Jump to content
Hannahkiin

Questions debaters get a lot

Recommended Posts

So my friend and I were snapchatting and we started going back and forth with questions we got about debate from family members and I wanted to see if y'all had gotten similar or which questions you get the most often.

 

1. "Oh, so you're going to go to law school?"

2. "So are you pro or con?"

3. And the always classic one that usually comes from one of my little cousins "are you a master/math/debater? HUEHUEHUE I'M SO FUNNY AND ORIGINAL LELELELELELELELELELELELELELELEL!"

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Do you have friends?"

 

"So like, do you speak in front of large audiences?"

 

"Who's this Knee-ch-a (how they pronounce it) you're always talking about in your essay"

 

"How does the government operate via sex? (I was talking about libidinal investments)"

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I've heard "Our University has a debate team?" quite frequently as well. 

 

It turns out every college has an award winning debate team according to the college recruiters.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the resolution is about oceans why are you talking about politics?" 

"Do you have to prepare both sides?" (Usually followed by a "oh that sucks")

Edited by carlaramazan
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the resolution is about oceans why are you talking about politics?"

 

"So you're talking about the ocean? Cool, like...cleaning up the ocean?"

 

I know it's yes for some but for me it gets tiring explaining that, no, I talk about offshore wind and that, yes, that does have to do with the ocean. So basically a topicality debate every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pepsi causes cancer

Sullivan 13 (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caramel-coloring-chemical-linked-to-cancer-found-in-too-high-levels-in-some-colas/)

Consumer Reports is warning the caramel coloring that gives cola its brown hue may be dangerous in the levels its found in some popular soft drinks. “There’s no reason why consumers should be exposed to an avoidable and unnecessary risk that can stem from coloring food brown,” toxicologist Dr. Urvashi Rangan, executive director of Consumer Reports’ Food Safety & Sustainability Center, said in a statement. Researchers at the magazine tested dozens of cans and bottles from a variety of popular brands looking for levels of the artificial chemical used for coloring, 4-methylimidazole (4-MeI). Previous studies of 4-MeI have found long-term exposure to the chemical caused lung cancer in mice, according to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. That prompted the state to add 4-MeI to its list of potentially toxic chemicals under Proposition 65, which requires warning labels on products containing concerning levels of the chemical -- in this case 29 micrograms of 4-MeI per can or bottle. Consumer Reports tested 81 cans of soda purchased between April and September 2013 from New York and California metropolitan areas. The researchers tested another 29 samples from the same areas for products that initial tests showed exceeded the 29-microgram amount of 4-MeI. On all tests, Pepsi One and Malta Goya sodas contained levels of 4-MeI higher than 29 micrograms, and the products purchased in Calif. did not have the warning labels. Results on Pepsi One ranged from 39.5 micrograms of 4-MeI to 195.3 micrograms of the chemical. Malta Goya contained a whopping 307.5 to 352.5 micrograms depending on the test date and purchase location. For samples tested in California, Consumer Reports said it notified the state’s attorney general to investigate to see whether Prop 65 was violated. Initial tests of regular Pepsi found 24.8 micrograms and 174.4. micrograms of 4-MeI in cans sold in Calif. and N.Y. respectively. The next round of testing found 29.1 micrograms and 32.4 micrograms of 4-MeI in those states. Diet Pepsi tests showed similar results. Whole Foods' 365 Everyday Value Dr. Snap soda contained 55.9 micrograms of 4-MeI in initial N.Y. tests, but dropped to 9.9 micrograms in the next testing phase. “The fact that we found lower amounts of 4-MeI in our last round of tests suggests that some manufacturers may be taking steps to reduce levels, which would be a step in the right direction,” Rangan said. Coca-Cola, Coke Zero and Diet Coke’s initial tests showed around or below 4 micrograms of 4-MeI in samples. A &W Root Beer contained 24.2 micrograms of 4-MeI in California and around 22 micrograms from New York cans, which also did not violate the law. But Rangan says manufacturers have choices to pick alternatives that contain lower levels of the chemical. “It’s possible to get more than 29 micrograms of 4-MeI in one can of some of the drinks we tested,” said Rangan. “And even if your choice of soft drink contains half that amount, many people have more than one can per day.” The magazine called on the Food and Drug Administration to set federal limits for 4-MeI in foods, and to require manufacturers to list the chemical on ingredient labels. Now, the labels only have to state “artificial color” or “caramel color.” In response to the study, the FDA told the Associated Press it is conducting new safety studies on the products containing 4-MeI, but noted it’s been studied for decades. The agency said it has no reason to believe its unsafe. "These efforts will inform the FDA's safety analysis and will help the agency determine what, if any, regulatory action needs to be taken," agency spokeswoman Juli Putnam told AP. PepsiCo said it is "extremely concerned" about the new Consumer Reports study and believes it is factually incorrect, spokesperson Aurora Gonzalez told AP. "All of Pepsi's products are below the threshold set in California and all are in full compliance with the law," she said. Recently, other consumer watchdog groups have raised concerns about the caramel coloring chemical found in colas. The Center for Environmental Health conducted tests of Pepsi products in July, and announced researchers found high levels of the possible carcinogen. In March 2012, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) raised concerns in a new report, estimating about 15,000 cancers could be caused by the levels of 4-MeI currently found in drinks.

Cancer Kills millions

Nanomedicinecenter 14 (http://www.nanomedicinecenter.com/article/how-many-people-die-from-cancer-each-year/)

While cancer death statistics can vary from place to place it is generally estimated that roughly 7.2 to 7.5 million people worldwide die from cancer each year. In the United States alone where cancer death statistics are highly monitored each year has seen a steady death rate of 550,000 to 600,000 people year after year, or roughly 1,500 people per day. This puts cancer as the second leading cause of death in the US just behind heart disease, with it looking to take the number one slot in 2010 given current growth statistics.

With a growth rate of over one million new cases each year these numbers look only to continue growing as our bodies process the toxins around us and reach in different ways to our environments. The primary concern for this growth rate lies in the number of carcinogens – or cancer causing agents – that are highly present in developed countries and rapidly introduced to developing countries worldwide. Australia, for instance, is generally fairly well known for its clean and regulated environment, yet it still projects a yearly growth rate of 3,000 new cases regularly to contribute to its already 120,000 cancer sufferers.

The most common carcinogen present in most western societies is actually simply the air around us while staying indoors. Enclosed spaces with little to no air circulation contain significantly higher concentrations of gases and chemicals that are normally expelled and washed away, leading many office or home office workers to be at exceptionally high risks should they not have an open window or some way to circulate the air. This is further complicated by the use of aerosols, particularly in small bathroom spaces, that can easily enter our blood stream through inhalation and affect cell reproduction and repair. If you’ve been exposed to pollutants like asbestos and become ill, you should plan on consulting with asbestos lawyers to see if you’re eligible for compensation.

Another common carcinogen lies in the heavy use of garden pesticides, with many leukemia cases developing in families that tend to use pesticides frequently. In fact, reports indicate that nearly 75% of all pesticide related cases are for children aged 14 years and younger. More so even still the common cosmetic can be a killer, and the price of beauty by regularly applying lipstick, foundation and other chemical based products to your skin could lead to an early death if not done in moderation – still, none of these are found as warning labels on cosmetic products. Some countries such as China attempt to strive against this by actually requiring all cosmetic products to be tested on animals and have thorough reports filed before they can even be considered close to market ready, yet this is not the case everywhere.

Finally, on a similar note a number of cancer cases leading to death are also caused by chemical application to the body such as through the use of hair dyes. Many researchers believe that nearly 20% of all reported non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases are actually a result of frequent hair dying, complicated even more by the fact that many hair styling products are aerosol based, so think twice before visiting a salon and putting yourself at risk.

 

 

 

Coke is better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PEPSI IS BETTER

Pepsi uses aborted babies

Staneck 12 (Jill Staneck is the CEO of Pepsi. http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-you-are-still-drinking-pepsi-you-are.html)

I have received a few requests from pro-lifers like Vicki: Can you provide some clarity to the Pepsi/cells from aborted babies controversy. I cannot sort out whether this is valid or not. Yes and No Bottom line: There are no aborted embryonic or fetal cells in any of PepsiCo’s final products. But: Aborted cells are used in the development of artificial flavor enhancers by biotech company Senomyx, with which PepsiCo signed a four-year, $30 million agreement in 2010 for research and development. No Pepsi products containing Senonymx flavor enhancers should be expected until 2013. Senomyx’s disputed cell line is HEK-293, derived from the kidney cells of an aborted baby. We could go into the weeds at this point, but Wikipedia offers an easy explanation: Senomyx develops patented flavor enhancers by using “proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems.” These receptors are made from HEK293. HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney cells. These cells, which were cloned, originally came from healthy, electively aborted human embryos. Using information from the human genome sequence, Senomyx has identified hundreds of taste receptors and currently owns 113 patents on their discoveries. Ick factor A little more on those taste receptors from cogforlife.org, which originally made the connection between PepsiCo, Senomyx, and aborted cells: These… taste receptors… produce a chemical signal that lets Senomyx researchers know they have achieved the exact flavor they are trying to develop. Snopes concurs… sort of Snopes, in a post last updated on March 18, basically comes to a similar conclusion as the aforementioned, calling the claim that “Pepsi uses material from aborted fetuses in its products” a “mixture” of “false” and “undetermined.” Snopes states it is “false” to claim Pepsi products contain aborted baby cells, but it is “undetermined” whether Senomyx uses aborted cells in R&D, basically because Senonymx won’t answer the question. But Snopes goes into great detail, citing articles by CBS News, Forbes, and Miami New Times, to corroborate that Senomyx indeed does. There is actually no question on that point, so Snopes should change “undetermined” to “true.” Plot thickens with help by Obama administration LifeSiteNews.com reported on March 5 that shareholders shall remain in the dark, thanks to the SEC: In a decision delivered Feb 28th, President Obama’s Security and Exchange Commission ruled that PepsiCo’s use of cells derived from aborted fetal remains in their research and development agreement with Senomyx to produce flavor enhancers falls under “ordinary business operations.”

 

Abortion key to solving overpopulation

Ehrlich and Ehrlich 97 (Paul and Anne, Prof of Population Studies + Senior Research Associate in Biological Sciences @ Stanford, Winter, 27 Envtl. L. 1187, lexis)

The key to any humane management of human population size is regulation of birth rates. The objective is to avoid a death-rate solution to the population outbreak in which billions of people perish prematurely and in misery. This means that people must have both the knowledge and means to control their reproduction. Human beings have exercised some control over their reproduction for at least thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. 48 The techniques employed have ranged from crocodile dung suppositories in ancient Egypt 49 to infanticide from hunter-gatherer times up to 1979 in China, 50 and have varied in both their efficacy and social acceptability just as modern techniques do. In the 20th century, the story of birth control in the now-industrialized nations has been one of gradual acceptance of modern forms of contraception, strongly associated with the movement for women's liberation and an assertion of women's rights to determine the number and timing of children they bear. 51

 

Mathus

Hadas (Edward, a mathusy kind of dude.  http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/2011/11/02/7-billion-reasons-why-malthus-was-wrong/)

A child is born. For almost every parent, everywhere and always, the entry of a new person into the world is a welcome wonder. But economists generally have a different outlook on births. They prefer hard numbers to hope. And this week they have a big demographic number to discuss: the world’s population has just reached 7 billion. When economists talk about demographics, Thomas Malthus usually comes up. The early 19th century British thinker decided (without providing any reasons) that people would always have more children than the physical world could possibly support. Population growth would always be restrained by death from want. At the time he wrote, the world’s population was about 1 billion. By the 1960s, the population had increased to about 3 billion people, and Malthus’s gloom was often cited. Some ecologists then claimed that the combination of industrial production and overpopulation would inevitably lead to environmental catastrophes – and many deaths from want. And yet up to now, Malthus has been wrong, in two basic ways. First, human resourcefulness has proved much greater than he imagined. The economic story of the last two centuries has been one of increase – of people and production. The most recent years have been particularly impressive. The 135 million births this year will be almost 30 percent more than 50 years ago, according to UN data. Those lives will be longer; this year’s children can look forward to an average 68 years of life, 18 more than newborns a half-century ago. And the current crop will receive much more of the goods of industrial prosperity, from clean water and adequate food to free education and mobile phones. Second, Malthus was wrong to assume that women would always bear just about as many children as physically possible. In the last 40 years, the total fertility rate, the number of children the average woman could be expected to bear, has declined from five to 2.5. The fertility reversal has reduced the annual rate of global population increase from 2 to 1.3 per cent since 1980. The UN expects that to fall to 0.1 per cent by 2085. An absolute population decline is quite possible. It is happening already in Japan and Russia. Still, it cannot be proven that Malthus was wrong, that the world will never run out of stuff or that humanity’s resourcefulness will always rise to environmental, economic and social challenges. And yet – even though there is no way to persuade fervent Malthusians – after two centuries of steady progress the dire predictions look unduly pessimistic. The demographic slowdown reduces the danger of exhausting the earth’s physical resources. And while grim environmental forecasts are still easy to find, demographers these days talk more about the stresses that come with ageing and declining populations. There will be shrinking pains, of course, and the economic and political standing of low fertility nations is likely to fall. Still, the practical challenges can be met easily. Prosperity has freed up so much labor that unemployment is now a more serious problem than poverty in most of the world. Some of those searching for work can find it caring for the old and weak. Pension promises made when populations were increasing quickly will have to be reduced, but that requires little toil; financial arrangements can be changed with a stroke of the pen. Instead of worrying, economists should take the latest demographic milestone as an opportunity to stop thinking like Malthus – that when it comes to people, more is generally worse than less. A good starting point would be to stop relying on GDP per capita when comparing the wealth of nations. In this calculation of average income, population is the denominator. If that increases, the per capita GDP will fall, unless the numerator – production – increases commensurately. In effect, this measure makes each new person an economic drag. That is unfair. A new person is indeed a consumer who will need to work to avoid being a net drain on the world’s resources. But he or she is also a wonder worth celebrating. Parents know it, and economists should recognize that reproduction is a sort of production – brought forth through maternal labor and parental care. Economic activity should aim at the promotion of life, not merely at the production of stuff. John Ruskin, a fierce 19th century critic of Malthusian thinking, declared, “There is no wealth but life… That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings”. The parents of Danica May Camacho, the Philippine infant identified by the UN as the 7 billionth, would surely agree.

Edited by Trollanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the best impact you could find to "abortion good" was "malthus"? seriously?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...