I commend you for the excellent work you have done so far on your debates. Keep developing your understanding of the stock issues, broadening your research, and taking copious notes. Please post your comments here for this week.
James Debate "Nuclear Reactors" I hope this is the right place type the blog... I have learned in the past couple weeks that Nuclear Reactor are better than coal plants. Also yesterday (Thursday) ihad dinner with my aunt and she brought her general friend (seriously) and I talked to him about it since since he spent alot of time around Congress he new a lot about my topic. As I was talking to him he told me even thought Reactor are more air friendly than coal plants, the waste the it produces goes into the water its surrounded by and that kills things in the water cause the waste make the water warm and polute. So the things that are living in the water die. So I learned a lot from Generl Collins this weekend ( that was his name ) and I am using some info he gave me in my debate so I hope this post cause I did this on my phone so leave a comment
Haddon Debate "CEO Pay" SO far ive gathered a couple of sources and notecards on my debate... The main issue as I see it so far is that is it fair or not to pay the CEO that much. Out of the top 500 companies, the CEO's of those companies get paid about 10 million dollars on average. From my reseacrh I also found that CEO's have dzeons of responsibilities and tasks that they must complete, and that there are several uncommmon traits in people that are required to be a CEO. I also found however that the People that work for these companies can barely afford the cost of living. my Plans are in the development stage, but I am almost done with one of them. Im sure as a uncover more infomation and sources that those plans will change however.
James, I think you shoudl have asked the general where he got his information, and consider if he is an expert at all. I also recomend that you look into the enrgy output comparison of coal plants and nuclear plants.
James To Haddon Sooo haddon as I read your blog since its the only one I see right now. My advice is to find how much money those people who barely make money and compare it to the C.E.O. of some of the companies and see how much more money they make. This is just a suggestion.
this is the second time i have to write this because i didn't have anything to publish it with before.
We should reduce CEO pay
PRO
CEO pay should be restricted because they are overpaid and it is bad for the economy.
i have numbers that compare the salaries of top paid CEOs and low paid CEOs to the average pay of a person. CEO pay has contributed to debt of economy, and the best way to reduce CEO pay is to have compensation committees, the people who decide what CEOs are paid, review compensation plans, or the plans that are used to determine what CEOs are paid. practical: compensation committees can review plans easily, because they already make plans for all companies workable: it would solve the problem because each plan is tailored personally to one companies needs.
CON We do not need to reduce CEO pay because CEOs deserve the pay they get and CEO pay is fixing itself.
same numbers as pro there is no need to change form the way things are now, because if we reduce CEO pay, CEOs will be unhappy, resulting in lower productivity.
CEO pay is fixing itself: the intense competition for CEOs used to increase CEOs salaries, but CEOs are not in as high a demand as they used to be, resulting in lower pay. because companies profits shrink, so does the amount CEOs get paid shrinks also
Comments james: i agree with haddon (how do you know he's an expert) and also you should get numbers on the amount of waste nuclear power produces compared to coal plants
haddon: if CEOs are only valued for certain traits, cant other workers be trained to acquire those traits and also why do CEOs deserve such high pay even though they're the leaders of failing companies?
Brian--This is Mr J--what makes you think that "CEOs are not in as high a demand as they used to be..." It seems to me that the current economic crisis has not changed the number of corporations very much.
Neil The priority of Congress should be to Balance the Budget.
Now that the proposition's words have been tweaked a little, my argument for con has also been tweaked. I will still say that we shouldn't balance the budget for the same reasons, but I will add the reason that there are other priorities right now. We do not have to balance the budget at the current time.
I also found an article on headline news that I can just mention as an example. It says that the Senate just passed a legislation giving more benefits for those without jobs. I do not agree with this legislation at all. If we want to balance the budget (which we do for pro) then our then we should be cutting spending and increasing revenue. We should definitely not be giving more benefits or spending more money on entitlement programs.Although I have not made any more note cards, I have been researching and thinking about my topic quite a bit.
Pro: I partially agree with your pro argument. I agree that they are overpaid and it is unfair to the actual workers. However, you haven't prove how they have made the economy worse. Also don't compensation comittees already review compensation plans. Aren't they the ones who decide how much CEOs are paid?
Con:I disagree with your con argument. Does it really matter that CEOs will be unhappy if we lower their pay and raise the pay of those who need it? Also, as Mr. J said, how is the demand for CEO pay going down when the number of corporations is the same? Finally, you didn't explain how the profit of companies go down you just made that assertion.
Overall, your argument are okay, I just think you need to give more proof which you may or may not have. I am not sure.
Morgan Falasca "Remove the Troops from Afghanistan"
PRO: As the propostion states, we should remove our troops from Afghanistan. One is because of the amount of money we are spending to keep our troops in Afghanistan is absolutley outrageous. We currently spend close too $2 billion dollars a month to supply our troops, new weapons, ect. Another reasons is that we are killing innocent people rather than the al-Qaeda's or Talibans. In the battle, we recently captured 27 bad guys (Talibans) but along with that we killed 15 innocent men, women and children. An article by TIME, stated that the troops reported that they don't believe that the al-Qaeda's currently aren't even residing in Afghanistan. This leads me to think that we maybe fighting a war against the Talibans (who had little involvment in 9/11) and innocent people. Is this good or bad? (Probably for CON outline). I recently, myself came to a conclusion that if we withdraw, would this cause another 9/11? I will look into this further and let you know what I have found next post :).
To Bryan: I have a few questions about your work posted: (PRO) 1) Could there be other reasons for the bad economy, not just from the CEO's? (CON) 2) Even though the CEO's are getting paid "so much more," does that mean that they are working harder and should get paid more?
For your PRO, I know you don't need to put a lot of number in this blog but I think you will need more evidence, but as of right now, you have a good argument.
To James: I have the numbers right here for average worker pay. THe average American worker gets paid approximately 43,000 dollars a year. Including Income tax and other costs, this leaves very little money to the person/family. I am looking into cases of CEO corruption for my Pro argument. But first, in response to Brian's comment on my previous post. "if CEOs are only valued for certain traits, cant other workers be trained to acquire those traits and also why do CEOs deserve such high pay even though they're the leaders of failing companies?" If a worker was trained to be a CEO, yes, they would be deserving as a CEO to recieve that pay. If they developed hose traits they could become a CEO. And in your statement, you imply as if all CEOs are CEOs of failing companies, while their not. Getting back to the point of CEO corruption; If oudn one case involving a major consruction company in New York. They commited Fraud on 102 cases. They were required to conduct a series of field tests, which they did not. I got this from Business Week.
Morgan: How would withdrawing cause another 911 is my question for you.
Neil: Your plan is flawed; by cutting spending, it does not hekp the economy whatsoever. It may balance the budget, but what causes problems in the economy is lack of circulation. For example, if the government stops spending, then several benefactors of governemnt spending will lose moey, they in turn will not be able to spend as much. This process continues in an infinte circle, letting people spend less money. The answer for balancing the budget is to cut spending yes, but it would hinder the restabilization of the economy.
As almost every single one of you said last time, I need to work on the economic impact of the Olympics. So I did. I did a little research and found out that so countries have a big gain, some countries have a big loss, and some countries stay the same in their economy after they host Olympics. There is a great variation in this. I think it's good and bad. I think the good part is that i will be able to use the bad economic impact in pro,and the good economic impact in con. But I also think this is pretty bad because it would make an easy, hard to answer question my opponent could ask me. Example: Pro: Even though there are bad economic impacts of the Olympics, aren't there also good one's?
Con: Even though there are "good" economic impacts of the Olympics, aren't there also "bad" one's?
So this leads me to a question. How can I use the good or bad economic impacts in my debate without giving an easy question away to my opponent?
Bryan:::::: In your PRO argument and how you mentioned that high CEO pay will lower the economy. As long as you backed that up with facts (which knowing you you probably did) i think that that will be a very good point to make. I think your CON arguments will be harder to do because "only CEO's will care if you lower their pay. They won't do anything. Also, i don't think most people would agree that CEO's deserve their pay (unless they are CEO's.)
Morgan: I like your idea that removing troops from Afghanistan will cause another 9/11. I think that there is a problem with this though because it is a very small chance that the attack would happen on September 11th again (just kidding.) But seriously i think it would be cool if you somehow related this theory to the actual 9/11 for example maybe they attacked because the US withdrew forces from somewhere else (or something like that).
Mohammad Kazmi Should US withdraw forces from afganistan? For my pro i got new criteria and better reasoning I have found 3 more sources from washington post and 2 from nytimes. 869,720 afghanistanies have died in the war and a huge majority of them are poor, inocent, civilians. I think we should stay nuetral and start increasing securiy at airports and borders so terrorists can't enter our country and we won't have to enter theirs. My con for that is that no matter how protecting we are, we can't stop terrorist and the only way to dispose of them is to kill them and this way our own people aren't at risk. Also There are inocent women and men dying but thats because they harbor and train terrorists and we can't have such a huge threat to U.S. or we could ruin our nation. Also they 9/11 attack made us look weak and easy to attack so if we don't keep fighting we will be an easy target for other strong nations like china. Also I think Obama's plan is great and if we send 40,000 more troops there will be a less chance any of them will die and will kill a bunch of terrorists and hopfully al qaueda so we don't have to risk americans lives and then start sending troops back.
Comment on someones:Dhruv I think Dhruv has a good theory but majority of counteries that hoste Olypics have better sideeffects than worse. Like publicity, money, and a championship which could boost the economy. It's risky to try that question but will require thought.
Oh hi, this blog will appear to be very foolish due to the fact that this is my first, so to save yourself, please press the X button on the top right corner of your screen. NOW.
Looking at the others I guess I just say what I'm doing and brag about it while trying to break down others. LAWLZ
In my pro I am basically stating that the main way we get energy now, fossil fuels (gas and coal and petroleum) are doing 1 good and many bad. The good is that we get basic energy. The bad is they pollute the air (Global Warming, Smog, problems with lungs) (check http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/energypolution.html) with many bad things. We have other options to get energy, so why not? The renewable energy (green) like solar and wind may see fine, but a few problems exist with this form of energy (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html). It will cost a lot of money to build the windmills and panels. Then we have to transport the energy other places because these windmills and panels are in the desert. Now thing the cost of all this, and imagine the fuel we burned trying to move and setting up this equipment. Nuclear energy is the k00lest. It will cost a lot of money to set up, but less than "green" energy. The risks involved with the nuclear energy are higher, like MINOR explosions and radioactive waste. We have gotten better at preventing explosions of nuclear reactors through talking to the countries that have made them, and we already have a list of ways to dispose of the waste, 1.)Leaving it where it is Disposing of it in various ways 2.)Sub-seabed disposal 3.)Very deep-hole disposal 4.)Space disposal 5.)Ice-sheet disposal 6.)Island geologic disposal 7.)Deep-well injection disposal 8.)Making it safer through advanced technologies (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml)
Now these advanced technologies, according to what I found, would be advanced technology. SINGULAR. The A.T. is re-using the waste. The waste we generate still has 95% of the power in it.
Please check the websites I gave and tell me if you think they are good. PLZ (Shift+Semi-Colon. Shift+0 key)
Emily Mae Kaplitz Demarcates are to blame for every thing
I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I cant find any info that is not either the gov or opinions. what should i do?????
I added some note cards and tweaked the outline every day.
to Morgan don't you think that it will take a lot of money and time to with draw troops? Don't you think people are doing there best to take troops out now?:-)
Evaa:Democrats polocies are to blame for most of this country's current problems.
okay great, so i just typed a whole comment like one minute ago..and i forgot to send in..and so i clicked back by accident..and the comment was deleted..so now im ganna have to right the whole thing again..so here we go..it's ganna be shorter because i don't feel like typing it all again..
Okay,so last time i was having troubele with finding why the republicans were bad..i don't know why i was having that trouble..because i found many new things..i'm still having trouble on fitting all of this together in my head..but i think if i look into each problem that the democrats or reublicans have i'd understand it more. I aslo had trouble with my con value. i looked at what emily said..but i just don't get where she'd get that value. i'm going to have to look more into it. oh and i also found better sources..less opinions..like from www.senate.com..and so on. i think i put one more thing before my comment was deleted, but i forget what it was.
okay to mohammad and morgan:
well to morgan first: 9/11 may happen again just becaus the troops are being withdrawed..that may be one reason why we should maybe keep the troops there..to keep that from happening. You said the tribalins or whatever weren't that invloved in 9/11 but how do you know..and how do you know they might not want do have that happen this time..because were causing trouble with them.
to both mohammad and morgan: how are we going to withdraw troops??
and to emily..i'm having the same problems too.. if anyoneeeee could help us out with that that'd be great. you'd probably not be able to do that though..any suggestions would be good though..thanksss
1- who's that "said said said...." person !?! 2- everyone said brian instead of bryan :P and now onto me (: since my last blog, i have found and read four sources. not much work, but those sources are very helpful. two of the sources talk mainly about global warming. i think that to really talk about cap and trade, i need to discuss global warming because that's the need issue. so yeah, not much work done this week/: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& to emily and eva. i think that having government sorces are helpful because your getting both the positive-bias and the negative-bias. but i think that you guys still need non government sources to see how the people that the democrats and non-democrats are taking them. if you can understand my point. ahah. okay, night night (:
Jordana Rosenberg International Sporting Events Such as the Olympics Do More Harm than Good Week of March 8st - March 12th
Over the past week I have found nine more sources (total 23) and I have read them. Two sources are blogs and I plan to research the idea's they have to back them up. One is about drug testing and one is about taxes that people have to pay for the Olympics. The other few are about the positives and negatives of hosting Olympic and International sporting events. i have made the bibliography cards on easy bib. I plan on using all of the information I gathered in my outline and taking notes. (I don't like taking notes before I put it in my outline because I end up having unnecessary note cards.)
If you have any suggestions on things I should find please let me know!
Dhruv -
I think that it is smart to include information about the economy, but there are other important things too, international relationships, drug usage . . . I would also try to answer this question - I spending money bad?
Caleb???? (Nameless person: Said Said Said) -
Good points; but will expensive products save money eventually and is there a way to use that 95% of waste?
Morgan - If it is possible I think you should compare before 9/11 to Afghanistan and if it is similar then you have a reason to believe that Afghanistan's troops could attack America.
OK.... I found a website that talks about all the cons for con. Their main argument is that the reason why the cap and trade wont help is because it will raise prices of energy 15%-20%. This leads to a highly regressive tax on the U.s. consumers, and since alot of things have to do with energy alot of prices will go up. This discourages the idea of electronic cars (global warming solution) Because companies can not produce as much their most likely going to raise carbon. If we tax carbon you tax fertilizer and pesticides $15/ per ton C02 would increase fertilizer production costs by about $60/ per ton,which means we will have a food tax.Since people use most of their paychecks on food, cooking, heating, and gasoline, so this is not good. There was something about caol and how that will have a tax, but i wont go into details. And on another website Representive John Boehner of ohio said that " The bill will also cost 2.3 million to 2.7 million American jobs"
So if this is costing money and jobs then why do we want it?
To mo: Pro: so what about those terrorists within the country already? what do you think they will do if you don't do anything about them?
con: If they are harboring and training terrorrists doesn't that mean they could train enough people to kill those 40,000 troops? If you send people in they will die and that does no good for any one
Neil, its Mr J. Consider the size of the unemployment benefit extenstion-- $10 B dollars in a roughly $3 Trillion dollar budget is a tiny fraction-- and one could argue(as Keynesian economists do) that those workers will then go out and spend that money and help the economy. Worth thinking about...
I didn't really work on much since my last post, but so far I fixed some of my note cards so I can actually read them. I also found some complicated sources that describe the problems with the budget in the past, and how to fix them. I'm still trying to figure it out. I also need to watch out for bias sources.
To Kasey: isn't there already a tax on our food? and if there will be a tax how much % increase would it be? also how much of people money actually goes to that stuff you said about common needs; what about luxury items?
Dhruv-How much does it cost to host the olympics? How what could that money be spent on instead of the olympics? Consider those "opportunity costs" when you consider the economic impact.
@Kasey--do you recall that we already rebutted those arguments about losing jobs and increasing energy costs? You need to analyze and filter the sources you read.
Jamez Nuclear Reators I am now about to post a comment it is 10:02 p.m. so this should count. Now... I hope this will help my debate b/c so far I only have one source on fossil fuels, but I have others. There has been only one small accident in Nuclear reators...in the united states. This accident was just a small leak in the plant that took a decade (I Felt smart there). But there has been another accident in.... Russia, this accident was a huge EXPLOSION (hope I spelled that right). Now even if we do use differnpent types of Reactors, the government is planning on building bigger reactors. And say if there is a bigger leak in one of our plants what would happen maybe it would spread in a 30 mile radius and effect ppl in harmful way and would make its surrondings radioactive.
Now I hope you put that picture in your head and think about that if you lived near a NUCLEAR reactor. Lolz idk y iz saids tht, but now I have to tell someone what will help them or... or hurt them
I choose... dhruv since I didn't pick on him last week
To Dhruv now Dhruv I think you are doing a value debate so why are you stating side effect in your debate you don't need to. (At least I don't think so) S o why are you but I'll cut you some slack since you did a persasion debate last time. So just make sure u state the good things in your speech and use the bad things in your rebutle. I hope I knew what I was talking about for you and I hope its right. Thanx lolololololololololol
Jaxx Ottinger/Whitey J Should we withdraw our forces from Afghaistan.
One of my main questions is if Obamas plan really works. Because we are sending 100,000 troops rate now to Afghanistan which means a lot more deaths and more civilian deaths. So that is my main question. Another one of my questions is that people say if we withdraw our fores rate now their will be a terrorist attack. But I think if we withdraw our forces their will be the same amout of a chance of a terroris attack than not withdrawing. Because they want to kill us anyway so it wont matter.
My favorite place to get good sources at is politifact.com. One reason is because famous people like John Mcain say all of these little details about the topic that help out a lot. Also because they have really good sources. One is that Obama is trying to refund our troops. I use prop to determine if it is a good source to use. And most of the time it is a good source.
Morgan; Just because we already ahd a 911 attack dosen' mean we are going to have it again. One reason is because the securit is a lot better than back then. Because that is what they are scared about having another terrorist attack liKE 911.
Alec, ok I found a number of articles I thought we good helpful articles. they were pretty much good because some of them actually said "the pros and cons of health care". so yea that pretty much gave me allot of info to put into the outlines. I basically just contradict myself in both of them. it literally states in it. pros for small business employers cons for small business employers, pros for health insurance companies cons for health insurance companies. etc. ect. etc. so any way moving beyond certain articles. another source I found was the one mr.j posted which leads to a whole websites of like blogs saying stuff about health care. there’s a whole bunch more of them I need to read but from the six of them I read already I got allot of good info from it. And then of course I have the usual websites saying stuff like why we should pass the health care or why we shouldn’t from a bunch of popular website. Business week, Washington post. Ect
Alex if you want the URL for the pros and cons website thing here it is http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2394364/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_the_current.html?cat=3 copy and paste that or just type in what are the pros and cons of the current healthcare reform act judy and now for comments to said said said said said said (aka caleb) i like your points and you clearly have a lot of sources i think you should talk about your con side a little
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames
ReplyDeleteDebate "Nuclear Reactors"
I hope this is the right place type the blog...
I have learned in the past couple weeks that Nuclear Reactor are better than coal plants. Also yesterday (Thursday) ihad dinner with my aunt and she brought her general friend (seriously) and I talked to him about it since since he spent alot of time around Congress he new a lot about my topic. As I was talking to him he told me even thought Reactor are more air friendly than coal plants, the waste the it produces goes into the water its surrounded by and that kills things in the water cause the waste make the water warm and polute. So the things that are living in the water die. So I learned a lot from Generl Collins this weekend ( that was his name ) and I am using some info he gave me in my debate so I hope this post cause I did this on my phone so leave a comment
Haddon
ReplyDeleteDebate "CEO Pay"
SO far ive gathered a couple of sources and notecards on my debate...
The main issue as I see it so far is that is it fair or not to pay the CEO that much. Out of the top 500 companies, the CEO's of those companies get paid about 10 million dollars on average. From my reseacrh I also found that CEO's have dzeons of responsibilities and tasks that they must complete, and that there are several uncommmon traits in people that are required to be a CEO. I also found however that the People that work for these companies can barely afford the cost of living. my Plans are in the development stage, but I am almost done with one of them. Im sure as a uncover more infomation and sources that those plans will change however.
From Haddon
ReplyDeleteTO James
James, I think you shoudl have asked the general where he got his information, and consider if he is an expert at all. I also recomend that you look into the enrgy output comparison of coal plants and nuclear plants.
James
ReplyDeleteTo Haddon
Sooo haddon as I read your blog since its the only one I see right now. My advice is to find how much money those people who barely make money and compare it to the C.E.O. of some of the companies and see how much more money they make. This is just a suggestion.
this is the second time i have to write this because i didn't have anything to publish it with before.
ReplyDeleteWe should reduce CEO pay
PRO
CEO pay should be restricted because they are overpaid and it is bad for the economy.
i have numbers that compare the salaries of top paid CEOs and low paid CEOs to the average pay of a person.
CEO pay has contributed to debt of economy, and the best way to reduce CEO pay is to have compensation committees, the people who decide what CEOs are paid, review compensation plans, or the plans that are used to determine what CEOs are paid.
practical: compensation committees can review plans easily, because they already make plans for all companies
workable: it would solve the problem because each plan is tailored personally to one companies needs.
CON
We do not need to reduce CEO pay because CEOs deserve the pay they get and CEO pay is fixing itself.
same numbers as pro
there is no need to change form the way things are now, because if we reduce CEO pay, CEOs will be unhappy, resulting in lower productivity.
CEO pay is fixing itself:
the intense competition for CEOs used to increase CEOs salaries, but CEOs are not in as high a demand as they used to be, resulting in lower pay.
because companies profits shrink, so does the amount CEOs get paid shrinks also
Comments
james:
i agree with haddon (how do you know he's an expert) and also you should get numbers on the amount of waste nuclear power produces compared to coal plants
haddon:
if CEOs are only valued for certain traits, cant other workers be trained to acquire those traits and also why do CEOs deserve such high pay even though they're the leaders of failing companies?
Brian--This is Mr J--what makes you think that "CEOs are not in as high a demand as they used to be..." It seems to me that the current economic crisis has not changed the number of corporations very much.
ReplyDeleteNeil
ReplyDeleteThe priority of Congress should be to Balance the Budget.
Now that the proposition's words have been tweaked a little, my argument for con has also been tweaked. I will still say that we shouldn't balance the budget for the same reasons, but I will add the reason that there are other priorities right now. We do not have to balance the budget at the current time.
I also found an article on headline news that I can just mention as an example. It says that the Senate just passed a legislation giving more benefits for those without jobs. I do not agree with this legislation at all. If we want to balance the budget (which we do for pro) then our then we should be cutting spending and increasing revenue. We should definitely not be giving more benefits or spending more money on entitlement programs.Although I have not made any more note cards, I have been researching and thinking about my topic quite a bit.
Neil
ReplyDeleteFor Brian
Pro: I partially agree with your pro argument. I agree that they are overpaid and it is unfair to the actual workers. However, you haven't prove how they have made the economy worse. Also don't compensation comittees already review compensation plans. Aren't they the ones who decide how much CEOs are paid?
Con:I disagree with your con argument. Does it really matter that CEOs will be unhappy if we lower their pay and raise the pay of those who need it? Also, as Mr. J said, how is the demand for CEO pay going down when the number of corporations is the same? Finally, you didn't explain how the profit of companies go down you just made that assertion.
Overall, your argument are okay, I just think you need to give more proof which you may or may not have. I am not sure.
Morgan Falasca
ReplyDelete"Remove the Troops from Afghanistan"
PRO: As the propostion states, we should remove our troops from Afghanistan.
One is because of the amount of money we are spending to keep our troops in Afghanistan is absolutley outrageous. We currently spend close too $2 billion dollars a month to supply our troops, new weapons, ect.
Another reasons is that we are killing innocent people rather than the al-Qaeda's or Talibans. In the battle, we recently captured 27 bad guys (Talibans) but along with that we killed 15 innocent men, women and children.
An article by TIME, stated that the troops reported that they don't believe that the al-Qaeda's currently aren't even residing in Afghanistan. This leads me to think that we maybe fighting a war against the Talibans (who had little involvment in 9/11) and innocent people. Is this good or bad? (Probably for CON outline).
I recently, myself came to a conclusion that if we withdraw, would this cause another 9/11? I will look into this further and let you know what I have found next post :).
To Bryan:
I have a few questions about your work posted:
(PRO) 1) Could there be other reasons for the bad economy, not just from the CEO's?
(CON) 2) Even though the CEO's are getting paid "so much more," does that mean that they are working harder and should get paid more?
For your PRO, I know you don't need to put a lot of number in this blog but I think you will need more evidence, but as of right now, you have a good argument.
Current Event Blog
ReplyDeleteHaddon Antonucci
To James: I have the numbers right here for average worker pay. THe average American worker gets paid approximately 43,000 dollars a year. Including Income tax and other costs, this leaves very little money to the person/family. I am looking into cases of CEO corruption for my Pro argument. But first, in response to Brian's comment on my previous post. "if CEOs are only valued for certain traits, cant other workers be trained to acquire those traits and also why do CEOs deserve such high pay even though they're the leaders of failing companies?" If a worker was trained to be a CEO, yes, they would be deserving as a CEO to recieve that pay. If they developed hose traits they could become a CEO. And in your statement, you imply as if all CEOs are CEOs of failing companies, while their not. Getting back to the point of CEO corruption; If oudn one case involving a major consruction company in New York. They commited Fraud on 102 cases. They were required to conduct a series of field tests, which they did not. I got this from Business Week.
Haddons Comment on Neil and Morgan
ReplyDeleteMorgan: How would withdrawing cause another 911 is my question for you.
Neil: Your plan is flawed; by cutting spending, it does not hekp the economy whatsoever. It may balance the budget, but what causes problems in the economy is lack of circulation. For example, if the government stops spending, then several benefactors of governemnt spending will lose moey, they in turn will not be able to spend as much. This process continues in an infinte circle, letting people spend less money. The answer for balancing the budget is to cut spending yes, but it would hinder the restabilization of the economy.
Dhruv K. Patel
ReplyDelete"Olympics Debate"
As almost every single one of you said last time, I need to work on the economic impact of the Olympics. So I did. I did a little research and found out that so countries have a big gain, some countries have a big loss, and some countries stay the same in their economy after they host Olympics. There is a great variation in this. I think it's good and bad. I think the good part is that i will be able to use the bad economic impact in pro,and the good economic impact in con. But I also think this is pretty bad because it would make an easy, hard to answer question my opponent could ask me.
Example:
Pro: Even though there are bad economic impacts of the Olympics, aren't there also good one's?
Con: Even though there are "good" economic impacts of the Olympics, aren't there also "bad" one's?
So this leads me to a question. How can I use the good or bad economic impacts in my debate without giving an easy question away to my opponent?
Here is one of my sources for this:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~rosenl/sports%20Folder/Economic%20Impact%20of%20Olympics%20PWC.pdf
Answers
Bryan:::::: In your PRO argument and how you mentioned that high CEO pay will lower the economy. As long as you backed that up with facts (which knowing you you probably did) i think that that will be a very good point to make. I think your CON arguments will be harder to do because "only CEO's will care if you lower their pay. They won't do anything. Also, i don't think most people would agree that CEO's deserve their pay (unless they are CEO's.)
Morgan: I like your idea that removing troops from Afghanistan will cause another 9/11. I think that there is a problem with this though because it is a very small chance that the attack would happen on September 11th again (just kidding.) But seriously i think it would be cool if you somehow related this theory to the actual 9/11 for example maybe they attacked because the US withdrew forces from somewhere else (or something like that).
Mohammad Kazmi
ReplyDeleteShould US withdraw forces from afganistan?
For my pro i got new criteria and better reasoning
I have found 3 more sources from washington post and 2 from nytimes.
869,720 afghanistanies have died in the war and a huge majority of them are poor, inocent, civilians.
I think we should stay nuetral and start increasing securiy at airports and borders so terrorists can't enter our country and we won't have to enter theirs.
My con for that is that no matter how protecting we are, we can't stop terrorist and the only way to dispose of them is to kill them and this way our own people aren't at risk.
Also There are inocent women and men dying but thats because they harbor and train terrorists and we can't have such a huge threat to U.S. or we could ruin our nation.
Also they 9/11 attack made us look weak and easy to attack so if we don't keep fighting we will be an easy target for other strong nations like china.
Also I think Obama's plan is great and if we send 40,000 more troops there will be a less chance any of them will die and will kill a bunch of terrorists and hopfully al qaueda so we don't have to risk americans lives and then start sending troops back.
Comment on someones:Dhruv
I think Dhruv has a good theory but majority of counteries that hoste Olypics have better sideeffects than worse. Like publicity, money, and a championship which could boost the economy. It's risky to try that question but will require thought.
Oh hi, this blog will appear to be very foolish due to the fact that this is my first, so to save yourself, please press the X button on the top right corner of your screen. NOW.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the others I guess I just say what I'm doing and brag about it while trying to break down others. LAWLZ
In my pro I am basically stating that the main way we get energy now, fossil fuels (gas and coal and petroleum) are doing 1 good and many bad. The good is that we get basic energy. The bad is they pollute the air (Global Warming, Smog, problems with lungs) (check http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/energypolution.html) with many bad things. We have other options to get energy, so why not? The renewable energy (green) like solar and wind may see fine, but a few problems exist with this form of energy (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html). It will cost a lot of money to build the windmills and panels. Then we have to transport the energy other places because these windmills and panels are in the desert. Now thing the cost of all this, and imagine the fuel we burned trying to move and setting up this equipment. Nuclear energy is the k00lest. It will cost a lot of money to set up, but less than "green" energy. The risks involved with the nuclear energy are higher, like MINOR explosions and radioactive waste. We have gotten better at preventing explosions of nuclear reactors through talking to the countries that have made them, and we already have a list of ways to dispose of the waste,
1.)Leaving it where it is
Disposing of it in various ways
2.)Sub-seabed disposal
3.)Very deep-hole disposal
4.)Space disposal
5.)Ice-sheet disposal
6.)Island geologic disposal
7.)Deep-well injection disposal
8.)Making it safer through advanced technologies
(http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml)
Now these advanced technologies, according to what I found, would be advanced technology. SINGULAR. The A.T. is re-using the waste. The waste we generate still has 95% of the power in it.
Please check the websites I gave and tell me if you think they are good. PLZ (Shift+Semi-Colon. Shift+0 key)
Emily Mae Kaplitz
ReplyDeleteDemarcates are to blame for every thing
I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I cant find any info that is not either the gov or opinions. what should i do?????
I added some note cards and tweaked the outline every day.
to Morgan
don't you think that it will take a lot of money and time to with draw troops? Don't you think people are doing there best to take troops out now?:-)
Evaa:Democrats polocies are to blame for most of this country's current problems.
ReplyDeleteokay great, so i just typed a whole comment like one minute ago..and i forgot to send in..and so i clicked back by accident..and the comment was deleted..so now im ganna have to right the whole thing again..so here we go..it's ganna be shorter because i don't feel like typing it all again..
Okay,so last time i was having troubele with finding why the republicans were bad..i don't know why i was having that trouble..because i found many new things..i'm still having trouble on fitting all of this together in my head..but i think if i look into each problem that the democrats or reublicans have i'd understand it more. I aslo had trouble with my con value. i looked at what emily said..but i just don't get where she'd get that value. i'm going to have to look more into it. oh and i also found better sources..less opinions..like from www.senate.com..and so on. i think i put one more thing before my comment was deleted, but i forget what it was.
okay to mohammad and morgan:
well to morgan first: 9/11 may happen again just becaus the troops are being withdrawed..that may be one reason why we should maybe keep the troops there..to keep that from happening. You said the tribalins or whatever weren't that invloved in 9/11 but how do you know..and how do you know they might not want do have that happen this time..because were causing trouble with them.
to both mohammad and morgan:
how are we going to withdraw troops??
evaa:
ReplyDeleteand to emily..i'm having the same problems too..
if anyoneeeee could help us out with that that'd be great. you'd probably not be able to do that though..any suggestions would be good though..thanksss
1- who's that "said said said...." person !?!
ReplyDelete2- everyone said brian instead of bryan :P
and now onto me (:
since my last blog, i have found and read four sources. not much work, but those sources are very helpful.
two of the sources talk mainly about global warming. i think that to really talk about cap and trade, i need to discuss global warming because that's the need issue.
so yeah, not much work done this week/:
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
to emily and eva.
i think that having government sorces are helpful because your getting both the positive-bias and the negative-bias. but i think that you guys still need non government sources to see how the people that the democrats and non-democrats are taking them. if you can understand my point. ahah.
okay, night night (:
Jordana Rosenberg
ReplyDeleteInternational Sporting Events Such
as the Olympics Do More Harm than Good
Week of March 8st - March 12th
Over the past week I have found nine more sources (total 23) and I have read them. Two sources are blogs and I plan to research the idea's they have to back them up. One is about drug testing and one is about taxes that people have to pay for the Olympics. The other few are about the positives and negatives of hosting Olympic and International sporting events. i have made the bibliography cards on easy bib. I plan on using all of the information I gathered in my outline and taking notes. (I don't like taking notes before I put it in my outline because I end up having unnecessary note cards.)
If you have any suggestions on things I should find please let me know!
Dhruv -
I think that it is smart to include information about the economy, but there are other important things too, international relationships, drug usage . . . I would also try to answer this question - I spending money bad?
Caleb???? (Nameless person: Said Said Said) -
Good points; but will expensive products save money eventually and is there a way to use that 95% of waste?
Morgan -
If it is possible I think you should compare before 9/11 to Afghanistan and if it is similar then you have a reason to believe that Afghanistan's troops could attack America.
Kasey
ReplyDeleteCap and trade
OK.... I found a website that talks about all the cons for con. Their main argument is that the reason why the cap and trade wont help is because it will raise prices of energy 15%-20%. This leads to a highly regressive tax on the U.s. consumers, and since alot of things have to do with energy alot of prices will go up. This discourages the idea of electronic cars (global warming solution)
Because companies can not produce as much their most likely going to raise carbon. If we tax carbon you tax fertilizer and pesticides $15/ per ton C02 would increase fertilizer production costs by about $60/ per ton,which means we will have a food tax.Since people use most of their paychecks on food, cooking, heating, and gasoline, so this is not good.
There was something about caol and how that will have a tax, but i wont go into details.
And on another website Representive John Boehner of ohio said that " The bill will also cost 2.3 million to 2.7 million American jobs"
So if this is costing money and jobs then why do we want it?
To mo:
Pro: so what about those terrorists within the country already? what do you think they will do if you don't do anything about them?
con: If they are harboring and training terrorrists doesn't that mean they could train enough people to kill those 40,000 troops? If you send people in they will die and that does no good for any one
Neil, its Mr J. Consider the size of the unemployment benefit extenstion-- $10 B dollars in a roughly $3 Trillion dollar budget is a tiny fraction-- and one could argue(as Keynesian economists do) that those workers will then go out and spend that money and help the economy. Worth thinking about...
ReplyDeleteThomas
ReplyDeleteBalance the Budget
I didn't really work on much since my last post, but so far I fixed some of my note cards so I can actually read them. I also found some complicated sources that describe the problems with the budget in the past, and how to fix them. I'm still trying to figure it out. I also need to watch out for bias sources.
To Kasey: isn't there already a tax on our food? and if there will be a tax how much % increase would it be? also how much of people money actually goes to that stuff you said about common needs; what about luxury items?
Dhruv-How much does it cost to host the olympics? How what could that money be spent on instead of the olympics? Consider those "opportunity costs" when you consider the economic impact.
ReplyDeleteNicole--You need something more substantive. You should use this forum to discuss ideas or arguments and to get feedback.
ReplyDelete@Haddon/Bryan--to what extent did generous CEO pay contribute to the mortage/banking crisis our economy is still trying to deal with.
ReplyDelete@Kasey--do you recall that we already rebutted those arguments about losing jobs and increasing energy costs? You need to analyze and filter the sources you read.
ReplyDeleteSome articles I found interesting(copy the link into your browser and click any blue links for more information):
ReplyDeleteBudget-
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/quote-1.html
Healthcare-
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/is-not-now-when.html
Afghanistan-
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/empire-for-ever-ctd-2.html
Jamez
ReplyDeleteNuclear Reators
I am now about to post a comment it is 10:02 p.m. so this should count. Now... I hope this will help my debate b/c so far I only have one source on fossil fuels, but I have others. There has been only one small accident in Nuclear reators...in the united states. This accident was just a small leak in the plant that took a decade (I Felt smart there). But there has been another accident in.... Russia, this accident was a huge EXPLOSION (hope I spelled that right). Now even if we do use differnpent types of Reactors, the government is planning on building bigger reactors. And say if there is a bigger leak in one of our plants what would happen maybe it would spread in a 30 mile radius and effect ppl in harmful way and would make its surrondings radioactive.
Now I hope you put that picture in your head and think about that if you lived near a NUCLEAR reactor. Lolz idk y iz saids tht, but now I have to tell someone what will help them or... or hurt them
I choose... dhruv since I didn't pick on him last week
To Dhruv now Dhruv I think you are doing a value debate so why are you stating side effect in your debate you don't need to. (At least I don't think so) S o why are you but I'll cut you some slack since you did a persasion debate last time. So just make sure u state the good things in your speech and use the bad things in your rebutle. I hope I knew what I was talking about for you and I hope its right. Thanx lolololololololololol
Jaxx Ottinger/Whitey J
ReplyDeleteShould we withdraw our forces from Afghaistan.
One of my main questions is if Obamas plan really works. Because we are sending 100,000 troops rate now to Afghanistan which means a lot more deaths and more civilian deaths. So that is my main question. Another one of my questions is that people say if we withdraw our fores rate now their will be a terrorist attack. But I think if we withdraw our forces their will be the same amout of a chance of a terroris attack than not withdrawing. Because they want to kill us anyway so it wont matter.
My favorite place to get good sources at is politifact.com. One reason is because famous people like John Mcain say all of these little details about the topic that help out a lot. Also because they have really good sources. One is that Obama is trying to refund our troops. I use prop to determine if it is a good source to use. And most of the time it is a good source.
Morgan; Just because we already ahd a 911 attack dosen' mean we are going to have it again. One reason is because the securit is a lot better than back then. Because that is what they are scared about having another terrorist attack liKE 911.
Alec,
ReplyDeleteok I found a number of articles I thought we good helpful articles. they were pretty much good because some of them actually said "the pros and cons of health care". so yea that pretty much gave me allot of info to put into the outlines. I basically just contradict myself in both of them. it literally states in it. pros for small business employers cons for small business employers, pros for health insurance companies cons for health insurance companies. etc. ect. etc.
so any way moving beyond certain articles. another source I found was the one mr.j posted which leads to a whole websites of like blogs saying stuff about health care. there’s a whole bunch more of them I need to read but from the six of them I read already I got allot of good info from it.
And then of course I have the usual websites saying stuff like why we should pass the health care or why we shouldn’t from a bunch of popular website. Business week, Washington post. Ect
Alex if you want the URL for the pros and cons website thing here it is
ReplyDeletehttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2394364/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_the_current.html?cat=3
copy and paste that or just type in
what are the pros and cons of the current healthcare reform act judy
and now for comments
to said said said said said said (aka caleb)
i like your points and you clearly have a lot of sources i think you should talk about your con side a little
(P.S. nice mario frog suite picture