# data[].attributes.headline
Brandi Alice-Is Solar energy good?Pro-It is renewable.Con- It is very expensive.Pro- It is very abundant.Con- Yet intermittent I think solar energy is a goo thing because its safer and more abundant than other forms of energy.http://energyinformative.org/solar-energy-pros-and-cons/#intermittent

# data[].attributes.subject
Brandi Alice-Is Solar energy good?Pro-It is renewable.Con- It is very expensive.Pro- It is very abundant.Con- Yet intermittent I think solar energy is a goo thing because its safer and more abundant than other forms of energy.http://energyinformative.org/solar-energy-pros-and-cons/#intermittent

# data[].attributes.body
Is wind energy good?
Pro- Wind energy is a green energy source and does not cause pollution.The potential of wind power is enormous times more than what the entire human population needs. Wind power is renewable and there is no way we can run out of it. Wind turbines are incredible space-efficient. The largest of them generate enough electricity to power 600 U.S. homes.
Con- Wind is a fluctuating  source of energy and is not suited to meet the base load energy demand unless some form of energy storage is utilized. The manufacturing and installation of wind turbines requires heavy upfront investments  both in commercial and residential applications.Wind turbines can be a threat to wildlife. Noise is regularly reported as a problem by neighboring homes. How wind turbines look  is a legitimate concern for some people.

I think wind energy is good.
http://energyinformative.org/wind-energy-pros-and-cons/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the US Build More Hydropower Dams?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the US Build More Hydropower Dams?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro:
1. In addition to its extremely high efficiency (up to 93 percent), hydropower also provides many other social and environmental benefits.
2. It also provides a lot of jobs because it is a great undertaking to build on of these types of dams. This can provide jobs for 1000's of people.

Con:
1. It can ruin the habitats of animals and cause floods in forests and small villages nearby.
2. It also costs a lot of money to build Hydropower Dams.

Opinion:
I am on the pro side because if we built more dams it would provide a lot of jobs and is good for the environment and an efficient way to get power.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-us-build-more-hydropower-dams

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- Because of animal testing many life saving cures have been found.

Pro- Animals have shorter life spans which make them better test subjects because for example in mice. They only live 2 to 3 years so they can be observed to see the long term effects and the effects and the generations after.

Con- Testing animals is cruel and inhumane. Many animals live there whole lives as test subjects in very poor conditions and suffer through there entire lives with little to no love.

Con- Animals are very different from human being so this could lead to poor results between people and the test subjects.

Opinion- I believe that animal testing is cruel and inhumane but i also understand that without animal testing we wouldn't have as many cures as we do today.
http://animal-testing.procon.org

# data[].attributes.body
Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?

The affirmative side states  that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century was clearly caused by human activity, as it occurred at a rate much faster than natural climate changes could produce. According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanology, the "extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. And average temperatures on earth have increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural climate changes.

The negative side states  that Earth's climate has always warmed and cooled, and the 20th century rise in global temperature is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years. Although the planet has warmed 1-1.4°F over the 20th century, it is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years. Also global warming and cooling are primarily caused by fluctuations in the sun's heat (solar forcing), not by human activity.

I am in favor of the affirmative side.  Because with all the technology today such as cars and products we use,  I feel that we are using more CO2 than any generation before us. Also, we cut more trees, which then cannot provide us with oxygen we need. With more CO2 and less oxygen we are causing global warming.

http://climatechange.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Is rolling black smoke out of a vehicle bad for the environment.

A big think for rednecks or hicks is rolling coal next to a fuel economy car and there has been a huge up roar to people who do it.  The coal rollers are actively polluting the environment. Wasting fossil fuels that directly contribute to global warming. making the planet more painful for everyone. The affirmative said says its good we can get hot babes and make people really mad. The negative side says no its bad  for our environment with the black smoke affecting the atmosphere.
In my opinion it is just fine to roll coal and its bad but we will all die one day and id rather do it rolling coal then of something else. For us hicks out there in the world its life a code to live by. In 2012 they added a thing called DEF its used in the admissions for the exhaust for a cleaner out put.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nothing-wrong-with-rolling-coal-711

# data[].attributes.headline
Joe H. Dodgen Does Human Activity Contribute to Climate Change (yes it does)

# data[].attributes.subject
Joe H. Dodgen Does Human Activity Contribute to Climate Change (yes it does)

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative: The 2010 Anderegg study found that 98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. As sunlight hits the earth, some of the warmth is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide, methane , and nitrous oxide. Warming is occurring in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is actually cooling. If the sun were driving global warming, there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling.

Negative: Climate Change is a natural process. The sun is responsible. China made it up.

What I Know
I know that climate change is affected by human behavior.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

# data[].attributes.body
My debate topic is, whether oil fracking is a good or a bad concept.

People on the affirmative side of this topic say,  Those on the affirmative side of this argument also state that fracking is a source of jobs. They also say that fracking provides 25% of Americans natural gas. Fracking allows us to rely on natural gas more, which is better for the air in the environment. The amount of water used for the fracking process is two times lower than coal, three times lower than nuclear, and ten times lower than oil recovery.

People on the negative side of this topic say, that fracking can impact local water sources, contaminating the water. There have been numerous reports of contaminated water. It is suggested that methane leakage is derived from fracking mines. It is believed that fracking causes cracks in the earth, which cause earthquakes.

After considering multiple views regarding both sides of the topic, I have decided to stay neutral on this issue. There are pros and cons on this issue, clearly. I can see both sides, and they both seem valid to me.

Source, http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/

# data[].attributes.body
pros: they are relatively low costs. Produce lots of energy low pollution nuclear waste is potentially harmful. instead of using uranium we would use thorium which it is more greener than uranium it

Cons: If theres a malfunction it could kill thousands of people. it Uses uranium to power the nuclear plant. bad for pollution. it is a big target for the terrorist.

Im on the negative part because it is a bigger polluter than renewable energy

# data[].attributes.body
Should There Be Wind Farms?

Pros: If we have wind farms it would be a clean source of energy. Wind farms create jobs and actually  wind energy creates 30% more jobs than a coal plant and 66% more jobs than a nuclear power plant per unit of energy generated. The cost of wind-generated electricity has fallen from nearly 40 cents per kWh in the early 1980s to 2.5-5 cents per kWh today depending on wind speed and project size.

Cons: One of the con of wind turbines and how loud they are. Building wind turbines are not cheap either. They are very big, hard to transport, and cost a lot to transport.

I am on the pro side because wind farms are much cleaner than other source of energy. I think the pros outweight the cons with wind energy. Wind farms create jobs and are the future source of energy for us.

http://www.windustry.org/pros_cons_wind_energy

# data[].attributes.body
Tap Water vs. Bottled Water

Pros (bottled)- It is easier to transport for on the go. There are strict guidelines on the label of what can and can't be put on so therefore it is high quality drinking water. Lead levels are lower in bottled than tap.
Cons (bottled)- Buying bottled water can become expensive. It effects the environment because only so many can be recycled. There is researching still going on to see if there is chemicals leaching into the water from the bottle.

Pros (tap)- It is free! Many tests take place each year making sure tap water is safe for us to drink. It contains fluoride which helps reduce teeth decay and improves oral health. It is available about anywhere.
Cons (tap)- It contains lead that is from old lead pipes in homes. The quality and taste isn't always the same in different places. Personal care and pharmaceutical drugs are found in tap water.

My opinion- I think water is water whether it comes from a bottle or not. Drinking tap water would be better for the environment. I find tap water cold and refreshing.
http://www.sheknows.com/health-and-wellness/articles/1071967/bottled-vs-tap-water

# data[].attributes.headline
Summer: Are humans responsible for climate change? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Summer: Are humans responsible for climate change? 

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that earths temperature has gone up due to the high levels of greenhouse gases. These gases are coming from human activities. With these increases the climate change is taking a big hit into global warming. With the decrease in the amount of greenhouse gases the climate changes wouldn't be so much affected.

The negative side states humans and greenhouse gases are to small of a change and shouldn't affect the global warming, that there should be more. Our planet is big enough it should be able to handle it. The theory is humans aren't the cause to global warming, it is because of bad models of climate and misleading science.

I am on the affirmative side because us humans give off more carbon dioxide than needed, but we also play a big role in climate change and human activity.
http://climatechange.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Is wind energy a good resource?
Affirmative side states that wind energy is a good resource because anything is better than creating huge excess of carbon dioxide to produce energy. Wind energy is completely renewable. It is also a source of clean, non-polluting electricity.

The negative side says that wind farms can be noisy and may spoil the view for some people living near. Wind turbines can be a treat to wild life and deforestation to set up the wind farms creates an environmental impact.

I agree that it is a good source because there are many areas in the world that have enough wind to support a wind farm.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-wind-energy-a-good-resource
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/energy_resources/energy_from_the_sunrev3.shtml

# data[].attributes.body
Are humans responsible for climate change?
Affirmative side says that yes humans are partly responsible for climate change but not completely. The carbon dioxide that is in the air is connected to humans. Burning fossil fuels and chopping down forests hasn't helped it.
opposing side states that no humans are not responsible, because humans cannot control weather, mother nature does what it wants so to speak. I am on the affirmative side because we keep damaging our earth, which causes major problems including the climate change.
http://climatechange.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Ban on logging?

Affirmative side states: There was a find that there is a connection between deforestation and climate change and loss of biodiversity. IN Brazil, burning trees has made the area drier causing more wild fires. It is estimated that tropical rainforests have half of the world's species and taking away their homes will decrease this number.

Negative side states: Scientists estimate that deforestation, if continued at its current rate, will only reduce species in tropical forests by 5-10% in the next 30 years. It is said that the idea of deforestation is over exaggerated. In some countries, such as Indonesia, it creates more space for migration and avoids overpopulation.

I am more for the negative side. Some day I want to be able to show my children what a rainforest looks like. I believe that we still do need the paper products coming from trees but we need to learn to re-use and be less greedy about removing more and more trees.

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Ban_on_logging

# data[].attributes.body
Is Global Warming good or bad?
Pros:
-temperature increase of about 1 to 1.4 is normal and is usually caused by the amount of heat the sun gives of.
-The amount of carbon dioxide by our man-made activities is only compared to a single drop of water in a 100,000 gallon tank. Man-made excretion to effect the climate.

Cons:
-Deforestation of the earth removes a natural carbon dioxide removal system.

-Oceans have risen eight inches since 1961 due to the melting of ice.

In my opinion I would agree with the con side because by cutting down the trees we are removing the one thing that can control the carbon dioxide in the air. The more trees we remove might end up causing the temperatures to rise even more
http://occupytheory.org/global-warming-pros-and-cons-list/

# data[].attributes.body
Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels?

Pros- Yes we can in just three decades according to research. But the cost will play an big part, and we will have to change the way we treat the environment. We could replace thing like coal with solar, and wind power with electricity.

Cons- It will cost a lot of moola. We would also still need to use the other types of power like oil, and electricity when the others fail. We would also need oil, and gas to power our cars, planes, etc.

I agree with both sides. Because we put a lot of harmful things into the air, but we still need them to go on with every day life.

"Alternative Energy - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Geothermal Energy good for the Environment? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Geothermal Energy good for the Environment? 

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that geothermal energy is better for the environment than gas or oil furnaces, because there is no combustion. As long as the Earth exists, Geothermal is a renewable resource. It isn't weather dependent like solar or wind power; geothermal heat pumps work year-round. Also, there are 30%-60% savings on heating and 25%-50% savings on cooling. Geothermal is technically just moving heat that already exists, not making new heat.
The opposing side states that geothermal can cause damage to underground loops (tree roots, rodents, etc.) and has the possibility to be difficult and costly to repair. Geothermal energy using wells requires an incredible usage of water, and also the pumps still require electricity to function. Implementing geothermal into a home could cost anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000.

I am for the affirmative side. I have geothermal in my house and it saves money on heat. Also, installation was minimally invasive and within a year we couldn't tell it was in the ground. Geothermal is a better alternative than other options for heat, it may be more expensive, but in the long run it'll end up being cheaper.

https://www.comfort-pro.com/2015/06/geothermal-energy-pros-and-cons/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the United States Transition Away from Fossil Fuels and Towards Renewable Energy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the United States Transition Away from Fossil Fuels and Towards Renewable Energy?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro : States that we should begin to move away from natural gas, oil, coal and nuclear power as quickly as possible to ensure a livable world for present and future generations.

Con: States that we really rely on traditional [energy] sources. That's the reality.  Coal, nuclear,   natural gas and oil are all used everyday in large amounts in order for our world to function.

In my opinion, I would agree with the Pro side, as I do believe we should be making decisions regarding the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Is Human Activity Responsible for Global Climate Change?

People on the affirmative side say that human activity such as burning fossil fuels is causing a significant and increasingly severe climate changes including loss go sea ice, global warming, stronger storms, sea level rising, and more droughts. The rising levels of the human-produced gases released into the atmosphere create a greenhouse effect that traps heat and causes global warming.

People on the negative side argue human produced gases are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases.

I am on the affirmative side. I believe that humans play a huge role in climate change because the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is causing global warming is proven to be connected to human activity.

http://climatechange.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006525

# data[].attributes.body
Is wind energy a good resource?
Affirmative side states that wind energy is a good resource because anything is better than creating huge excess of carbon dioxide to produce energy. Wind energy is completely renewable. It is also a source of clean, non-polluting electricity.

The negative side says that wind farms can be noisy and may spoil the view for some people living near. Wind turbines can be a treat to wild life and deforestation to set up the wind farms creates an environmental impact.

I agree that it is a good source because there are many areas in the world that have enough wind to support a wind farm, so why not use it.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-wind-energy-a-good-resource
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/energy_resources/energy_from_the_sunrev3.shtml

# data[].attributes.body
Is human activity responsible for global climate change?
People on the affirmative side state that rising levels of human-produced gases released into the atmosphere create a greenhouse effect that traps heat and causes global warming. The specific type of carbon dioxide that is increasing in earth's atmosphere can be directly connected to human activity.

The negative side states that Earth's climate has always warmed and cooled. They also say that the rising levels of carbon dioxide don't necessarily cause global warming. Human produced carbon dioxide is re-absorbed by oceans, forests, etc., so there's not climate change because of that.

I am on the affirmative side because I think that a lot of the carbon dioxide that is released more than needed is because of humans. It was even proven that it was connected to human activity.
http://climatechange.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Should we keep protecting Coral Reefs?
Affirmative side states it protect shores from the impact of waves and from storms. It also benefits to humans in food and medicine ways. The negative side states that over-fishing is a problem. Many people often go fish where there is the most coral reef trying to catch "cooler" fish. This can be a problem because they may hurt the environment around the area. Tourism is another problem. Millions of people tour coral reef areas every year. This causes things like pollution which hurts not just coral reefs, but the whole ocean life.
In my opinion I think we need to keep the coral reefs. They provide habitat for millions of ocean creatures and all animals need a habitat. I want to go on a vacation sometime and scuba dive in the coral reefs too.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs

# data[].attributes.body
Should natural gas be used?
Affirmative side states that natural gas is the most used source of energy because it is highly combustible and burns cleanly than other forms of energy. It also comes from fossil fuel that is made up of animals and plant fossils from millions of years ago. It is also safer and easier to store along with being cheap.
Con side states that it is non-renewable and can't be replaced.  It also requires extensive pipelines to cover the land. It is potentially explosive.
I am on the affirmative side because natural gas is a cheap and safer form of energy that we can use as of right now. You also don't have to dal with any waste and it burns efficiently.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-natural-gas.php

# data[].attributes.headline
Is human Activity Responsible for Global Climate Change? Keagan Moose

# data[].attributes.subject
Is human Activity Responsible for Global Climate Change? Keagan Moose

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that human activity such as burning fossil fuel is causing significant climate changes. Over time, the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gasses like as carbon dioxide and methane have increased. They think that we need to take international acting to put a stop to this before worse things start to happen.

The negative side states that the generated greenhouse gasses that humans put out are too small to change the earth’s climate, and earth is capable of absorbing those increases. They argue that the rise in oxygen and methane have increased due to the sun's heat and ocean's current

I am in favor of both sides. Humans are most liking contributing to the rise in methane and oxygen levels but I don't think the earth can't withstand them.

http://climatechange.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006525

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: Scientists have estimated that as soon as 2050, we could have damaged the fish population so much that most species of fish would be extinct. Overfishing happens when more fish are caught than the population can replace through natural reproduction, which means the population will rapidly deplete. Jobs on fishing boats are dangerous and even life threatening.  Governments worldwide have been trying to keep it in check, but with boats being at sea for months at a time it's difficult to regulate, meaning there is also an increase in illegal fishing.

Cons: Overfishing creates jobs and helps meet the increasing demands for food. The population is growing, which means the demand for food is too. Additionally it lowers the cost of seafood, allowing more people access to food. The more fish we sell, the less they will cost due to supply and demand.

My opinion: I don't believe that humans should be overfishing. Collecting massive amounts of fish at a time can feed a lot of people, but humans have caused enough damage to the ocean in the short time we've been on earth. From oil spills to the Coral Reef being declared dead as of 2016, we haven't been a friend to ocean life. While fish hatcheries can help, it's difficult to replace millions of fish artificially. And the idea of the majority of fish populations being extinct in just 33 years is terrifying in itself.
http://flowpsychology.com/6-pros-and-cons-of-overfishing/

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that they should because can potentially save many lives because it can be used for many treatments and possible cures. They believe animals are better to test on than actual humans.

The negate side states that they shouldn't be used because they don't have the same effect on humans. People on this side believe it is inhumane and cruel to the animals.

I am personally on the opposing side because I love animals. It is cruel and inhumane and animals are different than humans!

http://animal-testing.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
levi m
pros- create electricity
no warm to earth
cons- its unreliable
produces energy on schedule not when needed
my side- good cause gives good energy for cheap
http://www.clearpictureonline.com/SO-Wind%20Power.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Brandi Alice Is the human race starting to overpopulate ?Pro-More people to work and make and or grow things we need.Con- Then we will have more people to feed which will lead to hungerPro- Could lead to more inventors.Con-We are running out of room for people to live.I think we need to start limiting the number of kids someone can have and have everyone adopt at least one child. Because if we become over populated we could all start to die.http://www.everythingconnects.org/overpopulation-effects.html

# data[].attributes.subject
Brandi Alice Is the human race starting to overpopulate ?Pro-More people to work and make and or grow things we need.Con- Then we will have more people to feed which will lead to hungerPro- Could lead to more inventors.Con-We are running out of room for people to live.I think we need to start limiting the number of kids someone can have and have everyone adopt at least one child. Because if we become over populated we could all start to die.http://www.everythingconnects.org/overpopulation-effects.html

# data[].attributes.body
Earths' rising temperature is human caused

The affirmative side state that the amount of greenhouse gasses humans have released into the atmosphere has created an un-normal increase in temp.

The negative side states that for as long as Earth has been around it has gone through heating and cooling periods. It is just a part of nature.

I am on the affirmative side, as well as the negative. I believe humans have played an impacting in Earths rising temperature, but it is also on  its normal cycle.
http://climatechange.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- Wind energy doesn't pollute the air like refinerys and energy plants do. It is a source of clean renewable energy. In one year of running it can produce enough energy to power around 1500  homes.

The  negative side- Wind turbines are not silent and can affect the animals in the area. Their technology has improved and sound decreased in recent years. Some wind turbines can take up as much as two to three acres of farmable land. The constant air flow and wind keeps plants from growing.

I am on the affirmative side because I think that wind energy is very useful. It is a very clean source and it doesn't put atmospheric emissions into the air, like most other forms of energy. It is a very cost efficient way to produce energy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pros+of+wind+turbines&oq=pros+of+wind+tu&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.3769j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

# data[].attributes.headline
Josie Kleinow                          Are wind turbines better for our environment?

# data[].attributes.subject
Josie Kleinow                          Are wind turbines better for our environment?

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that wind turbines produce clean energy, meaning there are no resources you need to drill, frack, mine, transport, or burn. They are also renewable, compared to oil. The cost of them is fairly low and is decreasing, because the power is essentially free, once everything is paid for. They can also be built pretty much anywhere.
The negative side states that even though you can build them anywhere, the wind is inconsistent and unpredictable, so you may end up having to pay for electricity, when no wind comes. People also complain that the sound of a wind turbine is too noisy. Bird lovers say that this is harmful to their species, because fatalities of birds have occurred, along with bats.
I am in favor of the affirmative side, because using wind turbines and easier and a more cost efficient way of collecting energy. Wind turbines may not be suitable in some areas, but the areas they are suitable in, you could always have a place to store all the energy, to supply to more people.
http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/wind-power-pros-cons/

# data[].attributes.body
Is human activity responsible for global climate change?

The affirmative side argues that humans are responsible for the temperature increase on earth. The rising levels of human-produced gases released into the atmosphere create a greenhouse effect that traps heat and causes global warming. They declare that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last century was clearly caused by human activity as it occurred at a rate much faster than natural climate changes could produce which is causing significant and increasingly severe climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, stronger storms, and more droughts.

The negative side argues that earths climate has always warmed and cooled and the 20th century rise in global temperature is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years. They state that the human-produced carbon dioxide is re-absorbed by oceans, forests, and other “carbon sinks” and the rising levels of the CO2 does not necessarily cause global warming which contradicts the core thesis of humans causing climate change.

I am in favor of the affirmative side because humans play a huge factor in climate change and the gases are proven to be connected to human activity.

http://climatechange.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
This energy is becoming more and more popular in Iowa with wind farms set up every year, and solar panels put in residential areas, even hydro-electric power put to industrial use.

The pros are that it saves money in the long run, as well as keeps the atmosphere clean. Solar, hydro, and wind electric power is the future

The cons are; that it is very expensive and it requires maintenance over time.

I favor the use of renewable energy because it pays off to use it in the long run.

# data[].attributes.body
Electric Cars

Pro- Have an electric car it is a lot cheaper to drive.  Electric cars are also very quiet.
con- Electric cars have a longer refueling time. The car itself cost more.
I don't have a problem with people using electric cars I like the fact that they are better for the environment.
http://www.plugincars.com/electric-cars-pros-and-cons-128637.html

# data[].attributes.body
Should we use bottled water?
The affirmative side states:
Water that filters through a porous rock, gravel or sand.
Natural water that comes from an underground source.
Waters enriched with electrolytes, vitamins, and minerals.
The negative side states:
When plastics are heated up, the chemical releases into the food.
The BPA contained in the water bottle and in the Tupperware releases directly into the food or water and then is digested in the human body.Bottled water is not required to be tested for fecal matter.
I am on the negative side I think you should use tap water. If you are scared about the tap water boil it or get the water tested.
https://www.healthambition.com/bottled-water-vs-tap-water/

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- Life saving treatments can be tested on living specimen to see the reactions that can occur. Over the past 100 years, many life-saving drugs have been developed through animal testing. Insulin was made when they used a dog with diabetes to find a solution for the condition. The polio vaccine was developed by using horses and has dropped polio from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012.

Con- Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Subjecting defenseless animals to drugs and tests that have no controlled effects is painful and fatal for many of these animals. There are also alternatives now for animal testing by using in vitro (in glass) testing. This process involves the use of microorganisms in a petri dish.

My opinion- I do believe animal testing is cruel and inhumane, and because of that I am against it. Animal testing has created many life-saving treatments for humans, but now that there are alternative options, I don't think it is necessary.

"Animal Testing - Procon.Org". Animal-Testing.Procon.Org, 2017, http://animal-testing.procon.org/.

# data[].attributes.body
Are humans to blame for global warming?

Pro-  The affirmative side says that humans are to blame.The pollution made by factories changes the temperature causing global warming and greenhouse gases. Global warming results in an excess amount of carbon emissions, which crack the ozone layer. This allows harmful rays of sunlight to enter the atmosphere, melting ice caps and causing global warming.

Con- The opposing side says global warming is natural and that Earth fluctuates. Many say humans are to blame for global warming, however, cows produce more methane then cars and this causes global warming.

My opinion- I am on the affirmative side and do believe humans are to blame for global warming. Factories produce an abundant amount of air pollution and people dump garbage where ever they want. Humans are to blame and if we don't fix the problem soon, generations after ours' will suffer tremendously.

Source(s)-
http://www.debate.org/polls/are-humans-to-blame-for-global-warming

http://www.debate.org/polls/is-global-warming-a-problem2

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative side: Animal testing has already lead to many life saving treatments and cures. There is no way that someone could safely test on a human so this is the next closest thing.

Opposing: The opposing side states that animal testing is cruel and inhumane. They say that testing animals doesn't work because they don't directly have the same results as a human does.

I think that animal testing is a good thing. At this point we have not found a better way to find cures and to do other medical research, so this is the best alternative.
https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-animal-testing
Michael Egan

# data[].attributes.body
Samson Elledge
Are plastic roads good or bad?
Pros-The roads get built 10 times faster. They use up recycled plastic which helps control the amount of plastic in landfills.
Cons- When you use plastic over and over micro pieces of plastic come off and are very bad for you. Some of these roads have a lot of micro plastic come  off over time and they run into rivers, streams, ponds, and oceans.

I think they should find away to make the roads safe so that the micro plastics do not come off and hurt the environment. If they find away to do that then yes i am all for having plastic roads, but they need to be strong.
https://thelogicalindian.com/story-feed/opinion/waste-plastics-for-road-laying-good-bad-or-ugly/

# data[].attributes.body
Should Deforestation be stopped?

The affirmative side states that deforestation creates more usable space for growth, and so that there is more room for improved road systems. Another major part in deforestation is that it creates more jobs.

The negative side states that deforestation increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and contributes to the extinction of wildlife. When forests are cut down, it is not only the trees that are being lost, but also countless amounts of wildlife. There has been a drastic decline in the amount of wildlife in certain areas that have experienced severe effects of deforestation.

I am in favor of both sides. I like the affirmative side because of the way it creates jobs and gives us the chance to produce more food with providing more land for crops. But I also agree with the negative side because of the harm it can put on the wildlife.
http://greengarageblog.org/17-important-pros-and-cons-of-deforestation

# data[].attributes.body
Is Natural gas a good thing or a bad thing?

Pros- Natural Gas burns cleaner that Coal and Oil, it produces a fewer amounts of toxin into the air like nitrogen oxides and sulfer dioxide. In the U.S. market it is currently the cheapest source of electrical power.

Cons- Natural gas still creates greenhouse gasses, which leads to climate change and global warming. It is also highly combustible, and leads to bad explosions.

I don't really know what side Im on, I really just don't have enough patience to research this topic enough to figure out if its good or bad.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-natural-gas.php

# data[].attributes.body
Are pesticides helpful or harmful?
~The affirmative side proclaims pesticides help keep mice and insects from damaging the plant, producing a higher yield and better harvest. Pesticides also kill harmful weeds that could kill the crop or disrupt its growth.
~The negative side states the chemicals in pesticides are not good for human congestion. It also says the pesticides kill living things it was not intended to kill, threatens the lives of thousands of plants and animals.
~I am in favor of the affirmative side. It helps farmers produce more crops and lowers the chance of damage to the crops. The weather and disease are other factors that damage crops. These can't be controlled, so using pesticides limits the damage done to the plants. Washing food products that have been sprayed wit pesticides help reduce the amount of pesticide consumption. Farmers don't use enough pesticides to kill people. If you wash your fruits and vegetables like you were taught to in first grade you should be fine.
http://franticfoodie.com/10-biggest-pros-and-cons-of-pesticides/

# data[].attributes.body
Should We Use Piplines?

Affirmative: The Pipeline will allow more independence within our country. They make more jobs for people while being built, and the tax revenue is suppose to be high with each pipeline, allowing that money to be spent on helping schools, roads, and emergency services around there areas. "Pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries than road and rail -Manhattan Institute."

Con: The pipelines are allowing a lot more oil into our economy at one time, which will cause a spike in the CO2 being released into the air, and harming the earth while changing climates. Pipelines often have dangers within there route. For instance the Dakota Access Pipeline was slated to run straight over a river that was a major watersource. That same Pipeline is on the sacred grounds of Oceti Sakowin. That land belongs to those people, and they have a treaty to prove it.

I think that the pipelines are not ideal, but until we've got something more readily available and easy enough for other to all convert to, where stuck with pipelines.
http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005331

# data[].attributes.body
Is frac sand mining good or bad?

Pro- Not many places actually do this. Natural gas prices stay low. Tons of jobs are created when a plant opens up. Less dependent on other countries.

Con- Water contamination. Chemicals released into the air. Could potentially cause earthquakes.

I am on the pro side because at Pattison Sand Co. They employ over hundreds of people and are going to hire more that 50 employees. Also their is no direct evidence that earthquakes are caused by fracking.

https://fracsandminingblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/pros-and-cons-of-frac-sand-mining/

# data[].attributes.body
Is Human Activity primarily responsible for Global Climate Change?
People on the affirmative side say  that rising levels of human produced gases get traps heat in the atmosphere and causes global warming.  The rise of carbon dioxide over the last century happened too fast than natural climate changes could produce.
People on the negative side say Earth's climate has always warmed and cooled and the rise in temperatures is within the bounds of temp. fluctuations over the past 3,000 years. Human produced carbon dioxide is absorbed by oceans, forests, and other things.
I am in favor of the affirmative side. I believe that we, humans, play a big role in climate change.  Because the type of CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere, causing global warming, is proven to be connected to human activity.

http://climatechange.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Is natural gas clean when burned for energy?
Pro- Natural Gases can replace Fossil Fuels that give off more greenhouse gases
-Natural Gases have an easier time transitioning into renewable energy
Con-It is a gas that worsens global warming
-Methane that is in natural gas is the lead contradictor to global warmin

Opinion- I am with the Con side because I feel that global warming is a huge issue and if we use Natural Gases it could worsen.

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Natural_gas

# data[].attributes.body
Should animals be used for testing?

The affirmative side states that many life-saving cures and treatments have came from animal testing. A test where dogs had their pancreases removed, guided the discovery of insulin for diabetics. People also state that animals are very similar to human in ways, so they are compatible for research. All mammals descended from common ancestors that have the same set of organs, so humans and animals are biologically similar.

The negative side states that animal testing in inhumane and cruel. Animals used experimentally are caused to undergo forced feeding, forced inhalation, deprivation of food and water, and long periods of physical restraint. There are now alternative testing methods that can replace experiments on animals such as where human cells are put in a petri dish, which provides more current results. Some drugs that pass animal tests are not entirely safe for humans.

I am in favor of the negative side, because I feel that animals shouldn't have to go through all these exertions that may not even be helpful for humans. There are better way to test experiments than on animals.

http://animal-testing.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Taylor G.                               Is Wind Energy a Good Recourse 

# data[].attributes.subject
Taylor G.                               Is Wind Energy a Good Recourse 

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: Many state that Wind Energy is a good recourse because it doesn't use fuels or produce gases or smoke into the air.

Cons: People state that wind turbines are expensive and unreliable because we can't control when the wind blows and when it doesn't.

My Opinion: I personally agree that they are reliable. I think the argument that we cant control when the wind blows is kinda dumb. Also by spending money to put them in where they would work (like on flat plains) we'd be saving money and resources anyways.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2007/01/is-wind-power-reliable-47129.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Frack mining be illegal or legal 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Frack mining be illegal or legal 

# data[].attributes.body
Hunter Boone
pros:

It creates more jobs

It makes natural gas is cheaper for people to heat their homes

Less greenhouse gases

Cons:
It puts dust in the air when getting the sand out of the ground. It also causes water contamination and makes the water into a gas.
It can make the ground collapse from getting sand out of the ground.

I think that It should be legal because we need oil for cars and other stuff.
https://fracsandminingblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/pros-and-cons-of-frac-sand-mining/

# data[].attributes.headline
Austin-Should we use animals for Testing

# data[].attributes.subject
Austin-Should we use animals for Testing

# data[].attributes.body
Pro-  Testing animals has contributed to many life saving cures for us humans
Pro-Animals are appropriate animals because there bodies and cells just very similar.
Cons- Testing animals is cruel and inhumane.
Cons- Animals are very different from human being so this could lead to poor results between people and the test subjects.
I would pick the Pro side because I believe this will help find cures to help people.
http://animal-testing.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
                   Devin Tielbar                                Are Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?

# data[].attributes.subject
                   Devin Tielbar                                Are Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?

# data[].attributes.body
pro-Rising levels of human-produced gases released into the atmosphere
Average temperatures on earth have increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural climate changes

con-Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 does not necessarily cause global warming
Human-produced CO2 is                 reabsorbed by oceans, forests negating any climate changes

I think humans are not causing climate change

http://climatechange.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should there be engine emision standards in the U.S.?            NAME?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should there be engine emision standards in the U.S.?            NAME?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- It slows global warming.
It creats jobs
It saves money on fuel cost
It helps with polution in the city.
cons- It causes the price of vehicles to rise.
limits costomer choice.
Hurts the economy.

I am on the negative side because it raises the cost of owning a vehicle.
Avrey Smith
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Vehicle_fuel_economy_standards

# data[].attributes.body
Should we stop deforestation?
Affirmative:
If we continue the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest many tropical flowers, mammals, or amphibians will not be able to survive because the rainforest provides a humid climate perfect for their survival. If we continue at the pace we are for the deforestation of the trees Earth could potentially become uninhabitable because trees produce the most oxygen for the air which we breathe
Negative:
Deforestation provides more land for opportunities. It also could lead to the solution for world hunger, since much land could be turned into crops for food. Overall deforestation provides jobs, money, and many opportunities
Opinion:
I am all for the affirmative, there are many other options to replace deforestation, like tree farms, instead of attacking land that is already inhabited, just create land for ourselves to produce trees. Many endangered animals lose their habitats to this. Plus pollution only increases while oxygen decreases which will end up being detrimental to us humans in the future.
http://visionlaunch.com/pros-and-cons-of-deforestation/#

# data[].attributes.body
Macie Weigand
Pros:
1. No-Till farming can save money over time by using less fertilizer and saving diesel for running the tractor.

2. You can get a higher crop yield when in a lower moisture area. Or anywhere depending on how long you use no-till.

Cons:
1. Many farmers using the no-till method have report an increase in the using herbicide.

2. The special equipment it takes to  use this method can be costly. A  no-till drill can cost $100,000 - $200,000. Even if you can make money back in the future, it's a big cost upfront.

Opinion: I Agree with the affirmative side. I think we should do has much has we can to save the soil we have or farmer will struggle to feed America.
http://modernfarmer.com/2013/08/7-facts-till-farming/

# data[].attributes.body
Sam Koeller
The affirmative side states that Destroying nature to get at the tiny trickle of oil we have left won't make any significant difference in what we pay at the pump. Getting into the last little bit of oil left will not make our country less reliant on foreign oil. The American Energy Department says that lifting the ban on offshore drilling would have a small impact on oil supplies and an 'insignificant' impact on prices.

The negative side states that It is estimated that there is enough oil and natural gas offshore and in non-wilderness and non-park lands in the United States  to fuel 50 million cars and heat nearly 100 million homes for the next 25 years. If Congress were to expand the areas available for active exploration, we could make more domestic energy available to Americans in the future, while sending a strong positive supply signal to markets today, potentially putting downward pressure on prices.

I am in favor of the negative side because if there is enough oil left to power 50 million cars and heat 100 million homes for 25 years, I think we should tap into some, but not all of it

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org