The state of New York recently passed a law that legalizes same-sex marriages.

That means gay and lesbian couples could marry, with legal protection ordinarily granted to male-female couples. NY is the latest US state that allows same-sex marriage. Also recently, weve seen Filipino gay and lesbian couples getting married in the Philippines, re-sparking the debate on same-sex marriage. These individuals may have undergone such a ceremony to express their love and commitment to one another. They may have done it to rekindle the debate. They may have other reasons, but it could NOT include seeking legal protection and benefits that flow from marriage. Philippine laws do not recognize and protect same-sex marriage. It doesnt matter which religion you belong. Unlike certain matters divorce, for instance, which is allowed for the Muslim community the legal non-recognition of same-sex marriage applies to all groups and religions. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. This is part of the definition provided in Section 1 of the Family Code . The Supreme Court stated in a 2007 case that one of the most sacred social institutions is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman, referring to the institution of marriage. One of its essential requisites of marriage is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. The SC also noted that allowing a change of name by reason of a sex reassignment surgery (sex change) will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). In our previous post Mr. Lito Basilio submits that same-sex marriage may be allowed under exceptional circumstances. Art. 26 of the Family Code recognizes as valid in the Philippines those marriage solemnized abroad and are valid there as such, except for marriages forbidden under Art. 35(1), (4), (5) and (6) and Art. 36, 37 and 38 of the Family Code. The argument makes sense because none of the provisions cited Art. 35(1), (4), (5) and (6) and Art. 36, 37 and 38 of the Family Code prohibit samesex marriage. This might lead some couples to go abroad, perhaps New York or some other states/countries that recognize same-sex marriage, and have it recognized here in the Philippines. However, the Family Code provides in no uncertain terms that the couple must be a man and a woman. While a same-sex marriage is allowed in other jurisdictions, it cannot be recognized here because it is contrary to law, public order and public policy. Another reader which goes by the name syelapin states that [w]ith our history and culture as a backdrop, [I] highly doubt well see THE change in our lifetimes. I would hazard a guess that divorce would be allowed way before same-sex marriage is recognized, if ever it is recognized. Our informal poll reveals that a majority supports divorce, but a majority opposes same-sex marriage.

Should Divorce be Allowed in the Philippines?

Yes No View Results

There are a number of privileges that apply only to marriage, some of which are discussed in the previous post on Common-Law Marriage. They are not considered compulsory heirs to each other, which means one could not inherit from the other, except when there is a last will and testament that designates each other as an heir. If one or both of the partners have children when they were single, the other partner cannot have parental authority over such children. On the other hand, it is not correct to say that there is no existing law which governs the property relations between the same-sex couples. They could enter into a contract, which has the force and effect of law between the parties, with respect to their properties. General laws, including the rules on co-ownership, could apply in the absence of such contract. We previously noted that the solution is to amend the Family Code . On second thought, this seems problematic because incorporating same-sex unions into the concept of marriage may be contrary to the Constitution . The Constitution provides that: Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State (Sec. 2, Article XV *Family+). While the Constitution does not explicitly provide that only a man and a woman may get married, I presume that the constitutional deliberations would show that it a marriage is between a man and a woman. The immediate recourse, therefore, is to pass a separate law that covers same-sex unions. It could primarily tackle the property relations of same-sex couples, just like what was done for live-in relationships. It could provide for certain rights and privileges, just like what was done for solo parents. Whether that separate law should be passed is an entirely different matter. Anti-discrimination bill will open same sex marriage Home Updated December 07, 2011 12:03 PM 0 comment to this post MANILA, Philippines The Catholic Church raised alarm over an anti-discrimination bill in Senate that could possibly open same or gay sex marriages. Lawyer Ronnie Reyes of Lawyers for Life said Senate Bill 2814, the "Act Prohibiting Discrimination, Profiling, Violence and All Forms of Intolerance Against persons based on ethnicity, race, religion,

belief, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, language, disability, or other status", will allow the union of same sex. He also said that bill will amend the existing Family Code and other laws of the country pertaining to marriage. "There was no public hearing or consultation when this was approved in the third reading by the Senate... Babaguhin nito ang lahat batas under the pretension of anti-discrimination bill," Reyes said during the media forum in Greenhills, San Juan City this morning. He said the bill sought that Catholic priests who refuse to officiate marriage of homosexuals would be imprisoned. "They would also be fined up to P500,000," Reyes noted. He said that under the anti-discriminatory bill, sex change or operation would be promoted. "Nakakabahala na talaga," Reyes said. Lawyer Jo Imbong, executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines legal department, said there is no longer need for an anti-discrimination measure since there already many statutes that protect marginalized sectors of society. She said the Church is alarmed by several provisions in the bill which chastises Church officials for teaching what is right and what is wrong. "Government should not meddle in religious doctrine and faith," Imbong said. For his part, Kabataan partylist Rep. Raymund Palatino said he supports the passage of bill is a great gift to the Filipino people. "The critics of the bill should see the bill in its entirety," Palatino said. He said that the bill has not been done or deliberated on "secrecy." "Some senators are not doing their jobs," Palatino said.

he Purpose of the Constitution is to Protect Human Rights Every active amendment to the U.S. Constitution, without fail, was written to protect some specific or nonspecific group of people--the press, religious sects, racial minority groups, and so forth. It empowers people. The only amendment that didn't empower people was the Eighteenth Amendment, mandating Prohibition--and we repealed that one. States regulate. Laws regulate. The Constitution deregulates. It untangles. It liberates. It takes power away from the government and gives it to the people, not the other way around. And it must do so in order to honor the words of the Declaration of Independence, which stated the purpose of government quite clearly: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... [and] that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. If we amend the Constitution to restrict rights, rather than to protect them, we set an ominous precedent. A) Same-Sex Marriage is Already a Reality, Regardless of Whether the Government Chooses to Acknowledge It From the colonial era until the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), same-sex relations were illegal in (initially) all or (later) most of the United States. Shortly after the Lawrence decision, Late Night with Conan O'Brien aired a satirical clip in which actors portraying a flamboyantly gay couple expressed their delight at finally being able to have sexual relations, since they had lived in total celibacy out of fear of breaking the law. And it was a valid point: Sodomy (or "unnatural intercourse") laws were flouted long before they were ever officially struck from the books. State bans on gay sex were ineffective at banning gay sex, and state bans on gay marriage are equally ineffective at preventing lesbian and gay couples from having weddings, exchanging rings, and spending the rest of their lives together. State bans on gay marriage can't prevent a lesbian or gay couple's family or friends from describing them as married. It can't prevent proposals, tuxedos and gowns, honeymoons, anniversaries. Just as African-American couples of the slavery and Reconstruction era happily "jumped the broom" and got married in states that did not recognize their unions as valid, lesbian and gay couples are getting married every day. The government can't prevent that. All it can prevent is hospital visitation, inheritance, and the thousands of other small legal perks that ordinarily come with marriage. It can, in short, take petty measures to punish committed lesbian and gay couples for their monogamy, for their willingness to commit to each other for life--but it can't do anything to prevent these unions from taking place. B) Same-Sex Marriage Provides a More Stable Environment for Children of Lesbian and Gay Couples Some critics of same-sex marriage argue that the purpose of marriage is to provide institutional support for childrearing and that lesbian and gay couples, who (like infertile heterosexual couples) cannot biologically produce children by way of each other, would have no need of this institutional support. But the truth is that, according to the 2000 Census, 96 percent of U.S. counties--no matter how remote, no matter how conservative--have at least one same-sex couple with a child. However one may feel about this, it's happening now--and if the legal institution of marriage is good for the children of heterosexual

parents, why should the children of lesbian and gay couples be punished by their government simply because of the sexual orientation of their parents? Kindness is a Moral Value But in the final analysis, the single best reason to legalize same-sex marriage is not because it's benign, or because it is inevitable, or because it is what our legal history demands of us, or because it is more conducive to family life. It is because legalizing same-sex marriage is the kind thing to do. I am constantly amazed at what lesbian and gay couples tell me about the friendships they have with social conservatives have very traditional ideas of what a relationship should be, but who nevertheless treat them with great kindness, generosity, and warmth. Likewise, nearly every conservative critic of same-sex marriage will happily admit that they have close lesbian and gay friends whom they care deeply about. Same-sex couples seeking marriage rights are obviously determined to stay together, or they wouldn't be trying to get married. So why make their lives more difficult? I feel confident that most conservatives wouldn't slash gay couples' tires, or kick over their mailboxes, or prank call them at 3am. So why pass laws that will prevent them from being able to file income taxes jointly, or visit each other in the hospital, or inherit one another's property? Social conservatives routinely speak of their moral obligation to promote legislation that upholds the values they live by. When that becomes a reality, the very kind and loving people who make up the majority of social conservatives in this country will be among those working to help their lesbian and gay neighbors, rather than working to make their lives more difficult

2. Should the sale and consumption of alcohol the worlds favorite drug - be further restricted, or even banned? Yes

Alcohol is a major contributory factor to crime and discorder. Exact figures vary from country to country, but in many countries alcohol is a contributory factor in 60-70% of violent crimes, including child abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, and murder. Alcohol is far and away the leading cause of public disorder, street fights, etc. In short, alcohol is one of the prime causes of

violence and crime in modern society, and its banning would reduce the incidence of these crimes at a strike.

Alcohol should be banned/restricted on principal; tax revenue is a practicality.It is also true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not a principled reason to reject the proposition, simply a practical problem. It should be pointed out that governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending (through the reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness) which would go at least some of the way to offsetting the decreased tax revenues.

Alcohol is just as addictive and destructive as many illegal drugs. Those who do become addicted to alcohol often lose their marriages, jobs and families. A large proportion of homeless people find themselves in that position as a result of their alcoholism. Worse still, some people pay the highest price: Their lives.Any drug this addictive and destructive should be illegal.

No

Humans are naturally mischievous; alcohol itself doesn't cause it. Sex and violence are primal parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need alcohol to bring them to the surface. At worst, alcohol may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social. Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.

Governments raise significant revenue from taxes on alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take away a major source of funding for public services. In addition, the effect of banning alcohol would call for additional policing on a huge scale, if the prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If would create a new class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented scale.

Alcohol has more positive social effects than other drugs. Alcohol as more positive social effects than other drugs. It generally heightens peoples sociability and "opens people up". This can help bonding between neighbors, colleagues, and even enemies. Most other drugs do not have such a socially desirable effect.

3. Should boxing be banned? Boxing is unusual game, it`s aim is to beat someone else and that`s how to show that you are stronger and can beat better. There are millions of fans of this sport all over the world and it has deep roots in history. My personal opinion to the boxing is two-half, I have arguments on both pros and cons side. The obvious cons of the boxing is that people become strongly injured during this game, some even killed. There numerous cases during the history of boxing when people were killed. But it also leads to such diseases as long-term brain-damage, and to illnesses such as Parkinsons disease. I can give a life sample of Michael Watson, who are disabled for life as a result of beatings in the ring. So, boxing would end up numerous and aimless injuries and deaths. The Pros of the boxing is that it is chosen by the adult people, not by the kids to play it and everyone has the rights to do whatever he/she wants to do in this life. Here are some common pros and cons that people talk about when they mean boxing: CONS: - Boxing is a dangerous kind of sport. Every year boxers die in matches, or it results in numerous injuries. - The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man, and to knock him out. It reveals the worst and most violent parts of human nature. This savage sport has no place in modern society. - Boxing makes violence look cool. - People should not think that if to ban boxing it would continue underground. PROS: - Boxers know the risks of this sport and no one pushes them to fight. It is their own decision. Also they are well-paid for that job. - Boxing is the way people can safely dispose their aggression. It is the purest kind of sport, along with the running. - Isnt it better for children to want to be boxers when they grow up than drug dealers and gangsters? - Those in charge of boxing work hard to make sure that it is as safe as possible. Ingle is merely the latest victim of a sport that continues to kill and injure its participants. He is as high profile a victim as Gerald McClellan, Bradley Stone, Michael Watson and Rod Douglas. All of these men were fine athletes cut down in their prime. But many within the boxing fraternity believe that the sport's excitement and drama is built on the inherent risks that fighters take. Even former boxer Spencer Oliver, whose fighting career was ended after suffering similar injuries to that of Ingle, still believes that the sport should continue in its current fashion.

MP Paul Flynn disagrees. He intends to present a bill banning blows to the head in boxing and similar sports to parliament in 2001.

4. Should cameras be placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be televised? Yes. I would like to first define a term that is used in the resolve, as edited by Logician. Publically, as defined by the Princeton University Dictionary is in a manner accessible to or observable by the public; openly. My first contention is that placing cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice as a whole. It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in a system that most of them never see! The judiciary often appears to be a secretive and closed club, open to those involved. The occasional clumsy comments that are made by judges are ridiculed in the media. It is necessary to dispel this unrepresentative image by showing the competence, efficiency, and sensitivity of the majority of judges throughout the legal system. Judges have made efforts to improve their public profile in recent years. My second contention is that in a democratic society, people have a right of access to courts. Anyone can sit in the public gallery and watch a part or the whole of a trial, or appeal. In Britain, the public is even allowed to attend the highest court in the land, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, just as anyone can watch the Supreme Court of the United States in session. There is therefore no constitutional reason why trials should not be televised, if they can be publically viewed. However, at the moment only a few people can take advantage of their rights. As courts sit during the week, it is difficult for people in full-time employment to watch a trial. Travelling to courts across the country is costly. The galleries for the public have only a limited number of spaces. Visitors to well- publicised trials often have to arrive several hours in advance of the hearing in order to ensure a seat. We as the american people, whom created this government, should not have to make such sacrifices of time and money in order to enjoy our democratic rights of which we created. In addition, the events in court are often difficult for non-lawyers to understand. Coverage on television could include a commentary that would make watching a trial a more profitable and educational experience. For those in law school, they can't learn off of old videos, or wing it like Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny. They need to see the current process of court procedures and what it takes to become a part of this system. In the age of the

television, and even the internet, we should utilise modern technology to enhance the rights of the citizens. No. === REBUTTAL === Dasamster's arguments can be split into four basic strands, which I shall deal with separately. Before I do so, I point out the interesting nature of the sources which he quoted - more specifically, the first one [1]. The interesting thing is that this is actually a source that argues my side of the debate, and so when I quote from it, not only am I quoting the words of a former Justice of the New York Supreme Court, I am quoting someone who dasamster apparently believes to be authoritative enough to quote himself - thus, my use of his own source against him will prove especially damaging as I lay out my case. Moving on to dasamster's first argument: 1) That public confidence will be improved This clearly need not be a speculative question, as the U.S. has had cameras in the courtroom for a long time already - indeed, TruTV (formerly Court TV) was set up for this very purpose in 1991. [2] So for this argument to be effective, dasamster needs to give us some evidence that American public confidence in the judiciary has indeed improved since then. He has not done so. Indeed, retired Justice Siracuse says in the aforementioned source quoted by dasamster himself: "...we have seen increasing television coverage of trials, not only in New York but across the country. In the same period public confidence in the judicial system -- and, indeed, in the entire legal profession -has plunged. By any measure one cares to use, the judiciary is held in lower esteem now than at any time within memory." [1] Dasamster's appeal to an alleged "increase in public confidence" needs to survive this difficulty. It has not yet done so. 2) That the judiciary system suffers ridicule in the media, giving an unrepresentative image of the justice system I agree that this is the case. However, it isn't clear how this would change under dasamster's proposal after all, the overwhelming majority of people would not have the time nor inclination to watch the actual court trials themselves. They generally consider themselves to have more important things to do, such as going to work and school, having dinner or watching the football/baseball/other-sport-of-choice. Even those who watch trials on TruTV will generally only have the time/inclination to watch the edited highlights - in other words, the parts deemed by the media to be the most important parts of the trial.

This is exactly what they do at present in the courtroom, and any ridicule or unrepresentative image presented at the moment would only continue with trials recorded by camera. 3) People have a right to access the justice system, and so should be allowed to watch court proceedings at a time that suits them. Yes, people have a right to know what happens in the justice system. Yes, they have a right to transparency. This does not, however, lead to a right for the general public to know absolutely everything about any particular trial: too much information has a dilutary effect. It becomes impossible for them to know what information they need to know, and they become overwhelmed by what's available this can serve no useful purpose to anyone. Instead, the general public only have a right to know the salient details: broadly speaking, the key evidence presented, the verdict given, and the reason behind the verdict. This is already given by the media in news and analysis, and by the judge and the courts in published verdicts and court reports. There is no need for cameras in the courtroom. 4) The justice system needs to serve an educational purpose, which is not served without cameras in the courtroom Dasamster specifies the two types of people who may wish to view court proceedings: non-lawyers and those in law school. But for neither of these groups is it necessary to introduce cameras. To the first group: a commentary for non-lawyers already happens through media reports, and it is not clear why dasamster believes that allowing cameras into the courtroom makes the situation better. Indeed, I've already shown how nothing would ever change if cameras are allowed into the courtroom. The second group, namely lawyers, already have enough information about what happens in the courtroom! Full transcripts of what transpired in the courtroom are already typed up by stenographers in the court, the reasons behind the judge's verdicts are already publicised and used in law classes, and many law schools have mooting and advocacy practice sessions to prepare the student for public speaking in the courtroom. Plus, after all, the law student will surely be able to supplement this alreadyextensive experience through actually watching a trial from the public gallery in their spare time... what more preparation could dasamster possibly want law students to have? I hope it is clear from all of the foregoing why dasamster's arguments fall. I shall now seek to solidify my case by introducing... === SUBSTANTIVE === The justice system is primarily about ensuring that the right verdict is reached according to the evidence presented: any educational purpose is surely secondary to this goal. As retired Justice Siracuse quotes approvingly in the source used by dasamster himself: "The purpose of the court is not education or

spectacle or public entertainment, but justice." [1] It is surely right that transparency in the justice system is also a key part, but this is already reached through what happens anyway: the use of cameras is not necessary here. Given that it is not necessary, the dangers that surround the use of cameras should serve to warn us away from putting them in the courtroom. These mostly derive from the increased pressure on participants within the trial itself, as naturally, by making intimate court proceedings open to a theoretically infinite audience, more people will see the precise details of what goes on in the courtroom. For reasons of space, I shall deal now mainly with getting witnesses and victims of crime to testify in court, given the importance of this procedure to both sides of the case: to the prosecution, it is important to get eye-witnesses to the crime in order to bolster their case; for the defence, it is important to cross-examine the witnesses to ensure accuracy and consistency in testimony. It is already difficult to convince witnesses and victims to testify for a variety of reasons, from sensitivity to active or indirect intimidation. This problem has been identified for many decades, and indeed centuries, with one New York Times article (for instance) raising this issue as far back as 1894. [3] Publicising the identifiable faces, mannerisms and actions of witnesses, and thus putting this information into the public domain could only ever serve to increase this problem. In conclusion, we shouldn't have cameras in the courtroom. It doesn't create any of the benefits that dasamster wants to show, thus his proposition falls; in addition, the consequent active harms only serve to strengthen rejection of this policy. Vote Con.

5. Should cannabis/marijuana be legalized? Yes. 1. The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation. As you'll see by reading research studies from the related links section at the bottom of the page, the studies of the harmfulness of marijuana are inconclusive and contradictory. Most doctors would agree that it's not very harmful if used in moderation. It's only when you abuse the drug that problems start to occur. But isn't abuse of almost any bad substance a problem? If you abuse alcohol, caffeine, Ephedra, cigarettes, or even pizza, health problems are sure to follow. Would you want the government limiting how much coffee you can drink or how much cheesecake you take in? Most doctors believe that marijuana is no more addictive that alcohol or tobacco. 2. Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom. Even if the drug is shown to be harmful, isn't it the right of every person to choose what harms him or her? Marijuana use is generally thought of as a "victimless crime", in that only the user is being harmed. You can't legislate morality when people disagree about what's considered "moral". 3. Legalization would mean a lower price; thus, related crimes (like theft) would be reduced. All illegal drugs are higher in price because the production, transportation, and sale of the drugs

carry heavy risks. When people develop drug habits or addictions, they must somehow come up with the money to support their cravings. Unless a person is wealthy, he or she must often resort to robbery and other crimes to generate the money needed to buy the drugs. Legalization would reduce the risks and thus reduce the prices. There would therefore be less need for the secondary crimes needed to raise money. 4. There are medical benefits such as the those for cancer patients. As detailed in the related links section, there are a number of medical benefits of marijuana, most notably in the treatment of patients undergoing chemotherapy. Others believe it helps in the treatment of depression. Certain states like California have brought initiatives to legalize the drug for at least medicinal purposes. 5. Street justice related to drug disputes would be reduced. Currently, if someone in the drug trade screws you over, there's no police to call or lawyers to litigate. You must settle disputes yourself. This often leads to cycles of retaliatory violence. Legalization would create proper means to settle disputes. 6. It could be a source of additional tax revenues. An enormous amount of money is raised through government taxation of alcohol, cigarettes, and other "sins". The legalization of marijuana would create another item that could be taxed. I'm sure the government would have no problem spending all that extra money. 7. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes. Many consider the War on Drugs an expensive failure. Resources for DEA, FBI, and border security are only the tip of the iceberg. You must add in the cost of police officers, judges, public defenders, prosecutors, juries, court reporters, prison guards, and so on. Legalization of marijuana would free up those people to concentrate on more important things like terrorism, harder drugs, rape, murder, and so on. In addition, an already overloaded civil court docket would be improved; thus, the wait time for other legitimate court cases would be reduced. 8. Drug dealers (including some terrorists) would lose most or all of their business. Perhaps the biggest opponents of legalizing drugs are the drug dealers themselves. They make their enormous sums of money because of the absence of competition and the monstrous street prices that come from the increased risk. Legalization would lower prices and open competition; thus, drug cartels (that might include terrorists) would lose all or some of their business. 9. The FDA or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs. Many drug users become sick or die because of poorly-prepared products. After all, there is nothing to regulate what is sold and no way to sue anyone for product liability. By bringing marijuana into the legitimate business world, you can oversee production and regulate sales. 10. Like sex, alcohol, or cigarettes, marijuana is one of life's little pleasures for some people. All of us have our guilty pleasures. They are part of what makes life worth living. Several of these little pleasures--coffee, sex, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.--are potentially harmful if abused. Even legal substances like pizza and donuts can be harmful to a person if not consumed in moderation. Would you want to give up all these things for the rest of your life? Would you want someone else telling you what you can and can't have when it is only your body that is affected?

11. Aside from recreational drug use, Cannabis has several industrial and commercial uses, as over 25,000 products can be made from the crop. The plant used in making marijuana has a ton of alternative uses , including construction & thermal insulation materials, paper, geotextiles, dynamite, composites for autos, and insect repellent. As far back as 1938, Popular Mechanics deemed it the "new billion dollar crop", as over 25,000 products can be made from it. Unfortunately, the lack of legality in the U.S. and other countries has squashed the growth and development of these products. We shouldn't limit the use of such a diverse product because one use is found objectionable by some. 12. Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals. Imagine an impressionable teenager who is tired of earning minimum wage, who hates living in a poor ghetto area, or who needs to save money for college. He's offered the opportunity to make some decent money simply carrying some drugs across town. Then he's busted. He's thrown in jail as part of a mandatory sentence. There, he spends his time and becomes friends with many other delinquents. He gets meaner in jail since he has to defend himself in a rough crowd. When he gets out of prison, hisjob and college prospects are slammed because of a felony record and/or disruption of school. This just makes the resumption of a normal crime-free life all the more difficult. Strapped for cash, he joins some of his new friends in a greater crime like robbery. Suddenly, you have someone who has started down the road of being a lifelong criminal. This story may seem farfetched, but it is all too real for some. The legalization of marijuana would remove another temptation that could lead a young impressionable individual down the wrong road. No. 1. Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs. Studies show that marijuana use often progresses to the use of harder drugs. In other words, people experiment with what is often thought of as a "harmless" drug. Then, after using it for a while, a bigger "high" is sought; thus, users then turn to the harder stuff like heroin, LSD, cocaine, etc. This is particularly a problem since most people will not directly start abusing the harder drugs that are generally understood to be harmful. Marijuana use may simply embolden them to experiment. 2. Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased. Marijuana use isn't truly a "victimless crime" when you consider all the crimes that may be committed when the user is under the influence of the drug. Drunk driving is still a major problem in our society despite all the education and stiff penalties. "Driving high" would be even harder to detect. Unless the user has been smoking in the car, there isn't as distinctive of a smell as there is with alcohol. Also, there's always the possibility that the lapse in judgment caused by drug use will lead to harder crimes like rape or robbery. 3. Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong. Many religions and moral codes prohibit the use of intoxicating substances. Marijuana is generally considered to fit into this category. 4. Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids. Even unhealthy legal items such as cigarettes and alcohol are prohibited from being sold to kids. This is because kids generally don't exhibit the same reasoning, responsibility, and judgment of an adult. And their bodies aren't as equipped to handle the intake of these substances. The

problem is even worse for marijuana use. Developing brains and bodies can be dealt serious blows by the use of marijuana. Any time you make something legal, you increase the accessibility to children. All too often kids and teenagers get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes. We shouldn't let the same thing happen with marijuana. 5. Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets.People who produce, sell, traffic, or use illegal drugs have already established themselves as people who will break the law. Anyone who commits drug-related felonies isn't likely to be constrained in committing other felonies, such as robbery, rape, murder, etc. If such people are in prison because of drug charges, they aren't able to go out and commit other crimes. Also, it often occurs that there isn't enough evidence to imprison felons for the serious crimes like murder; however, if they can be imprisoned for something, society is much better off. At a minimum, they will be off the streets, unable to wreak more havoc. 6. Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug. Although some studies have been disputed, marijuana abuse has been tied to brain damage, cancer, lung damage, depression, amotivational syndrome, and even death. The brain damage has been shown to cause memory loss and difficulty in problem solving. It is the governments duty to protect the public from such dangerous drugs. After all, that's why the FDA was created. 7. More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders. The dangers of secondhand cigarette smoke are well-publicized. Common sense tells us that more widespread usage of marijuana increases the likelihood that other people would suffer the damage of inhaling other people's smoke. Public places like bars would expose innocent patrons. In the home siblings, roommates, kids, and spouses would all face increased exposure. Thus, the health damage to society becomes somewhat exponential. Even marijuana smoked at home can make it's way to others, such as in multi-level apartment complexes. 8. Legalization of marijuana could eventually lead to the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs altogether. Culture shifts rarely happen overnight. Behaviors of society stay relatively stable, with only small incremental changes. Legalization of marijuana would further shift the culture to more of a "anything goes" mentality. Step-by-step, more drugs will gain acceptance, with advocacy of the legalization of harder drugs. Drugs like heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines, which we may view now as unacceptable for legalization may eventually be sold over the counter at every corner drug store. 6. Is it ever justifiable to execute criminals? Yes.
Thank you for pointing out your contradictory statements, I am okay on challenging them and I have no objections to your strategy. As you stated, you will need to negate all my following arguments regarding this debate, weather the DP (Death Penalty) is justified or not, is it acceptable or justifiable to execute criminals (particularly murderers) or not, does it give justice to the victims, etc.

MY ARGUMENTS:

Morality and the Death Penalty The definition of morality is the conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct [1]. We are human, and humans are moral beings in nature, and in our nature, we appreciate, honor and glorify good deeds and kindness, and we punish and condemn the ones who do bad deeds and cruelty. It is commonly considered morally wrong to kill people, but when does it become justified or right in a way that it is considered moral? We consider self defense, in homicide cases, take for example, where a 14 year old teen shoots two paranoid schizophrenics raping his mother and sister and potentially killing them, the boy saves them from harm and violence, or consider a surgeon seperating conjoined twins, whereas one twin is weaker but can harm the other twin, the doctor kills the weaker child in order to save the other. Do we consider these immoral? If your answer is yes, then do we consider executing criminals acceptable? As I stated in my opening, LWOP (Life Without Parole) has its disadvantages, anything can happen, more potential victims are at risk whereas executing criminals prevents the criminals from committing their crime again, and thus protects the victims. The good overshadows the bad, and the executioner is morally justified in executing the criminal. If you argue that killing is always wrong, then you must agree and accept that killing in self-defense or killing to save another is wrong and unacceptible. Murderers forgo their rights as humans at the moment when they take away the rights of another human, their loss of freedom cannot compare to a loss of life. If you sentence someone for a few years for theft/robbery, then the punishment for murder should be more severe, because human life is more valuable and sacred than money or any item. Some people view that LWOP is much more harsh and hell-like since some prisons are overcrowded. Some people in solitary lose their minds, they become insane, imagine you wake up, eat breakfast, do nothing, eat lunch, do nothing, eat dinner then go to sleep. Nothing to pass the time, nothing to do but seat or lie down. Executing people is not murder. As a moral society of people, we have the moral and ethical duty to punish those who condemn and commit the most heinous of crimes. Therefore, Capital Punishment can be morally justifiable. Financial Issues There are some prisons where prisoners serve their LWOP sentences in a clean air-conditioned room with cable TV and a fancy bed where the prisoner is served breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday, gets personal leisure time and gets the privilege to be visited by relatives and friends. [2] Now, let's say for example that that prisoner is a rich white entrepreneur who murdered two innocent five-year-olds in front of their house, since he is a wealthy guy, he can afford some guys who can handle his legal and sentencing problems and thus, got this prison room. The family of those two victims will be among the taxpayers that pay for his meals and prison electric bills. There are some offers and other activities that the prison offers to the prisoner, and if the prisoner takes advantage of that, then the family will be paying for those via taxes. Now, is that justice? Some people say that DP is more costy than LWOP, but it's not. I'd like to point out that Dudley Sharp, director of JFA stated that the JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. [3] In addition, I'd like to add that some people ignore the fact that the taxpayers cause a long line of appeals from the attorneys of the prisoner serving LWOP. Why should the taxpayer have to pay and support a murderer for an entire lifetime? Preventing More Murders

LWOP has some flaws, like a convict going out of prison. As I said, innocent people are at risk by being killed by prisoners when released or escaped from prison. In 1994, the US DOJ found out that 1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of their release. [4] So what to do with them? According to a recent study in the Heritage foundation, a few murders can be prevented by executing a person. More studies say that each execution deters an average of 18 murders, (that's according to Emory University professors). They also stated that speeding executions, can strenghten the deterrent effect, if we cut 3 years of death row time, we can deter one potential murder. In conclusion, the DP is 100% effective to prevent more crimes; that killer cannot commit any more crimes once he's executed. It saves lives through prevention and we have statistical evidence to suggest so. [5][6] Biased and Racist? The DP is not biased, it does not punish the poor, it is not racist against people [7]. It is fair, if you say it's unfair, then you would be saying that all punishments are unfair. Do you blame the DP or the Judicial System? The system, like all other systems, are not perfect and we do not know anything, we make mistakes and therefore we learn from those mistakes and fix them. The system is run by the human race and weather we like it or not, some issues against it will occur. Some people also say that some innocent people are being executed, that's not somewhat true, since we do not no if they're innocent or not. We do not know if people are guilty or not. But before we put them on death row, we put them in a fair and righteous trial by an unbiased jury or an unbiased judge. They need to decide, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty or not. The chances of innocent people being executed are extremely low, and it will go lower with the improvement of forensic evidence and technology. If any discrimination against the prisoners happen, it should be corrected, we need to equalize the people, by perhaps making it mandatory to all people with different races charged with capital offense, it's not the poor being punished severely more than the rich, it's the rich not being punished enough.

Conclusion
The death penalty is a justifiable way of punishing the people who commit the most heinous of crimes, executing them can protect other innocent people. It is moral in a way.

No.
I dont believe it is justifiable for any person to ever make the decision to kill another person. In my opinion people who commit these horrible crimes dont deserve the easy way out.......either ...............let them live out their natural lives in prison thinking and knowing as long as possible why they are living in prison for the rest of their lives. We have no knowledge of the after life so how can we be so sure that we are not just setting them free? And if thou shall not kill..............is true then what about the people that have the job of killing the criminals.............does it say anywhere thou shall not kill unless it is a criminal found guilty in one of your american court systems or one of your american declared wars? I dont think so. You would not find me doing it that is for sure................. However if someone did a horrible crime to someone I loved I might just snap a cap enough where you might want to lock me up so

I wouldnt go get them! Then I would need to be protected from myself.........I dont understand how all the people who love the victims deal with their feelings and loss..........may God Bless them and free them from their pain.
By wielding such a powerful punishment as the response to murder, society is affirming the value that is placed upon the right to life of the innocent person. Many more innocent people have been killed by released, paroled or escaped murderers than innocent people executed.Execution is, in simplest terms, state-sanctioned killing, and it devalues the respect we place on human life; how can we say that killing is wrong if we sanction killing criminals? More importantly, the whole principle is outweighed by the proven risk of executing innocent people. Some criminals are beyond rehabilitation; it may be that capital punishment should be reserved for serial killers, terrorists, murderers of policemen and so on. By executing criminals you are ruling out the possibility of rehabilitation - that they may repent of their crime, serve a sentence as punishment, and emerge as a reformed and useful member of society. How do you feel about capital punishment?

Okay, I had originally written an 8000 word case, knowing that I would have a clear advantage as you would have to respond to that and I would have the ability in the 2nd round to add completely new contentions that require evidence. I decided it would be poor sportsmanship though, and decided to copy it to a word file to be used in round 2. I will instead only use this round to outline my arguments as you did to be fair, even though the only requirement was to not have evidence presented.

Opening
The burden of proof lies entirely with the pro. Something that is unjust is not just. There can be infinite conceptions of why something may be just, therefore it is impossibe to negate all of them. I can only negate what my opponent presents in his arguments and prove the death penalty unjust through conceptions of justice introduced within the round. C1: Justice is egalitarian in nature. The criminal justice system is arbitrary and racist when applying the death penalty. Therefore executing criminals is not justified. C2: Justice is a mechanism to apply morality. Morality doesn't exist, therefore justice doesn't exist. If justice does not exist then actions cannot be just, and therefore cannot be justified. C3: Justice is utilitarian in nature. For an action to be justified it must increase overall utility. The universe is infinite, meaning that there is an infinite amount of utility. Thus, no action can increase utility as infinity + 1 still equals infinity. Therefore no action is justified. C4: Justice is defined by social contract theory. While harming others engaged in the same contract may require you to lose some individual freedoms and go to jail, you can never be removed from the contract by the government. C5: Justice is defined as libertarianism. The death penalty denies individual liberties and thus is not just. C6: Epistemic skepticism. We don't know anything, therefore we cannot know if executing criminals is justified. I understand that my arguments are contradictory. They are designed like that for a reason, as to test the affirmative position. If any of my contentions hold true at the end of the debate, that is a reason why the Pro has not upheld his burden of proof in convincing the judges that the death penalty is justified. In essence, I'm testing all of the alternatives to affirmation. If my opponent challenges my decision to run arguments that are contradictory in nature, I ask him to let me know in round 2 and I will introduce an argument of my own in round 2 that explains why multiple world theory is good for debate. I reserve the right to "kick" or stop defending any argument in my case at any point within this debate. Each of my arguments serve as an independent reason to vote Con. Thus I only need to win 1 contention to win the debate. Also, if my opponent turns a contention, I may stop defending it and it will no longer be considered by the judges. If my opponent is opposed to this strategy he should let me know in round 2 so I can introduce an argument explaining why conditionality is good for debate. I also reserve the right to introduce arguments not listed in this outline in round 2, as it is a round designated for arguments to be presented.

7. Should young people be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crimes? Yes.

The teens need to be assisted to understand the importance of being on time to places and in the future to work also other events. It will be easier for them to go from a teen to a young adult when they reach that age. It will help them get through college and be able to study for exams without having a difficult time keeping a regular schedule. And when they succeed in their studies, they have a good way of living, so it's reducing the crime rate.

Teens may not like the idea of a curfew in the beginning and they may fight with parents about it. But parents need to remember that kids will
eventually thank them for the curfew when they become young adults cause then they will finally understand why they had a curfew. Don't feel like bad parents despite how much the teens yell at you during the teen years. Teens just don't realise what parents do or say the things they do when they are young. Most teens don't understand that they don't need much freedom since they are irresponsible and not adult yet. Most teens get into trouble if they have too much freedom to do anything they want to do. Teens shouldn't be treated like adults when they aren't very responsible. In a way, curfews does prepare them for the future by helping them to be able to handle being a responsible young adult once when they reach that age No. Quite to the contrary, if we place our teens under such scrutiny then they will only rebel. They will be more determined to stay out passed the curfew and cause mischief. Instead we should show our teens respect and trust. That way they will feel more guilt should they break such trust. As well how will they learn to become mature if they have never been shown the respect or had the benefits you will not take on the responsibilities until you are given the freedoms that come with. Bu they will not know why they are being kept in, they will not have the reasoning to be able to see why they were kept in. They will only know that they have ti be home for a certain time. Once that restriction goes, they will make the most of it and go AWOL. We need to teach them why they should stay in, not just rule with an iron fist in the hope they merely copy in future life. In some cases the legal courts have ruled that curfews are unconstitutional. Based on the 14th Amendment which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Based on this Amendment no matter how practical or impractical curfews are. They can be deemed unconstitutional unless exceptions are present. In which case the Minor's "rights" aren't impaired or abridge. Exceptions can include written notes from parents, circumstances that require the minor to break curfew, late night work, and errands. Curfew's that don't allow breakage at all. Can be shot down in the courts unless exceptions are present such as ones I listed above. I will point out not all curfew cases have been deemed unconstitutional. Some were deemed to vague and some impede on parents right to punish or teach their children themselves. Another amendment used is the 1st Amendment. The right to assemble peacefully and to speak openly. However, most court cases repeal or deem them unconstitutional. There has been no solid evidence linked in court cases. That have found curfews being strong factor on youth crimes. However it does spark rebellion against parents, and the law. Minors under the age of restriction, will likely break curfew anyways. They may be encouraged to do so. When hard evidence about statistics is presented. I'll remove this argument. Most cases have failed even with evidence. At some point or another Minors will rebel against curfew laws. So, I'm strongly against it. I'm 18 years old and firmly believe equal rights amongst minors.

9. Should gays and lesbian be allowed into the armed forces? Yes.
"It's time to turn the page on the bitterness and bigotry that fill so much of today's LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] rights debate. The rights of all Americans should be protected -- whether it's at work or anyplace else. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' needs to be repealed because patriotism and a sense of duty should be the key tests for military service, not sexual orientation."

A complete ignorance of sexuality is quite obvious in your article. Tell me, when you are with women, do you always fantasize about all of them? Regardless of who they are? Do you get uncontrollable urges when around women that you simply have no choice but to rape them

whenever you are forced to be alone with them? Seriously, is that what you think all men are? Animals? Gay men and women have served in the military even BEFORE the dropping of DADT. And there's been no problem so far has there? I've never even heard of a single gay serviceman raping anyone. It's always the straight ones who invariably rape a girl somewhere in a foreign base. It's only when they those who are already bigoted who learn that their comrades are gay who start getting paranoid for no reason. I admire the gay men and women who serve in the military the most. Even at great personal sacrifice they still serve a greater good. They've given more to the country than "real" men ever will.

No.

"All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staff and the leaders in the field, such as General Petraeus and General Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can.

Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy [Don't Ask/Don't Tell: No openly gay people in military] is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working."
Nov. 28, 2007 John McCain

10. Should the minimum voting age be reduced to 16, or remain at 18? Yes.

Some 16 year-olds may be inexperienced however, from their curiosity they can become informed, asking others for their views. Some may not know or care about politics, so will not vote. I mean, would you stand in line for an hour to vote for something that does not matter? In the UK, they do have to pay taxes, and lack of experience is no excuse. They can be mature, and we should trust them with the responsibility to make up their minds just as

much as every other citizen, or why are we letting choose their future at schools and colleges? Marginalising is not the way, informing is if they are inadept. Similar arguments about lack of awareness allowed classism, racism and sexism, and in today's world, we should be able to work past them. Maybe some 16-year-olds care about skate parks and community centres, but then surely we should be fulfilling their needs rather than ignoring them. Yes, maybe a few may act illogically and irrationally for these, but so do many adults on reducing taxes, for example, not realising future implications. Maybe the pitches would be driven slightly by popularity, but then again, is not every leadership really about getting rational support. The argument that law should stay unfair is age discriminatory. The argument that we cannot trust children to drink is used circularly with the fact that they cannot vote as a justification. Why cant children vote? Because they cant be trusted to drink. Why cant children be trusted to drink? Because they cant be trusted to vote. It is not their maturity, rather the outdated laws caused by the misunderstanding of their maturity that lead to this argument, and the remnants of the outdated, illogical, discriminatory arguments that justify the no argument. At 16 a person can get married and have children. If we allow them this responsibility, we should also recognise that they are mature enough to vote.

No.

16 year-olds are too inexperienced as citizens and individuals to vote. A 16 year old usually lives with his or her parents. They do not have to worry taxes, health care, or even car payments and other household bills. Usually a 16 year old is not aware on the political parties, and politicans. That is how you get a igorant leader into power, is by letting a age of people participate in who you elect to run your country, provice/state, or community. A 16 year old might be only intrested in a new skate park, or community centre in the area that is being built.

16 year-old voters will cause politicians to make populist pitches to get votes.Realizing that 16 year olds are vulnerable to populist pitches, politicians will make petty and fake promises to them, simply because this is what will win votes.

16 year-olds should not be given the right to vote if we don't trust them to responsibly drink. For example you can have sex at 16, but you cannot drink until you are 18. Should we give the vote to people who we do not recognise as mature enough to drink or to see The Blair Witch Project?