_id
stringlengths 37
39
| text
stringlengths 3
37.1k
|
|---|---|
e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00019-000 | University education helps society |
e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00042-000 | If students are made to pay for the tertiary education they choose to undertake it gives them a greater responsibility over their studies. This means that they will be more likely to perform academically and are less likely to do anything that will jeopardize the substantial investment they would have made into their education. In the long run this will also teach university graduates to be more responsible over things like their families and jobs. In summary, making students pay for their tuition fees will encourage academic performance, and therefore increase both the long term and short term benefits of undertaking a graduate degree |
869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00019-000 | Speed cameras are a bad idea in their own right, but they present a wider assault on liberty if they can be used for other purposes. Allowing the government to track citizens' every move is a dangerous infringement on the right to privacy. Nor should we be confident in the technology, as recognition systems are very inaccurate and this will lead to may innocent citizens being harassed by the authorities. |
869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00014-000 | Although individual cameras may occasionally suffer technical problems, the technology is thoroughly tested and reliable. A margin for error is allowed with machines typically set only to record vehicles at least 10 or 20% over the speed limit. Appeal processes do exist where drivers feel their penalty is unjust, and although these could be improved in some countries, this is not an argument for scrapping cameras. It is noteworthy that insurance companies and motoring organisations such as the UK's RAC and AA tend to advise drivers against challenging the evidence of speed cameras, such is their belief in its accuracy. |
869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00001-000 | Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... |
a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00019-000 | All the world religions together have MORE than enough money to cancel all world debt and poverty, the government doesn't even have to do anything. The churches need to practice what they preach, take a step of faith and do what their doctrines tell them to and give up their money for the greater good, instead of handing out small amounts and not really getting anywhere. |
a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00008-000 | The loans are accruing interest quicker than they can be paid off |
522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00007-000 | Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study. |
d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00011-000 | Contraception can reduce family sizes. This will allow a greater proportion of resources to be allocated to each child, improving their opportunities for education, healthcare, and nutrition. |
d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00014-000 | While birth control should be a priority in many developing nations, there are often other more pressing issues to be addressed. Improving basic healthcare and providing proper sanitation can improve the health of an entire family, in addition to reducing childhood mortality – often a major reason for parents wanting to hedge their bets by having plenty of children. Spending money on such infrastructure and services is a far better long-term investment compared to the ongoing cost of providing contraception. |
c7f58e-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00021-000 | Being breastfed by a mother who uses painkillers regularly is worse than being fed milk from a cow. |
c7f58e-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00014-000 | In the wake of a recession and a Government that are insistent on reducing spending, one thing that has become important is cutting costs. What better way of cutting costs that making something free compulsory, that will in the end result in less visits to our already over burdened NHS system? By making it compulsory to pass on immunity to your own children, children will get ill less, not only as children but also as adults. This will result in life long savings on the NHS[[Kramer M et al Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT): A randomized trial in the Republic of Belarus. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001, 285 (4): 413-420]]. |
c7f58e-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00023-000 | Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of a Child makes specific mention to breast feeding. It makes specific mention of what the appropriate level of action is. Article 24 (2)(e) states that the State should ‘ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents; [[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm]]. Therefore, the appropriate and proportionate measure to attain child health is not through making breast feeding obligatory but by disseminating information based on the benefits of breast feeding. We should encourage breastfeeding and not make it compulsory. |
3cfe9d25-2019-04-19T12:45:35Z-00023-000 | Current income tax allows you to pass on a certain amount tax free. There's no reason that needs to change. On the other hand I don't see why people who are are fortunate enough to have parents who 1) owned their own home and 2) died, are any more deserving than those whose parents live in rented accomodation and are still perfectly healthy. |
6d58f37c-2019-04-19T12:47:21Z-00000-000 | However, it should be hard to dropout. |
49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00028-000 | This could happen at any given polling station but it doesn't. These measures are being introduced as the European Court of Human Rights considers a blanket ban on voting for prisoners as a breach of human rights. It is likely therefore that the Government will introduce many procedural safeguards to ensure that the voting rights are exercised in a similar fashion to the ones outside of prison. Only then will they be fully meeting the expectations of the Human Rights Court which they do not wish to contravene. |
49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00025-000 | If you are found guilty in a court of law of breakig the laws of a society, what right do you have to then request a change in those laws? It is laughable that the very people who cannot conform to the laws of a society should get to have their say. I would sooner give foreigners (who weren't in prison) the vote than give it to conficts. |
49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00010-000 | The views and needs of prisoners are currently not represented. Issues such as prison overcrowding a... |
49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00014-000 | In practice, few prisoners earn enough to be liable for taxation. In any case, the right to vote does not follow from the obligation to pay tax. In many countries, people start earning money and paying tax before they are old enough to vote (particularly if they leave school as soon as they are allowed to do so). This implies that the right to vote is given to those who can be expected to use it responsibly. Those convicted of serious enough crimes to be imprisoned have shown that they have no respect for society. They therefore cannot be trusted to vote responsibly in the interests of society; many would probably simply vote for candidates promising lighter sentences for criminals. Prisoners’ interests are already represented by NGOs and statutory prison inspection bodies, which ensure that they are not ill-treated. They do not deserve any further representation. |
49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00030-000 | This argument takes an extreme example to prove its point. However, if we take a look at those in prison, the majority have not 'blown people up'. 28% of the prison population are made up of criminals who committed violence against a person[[http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-04334.pdf]]. These do not include sexual offences or murder. They do include minor attacks. How can we equate these minor offences with that of blowing things up? Why should people who get involved in fights be deprived of the right to vote, just the same as a murderer or arsonist? |
49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00034-000 | This would be easily circumvented by making the prisoners votes count towards the constituency they last resided in before their custodial sentence. That way, there would not be an over concentration of prisoner votes in constituencies with large prisons. |
49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00024-000 | A right to vote is not a right to change the laws in society. Democrats would love to advocate that this is the case but quite simply it is not. Politicians will not change laws on the basis of a few prisoner votes. We must also not forget that those who are in prion are not necessarily guilty. They may be suffering from a miscarriage of justice. In addition, there will be people in prison who only committed menial offences which are not enough of a good reason to remove their right to vote in a society that classes itself as liberal. |
ce17d06f-2019-04-19T12:47:45Z-00008-000 | I feel that sports initiations at universities can sometimes become too extreme and lead to problems such as giving the institution a bad name, offending external others for example the general public and putting new players off joining a sports club which affects the teams performance in the long run. Although it is the individuals choice to become involved, freshers tend to be bullied into drinking games as they do not want to stand up and refuse to take part. When you are new to an institution, the older students like to gain respect from you. However, i do think that on some occasions they should take a step back and if they see anything becoming out of control they should take more responsiblity. In conclusion, i do not think people should be peer pressured into taking part in anything. It is down to the individual as to whether they take part as some people have joined the team to become a successful performer and support the university, not just for the social side! Initiations should take place in a safe environment, be fun and challenging but at the same time should be controlled so that people enjoy the time and are not ill! |
8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00011-000 | Homework prepares students to work more independently, as they will have to at college and in the workplace. Everyone needs to develop skills in personal organisation, working to deadlines, being able to research, etc. If students are always “spoon-fed” topics at school they will never develop study skills and self-discipline for the future. |
8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00006-000 | Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools an... |
8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00003-000 | Homework produces large amount of pointless work of little educational value, but marking it ties up... |
b84774d-2019-04-19T12:44:40Z-00024-000 | Forcing children that don’t want to play to make up teams in order to allow others to shine smacks of rigid education from a bygone era. In any case, in an increasingly litigious age, a compulsory rather than voluntary sports program is a liability. More and more schools are avoiding the very team games (e.g. rugby, soccer, hockey, football) the proposition discusses here, due to the (realistic) fear of lawsuits. |
b84774d-2019-04-19T12:44:40Z-00026-000 | Successful sporting nations like Australia realise that sports, like any other specialised subjects, are best taught to selected groups that display both talent and interest in the field – forcing all to compete holds back the able and punishes the less able. The right way to go is to liberate those that don’t want to participate, and allow those that are extremely keen to go to academies that focus their talents more efficiently than a regular school ever could.\ Furthermore, our children are burdened enough in schools already, especially at the older end of the system, with multiple examinations. PE simply adds, needlessly, to this hectic schedule.\ |
aac88cec-2019-04-19T12:45:13Z-00029-000 | Among other factors which may be responsible for climate change, human action is generally regarded a strong contribution – and one which looks set to increase, particularly in light of the swift industrialization of certain large nations, such as China. There may not be time to wait. "At least 40 per cent of the world's economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources." — The Convention About Life on Earth (UN Convention on Biodiversity) Climate change interferes with ecosystem functioning and resources provided by the 'natural' environment. For example, rainfall in the tropics is largely created by the rainforests themselves, the potential for pharmaceuticals being discovered, timber resources etc. These have been valued at US $33 trillion. This is compared to a global GNP of $18 trillion. |
aac88cec-2019-04-19T12:45:13Z-00001-000 | Natural Variability Alone is Insufficient to Account for the Bulk of the Warming |
3f934fc-2019-04-19T12:48:10Z-00014-000 | Point is repeated above and for rather than against. Should be deleted |
13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00003-000 | Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy |
13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00000-000 | Voting does not make sense as a rewardable/punishable action. |
13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00023-000 | If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations. |
917a6a48-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00002-000 | Yes because it would allow natural selection to proceed |
f12abe72-2019-04-19T12:46:33Z-00009-000 | This is sentimental nonsense. Unless the state is going to impose vegetarianism (and that’s not being proposed here) the business of food will continue, and that business should be efficient and productive like any other – that’s in the interest of the producer, who makes a profit, and the consumer, who gets a low price. Many of these animals exist because we eat them, anyway – pigs, cows, sheep, chickens – all animals that are bred in their millions because we want to eat them. Man should treat man with respect and dignity – but animals are not our equals, don’t have any capacity for higher thought, and can be used for our benefit without any moral problem. |
dede76-2019-04-19T12:45:54Z-00018-000 | Although Wind Farms are potentially expensive in the short term, prices for energy are still rising, despite the enormous dip in crude oil prices in 2008/9. Coal and Oil is running out, and supplies are determined by countries that stockpile Oil. Oil is merely a convenient energy source, with a little effort better and more renewable energy sources can be brought to the forefront! Although it is not known for certain when any oil and gas peak might be it is certain to come at some point. The peak oil argument runs that we have been using oil since the 1900's at an explanentially increasing rate, this is unsustainable and at some point we will reach a point where the discoveries of oil no longer match up to demand. Once there is too little supply compared to demand we will have reached the peak. This will result in very large price increases as there will no longer be any slack in the system. At this point all kinds of renewable energy become essential, wind will also no longer be uneconomic.[[http://www.oilscenarios.info/]] |
87602c6-2019-04-19T12:44:16Z-00017-000 | Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet voting becomes available in a few years everyone will be able to vote from their own home. |
87602c6-2019-04-19T12:44:16Z-00004-000 | A high turnout is important for a proper democratic mandate and the functioning of democracy. In th... |
87602c6-2019-04-19T12:44:16Z-00008-000 | Just as fundamental as the right to vote in a democracy is the right not to vote. Every individual should be able to choose whether or not they want to vote. Some people are just not interested in politics and they should have the right to abstain from the political process. It can also be argued that it is right that voices of those who care enough about key issues to go and vote deserve to be heard above those who do not care so strongly. Any given election will function without an 100% turnout; a much smaller turnout will suffice. The same is not true of juries which do require an 100% turnout all of the time! However, we can take a more general view by noting that even in a healthy democracy it is not surprising people should not want to do jury service because of time it takes, therefore it is made compulsory. However, in a healthy democracy people should want to vote. If they are not voting it indicates there is a fundamental problem with that democracy; forcing people to vote cannot solve such a problem. It merely causes resentment. |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00055-000 | If you speak to people who have been subjected to corporal punishment, they state that it was good for them and taught them discipline. If you are going to talk of alcohol dependency then you will have to quantify how many, and also show the link between the corporal punishment and these problems. Please provide sources. I have never heard of this from anyone who has been spanked. Most times they regret they did what they did in the first place to get spanked. I have witnessed adults talk about their youth and go up to their parents and thank them for correcting them when they were foolish. I've also heard of some people who were locked up who wished someone had been tougher on them or gave them some more spankings. Some of these same inmates have ended up forming closer relationships with their parents, mainly their mothers, because they now realize what their mothers were trying to prevent and feel sorry to have become such a burden. |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00071-000 | Children usually learn by observing role models and imitating them. Especially younger ones who do not fully understand the abstract moral concepts (empty words) behind the punishments, making them reliant to whoever the nearest role model is. Thus when you hit children very often they're at risk of thinking that morality only exists if you get caught/punished and if you're all grown up it's fine to hit smaller and powerless people. And corporal punishment does not work especially to those children who are too predisposed to violence and alienation, such as sociopaths. If anything you're just encouraging them on how to take their own personal grudges onto other people and justify them with empty words. I personally do not see a beneficial relation corporal punishment has with constructive parental modeling. |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00027-000 | 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 |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00074-000 | There is a clear difference between punishment and abuse; responsible adults can be trusted to know that difference. Allowing teachers and parents to punish children is no excuse for abusing them, and that is perfectly clear for everyone. |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00029-000 | You cannot single handedly blame the banning of corporal punishment for the rapid rise in crime. There are many factors, and there is nothing that definitively shows that there is a link between the banning of corporal punishment and the rise in crime. There are many things that have changed and the rise in crime is a combination of some or maybe even all of these factors, things like increase in population, increasing living expectations, the poor and the rich living in a close proximity. We should not bring back corporal punishment on a whim that it may possibly decrease the levels of crime. Also, this theory was tested in America, where it's flipped around and the states in the US that had corporal punishment were the states with the highest murder rates. Those eight paddling states are. in order by murder rate: Louisiana, which has the highest murder rate in the nation (6th in the nation by percentage of students struck by educators); Mississippi, which has the 2nd highest murder rate in the nation (1st by percentage of students struck by educators); Georgia. which has the 4th highest murder rate (7th in the nation by percentage of students struck by educators); Alabama and New Mexico, tied with the 5th highest murder rate in the nation (3rd and 10th, respectively, by percentage of students struck by educators); Tennessee, which has the 7th highest murder rate (4th by percentage of students struck by educators); and North Carolina and Arizona, which are tied with the 9th highest murder rate in the nation (12th and 18th, respectively, by percentage of students struck by educators). The two non-paddling states are: Maryland, which has the 4th highest murder rate; and Illinois, which is tied with Tennessee with the 7th highest murder rate. Murder Rate (lowest): Of the states with the ten lowest murder rates in the nation, educators paddle children in one of them. That paddling state is Idaho, which has the 3rd lowest murder rate (18th by percentage of students hit). The nine non-paddling states are: North Dakota, which has the lowest murder rate in the nation; South Dakota, which has the 2nd lowest murder rate; Maine, which is tied with Idaho with the 3rd lowest murder rate; Vermont, with the 5th lowest murder rate; Iowa, with the 6th lowest murder rate; New Hampshire, with the 7th lowest murder rate; Montana, with the 8th lowest murder rate; Utah, which has the 9th lowest murder rate; and Oregon and Massachusetts, which are tied with the 10th lowest murder rate. http://www.nospank.net/correlationstudy.htm |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00000-000 | If teachers and parents weren’t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways. |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00038-000 | There is a real feeling amongst those who are bullied that telling the teacher will worsen the problem, not make it better. Victims of bullying fear repercussions. However, if there was a system of corporal punishment behind the teachers, then something could be done which would scare the bullies out of their bullying ways. This would open bully victims up as they would discuss bullying issues with teachers knowing that something definitive could be done. If a child thinks it's okay to hit because a teacher or adult uses corporal punishment then that child is slow and fails to realize the purpose and meaning behind such an action. Besides a good and effective teacher is not going to use corporal punishment all the time, but as a last resort when all else fails. A threat is no good unless there is some fearful truth behind it. Also, teachers are only ignorant to bullying matters because they know they cannot realistically do much to stop it. So in effect, bullying has gotten a lot meaner. |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00076-000 | 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. |
1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00046-000 | 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. |
d919728-2019-04-19T12:46:57Z-00015-000 | It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. However the fact that an immoral industry employs a lot of people is never a good argument to keep that immoral industry going (similar arguments apply to the cases of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would have to be implemented, which would include governments providing funding for training for alternative careers. |
d919728-2019-04-19T12:46:57Z-00014-000 | Not only would banning alcohol infringe people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy. |
af83a7e2-2019-04-19T12:44:04Z-00013-000 | Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. In the USA studies have shown that illegal immigrants are a net cost to the government rather than a net benefit. Illegal immigrants are a drain on healthcare and social services such as policing and education. They take taxpayer’s money away from those who are lawfully entitled to use these services and put a burden on the state. The only way to alleviate these burdens is by repatriating illegal immigrants. |
d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00029-000 | We wonder if the opp team can tell Africa where should they sign up to make Dr. Etan Bar, CEO of EWA deliver an ISRAEL21c for every citizen needed for water. Of course it would be a great idea but an utopia as well. This team understands that ownership of the resource is a highly complex definition and may cause misunderstanding. We are not suggesting giving free bottle water to everyone but the company that provides this product should be owned by the state. This condition will empower the representatives to act and response to a critical possible water situation, instead of begging some foreign company if they could help. It is not up to a state to close every single river but to build a water purification plant to provide clean water for the citizens will need a couple of doors that will remain close. The state is the designated representative to provide for their country and should be smart enough to make the decision that provides the best for them, as it happened in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2000 [[http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/Cochabambafacts0305.pdf]], where they privatized the industry and the cost of the resource increased more than 35% and for the record, the concession was terminated only because of the civil unrest and the state of emergency in Cochabamba and not because of any act done or not done by the international shareholders of Aguas del Tunari. The privatization gave place to a major civil manifestation and it came back to the national company. This team maintains the idea of water being a human right and transnational private enterprises care about their incomes, not the condition of the people or their capacity to pay what they ask for. They don’t put their interests in context, private companies just put their conditions like it happened with the Aguas del Tunari consortium. I suppose that during that period of confrontation, building a Rehabilitation center with tons of pools for the people would not be a smart choice. It may not be frivolous but just a little out of context. Do that gives more votes or not… who knows but it was only on the states hands to make the right decision on time, before many were killed. |
d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00023-000 | In nutrition, diet is the sum of food consumed by a person or other organism. Dietary habits are the habitual decisions an individual or culture makes when choosing what foods to eat. Each person holds some food preferences or some food taboos, due to personal tastes or due to dietary reasons that may be more or less healthful. Due to this concern, a standardized "Nutrition Facts" label was introduced as part of regulations and in some countries became mandatory for most prepackaged food products. This was done because nobody could really trust in what they were consuming and the state had to find a way to control this. Each year, 76 million people in the U.S. get sick from contaminated food. The most common include bacteria, parasites and viruses. How could we trust that we are receiving the best product by huge powerful companies if it’s even not controlled by our representatives? Erin Brockovich just comes to our minds when we think about enterprises letting people get contaminated and trying to defend themselves just by being an important company, or what happened years ago in Venezuela with Dog Chow from Purina, where many pets where killed by food poisoning and the corporation decided to response at the very last minute. What will happen if people die because of water? Are big companies still going to defend their assets and incomes while people are intoxicated? Great countries like Scotland know the risk is too high and prefer to provide the water on their own, with their quality standards to avoid painful situation. Others should do the same. We encourage the solutions of DMZ in Korea and we are sure that without government support, particularly in this zone, it wouldn’t be possible, but Lee Sang-hyo spokesman for the Lotte Chilsung Beverage Co began which sells DMZ 2km water says "We decided on water from the DMZ because it's different and the environment there is untouched, so many people think it's clean." We are not sure that what people “think” is the best way of describing a well done product. [[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/korea-bottles-water%5D%5D |
d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00012-000 | Water is a health issue. |
d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00031-000 | You say you are against monopolies but affirm that the 40% percent of the world's water supply is brought to people by TWO corporations. The prop. doesn’t propose to create a monopoly, we just know it is so, as you well confirmed. It IS a natural monopoly because only few have access to it. For us irt would be just perfect that everyone had access to clean and fresh water to survive but sadly it isn’t like that. We stand that the state should CONTROL the process in those cases where private industries supply the resource, to avoid speculation in emergency situations. Only by applying some control, the state could guarantee that distribution to remote locations are being done and subsidize when need it. It is a state major concern that the population is healthy and safe. Sadly, not the corporations concern. As you said above, Nationalize water would be like closing private schools to ensure education”well, If a person is not happy with their education, it is a personal decision to do something about it. There are books and people that can help them improve their knowledge. Many of the great characters of our history are well known for being self-taught, but no child in history have survive without the concern of someone in giving the water and food that is needed to live and make to a point where the child can decide by himself what does he want for his future. |
d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00024-000 | Regarding this example of Afghanistan, followed by this explanation Proposition After a war, many of the corporations that provide water for the citizens suffer from the attacks and fall into disrepair and it is the government that have to provide because in many cases will be the only standing up at the very end. I don't think that the reconstruction was made at all by a) the Afghan state, but the US and b) that it was free from using Private companies in the reconstruction. [[http://www.afghanrc.com/]] It's not true that Prop. Privatization has not been a solution for promoting capacity expansion. but in any case, is the prop. saying it has been a solution for promoting other good things? I wonder. The fact that there is some resistance to privatization in some countries has no bearing on the subject of it being a good idea. And it doesn't make total state ownership a thing to do. In fact when in a country there is a small or big majority that forces all to do something, like have only one water supplier, that is called the tyranny of the masses. Of course I'm sure that if the prop. takes another look at their point they will see that it's arguing that what if everyone dislikes something it shouldn't be done. In fact it's pretty expected that if a State promises that everything will be given to you pretty much for free (if you are poor), there will be a resistance to changes in the policy. Prop says there could be employment reductions in privatization. This is only the case of jobs that prove to be unnecesary for the company. This salaries went out of tax payer's pocket, so it's great that those cuts happen. As the prop says this frees up government resources for investment. |
d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00036-000 | Not all state owned are terrible at providing water (Canada seems to be quite content, despite recently having in Walkerton "Seven people dead. More than 2,300 people sick. More than 64 million dollars in hard costs" [[http://environment.probeinternational.org/publications/water-and-wastewater/socialists-are-all-wet-why-privatizing-water-utilities-good-public]]. Not all private companies are are perfect about it eather, when a State owned company is bad the SQ is worse if there are no alternatives. It's possible for a privately owned company (BP) to do bad things. So, you ask: if there are examples of both being sometimes bad, isn't it better to at least choose the state, because they really, really have the citizen's interest at heart instead of money? In short, nope. There are two reasons why not. First, it´s numerically more common for countries where there is a bias for state ownership and control of water to have sub-par service and quality of water. In a study of the historical performance of public monopolies[[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.19.6087]] it was found that George Clarke And , George R. G. Clarke , Scott J. Wallsten The results demonstrate the massive failure of state monopolies to provide service to poor and rural households everywhere except Eastern Europe. This is because of a myriad of factors, some I have explained already, as innovation, lack of interest as long as they can continue in power, wasteful hiring practices, and the harm of subsidized prices causing wasteful consumers. In most Secondly, everything that goes badly both with state and private water companies in the SQ is related to big government, so to add to it's size by making it the owner and supplier of the water is a mistake. When a state owned goes bad its because government has the power to use water like a political pawn, as I explained in a previous point. Or because the public gets bad quality and can't compare because lack of competition. When a private water company does bad things it's caused by protectionism policies. The BP disaster gives us an example. BP is protected by the US government, in the sense that there is a negociated ammount of how much BP would pay for each gallon of oil leaked into the Gulf. BP knew that there was a top on how much it would have to pay, and probably decided to take the risk since the price 25 $, isn't as high. I say this is shameful. If victims of BP should have been able to sue for whatever they though was fair, and a jury would decide on it. Instead BP lobbyist agreed beforehand with the government on a cap. When a private actor feels protected by a government that works with lobbies and interest groups, it feels it can do as it pleases. When a smaller company can't compete because a bigger one has a lobbyist the problem is big government. But, you ask, who will care then. Who will be there to ensure the quality and accsess to water_? Tho see that there is choice and a fair market? The consumer. He should have the power to choose. |
10e1b055-2019-04-19T12:46:09Z-00020-000 | That is true, but technology is improving all the time. The developments in the last two decades alone have drastically improved the situation. If we look at the example of the hole in the ozone layer, which was a major environmental issue in the 90s, we can see how quickly climate issues can be resolved. Government policy successfully eradicated ozone damaging CFCs and scientists now predict a complete recovery of the Arctic ozone layer by 2050. Now that the focus is on producing new sources of environmentally friendly energy, we will soon be able to do away with using oil and other fossil fuels altogether and global warming will cease to be an issue. |
10e1b055-2019-04-19T12:46:09Z-00021-000 | There might be new cars that are designed to decrease their CO2 output, but what about the need for fuel in other situations? The people that can't buy the new cars have to use older models, plus the amount of people with cars these days is scary. It is common to have two or three vehicles per household. Thus the demand for fuel is as high as ever. The economic development of nations such as India now means that more people can afford to be personally mobile; hence there is an even greater demand for oil. Though alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power are increasingly used to meet society’s need, they are not yet widespread or efficient enough to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to an acceptable level. |
8e01d3a1-2019-04-19T12:44:33Z-00001-000 | Unfairness |
4c2a61b5-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00003-000 | Soicial Networking Sites are a Time-Waster |
5920cdef-2019-04-19T12:46:26Z-00001-000 | [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3604275.stm]] chocolate makes people happy, via the mood-altering chemicals in chocolate and also through all the goodness associated with it. For generations people of all age groups all over the world; have had chocolate as a 'treat' or as something to 'enjoy' during festivities. Happy people are healthy people. counter:over-indulgence of anything is bad for you. Fat is a necessary food component for good mental and physical health. It is one of the essentials of a balanced diet but we all know the adverse effects of having too much fat and their correlation with a range of diseases. Sugar/carb(ohydrate)s are also essentials in a Balanced diet : Have too much and you're headed for a lot of trouble. People who eat chocolate as a luxury treat are happier(therefore healthier\0 than people who don't have chocolate at all. |
af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00006-000 | If you have ever been to church on Sunday morning, you will hear the pitch. "Help us give to those in need in our community." What they do not tell you is 95% of the budget is padding the office salaries of the church or temple staff. They are just emphasizing their effort in the community to get you to give to their own vacation saving fund. This is just human nature, whether or not the human has a clergy collar. Clergy lie to increase the popularity of their organization. |
af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00010-000 | Removing the tax exempt status of churches and religious groups reflects their business-like character. If they are not really serving the community as a whole, they should be held to the same laws that businesses are. The pastor, rabbi, or priest is a CEO. He should pay taxes on his organization to help the Federal Government feed the poor. Particularly if his church is not doing that on its own. There is something wrong when the Federal Government is doing more for the low-income class than the religious groups who bark the loudest about the motivation for doing so. Making them like a normal business in tax world would make sure that they are paying their fair share and not having an unequal market advantage. It would force them to compete better. Churches that are incompetent would fold. Many foolish people would have more time on their hands to actually help their brothers and sisters in their community. Much better than paying your pastor to brainwash you with his interpretation of an ancient religious book he does not really want to obey. |
4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00030-000 | Uniform has practical benefits when students are outside the school building. Being readily identified with a particular institution may make students more aware of their behaviour while travelling to and from the school, leading them to act more considerately, e.g. to other passengers on buses or trains. On organised trips away from the school it is much easier for teachers to ensure they haven’t lost anyone and to monitor behaviour, than if students wore their own clothes and blended in with the crowds. |
4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00015-000 | Uniform prepares students for life after education, when most will be expected to dress smartly. |
4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00040-000 | We all have a right to individuality, to make personal choices and to express our personality. This right of free expression includes the way we choose to dress. Making everyone wear the same school uniform infringes on (goes against) our rights and is a misuse of authority. The right to choose what to wear is particularly important for young people, who often have few other ways of expressing their personality or making choices about their lives. |
ae945b47-2019-04-19T12:43:59Z-00004-000 | Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency. However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects, such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less romantic reality. |
dcd97b83-2019-04-19T12:44:22Z-00006-000 | Firstly, the statistics show that knife and gun crime are over represented in the news. There is a moral panic in which people think if they are attacked it will be by a knife wielding maniac. This is simply not true. There is more chance that you will be in a car accident than be attacked on the street. Secondly, if you arm the police, it will only serve in arming the criminals to a higher level as well. Look at Japan, the police are trained in hand to hand combat and carry no weapons. The criminals carry no firearms, partly because of the tight gun control laws and enforcement. Thirdly, arming the police will normalise guns and make them seem less threatening. This will encourage people to have them as they become 'desensitised' to guns. Fourthly, the police already have an armed response unit set aside for the rare occasions when firearms officers are needed. Having every police officer trained to use a firearm will increase training time and cost. |
dcd97b83-2019-04-19T12:44:22Z-00010-000 | 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. |
3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00013-000 | Prostitutes have performed a valid social function for thousands of years. |
3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00061-000 | Although prostitution, as an act, is not legalised. The girls who are forced to, and those who are not would lose money. Prostitution is illegal due to its sometime violent outbursts and the danger that it can put people in. However, legalising prostitution would mean that it is no longer a taboo and would somewhat decrease the desire to hire a prostitute. Amsterdam has its legalised prostitution and it works fine, yet it is mainly a tourist attraction and the men that do use prostitutes in Amsterdam do it as it is a form of souvenir, something to cross off the list. Because of the way that the girls are advertised and portrayed they can charge large amounts of money. This would not be the case in the UK. The UK would not embrace ideas of sexuality like Holland and this advertising and promotion of the girls would not be the same if legalised in the UK. With this in mind prostitutes would not have the same ability to charge as they do. Also, would leglising prostitution mean that people could manage prostitutes in a harsher sense than pimps or madames? Charging as they wish and possibly giving a wage rather than commission based pay? These would all need to be taken into account and if so the reason that people go into prostitution is usually because they are forced into due to lack of money. If it was a wage based system there is nothing then stopping people from getting another job that puts them at less risk. Legalising prostitution should not happen, not due the fact that it would make prostitution seem morally acceptable but that it would not help the people involved in the industry as well. |
5a05b717-2019-04-19T12:45:47Z-00007-000 | At the time he accessed the information, they were already in discord if he suspected his wife was having an affair. They will already have been acting out of character, their behaviour would have been suspicious, they would start acting hostile towards each other. In this situation they are not in a position where they can trust each other. Therefore they should not be sharing information that they can be used to hurt each other, and accessing such information should be seen as a threat. |
4c2cac7d-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00019-000 | as what i have known modern technology can harm people such as radiation(for example) can cause death to human lives. |
9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00008-000 | INTERPHONE [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] completed a study based upon phone use and brain tumours. They specifically found no correlation between the two phenomenon. Given that hand held phones are held to the ear with the antennae near the brain, surely this is where most of the damage would be caused. Given this, it is high time that we stopped scaring ourselves out of using technology and move forward with it |
9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00010-000 | Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma. |
9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00013-000 | We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure. |
5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00001-000 | If teachers feel that their student's performance will have an effect on their own salary. Then teachers will be monetarily motivated to push their students harder. Normally, schools have this incentive(better results, more funding) and teachers receive a fixed pay that gives them no reason to push their students to do their best, apart from the love of the teaching field. Teachers end up coddling pet-students and ignore/mock pupils that need their help the most. But if teachers will be rewarded for improving 'the overall' performance of a class,( And not just make sure Mr/Ms.First position maintains his/her high standards) then this kind of unfair elitism will eventually die out. |
5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00002-000 | If a teacher's pay is based on performance, teachers who work with students from bad neighbourhoods and illiterate/non-academic families, will get the least pay; even though they will have to work harder than other teachers to get their students to perform well. This will act as a disincentive for teachers to be employed in such schools(and conditions for the school and its students will exponentially worsen). When something is harder and more dangerous it should have a 'higher'-pay incentive as compensation not the opposite. |
5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00003-000 | Teachers 'will' have a higher-pay incentive: If they improve standards then they'll get a higher pay. |
5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00006-000 | People teaching at schools where performance is top-notch, since only high-merit students are admitted, will get more money for less effort. |
c415d069-2019-04-19T12:47:01Z-00004-000 | Schools can play an important role in combating obesity as people tend to get into habits about how ... |
c608ddc9-2019-04-19T12:47:36Z-00019-000 | Despite the superficial image of the flat-tax maintaining equity across all economic sectors, the reality is that the system rather impacts various sectors differently. On the surface the concrete rates look universal and simple. However the end result is that the lack of flexibility puts the same rates on strictly different things. The flat tax places the same rates of taxation on all products and services as well. Under the seductively simple veil of so-called equity, products of luxury are wrongfully given the same rates as cheaper alternatives, for example, schoolbooks would be given the same rates as pornographic novels. The flat tax is also a problem as it simply shifts administrative costs to onto businesses. The flat tax, as seen in Australia, will target smaller businesses harder than larger corporations.[[http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new]] As for general economic growth, such a system also does not allow for the incentives and flexibility that attracts foreign investors. The progressive tax however establishes a buffer for the lower class in which allows them to be protected from the customs and sales tax that tends to hit lower-income groups more so than the rich. Regarding economic growth, a proportionately lower tax for the poorer allow them for more room to invest in both entrepreneurship opportunities and for important home investments like home improvement, child nutrition and health, and child education. Moreover, more jobs do not necessary mean a narrower wealth gap; the Opposition makes a naive mistake of equating more jobs with higher wages. As economic growth continues, the higher income groups, a great majority corporations, will profit more than the lower income groups do, furthering the wealth gap.[[http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2562]] The Proposition stresses once again: economic growth does not automatically narrow the wealth gap. In fact, research shows that throughout history it has worsened it. Flat tax is not the solution. |
1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00001-000 | It should be lowered not scrapped all together |
1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00003-000 | Children are not emotionally secure enough to vote |
1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00005-000 | Children may not understand politics well, but neither do most voters |
131fbffb-2019-04-19T12:45:15Z-00031-000 | Identity managemnt is key. With a single robust source of identification for the individual it should make it easier to effectively manage. True any major cock up will have a significant impace but it should be easier to prevent, be more visible when it ahppens and per person easier to rectify |
9d57a64d-2019-04-19T12:48:11Z-00033-000 | There is a huge gap in the argument of the opposition. They claim that our plan would reduce the stimulus for the economy. We never told the level of benefits would be reduced. The money would simply be given out in the form of vouchers. Anyway, taking into account the situation in which the unemployed person is, the money goes on paying his bills and receiving the basics of life. There is essentially no difference between the government spending this sum of money or an unemployed. There is no “double benefits” in the opposition’s case, because vouchers also stimulate the economy and create the demand. The whole argument is useless. We don’t understand why an unemployed deserves a salary for the job he is not doing. It is false to declare that an unemployed provided himself with a prolonged vacation. Firstly, he uses much of the tax payments within the first few months in which he is free to operate with the money. Secondly, the people receiving the unemployment benefit for a long period are predominantly low income people, who contribute the least part of the state tax revenue. For example, in 2007 in the USA the lowest earning 50 % of the population contributed only 2.89 % of all the income tax.[4] They cannot claim to have the right for unrestricted benefits. There are jobs in the market, but an unemployed person either chooses not to accept it, because it pays too little, or he is not willing to gain the necessary qualifications to become suitable for it. A situation when the society has to support such a person for prolonged time is unacceptable and he cannot claim the right to choose how to spend money. [4] http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html" |
9d57a64d-2019-04-19T12:48:11Z-00003-000 | Maintaining Status Quo would Boost the Economy and Reduce Unemployment Rate |
212f2296-2019-04-19T12:47:07Z-00005-000 | We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway |
3f553f68-2019-04-19T12:46:29Z-00005-000 | Treating cases of cheating, bribery as negligible without further investigation on the matter is rather presumptuous. Competition would only be fair if every student/worker being evaluated would be put in the same environment exactly, with the same, rather equivalent resources, suited/catered to each student/worker's needs based on individual strengths,weaknesses and personalities. As this is not the case competition reveals a monster of inefficiency labeling undeserving candidates good and bad without basis. |
9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00010-000 | Decriminalising drugs will make them safer |
9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00038-000 | We believe that the final think we need to do in this debate is to show that, even in a perfectly regulated market, harmful substances can be very dangerous. In the recent time the amount of deaths from overdose of drugs has been gradually increasing. The pace is amazing. Over the last few years the number of people died from overdose has become 4 to 5 times higher than during the “black tar” heroin epidemics of the 1970s and more than twice what it was during the peak of cocaine-crack outbreak in the early 1990s. Also the profile of people dying from overdose has changed from poor Afro-American youngsters to working white male in their 40s. It is amazing that cocaine, heroin and amphetamines account only for about 39% of these deaths. What is happening then? The research has been conducted to explain this paradigm and it gave striking results. The huge increase in overdose deaths accounts mostly for prescription drugs. Prescription “painkillers” called opioids like Vicodin OxyCondin or Methadone gained the honorable first place according to statistics. Sedatives like Valium now highly used by many people got the third place in this “people killing” competition. The number of deaths that involved prescription opioid analgesics increased from 2,900 in 1999 to 7,500 in 2004, which in other words in an increase of 160% in just 5 years. However, during the same time rates of overdose deaths from heroin or cocaine remained flat. The reason for these deaths in the first place is the increasing usage of these legal drugs. The country wide research in the US showed the positive correlation between unintentional death from overdose rates and usage of painkillers and sedatives. On the second place is abuse and misuse of these legal drugs. [[http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2008/03/t20080312b.html]] We live in society where people are constantly overwhelmed with stress and problems. Some people do sports to cope with it, some people like fishing and resting in nature, but some people use sedatives to cope with high pressure or painkillers to cancel their headache. These prescription drugs are legal since they are regarded to be more or less harmful. The evidence we gave show how even these relatively harmless drugs could cause deaths of thousands of people. Illegal drugs are now banned. One of the reasons is that they are more harmful than prescription drugs. The other one is that addiction and tolerance towards them develops very fast. Imagine now the situation after amphetamine, cocaine and heroin are legalized. They all are even better painkillers than prescription drugs and they also all are more addictive. Now people if they want to get a sedative or a painkiller have to see a doctor, explain him their problems, and only then, if the doctor considers it to be worth, they could get a recipe. If the doctor refuses in prescribing a drug, they have to think out a sophisticated way of abusing the system, which could be hard to imagine and implement. Imagine now better and more violent painkillers are legalized. People don’t have to see a doctor anymore to get their recipe. They just go to a supermarket and buy a dose of heroin. It is amazing how it helps to get rid of their headache they think. The next time they have brutal headache they visit the store once again. And after one more they are hooked and have to use heroin just because otherwise their body can’t function. Moreover, tolerance is developed soon. Now they have to buy not a one dose of heroin to feel the effect, but two, three or five times more. In the end police finds them drown in their vomit and report one more heroin overdose death. Statistics proves that people are very eager on dying from prescription drug overdose even now, although acquiring drugs involves significant costs of going to doctor or abusing a system. If we legalize better painkillers and sedatives, but more violent ones, which are more likely to cause death, we believe that rates of such death cases will skyrocket. Predicting that the proposition could call legal status of prescription drugs and illegal of heroin or cocaine to be unfair, we would like to say that we feel the debate to be more about what is good and what is not, rather than what is fair in relation to evil substances. We would like very much to cancel all death of such kind, but these drugs are necessary for some people. That’s why we strive for stricter regulations and control. If we could alter these deaths at least partially by banning drugs, we go for it. By the way statistics we have given ruins the argument of forbidden fruit once again. The huge number of deaths from drugs accounts mostly for legal prescription drugs. The increase in these rates accounts for prescription drugs as well with rates of deaths caused by heroin and cocaine remaining flat. The amount of deaths caused by legal drugs is also higher than the amount of deaths during the epidemics of heroin in the 1970s or the outbreak of cocaine-crack in the 1990s. This proves that people chose what is easier to acquire rather than what is forbidden when making a decision. They prefer to go to a doctor and buying a prescription drug, rather than visiting a drug dealer to try out a “forbidden fruit”. This is because going to a doctor is legal and doesn’t involve any consequences if they are caught by police. Also going to a doctor is easier because they could find the address of a hospital in the record book and don’t have to search for it. However, finding a drug dealer involves searching for it and meeting him or visiting certain unpleasant places in unpleasant districts. Thus most of people prefer convenience rather than feelings from trying something forbidden. If you make serious drugs available and easy to buy, people won’t stop consuming them because they are not forbidden any more. A more likely scenario is that they switch to them from prescription drugs and consume more of them, since costs involved in acquiring them (including time and the fact they are breaking the law) fall significantly. In the very end we would like to note one more mechanism of how legalization leads to an increased consumption. By putting a status “illegal” on something we show that it is potentially harmful and using it could cause serious consequences. Imagine if the state now legalizes drugs, it sends a clear message to public that drugs “are not that bad”. In fact, it puts it even lower than prescription drugs in the list of potential harmfulness, since no regulations were proposed. This shows people that heroin is less harmful than Valium and they start substituting Valium for heroin, since it also helps to calm down. |
9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00035-000 | We believe that in order to win the debate any side should prove that drugs are harmful / not harmful and that the state could / could not restrict individual liberties. So our burden of proof is to prove that drugs are bad (otherwise, there would be no reason for banning them) and that the state is a legitimate actor to ban them (i.e. restrict personal freedom of choice). We will do this by two arguments and here comes the first one proving that drugs are bad in general. On the side of opposition we believe that drugs are inherently evil. They have tremendous negative consequences for the health of a person using them and for society, since a person could commit crazy actions under the influence of drugs. Moreover, part of taxes paid by residents of a country are spent on treating drug users from their addiction, which results in a loss for the welfare of the state. The argument is structured in a manner to point out harmful health effects from the usage of different drugs, and explain how work the mechanisms causing lose for society overall. 1. Negative effects on health. a. Heroin Among all drugs, heroin sometimes is encountered as the most evil. Scientific research shows that people using heroin suffer from serious health problems and have a higher mortality rate than others of the same age who do not use drugs. The increased number of injections plays as a catalyst in developing some infections like endocarditis, cellulitis and abscesses. It has a clear positive correlation with the usage of heroin, since this drug is usually consumed by injections [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. Also heroin causes serious mental disorders like anxiety and personality disorders. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] Drug addicts also have a higher rate of suicides, which is proven by some recent studies [[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/3/277]]. Some research suggests that heroin addicts are 14 times more likely to commit a suicide than their peers who do not use this drug [[http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/DI_ResearchProject/$file/Methadone+Project+sheet.pdf]]. The most popular way of committing the suicide is by deliberate drug overdose. We could propose a mechanism to describe this phenomena. A person, whose mental and physical health were undermined by heroin, who is completely desegregated from society and has no sufficient stimulus for living, under the influence of depression caused by the end of heroin "high" decides to commit a suicide. There are numerous examples of such people. There is also a high rate of non deliberate deaths from overdose among heroin users. Tolerance towards this drug develops very fast, which requires an addict to use the substance more frequently and at higher doses. About 10-20% of users develop such a significant dependence and tolerance that they have to use heroin every 3-4 hours [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. This makes overdose very likely to occur. Moreover, overdose could occur because of inability of the user to calculate the optimum dose for him while he is "high". We have shown at least some serious problems connected to heroin. We believe that there are much more, but we need to move on to our next points. b. Cocaine, crack cocaine. Cocaine also causes several harmful effects. It damages brain by taking control over the cells in the "pleasure center" of brain and thus causing high biological addiction towards the drug. It significantly increases blood pressure, heart rate. Could cause strokes, brain seizures, respiratory failure, heart attack, convulsions and death. It also diminishes the desire for sleep and food, thus leading to malnutrition, significant weight loss and the devastation of the user. It also has negative effects on liver, reproductive system, lungs, throat and basically every single organ of the user. Moreover, it causes several mental disorders like increased irritability and anxiety, panic attacks, confusion, depression, non-stop babbling, sleeplessness, chronic fatigue, short tempers, bizarre, aggressiveness, violence, suicidal behavior, delusions, paranoia and hallucinations. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/news.php?include=133996]] We believe that all these symptoms are enough to regard cocaine as totally unacceptable. c. Marijuana. There are some people stating that marijuana in general is not harmful. May be it is the least harmful among all the drugs, but there is still evidence in favor of its harmfulness. The immediate effect from the usage of marijuana involves increased heartbeat, which leads to heart problems in the future. Intensive usage of marijuana makes a person dull, slow moving and inattentive. It harms memory, reduces concentration, swift reaction, coordination and alters the sense of time. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/marijuana-addiction.html]] Some studies showed that smoking marijuana is especially harmful for pregnant or breast feeding women, since it could affect their fetus. [[http://www.mydr.com.au/babies-pregnancy/cannabis-pregnancy-and-breast-feeding]] But the most crucial argument against even such "light" drug as marijuana is that the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs. It is hard to find a heroin addict who has never smoked weed in his life. Since under the plan all drugs will be legalized there will be no deterring effect to prevent people who started to use less harmful drugs from moving to more harmful ones. Under the status quo less harmful drugs such as marijuana are more available than those like heroin. It is much harder to buy heroin from drug dealer, because it involves more restrictions. This prevents people who tried marijuana from trying other, more harmful, drugs. If we legalize all drugs, this prevention will disappear. By the way the arguments of the government about no harm of marijuana fails here once again, since the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs, which under the plan will be legal. 2. Harms to society. a. Crazy behavior of drug addicts. There were many crimes committed under the influence of drugs, since the usage of drugs puts a person into "another reality", it makes it impossible for him to behave adequately in the real world. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states several facts supporting the positive correlation between the usage of drugs and committing crimes. In the US the drug test of arrested showed that from 43% in Anchorage to 79% in Philadelphia of male arrestees showed a positive result on the test of the usage of any drugs. [[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html]] After the plan is implemented and drugs become legal, the significant increase in the crime rates could follow. There are already some states putting restrictions on the sale of alcohol (like Sweden or Latvia), because they find it easier to restrict such substances rather than deal with the evil consequences. The only reason we can't put restrictions on all alcohol is because of traditions. Traditionally people got used to alcohol and tobacco so much that the ban of these substances will cause a huge response in public. Fortunately, there is no such traditional dependence on drugs, that's why it is great that we can ban them. There was an argument from the proposition that such laws allowing alcohol and restricting drugs are "unfair". We believe that there is no such thing as "fair" or "unfair" relating to drugs and alcohol, and we believe that we should try our best to protect our citizens. If we can't ban alcohol because of traditions, it doesn't mean that we should allow also drugs. We believe that we should protect people from as many harmful things as we can. b. Economic loss. The social costs of drug use are estimated at 0.2% of Gross National Product in the US. The costs to society of a person with opioid dependency are 45,000$ per year. This includes costs of him not working, but living on social benefits; costs of crimes he commits; and costs of medical treatment he needs when he is under the overdose. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] It is clear that economically it is much more beneficial to ban drugs and avoid this loss. |
9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00032-000 | The proposition team believes that the victims of low-quality drugs will be lowered to a much smaller number than the number of victims nowadays. And the reason why this will happen is not only that there are not going to be new addicts, but that drugs are going to be purified. We believe that overdoses and impure drugs are the main reasons for people to die from drugs. As we all know there is no dealer who will tell his customers that by buying this product they threaten their health or that there are special programs which help people to stop using drugs. Nowadays all member states of the European Union sell all the tobacco products with labels which inform the consumers about the risks of smoking. Such an idea can be applied to drugs only if they are legal. The results of this initiative are obvious. This report [1] shows that many people consider the effective, especially the people under 30, the age in which people are most susceptible to using drugs. Another point is that the country will offer free injections which will cost the country nothing compared with what it spends on coping with diseases such as AIDS. Imposing laws that bind the sellers to give a free unused needles will make drug consumers forget about using a needle twice. We are sure you will agree that no one will consider using another person’s injection if he or she can use his or her own. That is why we think that less people will die from drugs if they are legalized! That is the right thing to do. [1] http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/healt/australia2~5 |
184b3d4f-2019-04-19T12:46:55Z-00002-000 | If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... |
86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00008-000 | People need an incentive to eat more healthy food and avoid unhealthy fats. This will improve people’s health. In a paper published last year in the British Medical Journal, Tom Marshall, a professor at the University of Birmingham, said that taxing fatty foods would prevent hundreds of premature deaths each year, and cut the incidence of heart disease by about 10 per cent. |
86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00009-000 | The National Institute of Health (USA) spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. |
542b0295-2019-04-19T12:47:26Z-00007-000 | It is said by doctors that an adult woman is at risk of a large number of health problems if her BMI... |