I found out that health care bill was passed. I went to Politifact.com because Mr. Jarrell told me to.
It says: THE TOP 10 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT HEALTH CARE
1) Not like a government take-over 2)Insurance companies will regulate more heavily 3) Everyone has to have insurance 4) Imployers will not be required to give health care 5) People will not see significant declines in premiums 6) May or may not bend curve on spending 7) Health care will pay for medical bills for seniors, but will begin giving cost controls to others 8) Medicade will cover ALL poor people 9) Government won't pay for elective abortions 10) No one is prosporing from health care for illegal immigrants
I'm adding this to my debate and am looking at other websites linked on POLITIFACT.COM
My posts commenting on others will be in another post. BYE
Alec : Health Care to me i think this debate will be weird because our propositions is "should the congress pass the healthcare reform bill" but it will be weird BECAUSE THEY ALREADY DID PASS IT THIS SUNDAY. but ANYWAY.
like just about i think all of my other blogs and sources this states reasons health care is good and bad. i thought this article was a little bit awkward because had four reasons it was good and six it was bad. here are the reason it said the healthcare reform being passed is good ONE. it would provide insurance for 30 million more americans. TWO. it takes the deficit seriously with Medicare cuts and serious even whopping tax increase THREE. it contains a million little ideas and dozens of gradual programs for cutting costs FOUR. if it fails Obama will fail and health costs will strangle the nation and now the six for the side that is for not passing it. ONE. it will not fundamentally reform health care. TWO. it will cause national health spending increasing faster THREE. it is politically unsustainable because it increase demand without increasing supply of doctors. FOUR. you cant regulate 17% of the economy without adverse consequences. FIVE. it will slow innovation AND SIX. it will not control costs (to bad for all those cause it got passed)
I'm not gonna do my comments yet because only one person has posted so thursday night ill do it
Since Alec is the only one posted (besides me), my comments are on him.
(Just some things I was wondering about his post.)
For your second #1, I was wondering, how will it not 'fundemantally reform health care' and could you explain that?
Also, you didn't say why the bad ones were bad and why the good ones were good. Because they were correct? If so, why are they correct and how do you know?
Also, what website was it from? Was it reliable or not and why?
When you said 'too bad for all those cause it just got passed', what did you mean? Do you not think they matter anymore?
Finally, for #6, it says it will not control costs. I was thinking that if you put this IN your debate, you will HAVE to back it up with why it won't control costs even with it passed.
Well I didn't do much on my topic this weak. I have about 4 sources that I might use Im not sure yet. I've been evaluating them. One is on news max. And it is called Obama is wrong. It is pretty good because it explains why he is wrong. because one of the articles argument is that just because we are sending more troops to Afghanistan rate now dosen't mean they're won't be any terrorist attacks. We are just makig them more mad by sending more troops so they are going to get frightned and make a terroris attack. Another source I found from news max is Iraq militants vov attacks on U.S troops. So by sending more troops we are getting Iraq madder and they might come and attack us. I found a lot of other sourecse from NPR. And New York Times but i'm tring to limit the sources from their. One from New York times is how can we help Afghanistan. I evaluated it and it was good. Two other ones were on the issues: Iraq-Afghanistan and reason not to keep U.S troops in Afghanistan. Both good ones so I have about 7 sources.
To Alex; Are those top 10 post good or bad. Because you didn't explain it at all. YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PUT THEM IN YOUR OUTLINE. So you have to be more clear.
To ALEC; Where did all of those sources come from and are they reliable. JUST LIKE ALEX YOU AREN'T GIVING ENOUGH PROOF OF WHY THEY ARE BAD. So you're readers won't know if it is good.
Haddon Antonucci/ Jaxx your name isnt Whitey J OR Bossman
Im doing my citicizing one first, and my target is Jaxx. 1st of all, you have a logical fallacy in your writing. You said that by sending more troops in we are angering them and that will make them frightened and attack. It is true that we are attacking them, but I think we are making them anrgrier and help prove their point, not scaring them. And for your source from the new York times, you should elaborate more on what it actually said, so we can understand what you are tralking abpout.
For Alec: You ideas are contradictory. Im not sure what Jaxx is tlaking about, but why is, FOUR. if it fails Obama will fail and health costs will strangle the nation", on the good side?. Jaxx is right however when he says you should go into more detail describing what you are saying.
This is the one where I talk about my progress. Firstly, I hav now come up to about 13 sources and a bunch of not cards, so im doing well with that. Im looking for benefits that employess recieve compared to CEO benefits. I got some from the Washington state legislature website. I have also secured more numbers for pay from the bls website (Bureau of Labor statistics). These are obviously reliable sites. Im not sure if i posted this in my last blog, but I found another example of CEo corruption. They tok over 120 million dollars of unapproved bonuses for themselves. They also had 12 accounts of grand larceny, 1 account of conspiracy, 1 account of violation of busineess law, and 8 accounst of falsyfying records. This came from cnnmoney.com. Before I was using comparison reasoning, where I compared the CEO and an average worker, and compared it to something in the real world. i want something that has a smoother flow, so I am going to go with cause and effect reasoning. Saying, "If we lower/keep CE pay as it is, such and such will happen." This will make me change my argument. All I now have to do for the next checkpoint is finish the debate part now, because im done evertyhing else.
I have found five sources, two of which there are some really good ideas. For wednesday, I will make more note cards and add these ideas to my debate overall.
1. This is a source on keynesian economics. Although it is unreliable, I think I can still use its information. Can someone please confirm this for me: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Keynesianism.htm
2. This is a source on how the key on health care is not impressive cuts but the growth rate in health care spending. In 2008, we spent 2.3 trillion on health care. It has been growing 7 percent since then and the estimated health care spending in ten years is 8.9 trillion. If we cut this down to 5 percent growth, the health care spending by 2020 will be 6.1 trillion. THe source also gives more information on health care spending and cost control.
Alec: I think that you have found good information, however, there are some flaws in the arguments.
About you pro arguments: ONE-I agree. TWO-What do you mean by Medicare cuts and doesn't it only increase taxes for the wealthy? THREE-I agree. FOUR-This isn't good at all!
Now about your con arguments: ONE-Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it does reform health care. TWO-Believe it or not, but more spending on programs like these actually helps balance the budget.. It encourages mroe people to spend money and therefore maintains circulation of the economy. THREE-I completely agree with this argument. Ensuring more people will increase the demand for more doctors and this will be a problem since there are no reforms for more doctors. FOUR-I don't even know what that mean because it isn't explained. FIVE-Can you explain this becasue I personally don't understand what that means. SIX-Well, it will control costs for the government but I think this article is talking about the households.
Alec: I think that you have found good information, however, there are some flaws in the arguments.
About you pro arguments: ONE-I agree. TWO-What do you mean by Medicare cuts and doesn't it only increase taxes for the wealthy? THREE-I agree. FOUR-This isn't good at all!
Now about your con arguments: ONE-Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it does reform health care. TWO-Believe it or not, but more spending on programs like these actually helps balance the budget. It encourages mroe people to spend money and therefore maintains circulation of the economy. THREE-I completely agree with this argument. Insuring more people will increase the demand for more doctors and this will be a problem since there are no provisions for more doctors. FOUR-I don't even know what that mean because it isn't explained. FIVE-Can you explain this becasue I personally don't understand what that means. SIX-Well, it will control costs for the government but I think this article is talking about the households.
Mohammad Kazmi We should withdraw forces from Afghanistan
I have been working on this debate for a long time andf think I have enough sources and enough notes cards for my next check point. I still found more arguments I can make from the research I already do have. Like how by killing and bombing Afghanistan we are promoting terrrorism and I think If someone says this against me I can rebuttle them by saying. Would you rather have a safe, secure nation in which every person is under U.S. protection.Or Afghanistan or any other country which harbors and trains terrorists to look down at us. The governemnt was made for the people of the U.S. not for reputation by other counteries. I have found other arguments that I can rebutal like We should have a peace offering with Afghanistan or that we can help them. This we have tried when we were first bombed by terrorist on the event of 9/11. We offered the government of Afghanistan to give up the terrorists but they refused. Tese people can't be helped they have been brainwashed to believe in the muslim religion if you give your life for your country you will go to heaven which isn't true. So the only thing we can do to help is destory these evil forces or they spread even more than they already have and come attack the U.S. ALso we are in too deep. We can't pull out because if we do the Afghans will find our weakness and attack. And if we dont leave and keep killing these terrorist we can't kill everyone. So the best thing to is to end this war by Obamas plan. We should send in more troops until Afghan surrednders and hands over Al-Quada and the Taliban from deafeat. I also found a good source from that website you gave us news max.
Jaxx: You said if we keep attacking Afghan they will "get scared" and attack the U.S. Well heres a heads up bro they already are attcking the U.S. from attempted plane bombs and did you forget 9/11. The point is to scare them until they surrender or die because they aren't inocent they are already planning to attack us by us attacking them we are scaring them to not attack us. SO really horrible argument that can be crushed as you have just witnissed
James Nuclear Reators So today...3/26/10 i read that our own state of NJ might close down one the oldest nuclear power plants in the COUNTRY. But its not really the state of NJ its a company who own the reactors, Exelon Corp. now the people who read this (Mr. J and whom ever will comment on this is) are probably thinking why well its because the say its will cost to much money to get new cooling towers. and if you don't know what these are they the things keeping the reactors cool. Now Exelon Corp. say it will cost 800 MILLION DOLLARS to get these cooling towers, but enviromentalist say it would only cost 200 million dollars. And for those of you who rember in class nuclear reactors power 20% of our power. that may not seem like alot but it is, and as more these reactors are being foreclosed its cutting down our power.
who shall i comment on...........
To CrackerJaxx (Jaxx) i believe what you wrote was.... well okay but i bet you have thought about this but what if there were more terrorist attacks cause i think i know that there are some suiside bombers in the U.S. Now would those terrorist in the U.S. get angrier with us. but im just sayin. Your major spelling mistakes: madder and weak correct grammer: angrier i think and week lololoolololz
Right now, in my debate, I am focused on getting my stuff ready. So I will turn my sources into bibliography and finish up note-cards. But when I was thinking about what to focus on (on my outline) I realized that my format is way jumbled up and crap. For example, in the beginning of pro, i define terms and stuff and then go to the value premise (world peace). And then for my "contentions" i show how cheating is a big factor to. But i then realized "aren't they both equal and same issues?" and "Why do i have world peace more important than cheating when they should be both big values?" I haven't really done a real value debate yet so my question is: Should i include more than one value premise, or just put it all into one universal premise. I'm stuck... Please Help!
Comments:
Mo
You said that killing and bombing would promote terrorism, But don't you think that not doing anything would still do this?(This is a Rhetorical Question). We already have killed and bombed many people and most of those people not gotten revenge yet and probably want to. So i think they will still try to bomb and stopping the bombing will not do anything to us.
James
On yo argument about how nuclear reactors produce 20% of energy and you said it was a lot, i don't really think it is. I think that if we get rid of these reactors, we will probably just start getting energy from somewhere else. It's not like if we get rid of nuclear reactors, The world will run out of electricity and we will all die. I don't know if I'm right, but this is what I'm thinking.
This week, I found an article by Huffington Post about Obama's plan and if it will work or not. His plan is to send another 30,000 people into Afghanistan and then within 18 months, little by little, withdraw the troops. By June of 2011, all of our troops should be withdrawn. But, how is this really pratical or workable? His reason for withdrawing is that it is VERY expensive to keep our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq all at once. We are spending billions of dollars each day, just for the wars. He also states that we attacked Afghanistan to find and kill those al-Qaeda's who destroyed our homeland. As of a year ago, the director of the CIA reported we had effectively removed the last of the al-Qaeda's. But the thing is this makes me question if there really aren't anymore al-Qaeda's or are we just saying that to not freak out the people, just like Germany did in WW1. Like usual, i am still trying to find a straight answer for this "are there really any al-Qaeda's in Afghanistan anymore?" But, people who are reading this, i believe they aren't. i believe that they are back in the mountains training for another attack... be ready. To Jaxx- I don't have much for you, be just a few questions: If U.S. sends more troops going to scare or piss the Afghans off? What were some of the reasons that we should keep the troops in Afghanistan? That's interesting, cause I believe i found a great one on keeping them in and i completely agree with his article.
ok lately all i have been finding are websites on how cap and trade is bad, and i have found one website that sums every thing i have erad up into 10 basic arguments that some even have to do with the same thing.(CON)
1. It will raise energy costs
2. It doesn’t make a big difference in the environment Global warming will go on
3. It doesn’t work where it has been tried(meaning EU): people haven't lived up to their expectations
4. It will cost Americans their jobs
5. It is in effect a hidden regressive tax
6. It sets a dangerous precedent:The Heritage Foundation [7] has pointed out, these groups have found fault with actual proposals such as America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, criticizing them for not going far enough and willing only to endorse them as “a good first step.” As much damage as a cap and trade scheme would cause in its own right, this posture by extreme environmental groups foreshadows even more draconian regulations in our future.
7. It prevents market forces from working for the environment: if someone produces that helps the environment than...can't sell it as much
8. It threatens to put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with other countries: US can't produce as much as others now
9. It opens the door to massive fraud and corruption
10. It threatens to bust the federal budget at a time when the United States can scarcely afford it
um so there you go,,, yeahhh they might be confusing but their were loooonnnnggg explanations that i thought would be to long to put in here. i put in a little explanation for the really confusing ones, but understand it. So ok ummm
James it may seem like it's not alot of money to buy the coolers, and we need the energy buttttt.... It will be. If it's not the state then that will make it harder for the company to make the 800 million or 200 million. Plus the economy is so bad rite now it wouldn't hurt that people would get solar power, or an alternative resource for power. Closing a nuclear reactor, wouldn't do any harm, it might even encourage people to go green and get solar power instead of that. Would you rather have global warming or just closing 1 nuclear reactor that might even help Global warming?
Emily Mae Kaplitz Democrats are to blame for everything. I Have a Few questions - If the web site does not have a author or a copyright is it still a good website? - Is a blog that is with unknown people is it good? - Is a website that has no date and author good?
To Dhruv I think you should focus on 1 Value so then you can focus on this value more and clarify it, so you would not get caught in the rebuttal.
I got a couple new sources and am still taking notes on them
For Pro, my main argument is still that CEOs don't actually deserve their pay, and I'm taking notes on a debate on theeconomist.com that gives reasons why. For my plan, I still have that companies should review compensation plans but am looking for a new one. Also, I am trying to find sources that give numbers on how CEO pay has affected the economy, wether good or bad (I'm guessing bad).
For con i have still that CEO pay is currently reducing itself, but I don't know if that should remain my main argument, since i have mainly one source that says that. I am also saying that compared to other countries, the U.S. business sector is run well. According to Ira Kay of the harvard business review, "The U.S. has the best run economy in the world with the best corporate sector." I don't know about best run economy, but i will look for numbers on how the U.S. business sector compares to that of other countries.
COMMENTS
Mo: Are you saying that when we tried to establish peace with them during 9/11 by asking them to give us the name of the terrorists? If that's what we did, they wouldn't just tell us names of terrorists without us giving something in return. I don't know if we did, but the way you said it sounded like we just asked them for names of terrorists. And sort of like what Dhruv said, even if we didn't bomb the terrorists, wouldn't they still probably want revenge?
Haddon: For your reasoning you said that if we lower/keep CEO pay then such and such will happen, but you don't actually say your arguments.
Jordana Rosenberg International Sporting Events Such as the Olympics Do More Harm than Good Week of March 22st - March 26th
Over this week I have found 6 more sources.
1. The Times of India - Racism Persists in International Sports.
Discusses how much of a disgrace our sportsman ship is on national and international level, there are no statistics but a few brief examples.
2. The New York Times - Egypt and Algeria Bring Soccer War to Sudan.
Discusses a World Cup game between Egypt and Algeria in Sudan. There were a few fans murders and injured. There has been rioting fans, and Egyptians have lost business. Then talks about the game and Algeria won.
3. Military History - The Soccer War of 1969
Discusses a War sparked by one country's effort to curb illegal immigrants from the other, the brief four day war was a result of an international soccer game.
4. Scientific Psychic - Sport Injuries
Discusses the number of people over 30 were injured in "big" sporting events in the 1990's. Numbers from 276,000 - 365,000 per year. Cost 18.7 billion dollars in medial expenses.
5. The Wall Street Journal - Speed and Commerce Skewed Track's Design
Discusses the dangers of luge and its tracks. it also talks about the Georgian Luger that died. The Lugers travel at a speed of 96 miles per hour tops. Some experts want to for law suites.
6. NPR - Russian President Seeks Heads Over Olympic Woes
Discusses the Russians disappointment. (Will use for background.)
I have been adding to my outline too.
Alec - I think you have many good points but I don't understand some of them for example, "you cant regulate 17% of the economy without adverse consequences" you should explain that and if you don't understand it look it up.
Alex - Politifact was a good choice and I think most of the information will prove you topic good (haha, just kidding I know it should be well).For Pro you should talk about that it actually was passed and why. That will prove you point good. (just kidding again)
right now i'm working on the outlines for wednesday. I've only been working on some parts of it though, but i'll finish it soon. I think i have enough bibliography cards, but i still have to take some notes on websites. This week i used the websites Mr.J gave us in class and went back to some of the websites me and emily picked. includingggg...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/democrats-healthcare-and-the-future-of-politics/37930/ from andrew sullivan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/the-moderate-republican-a_b_510958.html from huffington post
if i could just ask help with one thing..is where to find better websites about otheeer problems we face other then just health care. i tend to find that aaalott. That's pretty much all i did this week. I didn't do much because i'm working on getting prepared for the next check point.
comments:
Emily: I'm sure it's a bad sighn if a website doesn't have an author. a copy right not so much. i think the author is way more important then the copyright. a blog can somtimes help to maybe make you understand things more..but don't depend on it unless the person writing them have websites to back their arguements up. a website that has both no website and author is probably not worth it. It's very important to have them both or atleast one of em. hope that helped kindaa.
I now have 10 sources on my debate, but I need more. I have to find the % of GDP (gross domestic product), but that is easy. the information is available to me, I just need to find it. I think the hardest part of this debate is my Organization. Some of the topics are related to the budget now. Like the big spenders Health-care, Military, and Social Security. The big Questions are which of the categories do we chose to file down the cuts, and how much per year.
to Bryan: for your con argument, the Business sector is run well, but don't you think that it is corrupt, because there are example that I know from my health care debate.
cap & trade. in total i have about twenty five sources, and a lot of notecards. for my outlines, i think i'm gonna make my con saying that there is no need to change, i just think it's going to be hard to say that there's not a need to change. i found alot of information about global warming and statistics and stuff. i also have some sources saying why not to use c&t, and why to use c&t yes- less carbon emmisons no- it's going to cause fights okaay, so i think that's about it. i hope it's good enough ? (:
RE : Morgan ( : that information seeems really helpful to your debate
Alex
ReplyDeleteHealth Care
I found out that health care bill was passed. I went to Politifact.com because Mr. Jarrell told me to.
It says: THE TOP 10 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT HEALTH CARE
1) Not like a government take-over
2)Insurance companies will regulate more heavily
3) Everyone has to have insurance
4) Imployers will not be required to give health care
5) People will not see significant declines in premiums
6) May or may not bend curve on spending
7) Health care will pay for medical bills for seniors, but will begin giving cost controls to others
8) Medicade will cover ALL poor people
9) Government won't pay for elective abortions
10) No one is prosporing from health care for illegal immigrants
I'm adding this to my debate and am looking at other websites linked on POLITIFACT.COM
My posts commenting on others will be in another post. BYE
Alec : Health Care
ReplyDeleteto me i think this debate will be weird because our propositions is "should the congress pass the healthcare reform bill" but it will be weird BECAUSE THEY ALREADY DID PASS IT THIS SUNDAY. but ANYWAY.
like just about i think all of my other blogs and sources this states reasons health care is good and bad. i thought this article was a little bit awkward because had four reasons it was good and six it was bad. here are the reason it said the healthcare reform being passed is good
ONE. it would provide insurance for 30 million more americans.
TWO. it takes the deficit seriously with Medicare cuts and serious even whopping tax increase
THREE. it contains a million little ideas and dozens of gradual programs for cutting costs
FOUR. if it fails Obama will fail and health costs will strangle the nation
and now the six for the side that is for not passing it.
ONE. it will not fundamentally reform health care.
TWO. it will cause national health spending increasing faster
THREE. it is politically unsustainable because it increase demand without increasing supply of doctors.
FOUR. you cant regulate 17% of the economy without adverse consequences.
FIVE. it will slow innovation
AND SIX. it will not control costs
(to bad for all those cause it got passed)
I'm not gonna do my comments yet because only one person has posted so thursday night ill do it
P.S. mo and jaxx "yess im sure"
Alex
ReplyDeleteTo Alec:
Since Alec is the only one posted (besides me), my comments are on him.
(Just some things I was wondering about his post.)
For your second #1, I was wondering, how will it not 'fundemantally reform health care' and could you explain that?
Also, you didn't say why the bad ones were bad and why the good ones were good. Because they were correct? If so, why are they correct and how do you know?
Also, what website was it from? Was it reliable or not and why?
When you said 'too bad for all those cause it just got passed', what did you mean? Do you not think they matter anymore?
Finally, for #6, it says it will not control costs. I was thinking that if you put this IN your debate, you will HAVE to back it up with why it won't control costs even with it passed.
That's all. BYE.
Jaxx Ottinger/Whitey J and Bossman
ReplyDeleteWell I didn't do much on my topic this weak. I have about 4 sources that I might use Im not sure yet. I've been evaluating them. One is on news max. And it is called Obama is wrong. It is pretty good because it explains why he is wrong. because one of the articles argument is that just because we are sending more troops to Afghanistan rate now dosen't mean they're won't be any terrorist attacks. We are just makig them more mad by sending more troops so they are going to get frightned and make a terroris attack. Another source I found from news max is Iraq militants vov attacks on U.S troops. So by sending more troops we are getting Iraq madder and they might come and attack us. I found a lot of other sourecse from NPR. And New York Times but i'm tring to limit the sources from their. One from New York times is how can we help Afghanistan. I evaluated it and it was good. Two other ones were on the issues: Iraq-Afghanistan and reason not to keep U.S troops in Afghanistan. Both good ones so I have about 7 sources.
To Alex; Are those top 10 post good or bad. Because you didn't explain it at all. YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PUT THEM IN YOUR OUTLINE. So you have to be more clear.
To ALEC; Where did all of those sources come from and are they reliable. JUST LIKE ALEX YOU AREN'T GIVING ENOUGH PROOF OF WHY THEY ARE BAD. So you're readers won't know if it is good.
whacccchhhhhhaaaaa
Haddon Antonucci/ Jaxx your name isnt Whitey J OR Bossman
ReplyDeleteIm doing my citicizing one first, and my target is Jaxx. 1st of all, you have a logical fallacy in your writing. You said that by sending more troops in we are angering them and that will make them frightened and attack. It is true that we are attacking them, but I think we are making them anrgrier and help prove their point, not scaring them. And for your source from the new York times, you should elaborate more on what it actually said, so we can understand what you are tralking abpout.
For Alec: You ideas are contradictory. Im not sure what Jaxx is tlaking about, but why is, FOUR. if it fails Obama will fail and health costs will strangle the nation", on the good side?. Jaxx is right however when he says you should go into more detail describing what you are saying.
Haddon Antonucci
ReplyDeleteThis is the one where I talk about my progress. Firstly, I hav now come up to about 13 sources and a bunch of not cards, so im doing well with that. Im looking for benefits that employess recieve compared to CEO benefits. I got some from the Washington state legislature website. I have also secured more numbers for pay from the bls website (Bureau of Labor statistics). These are obviously reliable sites. Im not sure if i posted this in my last blog, but I found another example of CEo corruption. They tok over 120 million dollars of unapproved bonuses for themselves. They also had 12 accounts of grand larceny, 1 account of conspiracy, 1 account of violation of busineess law, and 8 accounst of falsyfying records. This came from cnnmoney.com. Before I was using comparison reasoning, where I compared the CEO and an average worker, and compared it to something in the real world. i want something that has a smoother flow, so I am going to go with cause and effect reasoning. Saying, "If we lower/keep CE pay as it is, such and such will happen." This will make me change my argument. All I now have to do for the next checkpoint is finish the debate part now, because im done evertyhing else.
Neil
ReplyDeleteI have found five sources, two of which there are some really good ideas. For wednesday, I will make more note cards and add these ideas to my debate overall.
1. This is a source on keynesian economics. Although it is unreliable, I think I can still use its information. Can someone please confirm this for me: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Keynesianism.htm
2. This is a source on how the key on health care is not impressive cuts but the growth rate in health care spending. In 2008, we spent 2.3 trillion on health care. It has been growing 7 percent since then and the estimated health care spending in ten years is 8.9 trillion. If we cut this down to 5 percent growth, the health care spending by 2020 will be 6.1 trillion. THe source also gives more information on health care spending and cost control.
Alec:
ReplyDeleteI think that you have found good information, however, there are some flaws in the arguments.
About you pro arguments:
ONE-I agree.
TWO-What do you mean by Medicare cuts and doesn't it only increase taxes for the wealthy?
THREE-I agree.
FOUR-This isn't good at all!
Now about your con arguments:
ONE-Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it does reform health care.
TWO-Believe it or not, but more spending on programs like these actually helps balance the budget.. It encourages mroe people to spend money and therefore maintains circulation of the economy.
THREE-I completely agree with this argument. Ensuring more people will increase the demand for more doctors and this will be a problem since there are no reforms for more doctors.
FOUR-I don't even know what that mean because it isn't explained.
FIVE-Can you explain this becasue I personally don't understand what that means.
SIX-Well, it will control costs for the government but I think this article is talking about the households.
Overall good work Alec!
Alec:
ReplyDeleteI think that you have found good information, however, there are some flaws in the arguments.
About you pro arguments:
ONE-I agree.
TWO-What do you mean by Medicare cuts and doesn't it only increase taxes for the wealthy?
THREE-I agree.
FOUR-This isn't good at all!
Now about your con arguments:
ONE-Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it does reform health care.
TWO-Believe it or not, but more spending on programs like these actually helps balance the budget. It encourages mroe people to spend money and therefore maintains circulation of the economy.
THREE-I completely agree with this argument. Insuring more people will increase the demand for more doctors and this will be a problem since there are no provisions for more doctors.
FOUR-I don't even know what that mean because it isn't explained.
FIVE-Can you explain this becasue I personally don't understand what that means.
SIX-Well, it will control costs for the government but I think this article is talking about the households.
Overall good work Alec!
Mohammad Kazmi
ReplyDeleteWe should withdraw forces from Afghanistan
I have been working on this debate for a long time andf think I have enough sources and enough notes cards for my next check point. I still found more arguments I can make from the research I already do have. Like how by killing and bombing Afghanistan we are promoting terrrorism and I think If someone says this against me I can rebuttle them by saying. Would you rather have a safe, secure nation in which every person is under U.S. protection.Or Afghanistan or any other country which harbors and trains terrorists to look down at us. The governemnt was made for the people of the U.S. not for reputation by other counteries. I have found other arguments that I can rebutal like We should have a peace offering with Afghanistan or that we can help them. This we have tried when we were first bombed by terrorist on the event of 9/11. We offered the government of Afghanistan to give up the terrorists but they refused. Tese people can't be helped they have been brainwashed to believe in the muslim religion if you give your life for your country you will go to heaven which isn't true. So the only thing we can do to help is destory these evil forces or they spread even more than they already have and come attack the U.S. ALso we are in too deep. We can't pull out because if we do the Afghans will find our weakness and attack. And if we dont leave and keep killing these terrorist we can't kill everyone. So the best thing to is to end this war by Obamas plan. We should send in more troops until Afghan surrednders and hands over Al-Quada and the Taliban from deafeat. I also found a good source from that website you gave us news max.
Jaxx: You said if we keep attacking Afghan they will "get scared" and attack the U.S. Well heres a heads up bro they already are attcking the U.S. from attempted plane bombs and did you forget 9/11. The point is to scare them until they surrender or die because they aren't inocent they are already planning to attack us by us attacking them we are scaring them to not attack us. SO really horrible argument that can be crushed as you have just witnissed
James
ReplyDeleteNuclear Reators
So today...3/26/10 i read that our own state of NJ might close down one the oldest nuclear power plants in the COUNTRY. But its not really the state of NJ its a company who own the reactors, Exelon Corp. now the people who read this (Mr. J and whom ever will comment on this is) are probably thinking why well its because the say its will cost to much money to get new cooling towers. and if you don't know what these are they the things keeping the reactors cool. Now Exelon Corp. say it will cost 800 MILLION DOLLARS to get these cooling towers, but enviromentalist say it would only cost 200 million dollars. And for those of you who rember in class nuclear reactors power 20% of our power. that may not seem like alot but it is, and as more these reactors are being foreclosed its cutting down our power.
who shall i comment on...........
To CrackerJaxx (Jaxx)
i believe what you wrote was.... well okay but i bet you have thought about this but what if there were more terrorist attacks cause i think i know that there are some suiside bombers in the U.S. Now would those terrorist in the U.S. get angrier with us. but im just sayin.
Your major spelling mistakes: madder and weak
correct grammer: angrier i think and week
lololoolololz
Dhruv K. Patel
ReplyDeleteOlympics Debate
Right now, in my debate, I am focused on getting my stuff ready. So I will turn my sources into bibliography and finish up note-cards. But when I was thinking about what to focus on (on my outline) I realized that my format is way jumbled up and crap. For example, in the beginning of pro, i define terms and stuff and then go to the value premise (world peace). And then for my "contentions" i show how cheating is a big factor to. But i then realized "aren't they both equal and same issues?" and "Why do i have world peace more important than cheating when they should be both big values?" I haven't really done a real value debate yet so my question is: Should i include more than one value premise, or just put it all into one universal premise. I'm stuck... Please Help!
Comments:
Mo
You said that killing and bombing would promote terrorism, But don't you think that not doing anything would still do this?(This is a Rhetorical Question). We already have killed and bombed many people and most of those people not gotten revenge yet and probably want to. So i think they will still try to bomb and stopping the bombing will not do anything to us.
James
On yo argument about how nuclear reactors produce 20% of energy and you said it was a lot, i don't really think it is. I think that if we get rid of these reactors, we will probably just start getting energy from somewhere else. It's not like if we get rid of nuclear reactors, The world will run out of electricity and we will all die. I don't know if I'm right, but this is what I'm thinking.
Morgan Falasca
ReplyDeleteWar in Afghanistan
This week, I found an article by Huffington Post about Obama's plan and if it will work or not. His plan is to send another 30,000 people into Afghanistan and then within 18 months, little by little, withdraw the troops. By June of 2011, all of our troops should be withdrawn. But, how is this really pratical or workable? His reason for withdrawing is that it is VERY expensive to keep our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq all at once. We are spending billions of dollars each day, just for the wars. He also states that we attacked Afghanistan to find and kill those al-Qaeda's who destroyed our homeland. As of a year ago, the director of the CIA reported we had effectively removed the last of the al-Qaeda's. But the thing is this makes me question if there really aren't anymore al-Qaeda's or are we just saying that to not freak out the people, just like Germany did in WW1. Like usual, i am still trying to find a straight answer for this "are there really any al-Qaeda's in Afghanistan anymore?" But, people who are reading this, i believe they aren't. i believe that they are back in the mountains training for another attack... be ready.
To Jaxx-
I don't have much for you, be just a few questions:
If U.S. sends more troops going to scare or piss the Afghans off? What were some of the reasons that we should keep the troops in Afghanistan? That's interesting, cause I believe i found a great one on keeping them in and i completely agree with his article.
Thankss (:
Kasey
ReplyDeleteCap and trade
ok lately all i have been finding are websites on how cap and trade is bad, and i have found one website that sums every thing i have erad up into 10 basic arguments that some even have to do with the same thing.(CON)
1. It will raise energy costs
2. It doesn’t make a big difference in the environment Global warming will go on
3. It doesn’t work where it has been tried(meaning EU): people haven't lived up to their expectations
4. It will cost Americans their jobs
5. It is in effect a hidden regressive tax
6. It sets a dangerous precedent:The Heritage Foundation [7] has pointed out, these groups have found fault with actual proposals such as America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, criticizing them for not going far enough and willing only to endorse them as “a good first step.” As much damage as a cap and trade scheme would cause in its own right, this posture by extreme environmental groups foreshadows even more draconian regulations in our future.
7. It prevents market forces from working for the environment: if someone produces that helps the environment than...can't sell it as much
8. It threatens to put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with other countries: US can't produce as much as others now
9. It opens the door to massive fraud and corruption
10. It threatens to bust the federal budget at a time when the United States can scarcely afford it
um so there you go,,, yeahhh they might be confusing but their were loooonnnnggg explanations that i thought would be to long to put in here. i put in a little explanation for the really confusing ones, but understand it. So ok ummm
James
it may seem like it's not alot of money to buy the coolers, and we need the energy buttttt.... It will be. If it's not the state then that will make it harder for the company to make the 800 million or 200 million. Plus the economy is so bad rite now it wouldn't hurt that people would get solar power, or an alternative resource for power. Closing a nuclear reactor, wouldn't do any harm, it might even encourage people to go green and get solar power instead of that. Would you rather have global warming or just closing 1 nuclear reactor that might even help Global warming?
Emily Mae Kaplitz
ReplyDeleteDemocrats are to blame for everything.
I Have a Few questions
- If the web site does not have a author or a copyright is it still a good website?
- Is a blog that is with unknown people is it good?
- Is a website that has no date and author good?
To Dhruv
I think you should focus on 1 Value so then you can focus on this value more and clarify it, so you would not get caught in the rebuttal.
Bryan
ReplyDeleteCEO pay
I got a couple new sources and am still taking notes on them
For Pro, my main argument is still that CEOs don't actually deserve their pay, and I'm taking notes on a debate on theeconomist.com that gives reasons why. For my plan, I still have that companies should review compensation plans but am looking for a new one. Also, I am trying to find sources that give numbers on how CEO pay has affected the economy, wether good or bad (I'm guessing bad).
For con i have still that CEO pay is currently reducing itself, but I don't know if that should remain my main argument, since i have mainly one source that says that. I am also saying that compared to other countries, the U.S. business sector is run well. According to Ira Kay of the harvard business review, "The U.S. has the best run economy in the world with the best corporate sector." I don't know about best run economy, but i will look for numbers on how the U.S. business sector compares to that of other countries.
COMMENTS
Mo:
Are you saying that when we tried to establish peace with them during 9/11 by asking them to give us the name of the terrorists? If that's what we did, they wouldn't just tell us names of terrorists without us giving something in return. I don't know if we did, but the way you said it sounded like we just asked them for names of terrorists. And sort of like what Dhruv said, even if we didn't bomb the terrorists, wouldn't they still probably want revenge?
Haddon:
For your reasoning you said that if we lower/keep CEO pay then such and such will happen, but you don't actually say your arguments.
Jordana Rosenberg
ReplyDeleteInternational Sporting Events Such
as the Olympics Do More Harm than Good
Week of March 22st - March 26th
Over this week I have found 6 more sources.
1. The Times of India - Racism Persists in International Sports.
Discusses how much of a disgrace our sportsman ship is on national and international level, there are no statistics but a few brief examples.
2. The New York Times - Egypt and Algeria Bring Soccer War to Sudan.
Discusses a World Cup game between Egypt and Algeria in Sudan. There were a few fans murders and injured. There has been rioting fans, and Egyptians have lost business. Then talks about the game and Algeria won.
3. Military History - The Soccer War of 1969
Discusses a War sparked by one country's effort to curb illegal immigrants from the other, the brief four day war was a result of an international soccer game.
4. Scientific Psychic - Sport Injuries
Discusses the number of people over 30 were injured in "big" sporting events in the 1990's. Numbers from 276,000 - 365,000 per year. Cost 18.7 billion dollars in medial expenses.
5. The Wall Street Journal - Speed and Commerce Skewed Track's Design
Discusses the dangers of luge and its tracks. it also talks about the Georgian Luger that died. The Lugers travel at a speed of 96 miles per hour tops. Some experts want to for law suites.
6. NPR - Russian President Seeks Heads Over Olympic Woes
Discusses the Russians disappointment. (Will use for background.)
I have been adding to my outline too.
Alec - I think you have many good points but I don't understand some of them for example, "you cant regulate 17% of the economy without adverse consequences" you should explain that and if you don't understand it look it up.
Alex - Politifact was a good choice and I think most of the information will prove you topic good (haha, just kidding I know it should be well).For Pro you should talk about that it actually was passed and why. That will prove you point good. (just kidding again)
Sorry I left and didn't see half of the other posts until I posted.
ReplyDeleteeva
ReplyDeletedemocrats are to blame
right now i'm working on the outlines for wednesday. I've only been working on some parts of it though, but i'll finish it soon. I think i have enough bibliography cards, but i still have to take some notes on websites. This week i used the websites Mr.J gave us in class and went back to some of the websites me and emily picked. includingggg...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/democrats-healthcare-and-the-future-of-politics/37930/ from andrew sullivan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/the-moderate-republican-a_b_510958.html from huffington post
if i could just ask help with one thing..is where to find better websites about otheeer problems we face other then just health care. i tend to find that aaalott. That's pretty much all i did this week. I didn't do much because i'm working on getting prepared for the next check point.
comments:
Emily: I'm sure it's a bad sighn if a website doesn't have an author. a copy right not so much. i think the author is way more important then the copyright.
a blog can somtimes help to maybe make you understand things more..but don't depend on it unless the person writing them have websites to back their arguements up.
a website that has both no website and author is probably not worth it. It's very important to have them both or atleast one of em. hope that helped kindaa.
the end. bye
Thomas
ReplyDeleteBalance the Budget
I now have 10 sources on my debate, but I need more. I have to find the % of GDP (gross domestic product), but that is easy. the information is available to me, I just need to find it. I think the hardest part of this debate is my Organization. Some of the topics are related to the budget now. Like the big spenders Health-care, Military, and Social Security. The big Questions are which of the categories do we chose to file down the cuts, and how much per year.
to Bryan: for your con argument, the Business sector is run well, but don't you think that it is corrupt, because there are example that I know from my health care debate.
cap & trade.
ReplyDeletein total i have about twenty five sources, and a lot of notecards. for my outlines, i think i'm gonna make my con saying that there is no need to change, i just think it's going to be hard to say that there's not a need to change. i found alot of information about global warming and statistics and stuff. i also have some sources saying why not to use c&t, and why to use c&t
yes- less carbon emmisons
no- it's going to cause fights
okaay, so i think that's about it.
i hope it's good enough ? (:
RE : Morgan ( :
that information seeems really helpful to your debate