of creationism, or intelligent design, cannot be taught in schools, the theory of evolution shouldn't be either. You cannot have one taught without teaching the other, or you are simply hypocritic. If you disagree, please feel free to accept my debate.",-1.0722163209779427,True,2.232233535680604,0.6642390614971764,0.8865349369798815,247,True,1.4760231857579704
16,32,8210,"In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people.",1.4300319121420288,True,1.610600735063341,0.03993413003200934,0.2634799894568595,123,True,0.7555332773712877
10,10,19652,"I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, this has been rather fun. Now then, i feel we can agree on all point made that both Vicodin and marijuana both have their major drawbacks, and uses for the greater good. We both agree that they can be picked up from a drug dealer, which is a very dangerous act of doing due to the countless risks that come with obtaining anything from a drug dealer. Also i am all for giving doctors and researchers the opportunity to research medical uses for marijuana, however this does not mean we need to legalize the use of it just yet. Sure we run trials and such to see if the effects are lasting and what not. But this doesn't mean we have to legalize marijuana. It just means we should research into it. So again i resend my point on which i stand and i feel is the moral and ethical choice that must be voted upon by our peers. However i will explain it. Point A. The research of medical marijuana is fine and i am all for it but it does not mean it should be legalized, it can just be researched there is a difference between the two. Point B. Legalizing Medical Marijuana can open a Pandora's Box of sorts. For starters, access to the drug will become more prevalent in our society then it already is. Final Point. Plainly put there is not urgency in legalizing marijuana, even for medical uses. If anything we should merely research the effects it has on illnesses.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.0985444914995128,-0.2903602105075207,0.3649362860919478,266,False,0.4610648026975213
8,4,26186,"Electronic equipment used in health care often contains hazardous substances that can harm human health: from chlorinated plastics in cable wiring, to lead in cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, to brominated flame retardants in computers and mercury in LCD displays. Improper disposal of electronic equipment poses a significant threat to public health and the global environment. When electronic products are incinerated or dumped in a landfill, they can release heavy metals and other hazardous substances that contaminate groundwater and pollute the air. Some hazardous e-waste is being exported to developing countries that are less equipped to handle the hazardous materials "" even though, in many cases this export violates international law, as well as domestic laws in the importing countries. See Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia (pdf). As a large volume buyer, the health care sector has the power to shift the electronics market toward greener practices through its purchasing choices. Health Care Without Harm is collaborating with health care systems to promote healthier purchasing and disposal practices as a means to improve public health and protect the global environment.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.8180888536097702,1.3791596167067135,1.1257394432596113,182,False,1.2763885650807165
7,3,25810,"Felons are not allowed to vote, sodomy should be considered a felony as it was untill recently in many or most states, no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony......I know the laws are changing and they are pushing laws to outlaw what I am saying as ""hate speech'. That does not mean it is normal or good for men to abuse themselves with each other just because they feel like it, nor for woman to abuse each other sexually no matter how much they enjoy it. Enjoying it does not make it right, and a society that does not have the hootzpah to set limitations on perversion cannot remain a free society for long. It will become necessary for other nations to take over, or an opprossive government to rise which is what is happening now in America where we used to have freedom of speech but ""progressives"" are pushing to ban speech that does not fit their politics. Homos should not be allowed to vote.......... all sex outside of marriage should be against the law.......I'm not discriminating. All fornicators and adulterers should be hit with felonies and being felons, not allowed to vote.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.3318225043756552,1.551127325329374,-0.4517456220558843,210,True,0.5803333708433482
7,5,26789,"Can't be any worse than letting felons, the dead, non-US citizens, and people who already voted vote. A teenage president couldn't be worse than a felon president on accident.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.6745792314276055,-2.014173603281005,-1.15144467362775,29,False,-1.4731562308996586
7,6,26789,"Can't be any worse than letting felons, the dead, non-US citizens, and people who already voted vote. A teenage president couldn't be worse than a felon president on accident.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.4189275148964435,-1.9163479902114269,-0.5812254347106811,29,False,-1.1078756339558866
7,7,26789,"Can't be any worse than letting felons, the dead, non-US citizens, and people who already voted vote. A teenage president couldn't be worse than a felon president on accident.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.20378706680476832,-1.3089762076661862,-0.7264194708021084,29,False,-0.8623210479319589
13,1,34972,"In this debate, I will argue that allowing (shall issue laws, for example) CCW will decrease violent crime in the United States. My opponent, as CON, will be arguing against this proposition, that CCW laws have no effect, or increase, violent crime rates. Definitions: Concealed Carry: concealed carry weapon, a practice in which a person carries a weapon, generally a firearm, hidden on their person. This generally (except in states, such as Alaska and Arizona) requires a license. Shall issue: A 'shall' issue law is a variant of law related to the legality of CCW practice. This means if you apply for a license, and meet the criteria (including, but not limited to, 21 and over in age, no criminal record), you will obtain the license. The authority will not exert discretion to awarding the licenses. May issue: Similar to shall issue, except that the authorities exert discretion on who obtains the licenses. In shall issue, the WILL give the permit if you meet the criteria, and as the name implies, they MAY give the license, the sheriffs department, for example, can deny certain applicants which pass the preliminary tests. No issue: CCW is banned, and only rarely will grant CCW permits. My opponent will be, essentially, arguing that lenient laws (shall issue and may issue) either do not effect crime, or increase the crime rate. I will argue that lenient laws will decrease violent crime. First round is for acceptance",1.4300319121420288,True,0.048943612923112896,1.3229668251656717,0.33966003295599073,241,True,0.6674178268120873
7,3,26789,"joshuabooth2020 forfeited this round. Con Can't be any worse than letting felons, the dead, non-US citizens, and people who already voted vote. A teenage president couldn't be worse than a felon president on accident.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.5541491485662804,-2.114186721537203,-1.062918912440538,34,True,-1.8251022027407744
7,5,43683,"I, too believe that we should live in a society in which no one pays attention to race, gender, sexual orientation, so on and so forth. BUT, your resolution falls apart in one aspect, and that comes to dealing with felons and whether children should have all the rights adults have. I would like to ask my opponent the following questions: Q1: Should convicted child molesters be able to have the right to be a teacher or a daycare worker? Should they be able to be in a room alone with a defenseless child? Q2: Should people who have a felon for theft be able to work at a bank or anywhere where they have complete control over money or items that are not theirs? Q3: Should someone who dangerously stalks another person be able to have the right to be near them? What if it is proven that the stalker is contemplating the rape and/or murder of the person they are stalking? Shouldn't the victim have the right to have a restraining order, thus disallowing the stalker the right to be around the victim? Q4: Should a serial killer have the right to live amongst more victims? Q5: Should a 5 year old be able to vote for the president? They are not mature enough. They probably can't even read. That is denying them the right of voting, but it is for the better. Q6: Should children around the age of nine or ten be able to have sex? Sex is a right for adults, but children are not allowed to have intercourse for good reason. Thank you for reading. Back to you, Pro.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.2469401345475086,0.3441189156885331,0.7001948349445999,275,False,0.8824948712866931
7,10,29042,"My main points were: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Statistically speaking, many ex-felons return to prison after they have been convicted of a felony. If many of them return to prison, even after they have been let off on parole, it can be said that these people have invalid judgements and are not capable of making informed and educated decisions. Therefore they indirectly effect citizens who are able to weigh the consequences of their decisions, and should not be afforded this right unless they can prove that their judgement is valid. Once a person commits a felony, it should not be assumed that he/she is of a stable mental state when he/she is released from prison, and as such the right to vote is no longer a right but a privilege. I have proven that revoking this right does not constitute an ""excessive sanction"" and does not in any way violate the constitution. For these reasons I urge you to vote con! I would also like to thank my opponent for an engaging debate and applaud his arguments. I wish you the best of luck :)",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.6181701304024941,0.5315145462981729,0.8573018538007582,228,False,0.7662908401379893
7,1,30699,"When you are put in front of a jury of your peers, there is usually enough evidence to suggest that you did indeed commit the crime. Jessica law was put in place to make sure sex offenders stayed behind bars. Now the reason for this is simple, they cannot be fixed, its a disease. Their sex drive is different then normal adults. This high level of sentence is put in place to keep them in Prison. As you might know most felons with good behavior could get out with 70% of their sentence completed; Then they are registered as a sex offender. There is always a min in the justice system like you said no matter what the crime, however when it comes to our children we need the best protection the law offers.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.6121242287708858,1.086405118223104,0.0433986342243274,134,True,0.67281825302942
7,12,10216,"Three strikes laws mandate that courts impose upon offenders a lengthy minimum sentence upon conviction of a third offense. In California, the first two strikes must be considered serious or violent, but the mandatory minimum sentence of 25-years may be imposed upon conviction of any third felony offense.  In Ewing v. California (2003), a four-time felon received the mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction of stealing three golf clubs with a combined total value of less than $1,200.  Regardless of how severe a view one takes of recidivism, such a punishment is clearly excessive and grossly disproportionate to the current offense.  Allowing mandatory minimum sentences to be applied in cases like this undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.553011464804016,0.8809680222955234,1.2726591341300648,119,True,1.4257681157369901
8,1,13303,"We live in our home. Our home is 100% Finite Existence or World or Universe or Everything. This Everything collectively known as Single Entire World or just World is a Machine. World is a Machine. Life is a subset of this Machine. Life is a Machine. Entire World is one Changing World. Changes are localized or can be said to have Frames of reference. So one World has many events or different parts changing or having different clocks. Everything is a variation or picture or event. There are unlimited variations or pictures or events. Life also has unlimited individuals differing is something chemical and also differing in patterns. Life is a machine. Some machines have logic, some reasoning and, some both. Every word in dictionary is related to Life's patterns, stories, emotions, possibilities, memories, simply put variations. Life is a machine. Machines have variations. You are a machine. I am a machine. We are machines. Machine or Machines are constantly changing. My final word: No no I'm not dieing... lol Life is a machine.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.8513382591295537,-0.3269356541430149,0.022992841665120858,174,True,0.2152899608955937
7,7,8930,"The probable loser of this debate argues that not being able to argue in complete sentences hardly impedes your ability to discuss violations. Sure, the probable loser of this debate agrees with the points that you have, but not using complete sentences hardly changes how you argue, only how you are allowed to punctuate. For instance. The probable loser of this debate states that you are. Allowed to. Type like. This. The probable loser of this debate does not see how this would restrict your ability to argue. Also, the probable loser of this debate states that in your original post the letters ""r"", ""d"", and ""s"" are present in all sentences except rules #2 and #12. The probable loser of this debate's rule #14 simply nuisances you, it doesn't hinder your ability. 20.) PRO must state all his Rules in three lines that rhyme From here until end 21.) Temporize is word Pro must use it in Third sentence last post 22.) The probable loser of this debate states that PRO must from here on out refer to the probable loser of the debate as the possible winner of the debate.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.2702478270526737,0.3673014986419784,0.022875726560045228,192,False,0.040190360803888193
7,4,24239,"The life sentence gives the prisoner and opportunity to be proved non guilty. By being put on death sentence a, completely innocent person can be executed. Even though it may cost a little more money, it still allows a more of an accurate tell of what the truth really is. Plus, the ways people are killed when put on death sentence are very fatal. Even if they did a crime to where most think they deserved it, it still is a bit excessive because you never know who could be lying and human memories are just a down right unreliable source for information.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-1.3908148721495768,0.42731553892294655,-0.4796668323433118,103,False,-0.5340782175162683
7,1,6610,"Due to the idiotic rants regarding the case, it's not easy to get some basic facts...but... It's not an issue of sanctuary cities or immigration... It's an issue of a distorted justice system that allows 7 time convicted felons (let alone combined with multiple deportations) to wander the streets while others who have done much less are imprisoned. I understand trying to rehabilitate (I have hired my share of felons) but three felony convictions is enough for me. The US has way too many multiple, repetitive felons walking the streets who are not immigrants. Also, this is looking a lot like mental illness and that is a whole other bag of tricks.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.29058728039359616,-0.21180860346142025,-0.2942048882020028,112,False,-0.08938029916346449
7,1,20895,"Committing a felony is the same as voluntarily giving up your right to vote. I sincerely doubt there are really that many felons who care to exercise that right to begin with. We all know the consequences, right? I might be open to reconsidering my position if a felon can go without any further convictions for 15-20 years.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.13903397653571115,0.0404574285279806,-0.10097728621953456,58,False,0.020834314338571844
7,24,42041,"People who have been sent to prison are rightly condemned to 'civic death'; they are shut away not only to protect society, but also to symbolize society's disgust at their acts. Theoretically, felons are deemed to have 'broken the social contract' and felt to not have the 'moral competence to participate in governing a society'1. Although prisoners are no longer executed in many jurisdictions, the idea of ""civic death"" is that they lose the rights of citizens without dying in a literal sense. Those who offend against the common good of society should have no right to contribute to the governance of society. They can only be readmitted to society, both physically and in terms of their rights, when they have made amends to society by serving their sentence. 1 Johnson-Parris, A. S. (2003). Felon Disenfrachisement: The Unconscionable Social Contract Breached. Virginia Law Review, 109-138.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.8968647846477451,1.8125501416553482,1.6854511124485596,145,True,1.6960086632883509
13,9,29430,""" Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking ""oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon"" Really? I'm not so sure.. "" It seems you are arguing my point for me lol If Mrs Jones is carrying a LEGAL concealed weapon she is most likely white and an older women which by virtue of her age and color is most likely not gonna arouse an officers suspicions unless she was clutching at her chest and he suspected she was having a heart attack lol A black person or any minority is less likely to openly carry a weapon much less conceal it even if it is legal and they are the lawful owner cause of the majority white police force who, by training or by belief, have a prejudice against minorities that if they do have a gun, it is most likely illegal and so they are in danger.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.12355451495950892,0.7244934048791926,0.06874405518153474,217,False,0.3490682996232584
7,5,2925,"Someone who uses a gun for criminal purposes are given a punishment equal to the crime, determined by the law and/or the judge's discretion. However, if the punishment has been given, then as soon as it has been fulfilled, the convicted should retain all rights protected under the law. Punishments for repeated offenses are more severe, and, in the case of murder, rape, ect., eventually lead to the death penalty or life in prison, preventing them from committing further crimes, while also not sentencing them to a life where they can not adequately defend themselves. I never stated that everyone denied a gun will get one; I stated that all those who would use a gun for criminal purposes would get one illegally when denied one for their previous criminal acts, since, logically, criminals break laws by definition. One petty law is nothing compared to those they intend to break with the gun they were denied. Do you believe someone who wants or is willing to murder someone and already has committed crimes will obey a gun control law? This, of course, does not apply to all past felons, because not all will want to commit another crime and risk being punished again, hence why we have punishments, as an incentive to prevent people from committing crimes, and to discourage convicted felons from reoffending.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.006207712277526,0.9967249294514918,0.7309206296134908,224,False,1.0469197663819791
7,8,1603,"I'm sorry, I'm going to waive this last round, I'm sorry Kasmic. Feel free to award Pro conduct, but vote who had more convincing arguments. It's always a pleasure to debate you Kasmic.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,33,False,-4.0
7,4,40441,"Every one else has already voted for pro, and no one has voted for con, so new voters should vote for pro too because JoshB likes people who vote for him. The people who have voted for this debate are great DDO users who have completed three debates and are fantastic voters who vote for Pro because it is clear that pro provided the best inclusion of most fallacies. People who vote for con are confused by the voting system and the voting system should be changed to make it easier and more encouraging for voters to choose pro.",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.539068511084368,2.0195838536465027,-0.09728027590408304,99,True,0.9828387661554634
7,2,8930,"====== Violation ====== CON's rule #14 violated my rule #11. I am either not allowed to: 1. discuss violations in complete sentences; or 2. create a complete sentence debating whether I have violated a rule without the letters r, d, and s. This means he has broken rule #11, which is that he cannot restrict my ability to discuss violations of rules. --- 17.) CON must only refer to himself as 'the probable loser of this debate.' 18.) CON must write 2 thirds of his future rules in haiku (5-7-5) format. 19.) CON shall not post the word 'a.'",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,99,True,-4.0
8,4,1631,"If you want ecological reasons you will have it. What means ecology to people nowadays? It is big problem which can cause global warming or apocalypses. But technological progress can decide this problem. For example in Northway near 99% of electricity came from energy of falling water. It is technological progress solution. We try to improve our machines not to cause such problems and without this progress we cannot do this. Progress means improving and improving in technology gives to us more safe machines which will not cause bad effect to our nature. I can give another example. It is using of solar energy. It is very safe way of taking energy from the nature. Technological progress made it. If something create problem, it can solve it. And if this progress made a lot of problem, it will be solved by technology.",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.1899133108052022,-0.6541508925472623,0.6099000192261076,142,False,-0.08460980142733686
7,8,30320,"That's not really a logical analogy, those people are adults, they are capable of making rational decisions without the guidance of others. If children were allowed to vote, they might vote for a completely illogical candidate, i.e. Batman, or Deez Nuts. Children don't have a sense of seriousness when it comes to this sort of thing. They won't take the voting process seriously.",-1.2286068355479407,True,-0.7340636328386689,0.06563930471867828,0.13087152025649534,63,False,-0.20859717201958966
7,4,995,Macho forfeited this round. Con Extend all arguments. Vote Con,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
7,5,995,Macho forfeited this round. Con Extend all arguments. Vote CON,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
7,1,14483,"Based on a debate I had before on patriotism where stevster (my contender) had some disturbing mindless arguments, I believe debate.org should allow us to see who voted for who. One of those reasons is that I am currently losing 2-4 and I'm curious to know what 4 idiots voted either without looking at the arguments or liked to take up on stevster's bribe to ""suck [their] **** clean"" Also, this system would make it easier for members to recognize who is running multiple accounts in order to vote multiple times in a debate.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.7573428549716577,-0.2670692082401864,-0.8911159082315804,94,True,-0.7455893241165917
7,19,42041,"Few, if any, people are deterred from crime by the prospect of being unable to vote. People are deterred from committing crimes by the prospects of their movement being restricted and of being separated from loved ones. The effectiveness of a sentence can be measured by how well it protects the public, how well it rehabilitates the offender, how well it reverses the effects of the crime committed and how well it deters future offending. Banning prisoners from voting is either counterproductive (i.e. in terms of rehabilitation) or has no positive effect given its low visibility as a consequence of a felony conviction1. 1 Johnson-Parris, A. S. (2003). Felon Disenfrachisement: The Unconscionable Social Contract Breached. Virginia Law Review, 109-138.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.6817931203950007,0.6751384619574531,0.041487815486550686,119,False,0.5351563457981527
7,4,2925,"Everyone should have the right to defend themselves, even convicted felons who have already been punished for their crimes; this is why free societies protect the right to bear arms. The difference between a law against crime and a universal background gun law is that the former prevents a crime, while another prevents gun ownership, even though you can not legally use a gun for crimes in the first place, since there are already crime laws. If someone follows the crime law, no one gets hurt; if someone follows a background check law, and they are denied a gun, they have no chance if someone threatens their life with a gun, even if it is by a convicted felon, who broke the law to get the gun. Gun control does not save lives from criminals, who get the guns illegally, it only makes it extremely difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves, which is why there is more murder (per GDP, per population, whatever) in places with gun control, and less in places where the criminal knows people are free to defend themselves with a gun if the criminal attacks them. Why make it less risky to attack someone and punish law abiding citizens? A convicted felon should not be forever punished with the risk of being helpless to a person threatening his life when they have already been punished for their crimes.",-1.0722163209779427,True,1.33479306391674,2.195656361678481,0.7874605114240633,234,False,1.6749981769423448
13,5,40774,Concealed carry laws do not make guns less bad as guns are not bad to begin with. Concealed carry laws only make guns better. It can be agreed that the majority of citizens are good law abiding people who do not wish to cause harm to others. Concealed carry laws only insure that it is only the good citizens who get access to the guns. However as the number of law abiding citizens surpasses that of the criminals allowing free access would still be a good course of action. Criminals are less likely to attack if they knew everyone was armed and when they do decide to attack the gun of the citizens can be used in defense. This means that more guns equals both lower crime attempts and a lower amount of crimes being successfully carried out. While a gun may make it easier to commit a homicide a homicide will not occur without the people wanting to commit a homicide. Most people you meet would not want to commit a homicide sometimes even in face of danger. This means that while it would be easier for people to commit homicide the rates should not increase People who do wish to kill are firstly less likely to worry about consequences for breaking gun control law than murder and will not have a problem obtaining guns illegally Even if they were not able to obtain a gun illegally if they wanted to kill someone they likely would do so anyway just with a different method In spur of the moment decisions where one will commit homicide it is likely that even without a gun it will be committed using another method. This would mean that removing guns should not decrease homicides.,1.1172508830020322,True,0.8875350182990615,0.8747663981186589,-0.09291878337578956,291,False,0.6464103085630261
7,1,39228,"Simple, just continue the sentence. 3 words minimum. 10 words maximum. Voters will base votes on whoever they believe had better wording/transitions/sentence parts. Yesterday, I found a bottle of pink water and decided...",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.497270743472267,-0.172952812818041,-0.9953234744255616,33,True,-0.6464571046909142
7,8,995,Extend all argument. Vote Con,-1.6977783792579355,True,-2.2049357761345525,-0.7669805011477876,-2.3289716150877733,5,False,-2.0225330738118843
7,9,995,Extend all arguments. Vote Con,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
8,2,8962,"Have you seen children sitting down riveted to electronics while other various children are sitting ready to interact which they are totally unaware of? Guess what I have been waiting patiently for one girl to have a conversation with me but she just ignored me that is when I felt electronics are ruining our social life like extra-terrestrial sucking up human""s minds. Electronics ruin our minds so say goodbye! To begin with, youthful children and mature adults can""t be trusted to take of their minds from electronics and socialize. This brings a misunderstanding to others thinking that you are ignoring them and that you have no interest in them. How would you feel if you were treated in this underprivileged way?Electronics ruin our minds so say goodbye!",-2.010559408397932,True,-0.3896697858576247,0.2906445021619313,-0.959147935543542,127,True,-0.40317235256385914
7,10,995,Extend all arguments. Vote CON,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,5,False,-4.0
7,1,31950,"This is basically a question & answer debate. You MUST write 5 questions (and only 5. No more, no less) each round and answer the ones I give you. Also, you MUST give a name at the start. It doesn't have to be your real name, and there doesn't have to be a last name, but I must have a name. I will give you mine: Ethan. All questions must be answered in complete sentences, and not all questions have to be educational. You could ask: What color are your eyes? ""I don't know."" does count as a complete sentence, but you can only say that one question per round. The reason for that is, if you are on this website, you must have internet connection, so if you don't know, look it up. Also, you obviously don't have to leave an ""I don't know"" at all. You must number your questions 1-5. For example, I will give 2: 1. What is your name? 2. How many times may you say I don't know per round? You then must number your answers with the question: 1.My name is Ethan. 2. You may only say ""I don't know"" once each round. Remember, answer in complete sentences. Voters, decide the winner by whoever asks the most intriguing questions and gives the best answers. And now for the questions: 1. How are you today? 2. Who was the first president of the United States? 3. What are the first ten digits of pi in order after the decimal point? 4. What grade are you in? 5. How old are you? Remember to give me a name!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,273,True,-4.0
7,1,22556,"The members on Debate.org that start debates, at the end of the debate should not be allowed to vote for themselves. Voting for yourself is just unsportsmanlike. If the other person cannot vote for themselves or refuses to vote out of principle, out of sportsmanship the other debater should let the people decide who won and not their biased opinions. A lot of the debates on this site are won by a person voting for themselves which is wrong. Some people cannot vote at all, so when going up against someone who does not have access to a cell phone or lives in a foreign country and does not have the ability to get the verification code sent to them, it gives the other person with these items and advantages of living in America the luxury of getting a free 7 points. A person who votes for themselves have a biased opinion on their debates and will vote for themselves even if they know they don't deserve to win. Like a person who votes all 7 points for themselves when they have forfeited every round. Forfeiting a round means a supposed loss in conduct and spelling and grammar. The ability to vote for yourself is also unrealistic. In a actual debate a person would not be able to vote for themselves or their teams or even be judges for that matter in the debate. Being able to vote for yourself just makes Debate.org unrealistic compared to actual debating experience.",-1.6977783792579355,True,2.4475823298227057,0.7047882073601967,0.8816306204782131,249,True,1.5796093579118091
7,1,7698,Finish the Sentence... I will start and you will continue it. Voting is off who's sentence was better. You and Adolf Hitler are walking on a beach holding hands.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,29,True,-4.0
7,5,37446,"Thank you for setting up this debate. My opinion on this is not solidified and can be swayed if your debate is strong enough. I believe capital punishment should still be allowed but ONLY under the most dire and repulsive crimes. I do not believe killing 1 person justifies the death penalty, but 10-100 does. It must be a case in which the person is very bent on death and whose purpose is to destabilize and completely destroy any form of order and institute chaos and death in society. These types of people are not under the criteria of criminally insane, but instead the dangerously unfit to be a part of society. Normally, I believe in life sentences for serial killer or rapist cases, but death penalties should always be held as a reserve punishment when times are economically hard as it is costly to keep life sentences. Death sentences should also only be reserved for the individuals who are so incapable of being a functional member of civilization that no sentence would be able to mentally repair their state of mind and it would be necessary to execute them in the name of order. Again, I am not very bound to my argument and may be swayed if your argument is persuasive enough.",-1.6977783792579355,True,1.0619290696862915,0.7983383092402982,0.3391136611085838,214,False,0.8443987129539879
7,5,1603,"Thank you Pro for challenging me to this debate! As Con, I will argue why felons shouldn't have voting rights. Good luck!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,22,False,-4.0
7,13,42399,"Minimum sentences have only a theoretical impact on crime rates; in reality they make no difference. The pro makes two major assumptions; first, that criminals have reasonably accurate perceptions of the legal code. Second, the pro assumes that harsh penalties have a psychological impact on potential criminals. Interviews with convicted felons found that a mere 22% even thought they knew what the punishment would be. Another 18% did not know at all, and more than a third reported that they had not thought about punishment at all at the time of the crime.[1] Thus minimum sentences are not sufficiently well publicized to have a significant deterrent effect. Furthermore, substantial evidence demonstrates that additional severity has a relatively small deterrent effect. Criminals respond much more to the chance of getting caught rather than the consequences that occur if they get caught; if a criminal’s chance of getting caught is 10%, the deterrent effect is virtually zero.[2] Thus mandatory sentences do not have a substantial deterrent effect. [1] Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America, Russell Sage Foundation, NY, 2006, 178. [2] Western, 179.  ",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.0830911377515249,1.517755892523631,0.7078791593094361,183,False,1.273848067687174
13,1,33106,"In this debate we will begin by talking about open carry. Open carry is the practice of carrying a weapon in plain view, not concealed, for personal safety. I am for this. I feel that if you can pass the background check to buy a firearm legally, you should be able to carry a weapon as the Second Amendment gives us the rights to bear arms to protect ourselves from an oppressive government and those who seek to do us harm. Here is Ky policy on open carry. This statement statement is about what is justified to use deadly force by the Louisville Metro Police. This is basically outlining when someone would need to use their weapon. Also we will talk about what carrying guns in places could have prevented in our nation. 9.1.2 DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) Deadly force: Force, which the officer knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. Head, neck, throat or clavicle injuries caused by an impact weapon of any sort can lead to death or serious physical injury. Reasonable belief: When facts or circumstances the officer knows, or should know, are such to cause an ordinary and prudent officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances. Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent. Serious physical injury: A bodily injury that: =623; Creates a substantial risk of death to the victim. =623; Creates a prolonged impairment of health or prolonged disfigurement. =623; Creates a prolonged loss or impairment of a bodily organ.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.7788855975818967,1.6414186785150804,1.9411177814990448,287,True,1.6870741450801174
7,20,42041,"Banning prisoners from voting is one part of a package of measures that exclude prisoners from normal society, the most obvious of which are restrictions on movement, communication and employment. By itself, a ban on voting may have minimal deterrent effect. As part of this package of measures, however, it sends out a strong signal of society's revulsion at those who commit crime, thereby discouraging law-breaking. As Roger Clegg notes, 'barring felons from voting is one way society sends the message that committing a serious crime has serious consequences'1 1 Clegg, R. (2002, September 6). Once a criminal, never a voter? Retrieved May 18, 2011, from New York Times:",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.08980994424320536,0.5985377440852981,0.8911714684567918,109,True,0.5400941716398715
7,7,18898,Yet this gene exists in civilized giraffes this allows them to live in their homes. It is deprived to the wild giraffes because.....,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,23,False,-4.0
8,1,11297,"I am an EXTREME fan of all electronic styles of music. I am well versed in the genres and songs. However I believe that for the sake of this debate all genres should be accepted. I want an EXPERT to accept this! I mean an EXPERT in electronic songs. If you only know the mainstream ones then don't bother, I will simply put songs you have no idea of being so good on it. IF you are very well verse din electronic music and wish to put it on feel free to do it. IT shall consist of a five-round battle (beginning with this one) I would appreciate if you put your FIFTH favourite song FIRST ROUND and MOST favourite song in FIFTH round. The reason I wish this is to ensure fair battling in all rounds. All songs MUST be embedded videos, I will not accept random amazing songs by amateurs, this is unfair and will mean full forfeit (because how can I know a random friend of yours uploaded an amazing unknown song). Thus all must be by registered artists. Although registered can merely be an internet DJ, it has to be on a PUBLIC site, not a PRIVATE PROFILE on something like soundcloud (to make fair for both of us since it means we could both have found that song). FIRST ROUND IS NOT ACCEPTANCE!!!! IT IS YOUR FIFTH FAVOURITE ELECTRONIC SONG! BY THE WAY POP IS NOT A GENRE OF ELECTRONIC MUSIC ACCORDING TO ME FOR THIS DEBATE! My fifth favourite mix I have heard in my entire life:",-2.010559408397932,True,0.15693881334004334,0.2929048488088399,-0.6086981401101823,263,True,-0.06225213047325059
7,37,38188,"The inherent possibility of mistake !! by the very nature of the sentence you are saying that the referees are doing something wrong i.e. they are making mistakes. Mistakes should be avoided therefore the solution to these mistakes should be put in place. The GLT system has been scientifically and empirically verified, through tennis and other sports and experiments. Therefore GLT should be put in place. You are claiming that tradition should be used instead of reason however, things change, and this change has no inherent problems for it solves them. Actually you are completely wrong about a bad decision not being the reason for a loss. For example- If two teams are completely equal but one goal is allowed illegally then this goal could decide the match. You are allowing an injustice to take place with no sound reason. You and your arguments are completely ridiculous. Grow up and use reason, logic and perfection.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.6913195534647126,1.2568170981958195,0.23781956068059745,155,False,0.8437787564610654
7,1,30320,"I believe that any citizen who wants to vote should be allowed to, including children who are old enough to read a candidate's name. Because the principle of a democracy is one-person-one-vote, if children are to be excluded the burden of proof rests on my opponent. Excluding children undermines democracy, because children are a social class like any other, with their own needs and interests. If they are not represented they will be exploited, and they are exploited immensely. Issues like education, adoption, foster care, after-school programs, curfew, and many more affect children more than any other group, and yet they are the only group that has no say. It is easy for adults in these fields to say they have children's best interests at heart, but they are never required to prove this is so, and they could just as easily be mistaken about what children really want and need. I will anticipate one counterargument, that children shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are ignorant. I would say that a large majority of voting adults are ignorant, and we let them vote anyway, while a good number of children are well informed and yet not allowed to vote. Furthermore, children are usually better informed on child-related topics such as education, etc. than the average adult. If we are to justify excluding children, we must have a better reason than ignorance.",-0.13387323355795333,True,2.6752413075575046,0.9133718429612242,1.5306580570405983,232,True,1.9939121638271524
7,3,29246,"I disagree, i know several people who are uneducated who get jobs and are successful, its all about confidence, if you act like you know what you are doing then people assume that you do lol as long as you dont lay it on too thick. The people who have it really bad are felons. Felons have the hardest time getting jobs out of anyone i know.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.4752971508889227,0.1308557661584915,-0.4934005997126075,67,False,-0.3287073496628855
7,4,10831,"There are several reasons why young people should not be allowed to vote. There are many teenagers and even adults who are very immature. Giving them an opportunity to vote is the worst idea. Students, for example, can make poor choices, and voting is a big thing. They should start with something small, such as student council within the school, and then go from there. Even if there are some people under the age of 18 who are mature, we still have to consider the ones that aren't.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.1254577761339823,0.530862404318395,0.10551564933719274,88,False,0.6801288474042582
7,2,31391,"Debate Voting Privileges In order to vote, we currently require two steps. These steps, although annoying, are in place to protect the integrity of the debates by ensuring that only confirmed, unique accounts have voting privileges. 1Confirm Your Identity Your Status: COMPLETE 2Complete Three Debates Your Status: INCOMPLETE"" This is the message I have received as a new comer. DDO requires us to debate 3 times before we are allowed to vote as well as confirm my identity. If they already confirmed my identity, why do I have to debate 3 times before I can vote? I shouldn't have to complete both if my identity has already been confirmed. Therefore, DDO is unfair towards new comers when is comes to voting.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.2263496425711128,0.6719130300054323,0.6676806721608205,121,True,0.5972874763857582
7,10,36289,"Claims that the Treaty is all but identical to the rejected EU Constitution should be rejected. It is quite different, being a conventional amending Treaty, whereas the abandoned Constitution sought to re-found the European Union on an entirely new basis. So even if it was right to hold a popular vote on the Constitution, it is not necessary to offer one on the Lisbon Treaty. Those who argue that 96% of the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the Constitution are taking a very crude approach – what matters is the significance of the different words, not their numbers. The sentence: “It is time for Britain to leave the European Union” is 96% identical to “It is time for Britain to love the European Union”, but it has a completely different meaning. Those European politicians like Giscard D’Estaing who claim the Treaty is no different from the Constitution are appealing to their own core audiences, often attempting to reassure those countries who did ratify the Constitution that their efforts were not in vain and that nothing has changed. Just because they say it, does not mean it is true.",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.314120416851454,1.2823945263995715,0.3387395168439151,189,False,1.13466148048647
7,11,34104,"Prison is a necessary deterrent: the possibility of being sent to prison does affect whether individuals commit crimes. Whilst violent crimes might be committed in the heat of the moment, property crimes are often committed by individuals who have weighed up the chance of being caught and possible sentence, and still think that they have more to gain by stealing. Such individuals are more likely to commit crimes if prison is not available as an option to the sentencers. Furthermore, there are a considerable number of non-violent offenders who commit further crimes after receiving a fine or community sentence. Where the alternatives were an insufficient deterrent, prison may be necessary for repeat offenders. Finally, some offenders may try to avoid paying fines or completing their community sentence; in such cases the threat of prison is a necessary sanction to ensure that lesser punishments are respected.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.1040100658622929,0.500224046508587,1.0048894640386772,145,False,1.0015966088688344
7,3,40990,"There are many formats of a test and it can be edited to suit the situation in the country. And if uneducated people who have no idea about political parties be allowed to vote, why shouldn't 16-18 years olds who are well-informed about politics not be allowed to vote? The voting system needs to get better, whether it be by a test or by other methods. It can be a short test so that it takes less time, and the passing percentage can be 20 or 30 percent.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.3682099317475253,1.3258959457145698,1.0334867328794524,88,True,0.7888225570942744
13,2,28242,"If a shooter enters a school, and no one in that school has a gun, it is the recipe for a disaster. Here are some of my arguments for teachers having concealed carry permits. 1. Getting a concealed carry permit does not mean you can get a pistol that day. Those who get these have to go through several steps, including background checks, fingerprinting, and classes on shooting. Someone who has a concealed carry will be able to hit a target rather proficiently. Adding to that, teachers should already be background checked, so there is less of a chance of an unsavory character being in possession of a weapon while being around children. 2. The guns would need to be out of reach of the students, but having a gun in the classroom that the teacher can easily get to means that the chance of survival if a shooter targets the classroom much higher. 3. Criminals historically target those who they think are unarmed and vulnerable. They will not attack a place that is able to easily defend themselves, because many shooters want media attention, which will happen if they create a massacre, not if they are the only casualty. 4. When in a fight or die situation, an example being cornered in a room with a shooter, the better option is to fight, because otherwise you will die anyway. A teacher having a gun is an excellent way of defending yourself.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.3762719788145433,-0.14613532812628982,1.3504407673940024,242,True,0.34281996159628547
8,15,35914,"Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11  ",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.4922981684272665,0.3158671318709881,-0.07340707209813263,115,False,-0.10021008315442591
8,1,3062,"Despite the pediatric 'laws' against permitting children under the age of two any screen time (be it computerized or televised) many parents continue to purchase and show their very young children electronic media aimed at their age group(s). I am one of those parents. In my opinion, educational electronic media teach narrative, image and symbiotic literacy to young children in ways traditional text-based media do not. These skills are a necessary aspect of 21st century life. They help children discern between flashing trickery and real information, they allow for cultural fluency that promotes relationships (i.e. - 'have you seen Cars?' 'Yeah! I Love Lightening McQueen!') and many are simply unbelievably fun. I have noticed that my children are no less active than others whose parents are not as screen-time positive. I also seek out and encourage play with more activity oriented electronic media, such as Nintendo's Wii. Ultimately, however, it is the very nature of screen time, which encourages a kind of focused attention and unique immersive thinking, that I think really benefits children whether or not they are standing up to play. Children *need* exposure to electronic media. Rather than we wary of it, parents should actively seek out innovative and educational forms of screen time and encourage children to use it. It is only when we truly and emphatically embrace electronic media that it can live up to its potential as a medium.",-2.323340437537928,True,1.0440467502442787,-0.001359709402799963,1.1837919795851877,235,True,0.865128744081776
8,18,35914,"Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11  ",0.4916888247220394,True,0.2678283389541397,-0.2140858064355701,0.09019227127164876,175,True,0.04782952335399692
8,24,35914,"The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11  ",1.1172508830020322,True,1.0474923329576435,1.1782389207629214,0.4993540680223399,245,True,1.0472618015874302
8,25,30807,"Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made.  Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3  ",0.1789077955820434,True,0.2400647558149787,0.8094461489366466,0.36169921719006337,162,True,0.5384229734208884
8,20,35914,"Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11  ",0.8044698538620362,True,0.9607320591962116,0.5549023673394993,0.0800341067655974,154,True,0.6134890764451237
8,21,35914,"Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11  ",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.8577120388476244,0.28165714983787216,-0.449357170381728,156,False,0.2726938315946946
8,12,35914,"In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]. [1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11 [3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11. [4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11 [5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11  ",0.4916888247220394,True,1.5197014485019067,0.6734872974362445,1.003743538621272,268,True,1.2312952673720299
8,16,35914,"Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11  ",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3888304205532006,0.020937387156401,-0.08200637465064217,142,True,0.11890121290251368
8,30,35914,"If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11  ",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5790586635802978,-0.4208026430595849,0.05865298315155557,121,True,0.08332390989921688
8,10,20775,"Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could be made much more quickly (particularly with electronic voting) without the issue getting bogged down by political parties fighting one another, scoring points and trying to slow down the system.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,44,True,-4.0
13,1,9418,"Welcome to the debate. I will be arguing in favor of concealed carry by law abiding citizens. I welcome you to use the first round for an opening argument. You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole. As always, verifiable facts with sources will be weighed more favorably than made up hypothetical anecdotes.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,62,True,-4.0
8,4,21938,"I believe that artificial intelligence running things would be a bad idea. No form of government is perfect, however, democracy is the most perfect out of all other governments. Repairs and maintenance may cost a great deal, advances come rapidly, their programming will need to be improved, tech will need to be installed to make them smarter. Something happens, they breakdown they will be offline for who knows how long. Procedures to restore lost codes and corrupted data can take a very long time. Another terrifying possibility could be that hackers hack into them, an enemy nation could control the nation from their land making decisions in their best interest instead of ours. After countless investments in making them smarter and smarter they become self aware and have its own agenda. Self aware machines may decide that they should start the preparations for conquering, enslaving, and or committing genocide of their human subjects in order to bring forth the era of the machines instead of making decisions that would be in mankind's best interest would be a possibility. This is a powerful and dangerous possibility, the machine may know what patriotism means but can't feel patriotism for the nation that they would run. Looking at life, the bulk of all life tends to rather hang out with their own species. Therefore, the machines may simply wish to be with their own even if that means to do away with their creator. For these reasons giving absolute authority to machines would be a bad idea. To costly and too dangerous. Democracy should stay intact until a better form of governance is created.",-2.010559408397932,True,1.2574718663052753,0.30925488940251833,-0.4576716720858439,271,False,0.4458489859972418
8,20,8573,"Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. The election results from compulsory voting may not be a representative view of society, than the current systems. Just because people are required to vote does not mean they become more politically engaged than they were before. Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Government transparency should be further encouraged as well as evaluating to what extent the current voting system causes low voter turnout. Low turnout is best cured by more education. Instead of trying to engage people by force, how about introducing political education in schools and encouraging political conversation. How about educating the public on how politics affects them? Citizenship classes should be taught to students who are approaching voting age, as it would teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy. The government should be trying to engage people by other means, not compulsory voting. Compulsory voting may improve low turnout but will not affect the root problem- what people actually think about politics. In essence it is just relieving the side effects without curing the disease.    ",0.1789077955820434,True,1.6166958876012638,-0.10973320714076372,0.9691250642455604,230,True,0.9735925875213208
8,13,19715,"Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting  ",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.5907484944593929,0.33007452857904473,-0.6345681785101043,107,False,0.1164581851936142
8,22,35914,"No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11  ",0.8044698538620362,True,0.00861435936613455,0.12405137703489096,0.0668784796062016,177,True,0.06715642013142058
8,13,35914,"Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten[1]. Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote[2]. Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises[3]. Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA[4] and Europe[5]. It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/ge_website/pages/whyvote.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8127315/Student-tuition-fees-protests-Nick-Clegg-says-he-regrets-signing-pre-election-pledge-not-to-increase-fees.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65182100.html, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5045246.stm, accessed 24/08/11  ",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.16821608570232455,0.6659464185149515,0.7967816742622816,179,False,0.6240206960637887
8,15,29852,"The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur.  However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process.   Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome.  Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes.   Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not.   Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.9386943208822432,0.38861916103527583,-0.7525413686177338,136,False,0.24015700464697992
8,4,35914,Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
8,7,35914,Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
8,6,35914,Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
8,5,35914,Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion,0.8044698538620362,True,-2.5593526467636933,-1.2610001029826092,-1.2992021415920278,8,False,-1.9623952313308695
8,10,35914,Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible,-0.13387323355795333,True,-4.4264481509763876,-1.9105522190675304,-2.044203386169565,8,True,-3.141056936211802
15,4,37084,"I, the contender, shall prove my case that you shouldn't ban animal testing. My first statement will be the definition of animal testing if you didn't know. Animal testing Is basically a system in which major companies test their products on different types of animal species. Many people have been against this statement, such as a girl who died in the process of protecting an endangered species. But, if we banned animal testing, we would have to test it on plants or humans! Imagine someone saying, ""Hey! It works! This mushroom is reacting to this medical operation! These arguments prove the declaration of how animal testing should be banned.""",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.5838102265457618,-0.6960700508687517,0.11776287575847195,109,False,-0.451179045966631
17,1,21004,First round is acceptance. No sources allowed in this debate.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
13,1,36249,"For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property. First round for acceptance only.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,28,True,-4.0
8,9,3224,"Most Secretaries-General are compromise-candidates from middle powers and with little prior fame. High-profile candidates, like Bill Clinton, are often touted for the job, but are almost always rejected as unpalatable to some of the permanent member states. For instance, figures like Charles De Gaulle or Dwight Eisenhower are rumored to have been considered for the first Secretary-General position[1], but were rejected in favor of the uncontroversial Norwegian, Trygve Lie. Thus excellent leaders and statesmen are outright excluded from the selection process because the permanent five have no incentive to nominate a strong, forceful figure for the role. Popular election would reverse this bias, as only well-known international heavy-weight figures would be able to gain sufficient votes from citizens all over the world. Californian governor Jerry Brown signed a bill deciding to award all California electoral votes to the candidate for US president that wins the national popular vote[2]. The following analogy can be made: popular vote reflects the opinions of all over whom the person elected will have power, and should not be surpassed by bureaucracy such as veto power or the electoral college system. [1] Wikipedia, ‘Secretary-General of the United Nations’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations [2] Williams “California Popular Vote Bill” Huffington Post 08.08.2011 Accessed on 02.09. 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/california-popular-vote-bill-je...  ",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.3526004236632925,0.09683250463481403,1.4904348739552808,208,True,0.7592851928315911
8,10,13303,"My opponent likens the universe to a glass full of sand, where particles below hold particles above upwards. My opponent has proven neither that a glass full of sand is a machine, or that the universe is comparable to a glass full of sand. Vote Con. Reasons to vote Con: Grammar: Pro stated that, "" No no I'm not dieing... lol,"" which has numerous grammatical errors. Arguments: Pro has not made any unrefuted arguments, defended any attacked arguments, or even come up with a better definition of a machine. Con has refuted all Pro arguments. Since the BOP is on Pro, Con wins. Sources: Pro has used 1 source. Con has used 3. Vote Con.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,115,False,-4.0
8,17,30807,"There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality.[1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school. Teaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters.[2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board. [1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/Eurobarometer.html [2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011, http://www.oegpw.at/tagung2011/papers/1C_Zeglovits.pdf  p.13  ",-0.7594352918379461,True,1.069816012119674,1.2467668244089158,1.0767463656575398,282,True,1.3011653238246952
8,1,33497,"After some discussion in my past debate, UndeniableReality would seem to be a good opponent to debate this with. Definitions: Artificial Intelligence (as defined by Searle): The claim that an ""appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds."" Computation: ""process following a well-defined model understood and expressed as, for example, an algorithm, or a protocol."" or to use Turing's definition of what a Turing machine does "" Print ""0;"" erase"" I;"" print"" I,"" erase ""0;"" move one square left; move one square right."" Format: R1: Debate info and acceptance R2: My arguments followed by Con's rebuttal. Con can present arguments if they wish, but it's not required. R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals Rules and Other Debate Information: No forfeits. No insults. No semantics. Follow the format. BOP is on me. 72 Hours to Post Argument. 10,000 Characters Max. 2 week voting period. 7 point voting system. Open Voting",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,162,True,-4.0
8,1,34220,"Every vote COUNTS toward the state and the state's votes count toward the actual numbers. Indirectly each vote affects the actual votes, but there is no direct link. The saying isn't, ""Every vote counts directly to the presidency election and there is no red tape and this is a population based result without an other influence."" It just says, ""Every vote counts (to the process)."" I don't think this elaborate process necessarily means that voting doesn't count, while it is true that it doesn't matter how many people in your state show up on election day. Your state will get the same voting power either way. I'm more concerned about certain state's voters having more power than other states, which does indeed exist(ie Wyoming). Faithless voters are in existence, but they have never been a major deciding factor in an election and hopefully never will be. *crosses finger* I have written many research papers and done a few live debates on this topic and know everything there is to know about the electoral college.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.1719003624575444,0.13771807920697626,0.5246931088460595,174,False,0.7084895620248158
8,27,29852,"Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur.  These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned.  Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous.   Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy.  Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not.   That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well.   Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.  ",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.888763072580602,0.4575116546286746,0.2554118255255088,135,False,0.6125264606686506
8,1,25245,"The Ranked Choice voting system (also called transferable vote, instant-runoff vote, and preferential vote), is a voting system where the voters rank the candidates in order of preference rather than only voting for one candidate. The process works as follows: The first place votes for all of the candidates are counted as normal. If no one candidate has the majority of votes, however, the candidate with the least number of first-place votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed to whoever that voter's second choice was. This flowchart explains the process clearly: I will take the position that adopting a Ranked Choice voting system would be benifical to the United States. My opponent's position should be that either the current first past the post voting system or another voting system would be better. The first round will be an acceptance of the challenge.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.7588769000010646,0.7481112980534099,-0.07746942508797679,143,True,0.5506641578074408
8,1,19296,"I am challenging Philosophybro to this debate. I hope it will go well. Definitions: Artificial Intelligence (as defined by Searle): The claim that an ""appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds."" Computation: ""process following a well-defined model understood and expressed as, for example, an algorithm, or a protocol."" or to use Turing's definition of what a Turing machine does "" Print ""0;"" erase"" I;"" print"" I,"" erase ""0;"" move one square left; move one square right."" Format: R1: Debate info and acceptance R2: My arguments followed by Con's rebuttal. Con can present arguments if they wish, but it's not required. R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals Rules and Other Debate Information: No forfeits. No insults. No semantics. Follow the format. BOP is on me. 72 Hours to Post Argument. 10,000 Characters Max. 2 week voting period. 7 point voting system. Open Voting",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,156,True,-4.0
8,26,9841,"Voting holds a special place in a democracy; it is the very foundation of the mandate our elected representatives hold. To turn it into something everyone over the age of 18 must do would take away something from that. A non-vote (i.e. staying at home) sends a more powerful signal of apathy than does a spoilt ballot or abstention vote; a non-vote says that the citizen is dissatisfied with the entire process, that politics do not address any concern she has. A spoilt ballot or abstention vote in a compulsory election, however, merely expresses dissatisfaction with the particular candidates in the constituency, and hides the deeper malaise that may be there. Compulsory voting merely sweeps under the carpet the legitimate dissatisfaction many people feel with politics, and will not lead to the regeneration of politics that its proponents suggest. Many people will merely vote at random, because 'they have to', rather than expressing their apathy. A person who conciously elects, in their own mind, that they do not wish to participate in an election process, for whatever reason(s) they may have, should not be legally obliged to vote or in any way participate if they choose not to do so.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.8788330386697383,0.6597217391711037,1.3357124478131102,200,True,1.10449113637124
8,8,13303,"RESPONSES Pro: ""What my theory proves is ... Gods can't exist."" This is irrelevant to whether or not the universe is a machine. Pro: ""You do agree non-life is mechanical in nature, don't you?"" No. If non-life is a machine, then non-life would have to work together to perform a function. I do not see any function that non-life is performing. Thus, I cannot say that non-life is a machine, though it is possible. I remind Pro that the burden of proof is on Pro, not Con. Pro: ""Evolution is non-life turning into life."" No, that's abiogenesis [1][2]. Pro: ""World is a machine"" Where was this demonstrated? Pro: ""and life which has a beginning unlike World and, Life being the subset of World is also a machine."" First, even if life is proven to be a machine, it is only a portion of the world, as Pro agrees. This debate is over whether ""100% Existence"" is a machine. Second, life has not been proven to be a machine. REFERENCES [1] [2]",-1.6977783792579355,True,-1.3642571461933863,0.1778713529591074,-0.11434860286112765,171,False,-0.4854807302998223
8,23,35914,"Computer literacy is constantly on the rise[1][2]. In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide[3], and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors[4][5]. Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5223192.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: http://computerliteracyusa.web.officelive.com/default.aspx [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7770469.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/computer_classes/Computer_Training_Classes_User_Groups.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/, accessed 24/08/11  ",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.15751596016370156,0.6089876899263691,1.4930961728063523,144,False,0.7658750560944121
13,16,1294,"Schools such as those in the county of Harrold, TX [1] have already introduced laws allowing teachers to carry pistols, but largely in a concealed fashion. This therefore leaves children unawares and thus not distracted by seeing teachers prominently carrying guns. Furthermore, with teachers carrying concealed arms, any would-be attackers would be thrown by not knowing who to shoot first, which would not be the case if police officers were the first on the scene. [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=2  ",0.1789077955820434,True,0.2746514328612213,0.5730779013612335,-0.08477775001928872,96,False,0.28876489254460247
8,5,22835,"The real problem for allowing all students to vote in local school board elections is that they don't understand the issues, and that they would vote against things that are in their best interest. For example, a kindergartner cannot understand what electing a certain school board member would mean for them, and in the idea of their best interests we shouldn't allow people to be voted by a broad electorate of people that cannot even read. The democratic process is something that should be respected, and allowing someone the age of 4 to vote on their school board members without understanding what changes would occur goes against any idea of self-interest. Students would also vote for school board members that do not act in the best interest of the schools. For example, they would vote for a school board member that advocates for no dress code whatsoever, even though this would have some very bad consequences. They may vote for someone that promises to give all students A's no matter what - that is not in the best interest of their education. Whether or not the things affect them, that doesn't mean they should have a say in the democratic process. There aren't any reasons for WHY we should allow the students to vote except that it would be democratic... so what? That'd bring insane challenges to the school board as a whole.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.957563316949048,1.2296636568410657,0.2598733488696803,233,False,1.3466998704839253
8,5,31181,"As this is the last the last i will be posting a short argument ,it is as follows: 1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates"" positions and ideas. 2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as ""buying votes"" for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.11337624207221872,-0.4909826760905848,0.19845317822542785,153,True,-0.07377560884837571
8,8,30320,"That's not really a logical analogy, those people are adults, they are capable of making rational decisions without the guidance of others. If children were allowed to vote, they might vote for a completely illogical candidate, i.e. Batman, or Deez Nuts. Children don't have a sense of seriousness when it comes to this sort of thing. They won't take the voting process seriously.",-1.2286068355479407,True,-0.7920342034284683,0.06659439117387575,-0.5999092682322106,63,False,-0.5138474922686376
8,2,14909,"The requirement of having completed three debates in order to vote is excessive. One completed debate and the text confirmation should be sufficient. Considering that the average debate takes a week or more to conclude, the integrity of the voting process would not be excessively degraded by lessening the voting requirements.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.4322628295435828,-0.39251235582238897,-1.4881509582325156,51,False,-0.887410236707173
8,9,32256,"The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.   Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.   If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.1171436273424191,0.9409239905621654,0.6855884912730643,146,False,1.0515084065869968
8,1,13815,The Russian PPSH-41 is a better weapon system than the American Thompson sub machine gun. I will let my opponent post his argument first. Me nor my opponent are NOT ALLOWED to vote for ourselves in this debate. If one of us break this rule then the other debater should get the better conduct vote. I wish the challenger of this debate good luck and may the best man win.,-1.6977783792579355,True,-2.0495557095747983,-0.09230075939510296,-0.5903955842381241,70,True,-1.0216665638143063
8,7,20269,"I would argue that paying people to vote would not be a reasonable way to increase voter turnout, the poor do not vote because they want money out of it. It is because they feel as though they aren't represented and do not think its worth the time if there vote does not count. And by implementing a test that slows that process down even more it would simply lead to a larger loss in voter turnout. How much would you offer to vote? The amount offered would have to be a state decision, which would just lead to political corruption. States that are predominately one party would offer almost no payment so that voter turnout doesn't change, while battleground states would offer incentives making them even more important to candidates, which would just corrupt the system even more. I am not suggesting paying voters at all. But to further illustrate the flaw in paying individuals to show up to vote. You have to consider that many of them are at work and cannot lose the 1-4 hours of work. So in order to incentivize them to show up to vote you have to at least meet their requirement for work. So assuming everyone who voted was payed minimum wage, and there were 126 million people who voted in the 2012 election[1]. so with simple math (126 million x 7.25 minimum wage) =913.5 million dollars. And assuming this process worked you would have higher voter turnout meaning that this price would be higher. By offering a billion dollars in incentives to vote, you are basically bribing for votes. The cost of the 2012 presidential election was 6 billion, so we would have a massive increase in the cost of a presidential election.[1] Sources:",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.8681539587272409,0.5362776068702857,0.8289225887422155,293,False,1.2560903602837805
8,1,42587,"Debate Parameters Opponent:This will be an 'Open Debate' and the first member to accept my challenge will become my opponent. Category:Education Rounds:There will be a total of 3 rounds of debate. Voting Period:The voting period will last 3 days. Time to Argue:For every round of debate, each debater will have 24 hours to post their argument. Argument Max:Each debater will be allowed to type up to 8,000 characters for every round of debate. Voting Comments:Members voting on this debate are required to provide comments for their vote Round 1 - acceptance Round 2 - constructive Round 3 - Refutations and Conclusion Hope someone accepts soon",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,105,True,-4.0
8,6,29116,"I accept. PRO has the full burden of proof to show us that furby's cause insanity. A furby is a ""American electronic robotic toy released in 1998 by Tiger Electronics It resembles a hamster or owl-like creature and went through a period of being a ""must-have"" toy following its holiday season launch, with continual sales until 2000. Over 40 million Furbies were sold during the three years of its original production, with 1.8 million sold in 1998, and 14 million in 1999. Its speaking capabilities were translated into 24 languages.Furbies were the first successful attempt to produce and sell a domesticlcally-aimed robot. A newly purchased Furby starts out speaking entirely Furbish, the unique language that all Furbies use, but is programmed to start using English words and phrases in place of Furbish over time. This process is intended to resemble the process of learning English."" [",-2.010559408397932,True,-0.8755759547170064,-1.7159500006123192,0.786595147658889,146,False,-0.6408521707266331
8,6,9946,"Essentially, the debate comes down to two points. ==Decision Making== I have shown that mentally retarded people often cannot make an educated decision. My opponent claims that ""they can only get it wrong half of the time."" First of all, there are multiple parties for a reason. Simple because only two of them have been elected to office in quite a while does not mean the others do not receive any votes. Secondly, half of the time is a large number! An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year! [1] That is about one fourth of american citizens of eligible voting age. Are you trying to tell me that a number as large as that cannot sway an election? Allowing these people to vote would completely invalidate the voting process. ==Protection== First of all, equating America to post WWI Germany is completely off-center. In the United States, the president does not hold enough power to exterminate people with disabilities unless agreed upon by congress. (Which would never happen) I am only arguing that the mentally ill should not be able to vote for the president, not that they should not vote for congressmen. Therefore, they are in no danger. Allowing the mentally retarded to vote compromises American votes. Since this is such a valuable right that we are privileged to hold, we must not let it be marred by the uneducated vote. Even if the mentally ill only get the vote wrong half of the time, it is still invalid! To uphold the validity of our votes, the resolution must be negated. Thank you. 1-",0.8044698538620362,True,0.15853641030919968,0.10952008926934813,0.5530446873659955,284,False,0.30936469465611693
8,8,34872,"I do not provide points that the pro does. He has also committed a black and white fallacy. ""Therefore you must vote pro"". Also a dicto simplicitor. Stating a solution without any reasoning to back it up. Therefore he has undermined the process of debate entirely. I have tried to get the link, but they prefer not to show others there info any more. They are entitled to there unalienable right not to be forced to provide info. We must respect that.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.8111484434971231,-1.6017280079923382,-0.3389817766212629,82,False,-1.0558251240057857
13,1,16903,"Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.2942383369155681,-1.0098418530062834,-0.005479439548208235,90,True,-0.5051570588038717
8,1,41473,"The voting system here is not designed to ensure objectivity...it focuses and awards points for arbitrary things like spelling and grammar. The voting process focus should be mainly on whether or not one persons arguments were better or more convincing than the others. The current way the voting is structured, you could have the better arguments, the better logic and reasoning, but because you have made a grammatical error, you are penalized. This should have no bearing on whether you win or lose a debate or whether your arguments are sound. There are other flaws, that will be covered in rnd 2. First round for acceptance and preliminary statements.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.03602964021062085,0.2714000554657908,0.501081294237973,109,True,0.27717887612235265
8,1,20534,"Debate.org is too strict for new users. I stumbled across this site and was immediately fascinated by the various debates. I read a few and decided to ""cast votes"". Of course, I couldn't without registering. Most sites let you post immediately after you register. Some make you jump through and additional hoop with an instant verification process. So I thought I knew what to expect. Most sites have a one sometimes two-step instant verification process. Debate.org's is a daunting 3-step process. The process is as follows: 1) Register with the site. (I used my Facebook login) Easy enough. 2) Debate.org's second hoop is much more invasive than most by making us register our cell phone carrier and phone number, then texting a code that has to be typed into the website. 3) Lastly, (I hope) one has to start 3 debates in order to be full member to even qualify one to vote! Since debates can take several days, this means I won't be able to vote on the topic I signed up for since it will likely be over! I understand the first two hoops, but feel the 3rd is unreasonable. I also feel this website is missing out thousands of additional voters who simply are not willing to start 3 debates in order to cast a simple vote.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.8320900570025205,-0.4346976361653653,-0.17879521785377336,220,True,0.09158407641698785
8,11,40698,"Firstly, prisoners are excluded from the vote. This means that the VOTER is considered less equal, not the vote itself. Secondly, prisoners are excluded because they have broken the law. Similarly, children are excluded because they are too join. The proposition accepts that there are certain reasons to reasonably exclude someone from the voting process - breaking laws is arguably one of these reasons. Thirdly, whether it is practised or not does not make it the correct action. Torture is practiced in many countries, but is still considered to be immoral.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.09211664808267817,-0.2460559479621633,-0.4801937668512439,91,False,-0.32468307023513615
8,4,9567,"I, as well, expect this to be a fun debate. I agree with you to a certain extent with this Electronic Arts topic. I do feel that following getting voted Worst Company in America they would have turned their company around and put forth better games, service, and trying things differently. Although this year I did not expect them to get voted it again. I feel that there are lots of bad companies out there and EA is most definitely not the worse. The voters must just have a bone to pick with EA and took out on them at the polls. I do not feel that they are necessarily making bad decisions at this point. I feel that that EA is just trying to become more popular and wanted to beat out the competition by making Origin. They probably feel that more users will notice them with this new service and their sales would go up, but obviously that backfired. Electronic Arts makes successful games that many people, especially kids, enjoy playing, and I'm pretty sure they would not mind making and Origin account real quick to start playing. In my opinion, EA is making the right decisions, it's just they are getting bad results and a negative impact on their company and organization.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.9583838095234416,-0.14243472191153084,0.4567034328103854,215,False,0.49283113311168936
8,2,21938,"The cost of upkeeping AI of this nature wouldn't be different from upkeeping a server farm. The money could be easily acquired, for example from the salaries of parliament members. We have the technology to prevent any kinds of technical failures, such as power outages. These are just questions of engineering and can be solved easily. Also, a constant offline backup would secure the machine from possible corruptions. There doesn't need to be improvements added to the AI; unless it decides so by itself. Adding any improvements could compromise the integrity of the machine. In the same sense, it should not be allowed access into Internet. It could be allowed to view material, but it couldn't run any software nor upload anything to the net. This is to completely isolate the machine, so that it can aquire information by itself but only way it could affect anything at all would be by stating its demands to the people tending to it. It can't be hacked because of the isolation. Obvious attempts to hack it manually would be blocked by heavy guarding. The AI should be a decision-choosing machine. It would review the current situation and calculate possible outcomes. Then it would choose the best outcome, according to certain parameters given to the machine. This way the possibility of self-awareness would not be an issue. Of course, even if the machine would be self-aware, there aren't really any motives for it to enslave humanity. Nor would any conquering be possible considering the isolation. In the end, the machine would simply tell humanity what it should do next. Certain precautions must be had, such as denying the machine access to internet in all cases as well as denying it any chance to expand outside its isolation.",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.365406421515299,0.2956311793710684,2.0010519470629946,294,True,1.4301902255485883
8,11,3224,"Gender and geographic diversity would improve among candidates. Out of eight Secretaries-General so far, a woman has yet to lead the organization. Furthermore, women candidates are rarely even considered. Vaira Vike-Freiberga, only got seven positive votes when she ran against Ban Ki-moon.[1] Getting rid of the cumbersome veto process might encourage more women to come forward. Currently, the status quo tends to perpetuate itself. The representatives who end up making the decisions on a candidates viability are usually men, from wealthy and privileged backgrounds. By bringing more people into the decision-making process, the door is open to more types of people. For example, Hilary Clinton or German Chancellor Merkel might be candidates, as well as figures from Eastern Europe (who have held no SG positions so far). [1] Hoge, Warren,  ‘South Korean Favored to Win Top Job at U.N.’, 29 September 2006,  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/29nations.html  ",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.0775524140686567,0.8615844985893281,-0.054818370939682094,144,True,0.28246556849170007
8,2,25119,"Thanks ur_wrong. The first point about vote for who you want I agree with, my goal was to persuade their vote - not to negate their vote. The 2nd about hating Obama means they must prefer McCain is falacious. It assumes there are only two types of candidates and if you reject one you must like the other. There are infinite variations in candidates and each should stand or fall on their own individual merits. The 3rd comment about political parties being stupid I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH and in fact I've been an independent most of my life. Again I choose based on individual candidates and not based on their political machine alliance.",0.4916888247220394,True,-2.711537648065843,-1.6498101745275882,-0.31143158902076745,113,False,-1.7492272699359874
8,4,12672,"First off I would like to thank Pro for offering the chance to debate such an interesting issue. I would like to add that this is my first debate with this site. I would also like to mention that I am an avid gamer and play 2-3 hours a day. I am not sure about the official rules of who starts since they are not included, but I would like to extend the opening arguments to Pro since it would appear that the burden of proof would be theirs. It will be my objective to prove that video games do not actually improve hand eye coordination. This is seemingly impossible as doing any activity involving your eyes and hands should have some minimal affect on hand-eye coordination. (Such as counting to 10 on your fingers over and over again might improve your hand-eye coordination, but is it worth the effort) I would ask Pro if the terms could be slightly altered to read: ""Video games improve hand eye coordination enough to make a significant difference."" Definitions (please revise if not correct, Pro) Video games: an electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device. Help: Improve in some measurable amount Hand Eye Coordination(aka HEC): the coordinated vision and hand movement to execute a task.",-1.6977783792579355,True,0.7055927725327042,0.33425315895295704,0.5603046714572272,223,False,0.609379711610257
8,2,1350,"This does effect everyone that lives here. Alien residents still need to pay taxes even though they have no say in the process. Voting does matter to those that aren't citizens. Some are on work permits, student visa and others are struggling to get a green card. With all of that being said they still can't vote but they still have to follow along to everything that everyone else is going through? Taxes and college tuition are alot higher if you aren't a citizen, I feel as though everything should be equal.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.021461376391097298,-0.9202071841775132,-0.3293225882552753,92,True,-0.4926404221680233
10,7,33373,"Treating diseases with smoked marijuana isn't a valid option. It has negative effects on the heart, lungs, brain, and immune system no matter how long they've been treated with it. Cannabis weakens the immune system which is very valuable to someone who is undergoing a deadly disease. These patients will become dependent on the drug and even when they are not sickly anymore they will feel the need to use it.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.04255880503609785,-1.15582735666679,0.4138738455054585,71,False,-0.25365197387712823
20,16,25908,"A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12) The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10) Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.18487415427194,2.296059167209658,1.335430686755565,197,True,1.862637945348497
10,1,35082,"Pro will argue that Marijuana has several useful medical purposes for treating diseases such as Glaucoma and HIV/AIDS. Con will argue that marijuana has no such uses. Medical Marijuana: Medical cannabis (also referred to as medical marijuana) is the use of cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids such as THC as a physician-recommended form of medicine or herbal therapy. Round 1: acceptance, definitions Round 2: opening arguments Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: closing arguments, voters",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.02166778947953935,-0.3419651850300745,0.2933510746284489,74,True,-0.03330100847994136
13,1,29430,"I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.5718201513274167,0.4667449159271417,1.034077643255912,194,True,0.7939148865820449
20,10,25908,"As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.",0.4916888247220394,True,2.024526446461814,2.423079501619974,2.9575905886822014,283,True,2.857427199647022
20,15,25908,"A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.4597707025943038,1.5440465830731078,0.8080788086200882,78,False,1.0870226772422802
20,18,25908,"A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14) A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13) A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.8973959865823778,2.6638922850726523,1.4095493224071016,262,True,1.9375694021796457
20,4,30506,"How do we know what is true when we read/watch news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Americans are invested in the conflict for a bounty of different reasons and the sources for the ways they stay up-to-date have dramatic effects on the way they relate to the conflict. In the relationship between people in the U.S. and the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, I think Americans are blindly polarized by biases in media sources.",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.5026040493545489,-0.023033657946766883,-0.161411253218439,73,False,0.1175409425308525
20,26,40525,: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two-state solution,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
8,3,39969,"Can you please tell me your definition of lazy and what you mean by technology. It would help me figure out what exactly you mean by those words. Once again I never said ""Are you saying that no one has made a book, article, etc that has the same information as Wikipedia, or Answer.com ?"". We also need to stay on the topic of electronics in school. That is our main focus. Not electronics in society. I have been able to use electronics to get my home work done faster and still get get grades. On top of that I am able to work out and be very active because I can finish my work faster. Electronics make me more efficient.",-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.5346254927181108,-0.8865763690784628,0.2941119239565825,121,True,-0.43072295204574745
20,2,40525,: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.7914849370522634,-0.9161963694392598,-2.049584287599776,8,True,-1.440325890742129
20,32,40525,: Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
20,11,25908,"Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.05481414699357542,1.6529987238338069,2.0553201432847743,126,False,1.4444783947455182
20,4,40525,Israeli settlements ought not justify denying Palestinians a state.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
20,36,40525,: Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one-state,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
13,18,9307,"Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)",1.1172508830020322,True,0.15503535148126754,-0.1720231272959911,-0.6138004265000752,67,True,-0.2478632543338484
20,14,40525,"Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.",0.1789077955820434,True,-0.9228464987366808,-0.9167681372516074,-1.3768351381320645,7,True,-1.2495883132685306
20,1,40525,Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008.,0.1789077955820434,True,-0.4376494717134535,-1.5838176829480923,-0.7227406321373956,8,False,-1.0550401202586732
20,3,40525,: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.0014816924074732,-1.0433228630250708,-2.047953778706034,8,False,-1.575436643986807
20,13,40525,: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution,0.1789077955820434,True,-1.0749267796057536,-1.8922278215431845,-0.8990633694044059,10,False,-1.4911640581519017
8,8,17678,"'Second, it can help teacxh how to do math and other subjects' Yes good sir or madam, you are very correct on this point. However accepting electronics 100&ly into our life just because of one reason that you provided doesn't mean we should do so however. Electronics is not the only thing that teaches us math and I could argue that it even dumbs us down in math when we start to use calculators more and more. Even for the slightest problems where it requires us to think. We become so lazy that we want everything else to do the thinking for us. 'Other subjects' It could help us with other subjects. However you failed to mention which subjects. It could very much teach us but it is not necessesary. And that's what we are arguing for wether or not we should use electronics that much. Based on the arguments you portray we don't need electronics that much to be honest.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.39327571298660735,-0.4766884225412102,-0.4603349373401045,161,False,-0.5238848186587592
20,20,40525,Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.3411187710711999,-1.1442247929491771,-0.9991980191977282,8,False,-0.9621455756677695
20,25,40525,: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights,0.8044698538620362,True,-1.0518458084251572,-2.5669414011094207,-1.2506430477517685,7,False,-1.8599481896234928
20,10,40525,: Two-state solutions offers adequate territory to Palestinians,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.10838281626139716,-1.1910007704371897,-2.0171342936279384,8,True,-1.2515369488082042
20,16,40525,: Israel loses strategic West Bank mountains in two-state solution,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.9874598825141722,-0.785701738553275,-0.8991524297532377,10,False,-1.0419625739013831
20,21,40525,Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.,0.8044698538620362,True,-1.045988824142041,-1.4499569048030545,-1.0562081267809345,7,False,-1.379961894110919
20,9,40525,Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.,0.4916888247220394,True,-0.907554681963418,-0.7821147797894457,-1.8193140050084653,8,False,-1.3515990431702523
13,2,40774,"the debate is about more guns means more homicides or not. not about what concealed carry laws do or dont do. they might just make more guns less bad, but the bottom line is more guns means more bad, more murder. concealed carry might make so many guns less bad, i dont know. i do know ninety percent of gun researchers think more gun control is better than none when it comes to homicides. i dont know the magic gun control if we have lot of guns. but the point isnt about this or that gun control, it's about more guns mean more homicides or not.",1.1172508830020322,True,-1.6811871608735312,-1.833351916818153,-0.4279353124585423,106,True,-1.5066499588935405
20,28,40525,: One-state would see Israel minority ruling over Palestinian majority,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
20,33,40525,: A two-state solution will not end conflict,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
20,22,40525,": Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,False,-4.0
8,6,24369,"Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.1869600721014736,0.10531014268030696,1.2026747699255491,120,False,0.581199185895494
20,15,40525,: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
20,17,40525,"A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
20,19,40525,": Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
20,23,40525,": Idea of Jewish state, in two-state solution, is undemocratic",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,False,-4.0
20,24,40525,: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,10,True,-4.0
20,27,40525,: Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
20,6,40525,Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
13,1,31311,"Con is against changing gun laws, I am for changing gun laws. I believe that the US should pass laws to strengthen the power of background checks and expand conceal-carry laws throughout the US, because these measures have been proven time and time again to be effective in reducing crime. ""He alerted the police to his plan before entering the store, and attempted the stunt just to prove to the public that there are sane people with guns in the United States, and apparently does this quite often. So, who wants to challenge THAT?"" It would be good to know that 1) He passed a strong background check needed to own such a weapon and 2) That if in the event someone with a AR-15 planned on shooting up the place, he would be met with resistance from other armed people thanks to conceal carry laws..... Not everybody who walks around with an AR-15 strapped to their back is by default sane. Apart from those gun laws it would also be in everyones best interest if the government did whatever they feel was necessary to make sure that existing gun laws are carried out more effectively, such as reforming the ATF (Department that regulates alcohol, tobacco, and firearms)",1.4300319121420288,True,1.1076512302685901,0.0896370618177528,0.22834455901486445,208,True,0.5519129248721952
20,8,40525,: Iranian support for two-state solution is diplomatically valuable,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
20,2,25908,Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution,-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.9000373302323703,-0.9199536382048752,-0.9557535165589236,10,False,-1.082318557828334
8,4,39969,"I was just using myself as an example for electronics helping me out with school. What is the harm for kids in school if they are able to get their work done faster with electronics, and then they want to stay on them after their work is done? You also talked about how you can just do a web search and find the answers to your question. You can do the same thing in text books. It is the same thing. So is using the answer key in your text books make you lazy? You still have bot given a good example of how I contradict myself either, or explained how. An other thing about text books is that you can only have so many books in a school at a time, but with electronics you can have almost infinite amount of information on any subject. Also books are perishable, but you can have hundreds of electronic copy's on many different devices. There are just so many more ways that you can access information with one computer then you could with one book.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.2767915987973336,-0.07286564532148307,-0.433347811792764,183,True,-0.0937776829020572
20,18,40525,: Palestinian state would be base for terrorism,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,False,-4.0
20,5,40525,A Palestinian state would threaten its neighbors.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
20,12,40525,Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state.,0.8044698538620362,True,-0.4674267435436394,-1.0783992830468143,-1.4504365931753418,8,False,-1.156973987321733
20,31,40525,: General statements in favor of a one-state solution,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,False,-4.0
20,34,40525,General statements in support of a two-state solution,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,8,True,-4.0
20,35,40525,: A two-state solution is the least bad option,0.4916888247220394,True,-3.0081337836909245,-1.5595481924133705,-2.67370949430405,9,True,-2.778227113059896
20,7,40525,A two-state solution will not assuage Iran.,0.4916888247220394,True,-1.1865951888592747,-2.6855562878038346,-1.2829964964521248,7,False,-1.9687595026952387
20,29,40525,: Two-state plan respects democratic will for separate states,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,9,True,-4.0
13,3,4279,"My opponent proposes that bartenders forcibly keep patrons from leaving. This is a clear violation of people's civil liberties. ""But signs of drunkenness can still be looked for"" This has been proven in round 2 to be unreliable. Premise 2- when convicted of a drunk driving charge in a lot of places you will have your right to carry a concealed weapon taken away. Your right to drive May need to be restricted, but why would they take away a completely unrelated right? This is absurd. Lock them up or suspend their license don't take away completely unrelated rights. Premise 3- Sober people shouldn't be arrested for driving drunk. That's right cops suck at actually telling if somebody is drunk so they frequently arrest people who are sober for DWI.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.2332667279881339,-0.6068840359572758,-0.27608452624709284,130,True,-0.43959161333118774
20,30,40525,: One state is more peaceful then a two state solution,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,11,False,-4.0
8,7,39969,"My argument is simply that technology is negatively affect our schools. Electronics are making kids lazy and inactive. I'm a witness of kids sitting on the sidelines on their hone not even walking around the field. I understand that you think technology is the best way. But it seems to me that you think kids should look up things in a quick search in order to be ""more efficient"", but wouldn't that make you lazy? Counting on a web search to give you all answers quickly? So you wont have to take time to research. We all rely on our electronics to be there for us all the time. If kids become (more) dependent on electronics, what happens if they suddenly just stop working. Books will be out dated nobody is using them. Everything is replaced with the devices. What do we do? We're counting on our leaders, who are relying on the electronic. Again what do we do? There is a book for any subject you want to know about. Are you saying that no one has made a book, article, etc that has the same information as Wikipedia, or Answer.com ?",-2.010559408397932,True,0.3876895776419045,0.016572694927192322,1.1290413528903338,193,False,0.5940571620963067
20,11,40525,: A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,7,False,-4.0
20,7,25908,"Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.1454309616040879,0.7279422092596695,0.5628817671895874,78,False,0.9343108696738905
20,18,9577,"Israel has more than just national security at stake in the occupied territory of the West Bank -hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live there, many in areas which are not strategically essential (the areas described above). Between the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (all outside of Israel's 1967 borders), over 400,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied territories.[1] These ever-expanding settlements represent a barrier to Israeli withdrawing to its 1967 borders. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were only 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.[2] Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore it should be remembered that these settlers are Israeli citizens, with families, who moved to these areas because the Israeli government told them it was safe and that they would be allowed to stay, and thus Israel has a moral duty to live up to these promises by not withdrawing. Israel cannot afford this sort of internal turmoil, and should not neglect its duty to protect the rights of these citizens, and so it should not withdraw to its 1967 borders. [1] Levinson, Chaim. “IDF: More than 300,000 settlers live in West Bank”. Haaretz.com. 27 July 2009. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-more-than-300-000-settlers... [2] Tolan, Sandy. “George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution”. The Christian Science Monitor. 4 February 2009. http://stageorigin2.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0204/p09s01-co...  ",0.1789077955820434,True,0.7178524840801924,2.4158758140383254,2.011283962799661,289,True,2.0034235590803866
20,22,37038,"Before the discussion of the Palestinians as the innocent victims of Israeli oppression can be established, it should be noted that the Palestinian leadership were full participants in rejecting the 1948 partition plan and the war that followed. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem rejected any form of compromise, and urged the removal of the region’s Jewish population, while massacres of Jewish settlers at Palestinian hands and the complete elimination of the Jewish presence in the areas of Palestine that the Israelis did not secure in 1948 speaks to a certain degree of popular enthusiasm.[1] Following 1948, Israeli law provided for compensation or the return of land for any exiled Palestinians who returned to Israel proper and took an oath to the state. This does not justify the actions of Israel in their entirety, but the tragedy of the Palestinian people is partially of their own making, and if one accepts the principles of the right of return, then the creation of Israeli settlements furthers this on the Israeli side. Furthermore, it calls into question what, if any legal claim the Palestinians can have to any land on the basis of a UN partition plan they rejected, and on the basis of principles and practices they themselves have subverted. [1] Dershowitz, Alan, ‘Has Israel’s Victimization of the Palestinians Been the Primary Cause of the Arab-Israeli Conflict?’, The Case for Israel, Chapter 10, 2003, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UG4_QXdpFQUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false  ",0.1789077955820434,True,0.9236910061571041,2.0741734906818343,2.095680925420151,234,True,1.9724653327317583
20,7,41287,"Dividing Jerusalem would simply turn the city into a war zone, with the battle lines being drawn wherever the dividing lines are drawn, as the two mixed-up and opposing communities fight for control over streets, holy sites and neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is simply not true that the inhabitants of East Jerusalem necessarily want to be the inhabitants of the capitol of a new Palestinian state rather than inhabitants of Israel. An opinion poll of residents of all 19 Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem conducted in 2011 showed opposition to a transfer of control to the Palestinian Authority. 40% said that they would move to Israel if their neighbourhood was transferred to the Palestinian Authority, and 39% believed most of their neighbour’s preferred Israeli citizenship. On the other hand only 29% would move to a Palestinian neighbourhood if theirs remained in Israel, and 31% estimated that most of their neighbours preferred Palestinian citizenship. 35% prefer Israeli citizenship compared to 30% preferring Palestinian citizenship, with 30% not knowing or not answering. Residents therefore seem to be satisfied with their current situation of having Israeli identity cards which entitle them to all the rights of Israeli citizens except the right to vote in national elections. They are also all entitled to citizenship upon request, in which case they may vote in national elections.(6) This means that sharing Jerusalem will not be a simple solution and that the Palestinians can come to trust the Israeli government and its security services.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.2316122147997195,2.2847312256100274,2.22708058934886,246,False,2.2200413260837126
20,9,21881,"Firstly, flow all of my arguments and rebuttals through. These are critical arguments that Pro is not responding to, and obliterates any chance of Pro meeting his BOP. To the question at hand: ""How do you completely stop the carnage and violence coming from HAMAS and the IDS, to stop constant civilian deaths and to ensure permanent peace in the region."" 1) Firstly, there has been little recent damage to Israel. Before the invasion of Gaza, there was one (read: ONE!!) civilian death from Hamas rockets [see earlier sources]. Hardly an existential threat to Israel. 2) Hamas was weakening before Israel invaded, losing political capital among the Palestinian masses and losing key allies in Syria and Egypt. This invasion has only galvanized support for Hamas, increasing any risk they pose [1]. 3) The only way to prevent future conflict is a two-state solution that gives Palestinians a legitimate government and equal rights as Israelis, with a lifted embargo and economic growth [2]. Any attempts without these key steps will be doomed to fail, as the oppressed Palestinians will be forced to join the extremists. Either way, this is mostly irrelevant, as I simply had to show that Pro's proposal should not be done, which I have sufficiently demonstrated. I do not have to give a panacea to the conflict; that is not my BOP. Thank you. Sources: 1. 2.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.7545701577540573,0.7228637485854981,1.840675579880788,229,False,1.2858391460557237
20,20,27244,"Every where there is bloody conflict, tragedy of wars, killings, hunger, poverty, homelessness, diseases, shantytowns, infighting, miseries,the reason behind is nothing else but population explosion. Too many children. Too many children fight with each other, kill each other and kill others too. 1 child policy is the only solution. For a specific period of 30 years in the whole 3rd world and there will be no more third world. The whole world will become first world. I agree rather believe that only and only 1 child policy can reduce the misery to the minimum level. Look at Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Niger, Male, Palestine, the basic reason of the conflict, misery and fight is too many children per woman. The mothers of these areas lure and recite rhymes to their infant babies to kill and be killed when their children would grow. Is this the future of mankind. Most of the Afghan, Pathan, Sudanese, Rwandan, Somalian, Palestinian women bear 10 to 15 children even more in many cases. These children fight all the time with each other. They kill each other. They kill others too. They are killed by others too. They live a life of misery. If 1 child policy is adopted in Palestine and Israel too, the Israelis and Palestinians will start loving each others children like their own and the conflict will vanish away. The same will happen in every conflicting area. If uncontrolled birth is allowed, the offspring of one parent will make nuclear bombs to kill their own brothers and sisters. SAVE HUMANITY, SAVE MANKIND, ADOPT 1 CHILD POLICY AND MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD PEACEFUL.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.8660628141586499,0.08327264178748814,0.3034767118400336,269,False,0.4799569371483692
20,1,24629,"The full text of the resolution is ""Although Israel's position in the West Bank is mutually undesirable for Israel and Palestinians, Israel has no choice in the matter, because there are no reasonable alternatives."" Cons job will be to suggest an alternative solution that does not increase the risk of harm to Israel, Israeli citizens, or the Jewish People. This debates definition of unreasonable includes, but is not limited to, anything that results in that. My opening points assume three options for Israel: 1) Assimilate the West Bank. This would mean annexation, and full Israeli citizenship for all occupants. It seems highly unlikely that the Palestinians would agree to this, and the average Palestinian would probably reject citizenship. Even if this were not so, it would be highly unsafe to assimilate an openly aggressive population into the country. Even if this were not so, Israel would likely risk losing its Jewish majority, and be subject to an the whims of a historically unfriendly regional Arab majority. 2) Two state solution. This proposes an Palestinian state in the West Bank. The trouble with this is that Israel could not safely defend itself from its 1967 borders, and no one who could make a lasting commitment to Israeli security from a potential state will make one. Israel could withdraw to newly drawn, defensible borders, but such a move would mean annexing certain parts of the West Bank, an illegal move that would likely provoke war with neighboring Arab states without impossible-to-get Palestinian approval. 3) Population shifts. This remains illegal and immoral. Most other suggestions are subject to some of the above objections; Con will have find one that isn't refuted by them, not just unlisted. I look forward to your response.",0.8044698538620362,True,2.101019653336673,2.0651121927659966,2.8974128888528377,289,True,2.725574801799347
10,5,17781,"Treating diseases with smoked marijuana isn't a valid option. It has negative effects on the heart, lungs, brain, and immune system no matter how long they've been treated with it. Cannabis weakens the immune system which is very valuable to someone who is undergoing a deadly disease. These patients will become dependent on the drug and even when they are not sickly anymore they will feel the need to use it.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.03583141610448688,0.354335055852236,0.3754091306740007,71,False,0.26003248169130166
13,4,36249,"I accept, and look forward to this debate. Just so no time is wasted in asking for clarifications in the first and second rounds, could you please be very specific on terms of importance. For instance ""infringed."" Thank you!",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,39,False,-4.0
8,7,24700,"Due to the technical difficulties that my opponent and I are having, I will be posting my electronic composition in R4, since she won't have hers musical piece posted until R4. Her link to her piano xcomposition di9dn't post in R2, so she posted the link to what was supposed to have been posted in R2 in R3. Her video to her electronic piece didn't post in R3, so she will be posting that link in R4. I had technical difficulties in R2 as well. I couldn't edit my video on youtube to snip it to the length that highlights my son's piano piece, so I posted a link that began where I wanted to snip the clip at. The link to the edited video of what was supposed to be the piano composition of R2 round is posted in this round. I tried to post the edited video, as Smithereens also tried to post the video for her electronic piece, but my video won't post on my debate either :( Smithereens and I have discussed it and we decided will resume the electronic portion of the debate in R4, where we will both post links to our electronic musical compositions.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,201,False,-4.0
18,3,15398,"I will take this opportunity to address my opponent's case. Some things to take note of: Firstly, the church is entirely separate from the government (ergo the establishment and free exercise clauses). Just as the government has no right to encroach upon the church, the church has no right to encroach upon the government. As such, legality is not contingent upon church approval or disapproval. Laws are not dictated by the church just as the church is not dictated by the law. Secondly, marriage is recognized by the government -and it is regulated. While marriage may have originated as a religious institution it is not now, in a legal sense. It is a contractual one -one within the legislative reach of the government. My opponent's case: RC1) The church's right to discriminate is not challenged, undermined, or in any way jeopardized by the legalization of gay marriage. Marriage, in a legal sense, can be performed in a court house, by a magistrate or by an ordained minister who has been given the authority by the state to marry people. Because the church and the government are and ought to be separate, legalizing gay marriage does not require the church to recognize gay marriage or perform them. RC2) Yes, the bible says a lot of things. Just like my opponent has already pointed out, the government and the church are entirely distinct entities. Legalizing gay marriage does not jeopardize that condition.",1.4300319121420288,True,0.6320916343013591,1.5952317308971682,0.908663136678848,240,True,1.2100009698707446
18,2,39644,"I would like to thank Brainmaster for accepting this debate. Gay marriage is basically the marriage between two individuals of the same gender, I trust my opponent will have no problem with this definition. I will be arguing for gay marriage, and that it should be legal. I will be arguing that everything that does not physically harm other individuals should be legalized, gay marriage is one of these things. I will also be arguing that by banning the gay marriage we have gone against human rights. C1: Gay marriage does not physically harm other individuals in any way shape or form therefore, it should be legal. A marriage is a union between two individuals that love eachother, and it basically only effects these two individuals. If it is banned then it is hurting people, and if it is legalized then it isn't hurting anyone. C2: Banning gay marriage is against human rights. Every person is born with the equal human rights which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, banning gay marriage goes against to of these fundamental rights. How can someone pursue happiness when they can't marry the one they love? How can someone have liberty when they are not allowed to marry the one they love. I await my opponent's response. Vote pro!",1.1172508830020322,True,1.0692476439894143,0.3069271837155935,0.472847241570015,218,True,0.710083984750167
18,2,17796,"From my understanding you want to leave this debate to simply benefits of gay marriage and disregard all emotional factors of the debate. I do agree this debate will be an interesting one, especially compared to the debate I thought I was going to get. First off, I would like to ask you a question, are their any real benefits of not legalizing gay marriage? Legalizing it would not hurt the economy or hurt anyone in any way I can foresee. In fact, if anything I believe that gay marriage may have a chance of improving the economy, even if it is a slight improvement. There is also nothing in the constitution that denounces gay marriage. Gay Marriage would also help boost the moral (and levels of happiness) in the country, which we all know is usually a good thing. That is all for now from me.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.2348275647298423,-0.3832630849132971,-0.03399100033850247,147,True,-0.07679766168042362
18,5,21535,"The argument in which you find ""irrelevant"" is besides the point. I provided it to compare states that have same-sex marriage legalized and sates that don't, to show the logical complications and why same-sex marriage should be leagized in the remainding states. You have not managed to provide a valid point into why same-sex marriage shouldn't be leaglized in the remainding states. Thus, I my argument stands. ""My opponent's second argument is thus:"" I don't think you finished this... Anyways, in my previous argument I provided the following: ""Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable."" Ah. The Achilles Heel. The Compromise. The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized? The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church? So you agree with me: A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable. Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable. Thus, gay marriage should be legalized. Am I right? Thank You.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.11714772205983062,0.2628677229142367,-1.264185795656164,172,True,-0.4167992064696081
18,6,19759,"Oh boy this is the quickest debate I've ever had on this site! Anyway I'll provide my source for Solomon's wives below, I don't agree with him but he did still did it. The definition of marriage changes over time, I don't believe the bible is a good source for marriage. Genesis 4:19: ""Lamech married two women."" Samuel 1:2 ""He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children."" The bible allows the practice of polygamy as shown above. If there is a God, he supports polygamy based off the bible. That is why I do not support the idea of God dictating marriage. This is my definition of marriage Marriage: the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. I don't know too much about England but in the United States our constitution believes in the separation of church and state. So if a church opposes gay marriage I believe they are more than welcomed to forbid gay marriage in their own church. However two people regardless of gender should be free to legally engage in marriage in the eyes of the law. In the law marriage is defined by the government who derives it's power to govern from the people. If the majority of people do not support gay marriage than gay marriage should not be legal. If the majority of people support gay marriage then gay marriage should be legal. Anyway thanks for the quick, efficient and civilized debate! Source:",1.1172508830020322,True,0.03606919593006045,0.7203665983403671,0.7638436507872393,278,False,0.5833658248757061
18,7,17796,"My opponent has made the point that legalizing gay marriage could (in a small way) benefit the economy. Again, I ask my opponent for specific details on how this would come about and why it is exclusive to gay marriage and not civil unions. This leads me to my next point, because even if gay marriage simply maintained the status quo but provided a new liberty it could be potentially beneficial. However, I would suggest that the legalization of gay marriage would have the opposite effect on the population from what my opponent suggests. [Please note: the following argument is not religiously based, but is based upon simple statistical analysis of the American population.] The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Whether or not the Christian faith is true is irrelevant to this topic. However, the fact that Christianity condemns homosexuality and that most Americans are Christians shows that the level of perceived morality and happiness in America would not necessarily increase. Instead, our focus should regard a reform of civil unions that guarantees those involved the same rights as married couples. I extend my arguments from the first round and close this one with the following points of rebuttal: that my opponent must show the potential for economic benefit exclusive to gay marriage and not civil unions (because without it that contention is invalid) and that my opponent's values of perceived morality and happiness in America would actually by harmed by the national legalization of gay marriage in a way that it is not by maintaining civil unions (thus defeating the contention by showing how it is self-contradictory).",1.1172508830020322,True,0.7718653091625569,0.7466233142248032,0.3253930296970093,270,False,0.7045400951522847
18,4,21535,"""My opponent suggests that there are practical problems in the banning of same-sex marriage. However, we are not discussing how a ban on same-sex marriage could or should be practically approached, we are discussing whether it needs to be approached in the first place."" I have already mentioned twice, same-sex marriage is already legal in 33 states. It has already ""been approached"". I am simply providing a senerio of what will happen if you attempt to illeagalize same-sex marriage in those 33 states, and the logical complications. Or in other words, I am comparing the 33 states that support same-sex marriage with the other states that don't. Why would 33 states accept same-sex marriage and the other 17 not? ""Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable."" Ah. The Achilles Heel. The Compromise. The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized? The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church? So you agree with me: A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable. Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable. Thus, gay marriage should be legalized.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.7041297982772678,0.1195230246491572,0.14479850783260634,198,True,0.7802040162510787
18,4,16193,"The First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights signifies the separation of the state and religion. This also shows how no one person or group of person shall infringe on someone Else's freedom of speech, press, and assemble. In the Bill of rights, ""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..."" Therefore, while religion might disagree, has no say or do with the affairs of state law or court. Sources: 1.) 2.) 3.) Gay Marriages can also help boost the economy by supporting the government fiscally. Marriages licenses and income taxes from married couples bring in revenue to spend for any programs needed within the state. 10% of New York's marriage licences are made up of gay marriages. Stores used in marriage occasions such cake stores, flower boutiques ,etc. have reported profit values rising due to the numerous gay marriages occurring in states that have legalized gay marriage. States like New York have reportedly said 259 million dollars has entered its economy since the legalization of gay marriage. With the payment of reception halls, hotels and restaurants the economy of New York became boosted on just weddings alone. Massachusetts has also reported of $111 million entering its economy on gay weddings after legalizing gay marriage as well. Sources: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.)",0.4916888247220394,True,0.980498727433546,1.201758312843252,1.008418754400294,241,True,1.2230368426822051
18,1,13338,"Gay marriage should be legal nationwide here in the United States. Having illegal marriage is discrimination. Everyone is equal. People should be allowed to marry anyone they want to. If straight people can marry who ever they want, then gays should be able to marry who ever they want. The reason why so many people don't want gay marriage legalized is because it is against God. People get offended when they see same sex couples for that reason. Truth is, if you don't like it then don't be near them. There is nothing wrong with being gay. There isnt proof of god anyways and If someone doesn't want to follow god's rules then they shouldn't have to. People have the freedom of any religion/belief they want. Many teens are gay and get bullied all the time and legalizing it across the nation will show teens that homosexuality is accepted in society and its okay to be gay. This is my honest opinion on why gay marriage should be legal nationwide.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.7709198767672294,0.15172268429571353,0.4781985519577364,170,True,0.5346410999844812
18,5,36908,"Topic: Gay marriage should be expressly legalized by the Federal government. Definitions: Gay Marriage - the legal and religious binding of two persons legally registered as of the same gender as recognized by the US government and the Christian Church. Federal / US Government - The national governing body of the United States of America as defined and regulated in the US Constitution and any relevant legislation / Supreme Court decisions. Civil Union - the legal but not religious binding of any two persons of any gender as recognized by the US government, which provides the same legal rights as marriage. Stipulations - Outside of this argument, no stipulations will be made. (You can't slice any cake, and neither can I after you pick your slice.) The passage of a law expressly legalizing gay marriage will cause no jurisdiction battles, therefore the decision to permit gay marriage will be absolute unless specifically revoked; Federal legislation is the supreme law of the land. No emotional appeals will be made; arguments will appeal to voters' logic. The Slices: Pro - Gay marriage should be expressly legalized by the Federal government. Con - The Catholic Church should have the right to deny a marriage license because marriage is a religious contract just as it is legal. Instead, the federal government should establish a system of civil unions and civil union licenses parallel to the marriage system.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.6122761588105535,0.9162876498659916,1.4149360265579571,233,False,1.1328194791466306
15,2,28892,"most people are against animal testing because it kills 'sweet little' animals. However, birds (mostly poultry), rats and mice make up to about 95 percent of all animals tested on. These are the same animals that are slaughtered for food, and exterminated for being pests everyday. We cannot even begin to argue against animal testing when killing any animal anytime is still legal. Would you be willing to give up cancer treatment, which saves thousands world wide every year, for a thousand rats? Many scientists, like professor john stein, say that they would not be able to conduct the experiments that they do to try to better understand our world without the use of animals. It may seem wrong to some people, but it is my opinion that humans are of more value than other animals. We can think on a higher level than them, and we can understand pain too. When it comes between another animal suffering or a human suffering, I would have to choose another animal. Animal testing is necessary to our society, to ensure that large amounts of human beings can survive.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.03177770025268764,0.003474321537647709,-0.2687103934543658,186,True,-0.12394142856935057
8,7,31813,"Debate.orgg forfeited this round. Pro Both are good, and they are not mutually exclusive, but the argument is over which is better. Electronics have more potential than exercise to do the greatest good for the greatest number, to maximize our utility as a species, and to eventually overcome our physical limitations. It greatly depends how electronics are employed: if a life is spent playing video games, it would result in very little (or no) increase in utility; but if one were to spend a lifetime applying technology (an extension of electronics) to the directed pursuit of maximizing the good for all, it would carry the potential to increase overall utility much more than if that person were to spend their life exercising. Of course you can balance both exercise and electronics, but the question is which is better? If you were to advocate exercise for each individual--heck lets go a step further and mandate daily exercise--you would do a great amount of good. People would be healthier, there would be less mental illness, and we would live longer, richer lives. But I argue that even more good could be done through the appropriate application of technology. If through the directed application of technology we can reduce disease, fight cancer, augment our bodies to rectify their intrinsic deficiencies, and dramatically increase our lifespan, much more good would be done for the world than just running around making our MEAT BAGS sweaty.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.019573439103819642,0.22161834131363395,0.9830266532808044,240,False,0.4724467256963195
13,1,25406,"Recently in Texas, as well as in other states, legislation has been put forward that would allow students and faculty at most public and some private universities to carry a firearm concealed while on campus. This past year the debate arrived at my school in the form of a public lecture and increased my interest in the matter. If anyone has any questions about definitions or any other part of the debate, please feel free to PM me or comment before accepting.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,82,True,-4.0
18,2,36008,"I believe you are right, on how gay marriage is besically a disgrace to all religions, but what about the ones who do not believe in god? It wouldnt matter to them, but gay marriage being illegal is wrong because it is not fair to all those people, because they are not allowed to get married, or have to go halfway across the country to be. People fall in love and they get married, only heterosexuals, but gays fall in love and they cant get married due to the illegalment of it. I believe all people should be treated equally and as for gay marriage, thats one of the factors of being equal. People are talking about legalizing marajuana, but they havent thought much on legalizing gay marriage. I disagree with all respect to my opponent. Now back to my opponent :)",0.8044698538620362,True,0.21299647615387707,-0.5997020913092268,0.09594396966111686,142,True,-0.11485409804641854
18,1,13462,Gay marriage should be legal. why shouldn't it? love is love it doesn't matter if its the same sex. Your taking away their constitutional rights! PEOPLE that are straight get married and divorced all the time gays just want to get married once. YES I believe that gay marriage should be legal through out the U.S.,1.1172508830020322,True,-0.2281471447602175,-0.4181822914323513,-0.2525124920113517,56,True,-0.3568621758817116
18,5,36520,"being forced to believe in something and openly allow something that I feel strongly about does effect me? and it is rude to say otherwise. having gay marriage legalized does effect businesses and people in everyday life. if you are against gay marriage because of you're religion should you have to legally support the gay couple in their decision to marry? even though it stands completely against you're Religion? No, it's unconstitutional you stated that gay marriage was good for the economy, that's a completely false statement. There's no definition of marriage anymore. the millions of gay couples that want to get married now don't have to pay as much in taxes and could actually receive benefits from the government which means I (the taxpayer) now am supporting millions of gay couples that receive tax breaks for being married, it'll cost the government millions of dollars and will not help the economy in revenue as a state or a country. it might help wedding businesses that support gay marriage but that's it. The fact is that gay marriage isn't good for this country and will lead this country down a very wrong path.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.20462710034231324,-0.3413862922453765,-0.007872152456986579,193,False,-0.22292198791307863
18,3,31612,"It is true that married couples get rights, but with rights comes responsibilty. Most of the rights they have aren't even that big of a deal. Most of the information can be found here, I'm pretty sure that if you marry an American you still have to go through the legal process. My uncle (from England) married my aunt and he had to get a green card and do all that still. My stance is it should be legal for everybody, or nobody. You can't grant some individuals one right but not others because they don't like someone of the opposite gender. Since marriage wont be taken out any time soon, gay marriage should be legalized. I agree that everyone should have the same opportunity for happiness and if strait marriage is legal, gay marriage also should be too. Some other links that may be interesting: I hope I waited long enough and I thank my opponent for this debate.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.6612891827909371,-0.6512975255515542,-0.12814657284010478,160,True,-0.038779786756371275
18,1,31601,"Gay marriage should be legal in all countries worldwide. The subject is often debated, but why debate? What about gay marriage is even malicious in any form? There is freedom of religion. There is freedom all around. Marijuana, tobacco, alcohol: all legal, but accompanied by horrible repercussions. Smoking affects people around the one doing so, but gay marriage? What horrible repercussions does gay marriage carry? None. The people affected by a gay marriage only become uncomfortable. If one is concerned with their religion disapproving, they are not sinning simply by witnessing a happily married gay couple. Why should gay marriage be illegal? What negative affects could it possibly have?",0.8044698538620362,True,0.6233791653592983,0.0623629881843837,-0.9699053938637302,109,True,-0.09438732877665201
18,2,10321,"Separation of Church and State Pro is laboring under the impression that government recognition and acceptance of gay marriage would represent interference with religions. This is false. There mere acceptance of gay marriage from a legal perspective does not confer any restrictions on how religions recognize marriage from their perspective. As stated, where gay marriage is accepted, explicit mention is made that this does not prevent religious institutions from discriminating as they see fit. Religious marriage and legal marriage have always been separate and distinct concepts. You can be married in the eyes of the government, but not any religion, and vice versa. Finally, the Episcopalian Church recognizes gay marriages[1]. Patent ""theory."" While McDonald's has a monopoly on McDonald's, he doesn't have a monopoly on burgers, fries, or fast food in general. The point is still invalid. Threats Pro fails to elaborate the mechanism by which gay marriage will result in these enumerated threats. Civil Unions Civil unions aren't the same as marriage and don't confer the same benefits or effects[2]. This is another failed example of ""Separate but Equal."" Remaining Points Pro's remaining points seem to be a thinly veiled homophobic attack on that which Pro fears or does not understand and do not have anything to do with whether or not Gays should be allowed to get married. [1] [2]",0.4916888247220394,True,1.2363417701970747,0.7980444395331239,0.6463174135651337,222,True,1.0288515906694753
18,2,10672,"First, everything Con just wrote was plagiarized from this link ( save for his last remark about grammar, which frankly doesn't make any sense. He never cited this page nor quoted from it, so this should merit a loss. Nevertheless, I will respond to it. Con claims that marriage is rooted in human nature and governed by natural law. He provides no evidence for this claim. In fact, marriage was rooted in property and the maintenance of power, and even biblical marriage was polygamous. He goes on to say, essentially, that gay marriage is morally wrong and people know this. However, he fails to establish an objective basis for wrong. Moreover, if morality is subjective and private, and Con has given us no reason to think that it isn't, marriage is a private relationship between consenting adults, meaning that the government should have no say in prohibiting gay marriage. It would Contention 1: Utilitarianism If we were to legalize gay marriage, as many states have already done, it would not negatively bear on anyone's life. Rather, it would merely improve the lives of a large group of people. Thus the utilitarian solution, i.e., the one that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering, is to legalize gay marriage. Contention 2: Religious objections are irrelevant Virtually every argument against gay marriage that I've seen is an extension of biblical doctrine. Looking beside the fact that Jesus never commented on homosexuality, we have legal precedent already in place which strictly forbids the intermingling of religion and politics.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.4801808927294051,0.6689880537766076,1.505702604999866,253,True,1.4096489725512982
18,3,29455,"I am all for gay people being together. Honestly, if someone is born that way, don't even try to fight it! That is who they are. The problem I have with gay marriage is because I am Christian. No I don't think it is wrong because God ""hates gays"" I am confident that God loves them just as much as his own son. My problem is that legal marriage in the United States stems from Christian marriage. So yes, I think gays should be able to be united in a legal way similar to marriage and I think they should have all of the legal benefits that come along with marriage but calling it the same thing that Christians call it is what I disagree with. Marriage as defined by Christians is a procreative union between a man and a woman who intend to spend the rest of their lives with each other (not an official definition, just my interpretation of Christian marriage). The government then added legal benefits to this such as tax cuts. And then legal marriage became a separate thing than Christian marriage (which I am not a fan of either). And now gays are trying to get married. Again, I'm all for gays doing exactly what Christian couples do but I don't like that it is called the same thing as Christian marriage. basically: I'm all for civil unions or anything like it but I don't think that homosexual marriage, an act not justified by most Christian churches, should be called the same thing as a Christian marriage, a sacred bond between a man, a woman, and God.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.0623370129858771,-0.06530767268886331,1.1733255923106174,272,False,0.8452794365249546
18,21,39952,"The legalization of gay marriage undermines the principles that have traditionally linked marriage and the family. Marriage is no longer viewed as a necessary rite of passage before a family is started, leading to a rise in out of wedlock births. As Stanley Kurtz discovered in a study of Norway, where gay marriage is legal, 'an extraordinary 82.7% of first-born children' in one specific county were born out of wedlock; he goes on to explain 'many of these births are to unmarried, but cohabitating, couples'. Yet, without the bonds of marriage, such couples are two to three times more likely to break up and leave children thereafter to cope with estranged parents1. The most conservative religious counties in Norway, in comparison, 'have by far the lowest rates' of out-of-wedlock births1. The legalization of gay marriage and the, often concurrent, ban on clergy eager to discourage the practise of out-of-wedlock only serves to undermine the institution of marriage; and it is the children that pay the price. 1 Kurtz, S. (2004, February 2). Slipping toward Scandinavia. Retrieved June 29, 2011, from National Review:",0.8044698538620362,True,1.2180303449081165,1.0158170242171165,0.6200273178841645,182,True,1.095683955312944
17,18,38422,"Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.1655479334278072,0.3416021044841794,0.6479702426678875,84,False,0.8287348556449007
18,4,43509,"Hello, I accept this debate. We are going to be debating whether or not gay marriage should be legalized worldwide. Pro has burden of proof. This is not an on balance type of debate, they must prove that all of the world should legalize gay marriage. I will present my case next round",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,53,False,-4.0
13,12,16626,"Self-protection. Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.2640340265434525,0.17567156125103098,-0.7490022196501549,68,False,-0.32504051008420487
18,1,19565,"Traditionally in this country, marriage has been defined as a religious & legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in this country; however, these couples have not been permitted to marry. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a ""civil union"", which essentially is marriage without using the word ""marriage"". Many politicians have said they are against gay marriage but think it should be left up to the states to decide. However, the ""full faith and credit"" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. Thus, if one state allows a gay marriage and that couple moves to another state, the other state must recognize that marriage. This in effect allows one state to make same-sex marriage legal in the entire country. Many politicians are calling for amendments to their state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Many areas of the country such as San Francisco have performed marriage ceremonies in defiance of the law. Lost in all the legal battles and political maneuvering is the basic question ""Should we allow gay couples to legally marry?""",0.8044698538620362,True,0.7852289285349502,0.3610706398979808,0.8504207423132173,201,True,0.7638510517222742
18,10,17796,"My case stands in that no compelling evidence has been presented to show an intrinsic benefit to nationally legalizing gay marriage. I have shown that to not legalize gay marriage is not discriminatory and actually has several societal benefits. Not only is all of this true independently, but my opponent has also recognized the validity of my claims by agreeing that the liberty provided by reformed civil unions is sufficiently just. I urge all voters to vote Con. Thanks for the debate Pro!",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.0073549551119806815,-0.9907525781721784,-0.2513433831934728,83,False,-0.48216637081575364
18,2,42643,"Thank you SnaxAttack for joining this debate, I look for a fair good debate. Also, I would like to clarify something about this debate I said it should be legal in all 50 states. This has nothing to do with states legalizing same-sex marriage. It is weather or not it should be legalized across the country. Now to my debate. Gay marriage should be legal because you should have the right to marry who you want to marry. The government does not have a right to reach their hand into your relationships. Gay couples love each other and they deserve the right to get married. A region that you don't even follow should not affect your choices as a human being. Also as we know the supreme court is deciding on gay marriage right now. And they have legalized it as we are speaking. Lets take a look at something else Abortion. A woman should have the right to make her own choice. A religion shouldn't affect that. This is my short opening argument. Good luck to you.",1.1172508830020322,True,0.7798570880424922,0.16852741844934793,0.2931413378650017,178,True,0.4734261387709293
18,3,30436,"I thank my opponent for his argument. 1. Divorce rates lower in states that allow same sex marriages This part of my argument (and the followings) may be used to further extend my regular argument or used as a rebuttal. In states where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, the divorce rate is 20 percent lower than in states that only allow marriages between a man and a woman. For example, Massachusetts, which was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage (in 2004), also has the lowest divorce rate in the country. 2. Adoption almost doubled since gay marriage Although raising children may have decreased during gay marriage, adoption has almost doubled.(1) From a moral point of view, saving an orphan is much better than not. A russian study reported that 10% of orphans committed suicide. Other things can also impact orphans such as unemployment, and imprisonment. (2)Increasing gay marriage can lead to decreasing orphanage, and as mentioned before- decreasing divorce as well. 1. 2. 4. ""The family is the smallest unit of the society while marriage was created for the purpose of family orderliness, in effect the society as a whole. Legalizing same-sex marriage will just defeat the said purpose."" When my opponent states family, I believe he also refers to children. I fail to see how it may defeat the purpose, when gay marriage is also raising a child, but with 2 of the same sex parents. This may not be most beneficial for the child (as explained my my opponent), but it certainly is better than not being adopted. I thank my opponent for such an interesting debate",1.1172508830020322,True,1.1202152143176491,1.340562015505686,1.5845251063242631,270,True,1.5545159900105487
18,1,3842,"FIRST ROUND WILL JUST BE FOR ACCEPTANCE AND RULES ONLY I will be showing how redefining marriage to just two people regardless of Gender is bad public policy overall by showing all the potential harms and refuting the supposed benefits to society. CON must show how the benefits of legalizing gay marriage ,if there is even any benefits in the first place, would outweigh or at least equal the costs for legalizing gay marriage. These benefits can either involve how it would benefit gay couples or society as whole and just trying to refute my arguments . lastly, this debate will be about the ""ought"" and not the ""is"" regarding the constitution",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.3929033238918904,-1.099846915486083,-0.5560803952312909,112,True,-1.1800976923007753
18,3,3371,"As of July 17, 2013, gay marriage has been legalized in 14 US states (CA, CT, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, and WA) and the District of Columbia. 35 states have gay marriage bans through either laws or constitutional amendments or both. Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional discrimination. Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,115,False,-4.0
18,1,17796,"I believe that Gay Marriage should be legal in all states for many reasons, the first of which is because the constitution says that all people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. This isn't my main argument for saying Gay Marriage should be legal, but it is for the way I worded the question. A few rules before we begin: 1. No Religious texts can be quoted 2. Religion cannot be used to justify an argument (adding on to rule 1) 3. I am tired of the ""because marriage is between a man and a woman"" argument, so don't use that one I believe that's all for now",1.4300319121420288,True,0.04088398202048868,-0.18472098182433802,1.2605851299089286,110,True,0.44384898742947154
18,3,17796,"I believe I have not been informed on ""civil unions"" (probably because I live in a state where gay marriage is legal) I must comment that this is the most interesting discussion on this topic I have ever have (mainly because I get a lot of people saying the same thing repeatedly), but anyway, back on topic. While I do agree the main populous in America is Christians (a fact that I still feel bitter sweet about), and that Christianity does denote homosexuality, I know that not all Christians condemn homosexuality, in fact some Christians support gay marriage. I feel like gay marriage would cause there to be more money spent (cause weddings cost money) which does not have any negative effects that I can think of. As for civil unions vs gay marriage, from what I understand, civil union means a marriage equivalent for those who cannot marry by law where they live. If that's as far as I can advance the situation of equal rights to, I'll take what I can get, but I do see some issues with it. For 1 I do not know whether this proposal will satisfy the gay rights movement, and that is why I said gay marriage would be better for the moral of the country, because we all know how rights movements can go when the face opposition, and the last thing anyone wants right now is civil unrest.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.7352730867250739,-0.7801242935626578,0.8983650103534504,238,True,0.3518001829317912
8,2,31813,"marquis1212 forfeited this round. Con Debate.orgg forfeited this round. Pro Both are good, and they are not mutually exclusive, but the argument is over which is better. Electronics have more potential than exercise to do the greatest good for the greatest number, to maximize our utility as a species, and to eventually overcome our physical limitations. It greatly depends how electronics are employed: if a life is spent playing video games, it would result in very little (or no) increase in utility; but if one were to spend a lifetime applying technology (an extension of electronics) to the directed pursuit of maximizing the good for all, it would carry the potential to increase overall utility much more than if that person were to spend their life exercising. Of course you can balance both exercise and electronics, but the question is which is better? If you were to advocate exercise for each individual--heck lets go a step further and mandate daily exercise--you would do a great amount of good. People would be healthier, there would be less mental illness, and we would live longer, richer lives. But I argue that even more good could be done through the appropriate application of technology. If through the directed application of technology we can reduce disease, fight cancer, augment our bodies to rectify their intrinsic deficiencies, and dramatically increase our lifespan, much more good would be done for the world than just running around making our MEAT BAGS sweaty.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.44102744949313977,-0.05424807244417397,-0.19953471059143948,245,True,-0.27695924273939654
18,1,37002,"According to a poll surveyed by Gallup (1), 55% of American citizens believe gay marriage should be legalized. It's because I agree with the majority of Americans, that I stand in affirmation of the resolution, Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the US (1)",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.6194045845760842,-0.1125963716450744,-0.7750467287245387,45,True,-0.5873641139113979
18,2,37002,"According to a poll surveyed by Gallup (1), 55% of American citizens believe gay marriage should be legalized. It's because I agree with the majority of Americans, that I stand in affirmation of the resolution, Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the US (1)",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.26055502449731555,-0.20788918456677613,0.7730793803345001,45,True,0.12057987004050445
13,1,9926,"I believe that in the united states private ownership of handguns ought to be banned Handguns can be easily concealed therefore they can easily used for crimes 323 people are shot every day by civilians with guns(the center for disease control and preventation) and 82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN). Germany ,the country with the second most amount of mass shootings, has had three since 1997 while the united states has had 51 (source Ray Sanchez CNN)",0.4916888247220394,True,0.3597117760143718,-1.0634272345237037,-0.9120127471336532,83,True,-0.6093120621241915
18,1,23425,"Gay Marriage should be legal for two main reasons. 1) There are no negatives to gay people getting married. The most successful countries in the world support gay marriage; Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark are all places that have legalized gay marriage years ago and have seen no problems in their respective countries from it. 2) Equality. If a man loves another man or a women loves another women there no difference in a man and women loving each other. As a society and a planet we must move forward and strive for Equality, so that every person is given an equal opportunity to love who they want as well as their lives. Please respond I am curious to hear your argument. I am open to being proved wrong and I hope you are to May the best man win",1.4300319121420288,True,0.9911476126378176,-0.12066081111500715,1.2944537996102072,139,True,0.8462640297877574
18,3,614,"An ordained minister is required by Christian church weddings and is valid for any non-religious wedding. By using an ordained minister for non-religious weddings this legitimizes the fact the weddings have religious ties. Churches vary, but each religion is based on some doctrine. That doctrine doesn't approve of gay relationships and it follows that weddings wouldn't be approved of either. You dropped my argument about two consenting incestual adults. If they both consent, why can't they be married? Also, a slippery slope is different from the slippery slope fallacy. I didn't conclude that gay marriage would result in marriage of bestiality but stated the obvious that this would result from the same liberalization on who can be married. My point is that marriage is natural considering the biological purpose that males are anatomically matched to be compatable with females. The US is not a theocracy but the institution of marriage has religious tie-ins. The governmental benefits of marriage are separate from the sanctity of marriage. This sanctity should be preserved. Also I'm unable to find the source I've read but it could've been concerning the population of gays who choose to me married in states that are legalized vs. states that don't legalize gay marriage. Gay marriage should not be allowed because the institution of marriage is sanctified through religion. It's also a slippery slope of liberalizing who can and cannot be married. It's biologically natural for a man to be with a woman the same way marriage is natural for marriage to be between a man and a woman.",0.8044698538620362,True,1.2461694044282547,1.015686211255069,0.9166915165881306,260,True,1.2188427179329235
18,8,16238,"Porn and gay marriage is a different idea. I don't know how else to put it. The fact that marriage is being changed and flipped around is terrible. And your statement about gay's being born that way, seems incorrect to me. It's been studied on that people that are homosexual's claim that it is contagious. Were you close to someone gay when you were young? There is no proof or evidence that homosexualoty is determined at birth. There are actually cases where man have raped little boys and that little boy turns gay when he grows older. Terrible. Canada has legalized gay marriage and this will spread to the U.S. also. Marriage is a tradition between a man and a women. And if that changes, I'll be devastated. Nothing against the gay people, just there lifestyle. I am not good at this debate thing just yet but I just wanna express me feelings whether or not I win or lose. Well, this is it.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.4327927006464597,-0.8120184261174112,0.25288842456330546,164,False,-0.04131522565236365
18,1,9587,"Gay marriage deals with the same concept as any other marriage, which is that two people love each other so they get married. People try to argue that gay marriage is wrong, my question is how? Because the bible said so? First of all you can't argue that gay marriage is wrong because the bible said so, there are many religions out there and not all of them say that gay marriage is wrong. Second of all why does it even effect you and why are you so worried about what other people are doing? Mind your own business and don't worry about the small things like gay marriage. If two people are happy let them be, they are not interfering you, so why interfere with theirs? And if gay marriage is wrong then so is sex before marriage, and probably more than half of you out there have had sex before marriage. Therefore you have no right to say that homosexuals are disobeying the bible any more than you people who have sex before marriage.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5434400124440828,0.5466640780521305,1.3463154673755096,176,True,0.9387979265757318
18,1,16238,"Hunton711 asked me to challenge him to this debate, so I am. I look forward to debating Hunton and welcome him to this site. I would ask my opponent to use this round to clarify definitions and Burden of Proof arguments if they arise - as a result I ask him not to post an argument for the second half of this round and allow actual debating to commence in round two. I, in this debate must prove that gay marriage should always be legalized whereas my opponent must prove that it must never be legalized. Resolved: Gay Marriage should be legalized. Definitions : Gay - of, relating to, or used by homosexuals [1] Married** - A) The act of uniting in wedlock [2] B) To join as man and wife [3] Should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [4] Legalized - to give legal validity or sanction to [5] **There are two provided definitions of marriage. The first one, A is taken from the American Heritage dictionary published in 2008 the second is from the same dictionary published in 2004. In 2005 most dictionaries were changed to accommodate the new definition. I will be operating off the new definition and assume my opponent will too seeing as it is after 2005. Sources: [1] - [2] - American Heritage dictionary circa 2008 [3] - American Heritage dictionary circa 2004 [4] - [5] -",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,238,True,-4.0
18,4,34176,"Firstly,marriage is a legal association between a man and a woman to be husband and wife.Gay marriage is a type of marriage between males.With these definitions,you will agree with me that in life,everything has advantages and disadvantages.In the case of gay marriage,the disadvantages surpasses the merits.My reasons for saying this are below. One reason for being against gay marriage is that it offends God.In the bible,Angels were sent to destroy the city of Sodom and Gomorrah because of its wickedness.What were the examples of this great wickedness?Gay marriage is among them and this was what made the angels more angry.The question is do you get angry at good things?No,of course{Gen.19:24-25}. Another reason is that marriage is meant to be for males and females.If God is/was in support of gay marriage,He would have not wasted his time in creating females or He would have destroyed the females.What you,my learned opponent is trying to say is that God is stupid and ignorant for creating females. Also,gay marriage violates procreation.Jesus Christ did not come into the world through a man.He came through a woman because women are supposed to give birth not males.Gay marriage does not bring about procreation.Instead,it brings about the so-called pleasure.Albert Einstein is not a product of gay marriage.Shakespeare is not,Aristotle is not and so many great men. It also denies an adopted child motherly care and affection.Due to gay marriage,a child is brought up under so-called fathers.There are things a child need from a mother and a father.This shows that gay marriage is a waste of time,future and natural fertility.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.6843111266043581,-0.4128236780451995,1.674045652723736,261,False,0.7809898290687146
18,3,25282,"In states in which same sex marriage is not legal, a county clerk is obligated to deny such a couple a license because they would fail to meet the state established criteria for a license. The clerk has no discretion in the matter. If, as in Kentucky, same sex marriage is legal, a gay couple who meet all the other state established criteria for a license MUST be issued a license. Again, this is not an area where the clerk can exercise discretion - contrary to what Con has asserted. In the Kentucky case, the clerk specifically stated that she refused to issue a license because the applicants were gay. The Kentucky clerk also has another problem. She swore an oath, to God, to support the constitutional laws of Kentucky which now support gay marriage. She also believes that her God, presumably the same one she swore the oath to, curses gay marriage. This presents an ethical conflict that can only be resolved by her resignation. She hasn't done so - probably in large measure because of her $80,000 salary. Instead she's refusing to issue any marriage licenses to anyone. Any sensible employer would fire her for that.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.5948632975332997,-0.26570924381211664,-0.07135231264146606,198,True,0.5145615621005267
8,5,43431,"Though I do see your point that online lectures could be beneficial to learning, there is a down side to this. Young children will not even have the thought of looking up a lecture to understand their lesson better. Though the resources are available, they have not been educated enough to find these websites, however they may find them more reliable when they are older. This is definitely a different thought than the interference of electronics in young children. There also has been recent research that is trying to find a study to prove that thumb injuries and stiffness in the wrist are side effects caused by the use of too many electronic devices at a young age. I believe that this is true because it makes students use their hands in a solitary motion. I also believe that this has affected the physical learning aspect of children. It has disabled them from such physical activities such as cutting, coloring with crayons and other young activities. If these base aspects are not learned at a young age, students will become physically enabled and will not be able to function to the best of their potential. Though I do believe that a good moderation of electronic devices would not be a problem for young children, I know this is not the case. Children do not have good time management and not all parents stay on top of their children, making sure they moderate their time on electronic devices.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.7685688041385825,0.7585257558881999,1.0597743239544393,247,True,0.9903148971889338
18,1,19400,"I realize gay marriage is legal in America, however this is not the case for the majority of the world. I think gay marriage should be legal everywhere, because practical advantages a married couple has, as opposed to an unmarried one. You get rid of a ton of paper-work when married, and if you decide to stay together unmarried and forget to make wills, for instance, it can have very unfortunate consequences if one dies. If a couple decides not to marry, that is their choice - however I see no reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed these legal rights and advantages.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.3958526344835984,-0.39037030041301535,-0.07864966614342209,104,True,-0.3428539405178797
18,2,29153,"You spewed a straw man fallacy. In other words, you argued against a distorted version of my claim. I never claimed the legalization of gay marriage is unrealistic. Just because something is legal doesn't mean its supporters can't be delusional. Some countries consider atheism a crime and that law is rooted in the belief in God. As an atheist, I don't believe God exist. Like the legalization of gay marriage, that law is rooted in a delusion. Many gay supporters also embrace delusions. An example is, if a man thinks he's a woman, gay supporters would embrace that delusion even though he's clearly a man. Living in these modern times does not make humans immune to mass delusions.",1.4300319121420288,True,-1.1951003039947352,-0.8234307957103072,0.5249480788955674,118,True,-0.5537900293588003
18,1,30573,I believe that gay marriage is justified and should be allowed. I would like to argue that this issue is not a matter of whether you think gay marriage is wrong but rather a legal issue over whether your belief should affect the right that gay people should have to get married. I look forward to hearing your argument first and I will let you decide whether you want to debate the legalization of gay marriage or simply the idea of a gay couple getting married. I believe that I have convincing arguments for both topics and I will let you make your choice on what you want to debate. Good luck and I look forward to reading your argument.,1.4300319121420288,True,0.39155050744352254,-0.1970402298433364,1.1538553973627306,120,True,0.5277763450979354
13,16,16132,"Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”9 Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state. In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another. However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights. The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.10  ",-0.4466542626979497,True,1.0983470221578462,1.0841693271150563,-0.005535706803004607,294,True,0.845366069160709
18,1,12889,"Gay marriage should be legalized because people should have the right to love who they want to love and love them however they want. Boys with boys and girls with girls this will not ruin or society or how or what people from other nations think about us legalize it because if you find true love go for it and there should NOT be government, politics or the president to stop that from happening because they gay people should have all the rights in the world they want to.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.4761548441214878,-1.0075949381081288,-0.18985687177720176,89,True,-0.6495443660012118
18,6,11314,"My argument will be that because the wording of the debate is every country should have legal gay marriage, certain nations have extremely-conservative cultures. Like countries with Sharia Law: The Vatican would also oppose homosexuality, the Catholic capital of the world: (Not killing people for being homosexual, but allows homosexual acts as long as it's not marriage). Some gays oppose gay marriage as well because of the fact that even though religion didn't necessarily found marriage it has redefined what it is: Also each and every country should have the rights to make their own laws, if same-sex marriage is universal, where will diversity be in the cultures of the people?",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.567262644583042,0.4461550074188609,-0.5711416758409046,111,False,-0.26389828752556943
18,1,35321,"Hello, My name is Imabench, AND THIS IS YOUR WEEKLY IMABENCH TROLL DEBATE :D This weeks topic, Gay Marriage (man and man or woman and woman) should be illegalized sometime in the near future (like in a month), but straight marriage (man and a woman) should be ILLEGALIZED IMMEDIATELY. Any idiot can argue on whether or not gay marriage should be legal, but it takes a true dumba** like me to argue that straight marriage shouldnt be legal at all ;D. I will introduce arguments in later rounds though. There are only 2 parameters for this debate. - Con must agree that Mitt Romney is a really sh*tty person to go up against Obama - Con must agree that Rick Santorum was a crack head First round is acceptance only, LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.1915348818503189,-3.991356245406112,-0.9802643663248044,134,True,-1.8187934565177548
18,5,24337,"First of all, my greetings and thanks to my opponent; hope this will be a good debate! :) PROPOSITION: Gay Marriage should be legal. DEFINITION: Gay Marriage: A legally recognized socio-economic union, treated as a single entity for tax and liability purposes, with or without religious sanction, between two humans of the same gender. Not arguing about the constitutionality or current legal status of same in America or any other country; just whether it SHOULD be legal. We are assuming that all humans have the same inherent rights, and that implementation is not an issue. I am approaching this debate from a centrist, authoritarian viewpoint, and will argue the CONVERSE. My opponent is welcome to argue any position he wants that AFFIRMS the proposition as stated. This is a philosophy debate; I don't have the time to dig out the most scholarly sources on this topic, and will not hold my opponent to a higher standard of research than myself. Wikipedia and a few online dictionaries/encyclopedias will have to suffice. Arguments begin R.2. Thanks again!",-0.13387323355795333,True,1.5527211415180762,-0.11984939930162634,1.1997384065444483,175,False,1.0345168701833536
18,3,9276,"My opponent states that heterosexual marriage has been the only practice on Earth before the year 2000. Yet, that's not a valid reason not to make it legal. It doesn't matter that gay marriage hasn't occurred in the past; what does that have to do with the present? Doing something unique that gives us an upgrade in civil rights isn't an issue. My opponent also states that I'm Catholic with an abundant amount of Catholic information that would make me look like a fool for contradicting myself. My response to that is that my profile never stated that I was Catholic; it said ""Christian-Baptist"". As a Christian, I am contradicting myself with the beliefs in gay marriage. Here's the thing about my type of Christianity; I believe in majority of the Bible, but not all of it. The Bible was inspired by God, created by men. Men are bound to sin; there's no work that a man can create without imperfections to it. Gay marriage should still be a right, despite my religion. Saying that gay marriage shouldn't be illegal because of religious objections is absolutely hypocritical for this country. This country promotes freedom of religion; not everyone's religion states that homosexuality is wrong. Our country's main argument with banning gay marriage is the Bible; since when did this country stuck to one religion? But, my respect goes out to my opponent for his Catholic research. Let's see if he can pull off the same type of research for my correct religion.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.886330637823756,0.5190335620943788,0.9859592822631892,252,True,1.31679581339847
18,1,43509,"Everyone, men and women, without any limitation due race, nationality or religion should have the right to marry and to found a family. I believe that gay marriage should be acceptable in all places around the world because it shouldn't matter how old or what gender you are, love is love and no one should tell you otherwise. Therefore, gay marriage should be legalized.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.21187283048359634,-0.8901113971172875,0.4882806623482087,64,True,-0.06278375322512322
8,5,37812,"No an electrons velocity can not equal zero unless you serve a standing wave were it is centered at zero according to the uncertainty principle. But as the temperature of a system does not necessarily need the input from the electrons. Therefore at absolute zero the electrons are still in motion and can change position connecting a system of atoms into a molecule without the atom itself moving there as in keeping the close system at 0k and it may even enter a lower energy level a releasing potential energy as a photon and create heat although this is not necessary. This proves the motion controlled exchange of atoms irrelevant as the exchange only needs position and exchange in electrons. Think of this "" only for the temperature and positioning"" There are two bananas and 9 fruit flies. Each banana can support 4.5 flies So one banana has 4 the other 5. And the bananas are positioned closely we will say butt to butt The 9th fly can feed were the bananas intersect for its meal The bananas never move so the system never gains any velocity and the position of the bananas allows for the transfer of the fly with no extra expenditure of energy. In A similar fashion two atoms positions primly. Can bond without motion or expenditure of energy as the electrons probability cloud envelopes the second atom.",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.2202340605635585,0.3556786294888071,0.23945941429906914,231,False,0.30513044877442486
18,1,17028,"I will be arguing for gay marriage. I believe that in all 50 states of the USA, gay marriage should be legalized. Round one is acceptance. Round 2 in opening arguments. Round 3 is main body. Round for is closure.",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.9294913107259564,-2.5750216901799634,-0.3494860508120184,40,True,-1.8249655491226768
18,3,42021,"Gay marriage also affects the U.S economy and businesses in a positive way. For example in states where same-sex marriage is legal, those areas tend to have an economic boost. New York's economy gained 260 million dollars one year after the legalization of same-sex marriage, specifically in the marriage and wedding industries. Same-sex marriage also affects businesses. Now larger industries are embracing same-sex marriage and with that, a greater influx of employees is brought to that business creating more job opportunities in those areas where same-sex marriage is legal.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.4537198803596274,1.8189236705327545,1.1880070572571375,89,True,1.342982607713908
18,4,3416,Gay marriage shouldn't be legal. It destroys the original purpose of marriage: to breed and raise children. A child needs both feminine and masculine influence for the best possible upbringing. A gay couple doesn't have the balance that a hetero does. Domestic partnership and adoption is a better alternative. Redefining marriage would be the undoing of over 1000 years of tradition and family structure. Sources: (Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage),0.4916888247220394,True,-0.7395693558059283,0.16177568269446274,-0.6040710703513579,73,False,-0.4571267836383191
18,1,13823,"This debate is about the subject of gay marriage and if it should be legalized. My viewpoint is that gay marriage should be legalized, and I will be arguing pro for this debate. The first round is just for acceptance, as well as any information that my opponent might wish for me to know. Good luck to both of us.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,60,True,-4.0
13,3,15780,"I see what you're saying, but even if they don't have violence related felonies, they could still do damage. They could use that concealed fire arm that they carry, to force someone to do something, to scare someone or even get carried away with that power. Sure criminals might be less likely to attack the person with the gun, if they knew it was there, and even if they don't know that it's there they might take it from the gun owner. And if the gun owner actually got to the point where he had to use it, most likely it would go wrong. Police take weeks, maybe even months to train with their guns, while gun owners usually train for a day or two. Also what would happen if that gun went off accidentally? Someone or some people could be seriously injured or worse killed. Leave the gun handling to the professionals. This is why I believe that Adults, without violence related felonies, should not have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Sources:",0.8044698538620362,True,0.9852680637322936,-0.28210346234856976,-0.521223329054282,175,False,0.08537072001247997
13,2,32596,"Con's Arguments: 1) If we allow people to carry guns, murder and crime will increase. ----> Actually it will DECREASE as I explained, cited and sourced in the last round. 2) The second-amendment shouldn't give people the right to bear arms. ----> Well... it does. And for many of the reasons I mentioned in the last round (unrefuted) including insurance against the tyranny of government, and adhering to the right of self-protection. 3) We should not allow citizens to purchase military weapons; only handguns. Unfortunately this was never specified in R1. Also, I don't see how it follows that one can only commit crimes or murders with machine guns. One could easily do the same with a handgun which is why I don't consider this to be relevant. Plus, some people prefer rifles or other guns to hunt with. Please extend all of my arguments from the last round.",0.1789077955820434,True,-2.077550793571576,-0.050213867550494375,-0.5859434111172476,149,True,-1.01161517627428
10,2,5777,"Argument: Many doctors agree that marijuana is very beneficial for medical purposes. Diseases like cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy, and many other mental disorders are all well treated with marijuana. Marijuana is capable of killing pain and helps rise your metabolism. It has been proved that marijuana is better than pain killers. Marijuana has been legalized in 18 states, and in most of them marijuana is less costly than many medical prescriptions that treat pain. Marijuana has been legal during the 1930s-1940s, and later on this medical treatment has been becoming more limited (1). Here is what doctors say about medicinal marijuana: 1. 69% of doctors say it can help with specific illnesses. 2. 67% it should be an opportunity for many patients. 3. 56% agree making it legal throughout the world. 4. 50% of doctors agree it should be legal in their state. 5. 52% call for making new laws on medical marijuana in their state (2). [1]:",0.4916888247220394,True,0.31961517469791306,0.3343245313078065,0.5520427345977968,157,True,0.4564539048750745
19,6,3381,"1. My opponent in Round 2 mentioned some environmental and physical conditions under which people's sexual orientation is affected. What I tried to prove through queer animals is that the factors mentioned for sexual orientation in case of humans are absolutely absent in animal world. Therefore all animals should have similar sexual orientations as they grow up under similar condition unlike humans. Parents of animals do not have divorces, some of them dont live in cities and some in forests and yet there are a range of sexual orientations in animals. 2. The sexual fluidity as mentioned by opponent seems as if he has assumed that sexual fluidity is change in sexual orientation. No! Sexual fluidity is not a change in sexual orientation. Sexual fluidity does not imply that a person is homosexual for a given period of time and then turns heterosexual for a certain period of time. It also does not equal to bisexuality. Kindly donot confuse fluidity with bisexuality. 3. The fact that conversion therapy does not work is itself a proof that environment is not a factor. If I were depressed due to something bad happening to me (a physical factor) I could be cured by therapy but sexual orientation is not.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.04518532025444958,0.6955007177374786,0.7987957687321151,206,False,0.5575549960907311
19,6,24896,"My opponent has not made any separate points, therefore, no rebuttals from me. My conclusion: APA states: ""There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....""[1] VOTE CON Good luck Pro [1]",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.1547474731679834,0.6207169666659299,-0.6101698626747365,91,False,-0.05073861721663754
19,34,30100,"We in the opposition strongly stand against the motion that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. First and foremost, homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuality and many others are humans and posses the same rights and freedoms just like any other person. Granting asylum based on sexual orientation will mean that one section of the society is treated special and different from others. This is inequality and discrimination in the highest level. The illegality of homosexuals in their activity and their rejection by society has been as a result of the fact that in those countries it is against their culture and in some instances, laws. Granting asylum based on sexual orientation will turn countries against countries in a culture war that will result in habbly adoption and recognition. This will be deadly in the country since it can break at any time resulting into more crime than ever. Another thing that needs to be considered is the fact that sexual orientation of a person can only be measured by personal attestation. This will provide avenue for individuals to fake their sexual orientation to leave their countries for 'greener pastures' and also for criminals to avoid prosecution. Unlike wars where the level of persecution,threat of life and danger to peoples lives base on race,ethnicity,colour and political views can be measured and ascertained,sexual orientation is unascertainable and far fetched For these reasons, we believe that granting asylum based on sexual orientation will widen the spreed of HIV/AIDS,discriminate against a section of the society,break cultures and create an avenue where criminals will use sexual orientation as bases to avoid prosecution, therefore opposition says sexual orientation should not be considered grounds for asylum.",-2.010559408397932,True,1.4430413595532992,0.7820046656528505,0.4364638010103776,279,True,1.027386991670438
8,1,12807,"I've hit the gym hard for about 3 years now and seriously changed my health. And through that period I've heard countless rules or principles that you must do this or you can't do that, etc. That's bogus. The single most important thing is you get up and move yourself and fix your diet. There are people who work multiple muscle groups in an exercise or even work the same muscles every day and they do great. There are people who target individual muscles instead and some of those do fine and others I really don't see any great improvement over time. It's not any one technique or focus that makes the difference. It's get up, move yourself, eat right, and you'll get there. The other problem with your claim is revealed in the difference of free weights verses weight machines. Machines target muscles - nothing wrong with that. But if the person conquering a machine then tries a free weight doing the same type of exercise they have to do less weight and they're shaky because now the other muscles needed to stabilize have to be used and the machine let you cheat - it stabilized for you. So to some degree when you carefully target muscles for exercise you lose some of the strength capacity you would have had if the motion was less targeted. It probably comes down to your fitness goal. If you want one specific muscle to bulge out then you're right. But if you want overall strength increased or overall weight decreased then you're actually not right.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.3835663524512497,0.40480302250066863,0.3266261995286945,263,False,0.1315280964283452
19,3,33099,"The claim is that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and if it is a sexual orientation then its not treatable. The claim assumes that sexual orientation is a way of life not a disorder. The claim goes further by stating Pedophilia is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. Sexual orientation is a person""s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted to; it is the state of being a heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. This claim deviates from the issue. The problem with pedophilia is not that the person is sexually attracted to men or women, it""s that the person is sexually attracted to boys and/or girls. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, meaning it is not the attraction to a male or female, it is a disorder of sexual preference. It is a disorder of sexual preference because pedophilic behavior causes harm, unlike sexual orientation. Pedophilia may put children at risk because they are not in the age of corresponding to the sexual attraction of pedophiliacs. It is why pedophiliac behavior should be prevented. Treatment can help prevent it.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.7972620709806055,0.6499204061350387,-0.7740515115372881,185,True,0.2783987817405583
19,1,2260,"My position is that Transgender and Intersex should be removed from the LGBTQI(...) sexuality spectrum, as they are not sexual orientations, but rather expressions of gender and sexual identity. For those who are not familiar with the definitions of transgender and intersex... transgender: a descriptive term for a person whose gender is out of alignment with the sex they were assigned at birth. intersex: a descriptive term for a person who has reproductive organs and/or secondary physical characteristics of both sexes. Because these two expressions are listed among the list of sexual orientations, there is a lot of confusion around the separation between gender and sexuality. Much of this confusion could be eliminated by removing the two words from the acronym and creating a separate acronym for gender non-conforming folks. Thanks to Con for taking up this debate and I look forward to your arguments!",-1.0722163209779427,True,0.35129130722683194,0.7344238323456641,0.018047168404942287,145,True,0.42112343181885414
19,4,31328,"I accept. I would like to thank the Pro side for hosting this debate. As the pro side, I will be arguing gay discrimination is not illegal. I think discrimination against sexual orientation is morally wrong but it is not illegal. There should not be a surprise that discrimination against someone's sexual orientation is happening. But that would be a hard legal case to prove. When I go down the street I can see if someone is a Caucasian American or an African American. I can distinctively observe if someone is a man or woman (hopefully). Also if someone is wearing a hijab, I might assume they are a Muslim. If a man is wearing a Yamaka, I will assume he is Jewish. But when I go down the street I can not know if someone is a homosexual or not. I can have my assumptions but why would I suspect it unless they reveal it. This is why discrimination against sexual orientation is hard case to prove. You have to show that the person discriminating actually knows the other persons' sexual orientation and intends on discriminating because of it. Nevertheless, discriminating against sexual orientation is not illegal as you falsely claim. Sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act covers national origin, race, gender, and religion. To quote the actual Civil Rights Act of 1964: ""Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin[1]."" Sexual orientation is not covered now. Maybe in the future it should be extended to protect sexual orientation. It is a really a question of group rights and whether someone is being discriminated because of their group(race, religion, gender) or as an individual. To quote the actual Civil Rights Act of 1964. [1]",-1.3849973501179391,True,1.3577361028395247,1.7555001294150157,-0.272009683438394,299,False,1.1281989321970773
19,2,3381,"I believe my point may have been misunderstood: Sexual orientation doesn't originate ONLY from biology. Sexual orientation is a multivariable dynamic process. Of course there are some biological factors that influence sexual orientation, such as: - Genetics - Epigenetics (prenatal androgen exposure) - Brain structures Biology has a great influence on sexual orientation. But not everything is as it seems. 1) A study from Denmark proves that the environment increases or decreases the proportion of heterosexual and homosexual weddings. What did this study find? - Demography: People in cities are more likely to marry a same-sex partner and less likely to marry heterosexually. - Family issues - Having no brothers 2) Younger men from the Sambia tribe fellate other adult men as a rite of passage. 3) The greeks were equally comfortable with the same-sex and that helped the formation of more ""men on men"" action. And finally this one, which i think isn't that good but can raise an interesting topic: 4) Homophobia is for some a latent homosexuality. By now all i can say is that homophobia correlates with homosexual arousal. Are the people in 4 homosexual? Is homosexuality defined by conduct or is it enough if we consider physiological response? I believe sexual orientation is a social construct. So it doesn't really matter how you identify yourself, what matters is whether or not you are taking every aspect of yourself into account, or maybe just letting it be.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.9807663725939508,1.8524263537784955,2.326622488883141,241,True,1.99857770835145
19,1,36372,"I don't think we choose to be any sexual orientation. We are what we are at birth and what our physiology dictates we will be. Heterosexuals are that way because that's how they are physically and mentally. What we pretend to be is another matter. People who in fact, aren't heterosexual by nature , pretend to baby nurture or by the moral codes of their society and this can lead to a lot of pain and distress. Some societies have strict moral and legal codes which affect the way people portray themselves and it's safer to pretend to be heterosexual than risk punishments. No-one can help what they are. Heterosexuals don't make the choice at any given time, they just are ,because they are. They choose partners of the same orientation because that is the best way for a relationship to work.",0.1789077955820434,True,1.1434285998825404,0.012285959645333366,0.5456167793065789,142,False,0.6588834004007398
19,5,10609,"In this case, I do agree with my opponent to some degree in that sexuality is a birth trait, however, I do not agree that is a ""mental defect"" as my opponent so blatantly put it. I propose that there is a biological component to sexuality, however it is not a choice, and is not just a LGBTQI thing, this is a human thing, a biological human trait. Sexuality is about so much more than just sex. Sexuality also encompasses how one feels about their body, their biological sex, one's gender, one's gender identity, one's sexual orientation, one's sexual behaviors, one's values and attitudes toward sexual relationships, and any desires or fantasies or sexual preferences. This also does not include just the LGBTQI community; this also includes heterosexual individuals. Sexuality is a human trait; it is a part of everyone's life to some degree. The DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which is produced by the American Psychiatric Association, defines a mental defect as, ""mental retardation, brain damage or other biological dysfunction that is associated with distress or disability causing symptoms or impairment in at least one important area of an individual's functioning."" However, with sexuality, we cannot classify it as a ""mental defect"" as everyone has or identifies with at least one, if not all, components of sexuality, which I defined above, and sexuality is not a dysfunction, nor does it impair at least one important area of an individual's functioning. Therefore, I propose that because sexuality is a HUMAN trait and it does NOT interfere with an individual's functioning in one important aspect of that individual's life, we absolutely CANNOT classify it as a ""mental defect.""",1.1172508830020322,True,0.8908207909659659,1.243307414548545,1.096222731934508,280,False,1.238949880438846
13,10,9418,"Sadly, the only argument you can tell is that carrying a gun is like having a power that prevents crime automatically, you didn't mentioned the danger posed by having one. The death and injury you can also get by defending yourself and your family. You also assumed that killing a criminal benefits the society because it will lessen the burden of a state to prosecute and jail someone. How about the injuries caused by using a gun? do you know that it is much expensive to treat someone than to bury a dead person? Moreover, in a democratic country where due process of law is observed, the cost of justice is nothing compared to the liberty you can get from it. Furthermore, having a gun close at hand can turn ordinary disputes and arguments fatal. Even legal gun owners can be involved in a crime. Crime of passion mostly involves gun that is legally acquired. No one really excuses someone to commit a crime even you are carrying a gun legally. To conclude, the issue here is not weather guns are beneficial or not. Anyone can exercise their rights to have one, but please do not be blinded by media or any pro gun group that it is all pros and no cons. Having one entails responsibility and precaution. To think that it will magically help your problem from the ills of society is absolutely crazy. Go get a gun, it is your right but always remember the responsibilities attached onto it.",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.6273395535520307,0.6332082105125285,0.3261254293057642,252,False,0.13469183209281732
19,1,23680,"sexual orientation is not limited to the attraction felt to a specific gender, granted these forces are never stagnant and cant be measured however they can be scoped on to a scale of sorts by intensity and direction. sexual orientation can point to other spectrum like age. it is most common for people to have an attraction to adults aged 20 - 40 just as it is common to be attracted to the opposite gender. however it isn't common but accepted that there are a few people who's orientation point higher or lower than the average, some people are attracted to younger people gender regardless from the ages of 6 - 13 and some people like older people 50 - 70. sexual orientation can point at different levels of different spectra such as gender, age, inter species, intellect, masculinity, femininity and desire. these cannot be decided upon, they occur based on subconscious decisions by past experiences and not conscious decision making, or genetic inheritance.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.785330181605613,0.7541974607853011,0.1733971056827303,164,True,0.06811751810246752
19,2,24028,"Sexuality is determined at birth, but it may take a while for one to figure it out. As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are. They could even be bisexual. Here I speak from personal existence. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so anything other than heterosexuality was frowned upon. I hit the teenage years when I begin to learn things about myself, and I began to question my sexuality. I simply realised, ""hey, I don't really like anyome"" and go to talking with some friends and I figured out that I'm asexual. Did I choose to be this way? No. Did my environment influence me? No. I was asexual at birth, but only recently realised it.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.5817805294488805,0.4212884862946433,-0.5267299390442971,130,True,-0.2629721520959927
19,4,22936,"Nope. The BOP is on whoever makes the positive claim, regardless of whoever makes the first one. I'm arguing that sexual preference is based on genetics and the environment we're raised in, and you're asserting that it's by choice. If anything, the opposite of why you've said it true- If I can prove that it's genetic based in a situation then it would tell how the resolution's false, and you would lose as you're playing Pro. Arguments: A study showed that: ""evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved""[1] It also declares the mechanics behind the study: ""A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight"" It isn't what completely determines though. Genes only account for 40% of sexual preference. There is literally no evidence supporting the claim that it's a choice, so the other part is how you're raised. Thanks. [1] [2]",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.3117432003343906,0.568343558711449,0.1971622206295161,199,False,0.1726622034347315
8,9,27194,"Previous: www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact If we are talking about waste irradiation food produce nuclear waste that are unable to be disposed of. Most food can not be irradiated from electron beams such as large fruits, food in boxes, and irregular shaped food must be irradiated by x-rays or gamma rays. As before to irradiate food machines use Cobalt-60 which has to be converted into a nuclear reactor creating nuclear waste. www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact",-1.6977783792579355,True,-1.4882706530343883,0.01880184876314653,-0.2954392111038031,69,False,-0.6659412277323215
19,2,16589,"Rebuttal First, Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Taking all of man's sins onto himself. Second, my opponent is blurring the lines between being gay and homosexual deeds. This is seen by using the word homosexuality. ""1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. 2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex."" [0] As you can see there is great chasm between the two definitions. Now look at the word gay I used in the topic. [1] ""1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex."" [1] Now which one is it my opponent? The 1st or the second or both? I have already proven God loves gays in r1. Now an argument could be made that God dislike the homosexual orientation, yet that is a red herring and irrelevant to the debate. A case could also be that God hates sexual activity with a person of the same sex, nevertheless that is also a red herring and off topic. I conclude that my opponent's entire r1 argument is a red herring and should have no impact upon the resolution. Meanwhile I have proven that God loves gays, a person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex. Thank you for the debate. May gays go to heaven. Sources 0. 1.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.3749316845875236,-0.05320032738261213,-0.021936130892957442,221,True,-0.1824251976714629
19,13,30100,"In recent times, homosexuality has been considered legal in a number of countries but the truth still stands that majority of countries do not recognize homosexuality by law. For the sake of reference, Wikipedia define sexual orientation as 'a pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to men, women, both genders, neither gender, nor another gender' [[ Among the three categories of sexual orientation, homosexuality is given much importance than the others. We in the opposition say that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) as a sexual orientation should not be considered grounds for asylum. It will interest the proposition to know that in countries where homosexuality is frowned upon by law; is practice just as practices of corruption is regard illegal and criminal. Moreover, an individual who practices it in these respective countries who are being prosecuted or imprisoned is not tantamount to discrimination or against the human rights of the people. Human rights of a person is emphatically guaranteed and safeguarded in the respective county. Laws contain rules and regulations as to how a country should be governed. It will interest the proposition to know that in forming a law of a country, the culture and life style of the people is taken into consideration. Any activity that is considered ‘foreign’ against the laws of the land by which the people are governed is rather seen illegal and to an extend criminal. The1951 Convention Relating to the status of a refugee by UN Refugee Agency which the proposition quoted only qualifies for political asylum. This is due the fact that the legality or illegality of the sexual orientation emphatically homosexuality is a sovereign decision by that respective countries. Considering asylum for homosexuals from countries where they are considered as illegal is not an ideal one.",0.4916888247220394,True,1.8229279198224109,1.4089472756438737,1.3492219697444925,295,False,1.7618926634068504
19,3,3381,"Before beginning with my rebuttals i will quote con: 3. If any kind of behavious is created by environmental factors, or society, they should be able to be healed using therapy like the one that has been used for rape victims and criminals. If being gay has a social/environmental factor, then therapy of any kind must change them into heterosexuals or 'reduce the amount of homosexuality'. Why is there a need to ""reduce the amount of homosexuality""? It is not a psycopathology. There is no need to cure it. The DSM-5 does not include homosexuality. When i talk about sexual orientation, i'm not only considering homosexuals and heterosexuals, i'm also considering bisexuals, asexuals, sexually fluid people and so on. REBUTTAL (Sexuality in animals): The fact that there are queer animals does not make any point. I said biology does affect sexual orientation, i didn't deny that. (Animals regardless of the kind of place they live will show the same amount of variation of sexuality): The link you showed me doesn't show any experimental or statistical information, so you cannot make such assumptions. Just gay penguins, again, i didn't say they aren't gay, in fact they are. 1) Sexuality alters through time (at least for sexually fluid people): And i quote from this very link: ""Lisa M. Diamond argues that for some women, love and desire are not rigidly heterosexual or homosexual but fluid, changing as women move through the stages of life, various social groups, and, most important, different love relationships."" Also, epigenetics is influenced by the environment: I agree with you, conversion therapy should not be done, and hurts homosexuals. I will finish with the abstract of an interesting link i found on pubmed:",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.8079015494574896,1.2246855400306431,0.491688453050703,285,True,0.9699087428948816
19,4,25810,"I accept. Thesis Homosexuals should be allowed to vote if they choose to be. We should not discriminate homosexuals just because of their sexual orientation. That shouldn’t even be anyone’s concern. Argument #1 (There are homosexual politicians out there) According to Wikipedia, a list is provided of names of Gay and Lesbian Politicians. [ [ Since there are this many gay/lesbian politicians, it wouldn’t make sense to discriminate homosexuals to vote because there are already homosexual politicians out here. [ This link above shows a list of gay politicians in Congress and famous overall politicians. Argument #2 (They are already allowed to vote, and we are just fine.) It’s not like homosexuals are causing a negative impact to political voting. Voting is their right just like me (I’m an African American), and homosexuals. Homosexuals are just like us except they are attracted to different things. How does sexual orientation have any correlation with political voting? They don’t. An Act called “The Voting Rights Act of 1965” has already prohibited ANY DISCRIMINATION in voting. No, this act is not just towards racial segregation. This act is considered a landmark of civil rights legislation. Just because it says civil rights, doesn’t mean it’s just for racial purposes. The following factors falls under the category Civil and Political Rights: Race Gender National Origin Colour (Human Skin Color) SEXUAL ORIENTATION Ethnicity Religion Disability Privacy Press Assembly Movement Etc. [ [ Argument #3 (Sexual Orientation has nothing to do with voting) This argument is self-explanatory. Homosexuals are just, simply, people who are attracted to one’s own sex. That’s it. They don’t have a disability on voting.",-1.3849973501179391,True,0.4724052518283413,1.6045782081730926,1.971519768067624,271,False,1.5746845073069826
19,6,23386,"21% of heterosexual married couples get divorced, while studies have shown that 75% of homosexual married couples get divorced. It is a lot harder for a homosexuals to be bonded as intimately as a heterosexual couple, primarily because they cannot get intimate. Anal sex is not intimacy and it does not create a bond between two people as normal sex does. For that reason, homosexuals usually have anal sex with several people, the average amount of times a gay has sex is a lot higher than the average amount of times a striaght guy has sex. ""A study of 13,000 New Zealand adults (age 16+) examined sexual orientation as a function of childhood history.30 The study found a 3-fold higher prevalence of childhood abuse for those who subsequently engaged in same sex sexual activity. However, childhood abuse was not a major factor in homosexuality, since only 15% of homosexuals had experienced abuse as children (compared with 5% among heterosexuals).30 So, it would appear from this population that only a small percentage of homosexuality (~10%) might be explained by early childhood abusive experiences. The fact that sexual orientation is not constant for many individuals, but can change over time suggests that at least part of sexual orientation is actually sexual preference.""",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.6351360689177492,0.683402896968229,0.2831697307372392,210,False,0.610447826331385
19,20,30100,"In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. However, in many countries around the world, people are being persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientations. Just because they are homosexuals, many people are suffering from series of tortures from being publicly condemned and verbally abused to being physically attacked to severe degrees that they sometimes have no choice but to flee from their countries of birth or even commit suicides. Regardless of the fact that individuals have no control over their sexual orientations, history is littered with shocking abuses against homosexuals including beating to death with baseball bats and pool cues,firing with automatic rifle fire upon going into a gay youth club, stabbing and chopping 70 times with a machete and even bombing a gay bar and thus injuring more than 70 people. Even people from countries where homosexuality isn’t censured attack homosexuals. For example, in Brazil where homosexual acts were legal since 1830, activists say that a staggering number of 2680 gay people were murdered in the last two decades. To make matters even worse, police and the government who should be protecting homosexuals’ rights turn against them. In Kosovo, Gramoz Prestreshi was almost beat to death by thugs, but police merely laughed at him and the emergency room workers forced to him to mop up his own blood. The Proposition believes that human beings should not be subject to such injustice just because they are homosexuals and that they ought to seek asylum.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,267,True,-4.0
19,5,22395,"Thanks for the ""interesting"" pseudoscience articles. I agree that in those cases one could say that ""Correlation does not imply causation"". They are comparing pairs to apples. But in the article a gave you they compare people born in the same month and see what common personality traits they share. If you find that people born in May are outgoing, talkative and quick witted, while people born in October are brutally honest, goal orientated and love cats, you have to agree that it is more than just coincidence. We may not know what factors linked to the month of our birth determine personality traits, but stats don't lie. The survey proves what many people already know through personal experiences. Just because something does not agree with your way of thinking is no reason to disregard the information as pseudoscience. So yes, new information can alter our beliefs and moral view but this only confirms my original argument that morals are determined by external factors. We may not remember where and when we were taught something is wrong or right, but nothing is ever considered right or wrong unless we are taught that it is wrong.",-2.010559408397932,True,0.3491518880246557,-0.02293507982348676,0.5970764284376013,195,True,0.35026870430867785
13,3,34516,"First of all, my opponent has not refuted any of my points. Extend. Voters, please ignore my opponent's 1, 2, 3, and 6, as they do not have any sources or examples for the reasoning. Although I just said this, I will refute them anyways, in the case that you don't take my recommendation. For 1: Has this ever happened with any other banned item? Just because marijuana is banned in some places doesn't make everyone revolt and riot against the government; that's just speculation and ridiculous. For 2: This is again speculation. How do we know that everyone who kills themselves has a mental illness? It simply isn't true. For 3: How would we enforce this? Just thinking about it, it is common sense that this would also cost a lot of money. For 4: Handguns are the ideal kill weapon, according to the Violence Policy Center. They are concealable and easy to use. One would not be able to do anything if they were to walk into a place with a knife, which is easily avoidable, but using a handgun is simple and effective at killing. For 5: This is completely untrue. Nothing in the source linked shows anything about firearm injury, or handgun relation. Voters, I urge you to check the link cited. For 6: This is also simply speculation. My opponent has not provided any examples of this happening. Again, my opponent has not refuted any of my points, so they remain standing. Vote Pro.",-0.7594352918379461,True,-0.10183208997117173,0.6200566176969595,-0.3756309659914226,249,True,0.05519620926075698
19,3,24028,"""You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are."" This is silly statement. One does not normally realise their sexuality immediately. It's set in stone at birth, but it may take a while to figure it out. Thank you for debating me. This was a good one.",0.8044698538620362,True,-1.1544594705962354,-1.6839925740808672,-1.0775667542965834,61,True,-1.5180085268015717
19,3,31207,"The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay, how do they have the first clue what is going on inside the head of a gay person? How did straight people become the experts on gayness? People can be born gay. I think a lot of new research has suggested that sexual orientation can be influenced by hormones the fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. Sexual attraction is something innate and something you cannot change, even if you wanted to. It's determined early in our development.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.1525838898936751,0.3276641851997378,-0.27674445055440616,105,True,-0.04538199312111434
8,6,28954,"Safety Vending machines are dangerous. More dangerous than sharks. 37 innocent people were killed after trying to get a snack from a vending machine [1]. Are the deaths of innocent children worth the snack? No. Health Vending machines carry unhealthy foods. “Having unhealthy foods and sugar-sweetened beverages in vending machines makes it harder for people to make healthy choices and promotes consumption of energy-dense foods and beverages that can contribute to obesity,” [2]. Banning vending machines would make people healthier. Conclusion Things like life and health outweigh the pleasure and ease that come with vending machines. Thus they should be banned. [1]",-0.7594352918379461,True,-1.2117283322439136,-0.4382134368958067,0.3700595686462986,102,False,-0.47927089520941213
19,1,3000,"Clarification: This debate is not over whether or not homosexuality is a choice. Please do not join if that's what you intend to argue about. This debate will argue over whether or not homosexuality must be a choice if ""emotional intelligence"" exists. That is if people can educate their emotions and choose what they feel, homosexual feelings would be one feeling among others that could be chosen. A simple syllogism will be provided to explain: ""Emotional intelligence"" lets people control their emotions. Sexual orientation is an emotion. Therefore, ""emotional intelligence"" lets people control sexual orientation. To be clear, this debate is not about whether or not emotional intelligence exists either. Voters should note that it's very well possible that neither emotional intelligence, nor sexual orientation control, might exist. However, that is not what's being debated here. What's being debated is a very simple resolution: If emotional intelligence exists, homosexuality must be a choice. Given the above syllogism, burden of proof has already been satisfied, so rebuttal up to Con.",1.1172508830020322,True,-0.02377551304585,0.4160890165078034,0.1571193750598621,169,True,0.20404784418653768
19,6,4148,"While I agree there is no consensus on ""gay gene"" .. I would like to point out in a study -""New Genetic Regions Associated With Male Sexual Orientation Found""..The term ""gay gene"" is not used but there are anomalies in gene make up for homosexuals. Below an excerpt from the study ""In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers. The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.""",1.1172508830020322,True,0.14645647174580295,0.42909193742407103,-0.02495956309147476,165,False,0.2046344173755523
19,1,23723,"This is strictly from a Christian point of view. I hear slogans otherwise. I want to clarify what I think is correct. Jesus Christ loves gays as much as straight people. Here's why, there is a vast difference between sexual orientation and sinful deeds. Sexual orientation is a static state, like being male, Caucasian, and naturally red hair. You don't really have much control if any over these characteristics. Actions on the other hand you do. Sin, is a breach of God's divine law. Simply by being gay you are not sinning in anyway. A gay person can be a virgin or marry the opposite sex. That being said homosexual actions are considered sin by the Bible. In summary, there is a great chasm between a human's sexual orientation and sinful acts of homosexuality. God hates sin. God loves gays as much as straights. Thanks for reading.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.5198995391179553,-0.665875235445379,0.33612957972183216,147,True,0.07902609910227992
19,1,3567,"This is strictly from a Christian point of view. I hear slogans otherwise. I want to clarify what I think is correct. Jesus Christ loves gays as much as straight people. Here's why, there is a vast difference between sexual orientation and sinful deeds. Sexual orientation is a static state, like being male, Caucasian, and naturally red hair. You don't really have much control if any over these characteristics. Actions on the other hand you do. Sin, is a breach of God's divine law. Simply by being gay you are not sinning in anyway. A gay person can be a virgin or marry the opposite sex. That being said homosexual actions are considered sin by the Bible. In summary, there is a great chasm between a human's sexual orientation and sinful acts of homosexuality. God hates sin. God loves gays as much as straights. Thanks for reading.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.18298276035606534,-1.162333340773956,0.21120601770496067,147,True,-0.2823943338561051
19,4,14987,"""Why would people subject themselves to the kind of ridicule that homosexuals experience, willingly?"" What you call ridicule the homosexual community embrace as freedom of their beliefs. The homosexuals knowing accept the way they have made themselves. From what you are saying also is that people should keep any unaccepted social norm to themselves are never confront it. That is unkind. Also to add the sentence I have quoted offer no proof or backs any claim my opponent has made in his opening argument. As the instigator it is not wrong of me to assume that you have proof to back your claim. To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date. —PFLAG (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians And Gays), ""Why Ask Why: Addressing the Research on Homosexuality,"" 1995 [1] [1]",1.4300319121420288,True,1.2275981776921785,0.5199212082991762,0.6449219331462108,161,False,0.9192675575492723
19,8,4148,"I categorized the anamoly as gay gene.. The debate is not about the usage of the terminology.. It is about a specific type of gene which is called as "" gay gene"" that exists.. I proved it by showing you the study that was done to show the anamoly in gene make of homosexuals. But Dr. Stanton Jones, a clinical psychologist and evangelical Christian, says genetics plays, at best, just a small role. ""The scientific evidence doesn't support it,"" he said. And he's written a book, ""Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,"" illustrating his belief that gay men can be converted to heterosexuals. Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, is currently heading the biggest study ever undertaken on sexual orientation. He's looking at the genetic makeup of more than 700 sets of gay brothers. ""I think the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics,"" he said. ""It's probably the single biggest factor that we know about."" You haven't provided any one example of a homosexual converting to heterosexual because if it is in the genes they cannot become heterosexuals as they want.",1.4300319121420288,True,-0.19862313454693656,-0.15326475465058426,0.341112665879618,201,False,-0.01075651699944581
19,9,35006,"When someone is born, they don't choose what gender appeals to them. Like me, I'm heterosexual, but when I was born I didn't get some sort of ballot along with my birth certificate saying ""what will your sexual orientation be when you get older"" and I didn't mark the metaphorical box that said ""Heterosexual"". I think its just that a person is attracted to what they are simply attracted to.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.1639345366212548,-1.6792054105191654,-0.9924721731301608,70,False,-1.0809477601148392
19,2,18598,"All sexual orientations are determined by a complex interaction of traits, with no single gene acting as the ""signal"" for whether you like members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. Therefore, essentially your environment plays a role in deciding what sex(es) you end up being attracted too. For example, lets say I'm a gay male, I can choose to date, have sex, etc. with women (doesn't mean I'll like it) but, nonetheless I can choose to do it. On the other hand, I can't choose to be attracted to them because I'm gay, no matter how hard I try, I can't choose to be unattracted to men.",0.8044698538620362,True,0.3432819440831304,0.2523397298924028,0.3804994572452412,112,True,0.36718991698342285
13,2,37288,"Attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech in 2007 would have ended more quickly, or even been thwarted, had Cho's fellow students been armed with and trained to handle handguns. If a prospective gunman (or woman) knew beforehand that a large portion of the population they are considering attacking is armed, it reasons to believe that they might reconsider their anticipated actions. Most university students are old enough to carry and should be permitted to do so.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.37254589534204335,-0.3912596260777538,-1.0453505546793342,78,True,-0.7029169678499702
19,28,30100,"The proposition can not understand how 98% of the total world population oppose homosexual acts when, according to the data given by the opposition themselves, 3.5% of the world are homosexuals (we have chosen their most recent but also long-lasting study - the study by National Center for Health Statistics). We should also take into note the number of bisexuals and people who are reluctant to admit themselves as homosexuals on these studies. Furthermore, automatically inferring that almost half of the world who do not follow Abrahamic religions (religions mentioned by the opposition) are all against homosexual acts is just absurd. Even the ""supposed"" homophobes who follow Abrahamic religions have started to change. For example, the number of Christian churches that are open to the ordination of people who are homosexuals is increasing. [[ ]] As the proposition stated, it is indeed true that in some Muslim countries and in other African countries with draconian laws homosexuals can be under the penalty of life sentence and this is why sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. If homosexuals were given the choice either to stay in their country and suffer through insurmountable tortures caused by both neighbors and the government or to go to a country where they are secure, safe, accepted and evaluated not on the basis of their sexual orientations but on their characters which are likely to further bloom, it is clear that the latter will be chosen. So, the proposition believes that asylum should be granted to homosexuals who were so inhumanly tortured that they had no choice but to flee just because of their sexual orientations and who are so eager to start whole new lives in countries where even same-sex marriage is accepted such as Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Spain and Argentina. [[",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.8011321136135025,0.37321864534655297,0.5521526050638811,299,False,0.6585937757571547
8,7,13303,"First, the blog post that Pro is referencing ( has 84,507 characters. It is impossible to post any arguments over 10,000 characters on Debate.org without breaking the rules. As such, I choose not to respond to Pro's blog post, because it would not be possible for it to appear on Debate.org. Instead, I ask Pro to provide a concise version of his argument. Second, the blog post that Pro is referencing never gives an argument for the universe being a machine. The entire blog uses the word ""machine"" only 11 times, 2 of which are the titles of the blog post, and the other 9 of which occur in the statement "" World is a machine. Life is a machine. Sagar Gorijala: I'm a machine and, I've to become a better one,"" which appears 3 times. As such, there's no argument for the universe being a machine in the cited source.",-0.13387323355795333,True,-0.4138378022639587,-0.1036096210260564,0.3457444427122659,151,False,-0.07072206867297975
19,5,24028,"You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are. I'm not able to process that through my head correctly, one because determined means strongly felt and mostly likely not to change it. So, say one's into women and all of sudden one figures themselves out due to whatever the reasoning may be, you mean to inform me that one isn't changing their mind or ways? You began to question your sexuality, right? But you also said ""I simply realized hey I don't really like anyone"" You're making a change. You said ""As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are."" No, that's one changing their ways.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.2910592340469004,-1.202632673087139,-0.13325214368752009,130,False,-0.6249573200028223
19,7,33099,"Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. If we accept ""bestiality"" as a sex concept where people want to have sex with animals then why we can""t accept ""pedophilia"" as a sex concept where these people want to have sex relationships if those individuals who have yet to see puberty. In Christina""s Premise 2 she acknowledges that the crime consist of a person acting on their sexual attraction to children; but to a pedophilic this is all they are attracted to so why can""t it be said that a being a pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Therefore as you see you can""t cure a gay and make them straight just as you can""t treat a pedophilic to not like children. All the treatment is going to do is help him/her manage those urges, but they will still want them. The arguments goes in further stating that the disorder is associated with mental, and emotional, and/or behavioral problems however the define Christiana stated in Premise 2 doesn""t state that the crime occurs based on the following issues associated with this ""disorder.""",0.4916888247220394,True,0.5042607308302018,0.637160836271356,0.06519299487356735,189,False,0.4593959728649379
19,2,33828,"Lol well that was a waste of a round. But I guess I'll start with something. Zoophilia/zoosexuality should be allowed because it is a sexual orientation that people don't chose to have. You can't go around punishing or jailing or murdering people just because they where ""born"" with the ""wrong sexual orientation""",0.1789077955820434,True,-1.9526010694353917,-2.3874134914337124,-2.147761296499989,52,True,-2.5140063755441266
19,16,23837,"The church is an employer like any other and must adhere to the laws of its host country. The Equality Act 2006, specifically the Sexual Orientation Regulations specifically state that there must be no discrimination based on a candidates sexual orientation[[",-0.4466542626979497,True,-0.5517993544390437,-0.45273046272919604,0.1704671008814531,41,True,-0.32617296219256375
19,4,3381,"I accept the debate. I believe that sexual orientation DOES originate from biology that is, it depends upon biological factors such as genes and hormones. I think the burden of proof is shared here.",0.8044698538620362,True,-0.6466325115007416,-1.134981245527622,-0.5874719425337912,34,False,-0.9214700553243942
19,1,15983,Sexual orientation should have no bearing on a person's rights. Although the morality of sexual orientation is different from person to person all men and women are equal regardless of who they choose to love or sleep with.,-1.6977783792579355,True,-0.198778952629695,-0.7152039109626775,1.048043939124111,38,True,0.07329153088154595
19,5,3000,"I will be arguing that homosexuality is not a choice, emotionally or in any other form. I'll start off by a scientific study to find the chromosome differences in gay men to straight men ( There even mentions his excerpt ""Since sexual orientation is such a complex trait..."". Hear that? It's not based on emotional intelligence, although you can make the case that some people choose to ignore their homosexuality and have relationships with girls although they aren't sexually attracted to them. There's a bunch of genes, DNA and chromosome properties that effect if a person is gay. Now I know you said that this debate was not about whether homosexuality is a choice, which is weird, but I have stated from another scientific view that homosexuality is not based off emotion. Therefore your whole argument is flawed because sexual orientation is not emotional. Also why have this debate in the first place if it's obvious that homosexuality is in your DNA and genes?",0.4916888247220394,True,0.9857515779215308,0.3375607707584399,-0.29876481606770944,164,False,0.40113423745648724
19,1,3381,I'm going to defend the following point: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology. I challenge anyone who can prove me wrong.,-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,22,True,-4.0
19,3,41745,"""Nobody has ever found a ""gay gene"". The very idea that a single gene could control sexual orientation is ridiculous."" scientific studies show that being gay has to do with genetics. But im not saying people cant choose it either. scientists believe the sexual orientation has to do with genetics, hormonal and social factors. Have you ever heard of the twin studies? Being gay has to do with genetics with out a doubt but its not the only factor.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.8582782524314622,-0.33437904501275145,-0.4699476014775611,79,True,-0.6493129452873443
13,1,36759,"I am fairly new to this site, i am not quite sure if i picked the right side so read this first, i believe teachers and/or students should be allowed to lawfully carry concealed weapons.",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,35,True,-4.0
8,9,26470,"First of all, children do NOT have that amount of free choice. Their parents are responsible for those limits. If there were beer or cigarette vending machines in school would kids be able to take some of those? NO! We restrict children's choice all the time. I just don't think that suddenly allowing vending machines will increase their free choice. Argument #5: The cost What is the main purpose of vending machines? It's not so that the school can give kids food, it's so they can get more money! But think of all the factors. First, you need to get the machines (usually you get more then one) You get the snacks and drinks for them and stock them, get tax licenses and decal stickers, pay they people who deal with the vending machine(s) and later re-stock them! Plus there are chances of being dented, getting dirty, mechanical failure, the vending machine falling over, etc. Is it worth it to have such an expensive with so many variables? I think not. Once more. thank you DDD",-1.3849973501179391,True,-0.26159827435241906,0.7881195967811018,-0.17770094427217178,176,False,0.13768283449538055
19,5,9212,"While the people who may watch MPL:FiM may or may not be gay, that does not make the actual video gay. The resolution clearly states ""My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay"". So my opponent must prove that the video itself has to be homosexual in sexual orientation, as I posited the definition of gay was. He fails to do this, instead just insults people who watch it. I contend that the video itself cannot be gay because it cannot have a sexual orientation. It's a video, it is not a sentient being, nor a living being. It has no feelings, despite what some people feel about their prized inanimate objects. They have no feelings, thus cannot feel anything. They cannot feel love and lust, and cannot form a sexual thought (or any thought at all). Thus, it is impossible for videos to be homosexual, or gay, in nature. Thus, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic cannot be gay. Thus, the resolution is easily negated.",-1.0722163209779427,True,-0.5845332348192837,-0.8479111116777065,-0.04146462232962335,166,False,-0.5725734075946064
19,4,35815,"I cannot over exaggerate my appreciation for my opponent's respect and conduct in this debate. Con refers back to the issue of economic restrictions. I would like to point out that the Muslim baker, mentioned in my my opponent's example, would not be able to refuse o service the Christian customers for their religious values. As stated in my citation to the legalzoom article, service cannot be denied because of religious identification. If you provide a service, such as a bakery, catering, and floral arrangements, you are economically obligated to service a paying customer regardless of your opinion of them. Refusal to serve a SSM ceremony blocks the flow of currency in the economy, effectively causing more of an economical burden than being forced to serve against your beliefs. For instance, there are still those who disapprove of interracial marriage. They are still obligated to service an interracial weeding against their personal beliefs. The identification of sexual orientation as a birth trait on the national level would give it the same protection as religion and race, including in acts of marriage. My opponent brings up my reference to other animals displaying homosexual pairings, and continues to call humans monogamous. In fact, humans are not monogamous. Unless a person shows affection only to a single person throughout their life, they are not sexually monogamous. Social monogamy implies that the romantic bond remains, but sex can be wavered. Both of these are rare in humans. In fact, humans are not monogamous but polygamous. We have multiple mates throughout our lifespan. I apologize for the short argument, but I have run into an issue with my charger so I figured I should at least get something posted.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.7978197029057913,0.5532390759629222,0.5317314000164185,284,True,0.7180759064739619
19,2,23644,"Religious teachings have often been sprinkled with cultural habits and traditions, which have very little to do with the basic theological elements of the given faith. In the case of the Bible, Christians find themselves faced with a truly complex collection of works written by an array of different authors and for entirely different audiences. As such, we need to be mindful of what is to be taken literally, and what is merely symbolic or allegorical. As such, I am not even sure how we could determine if someone is, or is not following the bible to the letter. A good way to examine this debate is to explore whether it is possible to lead a Christian life to the fullest, while being openly gay. I would argue that it certainly is, since one's sexual orientation and sexual activities are probably far less important in the grand scheme of things, than what conservative Christians will often argue. Jesus never spoke directly about homosexual behaviour, yet he did spend much time pointing out other unethical practices in the society in which he lived. The fact that Jesus did not comment on homosexual activity should indicate its relative lack of importance as a burning moral issue, at least in his eyes. Many conservative Christians will argue that it is not possible to reconcile open homosexuality with a true faith in Christ and that those who try are, at best, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose to believe in only what they find convenient. Yet a closer reading of the bible would show that the conservative sense of morality, in this case, is not really based on Jesus' teachings.",-0.7594352918379461,True,0.270222099544852,0.6637603248614975,-0.2792824378591385,276,False,0.25133845093735224
19,6,43728,"Agreed that we are not slaves to our hormones and conditions play a pivotal role in whether we 'choose' to proclaim ourselves to be homo or heterosexual. That said the orientation to which our hormones drive us is not within our control, some people are aroused by both sexes, others only their own. While acting on our instincts and natural inclination is a choice, the inclinations themselves are not borne of choice. So, the rhetoric on the left is suggesting that the choice to be open, honest and true to ourselves and others, should not be given/taken. Or simply natural-born homosexuals should not have the right to be open about their inclinations while heterosexuals should have the freedom to choose to be with mates/partners of the opposite sex. This is unfair to both to the homosexual who by the gratitude of the writer of the left hand column is free to be celibate for life, to any other homosexual who under better circumstances would be free to be with the first and also any Hetro-sexual who may be coupled with either homo A or B to 'keep up appearances."" To claim a birth mark is a birth defect is a luxury of free speech but that claim does not turn the mark into a defect.",-0.13387323355795333,True,0.3510831138505736,0.5222504311876244,0.2907629781241672,215,False,0.44018014984103987
19,5,16129,"Many people have complained about the restrictive nature of my previous arguments for the proper legality of bestiality. Said restrictions were necessary to make a positive case since in reality the default is that something should be legal and acceptable until proven otherwise. This debate is a chance for those who think they can make the case from scratch. No moral or legal standard is given, pro will have to present their own and support it. BoP is on Pro to show that bestiality should be illegal, this will certainly include giving the general reasons anything should be illegal, and supporting that rule/principle against all challenges I make. No need for other debates, no room to complain about unfair preconditions. First round is for Pros first argument, Pro types only ""end"" in his/her last round. I lied, I will include one set of restrictions, the definitions section: (D) Definitions (D.1) Bestiality – the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. (D.2) Zoophilia – the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans. (D.3) Rape – the forcing of sexual intercourse onto an organism capable of intelligent self-determination without their consent. NOTE consent as defined below. (D.4) Pain – the discomfort of an organism, established by some objective observation of behavior or biology. (D.5) Biological Damage – the objectively observable harm that that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of some organ or tissue in an organism. (D.6) Consent– and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” style=""font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';""> .",-4.0,False,-4.0,-4.0,-4.0,272,False,-4.0
9,1,4954,"I would like to thank you first of all for starting this debate because there is much controversy with social networking sites. In my argument I as (Con) will tell you how social networking is good and beneficial. You stated that ""Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds"" Now sites such as Facebook, twitter and instagram have privacy settings. This is where you can choose what information about yourself can be publicized. Some people choose to give out there personal info, this is there fault, not the social networking's fault. How is it beneficial? People use allot of social networking sites to connect with people. I will be giving you some examples. *Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. *Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals *Social networking sites help students do better at school *Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work These are just a few beneficial examples.",0.4916888247220394,True,0.9918895391921564,0.5755826141727481,1.3418195541949152,167,True,1.1190094923751366
9,1,3382,"Nowadays, there are a lot of social networking sites. People post information about themselves, communicate with other users, share their photos. Today, almost every child has account in one of the social networking sites. I believe that children should be able to enter those sites only at the age of 13 years old. Although, there are no age restrictions, in my opinion, social networks should be age-limited because of following reasons: 1. Nobody checks the information that people post in social networks every day. There are a lot of inappropriate things, language is often bad and vulgar, pictures sometimes can be provocative. Children under age restrictions might be affected by such things because their emotional system and understanding of the world are still unstable. 2. There is a problem of pedophiles. Unfortunately, there are people out there in the Internet who may use children's innocence. Children under age restrictions are not able to identify people who might be dangerous to communicate with. Pedophiles usually choose 11-12 years old children because it is easy to convince them and start a conversation. 3. Those sites often cause addiction. Risk of becoming dependent on social networking sites is even higher among children. They can't assess the situation of how dangerous using those networks might be. Social networks contain a lot of entertaining information. Therefore, children don't even notice how much time they spend on such sites. 4. There is a problem of cyberbullying. Children can't deal with this problem themselves. Bare mind children are not able to withstand the attacks in the Internet. I think that social networking sites must have strict age limits.",0.1789077955820434,True,0.863770232561987,0.5437131833841307,0.8315735055462206,271,True,0.8560272153361819
9,18,40213,"YES, I think this because; many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook... Etc. and if social networking was a part of the curriculum then teachers could teach students how to use these sites in a safe and harmless way. The truth of the matter is more teens use these social networking sites than adults themselves, and if teachers were able to help the students, teach them how to use the sites in appropriate and safe ways, it'll make a difference. A lot of people miss-use social networking sites in bad ways, either discrimination, or degrading, so if teachers were able to teach and protect their students from these things by teaching it to them and adding it in the curriculum, they could change how teens use the internet in a positive way. Also I feel that, teenagers would like to learn more about social sites, and they would like to know how to use it the right way, so if they were taught at school, this would be a positive thing to do. In conclusion, if social networking was added to the curriculum it would be a positive thing to do!",-0.4466542626979497,True,0.5212279395100411,1.5028794749164711,0.9271551682873328,195,True,1.1385970393363
9,1,26941,"First of all, social networking sites can help you gain confidence. Social Networking sites such as facebook, google +, and twitter lets you talk and argue or communicate with millions of people. The ones who cannot gain self confidence in real life could practice their self-confidence in the social networking sites. Since there are more people you can connect and communicate in the social networking sites, you can practice your self-confidence with different kinds of people you can't meet in you neighborhood. For example, I myself practiced my self-confidence in social networking sites, and it helped me greatly.",0.4916888247220394,True,-0.2998308788883727,-0.022001917826186216,0.10478438133733464,98,True,-0.09223846675405895
9,5,35902,"Topic- Are social networking sites good for our society? I say that the social networking sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children""s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Students who used social networking sites while studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82 Having distractions like these in your surroundings have shown difference in the children's mental behavior and studies. They spend most of their time on social sites, reducing human interaction. They think what they are doing is interacting but clicking on your iPhones and iPads is not interacting. Today, a significant number of pre-teens have their mobiles and laptops. Do they even need them? They have 400 friends on Facebook but they know only 50 of them. Interacting is good but they get obsessed with it. So, leave your distractions behind and go and talk up to the people in your lives and then notice how amazing it is to literally talk to people rather than texting or IMing them.",1.1172508830020322,True,1.8801076475797112,0.7907082922393247,0.9998919105207532,203,False,1.4194692602932297