Originally developed in the 1970s, direct recording
electronic (DRE) voting machines have become
increasingly used nationwide. After the 2000 US
presidential election's troubles with "pregnant” and
"hanging” chads and the subsequent passage of the
2002 Help America Vote Act which swelled use of DREs,
electronic voting technology became widely debated.
Proponents argue that electronic voting machines are
secure, able to unambiguously capture the intent of a
voter, capable of preventing residual votes, reliable, easy
to use, calculate and report voting results faster, and
are accessible to disabled, illiterate, and non-English
speaking voters.
Opponents of electronic voting machines argue that
DREs give too much power over public elections to their
private manufacturers, are vulnerable to hacking and
other forms of tampering, do not allow for meaningful
audits and recounts, and do not offer voters a
trustworthy way to verify their votes.
1 Jun 2014
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGAL?
Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted
suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should
have the right to end their suffering with a quick,
dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the
right to die is protected by the same constitutional
safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage,
procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving
medical treatment.
Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
contend that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep
their patients alive as reflected by the Hippocratic Oath.
They argue there may be a "slippery slope" from
euthanasia to murder, and that legalizing euthanasia
will unfairly target the poor and disabled and create
incentives for insurance companies to terminate lives in
order to save money.
suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should
have the right to end their suffering with a quick,
dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the
right to die is protected by the same constitutional
safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage,
procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving
medical treatment.
Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
contend that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep
their patients alive as reflected by the Hippocratic Oath.
They argue there may be a "slippery slope" from
euthanasia to murder, and that legalizing euthanasia
will unfairly target the poor and disabled and create
incentives for insurance companies to terminate lives in
order to save money.
IS DRINKING MILK HEALTHY FOR HUMANS?
Milk is one of the most popular beverages in the United
States. We have been told it "does a body good," but
some scientific studies have found that contrary to
popular belief, drinking milk may do more harm to our
bodies than good.
Proponents of milk say calcium and other vitamins and
minerals in milk make it an important part of a healthful
diet for people of all ages. They argue that milk’s
benefits include weight loss, strengthening bones,
improved cardiovascular and oral health, cancer
prevention, and relief of PMS.
Opponents of milk argue that it contributes to obesity,
calcium deficiency, allergies, heart disease, cancer, and
other health ailments. They argue that claims regarding
milk's benefits are merely advertising campaigns
designed to promote dairy sales and
States. We have been told it "does a body good," but
some scientific studies have found that contrary to
popular belief, drinking milk may do more harm to our
bodies than good.
Proponents of milk say calcium and other vitamins and
minerals in milk make it an important part of a healthful
diet for people of all ages. They argue that milk’s
benefits include weight loss, strengthening bones,
improved cardiovascular and oral health, cancer
prevention, and relief of PMS.
Opponents of milk argue that it contributes to obesity,
calcium deficiency, allergies, heart disease, cancer, and
other health ailments. They argue that claims regarding
milk's benefits are merely advertising campaigns
designed to promote dairy sales and
IS OBESITY A DISEASE?
The United States is the second most obese
industrialized country in the world. [52] A 2013 report
stated that 31.8% of Americans were obese, compared
to 14% in the mid-1970s. [54] [52] Obesity accounts for
10% of deaths and healthcare spending in the United
States. [2]
Proponents contend that obesity is a disease because it
meets the definition of disease; it decreases life
expectancy and impairs the normal functioning of the
body; and it can be caused by genetic factors.
Opponents contend that obesity is not a disease
because it is a preventable risk factor for other
diseases; is the result of eating too much; and is
caused by exercising too little
industrialized country in the world. [52] A 2013 report
stated that 31.8% of Americans were obese, compared
to 14% in the mid-1970s. [54] [52] Obesity accounts for
10% of deaths and healthcare spending in the United
States. [2]
Proponents contend that obesity is a disease because it
meets the definition of disease; it decreases life
expectancy and impairs the normal functioning of the
body; and it can be caused by genetic factors.
Opponents contend that obesity is not a disease
because it is a preventable risk factor for other
diseases; is the result of eating too much; and is
caused by exercising too little
IS (OBAMACARE) GOOD FOR AMERICA?
In March 2010, the US Congress passed HR 3590, the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and
HR 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation
Act of 2010. President Barack Obama signed them both
into law, along with Executive Order 13535 restricting
federal funds from being used for abortion services. On
Thursday June 28, 2012 the US Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of the PPACA in a 5-4 ruling.
Proponents of the health care legislation have called it a
"historic victory" and "landmark legislation" that reforms
the US health care system by reigning in health care
costs, making health care more affordable, and
protecting consumers from unfair insurance practices.
They cite the Congressional Budget Office which reports
that by 2021, it will reduce the nation's deficit by about
$210 billion.
Opponents have called it a "socialist" and
"unconstitutional" government takeover of the health
care system that will increase the cost of health care,
decrease the quality, and entrench a new entitlement.
They say the law will increase the nation's deficit $340-
$700 billion over the next decade. In 2011 and 2012 the
House of Representatives voted 36 different times to
repeal or replace Obamacare.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and
HR 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation
Act of 2010. President Barack Obama signed them both
into law, along with Executive Order 13535 restricting
federal funds from being used for abortion services. On
Thursday June 28, 2012 the US Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of the PPACA in a 5-4 ruling.
Proponents of the health care legislation have called it a
"historic victory" and "landmark legislation" that reforms
the US health care system by reigning in health care
costs, making health care more affordable, and
protecting consumers from unfair insurance practices.
They cite the Congressional Budget Office which reports
that by 2021, it will reduce the nation's deficit by about
$210 billion.
Opponents have called it a "socialist" and
"unconstitutional" government takeover of the health
care system that will increase the cost of health care,
decrease the quality, and entrench a new entitlement.
They say the law will increase the nation's deficit $340-
$700 billion over the next decade. In 2011 and 2012 the
House of Representatives voted 36 different times to
repeal or replace Obamacare.
SHOULD ABORTION BE LEGAL?
The debate over whether or not abortion should be a
legal option continues to divide Americans long after the
US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade [49]
declared the procedure a "fundamental right" on Jan. 22,
1973.
Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice,
contend that choosing abortion is a right that should
not be limited by governmental or religious authority,
and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or
fetus. They say that pregnant women will resort to
unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.
Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, contend
that personhood begins at conception, and therefore
abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human
being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn
child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when
couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to
adopt.
Variations exist in arguments on both sides of the
debate. Some pro-choice proponents believe abortion
should only be used as a last resort, while others
advocate unrestricted access to abortion services under
any circumstance. Pro-life positions range from
opposing abortion under any circumstance to accepting
it for situations of rape, incest, or when a woman's life
is at risk.
legal option continues to divide Americans long after the
US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade [49]
declared the procedure a "fundamental right" on Jan. 22,
1973.
Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice,
contend that choosing abortion is a right that should
not be limited by governmental or religious authority,
and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or
fetus. They say that pregnant women will resort to
unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.
Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, contend
that personhood begins at conception, and therefore
abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human
being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn
child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when
couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to
adopt.
Variations exist in arguments on both sides of the
debate. Some pro-choice proponents believe abortion
should only be used as a last resort, while others
advocate unrestricted access to abortion services under
any circumstance. Pro-life positions range from
opposing abortion under any circumstance to accepting
it for situations of rape, incest, or when a woman's life
is at risk.
ARE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES GOOD FOR OUR SOCIETY?
Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our Society?
47% of American adults used social networking sites like
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, and
Classmates.com in 2011, up from 26% in 2008. [26] On
social media sites like these, users may develop
biographical profiles, communicate with friends and
strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos,
music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the
online communities promote increased interaction with
friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and
students valuable access to educational support and
materials; facilitate social and political change; and
disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites
prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on
frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior
making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to
predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false
and potentially dangerous information. Read more...
Did You Know?
Pro & Con Arguments
Top Pro & Con Quotes
Background
Video Gallery
Comments
Social Networking ProCon.org is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit website that presents facts, studies, and pro
and con statements on questions related to social
networking and its impact on society.
Did You Know?
1. Social networking sites are a top news source for 27.8%
of Americans, ranking below newspapers (28.8%) and
above radio (18.8%) and print publications (6%). [1]
2. Students who used social networking sites while
studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who
used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus
non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82. [ 84]
3. 35 global heads of state, every US Cabinet agency, 84%
of US state governors, every major candidate for US
President, and more than 40% of top global religious
leaders are on Twitter. [157 ]
4. 10% of people younger than 25 years old respond to
social media and text messages during sex. [100 ] [173 ]
5. In July 2012 Americans spent 74.0 billion minutes on
social media via a home computer, 40.8 billion minutes
via apps, and 5.7 billion minutes via mobile web
browsers, a total of 121.1 billion minutes on social
networking sites. [ 147]
Background: "Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our
Society?"
47% of American adults used social networking sites like
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, and
Classmates.com in 2011, up from 26% in 2008. [26 ] On
social media sites like these, users may develop
biographical profiles, communicate with friends and
strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos,
music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the
online communities promote increased interaction with
friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and
students valuable access to educational support and
materials; facilitate social and political change; and
disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites
prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on
frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior
making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to
predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false
and potentially dangerous information.
SixDegrees.com, which existed from 1997-2001, is
considered the first social networking site because it
allowed users to create personal spaces and connect to
friends online. Friendster, created in 2002, popularized
social networking in the United States but was quickly
outpaced by other social networking sites like: MySpace
(2003), Facebook (2004), Twitter (2006), Pinterest
(2009), and Google+ (2012). Facebook reported one
billion monthly users worldwide on October 4, 2012,
making it the most popular social networking site with
one in seven people on the planet using the site. [142 ]
Every day, Facebook manages 2.7 billion "Likes,” 300
million photo uploads, and 2.5 billion status updates
and check-ins. [143 ] Twitter, the second largest social
networking site, had an estimated 107.7 million users in
the United States (as of Jan. 31, 2012) [ 144] and 500
million worldwide users (as of Sep. 28, 2012). [ 172]
Pinterest is the third largest social network with 23
million unique visitors in July 2012, followed by
LinkedIn, Tagged, Google+, and MySpace [145 ] [146 ]
59% of all Internet users use at least one social
networking site and 56% of social networking users are
female. [ 26]
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES RETURN TO GOLD STANDARD?
Prior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of
a gold standard where the value of the dollar was
backed by gold reserves and paper money could be
redeemed for gold upon demand. Since 1971, the United
States dollar has been a fiat currency backed by the
"full faith and credit” of the government and not backed
by, valued in, or convertible into gold.
Proponents of the gold standard argue it provides long-
term economic stability and growth, prevents inflation,
and would reduce the size of government. They say a
gold standard would restrict the ability of government to
print money at will, run up large deficits, and increase
the national debt. They say the economy has historically
performed best under a gold standard.
Opponents argue a gold standard would create
economic instability, spur periodic economic deflation
and contraction, and hamper government's ability to
stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment during
recessions and financial crises. They say returning to a
gold standard would be extremely difficult given the
scarcity of gold and could severely harm the already
fragile US economy.
Since its founding in 1776, the United States has had a
variety of monetary systems including bimetallic
systems where the dollar was backed by both gold and
silver (1792-1862), a fiat monetary system
(1862-1879), a full gold standard (1879-1933), and a
partial gold standard (1933-1971). From 1971 to
present the United States has been on a fiat monetary
standard. [71 ]
a gold standard where the value of the dollar was
backed by gold reserves and paper money could be
redeemed for gold upon demand. Since 1971, the United
States dollar has been a fiat currency backed by the
"full faith and credit” of the government and not backed
by, valued in, or convertible into gold.
Proponents of the gold standard argue it provides long-
term economic stability and growth, prevents inflation,
and would reduce the size of government. They say a
gold standard would restrict the ability of government to
print money at will, run up large deficits, and increase
the national debt. They say the economy has historically
performed best under a gold standard.
Opponents argue a gold standard would create
economic instability, spur periodic economic deflation
and contraction, and hamper government's ability to
stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment during
recessions and financial crises. They say returning to a
gold standard would be extremely difficult given the
scarcity of gold and could severely harm the already
fragile US economy.
Since its founding in 1776, the United States has had a
variety of monetary systems including bimetallic
systems where the dollar was backed by both gold and
silver (1792-1862), a fiat monetary system
(1862-1879), a full gold standard (1879-1933), and a
partial gold standard (1933-1971). From 1971 to
present the United States has been on a fiat monetary
standard. [71 ]
DOES LOWERING THE FEDERAL CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATE CREATE JOBS?
The creation of the federal corporate income tax
occurred in 1909, when the uniform rate was 1% for all
business income above $5,000. Since then the rate has
increased to as high as 52.8% in 1969, and the single
rate has become eight different rates for different
income levels. Today's rate for companies with over
$18.3 million in income (the top category) is 35%.
Throughout US corporate tax history, Americans have
debated whether or not lowering the rate results in job
creation.
Proponents of lowering the corporate tax rate to create
jobs argue that it incentivizes job creation in the United
States instead of overseas, encourages increased
investment in research and infrastructure, and passes
savings on to consumers through lower prices. They say
that the United States already has the highest corporate
income tax rates in the world, which creates a
competitive disadvantage for US businesses.
Opponents of lowering the corporate tax rate to create
jobs argue that it results in more profits for corporations
without affecting job creation, and that unemployment
rates were the lowest in recorded US history during the
time when corporate income tax rates were highest.
They say that lowering the rate would increase the US
deficit, and that companies hire employees based on
need, not because of corporate tax rates.
occurred in 1909, when the uniform rate was 1% for all
business income above $5,000. Since then the rate has
increased to as high as 52.8% in 1969, and the single
rate has become eight different rates for different
income levels. Today's rate for companies with over
$18.3 million in income (the top category) is 35%.
Throughout US corporate tax history, Americans have
debated whether or not lowering the rate results in job
creation.
Proponents of lowering the corporate tax rate to create
jobs argue that it incentivizes job creation in the United
States instead of overseas, encourages increased
investment in research and infrastructure, and passes
savings on to consumers through lower prices. They say
that the United States already has the highest corporate
income tax rates in the world, which creates a
competitive disadvantage for US businesses.
Opponents of lowering the corporate tax rate to create
jobs argue that it results in more profits for corporations
without affecting job creation, and that unemployment
rates were the lowest in recorded US history during the
time when corporate income tax rates were highest.
They say that lowering the rate would increase the US
deficit, and that companies hire employees based on
need, not because of corporate tax rates.
31 May 2014
WHAT ARE SOLUTIONS TO ISREALI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world's
longest standing conflicts. Many people feel that
resolving this conflict is the key to resolving the various
conflicts throughout the Middle East. Some observers
see this conflict creating Arab resentment towards the
"West" and fueling radical Islamic terrorism. Although
the conflict generates massive public discussion and
debate, there are relatively few (if any) forums that
inherently maintain an impartial and non-partisan
approach to understanding it. We intentionally expose
the massive variations of opinion, narrative and fact, to
give our readers the best "big picture" understanding of
the conflict and its potential solutions.
longest standing conflicts. Many people feel that
resolving this conflict is the key to resolving the various
conflicts throughout the Middle East. Some observers
see this conflict creating Arab resentment towards the
"West" and fueling radical Islamic terrorism. Although
the conflict generates massive public discussion and
debate, there are relatively few (if any) forums that
inherently maintain an impartial and non-partisan
approach to understanding it. We intentionally expose
the massive variations of opinion, narrative and fact, to
give our readers the best "big picture" understanding of
the conflict and its potential solutions.
SHOULD UNITED STATES CONTINUE ITS USE OF DRONE STRIKES ABROAD?
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), otherwise known as
drones, are remotely-controlled aircraft which may be
armed with missiles and bombs for attack missions.
Since the World Trade Center attacks of Sep. 11, 2001
and the subsequent "War on Terror," the United States
has used drones to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries.
Proponents say that drones have decimated terrorist
networks abroad via precise strikes with minimal civilian
casualties. They contend that drones are relatively
inexpensive weapons, are used under proper government
oversight, and that their use helps prevent "boots on the
ground" combat and makes America safer.
Opponents say that drone strikes create more terrorists
than they kill. They contend that drone strikes kill large
numbers of civilians, violate international law, lack
sufficient congressional oversight, violate the
sovereignty of other nations, and make the horrors of
war appear as innocuous as a video game.
Civilians accounted for 8-17% of all deaths from US
drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
drones, are remotely-controlled aircraft which may be
armed with missiles and bombs for attack missions.
Since the World Trade Center attacks of Sep. 11, 2001
and the subsequent "War on Terror," the United States
has used drones to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries.
Proponents say that drones have decimated terrorist
networks abroad via precise strikes with minimal civilian
casualties. They contend that drones are relatively
inexpensive weapons, are used under proper government
oversight, and that their use helps prevent "boots on the
ground" combat and makes America safer.
Opponents say that drone strikes create more terrorists
than they kill. They contend that drone strikes kill large
numbers of civilians, violate international law, lack
sufficient congressional oversight, violate the
sovereignty of other nations, and make the horrors of
war appear as innocuous as a video game.
Civilians accounted for 8-17% of all deaths from US
drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
SHOULD UNITED STATES MAINTAIN THE EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA?
February 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of the
ongoing US embargo against Cuba, an island nation 90
miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known
among Cubans as "el bloqueo" or "the blockade,"
consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and
restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all
people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not
met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including
transitioning to democracy and improving human rights.
They say that backing down without getting
concessions from the Castro regime will make the
United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban
elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be
lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and
has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the
sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens,
and prevent opportunities to promote change and
democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts
international opinion of the United States.
ongoing US embargo against Cuba, an island nation 90
miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known
among Cubans as "el bloqueo" or "the blockade,"
consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and
restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all
people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not
met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including
transitioning to democracy and improving human rights.
They say that backing down without getting
concessions from the Castro regime will make the
United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban
elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be
lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and
has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the
sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens,
and prevent opportunities to promote change and
democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts
international opinion of the United States.
SHOULD PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS BE ACCEPTED IN SPORTS?
Proponents of accepting performance enhancing drugs
(PEDs) in sports argue that their harmful health effects
have been overstated, that health risks are an athlete’s
decision to make, that using drugs is part of the
evolution of sports much like improved training
techniques and new technologies, and that efforts to
keep athletes from using PEDs are overzealous,
unproductive, unfairly administered, and bound to fail.
Opponents argue that PEDs are harmful and potentially
fatal, and that athletes who use them are cheaters who
gain an unfair advantage, violate the spirit of
competition, and send the wrong message to children.
They say PED users unfairly diminish the historic
achievements of clean athletes, and that efforts to stop
PED use in sports should remain strong.
(PEDs) in sports argue that their harmful health effects
have been overstated, that health risks are an athlete’s
decision to make, that using drugs is part of the
evolution of sports much like improved training
techniques and new technologies, and that efforts to
keep athletes from using PEDs are overzealous,
unproductive, unfairly administered, and bound to fail.
Opponents argue that PEDs are harmful and potentially
fatal, and that athletes who use them are cheaters who
gain an unfair advantage, violate the spirit of
competition, and send the wrong message to children.
They say PED users unfairly diminish the historic
achievements of clean athletes, and that efforts to stop
PED use in sports should remain strong.
SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE LEGAL?
Proponents of legalizing prostitution believe it would
reduce crime, improve public health, increase tax
revenue, help people out of poverty, get prostitutes off
the streets, and allow consenting adults to make their
own choices. They contend that prostitution is a
victimless crime, especially in the 11 Nevada counties
where it remains legal.
Opponents believe that legalizing prostitution would
lead to increases in sexually transmitted diseases such
as AIDS, global human trafficking, and violent crime
including rape and homicide. They contend that
prostitution is inherently immoral, commercially
exploitative, empowers the criminal underworld, and
promotes the repression of women by men.
reduce crime, improve public health, increase tax
revenue, help people out of poverty, get prostitutes off
the streets, and allow consenting adults to make their
own choices. They contend that prostitution is a
victimless crime, especially in the 11 Nevada counties
where it remains legal.
Opponents believe that legalizing prostitution would
lead to increases in sexually transmitted diseases such
as AIDS, global human trafficking, and violent crime
including rape and homicide. They contend that
prostitution is inherently immoral, commercially
exploitative, empowers the criminal underworld, and
promotes the repression of women by men.
IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION DETERMINED AT BIRTH?
Whether sexual orientation is a trait we are born with
(nature) or is caused by the environment we are raised
in (nurture) has been debated by scientists, religious
leaders, elected officials, and the general public.
Proponents argue that sexual orientation, much like
handedness or tongue curling, is determined by natural,
immutable biological factors such as genes or
hormones, and therefore gay people should be entitled
to the same legal rights and protections as other human
beings.
Opponents argue that homosexuality is a reversible and
unfortunate lifestyle choice resulting from poor child-
parent relationships, sexual abuse, brainwashing by
pro-gay influences, or other developmental causes.
Some contend that gay people should be denied
marriage, discrimination protection, and social and
religious acceptance.
(nature) or is caused by the environment we are raised
in (nurture) has been debated by scientists, religious
leaders, elected officials, and the general public.
Proponents argue that sexual orientation, much like
handedness or tongue curling, is determined by natural,
immutable biological factors such as genes or
hormones, and therefore gay people should be entitled
to the same legal rights and protections as other human
beings.
Opponents argue that homosexuality is a reversible and
unfortunate lifestyle choice resulting from poor child-
parent relationships, sexual abuse, brainwashing by
pro-gay influences, or other developmental causes.
Some contend that gay people should be denied
marriage, discrimination protection, and social and
religious acceptance.
IS HUMAN ACTIVITY SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE?
The US National Academies of Science, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and many others, say that greenhouse gas
levels are rising due to human activities such as burning
fossil fuels and deforestation which are causing
significant climate changes including global warming,
loss of sea ice, glacier retreat, more intense heat waves,
stronger hurricanes, and more droughts. They contend
that climate change requires immediate international
action to prevent dire consequences.
The Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and
many others, argue that human-generated greenhouse
gas emissions are too small to substantially change the
earth’s climate. They contend that our forests and
oceans are capable of absorbing these small increases,
and that 20th century warming has resulted from
natural processes including fluctuations in the sun's
heat and ocean currents. They say that global climate
change is based on bunk science and scare tactics.
Human activities release greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(NO2), into the atmosphere. As of Apr. 2010, CO2 levels
were 389 parts per million (ppm) - reportedly higher
than at any time in the last 650,000 years when levels
fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm. [3] This rise took
place alongside a 20th century global temperature
increase of between 1°F and 1.4°F.[ 1][ 43]
Although there was a period of cooling from 1940 to
1970 [ 2], and uncertainty exists in computer climate
models, [ 8] many researchers think the earth will
continue to warm by 3-10°F [ 1] over the 21st century.
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and many others, say that greenhouse gas
levels are rising due to human activities such as burning
fossil fuels and deforestation which are causing
significant climate changes including global warming,
loss of sea ice, glacier retreat, more intense heat waves,
stronger hurricanes, and more droughts. They contend
that climate change requires immediate international
action to prevent dire consequences.
The Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and
many others, argue that human-generated greenhouse
gas emissions are too small to substantially change the
earth’s climate. They contend that our forests and
oceans are capable of absorbing these small increases,
and that 20th century warming has resulted from
natural processes including fluctuations in the sun's
heat and ocean currents. They say that global climate
change is based on bunk science and scare tactics.
Human activities release greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(NO2), into the atmosphere. As of Apr. 2010, CO2 levels
were 389 parts per million (ppm) - reportedly higher
than at any time in the last 650,000 years when levels
fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm. [3] This rise took
place alongside a 20th century global temperature
increase of between 1°F and 1.4°F.[ 1][ 43]
Although there was a period of cooling from 1940 to
1970 [ 2], and uncertainty exists in computer climate
models, [ 8] many researchers think the earth will
continue to warm by 3-10°F [ 1] over the 21st century.
ARE CELL PHONES SAFE?
The radiation emitted by cell phones, known as
radiofrequency (RF) radiation, is regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Hundreds
of millions of Americans use cell phones and many of
them wonder if there are any health risks.
People who say cell phones are safe reference
statements by the FCC and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and point to peer-reviewed studies
which conclude that cell phone use is not associated
with an increased risk of brain tumors or the onset of
other health problems. They contend there has been no
increase in brain tumor rates despite hundreds of
millions of people now using cell phones.
People who say cell phones are not safe cite peer-
reviewed studies showing an association between cell
phone use and tumor growth, DNA damage, and
decreased fertility. They say cancers take 20-30 years
to develop and cell phone studies have monitored
periods of 10 years or less. They highlight the
International Agency for Research on Cancer’s
classification of cell phone radiation as a possible
carcinogen.
Cordless home phones, television, radio, laptops, and
tablet computers all produce radiofrequency (RF)
radiation, the same type of radiation that is produced by
cell phones.
The radiation emitted by a cell phone can penetrate 4 -
6 cm (1.6 - 2.4 in) into an adult human brain. [ 1] The
amount of RF absorbed into the head can be reduced by
using a wired ear-piece (not a Bluetooth) rather than
placing the phone against the ear.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on
May 31, 2011 that it had added cell phone radiation to
its list of physical agents which are "possibly
carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents). [ 37] Other
group 2B agents include coffee, DDT, pickled vegetables,
and lead.
radiofrequency (RF) radiation, is regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Hundreds
of millions of Americans use cell phones and many of
them wonder if there are any health risks.
People who say cell phones are safe reference
statements by the FCC and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and point to peer-reviewed studies
which conclude that cell phone use is not associated
with an increased risk of brain tumors or the onset of
other health problems. They contend there has been no
increase in brain tumor rates despite hundreds of
millions of people now using cell phones.
People who say cell phones are not safe cite peer-
reviewed studies showing an association between cell
phone use and tumor growth, DNA damage, and
decreased fertility. They say cancers take 20-30 years
to develop and cell phone studies have monitored
periods of 10 years or less. They highlight the
International Agency for Research on Cancer’s
classification of cell phone radiation as a possible
carcinogen.
Cordless home phones, television, radio, laptops, and
tablet computers all produce radiofrequency (RF)
radiation, the same type of radiation that is produced by
cell phones.
The radiation emitted by a cell phone can penetrate 4 -
6 cm (1.6 - 2.4 in) into an adult human brain. [ 1] The
amount of RF absorbed into the head can be reduced by
using a wired ear-piece (not a Bluetooth) rather than
placing the phone against the ear.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on
May 31, 2011 that it had added cell phone radiation to
its list of physical agents which are "possibly
carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents). [ 37] Other
group 2B agents include coffee, DDT, pickled vegetables,
and lead.
CAN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY EFFECTIVELY REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS?
Whether alternative energy sources such as biofuels,
hydrogen, solar, geothermal, or nuclear energy can meet
energy demands better than finite fossil fuels such as
oil and coal remains hotly debated.
Proponents of alternative energy argue that fossil fuels
are inefficient, unsustainable, environmentally
destructive, and the primary contributor to global
climate change. They say renewable energies are a
viable and immediately needed alternative to fossil fuel
use that could boost the US economy and reduce
reliance on foreign energy sources.
Opponents contend that many technological hurdles
have to be overcome before alternative energy can
replace even a small portion of the power provided by
fossil fuels. They say that fossil fuels will last hundreds
of years longer, be made increasingly efficient, remain
the most economical choice, and that reliance on
inefficient alternative energies will hurt the economy.
hydrogen, solar, geothermal, or nuclear energy can meet
energy demands better than finite fossil fuels such as
oil and coal remains hotly debated.
Proponents of alternative energy argue that fossil fuels
are inefficient, unsustainable, environmentally
destructive, and the primary contributor to global
climate change. They say renewable energies are a
viable and immediately needed alternative to fossil fuel
use that could boost the US economy and reduce
reliance on foreign energy sources.
Opponents contend that many technological hurdles
have to be overcome before alternative energy can
replace even a small portion of the power provided by
fossil fuels. They say that fossil fuels will last hundreds
of years longer, be made increasingly efficient, remain
the most economical choice, and that reliance on
inefficient alternative energies will hurt the economy.
SHOULD CHURCHES REMAIN TAX-EXEMPT?
US churches* received an official federal income tax
exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-
exempt since the country's founding. All 50 US states
and the District of Columbia exempt churches from
paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-
deductible. The debate continues over whether or not
these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps the
government out of church finances and thus upholds the
separation of church and state. They say that churches
deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social
services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions
have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax
exemptions violates the separation of church and state,
and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a
constitutional right. They say that in tough economic
times the government cannot afford what amounts to a
subsidy worth billions of dollars every year.
The first recorded tax exemption for churches was
during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of
Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a
complete exemption from all forms of taxation following
his conversion to Christianity circa 312.
exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-
exempt since the country's founding. All 50 US states
and the District of Columbia exempt churches from
paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-
deductible. The debate continues over whether or not
these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps the
government out of church finances and thus upholds the
separation of church and state. They say that churches
deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social
services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions
have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax
exemptions violates the separation of church and state,
and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a
constitutional right. They say that in tough economic
times the government cannot afford what amounts to a
subsidy worth billions of dollars every year.
The first recorded tax exemption for churches was
during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of
Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a
complete exemption from all forms of taxation following
his conversion to Christianity circa 312.
IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WORTH IT?
With over 11 million immigrants in the United States
illegally (as of 2011), the issue of illegal immigration
continues to divide Americans.
Some people say that illegal immigration benefits the
US economy through additional tax revenue, expansion
of the low-cost labor pool, and increased money in
circulation. They contend that immigrants bring good
values, have motivations consistent with the American
dream, perform jobs that Americans won’t take, and
that opposition to immigration stems from racism.
Opponents of illegal immigration say that people who
break the law by crossing the US border without proper
documentation or by overstaying their visas should be
deported and not rewarded with a path to citizenship
and access to social services. They argue that people in
the country illegally are criminals and social and
economic burdens to law-abiding, tax-paying
Americans.
illegally (as of 2011), the issue of illegal immigration
continues to divide Americans.
Some people say that illegal immigration benefits the
US economy through additional tax revenue, expansion
of the low-cost labor pool, and increased money in
circulation. They contend that immigrants bring good
values, have motivations consistent with the American
dream, perform jobs that Americans won’t take, and
that opposition to immigration stems from racism.
Opponents of illegal immigration say that people who
break the law by crossing the US border without proper
documentation or by overstaying their visas should be
deported and not rewarded with a path to citizenship
and access to social services. They argue that people in
the country illegally are criminals and social and
economic burdens to law-abiding, tax-paying
Americans.
SHOULD THE DEATH PENALTY BE ALLOWED?
1,188 people were executed in the US from 1977
through 2009, primarily by means of lethal injection.
Most death penalty cases involve the execution of
murderers although capital punishment can also be
applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes.
Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important
tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and
costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that
retribution or "an eye for an eye" honors the victim,
helps console grieving families, and ensures that the
perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an
opportunity to cause future tragedy.
Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent
effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to
take human life, and perpetuates social injustices by
disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and
people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist).
They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and
less expensive punishment than death.
through 2009, primarily by means of lethal injection.
Most death penalty cases involve the execution of
murderers although capital punishment can also be
applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes.
Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important
tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and
costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that
retribution or "an eye for an eye" honors the victim,
helps console grieving families, and ensures that the
perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an
opportunity to cause future tragedy.
Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent
effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to
take human life, and perpetuates social injustices by
disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and
people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist).
They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and
less expensive punishment than death.
SHOULD DRINKING AGE BE LOWERED?
All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to
21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state
basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision,
for medical necessity, and other reasons.
Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age
(MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen
drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge
drinking into private and less controlled environments,
leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by
teens.
Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have
not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol
responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even
kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They
contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA
increased .
Although many believe that anyone under the age of 21
is prohibited from consuming alcohol in the United
States, underage drinking is allowed in 29 states if done
on private premises with parental consent, 25 states if
for religious purposes, and 11 states if for educational
purposes .
21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state
basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision,
for medical necessity, and other reasons.
Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age
(MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen
drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge
drinking into private and less controlled environments,
leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by
teens.
Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have
not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol
responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even
kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They
contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA
increased .
Although many believe that anyone under the age of 21
is prohibited from consuming alcohol in the United
States, underage drinking is allowed in 29 states if done
on private premises with parental consent, 25 states if
for religious purposes, and 11 states if for educational
purposes .
SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
As of May 21, 2014, gay marriage has been legalized
in 19 US states (CA, CT, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN,
NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA) and the
District of Columbia. 31 states have gay marriage
bans through either laws or constitutional amendments
or both.
Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have
access to the same marriage benefits and public
acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and
that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional
discrimination.
Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition
of marriage as between a man and a woman will further
weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay
marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to
polygamous and interspecies marriages.
As of Apr. 11, 2014, 15 out of 194 countries allow
same-sex couples to marry: the Netherlands (2000),
Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South
Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina
(2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark
(2012), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand (2013), Brazil
(2013), and France (2013). Same-sex marriage is legal
in some jurisdictions of Mexico, the United Kingdom
(England, Scotland, and Wales), and the United States.
in 19 US states (CA, CT, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN,
NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA) and the
District of Columbia. 31 states have gay marriage
bans through either laws or constitutional amendments
or both.
Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have
access to the same marriage benefits and public
acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and
that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional
discrimination.
Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition
of marriage as between a man and a woman will further
weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay
marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to
polygamous and interspecies marriages.
As of Apr. 11, 2014, 15 out of 194 countries allow
same-sex couples to marry: the Netherlands (2000),
Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South
Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina
(2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark
(2012), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand (2013), Brazil
(2013), and France (2013). Same-sex marriage is legal
in some jurisdictions of Mexico, the United Kingdom
(England, Scotland, and Wales), and the United States.
DO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CONTRIBUTE TO YOUTH VIOLENCE?
97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in
2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game
industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video
games in the US contained violence.
Violent video games have been blamed for school
shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards
women. Critics argue that these games desensitize
players to violence, reward players for simulating
violence, and teach children that violence is an
acceptable way to resolve conflicts.
Video game advocates contend that a majority of the
research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no
causal relationship has been found between video
games and social violence. They argue that violent video
games may reduce violence by serving as a substitute
for rough and tumble play and by providing a safe outlet
for aggressive and angry feelings.
SHOULD MARIJUANA BECOME A MEDICAL OPTION?
In 1972, the US Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I
of the Controlled Substances Act because they
considered it to have "no accepted medical use." Since
then, 22 of 50 US states and DC have legalized the
medical use of marijuana.
Proponents of medical marijuana argue that it can be a
safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of
cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma,
epilepsy, and other conditions. They cite dozens of peer-
reviewed studies, prominent medical organizations,
major government reports, and the use of marijuana as
medicine throughout world history.
Opponents of medical marijuana argue that it is too
dangerous to use, lacks FDA-approval, and that various
legal drugs make marijuana use unnecessary. They say
marijuana is addictive, leads to harder drug use,
interferes with fertility, impairs driving ability, and injures
the lungs, immune system, and brain. They say that
medical marijuana is a front for drug legalization and
recreational use.
of the Controlled Substances Act because they
considered it to have "no accepted medical use." Since
then, 22 of 50 US states and DC have legalized the
medical use of marijuana.
Proponents of medical marijuana argue that it can be a
safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of
cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma,
epilepsy, and other conditions. They cite dozens of peer-
reviewed studies, prominent medical organizations,
major government reports, and the use of marijuana as
medicine throughout world history.
Opponents of medical marijuana argue that it is too
dangerous to use, lacks FDA-approval, and that various
legal drugs make marijuana use unnecessary. They say
marijuana is addictive, leads to harder drug use,
interferes with fertility, impairs driving ability, and injures
the lungs, immune system, and brain. They say that
medical marijuana is a front for drug legalization and
recreational use.
SHOULD PEOPLE BECOME VEGETARIAN?
In 2012 the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) estimated that Americans ate an average of
52.3 pounds of beef, 57.4 pounds of chicken, and 43.5
pounds of pork, per person. [ 126] Vegetarians, about 5%
of the US population, do not eat meat (including poultry
and seafood). [ 127] The USDA includes meat as part of
a balanced diet, but it also states that a vegetarian diet
can meet "the recommended dietary allowances for
nutrients."
Many proponents of vegetarianism say that eating meat
harms health, wastes resources, causes deforestation,
and creates pollution. They often argue that killing
animals for food is cruel and unethical since non-animal
food sources are plentiful.
Many opponents of a vegetarian diet say that meat
consumption is healthful and humane, and that
producing vegetables causes many of the same
environmental problems as producing meat. They also
argue that humans have been eating and enjoying meat
for 2.3 million years. [ 14]
In Western culture vegetarianism dates back to Ancient
Greece. The mathematician Pythagoras (570 BC - 495
BC) advocated vegetarianism; a meatless diet was
commonly called the "Pythagorean diet" until the term
vegetarian became popular during the 1800s. [120 ] The
philosopher Plato (428 BC - 348 BC) described a
vegetarian diet as "divinely ordained." [70]
Other well-known vegetarians include Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519), George Bernard Shaw (1712-1778), Leo
Tolstoy (1828-1910), Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948),
and Franz Kafka (1883-1924). [ 71] [81 ] More recent
vegetarians include César Chávez (1927-1993), Jane
Goodall, Paul McCartney, Ellen DeGeneres, Carl Lewis,
Russell Brand, Pamela Anderson, and Dennis Kucinich
(D-
(USDA) estimated that Americans ate an average of
52.3 pounds of beef, 57.4 pounds of chicken, and 43.5
pounds of pork, per person. [ 126] Vegetarians, about 5%
of the US population, do not eat meat (including poultry
and seafood). [ 127] The USDA includes meat as part of
a balanced diet, but it also states that a vegetarian diet
can meet "the recommended dietary allowances for
nutrients."
Many proponents of vegetarianism say that eating meat
harms health, wastes resources, causes deforestation,
and creates pollution. They often argue that killing
animals for food is cruel and unethical since non-animal
food sources are plentiful.
Many opponents of a vegetarian diet say that meat
consumption is healthful and humane, and that
producing vegetables causes many of the same
environmental problems as producing meat. They also
argue that humans have been eating and enjoying meat
for 2.3 million years. [ 14]
In Western culture vegetarianism dates back to Ancient
Greece. The mathematician Pythagoras (570 BC - 495
BC) advocated vegetarianism; a meatless diet was
commonly called the "Pythagorean diet" until the term
vegetarian became popular during the 1800s. [120 ] The
philosopher Plato (428 BC - 348 BC) described a
vegetarian diet as "divinely ordained." [70]
Other well-known vegetarians include Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519), George Bernard Shaw (1712-1778), Leo
Tolstoy (1828-1910), Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948),
and Franz Kafka (1883-1924). [ 71] [81 ] More recent
vegetarians include César Chávez (1927-1993), Jane
Goodall, Paul McCartney, Ellen DeGeneres, Carl Lewis,
Russell Brand, Pamela Anderson, and Dennis Kucinich
(D-
25 May 2014
EVIL IS GOOD
Evil is always use to depict something bad or contradictory to the accepted belief/custom,nevertheless, not minding the fact that evil always precede good in life. Every individual is made up of good and evil ,but what he/she is being referred by the society is what manifest/dominate in his/her thinking.
Is WAR evil?how will weapon manufacturing companies survive?
Is ILLNESS /DISEASE evil? how will medical practitioners/hospitals survive? and others.....
Evil and Good are balance mechanism of NATURE. Often a time, EVIL is Good,because it brings a Greater Good.
NOTE: Always ensure you balance the effects of every action taken in life with the measuring force of Nature called Evil and Good.
Is WAR evil?how will weapon manufacturing companies survive?
Is ILLNESS /DISEASE evil? how will medical practitioners/hospitals survive? and others.....
Evil and Good are balance mechanism of NATURE. Often a time, EVIL is Good,because it brings a Greater Good.
NOTE: Always ensure you balance the effects of every action taken in life with the measuring force of Nature called Evil and Good.
24 May 2014
23 May 2014
MYSTERY BEHIND LIVING AFTER DEATH
The universe existence seems to pose unquenchable search of its connection to TIME and DEATH in the minds of scholars,nevertheless, both LIFE and DEATH are determined by TIME. Death is inevitable for the living as d quote that state “Everyone lives to die”,nevertheless, anyone can choose to live on even after death by leaving a moment to be remembered by the living which invariably, make him/her a mastermind of the living generation.
ALWAYS BE THE POSITIVE CHANGE THE WORLD NEEDS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)