You will have 2 weeks to win so try hard
If your voting please choose one of us you do not have to be fair whoever you like best. (maybe the name or the pic or whatever).
The voters have to follow the standards for voting because an RFD is required on this debate (when I checked the debate parameters). This means that my opponent is advocating for voting for his side under the guise of breaking the TOS of debate.org and having your ability to vote restricted.
C1. Democracy is good.
My opponent is advocating for restricting the rights to vote of other users. Voting is something that is fundamental to a democracy; without a power in place for the people to air grievances and to say who is right and wrong, then the forum in which they talk is not democratic. This means that by affirming democracy I am negating the resolution and the advocacy of my opponent.
The democratisation and furthering of democracy has a net benefit on the economy. This is because consumers are able to purchase more because they feel as though they have a say within the economy.
This means that there is a net benefit in the economy when there is an increase in democracy or a democracy is established, empirically. Countries with higher rGDP per capita have higher interest rates: this means that while the marginal propensity to consume is the same, there is a higher benefit for those that choose to save: an increase in cash available - people are positively effected because they are able to consume more under the same amount of income.
A lack of democratisation or a lower amount of democracy means that interest rates are low: hurting consumers for choosing to save their money. Inflation rates often outpace the interest rates, meaning that people are losing money and can consume less with the same income.
B. Democracy solves terrorism
Foot, Professor of International Relations, St. Anthony’s College, Oxford, 2003 says:
This means that by restricting democracy in this forum we are allowing for terror cells to operate within this forum. The impact of this is human lives being lost.
C. Democracy solves genocide
This means that we solve for genocide if we advocate for democracy within this very forum. The advocacy of the pro is to reject democracy and have voters be restricted - the advocacy is the con is for wider-spreading democracy within this forum. The impact of this is millions of lives lost.
In conclusion I have shown you that if you vote pro you are voting for: economic failure, terrorism and lives lost due to it, and genocide and lives lost to it - the numbers of lives lost in the millions.
By voting con you are advocating for widespread economic growth that is beneficial to all, saving thousands of lives from terror cells, and millions of lves to genocide.
Therefore, vote con.
Have you ever thought your rights were being violated? Many students have enjoyed all of their rights, but at some schools rights are being violated in terms of making school "so called better." Though some people think that rights are an unimportant factors of school rules I think that schools should factor rights into backpack and locker searches, putting metal detectors in schools, and dress codes.
My first reason for students having backpack searches is that administrators should not conduct backpack searches. Backpack searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is important because students own their backpacks not schools. Another major factor according to Dannis Hartman, a reporter for the Synonym Classroom, an online education news website states, "It takes time to perform locker searches." One more source according to Charr fron this website in his debate states, "the average ratio of students to Faculty is 1:19 That ought make search take a lot of time.
In addition to backpack searches the second reason that I believe that students need their rights is metal detectors. Although not in many schools currently, some have them. According to Brian Steele you would have to ensure there was no other way to get stuff into the school. This is important because metal detectors would be pointless if there were any other ways to get weapons into school. Another idea suggest that there would be much hassle. It would take time to get every student through the metal detector(s). most cities and school districts couldn't pay for to put a metal detector in every school, that would just be ridiculous.
I also believe that dress codes are a violation of students rights. Lets face it most students dislike there dress code. Not only would removing dress codes take away the right violation; it would create a bond between teachers and students. This would be a powerful and everlasting bond. Taking away the dress code would mean that students would think that school is the next best thing.
Some may argue that while the other side believes backpack searches metal detectors and dress codes are beneficial in schools. I however, reject those ideas because according to a survey I took most teens at my school dislike the dress code. Searching backpacks helps schools find drugs. Metal detectors are excellent ways of finding weapons. Lastly dress codes help ensure that students don't come immodest.
To sum it up, rights rule. Were your rights ever violated. Backpack and locker searches have much in common. but on the other hand dress codes are what they are. Now's the time to vote Pro. Please help me in the fight.
AND MAY THE BEST MAN WIN!!!!!!!!!!!
Pro doesn't offer a case that is topical.
Vote con because if you don't you will vote for genocide.