This isn't a debate about what causes homosexuality, or how God cursed gays to eternities of hell-fire, or how we all deserve equal rights and protections. I think I just wanted to point out that these are all side issues. The heart of the homosexuality debate (or at least why there is a debate at all) is that there are people who feel that they are entitled to dictate or regulate how someone else should use their own body. I guess that makes me social libertarian then (if that's a thing?). And please, don't turn this into a debate about fixcal libertarianism. Correct me if I'm wrong, or maybe point out that this was obvious, but maybe it's just my sleep deprived brain that made this dawn on me just now.

Is it just me or is CD turning into high school? Drama, gossip, (alleged) backstabbing, bullying...c'mon, it's just the internet people!

ACTA, although already signed by the US, is suddenly beginning to draw criticism as it goes to be submitted to the EU. Critics point out that the President can only ratify "executive agreements" (treaties that don't need to be ratified by Congress) when they are within his/her exclusive domain, and intellectual property rights are in the domain of Congress. Therefore, it was unconstitutional for the President to sign the agreement without Congressional ratification. Similarly, in the EU, critics argue that although the decision is being made by the legislative body of the EU, it wasn't submitted to the individual countries therein for ratification, and this is unlawful. Moreover, some posit that it lumps lawful non-commercial use of copyrighted material in with unlawful commercial use of copyrighted material, and that it endangers freedom of speech and expression. AGAINST ACTA: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/14071517529/new-petition-asks-white-house-to-submit-acta-to-senate-ratification.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement http://www.laquadrature.net/en/brief-the-fundamentals-of-acta http://www.laquadrature.net/files/201001_acta.pdf https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/please-submit-acta-senate-ratification-required-constitution-trade-agreements/VgZJGZMt#thank-you=p FOR ACTA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EK525GNv4g And I couldn't find much more in support of ACTA so the Affs are on their own.

Text of the bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf The ACLU is claiming that Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA S. 1253 is a violation of consitutional citizens' rights: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865 More on the issue: http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2011/11/27/s-1253-will-allow-indefinite-military-detention-of-american-civilians-without-charge-or-trial-or-will-it So, is this bill, specifically sections 1031 and 1032, in violation of constitutional rights of citizens of the US to have fair and speedy trial?

Which act, sex or kissing, more intimate?

Net neutrality, as supported by the recent FCC regulations and affirmed by the new Senate bill not passing that would have ended those regulations, is perhaps one of the most important issues facing the internet these days. Currently, ISP's are lobbying Congress and attempting to enstate a sort of "tiered" internet platform in which sites paying the most would enjoy better benefits. Additionally, ISP's would have the power to block, or slow down their competitors' websites. Is net neutrality, defined as the open, flat, and easy access to the internet by all users, a positive aspect of the internet, or should ISP's be allowed to influence content? Sources: http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101 http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html?sq=fcc&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=print http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html basically, just google net neutrality, and you'll come up with a plethora of sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-the-military-budget.html?ref=opinion http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thought-out-of-bounds.html There is a proposed cut to the Defense Budget ranging from $495 billion to $995 billion. Good idea or bad idea?

ATT and T-Mobile are attempting a merger that would place 80% of the market under the umbrella of ATT/T-Mobile and Verizon. Two carriers, 80% of the market. Would their be a lack of competition? Would this drive innovation? Would it increase coverage? What are your thoughts?

The governor of Texas, Rick Perry (R), has been receiving quite a bit of media attention in recent weeks for his bid for the presidency. The right sees him as a bastion of conservative ideals. The left sees a dogmatic lunatic. Can he make it to the primaries? The nomination?

Newton predicted the world would end in 2060, but his date has been revised to 2013. So will either of Newton's dates be correct?

Examples would include: The Taliban, al-Qaeda, the IRA, Lemumba, Che Guevera, the Sons of Liberty, and many other revolutionary forces or guerilla fighters. Also, as Bohemian pointed out, Nationalism may be a better substitute for Patriotism

Recently, the Tunisian government collapsed and the former president fled into exile. Bloggers, journalists, human rights activists, union workers, students, and others around the world, but mainly focused in the neighboring countries similarly suffering under authoritarian rulers, heralded this "Jasmine Revolution" as the beginning of a democratization of these Middle Eastern countries. Protesters in Egypt shouted outside the Tunisian embassy in Egypt, "We are next, we are next, Ben Ali [the ousted Tunisian president] tell Mubarak he is next." Despite the popular uprising, however, the US has hardly given a response to the Jasmine Revolution. Obama has merely stated that he hopes all will remain calm for the near elections and will support whatever the will of the people is. Without vigilant oversight by the US and international community, however, in those elections, I fear the politically corrupt officials of the old Tunisian government and corporate elite with high stakes in the past will attempt to usurp the will of the Tunisian people. What is the appropriate response of the US and international community to this Tunisian crisis? Has the Obama administration reacted appropriately enough? Should we send an international body to Tunisia to oversee elections that they are fair? Should we not take sides with either the ousted Tunisian government or the Tunisian people?

I have several half-Jewish friends who celebrate Christmas. I also know atheists and agnostics who celebrate Christmas. Is it still correct to call Christmas a Christian holiday?

So, first, let us assume that abortions are completely legal, as is embryonic stem cell research. Now: Should a woman who does not wish to have a baby, and who would be having an abortion, have the option to a) say the fetus may not be used for research, in which case the fetus would be discarded or destroyed. b) donate the fetus to research in which the woman has an abortion and the fetus is retained for embryonic stem cell research with no compensation for the woman. c) sell the fetus to research in which the woman has an abortion and the fetus is retained for embryonic stem cell research, but now the woman is also compensated for the fetus (focus on this one please, I think it is the most morally ambiguous and therefore most interesting).

Decide whether survival of the fittest is applicable to social institutions, i.e. social darwinism. ("It is applicable" means social darwinism is an accurate description of society and "not an accurate description" is self-explanatory).

In addition to the amendments currently in the Consitution (can be debated as well), which of the following should also have been included: 1810: No U.S. citizen shall accept a foreign title of nobility. 1861: The institution of slavery shall not be declared unlawful. 1876: Religious leaders are forbidden to occupy government office and denied all federal funding 1876: The Senate shall be abolished. 1878: The offices of the President shall be abolished and replaced with an executive Council of Three. 1893: The nation shall hereafter be known as the United States of the Earth. 1893: The Army and the Navy shall be abolished. 1894: The Constitution shall hereby acknowledge God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in the affairs of man. 1912: Marriage between certain of the races shall be prohibited. 1916: All acts of war shall be put to a national vote. All those affirming [voting "yes"] shall be registered as a volunteer for service in the United States Armed Forces 1938: Drunkenness in the United States and all the territories is forbidden. 1947: Individual income shall be taxed at a rate no greater than 25 percent. 1948: The right of citizens to voluntarily segregate themselves from others shall not be denied. 1971: All citizens have an inalienable right to an unpolluted environment. So debate these proposed amendments (proposed means that 2/3 of the House or Senate voted for a discussion, but was incapable of earning the required 3/4 for ratification) on their utility, effects, and whether or not it/they should have passed.

An article from The Week: http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/205792/the-republican-war-on-the-constitution How true can we say this article is? Are the Republicans attacking our Constitution, or are the Democrats? Or should we just be upset with partisans?

The Cap and Trade issue is about using market tactics to curb emissions. Instead of providing an argument, I'll provide links to sources (that I honestly just googled "cap and trade and these were some of the top hits). Go crazy. http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/ http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/28/local/la-me-climate-pact-20100728 http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/greenhouse_gas_emissions/cap_and_trade/index.html http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703724104575379320910452894.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126280761 http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-cap-and-trade.htm http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html (Oh, and "we" pertains to the United States. Foreigners feel free to contribute though.)

Passion could provide the drive to invention, innovation, or new ways of thinking. However, it could also create a stubborness not favorable to results, or an ego not conducive to team work.

We should: spend more, i.e. increase consumerism tax breaks increase taxes increase government spending decrease government spending increase government subsidies produce more consume more build infrastructure etc.

The children of the Baby Boomers are entering the market, seeking jobs and careers. Some contend that this generation has grown up spoiled with a feeling of entitlement (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431497/posts). How true is this judgement or label?

Qymosabi has been the creator of numerous debates protesting racism while giving all the blame for every crime ever to the white race (the ENTIRE white race). Therefore, until Qymosabi stops hypocritical racist propaganda, I propose we ignore his debates and ban his arguments from our own debates. ("nah he's my bro!" for not doing the proposed, and "I hate trolls!" for the proposed measures)

It's impossible to prove whether or not there is a God. Debating it is inconclusive. One could say it is not likely there is a God (my opinion), but it is virtually impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, 100%, conclusively there is no God. Debating it is meaningless and really just distracts the debaters from the original topic.

What would be the impact economically of suddenly introducing a billion dollars into the money system? Economic collapse? If it was invested in a certain stock, would that stock's price skyrocket making your stock you own worth more?