It’s a serious concern of mine in how we use GDP to measure the health of a country’s economy and then equate that to societal wellbeing. While the decreasing deficit may indicate a recovering economy and quantify our country’s obtuse consumption rate, it in no way measures the health of society. I’m sure many people here are familiar with the adage appearing on popular social networks around this time of year stating “Black Friday: Because only in America, people trample others for sales mere hours after being thankful for what they already have.” I realize that contentment is counteractive to a profit based economy but it just seems to me that the health of a nation should not be measured by how much they spend on superfluous junk which subsequently ends up in a trash or locked away in a garage a few weeks later. Bobby Kennedy had this to say in regard to measuring a country based on its GDP "Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things.  Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage… …It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities.  It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.  Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.  It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

I'm sure you've all heard it being parroted over and over again in the “news.”   One side of the debate argues that people should be required to show a picture ID before voting in order to prevent fraud. The other side of the debate argues that this is an attempt to prevent poor minorities from voting due to not being able to acquire a picture ID.   Are voter ID laws intended to disenfranchise the poor community?

  “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.” - Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987. link: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766       Would you support the idea of a government which utilized a computer based system for problem solving operations using a set of algorithms with a strong presence of critical thinking aspects as presented in the above excerpt and a team of elected experts (not one president) which could reflect on this and have fully public meetings and deliberations to come to a sound rationale regarding various legislation and to gather feedback from public forum?   By experts I mean sociologists, physicists, engineers, economists, professors and theoreticists in various areas etc.   By public forum I refer to a real-time internet community of social network/internet forums which can be communicated to the team of elected via the critical thinking computer module even while they deliberate and discus

I am an advocate of the idea that a person should be free to do as they please as long as their actions do not encroach upon another person freedom. Recently however, upon further examination I am beginning to see a fundamental flaw in this often parroted line of reasoning.   It’s easy to distance ourselves from responsibility when we separate ourselves from the whole of the species and claim individuality, but unless we all live alone in isolated locations; our actions/ inactions will end up affecting others.   At what point are we to accept the fact that our actions or inactions ultimately end up encroaching upon other peoples freedoms on a macro level no matter what we do or don’t do?   When is it justified to ratify regulations that restrict individual liberties in this light?

  Taking care of the environment and reducing unneeded waste are apparently not good enough incentives in and of themselves. What are some effective ways people can be encouraged to recycle/reduce waste? Should there be some kind of reward or punishment? A limit to the amount one can consume?

Suppose you were tasked with coming up with some ideas of a new economic model.  You don’t have to go into depth with the intricacies, just brainstorm. Would you be able to devise an efficient alternative to the monetary system that could work on a scale such as the one currently in effect? What would be some pros and cons to this new system of exchange?    

Google “misbehavior” and the resulting images show several kids grimacing, plugging their ears, sticking their tongue out and peeing on things. Have you ever witnessed a kid in a store bossing their parents around and throwing a fit? And then a few isles over a different child stands quietly looking at toys with her arms crossed at ease behind her back? Are some kids just naturally born to be mischievous and unruly? Or is it primarily due to their upbringing? Something else maybe? What is the primary cause of children's improper, inappropriate, or bad behavior?

Regarding the common practice of domesticating and caring for an animal to function as a companion. Companion in this debate refers to “one that accompanies another.” It depends on an obligation of the “sharing of bread” so-to-speak, where the responsibility of provision lies on the party domesticating the pet. This discussion is not intended for debating the use of animals for the purpose of food, labor, protection, sexual profit or scientific experimentation. Only companionship.

Which is better to create a new debate that has already been debated on in the past? or to “bump” the past debate that was already in effect to an “active” status.   By “better” I mean which one is more effective in establishing a sound rationale for both debaters and spectators. When, if ever, is it an appropriate time to create/bump a debate topic that has been or is being debated upon? I realize that this is not as black and white as I suggested, hence the "perspectives" format.

Claim: Homo sapiens and other modern primates share a common ancestor. Premise: Evidence exists that sufficiently demonstrates that humans share a common ancestor with other primates that exist today. Assume for the sake of argument that evolution has been demonstrated to be accurate and true. Please cite sources of proposed evidence.

What do you think about this just on first impression. Is Lisa guilty? or not guilty?   http://www.news9.com/story/25220024/police-investigating-after-girl-3-severely-abused-in-pottawatomie-county   http://www.news9.com/story/25520763/charges-filed-against-woman-accused-of-beating-3-year-old-girl

http://news.msn.com/world/sudan-judge-sentences-christian-woman-to-death-for-apostasy Recently in the news, a woman is reported to be sentenced to hanging in Sudan for refusing to renounce her faith in Christianity.   If faced with a similar dilemma, what would you do?

I am disillusioned enough to see the amount of violence and unethical behavior being endorsed in the Bible. People throughout history have also found it to be rather easy to promote unethical behavior in the name of God using scripture as a source of justification. Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, slavery in the US, women’s rights, interracial coupling, same sex coupling etc. Is it any wonder how the severity of these embarrassing events seems to dwindle as religion takes less precedence over the culture and more and more things that were once considered morally acceptable are called into question? Are Christians being taught good morals through the Bible as they claim? Or is the more modern view of Christianity as a moral compass simply the result of the secular community keeping them in check? What would happen if we had a theocracy? Would we have a socially tolerant, multi-cultural, scientific society? Or would our culture closely resemble that of the Middle East, where their confident ideologies often result in mass murder and unfair treatment of women?

Contradiction -  con·tra·dic·tion “noun \ˌkän-trə-ˈdik-shən\ : the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else : a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true”  -http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction   I chose the perspectives format in order to list each contradiction separately.

The Sex Offender Registry is useful in that it allows authorities (as well as the public) to know who to watch out for to limit the amount of sexually related crimes. This list includes some pretty heinous crimes, so I'm not opposed to keeping it to some extent. Rape, pedophilia, sexual assault etc. are all things that I want to be aware of when choosing where I want to my family to live. However, do you think the registry is too inclusive or too generic when it comes to the wide range in severity of the crimes it covers? Should it be changed in some way to be more detailed? What kinds of changes would you make? Do you think a girl who was charged with statutory rape at 16 should be included in the same list as rapists and pedophiles for her entire life?

The debate title is a statement of fact; however, this debate will focus on the following argument: Due to the large quantity of contradictions within the Bible, there is a legitimate reason to bring the Bible’s credibility into question regarding both inerrancy and source of quality instruction. http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

1.a. surgical removal of the foreskin of males     b. surgical incision into the skin covering the clitoris in females     c. removal of the clitoris 2. the act of circumcision, performed as a religious rite by Jews and Muslims   This debate will mainly focus on circumcision in males but feel free to discuss female circumcision as well.   Proponents of circumcision argue that it is healthier or that it is a religious rite of passage. Opponents argue that advances in medicine, proper hygiene and secularism remove the need to circumcise and may even cause more problems than it helps.

In the debate over abortion, when both parties come to the agreement that a foetus is technically both ‘living’ and genetically ‘human,’ there is often times still a disagreement as to whether or not a person should have the right to abort their pregnancy.   In some cases it just might be out of pride or strict adherence to over confident ideologies, but in others there appears to be something deeper or more fundamental issue causing this stand-still in the debate. Whether or not it would sway anyone's position is not really a concern of mine at this point, but the topic of ‘personhood’ often rears its head and I don’t think this issue is getting enough attention.   Debate rules:   Please do not debate on whether or not abortion is ‘right.’ There are other areas in CD for that debate. I don’t have a problem with someone stating their position, but if it gets too far off the topic of personhood, I will interject to get the debate back on track.   Optional questions, feel free to disregard: Is there a particular period in development that denotes personhood? Is there a particular mental attribute or process which denotes personhood? Can personhood be tested or measured through experimentation? If so how? Is personhood exclusive to humans?

According to a simplified version of the Kardashev Scale, Type 1: a civilization that is able to harness the entire energy output of it's planet. Type 2: a civilization able to harness the energy output of an entire solar system (mainly the sun of that solar system). Type 3: a civilization able to harness the energy output of a galaxy (galactic power). Right now, humans aren't even on the scale yet. We are a type zero, we harvest energy from dead plants and animals. But many people believe that we are currently showing signs of a transition between type zero and one. The question is whether we will reach type one, or destroy ourselves? http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Kardashev_Scale http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPC47qMJVg&feature=g-vrec&context=G22f4eaaRVAAAAAAAAAw    

Education is the cure.

More legislation? Less Legislation? More or less education? something else? Or is it even possible?

Seems to me to be counter intuitive. like f*cking for virginity. Of course its never us who are the bad guys, its always them, but "until the lions tell their tale, history will favor the hunters." - African Proverb  

Murder is defined as:   “The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.” – Dictionary.com    I understand that there is a common use of the word murder to mean killing in general. I would think the definition would end all debates, but let’s find out shall we?   Debate questions:   1.)Is ‘murder’ a legal term? 2.)Is the common use of the word murder to mean ‘killing in general,’ a misuse of the word? 3.)If number 2 is answered yes, should it be specified in debate what the poster means by the word murder considering the common misuse of the word?