Best Recent Content - DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!
frame

Best Recent Content

  • Trump:I believe my admin has had the most successful year in the history of the presidency?

    It was not successful at all! The good stuff could only, very little, be attributed to him. He pulled us out of the TPP and Paris Climate Accord. Kept very little of his promises. We have low approval and respect levels abroad. Hated by our allies. Failed at healthcare so many times. Terrible tax plan. Degrading the institutions that the US needs. 
    Mike
  • The (paying) customer is always right.

    For or Against, please share your views.
    lexman
  • Trump:I believe my admin has had the most successful year in the history of the presidency?

    Trump’s presidency only illustrates if one wants to save our nation, we must engage the Convention of States Project; the only way to “clean out the swamp”! Our federal government is out of control.
    Poguewhiteflame
  • Should Euthanasia be banned?

    My stand would be that euthanasia should not be banned.

    Based on the definition from dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/euthanasia), euthanasia is:
    1) putting to death painlessly
    2) as by withholding extreme medical measures
    3) of a person/animal 
    4) suffering from an incurable/painful condition

    Although I do not claim to be an expert on the matter of euthanasia, I am aware that there are several methods currently employed for euthanasia. They include: lethal injections, prescription drugs, terminal sedation (combined with starvation and dehydration) or even gassing (carbon monoxide). 

    Euthanasia should not be banned altogether but measures should be put in place to prevent its abuse. Abuse in the sense where the above-mentioned methods may be also employed for intentional suicide (due to curable mental disorders for instance). Also, abuse can also be in the form of homicide (whereby homicide in this case has no relation to "compassionate homicide" as defined by Uruguay, but instead willful murder). 

    In addition, euthanasia should not be banned as long as the above 4 parts to the definition of euthanasia are met. 
    1) the death should not cause pain, or more pain than what the person/animal is currently in
    2) it is acceptable to withhold extreme medical measures because the person/animal is expected to have no capacity to decide for himself/herself/itself
    3) the legality of euthanasia should definitely be extended to humans as well (although some might argue that a human-being is also an animal
    4) death should be the only remaining option to avoid continued/prolonged suffering from the incurable/painful condition
     
    Pogue
  • Trump:I believe my admin has had the most successful year in the history of the presidency?

    Trump’s presidency only illustrates if one wants to save our nation, we must engage the Convention of States Project; the only way to “clean out the swamp”! Our federal government is out of control.
    Poguewhiteflame
  • Is God Real?

    If you can't prove God is real, then it doesn't exist.

    DrCerealjgestiotPogue
  • Is cloning animals ethical?

    Cloning animals raises many concerns, but I will argue that it's an ethical thing to do.

    There are many useful applications:

    the cloning of animals with genes that make their milk or meat healthier for con- sumers, or the cloning of animals that are disease-resistant or reduce the enviromental burden. Scientists are working on cloning goats with less fatty milk, chickens with no feathers to reduce the environmental costs of poultry farming, and pigs whose manure has less phosphorus and helps reduce environmental pol- lution (Thomas 2003). At Texas A&M University, scientists have cloned cows resistant to brucellosis (Phillips 2002). 

    https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1034&context=bioethics_papers


    There is no proof that animals have morality, and therefore it's ethical to clone them.

    agsrlexman
  • Should Firearms Be Banned From The United States Citizens?

    @whiteflame

    While guns aren't restraining devices, they are certainly tools in the deescalation of the use of force.  Pointing a firearm at a person can be done so in such a way as to coerce compliance.  While applying physical force to deescalate physical force and utilizing a firearm to deescalate a potential active shooter situation are two completely separate things, if one can be trained to properly apply physical force to deescalate physical violence then one can exercise the use of a firearm to coerce compliance.  The logic is that it's entirely more complex to properly apply physical force to deescalate violence than it is to use a firearm to coerce compliance.

    You state that guns have a high degree of fatalities associated with them, and they do.  I suppose for a moment we can just forget that every single law enforcement agency in the U.S. uses firearms on a daily basis to stop or outright prevent crimes (Violent or otherwise) that directly or indirectly result in the preservation of life.  I'm not aware of any such agency that tracks these numbers on any scale so I won't pretend to know how many lives law enforcement agencies save with guns each year but in the private sector the number of instances each year where citizens successfully protect themselves from violent crimes by using a firearm in self-defense comes to 58,750 on average.  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

    The answer as to whether or not putting guns in the hands of Security Guards or Teachers will reduce school shootings in my opinion is yes.  

    As far as a Shooter's willingness to commit to a mass shooting - Personally I acknowledge the very real possibility that if someone wants to get a gun and shoot up a school...there's no amount of gun control, laws, bans, or armed security/teachers that are going to prevent that shooter from carrying out the act.  However I believe this would be the absolute minority.  The majority of shooters would be deterred knowing that school campuses had armed guards or staff on the premise who were trained to use lethal force to stop would be shooters.  

    Onto your argument against Teacher training and your perception that the Teachers in question would be inadequately trained to effectively eliminate a threat on a School campus.  You presume that law enforcement and Soldiers are trained extensively and I'm curious as to where you got your information from regarding training intervals for these organizations or if you merely assumed.  I can personally attest that professional Soldiers on average are given between 45 minutes to an hour of firearm training per year...that's one visit to the range with approximately 2-3 hours of waiting, 45 minutes to zero their rifle and another 15 minutes to qualify on paper targets.  That's it.  In 365 days, you get an hour or less to shoot your personal weapon.  I can't tell you how often Police qualify with live rounds but due to costs, realistically it can't be more than twice each year.  If Teachers were brought into the fold for firearm training, they would participate in a state approved conceal carry class which comes complete with range time and a qualification requirement (Meaning you cannot have a permit if you cannot demonstrate proficiency).  Your argument that teachers simply don't have time to qualify once or twice each year with a handgun is absurd I'm afraid, it's not like carrying a firearm requires that you constantly maintain it throughout the day.  It's holstered out of sight and remains so unless you need to use it...it's that simple.

    Your argument that Police are fine to carry firearms and use them to stop crime because they're accustomed to it yet Teachers shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm to deter a shooter or defend the Children in their classroom because they're not in dangerous situations on a regular basis doesn't hold water.  In this case, your logic would require that firearms for home defense also be removed because homeowners don't "Thrust themselves into dangerous situations" in order to be prepared to defend themselves and their children against would be home invaders with firearms.  There is no perfect situation where a Teacher would be suited to deal with someone who has intent to kill...but the alternative is that they try to lock their door, cower and pray that their classroom isn't chosen by a Murderer.  And to clarify a little further, yes, Teachers taking a training course one time and then attending what's called recurring training each year is effectively the equivalent of what Soldiers get.  Speaking from personal experience both receiving and then instructing, the average Soldier will receive less than 2 weeks of firearm training while in Basic Combat Training, upon completion they are fully and completely eligible for deployment to a War zone.  To teach and train a civilian to responsibly respond to an active shooter situation with a side arm would take anywhere between 1-2 weeks (10 days) of 5-6 hour days and could easily be completed over the summer while Teachers are taking their mandatory training for the fall and spring semesters.  Followup training would be required no more than once per year realistically so long as the training was limited to one singular classroom and the proper method of defending it.

    You insist that I address your hypothetical so I'll do my best.

    Variables:
    Task: Effectively defend the National Average 23.1 Student classroom with a Firearm.
    Condition: Active shooters present on campus with intent to cause fatal harm/injury to students.
    Standards: All students must survive the encounter with zero loss of life/fatal injuries

    From an interior security standpoint, the average American classroom is not only relatively easy to defend but is also easy to barricade.  The vast majority of schools feature an interior swinging door for their classrooms to prevent door openings from causing injuries to the normal foot traffic in the hallways.  This makes for relatively simple barricading of the single entrance for each classroom with the largest desk/filing cabinet available to restrict the accessibility of the classroom door.  

    1. Upon alert of an active shooter, Teachers would order their students to stand and move to the side of the classroom that is NOT within plain-view of the door. 
    2. The Teacher and Teacher alone would be required to retrieve and implement a door barricade system to prevent any access to the classroom via the door.
    3. The Teacher would take up a position near the door so as to obtain as much early notice of a forced entry prior to it happening.
    4. The Teacher would announce loudly that they are armed and any attempt to open the door would be met wit deadly force.  
    5. In the event that a perpetrator attempted to force their way into the classroom, the teacher would take up a firing position and discharge their firearm to stop the attempt to enter the classroom by any and all perpetrators.

    Pretty bare bones but this is an outline of what it would look like.

    I may have had a typo in regards to your "Remaining perfectly calm" statement.  Your argument was that Teachers shouldn't have guns because they won't be perfectly calm.  I was arguing that no one can be perfectly calm and that your argument doesn't float.

    Onto your "disquieting stories in the classroom", I'm afraid that hearing stories about what goes on in classrooms does not qualify in any way shape or form as an argument either for or against anything.  This is an argument from hearsay and does not float.  Also to suggest that it would be "Forcing someone to be near a loaded gun"...how is this a problem?  Loaded guns don't do anything and you seem to be pointing at the inanimate object as if the object itself is responsible for something.  This is the same ideology behind refusing to serve police officers on duty who are carrying their service weapon at a restaurant.  Guns aren't evil my friend.  If I understand you though, your finishing argument here was that the gun wielded by a Teacher could do more harm....than the gun of a would be shooter...if no one at the school had a gun?  Two sides here, either Teacher has a gun and can shoot to kill a murderer, or the Teachers is completely unarmed and has to just hope that her students aren't executed.  I'm not sure how this is even a matter of choice.

    How exactly is the well established concealed carry law "Difficult to enforce"?  The laws surrounding the proper concealment and carry of a firearm are not new in any way.  And what are you basing this idea of Teachers leaving their gun somewhere?  When's the last time you walked into a room of any kind and saw a gun laying somewhere and had to start yelling "Hey did anyone leave their gun in here"?  The gun doesn't come out, you don't pull it out.  When you go to the bathroom, it stays secured to your person.  It's not a baseball cap.  I'm starting to doubt that you have any practical knowledge about this at all, what-so-ever.  If you did, I don't think you'd suggest that someone who has a concealed carry permit would somehow take their gun out at school and leave it laying around somewhere.

    So to summarize my stance here, let's simplify:

    Guns were removed from School Campuses in the 90s, since then Schools have been gun-free zones and the target of mass shootings.  Sure there's other mass shooting locations but schools are unique in that they house children during the day.  So we need to address how to STOP mass shootings at schools specifically.  The answer is not to ban all guns, there's no evidence that removing guns all-together would solve the problem.  There's no precedence, no statistics, no records of banning guns being a successful deterrent to mass violence.  The answer is to stop leaving schools defenseless.  Security guards - sure, they increase school taxes for the additional salaries but it's the safety of our children.  Arming teachers, sure, they're going to get the EXACT same training that an armed security guard would receive for that level of protection.  

    Guns are a part of the U.S., they're not going away, putting more restrictions on them will not lower the amount of crimes committed with guns.  Making background checks more comprehensive will not stop a criminal from shooting up a school.  If Joe Blow decides tomorrow that he wants to shoot up the local school and goes down to the gun store to buy an AR-15 but they reject him because he has a criminal history or a mental health issue...THEN JOE JUST GOES AND GETS ONE ILLEGALLY WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ABOUT 10 TIMES CHEAPER AND EASIER THAN BUYING ONE LEGALLY!

    In the end, what's going to stop Joe is a Bullet or ten.  Who's going to shoot Joe though?  Will it be the cops who show up after 30-40 students are dead or will it be the first school staff member that sees Joe as a fatal threat to the children at that school?  I'd rather find out my Daughter's teacher shot and killed someone protecting her than find out she died along with 50 other students before cops showed up.


    Erfisflat
  • Trump:I believe my admin has had the most successful year in the history of the presidency?

    @natbarons, agree with you.  That is such an arrogant thing to say by Trump.  What about founding fathers for example - they had some pretty good first years.  
    someone234Pogue
  • Trump:I believe my admin has had the most successful year in the history of the presidency?

    @natbarons, agree with you.  That is such an arrogant thing to say by Trump.  What about founding fathers for example - they had some pretty good first years.  
    someone234Pogue

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch