# data[].attributes.body
Pros-
Could prevent people using welfare for drugs. It is a normal part of life, people should be drug tested, just because it is such a big part of life.
Cons-Most of welfare is for children, 80% of people that are on welfare, already have a job, most people use welfare to help if they have children, so people should be tested so they can use the money fro their children. Jobs drug test people, so if people arent drug tested to get "free money" it could be considered dicrimination.
I am more towards the opposing side because i think everyone should be drug tested if their going to recieve free money.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the voting age be lowered to 16? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the voting age be lowered to 16? 

# data[].attributes.body
My debate topic is, whether or not the voting age be lowered to 16.

People on the affirmative side of this topic say, that teenagers should get involved in politics. Most people on the affirmative side of this issue state that teens are NOT interested enough in politics, and that lowering the voting age would heighten this interest. Others say that the voting age should be lowered so that it is consistent with the age you can leave school.

People on the negative side of this topic say, that teenagers are not mature enough to understand politics. Another argument would be that teenagers are not mature enough to understand politics either. They also state that just because a young person has the option to vote, it won't suddenly spike their interest in politics.

After considering multiple views regarding both sides of the topic, I believe that the voting age should stay at 18. I believe that there is no possible way to effectively measure the maturity of every 16 year old in the United States.

http://debatewise.org/debates/27594-should-the-voting-age-be-lowered-to-16/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the voting age be lowered to 16? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the voting age be lowered to 16? 

# data[].attributes.body
My debate topic is, whether or not the voting age be lowered to 16.

People on the affirmative side of this topic say, that teenagers should get involved in politics. Most people on the affirmative side of this issue state that teens are NOT interested enough in politics, and that lowering the voting age would heighten this interest. Others say that the voting age should be lowered so that it is consistent with the age you can leave school.

People on the negative side of this topic say, that teenagers are not mature enough to

# data[].attributes.body
Pros-  18 is the age of adulthood in the United States, and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption. Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity.

Cons- Lowering the drinking age would be medically irresponsible. Alcohol consumption can interfere with development of the young adult brain's frontal lobes. Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 will irresponsibly allow a greater segment of the population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs, which are not safe.

I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Because you are an adult you should be able to make your own decisions. If you can vote and fight for your country you should be able to drink.

http://drinkingage.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states  that There is no reason to uphold the human rights of a criminal.

As humans, we are all entitled to human rights, but criminals do not deserve even the most basic of rights. And studies of the death penalty have reached various conclusions about its effectiveness in deterring crime. Indeed, other recent investigations, using a variety of samples and statistical methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder rates.

The negative side states  that the death penalty always possesses a chance of misjudgment. Larry Griffin, who was executed in 1995 in the US, was only later proven to be innocent. That, however, did not bring the innocent back from the dead. And the death penalty does not necessarily decrease crime rate. According to a research done by Jeffrey of Columbia University’s law school, it is very difficult to find correlation between capital punishment and decline in crime rate.

I am in favor of the negative side. Because the death penalty always possesses a chance of misjudgment. I think even if you miss 10 criminals, you should not make one unjust person. And no one has the right to kill anyone. No matter who you are and what you have done all life is important and precious. Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong?

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000
http://kin.naver.com/qna/detail.nhn?d1id=11&dirId=110812&docId=256983355&qb=ZGVhdGggcGVuYWx0eQ==&enc=utf8&section=kin&rank=1&search_sort=0&spq=0&pid=T5nAGwpVuEGssu0PMyZsssssssd-427072&sid=Rsw05LBJdPF7heY%2Bc9B9cQ%3D%3D

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side explains that if teacher had guns that they would be able to protect there students if there ever was a school shooting.  If people who want to shoot up a school knows that the teachers are armed, they may not go because of that.

The negative side states that if teachers had guns that it could get in the wrong hands and make matters worse. Teachers would need to know how to handle a gun which would mean that they would have to take a course which can be costly. Plus where would you put the gun? It would have to be locked up very secularly, but in a very fast situation would the teacher even have the time to get the gun before the shooter arrives?

In my opinion, I think teachers should not be able to have guns. If there was a school shooter, there are so many different things you could use as a weapon (books, pens, boxes, etc). Plus there are plenty of way to keep your door closed long enough to make a plan and get out of the school so I don't think giving a gun to teachers is necessary.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-teachers-be-armed

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the Words "under God" Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the Words "under God" Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states the fact that  the Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 for a magazine contest, and it read: "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The Pledge became part of the US Flag Code in 1942, and in 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase "under God” into the Pledge.
"Under God" in the Pledge argue that the United States is a Christian nation, at least 80% of Americans support the phrase, the language reflects America’s civic culture and is not a religious statement, and federal law, state constitutions, and US currency already contain references to God.

The Negate side states that church and state should be kept strictly separate as the Founding Fathers intended. They argue that the Constitution protects minority rights against majority will, and that the words "under God" in the Pledge are a religious phrase and thus violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I myself believe we should say "Under God" because I am Christian also because that's how it was written. I see it as the Constitution. We have always had that, yet we cannot change the words or take anything out of it. So what is the difference between the pledge of allegiance.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the CIA be allowed to use torture methods in interrogations? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the CIA be allowed to use torture methods in interrogations? 

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that Information obtained from terrorists is often very time- sensitive. The information found is used in a variety of ways; if information is given about an attack taking place in the future, military and government officials can utilize that information in a timely manner to prepare for an attack. Torture allows officials to obtain the information in a timely fashion. Next, many argue that terrorists are deserving of some extra punishment as a result of all the death and misery that they have caused. Torture is a means of providing that extra punishment, or an eye for an eye. Lastly, torture is  justified by many because it is still relatively humane compared to what terrorists to do American soldiers they capture themselves.
The opposing side states that
torture is considered by many experts as both impractical and ineffective. When people are tortured, the information supplied is often made up; the person undergoing torture does not have a final goal of supplying accurate information. Most torture victims are not even capable of giving accurate information. Instead, their main goal is simply to stop the torture in order to allow pain or stress levels to return to normal levels. Another disadvantage is the high rate of weakening among interrogators. It is hard to keep the interrogators psychologically sound when they partake in such difficult activities.
I am with the affirmative side. Yes, torture has it's negatives but I feel they outweigh them. It is an effective way to receive intel, real or not, we can take precautions just to be safe. And I agree with the eye for an eye.
http://www.debate.org/torture/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age

# data[].attributes.body
pro-18 is the age of adulthood in the United States and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol. It bars, restaurants and distributors make more money.

Con-Alcohol consumption can interfere with development of the young adult brain's or 18 years would buy alcohol for there friend that would not be of age. It could make younger people drink at a lower ages. It could case more car accidence.
I would be agents it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should under God be used in the Pledge of Allegiance?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should under God be used in the Pledge of Allegiance?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: At least 80% Americans believe in the message of "under god." The language is influenced as part of someones culture. It is your own belief.
Cons: Other people disagree with using any type of religion in any kind of way. The belief of church and it's religious life should stay completely separate from the federal law and state constitution. They argue that the words of "under god" is a violation to the US first Amendment. They strongly agree the words under god should not be used in the Pledge of Allegiance .
I am on the affirmative side because I believe in the religious life. I don't see a reason to change it and in the way it affects other people.
http://undergod.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should opinionated politics be discussed in schools?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should opinionated politics be discussed in schools?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: In this day and age, it's extremely important to keep up with the times. Discussing politics in school helps students learn of the world around them and prep them for the real world. In classes like history, government, and current events, it only makes sense to discuss. This can help students form their own opinions.

Con: Discussing politics in school can cause heated discussions and derive from the topic at hand in each respective class. Teachers aren't allowed legally to express their political belief, but they can choose carefully which parts of news they display to the class and this can sway the opinions of the moldable minds of students.

My opinion: I believe politics should be discussed in political classes. It's important for students to learn about what's going on in their country and how it will effect them. That being said, I don't believe it should be discussed outside of political classes. Students go to school to learn a variety of different subjects in each class accordingly. I don't go to Algebra II to learn English, why would I go to any class but government to learn about politics?
http://dbbullseye.com/2015/politics-in-the-classroom-procon/

# data[].attributes.body
pros- Trump is trying to protect America from ISIS and try to keep immigrates out.
Cons-Not all Immigrants are bad and by keeping other countries out makes other countries think we are raciest.
Pro- He really could make U.S better and have a stronger system for immigration.

Con- In one way or another he could get us killed or put us in another world war,
In my option I am with Trump for now as he shows us that he is changing things for the better.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/donald-trump-sworn-in-as-45th-us-president.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Should weed be used for medical purposes?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should weed be used for medical purposes?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro-There is now promising research into the use of marijuana that could impact tens of thousands of children and adults, including treatment for cancer.
con- The dangers of marijuana are  by people wanting to get rich off of legalization.
pro-The vast majority of people who use marijuana never progress to using other illicit drugs, or even to becoming regular marijuana consumers.
con-Although I understand many believe marijuana is the most effective drug in combating their medical ailments, I would caution against this assumption due to the lack of consistent use.
I am agents the use of it.
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000141

# data[].attributes.body
pros- some say it helps the U.S economy through additional tax revenues
expansion of the low cost labor pool and increased money in circulation
cons- people argue that illegals are criminals
and are social and economic burdens to law obeying tax paying Americans
my side- They take jobs form hard working americans that deserve them more than those illegals so they shouldn't be allowed into our country and take our jobs away.
http://immigration.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Should there be a death penalty?

The affirmative side states that our country should have the death penalty for many reasons. A lot of people believe that so many people’s lives have been ruined in some way/shape/form by the person who could potentially be killed with the death penalty. They believe that the defendant should pay the price for what they have done to someone, by killing them.

The opposing side disagrees with the affirmative side. They believe that it’s unfair to kill someone, because no one deserves to die. We can not actually to something to them that they have done to another. Rapers would be killed, rather than raped. So then the murderers should not be murdered. There are alternative options. Such as life in prison.

I am on the opposing side for so many reasons! I truly think killing someone because of their bad actions is wrong.. The court may have evidence of such heinous crimes, but what if they falsely accuse someone of a crime they did not commit? That innocent person would be killed for no reason at all.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should there be a limit on the amount of fish you can keep?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should there be a limit on the amount of fish you can keep?

# data[].attributes.body
My topic this week is should there be a limit on the amount of fish you can keep.

Pros- It creates more job opportunities, and it help people eat healthier.

cons- It van cause a dent in the marine life population, and it can increase pollution.

I think having a limit on the amount of fish you can keep is good. Otherwise the number of fish will drop, and be overfished.
http://connectusfund.org/list-of-12-big-pros-and-cons-of-overfishing

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative: Organ donation help tons of people each year. It can save many lives. By donating organs, one individual can help up to eight people, while tissue donors can improve the lives of up to 50 people. Changing to a Mandatory organ donation would basically change the system form an opt-in to an opt-out. Meaning that everyone who is declared braindead through by official guidelines, there rogans would be available with out consent. The normal donations though. The special donations of skin, eyeballs, etc would still require consent. Those who wish to not partake is such a wonderful and giving deal, they can have it stated that they wish not to be a donor. This would mean there are more available organs for those who still have a chance at life. Every day 22 people die who could be saved with a transplant. Thats about 660 people a month, which makes it about 7920 people each year who die, that could have lived if they had a transplant. I would also like to pint out that the person receiving the transplant, is not required to have a transplant.
Negate: Organ removal without the expressed wish of the deceased could be distressing for his or her family. Theres the very small chance that a  john doe, didn't not want organs donated. The proposed change in the law is open to abuse, with the possibility of death being hastened to secure an organ needed by some other patient.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am Completely Pro on this. I honestly can not understand why people would want to donate. I mean your dead. No brain function. There is nothing there that still make you, you. Your biology is there, but the personality and life of you isn't and that fact that people are gonna be so selfish, that they are denying others the chance at life, I think it's wrong. If it's that big a deal to a person that can go and have theres say no. If a person really want to be that selfish. We are only talking about the normal organs here, not the special ones. So no one would notice at the funeral, that "Oh this dead person in a casket doesn't have his/her organs in his/her stomach."

http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-organ-donations-after-you-have-passed-away-be-made-compulsory/1/
http://www.theweek.co.uk/35635/automatic-organ-donation-the-pros-and-cons
https://thebioethicsprogram.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/358/
http://www.americantransplantfoundation.org/about-transplant/facts-and-myths/

# data[].attributes.body
My debate topic this week will be about one of the most discussed topic in the news lately: flag burning.
Pros- Those on the affirmative side say flag burning is ok and should stay as a right protected by the first amendment. Their beliefs are reaffirmed by the supreme court case Texas v. Johnson in 1989, where the supreme court decided that flag burning was a form of speech and protected under the first amendment. Conservatives, who make up quite a few of the opponents of flag burning, have dissented from the views of their party leaders over the years. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by President Reagan, agreed that burning the flag should be protected under the First Amendment. "Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."  - Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Burning the flag also brings attention to certain issues because it offends people easily.

Cons- Those on the opposing side argue that our armed forces fought for our flag and what it represents, and it shouldn't be disrespected. They also say that the flag has little relation to politics and burning the flag won't change anything.

My opinion-  I stand with the affirmative side. Our armed forces have never fought for a flag; they fought and still fight for the people that the flag represents, wether or not they hold it in contempt. People have the right to protest when they feel certain decisions are wrong. There are better ways to show ones disagreements, but if they feel they need to burn a flag to get recognition, than they should have the right to do so.

http://aclu.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000737
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson#Kennedy.27s_concurrence

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: Taxes will be cheaper

Less people in jail or prison

Its unsafe for people to buy weed off the street.

It makes pain go away for people who have diseases like cancer.

The USA is a free country

Cons: People could lose money

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that woman are capable to make moral decisions to their bodies. The decisions are are based on the circumstances, beliefs, and values of the woman. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States. Major computations after an abortion is less than 0.3% and it is rare to be hospitalized. A survey asking woman why they had an abortion showed that 73% said they couldn't afford to have a baby, and 38% said having a baby would interfere with career/education and goals.

The opposing side states that killing a human is wrong doing even if its yet to be born. In the US Government unborn babies are still considered human beings. Young woman who experience abortion are at a increased risk of depression as well as committing suicide. Instead having an abortion, women should give their babies to women who can't conceive. Many women are using abortion as a birth control. An unborn baby should not have to be punished for the mistakes made by their parents.

I am on the opposing side because I feel you should have to take the responsibilities of your actions and the consequences that follow up. Things may not go as planned but you shouldn't be allowed to kill your own baby. The least you could do is put your child up for adoption.

http://abortion.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: Violent criminals will always have guns. Rather than being victims, concealed handgun carriers have a sense of safety and security. Robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection

Con: Carrying a concealed handgun increases the chances of a confrontation escalating and turning lethal. Someone carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun

# data[].attributes.headline
Should anyone with a permit have the right to bare arms

# data[].attributes.subject
Should anyone with a permit have the right to bare arms

# data[].attributes.body
Right know you have to right to carry a hand gun or a higher caliber gun if you have a permit to carry. This permit is something used to carry a gun with you when ever you want.
Pro's about this matter are in you get mugged or are getting attacked you have a way you can protect yourself from anything. I think it is great to have.

Cons are shooting people out of the ordinary which could higher the death and gun shots in america.
In my opinion it is great to have a permit to carry cause you can always have a gun with you. I think there should be a certain size of caliber you can carry.

http://www.usnews.com/topics/subjects/gun-control-and-gun-rights

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: The kids wouldn't be passed from judge to judge, and so there is more privacy. The kids could also know the name of the judge they are talking to, which could create a connection.

Con: It could lead to scheduling issues and delays in the issue being resolved. Not very many changes will get done.

I personally agree with points of both sides, but I lean more towards the pro side. New judges wouldn't have to be caught up with the entire case, and the child could get a great role model if he/she has none.

https://www.puryearlaw.com/2015/12/17/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-one-judge-one-child-rule/

# data[].attributes.body
Should we ban the handgun that is portable?
Yes,
Pro:We will lower the death and murder rate in the U.S.
It will make the cities and towns safer.
Con:It will raise the topic of the self defense law which will encourage more crimes if rights are given to the wrong person.

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: The death penalty can provide families of victims with some closure, which may help them to deal with their suffering. It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture.

Con: It is a added cost to the government and taxpayers’ money. The government spends more taxpayer’ money in handling cases on death row inmates. This is due to the length and complexity of trials, the number of defenders to be hired and the overall process. Innocent people are wrongly executed.

I agree with both sides but i lean more on the negative side because I feel like killing a person just because they killed a person doesn't really make the situation any better. Also innocent people are being killed all the time just for being claimed of doing something they did not do.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
~People on the affirmative side say it would prevent the amount of murders involving guns. Most mass murders involve some form of legal weapon, and a majority of homicide cases include a gun. People think by enforcing gun laws, the amount of murders and suicides will be reduced. Also, guns haven't necessarily been used for self defense as often as people say they do.
~People on the negative side do not think gun control laws will help society. If the laws are put into play, criminals will break the law anyways. After all, they already break the law by murdering someone. The laws would restrict our constitutional right to carry a weapon. If a criminal knows people can no longer carry a gun for self defense, they are more likely to take advantage of the situation, creating an increase in the amount of murders.
~After viewing both sides of this topic, I am on the negative side to gun laws. It was written in the Constitution the people of America have the right to hold a weapon in their possession. If you think about it, having a gun in case self defense is necessary is smarter than being unarmed at all. I would rather have a chance at defending my self against a criminal than no chance at all. I feel the people of America need a stricter education on how to carry and possess a gun. This would create a safer environment than one where no one is educated on the dangerous consequences of guns. To me, gun control will only hurt the people more. Criminals will not stop because a law has been placed that forbids them from carrying a gun.

http://navajocodetalkers.org/9-principal-pros-and-cons-of-gun-control/

# data[].attributes.body
On June 26th in 2016, the US supreme court decided that gay marriage is a right protected by the US constitution, however before that decision was made, it was already legal in 37 states. But was still banned in 13 states. The public's mindset on gay marriage has shifted a lot since the late 1900's. The public's support on gay marriage went from 27% in 1996 to 60% in 2015. People have leaned more towards against supporting gay marriage than for it. Gay marriage can be good in so many ways. Pros: People who put their children up for adoption, or kids who are abandoned, could be adopted by gay couples. Its very difficult for gay couples to find a surrogate or a sperm donor. Gay couples may wish to have a kid someday, and if they cant find a surrogate or donor, there are a lot of children who need homes. The rate of unwanted, or abandoned children could go down dramatically, if society would start accepting gays, then more people would come out

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: With patient consent, this can end someones medical pain. It's when someone is suffering or dying, and one is deliberately ending their life. Typically this is done by doctors, but the term still stands with random people assisting someone in suicide.

Negative: Euthanasia has the nick name of "Assisted Suicide". Illegal in some countries,  consequences include 14 year sentence in prison.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my opinion I agree with both sides. If a doctor does this due to extreme medical issues and has consent to do so I believe it's not as bad. But, I disagree because in most areas it's illegal and shouldn't be done. Assisted suicide if not inflicted by a doctor for medical reasons, with consent,  is horrible in my opinion.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951.php

# data[].attributes.body
Marijuana has begun to legalize in many states, but is that good or bad? There's two sides to the argument, and both have valid points.

Marijuana can cure depression, with it's uplifting, happy effects, it's a common sought after cure for depression. Cancer cannot be cured with cannabis, but it can be slowed. Cannabis can stop seizures in most people as soon as they start. Marijuana can help treat epilepsy. Marijuana isn't addictive, and doesn't have any negative effects to the body.

Marijuana can be a gateway drug to more serious drugs like Meth, Heroine, Cocaine, and acid. If you've been smoking pot and you're offered another drug you would be more likely to take it than if you were sober. Depending on how it's taken, smoking it is the most negative and it's been proven that Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke have similar chemical properties. Marijuana can cause laziness and lack of interest in work. It can be related to weight gain. Marijuana is often pressured onto others by peer pressure, and is easily accepted by the person being pressured. If used while operating vehicles more likely to crash.

I'm pro legalization, especially for recreational use. There are no direct health effects, and Marijuana has never killed anybody. Marijuana can help people who are depressed and can help people relax. I think that it would be beneficial to the United States if they legalized. It's legal in Canada, and 8 states have legalized recreational use and 28 have legalized medical Marijuana. Lets not stop there.

# data[].attributes.body
This debate topic is a really hostile topic on it's own. With people on both sides of the argument saying, that they are absolutely right.

The Affirmative side states: It is a legal right that every person can have. It states that people can choose to what they believe in.

Those apposed state: It is wrong to kill so why should this be aloud. Saying that we as humans should not get to decide. (Most on the apposed side make some sort of reference to god.)

I believe that you can decide what you want to do. If you want to then okay, if not then okay. It is there choice so why does it matter who does what.

http://abortion.procon.org

# data[].attributes.body
Pro:  Legalizing recreational weed will cut off a revenue stream for illegal drug traders.
Medical Benefits: Weed can be used to treat Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD.
More state revenue.
When a person buys weed off the street, there is no way he would exactly know what dangerous substances are cut into it. current legalization efforts create a framework for a safety control system, which will work to get rid of the risk coming from smoking marijuana.
Legalization also would create a more effect criminal justice system.

Cons: Weed makes people less productive.
Long term use can cause the blood vessels in your shrink, which makes your short term memory less effective.

# data[].attributes.body
People on the affirmative side say that 18 years old is the age where you meet adulthood and they should be able to make their own decisions and consuming alcohol is 'enjoyable' and adults should have the right to do so. And lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 would lower the thrill of breaking the law.
People on the negative side say that it would interfere with the development of the brain since the brain doesn't stop developing until around age 25. And lowering the drinking age can give high schoolers and middle schoolers easier access to alcohol.
I support the negative side because you have to be more mature to drink responsibly. Also drinking could cause many negative effects to your body/brain like depression, memory loss, violence, and more. Some people drink to 'forget' their problems and I believe that you aren't solving or forgetting your problems you're creating new ones.

http://drinkingage.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: 18 is the age of adulthood in the United States, and adults should have the right to make their own decisions
Drinking alcohol is an enjoyable activity
Con: Lowering the drinking age will invite more use of drugs among 18-21 year olds
Increase cancer risk and other diseases
I do not agree with lowering the drinking age. I believe you can have fun without alcohol. I think that we could even higher the drinking age to 25 because our brains are not done developing completely until then.
http://drinkingage.procon.org/
http://www.grandparents.com/health-and-wellbeing/health/drinking-alcohol

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump's Pipeline should be American or foreign?

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump's Pipeline should be American or foreign?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro's- The keystone and dakoda pipeline will create many jobs here in the us. It will cost less due to the fact it will be made here.
Cons- Not great for the environment. Looses business with some foreign countries. Some people believe he is criticizing other countries because he said that we can do better then they can.

I believe that it should be made here! It will make so many jobs for us here in the United States. I believe we can do a better job if we hire the right people. We don't need to spend so much money to have it shipped over here in small pieces and then assembled here. No we need to get to work and make it here, create more jobs.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/26/trumps-plan-to-force-pipeline-makers-to-use-us-steel-is-dictatorial-and-a-bad-idea.html

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: People can't get in an accident and just take off like nothing happened. If somebody was drunk driving and happened to hit somebody, they would get punished for it.
Cons: It doesn't work like it should all the time. People get out of being charged even when they did it.
Opinion: I am against this because I think you should be responsible for it if you did it. So many people could easily lie and say they thought they hit a deer when really they hit a person. There have been two recent cases where the driver has gotten away with killing someone because they say they didn't know it happened and they aren't punished.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/sports/baseball/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-hit-and-run.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Topic: Should students have to wear uniforms

# data[].attributes.subject
Topic: Should students have to wear uniforms

# data[].attributes.body
On the affirmative side wearing school uniforms help to enforce positive behavior, develop an image of school spirit, helps control the dress code, and its a lot cheaper.

On the negative side wearing school uniforms limit the right for the students to express themselves, the actually cost is pretty high, and they can get pretty uncomfortable.

My opinion is that students shouldn't have to wear school uniforms because they should be able to express themselves in their own ways.

http://connectusfund.org/9-serious-pros-and-cons-of-wearing-school-uniforms

# data[].attributes.headline
Should there be an Electoral College or Popular Vote?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should there be an Electoral College or Popular Vote?

# data[].attributes.body
Topic: Should there be an Electoral College or Popular Vote

Pro: 1)The Pros side states that an Electoral College vote protect the minority votes and saves the interests of farmers and those found in less populated locations.

2)It gives each state their own say in what President they want. Which gives the presidential candidate an idea of where to campaign if one state is more republican or democrat .

Con:  1)One vote does equal on person so states like California have more people to 1 electoral college vote them people in Iowa.

2)It can detour people from voting saying their vote doesn't count when really it does in the long run.

Opinion: I thing we should keep the electoral college votes to save the "forgotten people". So our votes truely count in the big pictuee. are hurt.

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Electoral-College-voting-rights/2015/07/02/id/653350/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should there be a dress code for teachers?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should there be a dress code for teachers?

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative Side:Students look up to their teachers as role models. They will dress like the teacher is. It will make the school look cleaner. There is a study that 60% of students will pay more attention  if the teachers have a dress code.
Negative:Gives the teachers  their own style. It also wouldn’t show the income of your family.

Opinion: I take the affirmative side because I believe that teachers should cover visible tattoos, flip-flops, and “immodest” dress and that hair and nails are to be clean and neatly groomed. Students look up to teachers as their role models.
http://occupytheory.org/school-dress-code-pros-and-cons-list/

# data[].attributes.body
Should marijuana be legalized in the state of Iowa?

Pro : Brings in money to the state ,creates jobs, lower taxes.
Will lower the amount of street drugs.
Con: Its a gate way drug that can lead too addiction of more than marijuana, but can lead to an addiction to heroine and cocaine.
Marijuana is also seen too causes laziness.

I am for the affirmative side.
In Minnesota last year  they legalized medical marijuana. The state had too much money and didn't know what to do with it. So the state had to have a meeting to decide whether to use it for Education, road repair, or health. The fact that it brought so much money that they didn't know what to do with it is a good thing

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

# data[].attributes.body
Pro:
1. A flat tax system would be so much simpler that it would result in considerable savings to all parties. 2. The time and energy businesses and individuals spend annually in preparing tax forms would be greatly reduced, as would the costs to the government of collecting revenue.
Con:
1. Enforcing flat tax is actually more complicated than it seems to be. For example, in the case of wealthier taxpayers, who often get a substantial portion of their money not from weekly wages but from stocks, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when that income occurs and when it should be taxed.
2. Businesses say that they need some mechanism in the tax code that will allow them to deduct their expenses in order to be fairly taxed on their profits.
Opinion:
I am pro because a flat tax system would save time and be easier. It would also save a lot of money.
Definition:
A flat tax rate is a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income.
http://www.debate.org/flat-tax/

# data[].attributes.body
My debate topic is: Should abortion be legal?
Affirmative:  When an abortion is performed the fetus can not feel any pain. The woman that are denied abortion are more likely to have mental issues and suicidal thoughts.
Negative: Abortion is murder. Woman should accept the responsibilities on being a parent. They chose to have sexual intercourse they also knew what could happen. Having an abortion lowers the numbers of babies that can be adopted.
I agree with the negative side that people should not be able to have an abortion. The woman chose to have sexual intercourse and she should accept the responsibilities of being an adult.

http://abortion.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative : People state that abortion is killing another living being. Taxes go towards this organization so the people who are against planned parenthood or abortion end up having their money fund their organization which is against their morals. They will lose 350 million dollars in funding which will go towards other organizations like army defense or trading.

Negative: Nearly all women agree to keep all types of birth control and abortion rights in place. The march on Washington shows how many women and men are against Trump's plans to defund planned parenthood. Abortion is only 3% of what planned parenthood is about, defunding this will cancel production of birth control, which leaves women to either choose abstinence or risk becoming pregnant, it may also cause a "baby boom" which will be a major spike in population, and will eventually lead to another depression because there will not be enough jobs or food for the population size.

I am on the negative side, women should not be deprived of having the ability to use birth control to prevent having a baby they are not ready for, and if they do have a baby with Trump's laws in action that baby will not have a very good childhood
https://www.tremr.com/francesca/planned-parenthood-pros-cons

# data[].attributes.body
Pros- Could make US citizens feel safer knowing that something is being done to terrorists. Could stop some terrorists from what they are doing. This type of torture doesn't leave any scars or physical damage. Used on many US soldiers for training purposes.

Cons- It will cause the rest of the world to have a negative image of the US and our integrity, while that may increase more terrorists. If it is allowed then how long will it take for it to change from guilty of a crime to suspicion. Then if it's okay with terrorists it will move to serial killers, then murders, then any violence, and then any crime. True terrorists can probably handle torture so they will probably get no other information by using it.

I believe that this process is good for those terrorists that deserve it. Otherwise I think there is no other need for it.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Waterboarding

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative side- Trump states that if this pipe line is built that I will create jobs and that it will benefit the country. Trump wants the steel to be american made to create more jobs in the US because the steel industry has lost about 16,000 jobs due to competition in China.

Cons- People are saying that this pipeline will cause environmental issues and could possibly destroy habitats. To pay for the pipeline Trump wants to raise taxes for the time being and that could hurt a lot of people.

I am on the Con side I don't want to have this pipe line built, If Trump wants more jobs then he should find other ways to create them without ruining the environment, and the tax increase well... i'm sure no one wants to have to pay more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-benefits-from-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-and-dakota-access-pipeline-pros-cons/

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that marriage is a internationally recognized human right for all people. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "men and women full of age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion have the right to marry and to have a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution."  These people also state that same-sex couples should have access to the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Statistics show that heterosexual married couples have more rights and access to things than gay couples.

The negative side states that marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex marriages because they cannot produce children together. They think that allowing gay couples to wed could further weaken the institution of marriage because traditional marriages are already threatened with high divorce rates between 40% and 50% and 40.7% of babies were born to unmarried mothers. Rick Santorum declares, "Legalization of gay marriage would further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society" (137).

I am in favor of the affirmative side because I believe that anyone should be able to be happy and have equal rights even if they are interested in the same sex.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative- Control of our borders helps keep our nation safe. Reducing illegal immigrants would help US citizens keep their jobs and citizens wouldn't have to pay for them being here illegally. It would be harder for illegal drugs to cross the border.
Cons- It is a unfriendly symbol to the world and goes against freedom. It will burden people who own land by the border. It would harm some wildlife refugees.
I am on the pro side for a wall separating Mexico from the US. While some illegal immigrants actually find jobs and work for the US, others are taking what US citizens work hard for. I believe that if they want to cross the border than they should become legal US citizens and follow our laws.
http://www.clearpictureonline.com/SO-Fence.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Should illegal immigrants be allowed to have access to government-subsidized healthcare?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should illegal immigrants be allowed to have access to government-subsidized healthcare?

# data[].attributes.body
Government-subsidized healthcare is a type of health coverage given only to certain people as a benefit, tax write off, or cash payment.

The affirmative side states that it is our duty as American citizens to provide and help anyone we can, and that we shouldn't discriminate on them just because they don't "belong" here. It is a federal obligation to supply equality among children throughout the United States, regardless of their parental status. They also state that having health care is a human right, along with the fact that people working illegally in our economy help boost it financially.

The negative side states that we can't even take care of the people that have been in this country their whole lives with decent health care, some are even left without, and are forced to pay extra for not having it. To the negative side they feel angry the government takes care of illegals better than their own. Our focus should be our own country and its citizens.

I am in favor of the negative side for the reasons that there are dying people on the streets that have worse health care than those come here illegally. If they were here legally this wouldn't even be a discussion.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000811

# data[].attributes.body
The law, which goes into effect July 1st, states that business owners are exempt from punishment if they refuse service to somebody because of their sexuality.

The affirmative side states that it gives business owners more freedom in how thy run their business. People on this side agree with the law because it gives them religious freedom. The governor said the law is not discriminating anyone, and that it is instead made to protect men like him, who have deeply held religious beliefs about marriage  and sex.

The negative side states that this law is the new Jim Crow. Juanita Moore, an African American woman who grew up the youngest of ten during the Civil Rights act, states, "Discriminating because someone is gay, that's still discrimination, just like when we were coming up as black and they would discriminate against our color."

I agree with the negative side because I feel like this is discrimination. A business owner would not refuse service to somebody because they are mentally challenged, so it shouldn't be alright to refuse service to a gay person.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/?utm_term=.1886a848f9fb

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/22/health/mississippi-religious-freedom-law-civil-rights-era/

# data[].attributes.body
Pro side states- More americans have health insurance. More than 15 million were covered in the last 5 years. There are also more coverage options and it is more affordable for some. Obamacare also helped lower the prices of prescription drugs.

Con side- It being cheaper for some also makes it more expensive for others, making them pay higher premiums. With most people paying less the money has to come from somewhere which increases taxes. It also can be very complicated to enroll in due to certain guide lines and criteria.

I am on the con side. I think Obamacare is not only raising taxes but it is causing local insurance companies to lose clients. I also think that for those who have to pay the high premiums it's unfair. The government will save money,  and community jobs by getting rid of Obamacare.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed weapon?  

# data[].attributes.subject
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed weapon?  

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that studies show that being able to carry a concealed weapon has decreased murder rates by 8.5% and rape rates by 5%. People on this side say that they should have to right to protect themselves from criminals. Being able to carry a concealed weapon could help prevent and stop public shootings.

The negative side states that being able to carry a concealed weapon increases crime. It increases the possibility of an argument turning lethal.They think that there should be more in depth background check in order to be permitted to carry a weapon. Studies show that from 2007-2014 there were over 600 people and 14 law enforcement officers were killed by others allowed to carry a weapon.

I agree with the positive side. It lets people protect themselves when needed. Although I do agree that there need to be better background checks done on the people that are granted permission to carry a concealed weapon.

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that the death penalty is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that retribution or "eye for an eye"  honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy.

The negative side states that the capital punishment says it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take a human life, and perpetuates social injustices by wrongly targeting people of color and people who cannot afford good attorneys. They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death.

I am with the affirmative side because I believe in the "eye for an eye" thing. A person should have to go through the some of the same things as their victim did. I also agree with the fact that it helps the grieving family, to know that the person who had killed a family member no longer has the chance to put another family in grief.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative- It shows that there is a strong legal system in the United States and that murder, treason, and other crimes will not be tolerated. If someone kills a person and it was not self defense, they should know what it is like to die. It goes with the old saying, "An eye for an eye". It can also give the families of the victim(s) closure and comfort in knowing the murderer received what they deserved.

Opposed- There is not always a clear indication that a person committed certain crimes. There can be false information and a person who is wrongly accused. There are also very high costs in putting someone on death row. You have to pay to hold them, pay for investigators, and pay to put them to death. When the death penalty is being sought after, it can cost over $1.3 million. It also costs $90,000 more per year to hold someone on death row rather than general population. Many people also believe that the criminal shouldn't get an easy way out. They think the criminal should have to suffer for the rest of their life.

I am in favor of the negative side. I am less concerned about the financial part than the fact that the criminals get to get off easy by being put to death. There is no justice in letting someone be killed quickly instead of having them in prison for the rest of their life. They deserve to suffer since they have caused suffering to someone else

Death Penalty ProCon.org. (2017). Deathpenalty.procon.org. Retrieved 27 January 2017, from http://deathpenalty.procon.org/
U.S. Death Penalty Facts. (2017). Amnesty International USA. Retrieved 27 January 2017, from http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts?gclid=CJvoxYTM4tECFVO4wAodKuwIsQ

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Syrian Refugees be allowed into the United States?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Syrian Refugees be allowed into the United States?

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative- By denying these people, we are simply slamming the door in their face. We do not discriminate against religion nor do we turn down orphans, we should not turn down others. They are also trying to escape the same terrorists that we are. Some believe that the openness of our country makes us vulnerable but it also reduces the percentage of people rioting and going against our government. We also already have a good screening system of these refugees before being allowed in.

Negative- We do not know who these people are or what their intentions may be. By letting them in, it is like giving the terrorists an inside look. Our country needs to become stable in other aspects to better itself and by letting unknown people into our country we are just walking into another problem.

I am personally for giving people second chances and not judging them. It is almost like saying that all muslims are a part of ISIS which is a false statement. After listening to both sides I agree with Trump's decision. It is taking precautions before the bad happens and is only temporary as stated by Trump.
http://2016election.procon.org/view.answers.election.php?questionID=002062

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to 18?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to 18?

# data[].attributes.body
People on the affirmative side say it would decrease binge drinking because if young adults had an easier access to alcohol, they wouldn't drink so excessively. Lowering the drinking age would take away the thrill of breaking the law for young adults. When your 18, you become an adult and endure many responsibilities so you should be able to choose whether to drink or not.

People on the negative side say that if the drinking age is lowered, there will be an increase in reckless driving. At age 18, our brains aren't fully developed yet which can lead to an altered brain development. Teens who drink have a more likely chance of failing academically. The sooner a person begins to drink, the higher the chance of becoming an alcoholic later on in life.

I am in favor of the negative side, because yes at 18 you become an adult, but your brain is still developing. Alcohol consumption modifies your brain development, which could cause health problems later on.

https://www.pridesurveys.com/index.php/blog/drinking-age-debate/
http://poststar.com/pros-and-cons-of-lowering-the-drinking-age/article_8334b636-0e12-11df-8d80-001cc4c002e0.html

# data[].attributes.body
Should Illegal immigrants be granted amnesty?
The affirmative side states that they should just become U.S. citizens because they can help our economy  and working force. They also say that it is good to give illegal immigrants a chance to stay so they can have a better life.
The opposing side states that they should be deported back to Mexico. That is because they for one came here illegally. They also say that with less illegals here it will open up  more jobs for legal Americans.
I would have to say that I am on the opposing side because they should not be here if they are illegal, if they want to be here so bad then they can go through the process of becoming a legal U.S. citizen. If they aren't they should be deported without question.

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that illegal immigrants work for less money than US citizens, because all they want to do is save money to bring back to their families. Another positive thing to illegal immigrants is that they are willing to take mostly any job. The jobs that citizens don't prefer, like household cleaning or taking care of people. This makes life easier for US citizens, by helping relieve the stress of all the extra things outside of their job. It is also very expensive to deport many immigrants and very difficult to capture all of them.
The negative side states that these "aliens" take away jobs from US citizens, because a lot of businesses prefer illegal immigrants. They will work longer hours and get payed less for labor. Another point on the negative side states that these aliens cost money to the taxpaying citizens. A great sum of money goes to border patrol each year to help control people from illegally immigrating. Money also goes towards their medical bills when they are sick or need to seek medical attention. That money comes right out of citizens pockets.
I am in favor of the negative side because there always ways to become a legal citizen. Everyone else who came into this country legally, had to go through process to become legal, so some people shouldn't be an exception.  They should not be able to come to our country illegally and take jobs from legal people.
http://greengarageblog.org/10-critical-pros-and-cons-of-illegal-immigration

# data[].attributes.headline
Right to Refuse Service in Mississippi- Sam Koeller

# data[].attributes.subject
Right to Refuse Service in Mississippi- Sam Koeller

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states

# data[].attributes.body
Pros - Cons of Trump's pipe line

Pros- Trump states that if this pipe line is built that I will create jobs and that it will benefit the country

Cons- People are saying that this pipeline will cause environmental issues and could possibly destroy habitats.

I am on the Con side I don't want to have this pipe line built, If Trump wants more jobs then he should find other ways to create them without ruining the environment

# data[].attributes.body
People on the affirmative side say that since the age of adulthood is 18, the drinking age should be too. Adults should be able to make their own choices when it comes to drinking. Lowering the drinking age to 18 will destroy the thrill of breaking the law to drink. If you are old enough to serve the county at the age of 18, you should also have the right to make free choices on your drinking habits.

People on the negative side say that drinking under the age of 21 can interfere with brain development. Some 18 year olds are still in high school and should not be able to consume alcohol that young. There will be a higher chance of more drunk driving. People also tend to be more mature at the age of 21 than at 18 and will make better choices. Studies show that a lot of young kids that drink against the law also do drugs as well and that if the drinking age goes down the amount of drug use will go up in teens and young adults.

I agree with the negative side because drinking can be very harmful to the body and the mind. I think that a lot of young adults are not mature enough to make as well of choices when they are under the influence as a more experienced adult. I also think that lowering the drinking age will cause a lot more accidents due to drunk driving

http://drinkingage.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- I think that most people are not only stable enough to own a gun but also can be smart about owning one. Many people who are shooters are very mentally unstable which they should not be able to yet most of americas gun owners are hunters or want a source of self defense if needed.

Con- The cons of guns are the  retards who get their hands on one and want to shoot up a building. Even if you do background checks on everyone with a gun, there will still be people who find ways to get guns whether it is stealing the gun or buying it off the grid.

I am on the pro side as guns are a good source of food and protection. If there was an active shooter and more people owned guns then I guarantee that the shooter would be shot by one of the citizens who had a carrying permit.

# data[].attributes.body
My Debate Topic is: Should Social Security be Privatized? (Changed from public or personal ownership and control)
Pros- The current Social Security program will be removed in 2034, so a better system is in high demand.
-With personal accounts, retiring will see higher returns on their investment. (which means they will receive more money back than they had initially invested)
Cons- Privatizing Social Security wouldn't do anything to solve paying peoples' debt, and could actually make it worse.
-Many people lack the basic skills writing or reading of finances to make wise investment decisions on their own.
I've decided to go with the pro side because I feel that we need to have plan set in place for 2034, even though that seems far away. It may seem far, but if we keep putting it off it will come faster than we think.
http://socialsecurity.procon.org

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- More gun restrictions would reduce the number of gun deaths in America. Fire arms were the 12th leading cause of death In America last year. Guns that have large magazines should be banned because with the magazine holding more bullets murders have turned into mass murders.
Con- The second amendment allows all citizens to own guns. Gun laws can can take away possible ways that people could protect themselves in self defense situations.
I would have to pick the side of the cons because I am a big gun person and strongly agree with the second amendment.
http://gun-control.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
People on affirmative- Women (and some men) marched and peacefully protested not just all over America, but all over the world. The reasons for abortion, gender roles, Trump's sexist views and disgusting comments pertaining to women and women are equal to men, LGBT+, etc. No arrest were made during the event. It was the biggest protest/ march in U.S. history.

People against- Believe that abortion should be illegal because the baby is it's own self and doesn't have a choice, but should be allowed to live.
Many people who are against the LGBT+ community are close-minded and might have that opinion based on their religion.

My opinion- I am with the affirmative to an extent.  I believe that women still do not get treated equally all over the nation and world. Also, Trump's comment, most people say that it was "locker room talk", but that is just purely disgusting.
Also, I am part of the LGBT+ community and I believe that everyone should be open-minded and accepting. We are people too and just because of who we are or who we like should not change that. About abortion, I think that you should not kill a baby but that we should teach more sex ed, pursue better birth control options, and give more attention in rape and our options.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women's_March