Friday, April 16, 2010
Week of 19 April
A bit of a change of pace this week is in order. When you post this week, please explain how you plan on developing the need issue. You all remember the need issue, right? Tell me the situation that exists right now and show how that situation is A BIG problem that we must take immediate action to solve. For con, let me know if you plan to agree with the need to change or to disagree with it and why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Emily Mae Kaplitz
ReplyDeleteHelp!!!
I am so confused I have all my sources and my ideas but i am confused about what to do to make it the democrats their fault!!!
My issuses are
Medicare and Medicaid(Healthcare)
social security
Debt
I no all the evedence but how do i make it sound like the democrats fault with out using special pleading?????
@--Emily You know what issues your going to use, saying that "Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Debt" are all the democrats fault. You also have the evidence (or so it says). I wouldn't know much but it makes sense to go on Republican websites or T.V. channels, or even radio, and just take notes on why it is ONLY the Democrats fault. The republicans can help you on this, just listen to them.
ReplyDeleteNuclear Power people and Cap and trade debaters, check into this article by George Will: http://www.newsweek.com/id/236177
ReplyDeleteI will give my con Need issue
ReplyDeletewell actually it's going to be why we can't change...
1)The Cost
This nation is in too much debt right now and we can't afford NEW nuclear reactors. It would be too expensive and the only way we could get the money would be taxes. Outrageously high taxes
2) The risk
The plan to dispose of nuclear waste is foolish. Most plans are to leave it sitting where it is. Others are to hide it deep in the earth, and others suggest tombs in mountains.
These plans will work, for a while. Once the waste destroys the earth or tomb, it will go right into the earth. Not to sound like a tree hugger but it WILL go straight into your water and soil.
3) This is probably the main argument of the Con
The Non-Prolifiration Act
Yeah, I did
This act states that all countries who signed it must have the other countries review and inspect all things nuclear. Thats confusing so let me explain.
Country A wants a nuclear reactor, so Countries ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ have to inspect it. And I went through the alphabet because only 2 countries don't follow the act. North Korea and Iraq. Inspecting anything nuclear will take a VERY long time and the cost... well the cost is a HUGE problem.
We can't calculate the cost. It could be 100,000 to 9,000,000,000.
Well hit me with your best shot, I want to get better...
Haddon
ReplyDeleteFirst I am going to state the reason that this debate should even be brought up,which is basically the need to change.
Currently CEOs are able to fake records and documents, making their company seem in good health, making their stock values go up. Stock Values going up means that those CEOs will get a bigger paycheck. When the status of the company is discovered, that company crashes, basically robbing shareholders of all their money. This also can lose thousands of jobs for people. THis is the problem.
Con Argument
That taking away CEO pay would increase corruption. Take my cookie example from the last post. If the maximum is less you want more. Also that it is not the CEO's pay that is the cause for the corruption, it is the fact that the CEO wants that money, and is willing to do anything to get it that causes him to do this. If more power was given to shareholders to decide, nothing would occur. In Europe security laws gave more power to shareholders to make decisions in CEO pay, yet CEO pay continued to soar.
Pro Outline
For my pro Im going to say my plan. Placing a tax on CEO pay, saying that it cannot be larger than X% of the company or a certain percent of his pay will go to the government. This will make the CEO want to succeed and make the company more valuable, thereby increasing his pay. The government cannot control the free market, but they may tax it.
Comments
ReplyDeleteEmily- I agree with subject Delta. You have already pinpointed the current problems. By looking on republican websited or TV or radio, they will give reasons. Make sure to discern reasons from rants though, because some will give reasons, and just go back to the same thing over and over again, just because they dont have any other evidence. For example, talk about what negative problems the healthcare bill will have. Or what Problems social security has caused, or for your other side, what good things have those things done.
@Emily and Eva--Delta is giving the same advice I gave--go to conservative media and see what they are saying. Here is Hannity:
ReplyDeleteIt's very simple to me. I'm not a Republican, Michelle, I'm a conservative. Forty percent of this country is conservative. I like what Reagan said. Reagan said, what -- and by the way, he challenged Gerald Ford -- but Reagan said that, you know, no pale pastels, bold colors, it's not a third party we need, a revitalized second party: low taxes, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, energy independence, free market solutions.
@Caleb--You make several questionable points. Building a nuclear reactor is very expensive(perhaps 10 billion dollars--but you should get real numbers), but that cost is not born by the government, it is born by the energy company who builds it. There may be tax incentives involved(as there are in constructing fossil fuel power plants), but the government cost is negligible.
ReplyDeleteNext--disposal of the waste is a major concern in nuclear power, but keep in mind that 1000megagawatt nuclear power plants use very little fuel and so generate very little waste relative to coal. A large coal pp uses 220 rail road cars of coal every day. EVERY DAY. That coal produces millions of tons of carbon dioxide each SECOND and various toxic sludges. Also, the environmental depredation caused by coal mining is equally devestating.
As far as proliferation, ask yourself if the spent fuel in most reactors is even useable in a bomb without expensive and technologically difficuly refining. Also, consider alternatives to nuclear/Fossil fuels--are there any?
@Haddon--howare CEO's paid in America? Japan? Who decides on the pay? You are getting more and more clear, but you are making a slippery slope argument that desire for high pay will necessarily involve high levels of fraud. You are also dismissing the role of the board of a corporation in setting pay and monitoring performance. I've read several articles about these issues and you seem to have missed them, so I'm wondering how seriously you are taking the gathering of information.
ReplyDeleteNeil
ReplyDeleteBalance the Budget
As you said I will explain what my need to change is on each side.
Pro: First, I give a plethora of numbers explaining that the deficit is high, debt is high, etc. Then, I say that the reason we need to change is because all of the major programs (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) will eventually fail if we don't balance the budget. The government will be collecting taxes, but they won't have enough money to pay for the programs. For example, in Social Security, the retirement of the baby boom generation is coming up. However, the number of people employed will stay the same. Because Social Security is funded through payroll tax, the same amount of money will be coming in. Because there isn't enouigh money to pay for the "baby boomers" Social Security will fail without reform. For health care, the reason that it will fail is affected by high costs. The prices of health care is set to shoot up compared to GDP.
Although the aspect of my debate having to do with programs is important, another reason to change for my pro is that if we don't restrain spending, we will be like Greece now and Argentina in 2002. Argegntina's economy failed and Greece's economy is ffailing because of unrestrained spending. Failure to implement reform (for Greece reform by Eurozone) caused their economy's to fail. Argentina had to declare default and Greece will soon have a debt-GDP-ratio of 120%. Therefore if the United States doesn't restrain its spending, then it will be in a situation similar to what Argentina was in and Greece is in.
Con: In my Con argument, I state the same numbers as the pro and still say that there is a problem. However, I say that the way to fix this is not to balance the US federal budget. The way that we can fix our problem is to follow the theory of Keynesian economics, which I explained in great detail two or three weeks ago. To sum it all up, my con argument is saying that we are in a recession but we don't need to balance the budget otherwise unemployment will go up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeil
ReplyDeleteComments:
Emily,
As you said you have the evidence but I think the way to find good arguments is to go on a bipartisan site. I say this because if you go on an entirely Republican site it tends to be too biased (i.e. Fox News). You can pick out from that what is the Democrats' fault and what is the Republicans' fault. If you do that you'll be in good shape.
Jaxx/Bossman/Whitey J
ReplyDeleteCon need to change
We need to not withdraw our forces from Afghanistan for a lot of reasons. One reason why we don’t need to change is because sooner or later we will have peace. And if we withdraw our forces there’s a better chance of a terrorist attack because we don’t have peace yet. We should also keep fighting because we have to show Afghanistan that they can't mess with us because we are a lot stronger. We have to keep America safe because if are troops go back to U.S than Afghanistan might do a suprise attack and something might happen. I think Obamas plan is great. Which is fight but then in like 2 years withdraw becuase by then we would probaly damaged Afghanistan. So my need to change is basically not change anything we are doing and just stay fight till we get piece. It might take awhile but it will be worth it. Another reason we should attack rate now is that Taliban is having problems with his family, and now is the right time to attack.
I won't to know if that is a good idea Mr.J
My pro outline has a lot more examples for the need issue.
Pro
We need to change and withdraw our forces from Afghanistan because too many civilians are dying. There are more than 10 attacks everyday in the Helmand Home. So after 8 years of fierce fighting, with billions of pounds squandered and tens of thousands of coalitions and civilian causalities, have we reached a dead end. Not only a lot of Afghanistan people are dying, also a lot of Americans. There have been at least 869,720 people that have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s way too much and it is going to continue if we don’t withdraw our forces. So we need to change for those reasons. Most republicans backed the president’s decision to send more troops. They claimed, however, he was playing politics by setting a withdraw deadline while any insisting that any transfer of responsibility to the Afghan government ultimately will be based on conditions in that country. They also didn’t like his plan because he let the Afghan government know when they were coming which will affect them a lot.John McCain and George Bush both agree on how president Obama’s plan won’t work. Because it’s going to cost way too much money. The Congressional Budget Office came up estimates for how much it would cost to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.For the next 10 years. The CBO estimated it would cost from about 480- billion to just over 1 trillion, depending on how much troops there are. That is way too much and a lot of people are going to go into dept. Also we should not fight because if we kill somebody in Afghanistan, than their family might get mad and they will come and try to do a terrorist attack and a lot of things could happen. So we should try and play it safe and not take all of these risk.
Emily: Their can be a lot of ways that you can blame the democrats and also republicans. If you have all of your ideas and sources. Then all you have to do is put it together. If not go on some websites. Type in democrats are to blame and something will probaly show up. Samw with republicans. You have to mess around and try differnt websites, you can't give up.
Whhhhhhhhccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa
Jordana Rosenberg
ReplyDeleteInternational Sporting Events Such
as the Olympics Do More Harm than Good
Week of April 12th - April 16th
My need issue is basically the same for pro and con. I talk about how sports have changed, what sports are popular, who's the "best", how the games are played (sportsmanship, cheating . . .), and drug usage. Then I go on to talk about the different kinds of sporting events - World Cup, Olympics, Nascar, and tennis tournament. And finally I list all of the problems. Sportsmanship/rivalry, illegal drugs, debt, death, and spark wars. Now this is the only part that is different about my pro and con. In Pro I say that the bad things are starting to get out of hand and pretty soon they will never be fixed. In Con I say that the problems are not that big because with a little thought they can be fixed.
I have one question who is this Delta person?
Emily (and Eva)
TO make it sound like you are not special pleading you say that the "bad" or good things the republicans are doing and why. You can say some flaws but emphasize on the positives even if you don't agree. Then do the opposite for the democrats (this is for pro). For con say why both are bad and both are good.
Morgan Falasca
ReplyDelete"Removing Troops from Afghanistan"
My Need Issue:
PRO
I don't believe the matter for removing troops has to do with "because so many civilians are dying." This will happen. Like Mr. Jarrell stated, when we need to kill, as you would say the "bad guys," in order to kill the "bad guys" we HAVE to kill some civilians with them. I know this sounds like a horrible thing but if that is the way we need to deal with getting rid of the "bad guys," then so be it. Anyway, the reason I believe we need to change is because of the very, very high costs of financing the "war," because of the amount "bad guys" we have already killed and because of time. Financing this war is an outrage. In Afghanistan, we have already spent well over $900 billion dollars there and estimated by the Congressional Research Board, it is (if we keep our troops there) suppose to double in the next five years. This is a huge problem. Also, the "war" we are in is ranked sixth most expensive war EVER, if we stay in for the next (estimated) five years, it will be ranked number one.
The amount of "bad guys" that have already been killed has been a significant rate to those who we estimated were behind this and those who we actually found and then killed. According to The Washington Post, there have been over 800,000 people killed in Afghanistan and yes, a lot of those were civilians but a great deal were also bad guys. The one person, though we are still looking for is Bin Laden. He is very dangerous and he is one of the many "bad guys" we NEED to find and kill before we leave in 2011. And time is a big factor as well. The shorter we stay in, gives the Talibans and Al Qaedas time to build another plan and attack... This would not be good. Therefore, for time I say we stay to when Obama says we should leave, but in the mean time, move into Pakistan and TRY to find Bin Laden... at least TRY.
CON
The need issue for CON is simple. For my CON, I believe we should remove but in time. This battle we are in is not really a war and it wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism. When I say it wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism, I mean, if we withdraw, it would only give the Al Qaeda's and Taliban's the satisfaction to train again, plan again, and attack again (which is why we went over to Afghansitan in the first place).Morgan Falasca
"Removing Troops from Afghanistan"
To Jaxx:
This is perfect because we are doing the same debate and I also said this in my need issue on the blog... America killing civilians is not really a problme because we have to if we want to kill the "bad guys" (like I said before). I do agree with you on what you said about the peace. I do believe we should stay in until we have reached peace to show them that we are overpowering and they should not mess with us! good job buddy :P
Bryan
ReplyDeleteWe should reduce CEO Pay
Need Issue
PRO
The way things are now:
CEO pay is extremely high. In 2008 the compensation of most CEOs was way higher than that of the average workers salary of $40,690. The CEOs of Walmart made $8,371,057, which is 206 times a normal workers salary. CEO of Ford made $17,688,241, 435 times a normal workers salary.CEOs of Viacom and Coca-cola made about $29,000,000, which is about 700 times a normal workers salary. CEO of Exxon Mobil and Hewlett-Packard made about $33,000,000, which is about 710 times a normal workers salary. CEOs of Lazard LTD made $133,708,650, which is 3,285 times a normal workers salary. I have other numbers but I wasn't sure if I had to put them in.
Need to change:
CEO pay has has contributed to the debt of the economy by CEOs being given ridiculous salaries and bonus’s that they don't deserve and are unfair. For instance, Apple gave a $5 million bonus to apple manager Steve Jobs for "outstanding performance" while he was on medical leave, and Robert Nardelli received a $20 million payoff when he left Home Depot even though the share price had fallen during his six year tenure. Also, Carly Fiornia received $180 million when she left Hewlett Packard despite her mediocre performance there. Also, workers lose their jobs while the CEOs responsible for it get higher pay. Also, there is a lot of corruption in the CEO sector.When Joe Nacchio left Qwest Communications, the businesses stock crashed because he had been lying to shareholders about the company’s strengths, and because he had been cashing in on all of his own stick before he left. Also, Gregory Reyes of Brocade Communication Systems backdated stock options to employees, which meant that he changed the dates so that he got them cheaper and sold them for more. I have more examples, but didn't think i needed to post them all.
CON
The way things are now:
The numbers i have comparing the average workers pay and CEOs pay of various companies are the same, because they are the actual numbers.
The need to change:
Regardless of the numbers, CEO pay has been going down. The reason CEO pay seems so high is beacsue the numbers are based on “expected pay”, what CEOs are EXPECTED to make, rather than, “realized pay”, which is what they ACTUALLY make (you don’t see the true numbers). 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.” According to the Harvard business review, the labor market said high paid CEOs have a substantial pay for performance, and low paid CEOs have the same pay for performance. In fact, also according to the Harvard business review, a study of 1,000 companies show that executive compensation programs do not encourage “excessive risk” spending. Also, some CEOs, like Louis Gerstner of IBM, and Jack Welch of General Electric, deserve their pay.
COMMENTS
Haddon:
Is the only problem with CEOs that they fake records, or are there other problems? Also, for your pro, when you say X% of the company, do you mean the companies total income, or the workers total wages, or something else?
Caleb:
You were saying that nuclear power would hurt the environment, which it would, but aren't the affects of using coal power worse?
Morgan Falasca
ReplyDelete"Removing Troops from Afghanistan"
My Need Issue:
PRO
I don't believe the matter for removing troops has to do with "because so many civilians are dying." This will happen. Like Mr. Jarrell stated, when we need to kill, as you would say the "bad guys," in order to kill the "bad guys" we HAVE to kill some civilians with them. I know this sounds like a horrible thing but if that is the way we need to deal with getting rid of the "bad guys," then so be it. Anyway, the reason I believe we need to change is because of the very, very high costs of financing the "war," because of the amount "bad guys" we have already killed and because of time. Financing this war is an outrage. In Afghanistan, we have already spent well over $900 billion dollars there and estimated by the Congressional Research Board, it is (if we keep our troops there) suppose to double in the next five years. This is a huge problem. Also, the "war" we are in is ranked sixth most expensive war EVER, if we stay in for the next (estimated) five years, it will be ranked number one.
The amount of "bad guys" that have already been killed has been a significant rate to those who we estimated were behind this and those who we actually found and then killed. According to The Washington Post, there have been over 800,000 people killed in Afghanistan and yes, a lot of those were civilians but a great deal were also bad guys. The one person, though we are still looking for is Bin Laden. He is very dangerous and he is one of the many "bad guys" we NEED to find and kill before we leave in 2011. And time is a big factor as well. The shorter we stay in, gives the Talibans and Al Qaedas time to build another plan and attack... This would not be good. Therefore, for time I say we stay to when Obama says we should leave, but in the mean time, move into Pakistan and TRY to find Bin Laden... at least TRY.
CON
The need issue for CON is simple. For my CON, I believe we should remove but in time. The battle we are in is not really a war and removing the troops would not solve the problem of terrorism. What I mean is that removing the troops from Afghanistan would only give the Al Qaedas and Talibans the satisfaction to go train again, plan again and attack again. Exactly, what we wanted to prevent by going to Afghanistan in the first place! The thing we are in right now, that we call a war, is not really a war. When someone means war, that means battles on a axis country. We are not in a battle with a enemy country. We are close allies with Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would make us not even really in war. But, this doesn't mean "so then we should remove," no. It means that we should send 30,000 more troops to finish the job quicker.
My question is the question Jordana has, who is the Delta person?
To Jaxx:
This is perfect because we are doing the same debate and I also said this in my need issue on the blog... America killing civilians is not really a problme because we have to if we want to kill the "bad guys" (like I said before). I do agree with you on what you said about the peace. I do believe we should stay in until we have reached peace to show them that we are overpowering and they should not mess with us! good job buddy :P
ATTENTION MR. JARRELL !!!!!!!!!!!! :)
ReplyDeleteSorry, my second post is the correct one, something happened when I posted it the first time, so I retyped it :)
Mohammad Kazmi
ReplyDeleteU.S should withdraw forces from Afghanistan
Pro Outline
On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were by jet airliners. They were high jacked by 19 al-Qaeda members. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania. There were no survivors from any of the flights.2, 973 victims and the 19 hijackers died as a result of the attacks. After this day nothing was the same. United States responded by launching the War on terrorism
From 2001 to 2010, The United States has spent a total of 227 billion dollars on the war in Afghanistan
That’s 775,000 a year per soldier in Afghanistan, That’s three time as expensive as any war the U.S. has ever had
20% of U.S. voters say all American troops should be brought home from Afghanistan immediately, another 17% oppose an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, 52% see no need for a withdrawal or a timetable right now, and 11% aren’t sure
1,000 American troops have died in this war which is alos known as the “forgoten War”
1,000 troops have died for a war we can’t win and is estimated to increase and will double if we send in more troops
This war is called the “forgoten War” because we have forgoten what we are fighting for
Deaths of foreign troops in Afghanistan also register a sharp rise from 295 in 2008 to 506 this year, up by more than 70 percent
The U.S. isn’t spending money wisely and half the costs are for support troops which are engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police.
President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan which are support troops
The U.S. is fighting a war that it’s never going to win
The reason U.S. is invading Afghanistan is because they want to find al-Qaeda (who attacked the U.S. and killed 3,000 Americans)and kill them so they are no longer a threat to the U.S. and so we are a lot safer
Robert Baer, a Former CIA Field Official and Author of See No Evil, says,” al-Qaeda is No longer In Afghanistan, they are not in Kandahar, they are not out in the desert, they are not in any part of Afghanistan, they’ve moved.”
This means we are fighting the wrong country and we should regroup and think about the whole reason we have started this war
We are doing nothing but killing villages with innocent families, some might say that these villages could be safe heavens for tourists but if we bomb them we will do more harm than good because we are making the U.S. less safe by encouraging terrorism and alienating populations
Faiysal Alikhan is the Founder of the Foundation for Integrated Development Action. He chairs Pakistan’s International Chamber of Commerce Commission on Customs and Trade Regulation. He said, “Afghans are probably the world champions at resisting foreign domination and infiltration into there countries.”
This means we are messing with the wrong people and they attacked U.S for no reason and cause us a lot of heart acke if we destory there country who knows what they are going to do next, I’ll tell it will be much more drastic
We are ruining our relationship with Afghanistan
U.S killing Afghanistans and destorying their country, this might uproar other counteries
They might want to make an alliance and bring down the U.S
We are wasting billions of dollars and sending thousands of troops to kill suspected terrorists. This has ruined the U.S. economy and is making U.S. less safe by encouraging terrorism.
Robert Baer, a Former CIA Field Official and Author of See No Evil, says, ”This isn’t a military problem and can’t be solved by the military means”
We have taken a lot of Afghanies lives
We have killed about 869,720 Afghanies which is 124 times more people than they killed of ours
A lot of these lives lost are inocent women, men, children
If we keep bombing these Afghans into a corner they are going to do something more severe than 9/11
Mohammad Kazmi
ReplyDeleteU.S should withdraw draw forces from Afghanistan
Con Ouline
From 2001 to 2010, The United States has spent a total of 227 billion dollars on the war in Afghanistan
That’s 775,000 a year per soldier in Afghanistan, That’s three time as expensive as any war the U.S. has ever had
20% of U.S. voters say all American troops should be brought home from Afghanistan immediately, another 17% oppose an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, 52% see no need for a withdrawal or a timetable right now, and 11% aren’t sure
1,000 American troops have died in this war which is alos known as the “forgoten War”
1,000 troops have died for a war we can’t win and is estimated to increase and will double if we send in more troops
This war is called the “forgoten War” because we have forgoten what we are fighting for
Deaths of foreign troops in Afghanistan also register a sharp rise from 295 in 2008 to 506 this year, up by more than 70 percent
The U.S. isn’t spending money wisely and half the costs are for support troops which are engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police.
President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan which are support troops
The U.S. is fighting a war that it’s never going to win
The reason U.S. is invading Afghanistan is because they want to find al-Qaeda (who attacked the U.S. and killed 3,000 Americans)and kill them so they are no longer a threat to the U.S. and so we are a lot safer
Robert Baer, a Former CIA Field Official and Author of See No Evil, says,” al-Qaeda is No longer In Afghanistan, they are not in Kandahar, they are not out in the desert, they are not in any part of Afghanistan, they’ve moved.”
This means we are fighting the wrong country and we should regroup and think about the whole reason we have started this war
We are doing nothing but killing villages with innocent families, some might say that these villages could be safe heavens for tourists but if we bomb them we will do more harm than good because we are making the U.S. less safe by encouraging terrorism and alienating populations
Faiysal Alikhan is the Founder of the Foundation for Integrated Development Action. He chairs Pakistan’s International Chamber of Commerce Commission on Customs and Trade Regulation. He said, “Afghans are probably the world champions at resisting foreign domination and infiltration into there countries.”
This means we are messing with the wrong people and they attacked U.S for no reason and cause us a lot of heart acke if we destory there country who knows what they are going to do next, I’ll tell it will be much more drastic
We are ruining our relationship with Afghanistan
U.S killing Afghanistans and destorying their country, this might uproar other counteries
They might want to make an alliance and bring down the U.S
We are wasting billions of dollars and sending thousands of troops to kill suspected terrorists. This has ruined the U.S. economy and is making U.S. less safe by encouraging terrorism.
Robert Baer, a Former CIA Field Official and Author of See No Evil, says, ”This isn’t a military problem and can’t be solved by the military means”
We have taken a lot of Afghanies lives
We have killed about 869,720 Afghanies which is 124 times more people than they killed of ours
A lot of these lives lost are inocent women, men, children
If we keep bombing these Afghans into a corner they are going to do something more severe than 9/11
Mohammad Kazmi
ReplyDeleteJaxx: For your con outline I think you are kinda not thinking because you wrote we have to have piece eventually but that isn't true. And if we withdraw they could atttack our counrty. But they are attacking our country didn't you hear abou the suicide bomber on the detroit flight.And Afghanistan is scared of us but they dont care about death because they believe in risking their lives for theit counteris.
Hi again folks.
ReplyDeletePro this time,and after this I get to try and eat one argument... (eat i mean DESTROY)
Well anyway...
In my Pro I really say that the main problem with now is the pollution. And it is. Fossil fuels cause way to much, each and every type of fossil fuel. The two major ones are coal and gas. Only electric cars and energy is smoke and mirrors. We use fossil fuels to GET the electricity. We use coal. Coal pollutes with waste and smog. These things poison and kill everything around them. Gas I refer to as gasoline. (If what i said makes any sense at all) The gasoline is used in your cars every day. This causes smog and pollutes. It burns holes in the atmosphere and is the leading cause of global warming.
Anyway... Nuclear Reactors are a VERY good option. They provide power and will keep giving power for tens of thousands of years. The down side is mainly waste, but we have ways to dispose of it. Also explosions are not a problem at all. The explosions were caused by the want for too much power. There are 2 types of nuclear material, Normal Grade/ and Weapons Grade. Weapons Grade is what we use to make Nuclear Bombs. If we use normal grade, the chances of explosion are much lower.
Well I like more criticism, please comment rate and subscribe. Oh thats YouTube, just comment...
Now time to attack... Mo
ReplyDeleteis it really 775,000 per year for each soilder?
I wouldn't know but it seems kind of high
and the forgotten war? we are fighting for oil
oil, oil, oil, oil, and more oil
And who cares if we spend a lot of money to kill the leader of the terrorists who attack us? If we kill him will terrorists stop attacking us?
And with the book, I don't know that you should trust what one person says, maybe if you find some info on this person other than a CIA dude
and how do you know that most of the people we killed in afghan are innocent women and children?
James
ReplyDeleteNuclear Reactors
i dont expect anyone to read all of this
Pro:
The US needs to encourage the building of new and more Nuclear Reactors because it would provide more jobs ”greener” energy allow for conservation of natural resources and allow for political and military to redefine objectives
Con:
we need to change because the reactors the U.S. has is enough because they already effect the environment in a harmful way. Though they do not have an effect on global warming there are other solutions that are simpler than building $2 billion nuclear reactors around the U.S.
So that was my need to change for both sides
now i wasnt sure if i have that right thing but what ever
now im not done with both of them because in my pro i still need to mention about how the millitary will be effected in a good way with more nuclear reactors in the need issue. for my con i still need to look for another area to oppose that millatary part and something else.
@ CaLeB
now i'm not sure where you get your facts from i'd like to know, but nuclear reactors from what i read cost $2 billion dollars. And if we were to put all that waste in to mountains and tombs of some sort it would be the same thing that coal power plants do b/c in the article that mr. j gave us from the Rolling stones talked about that. do i know what i'm doing... and i'm not telling soooo okay
mr. j if i have anything wrong set me straight
@Jaxx/Boss Man/ Whitey J
ReplyDeleteWhat if peace comes later rather than sooner. Like 10 years later…
Also I don’t think peace will come. Peace will come when the terrorists our DEAD. They wont give up. They are nats at a BBQ.
Afghanies also know we are stronger…
What do you mean the Taliban family is having problems? What do you mean by family? I only heard family used in Fallout 3 and it was describing a group of cannibals. Anyway the Taliban isn’t a family, they are just people pissed at America.
hope that helps, or makes you cry
Health Care
ReplyDeleteAlex!!!
Hi. My pro and con are basically the same:
In my pro and con, I'm having two sections: Then and Now.
The "then" section has costs of the former health care, people insured, and why it's a problem (people can't afford it, insureres are dropping insured, etc.)
For the "NOW", I have: what the bill does, costs, insured people estimated, time it will take for everything to finally be done (for example, by 2014, everyone should have insurance, or pay a fine), and garauntees of health care - meaning you won't be uninsured, you'll be able to pay, you won't be dropped if you lose/switch jobs, etc.
The things different abut my outlines are that I have a third section in each, pro saying all the pros of the new plan and con saying all the cons of the new plan.
For pro, I'm saying that people will be insured, it will cost less, we can have coverage on abortions if we want it, we can't be dropped, etc.
For con, I'm saying that:
-the government is already in a lot of debt and we can't pay for subsidies, Medicare, and Medicaid.
-It will make small bussinesses pay more money and they might not be able to afford that
-Doctors are able to charge more money for medicine and tests that aren't needed
-The kids on thier parents coverage are allowed to stay on parent's coverae until they are 26. This may not be enough time for them to have enough money t pay for their own insurance.
That's all for my need.
COMMENT:
To Jordana:
I think that your need outline looks pretty good. The way your are organizing it looks well (good) too.
For your differences between pro and con, I think that you need to really state what the bad things are and why they cannot be fixed (maybe you can give examples of things they might have tried and failed to fix before).
For con, I think you just need to elaborate like with pro, and your debate will be solid.
That's all. BYE!
@ James @Me
ReplyDeleteyour thinking of the cost of the REACTOR
YOU NEED TO REALIZE THAT IM ADDING THE LONG TERM COST. NOT JUST THE CONCRETE AND METAL AND JUNK
ADD THE COST OF
1)WASTE
a-something goes wrong
2)terrorists
a-Blow up a city
3)Tombs melt and waste burns a hole through the earth
so your half right, it costs 2 mill for the supplies, add the cost of the stuff i listed and you cant name it...
Thomas
ReplyDeleteBalance the Budget
Need
Pro
The U.S federal debt is over $12.8 trillions dollars or so. I will throw out a lot of numbers on the Debt, like the programs, mainly Social sec. and Health care are in need of fixing. They suck up money. Why we have a debt?? government raise money in the credit markets, means that they issue bonds, just like private companies. bond is a promise to pay money in the future; like a 10-year bond is a promise to pay a amount in 10 years, and a percentage of that amount each year until then. When a government issues bonds, investors bid to buy these bonds; the amount of money they pay is therefore the amount that the government razes. The government isn't paying those investors back.
The more debt % of GDP, slower the economy growth gets, usually. Slows the economy — because when borrowing costs go up, businesses are less likely to expand and hire more people
–— So it helps to look at the national debt in relation to GDP as a measure of how well the economy can sustain that debt — just as your paycheck has a lot to do with how much personal debt you can handle.
Now, just because spending is driving the fiscal gap doesn’t logically mean the imbalance has to be solved by cutting spending. But it’s hard to argue that our looming budget problems derive from “too little taxes” when by any historical standard taxes will rise to record levels even before the fiscal gap is addressed. Moreover, to the degree that you care about the effects of higher tax rates on the economy, and the effects of a larger government share of spending on individuals’ abilities to lead their own lives as they wish, cutting spending might be the place to start.
Con: this one is definatly less complicated than pro. i use the same numbers and the economics of scale bit. as long as the GDP can sustain this, it isn't all bad. the way we sustain it is the problem. we need to follow the Keynesian policies of economics. the more money circulating, the better the economy grows.
Criticism to Caleb: If im right, wouldn't the cost not be a issue. if the nuclear reactors make a lot more energy than most other energy makers, then couldn't it pay for itself in x amount of years. it is sort of like my economics. one business decides to go into a debt to make a new company. soon, that company makes enough money to pay off the debt and still make profits. now that company makes more money per year.
Eva: Democrats to blame
ReplyDeletePro Need Issue:
to start off i'd state the many differences between the democrats and the republicans. First, republicans beleive that the money you earn is yours and the government can have th right to take only the amount needed to get what they need to get done. on the other hand, democrats believe the government has the right to use your money to redistribute wealth, new programs for budget surpleses, and return a portion of the money that's politically expedient. Another difference is the free interprise system. The republicans beleive it's effective. the democrats beleive the government regulation and federal control of the econom can do better with wealth and other serviced. the republicans beleive high taxes, government spending, and over-regulation of business and farming don't help the economy at all, while the democrats beleive higher taxes and government spending won't hamr the economy, it will help everyone in ways. republicans are usually considered conservative. their pro businessand against bureancy. The usually think big governments are wasteful and just dont get things done. Democrats are considered more liberal. they favor an active role for government and help improve many things. I have more on that, i just don't want to make this blog so i'll stop there. Now for the acual problems we face currently. there's the military issues, gun control law (small example, i think) death penalty, taxes, minimum wage, debt, socail securty, one of the biggest, as mr. j says,health care (medicare and medicade), government spending, and so on. now to go further into a few of them for now. for the military, the democrats prefer decreasing the spending and the republicans want to spend the money. For the death penalty, the democrats think its mandatory to conrtol crime, republicans say you can pass it in some situations. for taxes, democrats beleive to increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for public programs. republicans want a cut for taxes, rich and poor. for minimum wage, democrats want to increase in to help workers while republicans beleive thats bad to do because it hurts businesses. for health care, the republicans oppose garanteed universal health care, and support health policy based on corporate profits for insurance. the democrats like clinton and gore support that stuff. like said, i can explain alot more on those topics, but i already know this is getting to llong. i know i tend to do that. so for pro, there are many examples of the democrats being wrong and doing things for example, like government spending, just a small example, and it helps some, but not others. there are some things they need to worry about more, the more important things, than what they are worrying about now.
con:
there are alot of things that are bad about the democrats, but there are many things that the republicans have done wrong to. So for my con, im not just going to blame the republicans just because i blames the democrats for pro, im going to blame both, because if you really look at it, we really should blame both. the're just pointing fingers at eachother when they don't realize that they are both making mistakes, those mistakes could just be on different issues. so that's a big difference in my con and pro outline. i hope that was enough
Emily:
i have the same problem with that. no matter what your not goint to be able to avoid that with this debate. i think thats going to be a really bad thing if i have to do the pro speech, because a good point for the opponet to make is that the democrats aren't the only one doing the damage, its also the republicans. i think just a simple thing like that could ruin that argueiment. so i dont really know what advice to give you because im having trouble with the same thing. thats why i dont want to do pro. okay thank youuu
Kasey (cap and trade)
ReplyDeletePro
Need to change: Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year.In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth.The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsiuswe should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius.
Why we need cap and trade is to solve the issue. First it is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply,it also harnesses the forces of markets to achieve superior environmental costs or effective protection to find a faster and cheaper more innovate ways to produce C02 emissions pollution. the plan is to limit the rise in temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius above pre- industrialized levels by 2050. Tha goal cap is to tighten cap until emissions are reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Other goals it should do is lower carbon pollution 17% by 2020, lower carbon pollution 83% by 2050, and mandate companies to produce at least 12% of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2020.
Con
(same need issue)
Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year.In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth.The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We shouldn't use cap and trade to solve it though.First it will effect costs. The heritage foundation did an analysis of cap and trade and found out that it would cost the economy $161 billion by 2020, whch is $1870 per family of 4. By 2035 the number rises to $6,800 per family of 4. It will raise energy costs. The price will go up 15%- 20%. The senate estimated increasing $800-$1,300 by 2015, and by 2050 increasing $1,500-$2,500. Poor & middle class income house holds spend more of their paychecks on things like gasoline and heating and cooking, because by 2035 gasoline and diesel costs expected to be 58% higher and electric rate 90% higher.
If we tax carbon you tax fertilizer and pesticides.This means we tax food. A $15/ per ton CO2 would increase fertilizer production costs by about $ 60/ per ton. Tax’s make farmers use less fertilizer, which mean less crops at higher prices. Farmers will also get it bad. By 2012 farm income drops $8 billion- 28%, by 2024- income drops $25 billion- 60%, and by 2035- income drops $ 50 billion- 94%.!!!!
It will also make people loose their jobs!!
Representative John Boehner of Ohio said “This is going to force small business and their workers and families to pay more for electricity, gasoline, and other products that are made in America that have high energy content. The bill will also cost 2.3 million to 2.7 million Americans their jobs”!!!
Kasey
ReplyDeleteOK I'm back had no room on the first post so now i guess i criticize..
Eva i like that you show that pro is for the argument and con is against republicans but you have no statistics no evidence no quotes or anything!!! you may have been just summing it up but there needs to be evidence to make an argument
Emily if these Medicare and Medicaid(Healthcare,)social security, and Debt are your main focus points you wont do well, at least i think. You have got to look at bills and laws that republicans or demorcrats have passed that have screwed things up! Plus those 4 things could also be a republicans fault. I also don't see why you don't have a need issue anywhere even if it is just con because you were talking about pro right? so you must have gotten the con side too?
sorry if i was a little harsh
Dhruv K.Patel
ReplyDeleteOlympics
Pro:
My need issue for pro, is basically a set of goals i found that represent the big "problems" with the Olympics for example, steroids are a problem for the Olympics so i talk about how the IOC (The International olympic commitee) try to stop the use of steroids but they can't. Another example of this is that the IOC wants to bring the world toghther, but i explain how the olympics are only tearing us apart by creating protests, terrorism, and boycotts.
Con:
My Con outline is basically the opposite of my pro. I list the same group of goals and say how they fulfill them. I know that's kind of special pleading because i don't mention how they fail, but i'm trying to fix that. So for steroid use, right now, i'd talk about how they are catching people and those people are banned. For bringing the countries toghther, i talk about a bunch of votes that show this. I think this is my weak point because it doesn't really mean it's true. Now, on my debate, i'm going to focus more to fix con because it has a lot of special pleading porblems in it.
Comments:
Bryan:
I think you should focus more on how CEO pay is a bad thing. I don't think it's neccisary to say all those facts you have that it is high becuase we already know it is. That's why we're having this debate. You should focus more on sayin how the that is a bad thing (which you did) but i think you should just delete some of those begining facts. They are unnecccisary.
Alec Arena
ReplyDeletemy topic is should the healthcare reform bill be passed
Need Issue:
Pro:
we need to pass healthcare reform
Why?
one reason is because about 32 MILLION americans cant afford healthcare.
another reason is become people with preexisting conditions also cant get health care.
also premiums are raising out of control.
another reason is that young people can stay on there parents insurance until age 26.
this bill provides more preventive care so the people there will stop a major illness before it gets to bad.
these are only the MAJOR reasons that we need to pass the healthcare reform bill.
Con:we don't need to pass the healthcare reform bill
Why?
number one issue is cost
are government is already in debt but this bill will cost almost one TRILLION dollars
taxes will go up. (taxes on medical devices, taxes on the income of most small business owners, taxes on purchase of private insurance plans.)
medicare will be cut which will raise seniors premiums
i agree that we should change healthcare but not with this bill
JAXX
ReplyDeletehey jaxx i um aren't you supposed to right a con need issue too?
i mean i don't know if you have one in your debate but who know.
on a lighter note your Pro outline did as you said have alot of good points an examples. i cant wait for this debate
@Neil --Good analysis clear argument. On the pro side, I'm not sure about your health care information, but I'd guess you have the clarifying details. On the con side, why would you prioritize jobs/growth over balancing the budget. Is the current US debt not so bad or is it that jobs are just way more important?
ReplyDelete@Jaxx--I'm concerned about your wording. You wrote "Taliban is having problems with his family," but the Taliban is a movement--a group of individuals-- not a family. I don't see any compelling reason in your con paragraph for staying. Your "We should stay because 'sooner or later we will have peace'" and "they can't mess with us" argument are particularly weak. You need to read article that outline US goals in the region and how staying or going will help further those goals.
ReplyDelete@Dhruv and Jordana-- You don't have a traditional "need" issue in this deabate, so the format you use works. Both of you are being coy about mentioning the "goals" of the olympics. You should show how the olympics fail to live up to their objectives. I'm not sure if either of you has yet looked up the winning bids of cities who hosted the olympics. What benefits do cities claim they will get ?
ReplyDelete@Afghanistan Withdrawl debaters-- Mo, I think you are the closest to getting this right. You have good details and arguments, but they are poorly organized. All of you need to consider why the US went into Afghanistan and how well we have met those objectives so far. Furthermore, Will those objectives be helped/hurt if we stay?
ReplyDelete@Delta(and James plus the Cap and Trade people)--getting close, but you remain vague. Part of your argument is that Nuclear reactors are safe. How many people have died as a result of nuclear power accidents? How many people die as a result of coal/hydro/ etc power? If there are alternatives to nuclear power AND fossil fuels, why don't we pursue them? Are there downsides to "renewables"?
ReplyDeleteNeil
ReplyDeleteTo Mr. J,
Since we are in a recession, the government's priority shouldn't be to increase taxes or cut spending and the government shouldn't prioritize balancing the budget. If it balances the budget, unemployment will go up and we will be in an economic freefall. However, if the government raises spending, jobs will be created (I.e. In the military, if the government spends on arms, those have to be created by people). The reason that I prioritize jobs over balancing the budget is because if unemployment goes down, the government will have accomplished two major things. If unemployment goes down, payroll taxes which government collect will go up. These taxes go towards programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Also, the money supply in the economy will go up, which means the economy is flowing. If this happens, then we can get out of our recession and not go into a Great Depression.