Debate Prep - Need support/refute for 3 topics

Foo228

Foo228

CAGiversary!
Feedback
124 (98%)
Tomorrow I have a debate in my govt and politics class.

I was wondering if there was more to include or just more to know about to be aware of the other debaters positions tomorrow.

For what it's worth, my group is moderate and we're thinking of a 'home improvement' topic. Any suggestions on other topics are welcome.

There will be 3 other groups, 1 leaning conservative and the other 2 democratic.

3 topics (followed by my group's stances):

Health care
The best way to keep our country's individuals and families in good hands is by allowing us to help our selves by providing our citizens with affordable healthcare. It will be based on the individual family's medical history as well as the individual's current condition and will present a tax credit, accordingly. We are not for more government involvement in healthcare, as both medicare (healthcare for the elderly) and medicaid (healthcare for lower income individuals) will suffice from the government's behalf, but a tax credit does seem appropriate in our current economic situation. We believe overturning the current healthcare system will cause unforeseen amounts of trouble down the road as welfare has already been taken advantage of (due to libel and fraud).

Russia-Nato
Our nation's safety is very important and that is why we cannot allow Georgia and the Ukraine to enter NATO, since a looming war is very dangerous to the safety of our country. Even though those countries aforementioned may be in danger, we have no responsibility being where we have no business to take care of. In other words, there are other areas of the world that need our most immediate attention. It may sound harsh, but this is the reality of the situation: it is the safety of our industrialized country, the United States, against theirs.

Energy
Energy conservation is the key to the future of any industrialized country like our own, which is why we should gradually pull towards going green as a country. Many things can be done right now such as cutting down on packaging, (better) insulating one's home, and of course recycling. Less landfills and more products composed of former products allows cheaper prices because material costs won't exist (and less waste will be around the Earth). Even planting trees would prove very effective in helping "go green".

Thanks in advance. I'll be looking up polls in the meantime.
 
How long do you have? There are entire books on any one of those subjects.

We believe overturning the current healthcare system will cause unforeseen amounts of trouble down the road as welfare has already been taken advantage of (due to libel and fraud).
Click to expand...

Uh this particular line of reasoning may want to be junked because there is a about a half dozen fallacies packed into it I can name just off the top of my head.
 
[quote name='Msut77']How long do you have? There are entire books on any one of those subjects.

Uh this particular line of reasoning may want to be junked because there is a about a half dozen fallacies packed into it I can name just off the top of my head.[/quote]

About 7 minutes a topic, among 4 people. It's tomorrow so reading a book is out of the question ;) Articles would be great though

What do you mean by that second part...fallacies?
 
You don't know what logical fallacies are? Oh god, sir.

Well, it seems you're in a high school class, so just wing it.

You'll probably want to take out the inference that Ukraine and Georgia aren't industrialized...because they are. :/ You'll want to know which other countries need our attention the most, so study up on those. Talking about not wanting to provoke Russia right now might be a good thing to say.

Though recycling actually hurts more than it helps, I wouldn't expect anyone in your class to know that, or if they did know, to argue that point. Are you allowed to talk about alternative energy? That would be a good thing to go for.
 
Thanks for the articles, 77.

[quote name='DarkSageRK']You don't know what logical fallacies are? Oh god, sir.

Well, it seems you're in a high school class, so just wing it.

You'll probably want to take out the inference that Ukraine and Georgia aren't industrialized...because they are. :/ You'll want to know which other countries need our attention the most, so study up on those. Talking about not wanting to provoke Russia right now might be a good thing to say.

Though recycling actually hurts more than it helps, I wouldn't expect anyone in your class to know that, or if they did know, to argue that point. Are you allowed to talk about alternative energy? That would be a good thing to go for.[/quote]

You're right, just a high school student.

Care to explain how recycling is bad though? I though less landfills was a good thing...
 
Never have, but that was great - Thanks.

Decomposition -> Methane (exploding gas) -> 30 yrs worth of electricity for 60,000 homes!

Guess I should get an alternate energy argument.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']Though recycling actually hurts more than it helps, I wouldn't expect anyone in your class to know that, or if they did know, to argue that point.[/QUOTE]

Wow.. dude.. are you really so malleable? Seriously? You probably don't believe man is causing climate change, either.. and that guns save more lives than they end..
 
[quote name='Koggit']Wow.. dude.. are you really so malleable? Seriously? You probably don't believe man is causing climate change, either.. and that guns save more lives than they end..[/QUOTE]

Could you explain your side of things?

Lucky I'm no Moore fan...lots of people swayed by him (and his construed info)
 
[quote name='Koggit']Wow.. dude.. are you really so malleable? Seriously? You probably don't believe man is causing climate change, either.. and that guns save more lives than they end..[/quote]

Nice to see you could derive so much about me based on one of my posts. You, sir, are an internet detective.
 
[quote name='Foo228']Could you explain your side of things?

Lucky I'm no Moore fan...lots of people swayed by him (and his construed info)[/QUOTE]

It's not 'my side' so much as it is the facts. The Bullshit episode would be a decent piece to discuss debate tactics, in the way points are deceptively worded to misrepresented facts without being false. It's difficult to go through the entire thing or give a summary because they're really all over the place and their focus changes pretty often. One thing you should know when watching it, though, is that Penn & Teller are very conservative and always offer very far Libetarian-leaning. Look into everyone they have supporting their whole anit-recycling thing -- they're all members of conservative think tanks. Check SourceWatch.

A huge part of their focus seems to be on cost -- this is their only point that's actually up for debate, because it's going to vary by city. In big cities, the fact is recycling is substantially cheaper, as little as half the price (~$100 vs ~$200 per ton, average). In more rural areas, where land to create landfills is far cheaper, the price for garbage can be much cheaper, as low as $50/ton, but across the nation as we become more populous this price for landfills is going up, while the price of recycling is going down as we refine our methods, becoming more energy and time efficient. If you choose to research this, be sure to look at dates -- early recycling programs were much less efficient than they are today, and landfills used to be cheaper. But price shouldn't be the focus -- this is about preserving our environment. Penn & Teller go through the types of recyclables one by one to dismiss them.

They hit aluminum and claim people will collect it even if the government doesn't -- I hope you know from your own personable observations that bums collecting cans only save a very small portion of our wasted aluminum.

They claim recycling plastic just results in companies making more expensive, lower quality products. This is complete bullshit, very deceptive. Even if plastic was completely biodegradable and nontoxic, the fact is recycling programs can sell the raw materials to industry and they make a profit -- this is great for everyone. It reduces the price of recycling our waste, it helps industry (they wouldn't buy recycled material if it didn't benefit them), and most importantly it reduces the amount of waste we put in landfills. But now tackle the biodegradability and toxicity aspect we put aside earlier -- plastic does NOT biodegrade, it photodegrades, meaning instead of decomposing it just breaks up into smaller pieces. This small pieces, eventually, go somewhere. It takes a very long time, but eventually they're small enough to be washed into our water and soil as toxic particulates. I did some oceanographic work last year in the Puget Sound and let me tell you this is not just some bullshit activist angle, the effect of plastics on our lakes & oceans is very real. The ocean contains six times as much plastic as it does plankton -- 25% of which comes from raw materials when being shipped, the remaining 75% from mishandled waste. Much of this plastic is small enough to be ingested by the ocean's basic life, concentrations of the toxins grow exponentially as you go through the food chain (a power of ten at each stage). Many cons don't care about animals, but it seems they all too often forget we are at the top of this food chain.

Penn & Teller go on to paper. This one is probably the most blatant of their deceptions -- they say most paper comes from trees planted by the paper industry. This is true, but not all paper does. The paper industry consumes more than it plants. That's all that matters. It doesn't matter what percent it is, it matters how much it is. Who cares if it's only 15% of their harvest when it's 100,000,000 acres of natural forest and wildlife? The point is that by recycling paper those companies are able to harvest less, which means less non-farm harvest.

They don't even really mention glass, other than that it's more expensive to recycle than to throw away. What they fail to mention is that it also saves a lot of energy. Industry loves recycled glass -- nearly all glass you use is made from at least 25% recycled. They love it because it saves them a lot in energy costs of manufacturing. Recycling a single glass bottle saves an equivalent amount of energy to power a lightbulb for about 7 hours -- that's less industrial pollutants on top of saving the landfill space it would've taken up.

The "methane means landfills rule!" argument is bullshit. Methane doesn't come from plastics and glass, it comes from biodegradables, which go to landfills (or, in good programs, composting fascilities) anyway, where methane harvesting is far more efficient because you have more organic decomposition per acre. Further, after its decomposed, what's left can be reused as fertilizer in parks & resold to private companies. That can't be done when plastics and other toxic materials are part of it.

This post got way longer than I planned...
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']tl;dr[/QUOTE]

Next time you want to make a bullshit statement like "recycling actually hurts more than it helps" be sure to include the preface "I don't read words when there are a lot of them, but I believe..."
 
Sorry. What I meant was: Be more concise because I can hardly stand reading one of your sentences, let alone 30 of them. Perhaps you'll get that e-conflict you so desperately desire if you don't write rambling essays to make your point as nobody's going to read them. :)
 
I guarantee a victory for your side if you utilize the following arguments in an articulate manner:

1.
Stick it in her pooper.
2.
Stick it in her pooper.
3.
Stick it in her pooper.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']Sorry. What I meant was: Be more concise because I can hardly stand reading one of your sentences, let alone 30 of them. Perhaps you'll get that e-conflict you so desperately desire if you don't write rambling essays to make your point as nobody's going to read them. :)[/QUOTE]

I wasn't making a point, I was responding to someone who asked me to explain... but okay guy.
 
Georgia and Ukraine represent significant American interests. They are the means by which energy can be transported and sold out of Central Asia without going through Russia. The consequences of losing those states are obvious, in order for the US, and most especially Western Europe to fulfill their energy needs, they will be beholden to either Russia or Iran, two potential adversaries. Ukraine also controls significant strategic territory which is directly adjacent to current NATO allies.

Russia has already demonstrated their willingness to use its position as the chief energy supplier to several nations as leverage. If Russia feels slighted, or doesn't get that lucrative trade agreement, maybe your country doesn't get its quota of heating oil and gas that winter. Imagine giving them that leverage over the entirety of Western Europe. This is not a position the United States needs to be in.


Energy will be attacked and as something that will increase costs for American companies, making them unable to compete with those in countries with no regulations (China and India) while doing nothing to stop the largest polluters in the world (China and India). Also, it doesn't seem to address anything beyond pollution. An energy plan needs to be a plan about giving us energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top