Liberals

PLEASE READ TIPS FOR RESEARCH.

1. As a team we will be debating for about 40-43 minutes. Meaning that you as
an individual should have enough information to be debating for at least 3-4
minutes.
2. It is recommended that you come in with 2-3 major points arguing for your
topic. Preferably one or two ideological arguments and one policy argument
(an example of a law or policy that has worked in the United States relating
to your topic).
3. Make sure to research the opposing viewpoint along with your own to be
able to make counter arguments.
4. PLEASE ASK YOUR OTHER PARTNERS IF YOU NEED HELP
UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOUVE RESEARCHED. Nothing is worse
than making an argument you dont fully understand yourself.
5. Hans will go over all of your research and plug up any holes in arguments
with you. Please refer to him with any questions about your research or
arguments.

Economic Issues

Should the government provide healthcare for all citizens?-Shakee

Opening Argument
Yes the government should
What if someone cannot afford healthcare? It is a necessity, and
everyone is entitled to it. The government should provide it because
for example: say someone is in desperate need to help, but simply
cannot afford it, should they die? Seriously. And we would be partially
paying for it in taxes anyways. But just, much less money. So yes.
33 million people in the United States (10.4% of the US population)
did not have health insurance in 2014 according to the US Census
Bureau. -http://healthcare.procon.org
The right to health care is an internationally recognized human right.
On Dec. 10, 1948 the United States and 47 other nations signed the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 The document stated that "everyone has the right to a standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's
family, including... medical care.
In 2005 the United States and the other member states of the World
Health Organization signed World Health Assembly resolution 58.33,
which stated that everyone should have access to health care services
and should not suffer financial hardship when obtaining these
services.
According to a 2008 peer-reviewed study in the Lancet, right-to-
health features are not just good management, justice, or
humanitarianism, they are obligations under human-rights law." [50]
The United States and Mexico are the only countries of the 34
members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) that do not have universal health care. [37] As
of 2013 over half of the world's countries had a right to health care in
their national constitutions. -http://healthcare.procon.org/#arguments
12.7 million people nationwide are signed up for coverage during
Open Enrollment out 324,865 Billion.

About 62% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses

in 2007, and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who
already had medical insurance.
A 2001 study found that providing universal health care in the United
States could increase self-employment by 2 to 3.5 percent.
As of 2011, 59.5% of Americans were receiving health insurance
through their employer.
Affordable Care Act

Is free trade good for America? - HANS

It can be, but unrestricted trade can be dangerous for American jobs.
The government should regulate free trade to make the market as
favorable for American workers as possible.
 Free Trade Agreements encourage American companies to shift
manufacturing jobs overseas, where labor is cheaper.
It is not fair for American workers to have to compete against
developing countries that are willing to make the same products
for much less pay. (china wage about $270 according to
Economist)
In a broader sense, having less restrictions on free trade can give
powerful economies a large amount of power over smaller ones.
Developing economies that rely on a few major products can easily be
destroyed if developed countries trade a large number of similar goods
into their markets. This is not what a fair or stable market should be
like.
Politically, having trade barriers prevents the American economy
being destroyed by other countries. If other countries wish to trade
with us, we should make money off of it.
Other countries do not have the same level of environmental
restrictions that the United States has. If we allow manufacturing
plants to move overseas, then companies wouldnt be subject to the
same standards, and would be allowed to dump waste into water
sources, for example. A clean global environment is important for all
nations to survive.
Trade deals could make the US subject to restrictive copyright
protection laws. TPP's copyright section increases the amount of
restrictions the US has to follow with patent laws and geographical
indications
Allowing more objects to be copyright protected, giving
opportunities for certain software manufacturers, and internet
content developers the opportunity to create monopolies of
certain portions of digital and online entertainment
EXAMPLES OF TRADE DEALS
NAFTA
TPP

Should taxes be raised? -Greg

 - Taxes should be raised
- Higher tax rates on high earners, even if they produce less revenue,
are an attempt to centralize power in government and to limit the
autonomy and countervailing power of individuals in the voluntary
sector.(Raise taxes. Make everyone equal. Not everyone has power)
- ABCs Charlie Gibson asked candidate Obama if he would raise
capital-gains taxes even if, as in the past, that brought in less
revenue to the federal government. Yes, said Obama. I would look
at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness.
- Taxes should be raised on the rich. This way, the economy will be able
to stabilize. Liberals want everyone to have equal opportunity. If the
rich have their way, while the poor stay at the bottom, how will it ever
be fair? By raising the taxes on high earners, their will be equal
opportunity. The government needs to be involved in order to make
sure everyone's right are fully met.
- Although people might argue that raising taxes will only hurt the
economy, it won't hurt the economy if the wealthy pay their
- #FAIRSHARE
- Additional revenue would cause more spending? If there is more
revenue, we can pay more taxes and even reduce our national deficit.

Social Issues
Should it be illegal to burn the American flag?- Mia
Currently it is not illegal and it should stay that way because...
Burning the flag is a form is solely of protest
It should not be associated with disrespecting the country
The First Amendment
Conservatives believe that Whoever knowingly mutilates,
defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or
ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be
 fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year,
or both. but that is unconstitutional
http://www.conservapedia.com/Flag_Desecration_Amendment
Banning or prohibiting the desecration of a flag goes against
our First Amendment rights
During the Vietnam war protests, high schoolers would wear
those black armbands on. That's symbolic speech. Liberals
encourage nonviolent protests and for people to be free to
express their opinions and emotions. A flag is only a piece of
material. It's a symbol, hence why it is symbolic speech.
New era: Texas v. Johnson(1989)
Texas had a venerated objects law that had been
unconstitutionally applied to Gregory Lee Johnson when
he had burned a flag in Dallas
There was no disturbance to the peace actually occurred
or threatened to occur because of Johnsons burning of
the flag.
The Government may not prohibit expression of an idea
simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable.
a State may not criminally punish a person for uttering
words critical of the flag,
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/flag-burning-
overview

Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use? -Antonio

Liberals do support legalization of marijuana.
Democratic views on marijuana tend to be positive, with 73 percent of
those who identify as liberals supporting legalization.
(http://www.republicanviews.org/democratic-views-on-marijuana)
First off the most frequently cited reasons for supporting the
legalization of marijuana are its medicinal benefits and the belief that
marijuana is no worse than other drug (http://www.people-
press.org/2015/04/14/in-debate-over-legalizing-marijuana-
disagreement-over-drugs-dangers/)
 Alcohol and cigarettes cause more death but they are still legal
Benefit of regulation, such as tax revenue
Not only does trying to make marijuana illegal expensive, it is
causes other issues on and is very problematic.The longer we
take to legalize it, the more money these private illegal dealers
and drug lords make on the black market.
Causes people and families to move to other states that provide
medicinal marijuana in order to receive the help they need
Ruining lives of young adults for harsh criminalization
(currently at the same level of hazardous addiction to heroine)
Countries who have legalized completely have seen benefits
overall
Opposing side:
Marijuana generally hurts society and is bad for individuals
( How much more harm does marijuana do compared to alcohol
and cigarettes? )
Point to the dangers of marijuana, including the possibility of
abuse and addiction. (Anything could lead to danger such as
playing to much games or watching too much T.V or just
compare it too how alcohol and cigarettes have the same effect)
Gateway to harder drugs. (There is no evidence that supports
this)
Especially harmful to young people (so is alcohol)
Marijuana has proven to kill brain cells that affect the memory
Dependence on substance has grown over the years
Death from Marijuana
The rate of absolutely zero deaths from a marijuana overdose
remained steady from last year, according to figures released
this month by the Centers for Disease Control.
Death from Cigarette and Alcohol
Smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United
States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the
following:
More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from
secondhand smoke)
278,544 deaths annually among men (including deaths from
secondhand smoke)
 201,773 deaths annually among women (including deaths from
secondhand smoke)
Excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among
working-age adults aged 20-64 years.
Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths

Should affirmative action in college admissions be banned? - JOSIMAR

Affirmative action grew out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 MEANT to remedy
past effects of discrimination on people of color.
- , black and brown students in the nation still receive a far worse preK-12
public school education than white children.

> Why should it be banned when

- A quarter of high schools with the highest percentage of black and Latino
students do not offer any Algebra II courses, while a third of those schools
do not have any chemistry classes.

If white students treat students of color as undeserving of attending selective

colleges, that is the fault of racist attitudes
Stamping minority students with badges of inferiority by assuming they lack
qualifications is racial discrimination
 - Black students are more than four times as likely as white students and
Latino students are twice as likely to attend schools where one out of
every five teachers does not meet all state teaching requirements

students are admitted to selective universities based on many considerations that

have nothing to do with test scores or grades

athletic record, extracurricular activities, their enthusiasm about the school,

whether their parents or grandparents attended the school, known as legacy, and
any of their character traits that the university believes exemplifies the kind of
student they want on campus.

- More than 70 percent of white students attend schools that offer a full range
of math and science courses including algebra, biology, calculus,
chemistry, geometry and physics just over half of all black students have
access to those courses.

K-12 EDUCATION IS STILL UNEQUAL, therefore the college admission system

should not be colorblind YET.

When any student gains admission to college that is a cause for celebration not a
court case. Opponents and proponents of race-based affirmative action can all
celebrate together the day that the law is no longer necessary.

But that day is not today.