awesome

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?', position_one: 1, position_two: 2)
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.   In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."  On June 9, 2016 the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that "[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment," thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and "good cause" for concealed carry licenses in California.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%).  Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). Firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths, representing 1.3% of total deaths topping liver disease, hypertension, and Parkinson’s disease, as well as deaths from fires, drowning, and machinery accidents.  David Frum, Daily Beast and CNN contributor, stated, "American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds."  A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death"  According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7%; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'High-capacity magazines should be banned because they too often turn murder into mass murder. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.  When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.  David H. Chipman, Senior Vice President of Public Safety for ShotSpotter and former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) agent, stated that a high-capacity magazine "turns a killer into a killing machine."  Some gang members use high-capacity magazines, such as 30 rounds or even 90 rounds, to compensate for lack of accuracy and maximize the chance to harm. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'More gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States.  A woman\'s risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.  During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.   A 2003 study of 23 populous high-income countries found that 86% of women killed by firearms were in the United States and American women are 11.4 times more likely to be the victims of gun homicides  57% of mass shootings involved domestic violence.   For example, the 2011 mass shooting at a Seal Beach, CA hair salon reportedly began because of the shooter\'s custody battle with his ex-wife who was a hair stylist at the salon.   31 states do not ban convicted misdemeanor stalkers from owning guns and 41 states do not force convicted domestic abusers from relinquishing guns they already own.   76% of women murdered and 85% of women who survived a murder attempt by an intimate partner were stalked in the year before the murder or murder attempt. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'Guns are rarely used in self-defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior.  In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide").  Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'Legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. A June 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report states that "[a]lmost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction."  Between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million guns were stolen from US homes during property crimes (including burglary and car theft), a yearly average of 232,400.  Ian Ayres, JD, PhD, and John J. Donohue, JD, PhD, Professors of Law at Yale Law School and Stanford Law School respectively, state, "with guns being a product that can be easily carried away and quickly sold at a relatively high fraction of the initial cost, the presence of more guns can actually serve as a stimulus to burglary and theft. Even if the gun owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and would never use it in furtherance of a crime, is it likely that the same can be said for the burglar who steals the gun?" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'Gun control laws would reduce the societal costs associated with gun violence. According to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), in 2010, gun violence cost each person in the United States roughly $564 and the US government $5.5 billion in lost tax revenue; $4.7 billion in court costs; $1.4 billion in Medicare and Medicaid costs; $180 million in mental health care for victims; $224 million in insurance claims processing; and $133 million for law enforcement and medic response to shooting injuries.   In 2010, there were 36,341 emergency room visits and 25,024 hospitalizations for gun injuries, costing an estimated $6.3 million.  84% of those injured by firearms are uninsured, leaving taxpayers responsible for most of those bills through programs like Medicaid.     According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the costs of gun violence can include legal services, medical costs, perpetrator control, policing, incarceration, foster care, private security, lost earnings and time, life insurance, productivity, tourism, and psychological costs (pain and suffering), among others.  Homicide rates doubling has been associated with a 12.5% decline in property values. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines. According to a Pew Research survey in Mar. 2013, 83% of all adults surveyed (and 79% of gun-owners; 86% of people living with a gun-owner; and 74% of NRA households) approve of background checks for private and gun show sales.  As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").  56% of all adults surveyed approve of assault weapon bans and 53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans.  89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.  Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'More gun control leads to fewer suicides. Between 1999 and 2013 there were 270,237 firearm suicides in the United States, accounting for about 52% of all suicides during those years.  According to a Mar. 2014 study published in the International Review of Law and Economics, when gun ownership went down in the United States, overall suicide rates went down.   Firearm-related suicides accounted for 61% of the gun deaths in the United States between 2000 and 2010.  A Dec. 2009 study published in Health Policy, found "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."  A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'Enacting gun control laws such as mandatory safety features would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths. Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.   According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Physicians Alliance, states with the highest concentration of guns have nine times the amount of accidental gun deaths and "89% of unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home—and most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents’ absence."  The US General Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.  Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children’s behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves… [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot \'gun-proof\' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent. The FBI found that in 2013 arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).  A June 1985 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "the weapons used [in altercations]… were those closest at hand."  An editorial published in the June 1985 American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns."  A 1993 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. None of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 was stopped by an armed civilian.  Gun rights activists regularly state that a 2002 mass shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia was stopped by armed students, but those students were current and former law enforcement officers and the killer was out of bullets when subdued.  Other mass shootings often held up as examples of armed citizens being able to stop mass shootings involved law enforcement or military personnel and/or the shooter had stopped shooting before being subdued, such as a 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, MS; a 1998 middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, PA; a 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs, CO; and a 2008 bar shooting in Winnemucca, NV.  Jeffrey Voccola, Assistant Professor of Writing at Kutztown University, notes, "The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'Countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements.  In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total).  In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people).  Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total).  In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).  The United States, categorized as having "permissive" firearm regulation by GunPolicy.org, ranked first in international gun ownership rates with 88.8 guns per 100 people (about 270,000,000 guns total).   In 2007 the United States had 12,632 gun homicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people) and 17,352 gun suicides (5.76 deaths per 100,000 people).   Harvard professor David Hemenway, PhD, wrote "We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides."  According to a Mar. 2016 study, gun homicide rates in the United States were 25.3 times higher and gun suicides were 8 times higher in 2010 than in other populous, high-income countries. Additionally, 90% of women, 91% of 0- to 14-year olds, 92% of 15- to 24-year-olds, and 82% of all people killed by firearms were from the United States. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, JD, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer\'s single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee \'to keep and bear arms\' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."  Michael Waldman, JD, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 1, description: 'Civilians, including hunters, should not own military-grade firearms or firearm accessories. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation.  The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most common arms were long rifles that had to be reloaded after every shot. Civilians today have access to folding, detaching, or telescoping stocks that make the guns more easily concealed and carried; silencers to muffle gunshot sounds; flash suppressors to fire in low-light conditions without being blinded by the flash and to conceals the shooter’s location; or grenade launcher attachments.  Jonathan Lowy, Director of Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, "These are weapons that will shred your venison before you eat it, or go through the walls of your apartment when you’re trying to defend yourself… [they are] made for mass killing, but not useful for law-abiding citizens." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."  The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders."  While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased.  John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on \'shall-issue\' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent."  A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized.  Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don\'t obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, \'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.\'" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year.  The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families."  Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals."  Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama\'s: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."   Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."  A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun.  Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.  Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, and they spent $7.7 billion on guns, sights, ammunition, and other hunting equipment.   High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year.  According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called \'Assault weapons\' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term \'assault weapon\' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie… [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled \'assault weapons,\' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer."  According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally.  John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, gun rights activist, stated, "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them."  According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who "used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence" obtained the gun from a family member or friend.  Despite Chicago\'s ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders.    Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."  The NRA\'s Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."  Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, "The Second Amendment isn\'t there for duck hunting, it\'s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws such as background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks would require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid\'s 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you\'re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected."   Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases.  Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people\'s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns. According to the CDC\'s "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer\'s (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide).  The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms.  Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths.  Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws and lower gun ownership rates do not prevent suicides. Lithuania has one of the world\'s lowest gun ownership rates (0.7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45.06 per 100,000 people in 1999, the highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information.  Japan has a low gun ownership rate at 0.6 guns per 100 people and a high suicide rate of 18.41 suicides per 100,000 people in 1997 (ranking it 11 out of 71 countries).   South Korea has a low gun ownership rate (1.1 guns per 100 people) but has a high rate of suicide and the highest rate of gun suicides (12.63 per 100,000 people in 1997).   By contrast the United States has the 26th highest suicide rate (12.3 suicides per 100,000 people in 2011) and the highest gun ownership rate (88.8 guns per 100 people).   Jim Barrett, author for TheTruthAboutGuns.com, stated, "the theory that the restriction or elimination of guns would have a positive effect on the overall suicide rate in the U.S. does not hold up under scrutiny." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety.  Guns don\'t kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres.The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers\' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind."  Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA\'s Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives."  The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they\'re [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life."  According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws would prevent citizens from protecting themselves from foreign invaders. The Libertarian Party stated, "A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion."  Counsel for the NRA stated, "It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an \'unorganized\' armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant."  Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).  . The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014.   Mexico\'s gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets.    Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico\'s one gun shop sold 6,490 guns,  yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control laws are racist. Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners.   Charles Gallagher, MA, PhD, the Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."  In the late 1960s, gun control laws were enacted in reaction to the militant, gun-carrying Black Panthers.  Adam Winkler, MA, JD, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor, stated "The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns" so, after the Civil War, there was "constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African Americans because they would rise up and revolt.”  In Virginia, in response to Nat Turner\'s Rebellion (also called the Southampton Rebellion, in which slaves killed 55 to 65 people in the most fatal slave uprising in the United States) in 1831, a law was passed that prohibited free black people "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead and all laws allowing free black people to possess firearms were repealed. .')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'The Second Amendment was intended to protect gun ownership of all able-bodied men so that they could participate in the militia to keep the peace and defend the country if needed. According to the United States Code, a "militia" is composed of all "able-bodied males at least 17 years of age… under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."  Therefore, the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment would have been composed of almost all adult men and, in turn, that most adult men should not have their right to own firearms infringed.  A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register their gun ownership on public records.  Daniel J. Schultz, lawyer, stated, "the Framers [of the Constitution and Bill of Rights] understood that \'well-regulated\' militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined would post no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to \'insure domestic Tranquility\' and \'provide for the common defence.\'" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 2, description: 'Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates."  Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws.  According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?', position_one: 3, position_two: 4)
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals.  Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics.  The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012.  113] Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics.     Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center\'s animal research facility, states that "we wouldn\'t have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and says that the use of chimps is "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 Americans annually. If thalidomide had been properly tested on pregnant animals, its potential for causing severe birth defects would have been discovered before the drug became legal for human use. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system.Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system.  Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs.  Also, conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures.  Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information gleaned from animal research is used to build the models in the first place.  Furthermore, even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of complex organs such as the brain. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans.  All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system.  Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures on human beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose on human subjects before animal testing.  The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials should be preceded by tests on animals. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia.   Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil.   Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animal\'s disappearance.   The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians.  All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility\'s IACUC, and most major research institutions\' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC).   All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service (PHS) must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.    ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles. Laboratory mice, for example, live for only two to three years, so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations, which would be infeasible using human subjects.   Mice and rats are particularly well-suited to long-term cancer research, partly because of their short lifespans. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals\' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to Nature Genetics "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues."  At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center\'s animal research facility, for example, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily to socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a "toy rotation program" provides opportunities for play.')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians, and hunting would need to be outlawed.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing. A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential."  The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.     ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety. American women use an average of 12 personal care products per day, so product safety is of great importance.  The US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal tests on cosmetics to "assure the safety of a product or ingredient."  China requires that all cosmetics be tested on animals before they go on sale, so cosmetics companies must have their products tested on animals if they want distribution in China.  Mosquito repellent, which helps protect people from malaria and other dangerous illnesses, must undergo toxicological testing (which involves animal testing) in order to be sold in the United States and Europe. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Religious traditions allow for human dominion over animals. The Bible states in Genesis 1:26: "And God said... let them [human beings] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."  The BBC reports that Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teaching allows for animal experimentation as long as there is no unnecessary pain inflicted and there is a real possibility of benefit to human beings. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 3, description: 'Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress. People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle, pigs and sheep annually, yet we only use around 26 million animals for research, 95% of which are rodents, birds and fish.    We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research, and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means."  The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.   The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment.   The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.  Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin.    Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings.  Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it\'s very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we\'re trying to achieve in the human."  Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release.  Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses.   Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was "almost shelved" because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH.  A June 1, 2006 report on Slate.com stated that a "source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: '95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials.  According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates.  A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests.   A 2013 study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A 2009 peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates. 87% of the studies failed to randomize the selection of animals (a technique used to reduce "selection bias") and 86% did not use "blinding" (another technique to reduce researcher bias). Also, "only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used."  Since the majority of animals used in biomedical research are killed during or after the experiments, and since many suffer during the studies, the lives and wellbeing of animals are routinely sacrificed for poor research. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments.   As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun.  In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..."  The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings.  The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 4, description: 'Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals. There is no evidence that animal experiments were essential in making major medical advances, and if enough money and resources were devoted to animal-free alternatives, other solutions would be found. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?', position_one: 5, position_two: 6)
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'School uniforms may deter crime and increase student safety. In Long Beach, CA, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district\'s schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%.  A 2012 peer-reviewed study found that one year after Sparks Middle School in Nevada instituted a uniform policy, school police data showed a 63% drop in police log reports, and decreases were also noted in gang activity, student fights, graffiti, property damage, and battery.  A 2010 peer-reviewed study found that schools with uniform policies had 12% fewer firearm-related incidents and 15% fewer drug-related incidents than schools without uniforms.  A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that, in schools with historically higher rates of sexual violence, sexual attacks were less likely if uniform policies were in place.  School uniforms also prevent students from concealing weapons under baggy clothing,  make it easier to keep track of students on field trips, and make intruders on campus more visible. Frank Quatrone, superintendent in the Lodi district of New Jersey, stated in Feb. 2011 that "When you have students dressed alike, you make them safer. If someone were to come into a building, the intruder could easily be recognized." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'School uniforms keep students focused on their education, not their clothes. A bulletin published by the National Association of Secondary School Principals stated that "When all students are wearing the same outfit, they are less concerned about how they look and how they fit in with their peers; thus, they can concentrate on their schoolwork."  A 2010 University of Houston study found that elementary school girls\' language test scores increased by about three percentile points after uniforms were introduced.  Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when she was a 2008 US presidential candidate, advocated school uniforms as a way to help students focus on learning: "Take that [clothing choices] off the table and put the focus on school, not on what you\'re wearing."  Chris Hammons, Principal of Woodland Middle School in Coeur d\'Alene, ID, stated that uniforms "provide for less distraction, less drama, and more of a focus on learning." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'School uniforms create a level playing field among students, reducing peer pressure and bullying. When all students are dressed alike, competition between students over clothing choices and the teasing of those who are dressed in less expensive or less fashionable outfits can be eliminated. In a 2013 survey by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and uniform manufacturer Lands\' End, 86% of school leaders said uniforms make "a significant, positive impact on peer pressure," and 64% said uniforms reduce bullying.  Arminta Jacobson, Founder and Director of the Center for Parent Education at the University of North Texas, stated that uniforms put "all kids on the same playing field in terms of their appearance. I think it probably gives them a sense of belonging and a feeling of being socially accepted."  Virginia B. Draa, Assistant Professor of Human Ecology at Youngstown State University, said uniforms can decrease peer pressure and blur class lines between students. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'Wearing uniforms enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit. A 2007 study from Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom found that uniforms "often directly contributed to a feeling of school pride."  Christopher P. Clouet, Superintendent of the New London, CT school district, stated that "the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride."  A 2002 study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform "reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group."  Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, stated that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: "There is a sense of belonging."  A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that after uniforms were introduced, "Teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... throughout the school" and said "students are made to feel \'important\' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'School uniforms may improve attendance and discipline. A 2010 study by researchers at the University of Houston found that the average absence rate for girls in middle and high school decreased by 7% after the introduction of uniforms. The study also found that "behavioral problems shift[ed] towards less severe infractions."  A 2006 Youngstown State University study of secondary schools in Ohio\'s eight largest school districts found that school uniform policies improve rates of attendance, graduation, and suspension.  During the first semester of a mandatory uniform program at John Adams Middle School in Albuquerque, NM, discipline referrals dropped from 1,565 during the first semester of the year prior to 405. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'Uniform policies save valuable class time because they are easier to enforce than a standard dress code. Doris Jo Murphy, EdD, former Director of Field Experiences at the University of North Texas College of Education, stated: "As an elementary assistant principal in two suburban districts, I can tell you that the dress code took up a great deal of my time in the area of discipline... I wished many times that we had uniforms because the issue of skirts or shorts being too short, and baggy jeans and pants on the boys not being pulled up as they needed to be, would have been a non-issue."  Lyndhurst, NJ school district superintendent Tracey Marinelli had a similar experience before a uniform policy was introduced: "Kids were spending time in the office because they were not fulfilling the dress code... That was time away from class." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'School uniforms prevent the display of gang colors and insignia. The US Department of Education\'s Manual on School Uniforms stated that uniform policies can "prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school" in order to "encourage a safe environment."  According to a 2013 US Department of Justice report, almost 50% of high school students say there are gang members at their schools.  Educators in the Long Beach Unified School District have speculated that the sharp reduction in crime following the introduction of school uniforms was a result of gang conflicts being curbed.  Osceola County, FL School Board member Jay Wheeler reported that the county\'s schools had a 46% drop in gang activity after their first full school year with a mandatory K-12 uniform policy (2008-2009). Wheeler stated that "clothing is integral to gang culture... Imagine a U.S. Armed Forces recruiter out of uniform trying to recruit new soldiers; the success rate goes down. The same applies to gang recruitment." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'School uniforms make getting ready for school easier, which can improve punctuality. When uniforms are mandatory, parents and students do not spend time choosing appropriate outfits for the school day. According to a national 2013 survey, over 90% of US school leaders believe school uniform or formal dress code policies "eliminate wardrobe battles with kids," make it "easier to get kids ready in the morning," and create a "time saving in the morning."  Tracey Marinelli, Superintendent of the Lyndhurst School District in New Jersey, credited the district\'s uniform policy for reducing the number of students running late. Lyndhurst student Mike Morreale agreed, stating that "it\'s so much easier to dress than having to search for clothes and find out that something doesn\'t match."  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'School uniforms can save parents money. Parents can reduce their financial burden when their children are limited to wearing one simple outfit every day.  An Aug. 20, 2015 study of uniform cost in the United Kingdom found that uniforms cost parents £88.05 ($128.79) per outfit, while out-of-school outfits averaged £113.00 ($165.79).  A national 2013 survey of 517 US school leaders found that 94% of those surveyed believe "one of the main benefits to parents is that school uniforms are more cost-effective than regular apparel," and 77% estimated the average annual cost of school uniforms per child to be $150 or less.  Uniform company French Toast states on their website that the average cost one of their complete school uniforms is $45 and that most children will only require two sets.  Without school uniform policies, parents may feel pressure to compete with other families by purchasing fashionable clothes for their children. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'Most parents and educators support mandatory school uniforms. A 2013 survey by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and uniform manufacturer Lands\' End found that a majority of school leaders believe their school uniform or formal dress code policies have had a positive impact on classroom discipline (85%), the school\'s image in the community (83%), student safety (79%), school pride (77%), and student achievement (64%).  A poll administered by the Harford County, MD school system in 2007 found that "teachers and administrators were overwhelmingly in favor" of introducing school uniforms. The poll also found that 58% of parents wanted a mandatory uniform policy instated. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'Students\' legal right to free expression remains intact even with mandatory school uniforms. The US Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (7-2, 1969), which concerned the wearing of black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, confirmed that students\' constitutional right to free speech "does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing." Wearing one\'s own choice of shirt or pants is not the "pure speech" protected by the Constitution.   In Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board (3-0, 2001), the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a school board\'s right to implement a mandatory uniform policy, stating that requiring uniforms for the purpose of increasing test scores and improving discipline "is in no way related to the suppression of student speech. [Students] remain free to wear what they want after school hours. Students may still express their views through other mediums during the school day."   In 1995, Judge Michael D. Jones of Maricopa County Superior Court (AZ) ruled that mandatory uniform policies do not violate students\' free speech rights even when there is no opt-out provision in the school\'s uniform policy. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'Students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. A 1994 peer-reviewed study found that students in uniform were perceived by teachers and fellow students as being more academically proficient than students in regular clothes. The study also found that students in uniform were perceived by peers and teachers as having higher academic potential, and perceived by peers as being better behaved. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 5, description: 'Students can express their individuality in school uniforms by introducing variations and adding accessories Junior high school student Amelia Jimenez wrote in her op-ed for the Pennsylvania Patriot-News website that "contrary to popular belief, uniforms do not stop students from being themselves. Uniforms do not silence voices. Students can wear a variety of expressive items, such as buttons or jewlery." The Seventeen and TeenVogue websites list numerous suggestions for students on how to add their personal style to school uniforms, including hairstyle options, the use of nail polish, and the addition of colorful accessories such as satchels, scarfs, and socks.   TeenVogue stated that "there are tons of ways to amp up your standard issue getup."  A 2012 peer-reviewed study found that 54% of eighth-graders said they could still express their individuality while wearing school uniforms. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'Uniforms restrict freedom of expression.')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'School uniforms restrict students\' freedom of expression. The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that all individuals have the right to express themselves freely. The US Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (7-2, 1969) that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."   In the 1970 case Richards v. Thurston (3-0), which revolved around a boy refusing to have his hair cut shorter, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "compelled conformity to conventional standards of appearance" does not "seem a justifiable part of the educational process."  Clothing choices are "a crucial form of self-expression," according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which also stated that "allowing students to choose their clothing is an empowering message from the schools that a student is a maturing person who is entitled to the most basic self-determination."  Clothing is also a popular means of expressing support for various social causes and compulsory uniforms largely remove that option. In Oct. 2013, students at Friendly High School in Prince George\'s County, MD, were not allowed to wear pink shirts to support Breast Cancer Awareness Month. As a result, 75 students received in-school suspensions for breaking the school\'s uniform restrictions. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'School uniforms promote conformity over individuality. At a time when schools are encouraging an appreciation of diversity, enforcing standardized dress sends a contradictory message.  Chicago junior high school student Kyler Sumter wrote in the Huffington Post: "They decide to teach us about people like Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony and Booker T. Washington... We learn about how these people expressed themselves and conquered and we can\'t even express ourselves in the hallways."  Troy Shuman, a senior in Harford County, MD, said the introduction of a mandatory uniform policy to his school would be "teaching conformity and squelching individual thought. Just think of prisons and gangs. The ultimate socializer to crush rebellion is conformity in appearance. If a school system starts at clothes, where does it end?"  In schools where uniforms are specifically gendered (girls must wear skirts and boys must wear pants), transgendered, gender-fluid, and gender-nonconforming students can feel ostracized. Seamus, a 16-year-old transgendered boy, stated, "sitting in a blouse and skirt all day made me feel insanely anxious. I wasn\'t taken seriously. This is atrocious and damaging to a young person\'s mental health; that uniform nearly destroyed me."  Late satirist George Carlin asked, "Don\'t these schools do enough damage, making all these children think alike? Now they\'re gonna get them to look alike, too?" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'School uniforms do not stop bullying and may increase violent attacks. Tony Volk, PhD, Associate Professor at Brock University, stated, "Overall, there is no evidence in bullying literature that supports a reduction in violence due to school uniforms."  2007 peer-reviewed study found that "school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per year] in the most violent schools."  A 1999 Texas Southern University study found that school discipline incidents rose by about 12% after the introduction of uniforms.  According to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management, fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of introducing mandatory uniforms.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'School uniforms do not improve attendance, academic preparedness, or exam results. David L. Brunsma, PhD, Professor of Sociology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), co-authored a study that analyzed a national sample of 10th graders and found "no effects of uniforms on absenteeism, behavioral problems (fights, suspensions, etc.), or substance use on campus" and "no effects" on "pro-school attitudes, academic preparedness, and peer attitudes toward school."   Brunsma also found a "negative effect of uniforms on academic achievement," and later found that uniforms were equally ineffective on elementary students and eighth graders.  A 2009 peer-reviewed study found "no significant effects of school uniforms on performance on second grade reading and mathematics examinations, as well as on 10th-grade reading, mathematics, science, and history examinations... [I]n many of the specifications, the results are actually negative." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'The key findings used to tout the benefits of uniforms are questionable. The oft-quoted improvements to school safety and student behavior in the Long Beach (CA) Unified School District from 1993-1995 may not have resulted from the introduction of school uniforms. The study in which the findings were published cautioned that "it is not clear that these results are entirely attributable to the uniform policy" and suggests that the introduction of new school security measures made at the same time may have been partly responsible.  Other reform efforts implemented alongside the uniform policy included a $1 million project to develop alternative teaching strategies. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'School uniforms emphasize the socio-economic divisions they are supposed to eliminate. Most public schools with uniform policies are in poor neighborhoods, emphasizing the class distinctions that uniforms were supposed to eliminate. In 2013, while 47% of high-poverty public schools required school uniforms, only 6% of low-poverty public schools required them, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.  Even school uniform proponent Angela Walmsley, Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research in the College of Education and Public Service at Saint Louis University, concedes that "we’re creating a culture where parents think that a public school where children wear uniforms is an unsafe place to send their child. In other words, school uniforms in public schools are becoming associated with schools facing violence problems."  Even within one school, uniforms cannot conceal the differences between the "haves" and the "have-nots." David L. Brunsma, PhD, stated that "more affluent families buy more uniforms per child. The less affluent... they have one... It\'s more likely to be tattered, torn and faded. It only takes two months for socioeconomic differences to show up again."  Uniforms also emphasize racial divisions. Schools with a minority student population of 50% or more are four times as likely to require uniforms than schools with a minority population of 20-49%, and 24 times more likely than schools with minority populations of 5%-19%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'Students oppose school uniforms. A 2012 peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Nevada at Reno found that 90% of seventh and eighth grade public school students did not like wearing uniforms.  A 2007 survey of Harford County, MD public school students found that 87.9% of the students were opposed to uniforms.  In the year following the introduction of mandatory school uniforms to the Long Beach (CA) Unified School District, 81% of middle school students said uniforms did not reduce fights, 76% said they did not help them fit in at school, 69% said they did not make them feel more connected with the school community, and 71% said they felt no safer traveling to and from school. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'Uniforms may have a detrimental effect on students\' self-image. When students have to wear the same outfits, rather than being allowed to select clothes that suit their body types, they can suffer embarrassment at school. Child and teen development specialist Robyn Silverman told NBC News\' Today that students, especially girls, tend to compare how each other looks in their uniforms: "As a body image expert, I hear from students all the time that they feel it allows for a lot of comparison... So if you have a body that’s a plus-size body, a curvier body, a very tall body, a very short body, those girls often feel that they don’t look their best."  A 2003 study by researchers at Arizona State University found that "students from schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools with uniform policies."  Some students also find uniforms less comfortable than their regular clothes, which may not be conducive to learning. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'Focusing on uniforms takes attention away from finding genuine solutions to problems in education. Spending time and effort implementing uniform policies may detract from more effective efforts to reduce crime in schools and boost student performance. More substantive improvements to public education could be achieved with smaller class sizes, tightened security, increased parental involvement, improved facilities, and other measures.   Tom Houlihan, former Superintendent of Schools in Oxford, NC, stated that school uniforms "are a distraction from focusing on systematic and fundamental transformation to improve our schools." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'The push for school uniforms is driven by commercial interests rather than educational ones. Americans spend around $1 billion on school uniforms every year.   Retailer J.C. Penney Co. says school uniforms are "a huge, important business for us."  In 2003 alone, uniform company Lands\' End spent $3 million on marketing efforts directed at public schools and districts.  Multiple studies used to promote the effectiveness of uniforms were partly funded by Lands\' End, and at least one of those studies is "so wholly flawed as to render itself useless," according to David L. Brunsma, PhD.   In Aug. 2013, Reuters reported that retailers were "sensing their opportunity... stepping up competition in the uniform aisles and online. Walmart has set up \'uniform shops\' or temporary boutiques within some stores." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'Parents should be free to choose their children\'s clothes without government interference. One of the founders of the Wilson County (LA) Parents Coalition, Richard Dashkovitz, stated: "It\'s time we let the government know that we are fed up with this. Quit dictating to us what my child should wear... [T]he government is intruding into our private lives, roles as parents and the lives of our children."  According to another parents\' rights group, Asserting Parental Rights — It\'s Our Duty, mandatory uniform "policies trample parents\' right to raise children without government interference." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'School uniforms in public schools undermine the promise of a free education by imposing an extra expense on families. Parents already pay taxes, and they still need to buy regular clothes for their children to wear when they\'re out of school and for dress-down days. The parent of a third grader told Education World: "My son\'s an unusual size, so it\'s hard to find him clothes anyway. Limiting what I buy to certain colors makes shopping for him... more expensive."  Anderson, IN parents Laura and Scott Bell, who sued over a school\'s uniform policy because it broke the guarantee of a free public education (and because it violated their children\'s right to freedom of expression) said they were required to pay $641 for their children\'s uniforms in Aug. 2007.  In York County, PA, a local NBC affiliate reported in Sep. 2014 that some children were missing class because their families couldn\'t afford to purchase the required uniforms. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 6, description: 'School uniforms may delay the transition into adulthood. Adults make their own clothing choices and have the freedom to express themselves through their appearance. Denying children and teenagers the opportunity to make those choices may make them ill-prepared for the adult world.   Adolescents see clothing choices as a means of identification, and seeking an identity is one of the critical stages of adolescence, according to the late developmental psychologist Erik Erikson.  ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?', position_one: 7, position_two: 8)
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. The Economic Policy Institute stated that a minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. Economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year,  thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. A 1994 study by economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD, compared employment in the fast food industry after New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Krueger and Card observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found "no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment."  Their findings were corroborated by economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found "little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. A person working full time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour earns $15,080 in a year, which is 20% higher than the 2015 federal poverty level of $12,331 for a one-person household under 65 years of age but 8% below the 2015 federal poverty level of $16,337 for a single-parent family with a child under 18 years of age.   According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office report, increasing the minimum wage to $9 would lift 300,000 people out of poverty, and an increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.  A 2013 study by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube, PhD, estimated that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is "projected to reduce the number of non-elderly living in poverty by around 4.6 million, or by 6.8 million when longer term effects are accounted for." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'A higher minimum wage would reduce government welfare spending. If low-income workers earned more money, their dependence on, and eligibility for, government benefits would decrease. The Center for American Progress reported in 2014 that raising the federal minimum wage by 6% to $10.10 would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) by 6% or $4.6 billion.  The Economic Policy Institute determined that by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10, more than 1.7 million Americans would no longer be dependent on government assistance programs. They report the increase would shave $7.6 billion off annual government spending on income-support programs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Because the federal minimum wage is not indexed for inflation, its purchasing power (the number of goods that can be bought with a unit of currency) has dropped considerably since its peak in 1968. The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60, which is equivalent to $11.16 in Jan. 2016 dollars and which is 53.9% higher than today\'s $7.25 federal minimum wage.   Between July 2015 and the last increase in the minimum wage in 2009, the federal minimum wage lost 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation.   According to Liana Fox, PhD, Senior Analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, "inflation indexing guarantees low-wage workers a wage that keeps pace with the rising costs of goods and services."  Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation would ensure that low-wage workers could adopt a standard of living commensurate with the current economy.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Improvements in productivity and economic growth have outpaced increases in the minimum wage. While the estimates of how much the minimum wage should be increased vary, many economists agree that if it had kept pace with rising productivity and incomes, it would be higher than the current $7.25 an hour. According to a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), the federal minimum wage would have been $21.72 per hour in 2012, instead of $7.25, if the minimum wage had kept pace with increases in productivity since 1968.  The Institute for Policy Studies estimated in 2012 that personal income has grown by 100.6% since 1968, while the minimum wage has stagnated: "If our standard for minimum wages had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.16 per hour."  The Economist stated in 2015 that "America as a whole is an outlier among advanced economies... one would expect America, where GDP per person is $53,000, to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour. That would mean a raise of about 65% for Americans earning the minimum pay rate." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Increasing the minimum wage would reduce income inequality. Among the 34 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries, the United States has one of the highest levels of income inequality, with only Chile, Mexico, and Turkey having higher levels of income inequality.  In 2012 the richest 1% of the US population earned 22.83% of the nation\'s total pre-tax income resulting in the widest gap between the rich and the poor since the 1920s.  A 2015 study found that the decrease in the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage since the 1980s has been a contributor to America\'s high levels of inequality.  Isabel Sawhill, PhD, Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, stated in 2014 that raising the minimum wage would reduce income inequality, and Jason Furman, PhD, Chairman of President Obama\'s Council of Economic Advisers, stated in 2014 that the weakening value of the minimum wage "is one of the important [reasons]... for inequality at the bottom." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'A minimum wage increase would help to reduce race and gender inequality. Despite representing 47% of US workers, women make up 63% of minimum wage workers.   African Americans represent 12% of the US workforce, and make up 17.7% of minimum wage earners.   16% of the labor force is Hispanic, and they represent 21.5% of workers making the minimum wage.   In a time when the median income for women is 78% of the national median income, and African Americans and Hispanics make 67% and 79% of the median income respectively, increasing the minimum wage is necessary to create a more equitable income distribution for disadvantaged groups. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Increasing the minimum wage would have a ripple effect, raising the incomes of people who make slightly above the minimum wage. Melissa S. Kearney, PhD, and Benjamin Harris, PhD, of the Brookings Institution found that increasing the minimum wage would result in higher wages not only for the 3.7 million people earning minimum wage, but also for up to 35 million workers who make up to 150% of the federal minimum wage.  Researchers at the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) found that an increase to $10.10 an hour would raise wages for 28 million Americans–about nine million of those due to the ripple effect. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Increasing the minimum wage would increase worker productivity and reduce employee turnover. Increases in wages are associated with increased productivity, according to many economists, including Janet Yellen, PhD, Chair of the Federal Reserve.  Alan Manning, DPhil, Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, stated in 2014: "As the minimum wage rises and work becomes more attractive, labor turnover rates and absenteeism tend to decline."  A 2014 University of California at Berkeley study found "striking evidence that... turnover rates for teens and restaurant workers fall substantially following a minimum wage increase," declining by about 2% for a 10% increase in the minimum wage.  A 2014 survey found that 53% of small business owners believed that "with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover and increased productivity and customer satisfaction." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'The current minimum wage is not high enough to allow people to afford housing. According to a 2015 report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a worker must earn at least $15.50 an hour (over twice the federal minimum wage) to be able to afford to rent a "modest" one-bedroom apartment, and $19.35 for a two-bedroom unit (more than 2.5 times the minimum wage). The report stated: "In no state can an individual working a typical 40-hour work week at the federal minimum wage afford a one- or two-bedroom apartment for his or her family." In California in 2015, even a person earning the then state minimum wage of $9 per hour would need to work 92 hours a week to afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment.  In Rawlins County, Kansas, where rental costs are some of the most affordable in the country, a living wage including housing costs for one person with no dependents is estimated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to be $9.35, 25.3% higher than the federal minimum wage and the state minimum wage of Kansas. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'The current minimum wage is not high enough to allow people to afford everyday essentials. According to a 2013 poll by Oxfam America, 66% of US workers earning less than $10 an hour report that they "just meet" or "don\'t even have enough to meet" their basic living expenses, and 50% say that they are frequently worried about affording basic necessities such as food.  A 2015 report by the Alliance for a Just Society, found that "the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour represents less than half of a living wage for a single adult" and a worker supporting only himself would have to work 93 hours a week at the federal minimum wage in order to make ends meet "or skip necessities like meals or medicine." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would lead to a healthier population and prevent premature deaths. A 2014 Human Impact Partners study by Rajiv Bhatia, MD, found that raising the Californian minimum wage to $13 an hour by 2017 would "significantly benefit health and well-being."  The study found that those earning a higher minimum wage would have enough to eat, be more likely to exercise, less likely to smoke, suffer from fewer emotional and psychological problems, and even prevent 389 premature deaths a year.  A 2014 study by the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII) found that minimum wage workers are more likely to report poor health, suffer from chronic diseases, and be unable to afford balanced meals.  The study concluded that "policies that reduce poverty and raise the wages of low-income people can be expected to significantly improve overall health and reduce health inequities."  Edward Ehlinger, MD, State Health Commissioner for Minnesota, stated that raising the Minnesotan minimum wage from $6.15 an hour to $9.50 by mid-2016 was probably "the biggest public health achievement... in the four years I\'ve been health commissioner... If you look at the conditions that impact health, income is right at the top of the list... Anything we can do to help enhance economic stability will have a huge public health benefit. This is a major public health issue." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would increase school attendance and decrease high school drop-out rates. A 2014 study found that raising the Californian minimum wage to $13 an hour would increase the incomes of 7.5 million families, meaning fewer would live in poverty. Teens who live in poverty are twice as likely to miss three or more days of school per month compared to those who do not; thus raising the minimum wage and lifting families out of poverty would mean children would miss fewer school days. The study found that "recent experimental studies show that increasing income can improve school performance."  Increasing the minimum wage would allow teens to work fewer hours for the same amount of pay giving them more time to study and reducing the likelihood that they would drop out of high school. A 2014 study by Alex Smith, PhD, Assistant Professor of Economics at the United States Military Academy at West Point, found that "an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 (39%)... would lead to a 2-4 percentage point decrease in the likelihood that a low-SES [socio-economic status] teen will drop out." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would help reduce the federal deficit. According to Aaron Pacitti, PhD, Associate Professor of Economics at Siena College, raising the minimum wage would help reduce the federal budget deficit "by lowering spending on public assistance programs and increasing tax revenue. Since firms are allowed to pay poverty-level wages to 3.6 million people -- 5 percent of the workforce -- these workers must rely on Federal income support programs. This means that taxpayers have been subsidizing businesses, whose profits have risen to record levels over the past 30 years."  According to James K. Galbraith, PhD, Professor of Government at the University of Texas in Austin, "[b]ecause payroll- and income-tax revenues would rise [as a result of an increase in the minimum wage], the federal deficit would come down." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 7, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would reduce crime. According to an Apr. 2016 study by the Executive Office of the President\'s Council of Economic Advisors, "higher wages for low-income individuals reduce crime by providing viable and sustainable employment… raising the minimum wage to $12 by 2020 would result in a 3 to 5 percent crime decrease (250,000 to 540,000 crimes) and a societal benefit of $8 to $17 billion dollars."  A 2013 study found that living wage ordinances "lead to modest reductions in expected robbery, burglary, larceny, and MVT [motor vehicle theft] rates."  Researchers who studied crime rates and the minimum wage in New York City over a 25-year period found that "[i]ncreases in the real minimum wage are found to significantly reduce robberies and murders… a 10 percent increase in the real minimum wage results in a 6.3 to 6.9 percent decrease in murders" and a 3.4 to 3.7 percent decrease in robberies. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Increasing the minimum wage would force businesses to lay off employees and raise unemployment levels. The Congressional Budget Office projected that a minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $10.10 would result in a loss of 500,000 jobs.  In a survey of 1,213 businesses and human resources professionals, 38% of employers who currently pay minimum wage said they would lay off some employees if the minimum wage was raised to $10.10. 54% said they would decrease hiring levels.  San Francisco\'s Office of Economic Analysis said that an increase to $15 would reduce the city\'s employment by about "15,270 private sector jobs."  In 2014, Steve H. Hanke, PhD, Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University, surveyed the 21 European Union (EU) countries that have a minimum wage and found they had an average unemployment rate of 11.8%, about a third higher than the 7.9% average unemployment rate in the seven EU countries that have no minimum wage. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would increase poverty. A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that although low-income workers see wage increases when the minimum wage is raised, "their hours and employment decline, and the combined effect of these changes is a decline in earned income... minimum wages increase the proportion of families that are poor or near-poor."  As explained by George Reisman, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University, "The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them."  Thomas Grennes, MA, Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University, and Andris Strazds, MSc, Lecturer at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga (Latvia), stated: "the net effect of higher minimum wages would be unfavorable for impoverished households, even if there are no job losses. To the extent that some poor households also lose jobs, their net losses would be greater." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'A minimum wage increase would hurt businesses and force companies to close. 60% of small-business owners say that raising the minimum wage will "hurt most small-business owners," according to a 2013 Gallup poll.  Jamie Richardson, MBA, Vice President of fast food chain White Castle, said that the company would be forced to close almost half its stores and let go thousands of workers if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15.  Forbes reported that an increase in the minimum wage has led to the closure of several Wal-Mart stores and the cancellation of promised stores yet to open. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would increase the price of consumer goods. A 2013 article by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago stated that if the minimum wage is increased, fast-food restaurants would pass on almost 100% of their increased labor costs on to consumers and that other firms may do the same.  A 2015 Purdue University study found that raising the wage of fast food restaurant employees to $15 or $22 per hour would result in a price increase of 4.3% and 25% respectively, or a reduction in product size between 12% and 70%: "a hamburger would be much smaller," the researchers stated.  NBC News found that the price of a cup of coffee went up by 10 to 20% in Oakland, California, after a 36% minimum wage hike in the city to $12.25. The report also found a 6.7% rise in coffee prices in Chicago after the minimum wage rose to $10.  The Alberta Hotel and Lodging Association (Canada) found that a "sudden and significant increase to the minimum wage" would result in "[i]ncreased prices for food & beverage, guest rooms and meeting facilities." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Teenagers and young adults may be shut out of the workforce if the minimum wage is increased. Minimum wage workers are disproportionately young. According to the Pew Research Center, 16- to 24-year-olds make up 50.4% of minimum wage earners,  despite representing only 13.7% of the workforce as a whole.  24% of minimum wage workers are teenagers.  Matthew Rousu, PhD, Associate Professor of Economics at Susquehanna University, wrote in a 2014 article that the federal minimum wage "has a devastating impact on teenagers" because firms will not pay many young workers with no skills or experience minimum wage, let alone a higher wage.  Casey B. Mulligan, PhD, economics professor at the University of Chicago, stated that the teenage employment index fell sharply after the minimum wage increase of July 2009 (a fall of about 8% in three months, while the previous drop of 8% took over a year): "This suggests that the 2009 minimum-wage increase did significantly reduce teenage employment."  According to a study by Thomas A. Mroz, PhD, and Timothy H. Savage, PhD, for the Employment Policies Institute, "those experiencing unemployment at an early age have years of lower earnings and an increased likelihood of unemployment ahead of them." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would disadvantage low-skilled workers. From an employer\'s perspective, people with the lowest skill levels cannot justify higher wages.  A study by Jeffrey Clemens, PhD, and Michael J. Wither, PhD, found that minimum wage increases result in reduced average monthly incomes for low-skilled workers ($100 less during the first year following a minimum wage increase and $50 over the next two years) due to a reduction in employment.  James Dorn, PhD, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, stated that a 10% increase in the minimum wage "leads to a 1 to 3 percent decrease in employment of low-skilled workers" in the short term, and "to a larger decrease in the long run."  George Reisman, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University, stated that if the minimum wage is increased to $10.10, "and the jobs that presently pay $7.25 had to pay $10.10, then workers who previously would not have considered those jobs because of their ability to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour will now consider them... The effect is to expose the workers whose skills do not exceed a level corresponding to $7.25 per hour to the competition of better educated, more-skilled workers presently able to earn wage rates ranging from just above $7.25 to just below $10.10." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Increasing the minimum wage reduces the likelihood of upward mobility. Don Boudreaux, PhD, Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute, explained, "the minimum wage cuts off the first rung of the employment ladder, and it\'s that first lowest paying rung that provides the skills and experience workers need to reach the next rung and to continue climbing their way to a better life."  Seth Zimmerman, PhD, Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, stated: "minimum wage laws can lead to labor market rigidities that make it more difficult for people to move up the economic ladder. These rigidities can decrease relative mobility and... can decrease absolute upward mobility as well."  John W. O\'Neill, PhD, Director of the School of Hospitality Management at Pennsylvania State University, stated that an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 or higher would "decrease opportunities for upward mobility in the hospitality industry [where] entry-level, hourly roles are traditional \'routes to the top\'," and where workers learn the skills needed to gain a promotion. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'If the minimum wage is increased, companies may use more robots and automated processes to replace service employees. If companies cannot afford to pay a higher minimum wage for low-skilled service employees, they will use automation to avoid hiring people in those positions altogether. Oxford University researchers Carl Benedikt Frey, PhD, and Michael A. Osborne, DPhil, stated in a 2013 study that "robots are already performing many simple service tasks such as vacuuming, mopping, lawn mowing, and gutter cleaning" and that "commercial service robots are now able to perform more complex tasks in food preparation, health care, commercial cleaning, and elderly care."  As attorney Andrew Woodman, JD, predicted in his blog for the Huffington Post, a minimum wage increase "could ultimately be the undoing of low-income service-industry jobs in the United States."  The Washington Post observed that as minimum wage campaigns gain traction around the country, "Many [restaurant] chains are already at work looking for ingenious ways to take humans out of the picture, threatening workers in an industry that employs 2.4 million wait staffers, nearly 3 million cooks and food preparers and many of the nation’s 3.3 million cashiers." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Increasing the federal minimum wage would disproportionately harm the poorest areas of the United States. In 2015 Mississippi had the lowest cost of living at 83.5% of the national average, while Hawaii had the highest at 168.6%.  In areas like Mississippi where the cost of living and average incomes are especially low, employers would need to spend proportionally more to pay their minimum wage employees than employers in higher cost areas like Hawaii, and yet would be unable to cover the cost by raising prices because their customers would not be able to afford them.  According to Andrew G. Biggs, PhD, and Mark J. Perry, PhD, of the American Enterprise Institute, the results of this disparity "could be disastrous... [for] small communities around the country." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would increase housing costs. In cities such as Los Angeles with a limited housing supply, raising the minimum wage but not increasing housing stock would lead to an increase in rental prices as "700,000 minimum wage workers will have more money to compete for the same low inventory of rental units," according to researchers from the University of California in Los Angeles.  One Los Angeles-based blogger estimated a raise in rental prices by $173/month if the minimum wage was increased to $15/hour.  Lucas Hall, founder of Landlordology.com, stated: "Raising the minimum wage causes a temporary spike in spending power... Landlords raise rents as tenants are willing and able to pay more." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'The free market should determine minimum wages, not the federal government. A survey by the Small Business Network found that 82% of small businesses agreed that "the government should not be setting wage rates."  According to Per Bylund, PhD, Research Professor at Baylor University, the federal minimum wage "disrupts the balance of the market and prohibits the creation of new jobs." Bylund stated that the free market should determine wages based on the value of work produced so employers can hire the needed number of workers at wage levels that make sense for their businesses.  According to Mark J. Perry, PhD, of the American Enterprise Institute, government-mandated minimum wages "are always arbitrary and almost never based on any sound economic/cost-benefit analysis... [I]n contrast market-determined wages reflect supply and demand conditions that are specific to local market conditions and vary widely by geographic region and by industry." Perry said market-determined wages result in more employment opportunities for unskilled workers, increased profits for companies, and lower prices for the consumer. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would decrease employee benefits and increase tax payments. According to James Sherk, MA, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a single mother working full time and earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would be over $260 a month worse off if the minimum wage were raised to $10.10: "While her market income rises by $494, she loses $71 in EITC [earned income tax credit] refunds, pays $37 more in payroll taxes and $45 more in state income taxes. She also loses $88 in food stamp benefits and $528 in child-care subsidies."  A 2014 study of 400 US Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) by Campbell Harvey, PhD, J. Paul Sticht Professor of International Business at Duke University, found that 40% of CFOs would reduce employee benefits if the minimum wage were raised to $10 an hour.  Some staff at the Seattle-area nonprofit organization, Full Life Care, asked for a reduction in hours after the minimum wage was raised, citing concerns that the increase will mean they lose their housing subsidies yet they are still unable to afford market-rate rents. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would decrease high school enrollment rates and increase drop-out rates. Mark J. Perry, PhD, of the American Enterprise Institute states that "the attraction to higher wages from minimum wage legislation reduces high school completion rates for some students with limited skills, who are then disadvantaged with lower wages and career opportunities over the long-run if they never finish high school."  A 2009 study published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology found that in Maryland, "a 25-cent increase in the real minimum wage... was associated with a 0.55 percent increase in the dropout rate for Hispanic" students.  A 2005 study published by Cornell University found that "a longterm 10% increase in the earnings of low-skilled workers could decrease high school enrollment rates by as much as 5-7%."  According to a 2003 study by economists David Neumark, PhD, and William Wascher, PhD, in states where teens can leave school before 18, a 10% increase in the minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop by 2%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would encourage companies to outsource jobs to countries where costs would be lower. According to the Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2,382,000 US jobs were outsourced in 2015 with 44% of companies saying they did so to reduce or control costs.  A 2014 study of 400 US Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) by Campbell Harvey, PhD, J. Paul Sticht Professor of International Business at Duke University, found that 70% of CFOs would "increase contracting, outsourcing, or moving actual production outside the United States" if the minimum wage were raised to $10 an hour. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 8, description: 'Raising the minimum wage would not reduce crime. According to a 2013 study by Boston College economists, increasing the minimum wage leads to reduced employment which leads to an increase in thefts, drug sales, and violent crime.  Their results indicate that "crime will increase by 1.9 percentage points among 14-30 year-olds as the minimum wage increases."  Researchers found that between 1977 and 2012 increases in the minimum wage resulted in "no significant change" in the rates of violent crime or property crime. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should Abortion Be Legal?', position_one: 9, position_two: 10)
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Women have the right to decide if and when to have children.  Although a woman may utilize birth control to help her make that decision, no birth control is 100% effective.  There are also instances of rape, abuse, and incest that result in pregnancy.  It is unreasonable to expect a victim to carry a child if she is unwilling.')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman\'s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies. The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman\'s independence and ability to determine her future.  Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O\'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman\'s autonomy to determine her life\'s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."  CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women’s liberation." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception.   Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person\'s age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word \'person,\' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed. According to a 2010 review by Britain\'s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus\' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,  which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain."  A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can\'t feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation.  Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and are often restricted by state laws.  According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur."  The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. According to Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., MD, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, before abortion was legalized women would frequently try to induce abortions by using coat hangers, knitting needles, or radiator flush, or by going to unsafe "back-alley" abortionists.  In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. By 1976, after Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion nationwide, this number dropped to two.  The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues such as cancer and infertility. A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications.   A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman\'s risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion."  The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion.  The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer.  A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure.  Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term. Some fetuses have such severe disorders that death is guaranteed before or shortly after birth. These include anencephaly, in which the brain is missing, and limb-body wall complex, in which organs develop outside the body cavity.  It would be cruel to force women to carry fetuses with fatal congenital defects to term. Even in the case of nonfatal conditions, such as Down syndrome, parents may be unable to care for a severely disabled child. Deborah Anne Driscoll, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, said "many couples... don’t have the resources, don’t have the emotional stamina, don’t have the family support [to raise a child with Down syndrome]." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. Many women who choose abortion don\'t have the financial resources to support a child. 42% of women having abortions are below the federal poverty level.  A Sep. 2005 survey in the peer-reviewed Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health asking women why they had an abortion found that 73% of respondents said they could not afford to have a baby, and 38% said giving birth would interfere with their education and career goals.  An Oct. 2010 University of Massachusetts at Amherst study published in the peer-reviewed American Sociological Review found that women at all income levels earn less when they have children, with low-wage workers being most affected, suffering a 15% earnings penalty. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding.  49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency, evaluated a proposed anti-abortion bill that would ban all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and found that the resulting additional births would increase the federal deficit by $225 million over nine years, due to the increased need for Medicaid coverage. Also, since many women seeking late-term abortions are economically disadvantaged, their children are likely to require welfare assistance.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Abortion reduces crime. According to a study co-written by Freakonomics co-author Steven D. Levitt, PhD, and published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics, "legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." Around 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop abruptly, and crime rates dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. Because "women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity," and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Abortion is justified as a means of population control. Philosopher Peter Singer, MA, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, defended abortion as a way to curb overpopulation.  The United Nations estimated that the world\'s population will increase to 9.3 billion by 2050, which would be "the equivalent of adding another India and China to the world," according to the Los Angeles Times.  Malnutrition, starvation, poverty, lack of medical and educational services, pollution, underdevelopment, and conflict over resources are all consequences of overpopulation.  With 43.8 million abortions performed worldwide in 2008 , the population increase if abortion were unavailable could be substantial. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 9, description: 'Many religious organizations and people of faith support women\'s reproductive choice. Although many religious groups oppose abortion, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations are all officially pro-choice.    The Bible, despite interpretations to the contrary, contains no explicit condemnation of abortion, and does not portray the killing of a fetus as equivalent to the killing of a human being. In Exodus 21:22-25, the crime of causing a woman to miscarry is treated as a property crime, whereas killing the woman is considered murder and is punished with the death penalty.  While the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, more of their members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus illegal in all or most cases (51% vs. 45%, Lutheran; 48% vs. 45%, Catholic).  Joe Biden, 47th US Vice President, stated in Oct. 2012 that "I accept my church’s position on abortion... But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others..." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens."  At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Life begins at conception, so unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome, stated that "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explains that the "most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester."  According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."  Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, "We see [in an ultrasound image] the child’s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Abortion is the killing of a human being, which defies the word of God. The Bible does not draw a distinction between fetuses and babies: the Greek word brephos is used in the Bible to refer to both an unborn child and an infant.  By the time a baby is conceived, he or she is recognized by God, as demonstrated in Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee..."  The Sixth Commandment of the Bible\'s Old Testament, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13), applies to all human beings, including unborn babies.  In the Hindu religion, the holy text Kaushitaki Upanishad states that abortion is an equivalent misdeed to killing one’s own parents.  The BBC states that "Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'The decision in Roe v. Wade was wrong and should be overturned. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the right to privacy defended in Roe v. Wade is "utterly idiotic" and should not be considered binding precedent: "There is no right to privacy [in the US Constitution]."   In his dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that an abortion "is not \'private\' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the \'privacy\' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution..."  Furthermore, the 14th Amendment bars states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."  The Supreme Court overreached in Roe v. Wade when it excluded unborn children from the class of "persons."  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2008 peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health found that "Young adult women who undergo... abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression."  A peer-reviewed 2005 study published in BMC Medicine found that women who underwent an abortion had "significantly higher" anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale up to five years after the pregnancy termination.  A 2002 peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term.  A 1996 study published in the British Medical Journal reported that the mean annual suicide rate amongst women who had an abortion was 34.7 per 100,000, compared with a mean rate of 11.3 per 100,000 in the general population of women.  An Apr. 1998 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study of men whose partners had abortions found that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Abortions reduce the number of adoptable babies. Instead of having the option to abort, women should give their unwanted babies to people who cannot conceive. The percentage of infants given up for adoption in the United States declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 1% of those born between 1996 and 2002.  As a result of the lack of women putting their children up for adoption, the number of US infant adoptions dropped from about 90,000 in 1971 to 18,000 in 2007.  Around 2.6 million American women were trying to adopt children as of 2002, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Selective abortion based on genetic abnormalities (eugenic termination) is overt discrimination. Physical limitations don\'t make those with disabilities less than human. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990  provides civil rights protection to people born with disabilities so they can lead fulfilling lives. The National Down Syndrome Society states that "people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, vocational, social, and recreational activities of the community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways."  The increase in abortions of babies with Down syndrome (over 80% of women choose to abort Down syndrome babies ) reduced the Down syndrome population by 15% between 1989 and 2005. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Women should not be able to use abortion as a form of contraception. It is immoral to kill an unborn child for convenience.  The Guttmacher Institute reported that half of all women having abortions every year have had at least one previous abortion,  while 8.5% of abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2010 were undergone by women who had three or more previous abortions.  This suggests that many women are using abortion as a contraceptive method.  Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt, PhD, wrote that after abortion was legalized, "Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent, indicating that many women were using abortion as a method of birth control, a crude and drastic sort of insurance policy." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'If women become pregnant, they should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child. People need to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. Having sexual intercourse, even when contraceptive methods are used, carries with it the risk of a pregnancy.  The unborn baby should not be punished for a mistake made by adults. If women are unprepared to care for their children, they should at least put them up for adoption.')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'The original text of the Hippocratic Oath, traditionally taken by doctors when swearing to practice medicine ethically, forbids abortion. One section of the classical version of the oath reads: "I will not give a woman a pessary [a device inserted into the vagina] to cause an abortion." The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath, written in 1964 by Luis Lasagna, still effectively forbids doctors from performing abortions in the line, "Above all, I must not play at God." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Abortion promotes a culture in which human life is disposable. The legalization of abortion sends a message that human life has little value.  Pope Francis condemned "\'the throwaway culture\'" in Jan. 2014, stating that "what is thrown away is not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings themselves, who are discarded as \'unnecessary\'. For example, it is frightful even to think there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day..."  House Representative Randy Hultgren (R-IL) wrote in Jan. 2014 that "When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences us." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Allowing abortion conflicts with the unalienable right to life recognized by the Founding Fathers of the United States. The Declaration of Independence states that "[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Abortion takes away from the unborn the unalienable right to life that the Founding Fathers intended for all human beings. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Abortion disproportionately affects African American babies. In the United States, black women are 3.3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.  In New York City in 2012, more black babies were aborted (31,328) than had live births (24,758). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Abortion eliminates the potential societal contributions of a future human being. According to Heisman Trophy-winning football player Tim Tebow, "the reason I\'m here" is because his mother ignored the advice of doctors who recommended an abortion.  It has also been reported that the mothers of entertainers Celine Dion, Cher, and Justin Bieber were either advised to have abortions or were considering the procedure, but chose to give birth to their babies instead.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 10, description: 'Abortion may lead to future medical problems for the mother. A June 2003 study published by the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology estimated that about 15% of first-trimester miscarriages are attributed to a prior history of induced abortion, and stated that "Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy."  A 2013 Chinese study published in the peer-reviewed Indian Journal of Cancer found an association between breast cancer and a history of abortions . A Feb. 2014 study published in the peer-reviewed Cancer Causes and Control found that abortion "is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer" and that "the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of [abortions] increases." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should any vaccines be required for children?', position_one: 11, position_two: 12)
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Vaccines can save children\'s lives. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "most childhood vaccines are 90%-99% effective in preventing disease."  According to [email protected]/* <![CDATA[ */!function(t,e,r,n,c,a,p){try{t=document.currentScript||function(){for(t=document.getElementsByTagName(\'script\'),e=t.length;e--;)if(t[e].getAttribute(\'data-cfhash\'))return t[e]}();if(t&&(c=t.previousSibling)){p=t.parentNode;if(a=c.getAttribute(\'data-cfemail\')){for(e=\'\',r=\'0x\'+a.substr(0,2)|0,n=2;a.length-n;n+=2)e+=\'%\'+(\'0\'+(\'0x\'+a.substr(n,2)^r).toString(16)).slice(-2);p.replaceChild(document.createTextNode(decodeURIComponent(e)),c)}p.removeChild(t)}}catch(u){}}()/* ]]> */, a United Nations Foundation partner organization, vaccines save 2.5 million children from preventable diseases every year , which equates to roughly 285 children saved every hour. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that 732,000 American children were saved from death and 322 million cases of childhood illnesses were prevented between 1994 and 2014 due to vaccination.  The measles vaccine has decreased childhood deaths from measles by 74%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'The ingredients in vaccines are safe in the amounts used. Ingredients, such as thimerosal, formaldehyde, and aluminum, can be harmful in large doses but they are not used in harmful quantities in vaccines. Children are exposed to more aluminum in breast milk and infant formula than they are exposed to in vaccines.  Paul Offit, MD, notes that children are exposed to more bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other harmful substances in one day of normal activity than are in vaccines.  With the exception of inactivated flu vaccines, thimerosal (a mercury compound) has been removed or reduced to trace amounts in vaccines for children under 6 years old.  The FDA requires up to 10 or more years of testing for all vaccines before they are licensed, and then they are monitored by the CDC and the FDA to make sure the vaccines and the ingredients used in the vaccines are safe. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Major medical organizations state that vaccines are safe. These organizations include: CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), UNICEF, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), World Health Organization (WHO), Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Paediatric Society, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).  The WHO states, "Vaccines are very safe."  The US Department of Health and Human Services states, "Vaccines are some of the safest medical products available." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare. The most common side effect of vaccines, anaphylaxis (a severe allergic reaction), occurs in one per several hundred thousand to one per million vaccinations.  According to Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent for CNN and practicing neurosurgeon, "you are 100 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have a serious allergic reaction to the vaccine that protects you against measles."  Ellen Clayton, MD, JD, Professor of Pediatrics and Law at Vanderbilt Law School and co-author of the 2011 IOM report "Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines," summarized the results of the report: "The MMR vaccine does not cause autism… The MMR and DTaP do not cause Type 1 diabetes. And the killed flu vaccine does not cause Bell’s palsy, and it does not trigger episodes of asthma."  Combination vaccines, like MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), have been used without adverse effects since the mid-1940s.')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Vaccines protect the "herd." Herd immunity (or community immunity) means that when a "critical portion" (the percent of people who need to be vaccinated to provide herd immunity) of a population is vaccinated against a contagious disease it is unlikely that an outbreak of the disease will occur so most members of the community will be protected.  Children and adults who cannot be vaccinated due to age, poor health (who are immune-compromised or undergoing chemotherapy, for example), or other reasons rely on herd immunity to prevent contraction of vaccine-preventable diseases.  A Jan. 2008 outbreak of measles in San Diego, CA resulted in 48 children who had to be quarantined because they were too young to be vaccinated and could not rely on herd immunity to keep them safe.  In 2011, 49 US states did not meet the 92-94% herd immunity threshold for pertussis (whooping cough), resulting in a 2012 outbreak that sickened 42,000 people and was the biggest outbreak since 1955.  In 2005, an 18-month-old Amish girl contracted polio and spread the disease to four other unvaccinated children, but, because the community met the herd immunity threshold for the disease, there was no polio outbreak. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Vaccines save children and their parents time and money. Vaccines cost less in time and money to obtain than infectious diseases cost in time off of work to care for a sick child, potential long-term disability care, and medical costs.  For example, children under five with the flu are contagious for about eight days, and, according to a 2012 CDC study, cost their parents an average of 11 to 73 hours of wages (about $222 to $1,456) and $300 to $4,000 in medical expenses.  Children with rotavirus are contagious for up to 30 days.  A Jan. 2008 outbreak of measles in San Diego, CA resulted in 11 unvaccinated children catching measles and a resulting net public-sector cost of $10,376 per case (or, $123,512 total) due to emergency vaccination and outbreak response.  Furthermore, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or Obamacare) many vaccines are available to children and adults without copay. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Vaccines protect future generations. Vaccinated mothers protect their unborn children from viruses that could potentially cause birth defects, and vaccinated communities can help eradicate diseases for future generations. Before the rubella vaccine was licensed in 1969, a global rubella (German measles) outbreak caused the deaths of 11,000 babies, and birth defects in 20,000 babies between 1963 and 1965 in the United States.  Women who were vaccinated as children against rubella have greatly decreased the chance of passing the virus to their unborn or newborn children, eliminating the birth defects, such as heart problems, hearing and vision loss, congenital cataracts, liver and spleen damage, and mental disabilities, associated with the disease. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Vaccines eradicated smallpox and have nearly eradicated other diseases such as polio. Children are no longer vaccinated against smallpox because the disease no longer exists due to vaccination.  The last case of smallpox in the United States was in 1948; the last case in the world was 1977 in Somalia.  In the twentieth century, there were 16,316 deaths from polio and 29,004 deaths from smallpox yearly in the United States; in 2012 there were no reported cases of polio or smallpox.  According to UNICEF, there were 500 cases of polio in 2014 worldwide (appearing only in three countries: Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan), down from 350,000 cases in 1988, thanks to vaccination programs.  Diphtheria killed 21,053 people yearly, measles killed 530,217 people yearly, mumps killed 162,344 people yearly, rubella killed 47,745 people yearly, and Hib killed 20,000 people yearly in the twentieth century United States; by 2012 each of these diseases were decreased by 99% because of vaccinations. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Vaccine-preventable diseases have not disappeared so vaccination is still necessary. The CDC notes that many vaccine-preventable diseases are still in the United States or "only a plane ride away."  Although the paralytic form of polio has largely disappeared thanks to vaccination, the virus still exists in countries like Pakistan where there were 93 cases in 2013 and 71 in 2014 as of May 15.  The polio virus can be incubated by a person without symptoms for years; that person can then accidentally infect an unvaccinated child (or adult) in whom the virus can mutate into its paralytic form and spread amongst unvaccinated people.  Unvaccinated Amish missionaries who traveled to the Philippines brought measles back to Ohio in May 2014, resulting in 155 infected people as of June 5, 2014.  There were 9,149 confirmed and 31,508 suspected cases of measles in the Philippines between Jan. 1 and May 20, 2013.  In 2004, there were 37 cases of measles in the United States; in 2014, by May 30, there were 16 measles outbreaks in the United States resulting in at least 334 cases in 18 states.  UNICEF reported that, globally, 453,000 children die from rotavirus, 476,000 die from pneumococcus (the virus that causes pneumonia, meningitis, and blood infections), 199,000 die from Hib (a virus that causes pneumonia and meningitis), 195,000 die from pertussis (whooping cough), 118,000 die from the measles, and 60,000 die from tetanus each year, all vaccine-preventable diseases. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 11, description: 'Vaccines provide economic benefits for society. The CDC estimates that children vaccinated between 1994 and 2014 have yielded net savings of $1.38 trillion in "societal costs," including money saved by preventing lost productivity due to disability and early death.  The United States saves about $27 per $1 invested in DTaP vaccination, and $13 per $1 spent on MMR vaccination.  UNICEF estimates that $6.2 billion could be saved in treatment costs if vaccines were more prominent in the world’s poorest countries.  According to the International Vaccines Access Center at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, $62.9 billion could be saved by providing Hib, pneumococcal, and rotavirus vaccinations to the 73 poorest countries: $1.4 billion in treatment costs, $300 million in lost caretaker wages, $6.2 billion in lifetime productivity loss due to disability, and $55 billion in lifetime productivity loss because of death. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children.  The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States.  Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation.  The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a "small possibility" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disorder in which the person’s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. . The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'Vaccines contain harmful ingredients. Some physicians believe thimerosal, an organic mercury compound found in trace amounts in one flu vaccine for children and other vaccines for adults, is linked to autism.  Aluminum is used in some vaccines and excess aluminum in human bodies can cause neurological harm.  Formaldehyde, also found in some vaccines, is a carcinogen, and, according to VaxTruth.org, exposure can cause side effects such as cardiac impairment, central nervous system depression, "changes in higher cognitive functions," coma, convulsions, and death.  Glutaraldehyde, a compound used to disinfect medical and dental equipment, is used in some DTaP vaccinations and exposure can cause asthma and other respiratory issues.  Some flu vaccines contain cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTMB), a compound used as an antiseptic, which can be a skin, eye, and respiratory irritant. Some polio, TD, and DTaP vaccines contain 2-phenoxyethanol, an antibacterial that is a skin and eye irritant that can cause headache, shock, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac and kidney failure, and death.  Some vaccines for the flu contain chicken egg protein, which can be harmful to children who are allergic to eggs.  Some vaccines for PCV, HPV, DTaP, Hep A, Hep B, and Hib contain yeast proteins which, according to VaxTruth and Joseph Mercola, MD, an alternative medicine proponent, contain MSG that can cause migraines, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), asthma, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, ADD, seizure, and stroke. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'The government should not intervene in personal medical choices. Medical decisions for children should be left to the parents or caregivers. Barbara Low Fisher, Co-founder of National Vaccine Information Center, stated, "If the State can tag, track down and force citizens against their will to be injected with biological products of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow."  Ron Paul, MD, former US Representative (R-TX), in an Oct. 19, 2011 article, "Government Vaccines – Bad Policy, Bad Medicine," stated, "intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government… Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'Mandatory vaccines infringe upon constitutionally protected religious freedoms. Several religions oppose vaccines and mandatory vaccinations. The First Amendment of the US Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  In the ruling for Cantwell v. Connecticut (1939; 9-0), the US Supreme Court held that state and local governments’ infringement upon religious freedom is also unconstitutional.  Some Christian Scientists consider vaccinations against their religion because founder Mary Baker Eddy stated that the "calm, Christian state of mind is a better preventative of contagion than a drug, or than any other possible sanative method… the ‘perfect Love’ that ‘casteth out fear’ is a sure defense."  Amish communities do not view all vaccinations as "necessary" and some believe that vaccinations weaken the immune system.  The Church of Illumination states that "the teachings of the Church unequivocally affirm that injections of vaccines and inoculations are a violation of these biblical teachings… Immunizations and vaccinations are a form of blood pollution because they have devastating effects on the regeneration of the soul that each Church member seeks to attain."  The Universal Family Church believes that parents should decide whether their children should be vaccinated and that "God intends the health decisions of individuals should… be honored by all authorities." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'Vaccines can contain ingredients some people consider immoral or otherwise objectionable. Some DTaP/IPV/Hib combination, Hep A/Hep B combination, HepA, MMR, and chicken pox vaccines are cultivated in cells from two fetuses aborted in the 1960s (listed as MRC-5 and WI-38 on package inserts). The Catholic Church, in a June 9, 2005 report about using vaccines made using cells from aborted fetuses, indicated that "there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines" to avoid the "evil" of actively or passively participating in anything that involves voluntary abortion.  Some vaccines for DTaP, Hep A, RV, Hib, HPV, IPV, flu, MMR, and chicken pox are made using animal products like chicken eggs, bovine casein, insect cells, Cocker Spaniel cells, pig gelatin, and cells from African Green monkeys, making those vaccines conflict with some vegetarian and vegan philosophies. Others consider it problematic that some vaccines are produced using human albumin, a blood plasma protein.')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'Vaccines are unnatural, and natural immunity is more effective than vaccination. Even pro-vaccine organizations state that natural vaccination causes better immunity. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia notes that "It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines occurs only after several doses."  Mayo Clinic states that natural infection "often provides more complete immunity than a series of vaccinations."  Kurt Perkins, DC, a chiropractor and wellness expert, stated, "A vaccine violates all laws of natural immune defenses by taking a potential pathogen along with all the TOXIC ingredients (aluminum, formaldehyde, adjuvants, etc.) directly into your blood system. This process would never occur in building natural immunity. That last sentence is kind of an oxy-moron. Immunity is a natural thing. Vaccines are an artificial thing." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'The pharmaceutical companies, FDA, and CDC should not be trusted to make and regulate safe vaccines. The primary goal of pharmaceutical companies is to sell drugs and make a profit. William Posey, Congressman (R-FL), stated in an Apr. 8, 2014 interview, "The incestuous relationship between the public health community and the vaccine makers and government officials should not be allowed to continue. I mean, you know, too many top CDC personnel go to work for the vaccine makers when they leave. That\'s a revolving door that creates a serious conflict of interest and perverts incentives that compromise integrity."  Julie Gerberding, President of Merck Vaccines, was the CDC director from 2002-2009.  A vaccine for Lyme disease, LYMErix, was licensed by the FDA and marketed for almost four years before being pulled from the market after several class action lawsuits were filed due to a potential causal relationship to autoimmune arthritis.  Rotashield, a vaccine for rotavirus (RV), was pulled from the market by the manufacturer nine months after it was introduced after it was discovered that the vaccine might have contributed to higher instances of intussusception (bowel obstruction). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'Diseases that vaccines target have essentially disappeared. There is no reason to vaccinate against diseases that no longer occur in the United States. The CDC reported no cases or deaths from diphtheria between 2003 and 2011 in the United States.  Fewer than 51 cases and 10 deaths per year from tetanus were reported between 1994 and 2011.  Polio has been declared eradicated in the United States since 1979.  There have been fewer than 21 deaths yearly from rubella since 1971 and fewer than 25 deaths yearly from mumps since 1968. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 12, description: 'Most diseases that vaccines target are relatively harmless in many cases, thus making vaccines unnecessary. The chickenpox is often just a rash with blisters and can be treated with acetaminophen, cool compresses, and calamine lotion.  The measles is normally a rash accompanied by a fever and runny nose and can be treated with rest and fluids.  Rubella is often just a virus with a rash and low fever and can be treated with acetaminophen.  Rotavirus can normally be treated with hydration and probiotics. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should people become vegetarian?', position_one: 13, position_two: 14)
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'It is cruel and unethical to kill animals for food when vegetarian options are available. Animals are sentient beings that have emotions and social connections. Scientific studies show that cattle, pigs, chickens, and all warm-blooded animals can experience stress, pain, and fear.  In the United States about 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds are killed for food each year.  These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Human anatomy has evolved to support a primarily vegetarian diet. Humans do not have the large mouth or long, pointed teeth of carnivores. Human teeth are short and flat for chewing fibrous food. Carnivores have short intestines (3-6 times body length) while human intestines are long (10-11 times body length) to allow slower digestion of plant foods. The liver of a carnivore can detoxify the excess vitamin A absorbed from a meat-based diet. The human liver cannot detoxify excess vitamin A. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet delivers complete nutrition and can provide health benefits. According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet can meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids (the building blocks of protein), and improve health. It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one’s health.   According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.  If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide.  Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet reduces the chances of developing kidney stones and gallstones. Diets high in animal protein cause the body to excrete calcium, oxalate, and uric acid—the main components of kidney stones and gallstones. A diet high in animal protein is responsible for the high rates (15% of men and 7% of women) of kidney stones in the United States, according to a peer-reviewed Nov. 15, 1999 study. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer.  Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.  There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.  According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters.  A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes. A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women,  and a 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.  A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Vegetarians live longer. A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease.  A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years.  A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women.  On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortality. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians. Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.  Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer.  The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further.  A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Overgrazing livestock hurts the environment through soil compaction, erosion, and harm to native plants and animals. About 70% of the 11 western states are grazed by livestock.  Grazing has been a factor in the listing of 171 species under the Endangered Species Act.  It has damaged 80% of streams and riparian areas in the western United States.  85% of US land used for grazing livestock is not suitable for farming.  Abstaining from meat would help in the restoration of vast US lands more naturally suited to provide habitat for native plants and animals.')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet conserves water. It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef, and about 660 gallons to make a pound of chicken. It only takes about 220 gallons to make a pound of tofu and 180 to make a pound of wheat flour. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are created by enteric fermentation (aka animal farts and burps), manure decomposition, and deforestation to make room for grazing animals and growing feed. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, raising animals for food creates 18% of global greenhouse gases - more than the transportation sector.  Producing a pound of hamburger meat contributes as much greenhouse gas as driving a small car nearly 20 miles. A pound of pork equals about 5 miles, and a pound of potatoes only 0.34 miles.  A June 2014 peer-reviewed study found that diets including meat cause the creation of up to 54% more greenhouse gas emissions than vegetarian diets.  According to the United Nations Environment Programme, a "worldwide diet change away from animal products" is necessary to stop the worst effects of global climate change. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Producing one hamburger destroys 55 square feet of rainforest.  Between 1996-2006, 25 million acres of Amazon rainforest were cleared—80% of which became pasture for beef cattle.  In 2009, the United States imported 44,284 tons  of processed Brazilian beef mostly for use in hamburgers, hot dogs, and lunch meats. Importing fresh Brazilian beef became legal in Nov. 2010, and US beef imports from Brazil will likely increase. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Raising animals for food contributes to air and water pollution. Manure produces toxic hydrogen sulfide and ammonia which pollute the air and leach poisonous nitrates into nearby waters. The USDA estimates that livestock produces 500 million tons of manure annually—three times what humans produce.  Runoff laden with manure is a major cause of "dead zones” in 173,000 miles of US waterways,  including the 7,700-square-mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.  People living near CAFOs often have respiratory problems from hydrogen sulfide and ammonia air pollution. A peer-reviewed 2006 study of Iowa students near a CAFO found 19.7% had asthma - nearly three times the state average of 6.7%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Many animals raised for food in the United States are not slaughtered humanely. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) mandates that livestock be stunned unconscious before slaughter to minimize suffering.  However, birds such as chickens and turkey are exempted from the HMSA, and many US slaughterhouses routinely ignore the HMSA.  A 2010 report by the US Government Accountability Organization (GAO) found that the USDA was not "taking consistent actions to enforce the HMSA." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Raising animals in confinement is cruel. About 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs)  where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers.  Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are.  Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'A vegetarian diet reduces overuse of antibiotics. 70% of antibiotics sold in the United States go to livestock like cows, pigs, and chickens to prevent the spread of disease in CAFOs where animals live cramped together.  A peer-reviewed 2007 study from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences found that overuse of antibiotics in CAFOs causes antibiotic resistant bacteria to develop, which may endanger human health. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 13, description: 'Eating fish is not more ethical, environmentally sound, or healthful than eating other animal protein sources. The US EPA states that "nearly all fish and shellfish" are contaminated by methylmercury (a potent neurotoxin) from industrial pollution.   The omega-3 acid ALA found in vegetarian sources like walnut, flax, and olive oils, is converted by the body into EPA and DHA—the essential omega-3 acids found in fish—and sufficient to meet the dietary needs of humans.  In addition, scientific studies show fish feel pain when they are injured,  and wild fish are severely impacted by overfishing. According to a peer-reviewed 2006 study published in Science, 29% of all commercially fished species have suffered population collapse, and at current fishing levels all harvested species will have collapsed by 2048. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life. Vegetarians mistakenly elevate the value of animal life over plant life. Research shows that plants respond electrochemically to threats and may feel fear,  so vegetarians are also causing harm every time they kill and eat a plant. Every organism on earth dies or is killed, at some point, so others organisms can live. There is nothing wrong with this cycle; it is how nature works.')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Eating meat has been an essential part of human evolution for 2.3 million years.  The inclusion of meat in the ancestral diet provided a dense form of nutrients and protein that, when combined with high-calorie low-nutrient carbohydrates such as roots, allowed us to develop our large brains and intelligence.  Evidence shows our taste buds evolved to crave meat\'s savory flavor. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Meat is the most convenient protein source available. In one serving, meat provides all the essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein), as well as essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, and B vitamins.  Most plant foods do not provide adequate levels of all the essential amino acids in a single serving.')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Eating meat provides healthy saturated fats, which enhance the function of the immune and nervous systems. Saturated fats contain the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K,  and the cholesterol from saturated animal fat is needed for the proper function of serotonin receptors in the brain. According to a Feb. 7, 2014 study by researchers at the Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, vegetarians "suffer significantly more often from anxiety disorder and/or depression."  Low cholesterol levels have been linked to depression. Saturated fats are also essential for building and maintaining cell health, and help the body absorb calcium. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Meat is the best source of vitamin B12, a vitamin necessary to nervous and digestive system health. Although it is also found in eggs and dairy,  a peer-reviewed July 2003 study showed two in three vegetarians were vitamin B12 deficient compared to one in 20 meat eaters. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Eating meat provides a better source of iron than a vegetarian diet. The body absorbs 15% to 35% of the heme iron in meat, but only absorbs 2% to 20% of the non-heme iron found in vegetarian sources like leafy greens and beans. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'A meat-centered diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options. One serving of lean beef (3 oz.) contains as much protein as one serving of beans (1½ cups) or a veggie burger. However, the lean beef has half the calories of beans (180 vs. 374), and 50%-75% fewer calories than the veggie burger.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Raising beef is often the most efficient way to produce food for humans. About 85% of US grazing land is not suitable for raising crops humans can eat.  Today 98% of the original American prairie lands, along with their native plants and animals, are gone.  Most of that land is now covered in corn and wheat fields. Natural prairie grasslands can coexist with sustainable herds of cattle or bison, but they cannot coexist with monocrop agriculture.')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Vegetarian diets are not necessarily better for the environment. About 90% of US cropland suffers from top soil loss at 13 times the sustainable rate.  92% of US soybeans (a vegetarian staple protein) are planted with genetically modified soy, immune to herbicides.  This immunity allows soy farmers to douse their fields with large quantities of weed-killing herbicides which are toxic to other plants and fish. Some scientists worry that increased herbicide use could create "super weeds." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Vegetarians do not live longer. This myth stems from the fact that vegetarians tend to be more health conscious overall, eating a more balanced diet, exercising more, and smoking less than the general population. When a peer-reviewed Apr. 11, 2005 study from the German Cancer Research Center compared health conscious meat eaters with vegetarians, there was no difference in overall mortality rates. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'US meat consumption does not significantly contribute to global deforestation, or loss of US forest land. In 2001 about 95%  of animal products consumed in the United States were produced in the United States. Despite the US consumption of about 27 billion pounds of beef per year,  the percentage of forested US land has remained steady at around 33% since 1907. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Processed vegetarian protein options such as tofu can cause more greenhouse gas pollution than farming meat. A 2010 report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) found that the production of soy-based proteins such as tofu could contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than eating locally produced meat.  According to a peer-reviewed 2009 study, giving up all animal products would only give a 7% reduction in green house gas emissions,  not enough to be worth the dietary sacrifice.')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Becoming vegetarian will not help alleviate world hunger. The 925 million  people in chronic hunger worldwide are not hungry because people in wealthy countries eat too much meat. The problem is one of economics and distribution. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the world "currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'A diet that includes fish provides the body with essential omega-3 fatty acids. Fish are a powerful source of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA which are important for brain function, lowering triglycerides, and reducing the risk of death from heart attacks and strokes.  Although the omega-3 fatty acid ALA can be found in plant oils, the ALA must first be converted by the body into the essential EPA and DHA. The process is inefficient and may not provide the same cardiovascular benefits as eating fish. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Saturated fats from meat are not to blame for modern diseases like heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Chemically processed and hydrogenated vegetable oils like corn and canola cause these conditions because they contain harmful free radicals and trans fats formed during chemical processing.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Lean red meat, eaten in moderation, can be a healthful part of a balanced diet. According to researchers at the British Nutrition Foundation, "there is no evidence" that moderate consumption of unprocessed lean red meat has any negative health effects.  However, charring meat during cooking can create over 20 chemicals linked to cancer,  and the World Cancer Research Fund finds that processed meats like bacon, sausage, and salami, which contain preservatives such as nitrates, are strongly associated with bowel cancer and should be avoided. They emphasize that lean, unprocessed red meat can be a valuable source of nutrients and do not recommend that people remove red meat from their diets entirely, but rather, that they limit consumption to 11 ounces per week or less. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Modern slaughter techniques minimize the suffering of animals. US slaughterhouses must conform to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) which mandates that livestock be stunned unconscious before slaughter.  Many of the largest US meat producers also adhere to the handling standards developed by Dr. Temple Grandin   which factor in animal psychology to design transportation devices, stockyards, loading ramps, and restraining systems that minimize stress and calm animals as they are led to slaughter. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'There is nothing inherently cruel about raising animals for food. There is a growing movement to raise "cruelty free" organic meat. In the United States, animals raised for certified organic meat must be given access to the outdoors, clean air, and water. They cannot be given growth hormones or antibiotics and must be fed organically-grown feed free of animal byproducts.  According to a 2007 report from the Range Improvement Task Force, organic meat accounted for 3% of total US meat production.  By the end of 2012 "natural and organic" beef accounted for 4% of total beef sales in the United States. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'The right to eat what we want, including meat, is a fundamental liberty that we must defend. Animal-rights and health groups are attempting to control personal behavior, and many would like to see meat consumption severely restricted—if not outlawed—through the use of lawsuits, heavy taxation, and government regulations.  What people eat should be a protected personal choice.')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'It is not necessary to become vegetarian to lower our environmental footprint. Some vegetarians eat an unhealthy diet, drive SUVs, and consume eggs and dairy products produced at factory farms (CAFOs). Some meat eaters use solar panels, ride a bike, grow their own vegetables, and eat free-range organic meat. All of a person\'s actions make a difference—not just a single act such as eating meat. For example, biking instead of driving for 5 miles can neutralize the greenhouse gas emissions from eating one quarter-pound hamburger patty. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 14, description: 'Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals too. According to a 2003 study by Steven Davis at Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, or 52-77% of the animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields, are killed during harvest. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Is obesity a disease?', position_one: 15, position_two: 16)
Reason.create(position_id: 15, description: 'Obesity meets the definition of disease. The American Medical Association\'s 2013 "Council on Science and Public Health Report" identified three criteria to define disease: 1. "an impairment of the normal functioning of some aspect of the body;" 2. "characteristic signs and symptoms;" and 3. "harm or morbidity."  Obesity causes impairment, has characteristic signs and symptoms, and increases harm and morbidity. Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, Director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness and Preventative Medicine Physician at Johns Hopkins University, stated obesity "satisfies all the definitions and criteria of what a disease and medical condition is... The one difference is that people who have obesity have to wear their disease on the outside." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 15, description: 'Obesity, like other diseases, impairs the normal functioning of the body. People who are obese have excess adipose (or fat) tissue that causes the overproduction of leptin (a molecule that regulates food intake and energy expenditure) and other food intake and energy mediators in the body, which leads to abnormal regulation of food intake and energy expenditure.  Obesity can impair normal mobility and range of motion in knees and hips, and obese patients make up 33% of all joint replacement operations.  Obesity is also linked to reproductive impairment, contributing to sexual dysfunction in both sexes, infertility and risk of miscarriage in women, and lower sperm counts in men. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 15, description: 'Obesity decreases a person\'s life expectancy and can cause death, like other diseases. Obesity in adults can lead to three years\' loss of life. Extreme obesity can shorten a person\'s life span by 10 years.  A July 13, 2016 Lancet meta-study found that even moderate obesity led to an increased chance of early death: 29.5% for men (compared to 19% for men of normal BMI weight) and 14.6% for women (compared to 11%). The authors calculated that one in five premature deaths in North America could be avoided if obese people were normal BMI weights.  The Surgeon General reports an estimated 300,000 deaths per year may be attributed to obesity.  People who are obese have a 50-100% increased risk of death from all causes. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 15, description: 'Obesity can be a genetic disorder such as sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs, which are classified as diseases. Researchers have identified 79 genetic syndromes associated with obesity.  Studies have shown that obesity can be inherited like height.  Genetic disposition plays a large role in determining if a person will be obese.  A May 2014 study published in the Journal of Molecular Psychology linked higher rates of obesity to the "fat mass and obesity association" (FTO) gene.  The FTO gene reportedly lowers activity in the part of the brain that "controls impulses and the response to the taste and texture of food," so people with the gene are more likely to eat more fatty foods and eat more impulsively as they age.  A 1990 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on body mass in twins not raised in the same home concluded, "genetic influences on body-mass index are substantial, whereas the childhood environment has little or no influence."  In addition to genetic predisposition, almost 10% of morbidly obese people have defects in the genes that regulate food intake, metabolism, and weight. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 15, description: 'Government entities and major medical groups recognize obesity as a disease. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Obesity Society, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) have identified obesity as a disease.  Even the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recognizes obesity as a disease so weight loss expenses may be counted as a medical deduction from taxes.  On June 18, 2013, the American Medical Association recognized obesity as "a disease requiring a range of medical interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 15, description: 'Physicians from as early as the 17th century have referenced obesity as a disease. English physician Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689) wrote, "Corpulency [obesity] may be ranked amongst the diseases arising from original imperfections in the functions of some of the organs."  William Wadd, a 19th century British surgeon and medical author, wrote, "when in excess--amounting to what may be termed OBESITY--[fat] is not only in itself a disease, but may be the cause of many fatal effects, particularly in acute disorders."  In the Feb. 12, 1825 issue of The Medical Advisor and Guide to Health and Long Life, Robert Thomas, a 19th century doctor, wrote "Corpulence, when it arrives at a certain height, becomes an absolute disease." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 16, description: 'Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions.  Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer.  For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 16, description: 'Obesity is a side effect, not a disease. Obesity can be caused by hypothyroidism, Cushing\'s syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, polycystic ovary syndrome, arthritis, increased insulin levels (from carbohydrate-heavy diets or diabetes treatments) and depression.  Certain drugs like antidepressants, anti-seizure medications, diabetes medications, anti-psychotic medications, antihistamines, anticonvulsants, steroids, beta blockers, and contraceptives can cause obesity.  Obesity can also be caused by lack of sleep (or sleep debt), ingesting endocrine disrupters (such as BPA, DDT, and phthalates), consuming high-fructose corn syrup, a lack of temperature variation (due to air conditioners and heaters), and quitting smoking. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 16, description: 'Many obese people live long, healthy lives. A 2013 Lancet article noted that as many as one third of obese people are "healthy obese," meaning that despite being significantly overweight they have normal cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and no sign of diabetes.  Obese people tend to go to the doctor more and have regular checks for other risk factors and diseases.  Many people with a BMI (Body Mass Index; a measure of body fat based on height and weight) in the obesity range are not physically impaired and live normal lives. BMI does not take into account the overall health of the individual and can identify fit, muscular people as obese because muscle weighs more than fat. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 16, description: 'Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men.  In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation).  The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal.  The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity.  The Mayo Clinic states, "Having a diet that\'s high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 16, description: 'Obesity is the result of sedentary lifestyles. Compared to 40 years ago, people today spend more time commuting, sitting in front of a computer, watching television, playing video games, and generally exercising less.  In 1960 50% of jobs required moderate physical activity compared to just 20% of jobs in 2011; the other 80% in 2011 required little or no physical activity.  This shift represents 120-140 fewer calories burned per day, which closely aligns with the nation\'s overall weight gain trends.  Men expended 142 fewer calories daily and weighed 32.8 pounds more in 2003-2006 than in 1960-1962, while women expended 124 fewer calories daily and weighed 25.13 pounds more in 2003-2006 than in 1960-1962. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?', position_one: 17, position_two: 18)
Tag.create(topic_id: 9, name: 'america')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'The founding documents of the United States provide support for a right to health care. The Declaration of Independence states that all men have "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"  which necessarily entails having the health care needed to preserve life and pursue happiness. The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to "promote the general welfare" of the people.  According to former Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), as part of efforts to "promote the general welfare," health care "is a legitimate function of government." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'Instituting a right to health care could lower the cost of health care in the United States. According to a 2013 study, under a single-payer system, in which all citizens are guaranteed a right to health care, total public and private health care spending could be lowered by $592 billion in 2014 and up to $1.8 trillion over the next decade due to lowered administrative and prescription drug costs.  According to the American Medical Association, on average, private health insurance plans spend 11.7% of premiums on administrative costs vs. 6.3% spent by public health programs.  According to a study in the American Journal of Public Health, Canada, a country that provides a universal right to health care, spends half as much per capita on health care as the United States.  In 2010 the United Kingdom, another country with a right to health care, managed to provide health care to all citizens while spending just 41.5% of what the United States did per capita. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'A right to health care could save lives. According to a 2009 study from Harvard researchers, "lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year," which translates into a 40% increased risk of death among the uninsured.  Another study found that more than 13,000 deaths occur each year just in the 55-64 year old age group due to lack of health insurance coverage.  In addition, a 2011 Commonweath Fund study found that due to a lack of timely and effective health care, the United States ranked at the bottom of a list of 16 rich nations in terms of preventable mortality.  In Italy, Spain, France, Australia, Israel, and Norway, all countries with a right to health care, people live two to three years longer than people in the United States. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: '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, "[r]ight-to-health features are not just good management, justice, or humanitarianism, they are obligations under human-rights law."  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.  As of 2013 over half of the world\'s countries had a right to health care in their national constitutions. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'A right to health care could make medical services affordable for everyone. According to a 2012 study from Consumer Reports, paying for health care is the top financial problem for US households.  According to a peer-reviewed study in Health Affairs, between 2003 and 2013, the cost of family health insurance premiums has increased 80% in the United States.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 26% of Americans report that they or a family member had trouble paying for medical bills in 2012, and 58% reported that they delayed or did not seek medical care due to cost.  According to one estimate of a proposed bill to implement a single-payer health care system in the United States (HR 676), 95% of US households would save money  and every individual in the United States would receive guaranteed access to publically financed medical care. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'Providing all citizens the right to health care is good for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier lives and miss work less, allowing them to contribute more to the economy. A Mar. 2012 study by researchers at the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania showed that workers with health insurance miss an average of 4.7 fewer work days than employees without health insurance.  According to an Institute of Medicine report, the US economy loses $65-$130 billion annually as a result of diminished worker productivity, due to poor health and premature deaths, among the uninsured.  In a Jan. 14, 2014 speech, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim stated that all nations should provide a right to health care "to help foster economic growth." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'A right to health care could improve public health. According to a 2012 study in the Lancet that looked at data from over 100 countries, "evidence suggests that broader health coverage generally leads to better access to necessary care and improved population health, particularly for poor people.”  In the United States, people are 33% less likely to have a regular doctor, 25% more likely to have unmet health needs, and over 50% more likely to not obtain needed medicines compared to their Canadian counterparts who have a universal right to healthcare.  According to a 2008 peer-reviewed study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, there were 11.4 million uninsured working-age Americans with chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, and their lack of insurance was associated with less access to care, early disability, and even death. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'Because the United States is a very wealthy country, it should provide health care for all its citizens. Many European countries with a universal right to health care, such as Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy, have a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita than the United States,  yet they provide a right to health care for all their citizens. As of 2012, 47.9 million people (15.4% of the US population) did not have health insurance  and, according to a June 2013 study, even with the Obamacare reforms as many as 31 million people will still be uninsured in 2016.  The United States spent $8,508 per person on health care in 2011, over 2.5 times the average spent by member countries of the OECD ($3,322 per person).  With that level of spending, the United States should be able to provide a right to healthcare to everyone.')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'Providing a right to health care could benefit private businesses. If the United States implemented a universal right to health care, businesses would no longer have to pay for employee health insurance policies. As of 2011, 59.5% of Americans were receiving health insurance through their employer.  According to the Council on Foreign Relations, some economists believe the high costs of employee health insurance place US companies at a "competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace."  According to the Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare, a right to healthcare under a single-payer-system could reduce employer labor costs by 10-12%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'A right to health care could encourage entrepreneurship. Many people are afraid to start their own businesses for fear of losing the health insurance provided at their existing jobs. The Kauffman-RAND Institute for Entrepreneurship Public Policy estimated that a 33% increase in new US businesses may result from the increased access to health insurance through the Obamacare health insurance exchanges.  A 2001 study found that providing universal health care in the United States could increase self-employment by 2 to 3.5 percent. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'A right to health care could stop medical bankruptcies. 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.  In 2010, there were 30 million Americans who were contacted by a collection agency about a medical bill.  If all US citizens were provided health care under a single-payer system medical bankruptcy would no longer exist, because the government, not private citizens, would pay all medical bills.')
Reason.create(position_id: 17, description: 'A right to health care is a necessary foundation of a just society. The United States already provides free public education, public law enforcement, public road maintenance, and other public services to its citizens to promote a just society that is fair to everyone. Health care should be added to this list. Late US Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote that providing a right to health care "goes to the heart of my belief in a just society."  According to Norman Daniels, PhD, Professor of Ethics and Population Health at Harvard University, "healthcare preserves for people the ability to participate in the political, social, and economic life of society. It sustains them as fully participating citizens." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'The founding documents of the United States do not provide support for a right to health care. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say there is a right to health care.  The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to "promote the general welfare," not to provide it. The Bill of Rights lists a number of personal freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon, not material goods or services that the government must provide.  According to former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), "you have a right to your life and you have a right to your liberty and you have a right to keep what you earn in a free country... You do not have the right to services or things." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'A right to health care could increase the US debt and deficit. Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children\'s Health Insurance Program, all government programs that provide a right to health care for certain segments of the population, totaled less than 10% of the federal budget in 1985, but by 2012 these programs took up 21% of the federal budget.  According to US House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), government health care programs are "driving the explosive growth in our spending and our debt."  Studies have concluded that the expansion of insurance coverage under Obamacare will increase the federal deficit by $340-$700 billion in the first 10 years,  and could increase the deficit to $1.5 trillion in the second 10 years.  Even with these expenditures, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates Obamacare will leave 30 million people without health insurance.  If everyone in the US were covered under a universal right to health care, the increase in the federal deficit could be even larger than under Obamacare.')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'A right to health care could increase the wait time for medical services. Medicaid is an example of a federally funded single-payer health care system that provides a right to health care for low-income people. According to a 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, 9.4% of Medicaid beneficiaries had trouble obtaining necessary care due to long wait times, versus 4.2% of people with private health insurance.  Countries with a universal right to health care have longer wait times than in the United States. In 2013 the average wait time to see a specialist in Canada was 8.6 weeks,  versus 18.5 days in the United States in 2014.  In the United States, fewer than 10% of patients wait more than two months to see a specialist versus 41% in Canada, 34% in Norway, 31% in Sweden, and 28% in France – all countries that have some form of a universal right to health care. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'Implementing a right to health care could lead the United States towards socialism. Socialism, by definition, entails government control of the distribution of goods and services.  Under a single-payer system where everyone has a right to health care, and all health care bills are paid by the government, the government can control the distribution of health care services. According to Ronald Reagan, "one of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine," and once socialized medicine is instituted, "behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom."  In Aug. 2013, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was asked if Obamacare is a step towards a single-payer universal health care system, he answered "absolutely, yes."  The free market should determine the availability and cost of health care services, not the federal government. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'Providing a right to health care could raise taxes. In European countries with a universal right to health care, the cost of coverage is paid through higher taxes. In the United Kingdom and other European countries, payroll taxes average 37% - much higher than the 15.3% payroll taxes paid by the average US worker.  According to Paul R. Gregory, PhD, a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, financing a universal right to health care in the United States would cause payroll taxes to double. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'Providing a right to health care could create a doctor shortage. The Association of American Medical Colleges predicts a shortfall of 63,000 doctors by 2015 due to the influx of new patients under Obamacare.  If a right to health care were guaranteed to all, this shortage could be much worse. In the United Kingdom, which has a right to health care, a 2002 study by the British National Health Service found that it was "critically short of doctors and nurses."  As of 2013 the United Kingdom had 2.71 practicing doctors for every 1,000 people – the second lowest level of the 27 European nations. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'A right to health care could lead to government rationing of medical services. Countries with universal health care, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand,  and the United Kingdom,  all ration health care using methods such as controlled distribution, budgeting, price setting, and service restrictions.  In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) rations health care using a cost-benefit analysis. For example, in 2008 any drug that provided an extra six months of "good-quality" life for £10,000 ($15,150) or less was automatically approved, while one that costs more might not be.  In order to expand health coverage to more Americans, Obamacare created an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to make cost-benefit analyses to keep Medicare spending from growing too fast. According to Sally Pipes, President of the Pacific Research Institute, the IPAB "is essentially charged with rationing care."  According to a 2009 Wall Street Journal editorial, "once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'A right to health care could lower the quality and availability of disease screening and treatment. In countries with a universal right to health care certain disease treatment outcomes are worse than the United States. The US 5-year survival rate for all cancers is 64.6%, compared to 51.6% in Europe.  The United States also has a higher 5-year survival rate than Canada.  Studies have found that US cancer screening rates are higher than those in Canada  and 10 European countries with universal health care including France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland.  The United States is estimated to have the highest prostate and breast cancer survival rates in the world.  The United States also has high survival rates after a stroke, with an age-adjusted 30-day fatality rate of 3 per 100, lower than the OECD average of 5.2 per 100. In addition, the 30-day survival rate after a heart attack is higher in the United States than the OECD average. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'A right to health care could lower doctors\' earnings. The Medicare system in the United States is a single-payer system where government pays for health care bills, and between 1998 and 2009 it reduced physician payments in three different years. In 2009, Medicare payments to health care providers were almost 20% below those paid out by private insurance.  In Britain and Canada, where there is a universal right to health care, physicians have incomes 30% lower than US doctors.  According to a 2011 study, in comparison to US specialists, the average specialist in Canada earned 30% less, and the average specialist in the United Kingdom earned 50% less.  Any lowering of doctor payments in the United States could reduce the number of young people entering the medical profession, leading to a doctor shortage.')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'A right to health care could cause people to overuse health care resources. When people are provided with universal health care and are not directly responsible for the costs of medical services, they may utilize more health resources than necessary, a phenomenon known as "moral hazard."  According to the Brookings Institution, just before Medicaid went into effect in 1964, people living below the poverty line saw physicians 20% less often than those who were not in poverty. But by 1975, people living in poverty who were placed on Medicaid saw physicians 18% more often than people who were not on Medicaid.  A Jan. 2014 study published in Science found that of 10,000 uninsured Portland, Oregon residents who gained access to Medicaid, 40% made more visits to emergency rooms,  even though they, like all US residents, already had guaranteed access to emergency treatment under federal law.  Since Medicaid provides a right to health care for low-income individuals, expanding this right to the full US population could worsen the problem of overusing health care resources.')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'The majority of Americans do not believe there should be a right to health care. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 56% of Americans do not believe that it is the "responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage." In 2012, Gallup found that 54% of Americans opposed the idea of federally-financed universal health coverage. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 18, description: 'People should pay for their own health care, not have it given to them by the government. Under a single-payer system, the right to health care is paid for through taxes, and people who work hard and pay those taxes are forced to subsidize health care for those who are not employed. In the United States, people already have a right to purchase health care, but they should never have a right to receive health care free of charge. Health care is a service that should be paid for, not a right.')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?', position_one: 19, position_two: 20)
Reason.create(position_id: 19, description: 'Direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads encourage people to seek medical advice from health professionals. 64% of physicians surveyed in Apr. 2013 agreed that DTC ads encourage patients to contact a health professional.  A 2010 Prevention Magazine survey reported that 29 million patients talked to their doctors about a medical condition after seeing DTC prescription drug ads and most discussed behavioral and lifestyle changes; over half of those patients received non-prescription or generic drugs rather than the brand-name prescription drug seen in the ad, meaning that talking to the doctor was the real benefit.  Patients with lower incomes and education levels who are less likely to seek medical care in general were more likely to see a doctor after seeing DTC prescription drug ads.  A 2005 Journal of Family Practice article found that 83% of prescription drug print ads focused on patient-physician communication and 76% promoted dialogue with health care professionals.  According to a 2004 FDA survey, 77% of people said DTC ads increased awareness of new drugs and 58% thought the ads gave enough information to help them decide whether to speak to a doctor.  73% of doctors thought patients asked thoughtful questions because of DTC ads and about 33% of patients thought of a question to ask their doctors as a result of a DTC drug ad. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 19, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads inform patients about diseases/medical conditions and possible treatments. 44% of patients responding to a 2007 survey published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research said DTC prescription drug ads helped educate them about drugs, medical conditions, and treatments.  An Apr. 2013 FDA survey found that 48% of doctors agree that DTC ads "inform, educate, and empower" patients.  The FDA requires that benefits and risks of drugs be included in ads to inform patients. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 19, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads encourage patient compliance with treatment instructions. 81% of doctors surveyed for a 2007 article published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research thought DTC prescription drug ads had a positive impact on patient compliance (taking drugs as directed).  The most compliant group of prescription drug takers were patients who requested a prescription as a result of having seen a DTC ad.  18% of people responding to a FDA survey said DTC ads reminded them to take their medications. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 19, description: 'Diseases and medical conditions are more likely to be treated when consumers see DTC prescription drug ads. According to a 2004 FDA survey, 88% of the physicians who had patients ask about drugs seen in DTC ads reported that the patients had the conditions the drugs treat and were thus able to get treatment.  For example, Procrit is a drug used to counteract anemia and can be used to help chemotherapy patients with fatigue. Prior to an ad campaign for the drug, it was rarely prescribed because chemotherapy patients were not reporting fatigue caused by the chemotherapy to their doctors. After seeing the ad, however, patients reported fatigue and could be appropriately diagnosed.  In 2007 the FDA approved a drug for fibromyalgia, a condition that previously had no drug treatment, so patients with the condition were made aware of a possible treatment through DTC prescription drug ads and could speak to their doctors in order to receive treatment. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 19, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads help remove the stigma associated with certain diseases and medical conditions. According to a 2013 CMI/Compass survey, 52% of physicians agree that DTC ads help remove stigma associated with health conditions.  The removal of stigma makes it easier for patients to acknowledge their health issues and feel comfortable discussing their health problems with physicians and others.  The advertisements for Viagra, for example, have made male sexual dysfunction and treatment commonplace.  Ads for drugs treating mental illnesses like depression has contributed to de-stigmatizing those conditions, which have helped patients get treatment. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 19, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads create revenue for drug companies, which can be used for research & development (R&D) to create new life-changing drugs. Drug development is expensive so pharmaceutical companies need to recoup that expense through advertising. For every $1 spent on DTC ads, sales of prescription drugs rose by $4.20.  In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent $3.1 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising.  On average, drug development for a single drug costs at least $4 billion and as much as $11 billion.  Drug companies that develop new drugs have a period of market exclusivity before generic drugs can be made by any company.  Revenue is needed to recoup R&D costs before generic drugs enter the marketplace and lower the prescription drugs’ retail prices.')
Reason.create(position_id: 19, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads should be allowed as protected free speech. Doctors, hospitals, medical device makers, insurance companies and all types of health care-related companies can advertise their products. Prescriptions drug companies should be allowed to advertise their legal, FDA-approved, life-improving products too. Uwe Reinhardt, PhD, Professor of Political Economy, Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, in an Oct. 9, 2002 interview with Frontline, stated: "There is the First Amendment. You make new products. Why can\'t you tell people about it? Why should that industry be forbidden to do it, when the auto industry can advertise SUVs? Right? You can ask yourself."  In 1975 in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., the US Supreme Court (7-1) found that "a State may not suppress the dissemination of concededly truthful information about entirely lawful activity, fearful of the information\'s effect upon it disseminators and its recipients" when considering whether Virginia could prevent prices from being included in DTC prescription drug ads. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 20, description: 'Direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug ads misinform patients. 63% of physicians surveyed in Apr. 2013 believed DTC prescription drug ads misinformed patients and 74% of physicians believed DTC prescription drug ads overemphasized the benefits of the drugs, resulting in misinformed patients.  According to a study published in the Sep. 2013 issue of Journal of General Internal Medicine, 60% of claims made in DTC prescription drug ads aired from 2008 to 2010 "left out important information, exaggerated information, provided opinions, or made meaningless associations with lifestyles.”  The study found 43% of the claims in DTC drug ads were "objectively true” while 55% were "potentially misleading” and 2% were "false.”  DTC prescription drug ads are often above the recommended 8th grade reading level for mass-distributed information, meaning a lot of consumers cannot understand the information presented.  Most DTC prescription drug ads spend more time on benefits than negative side effects.  84% of regulatory letters sent by the FDA from 1997 to 2006 cited ads for minimizing risks and/or exaggerating effectiveness of drugs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 20, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads promote drugs before long-term safety information is known. According to an Apr. 2013 survey, 68% of doctors agree that prescription drugs are marketed before safety profiles can be known.  Although the FDA does not approve ads before they air on TV or radio, 50% of consumers surveyed thought DTC prescription drug ads were approved by the government.  43% of consumers surveyed thought the drug had to be 100% safe before being advertised but not all drugs have completed long-term safety trials before advertising begins. Vioxx was advertised, requested by patients, and prescribed from 1999 to 2004 for arthritis and pain relief before being withdrawn from the market for causing strokes and heart attacks.  Vioxx was listed as the primary suspected cause of death in 4,540 mortalities from Jan. 1, 1999 to June 30, 2005.  Other drugs like Bextra (for arthritis), Quaalude (a sleeping aid), Cylert (for ADHD), Darvon (for pain relief), and Zelnorm (for irritable bowel syndrome) have been taken off the market for safety concerns after being advertised to the public.  Between the 1970s and 2014, at least 35 drugs were pulled from the market, most for safety concerns. A Sep. 2006 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report recommended that DTC advertising be banned for new drugs for two years. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 20, description: 'Normal conditions and bodily functions are medicalized and stigmatized by DTC prescription drug ads. DTC prescription drug ads tell consumers that normal attributes, such as thinner eyelashes, or normal aging processes, such as lower testosterone levels and wrinkles, are medical conditions that need to be remedied with drugs. DTC ads create the idea that normal conditions are "bad," resulting in the stigmatization of non-problematic conditions. Botox is promoted to treat wrinkles and Latisse is advertised for thin eyelashes while AndroGel is marketed for "LowT” or low testosterone resulting in erectile dysfunction and other conditions.  Ads for "Low T” drugs include statements like, "Some men may think loss of energy is just a part of aging. However, low energy may not just be a sign of getting older—it may also be a symptom of Low T.” ')
Reason.create(position_id: 20, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads encourage over-medication. 81% of doctors surveyed in 2013 say that DTC prescription drug advertising promotes drug overutilization.  DTC prescription drug ads tend to emphasize that drugs (vs. diet or exercise) are needed to improve health.  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) medication is prescribed about 25 times more frequently in the United States than in the United Kingdom, which does not allow DTC prescription drug ads.  From 1996 to 2005, the pharmaceutical industry tripled spending on marketing for psychotropic drugs, including a 500% increase in DTC ads.  Americans\' use of psychotropic drugs, such as Prozac (an antidepressant) and Lunesta (a sleep aid), increased 22% from 2001 to 2010, resulting in one in five adults taking at least one psychotropic drug.  Steven Holton, PhD, a psychology professor at Vanderbilt University, states "I would say at least half the folks who are being treated with antidepressants aren\'t benefitting from the active pharmacological effects of the drugs themselves but from a placebo effect." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 20, description: 'Health care professionals may feel pressured by DTC prescription drug ads to prescribe drugs that may not be in the best interest of the patient. 94% of oncology nurse practitioners surveyed for an article published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology had a patient request an advertised drug, 74% had a patient request an inappropriate drug, and 43% responded that they felt pressured to prescribe the inappropriate drug.  Over half of requests for prescription drugs seen in DTC ads were honored by doctors.  Kurt C. Stange, PhD, Professor of family medicine and community health at Case Western Reserve University, states, "Consumer advertising, delivered to the masses as a shotgun blast, rather than as specific information to concerned patients or caregivers [from healthcare professionals], results in more prescriptions and less appropriate prescribing.” ')
Reason.create(position_id: 20, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads weaken relationships between patients and healthcare providers. 80% of doctors surveyed in Apr. 2013 thought DTC prescription drug ads weakened doctor-patient relationships.  Patients who are convinced that an advertised drug will solve their problems often mistrust a doctor’s advice if the doctor suggests an alternate solution.  After being denied the requested drug, almost 50% of patients surveyed were disappointed with their doctors, 25% responded that they would try to convince the doctor to prescribe the desired medication or obtain the drug somewhere else, and 15% said they would change doctors.  If a patient is denied a requested drug, the patient may stop thinking about the doctor as a learned intermediary and ignore important information from the doctor. Many doctors complain that it takes a lot of appointment time to explain to a patient why a specific drug may not be the best or most appropriate option instead of spending that time discussing appropriate treatment options, tests and screenings, and lifestyle changes. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 20, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads increase health care costs. 78% of doctors surveyed in 2013 agreed that DTC prescription drug ads increased the cost of healthcare.  37% of doctors surveyed said they often or sometimes prescribed brand name drugs because the patient requested the brand name drug rather than prescribe the equivalent and cheaper generic drug.  Brand name drugs cost 30 to 80% more than generic drugs.  Because generic drugs are not advertised and do not require R&D budgets to develop, they are cheaper than brand-name drugs. According to a Nov. 23, 2009 study published in Archives of Internal Medicine, the cost of Plavix increased (as did the amount of Medicaid funds spent for Plavix in pharmacies) due to the need to recoup the high costs of DTC drug advertising. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 20, description: 'DTC prescription drug ads are banned in every country but the United States and New Zealand. All other countries ban all forms of DTC prescription drug ads (except Canada, which allows limited forms of reminder ads). The United States is 5% of the world’s population but accounts for 42% of global prescription drug spending.  The World Health Organization (WHO) stated in 2000, "Advertisements to the general public should... not generally be permitted for prescription drugs," and in 2007 the WHO group on DTC prescription drug ads "made a unanimous recommendation to prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America?', position_one: 21, position_two: 22)
Tag.create(topic_id: 11, name: 'america')
Tag.create(topic_id: 11, name: 'education')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: '93% of studies on student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, found a "positive effect" on student achievement, according to a peer-reviewed, 100-year analysis of testing research completed in 2011 by testing scholar Richard P. Phelps. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Standardized tests are reliable and objective measures of student achievement. Without them, policy makers would have to rely on tests scored by individual schools and teachers who have a vested interest in producing favorable results. Multiple-choice tests, in particular, are graded by machine and therefore are not subject to human subjectivity or bias. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: '20 school systems that "have achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains" on national and international assessments used "proficiency targets for each school" and "frequent, standardized testing to monitor system progress," according to a Nov. 2010 report by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students. Former Washington, DC, schools chancellor Michelle Rhee argues that using alternate tests for minorities or exempting children with disabilities would be unfair to those students: "You can\'t separate them, and to try to do so creates two, unequal systems, one with accountability and one without it. This is a civil rights issue." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'China has a long tradition of standardized testing and leads the world in educational achievement. China displaced Finland as number one in reading, math, and science when Shanghai debuted on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings in 2009.  Despite calls for a reduction in standardized testing, China\'s testing regimen remains firmly in place.  Chester E. Finn, Jr., Chairman of the Hoover Institution\'s Koret Task Force on K–12 Education, predicts that Chinese cities will top the PISA charts for the next several decades. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: '"Teaching to the test" can be a good thing because it focuses on essential content and skills, eliminates time-wasting activities that don\'t produce learning gains, and motivates students to excel.  The US Department of Education stated in Nov. 2004 that "if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested--and probably much more." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Standardized tests are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives, teachers in four Minnesota school districts said standardized testing had a positive impact, improving the quality of the curriculum while raising student achievement. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Increased testing does not force teachers to encourage "drill n\' kill" rote learning. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives, good teachers understand that "isolated drills on the types of items expected on the test" are unacceptable, and principals interviewed said "they would sanction any teacher caught teaching to the test."  In any case, research has shown that drilling students does not produce test score gains: "teaching a curriculum aligned to state standards and using test data as feedback produces higher test scores than an instructional emphasis on memorization and test-taking skills." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Most parents approve of standardized tests. A June-July 2013 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 75% of parents say standardized tests "are a solid measure of their children\'s abilities" and 69% say the tests "are a good measure of the schools\' quality." 93% of parents say standardized tests "should be used to identify areas where students need extra help" and 61% say their children "take an appropriate number of standardized tests." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Testing is not too stressful for students. The US Department of Education stated: "Although testing may be stressful for some students, testing is a normal and expected way of assessing what students have learned."  A Nov. 2001 University of Arkansas study found that "the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudes towards standardized testing programs."  Young students vomit at their desks for a variety of reasons, but only in rare cases is this the result of testing anxiety. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Most students believe standardized tests are fair. A June 2006 Public Agenda survey of 1,342 public school students in grades 6-12 found that 71% of students think the number of tests they have to take is "about right" and 79% believe test questions are fair.  The 2002 edition of the survey found that "virtually all students say they take the tests seriously and more than half (56 percent) say they take them very seriously." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Most teachers acknowledge the importance of standardized tests and do not feel their teaching has been compromised. In a 2009 Scholastic/Gates Foundation survey, 81% of US public school teachers said state-required standardized tests were at least "somewhat important” as a measure of students’ academic achievement, and 27% said they were "very important " or "absolutely essential."  73% of teachers surveyed in a Mar. 2002 Public Agenda study said they "have not neglected regular teaching duties for test preparation." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Standardized tests provide a lot of useful information at low cost, and consume little class time.  According to a 2002 paper by Caroline M. Hoxby, PhD, the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor in Economics at Stanford University, standardized tests cost less than 0.1% of K-12 education spending, totaling $5.81 per student per year: "Even if payments were 10 times as large, they would still not be equal to 1 percent of what American jurisdictions spend on education."  Other cost estimates range from $15-$33 per student per year by the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office (GAO), to as low as $2 per student per year by testing scholar and economist Richard P. Phelps.  A 50-item standardized test can be given in an hour  and is graded instantaneously by computer.')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Most teachers and administrators approve of standardized tests. Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests "by an overwhelming two-to-one margin," saying they "improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort."  An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA\'s Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'The multiple-choice format used on standardized tests produces accurate information necessary to assess and improve American schools. According to the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, multiple-choice questions can provide "highly reliable test scores" and an "objective measurement of student achievement."  Today\'s multiple-choice tests are more sophisticated than their predecessors. The Center for Public Education, a national public school advocacy group, says many "multiple-choice tests now require considerable thought, even notes and calculations, before choosing a bubble.” ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Stricter standards and increased testing are better preparing school students for college. In Jan. 1998, Public Agenda found that 66% of college professors said "elementary and high schools expect students to learn too little.” By Mar. 2002, after a surge in testing and the passing of NCLB, that figure dropped to 47% "in direct support of higher expectations, strengthened standards and better tests.”  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Teacher-graded assessments are inadequate alternatives to standardized tests because they are subjectively scored and unreliable. Most teachers are not trained in testing and measurement, and research has shown many teachers "consider noncognitive outcomes, including student class participation, perceived effort, progress over the period of the course, and comportment," which are irrelevant to subject-matter mastery. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Cheating by teachers and administrators on standardized tests is rare, and not a reason to stop testing America\'s children. The Mar. 2011 USA Today investigation of scoring anomalies in six states and Washington DC was inconclusive, and found compelling suggestions of impropriety in only one school.  The US Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General said on Jan. 7, 2013 that an investigation had found no evidence of widespread cheating on the DC Comprehensive Assessment System tests.  It is likely that some cheating occurs, but some people cheat on their tax returns also, and the solution is not to abolish taxation. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Each state\'s progress on NCLB tests can be meaningfully compared. Even though tests are developed by states independently, state scores are compared with results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), ensuring each state\'s assessments are equally challenging and that gains in a state\'s test scores are valid. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'State-mandated standardized tests help prevent "social promotion," the practice of allowing students to advance from grade to grade whether or not they have met the academic standards of their grade level.  A Dec. 2004 paper by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research found Florida\'s 2002 initiative to end social promotion, holding back students who failed year-end standardized tests, improved those students\' scores by 9% in math and 4% in reading after one year. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Many objections voiced by the anti-testing movement are really objections to NCLB\'s use of test results, not to standardized tests themselves. Prominent testing critic Diane Ravitch, Research Professor of Education at New York University, concedes standardized testing has value: "Testing... is not the problem... information derived from tests can be extremely valuable, if the tests are valid and reliable." She cites the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a positive example, and says tests can "inform educational leaders and policy-makers about the progress of the education system as a whole." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 21, description: 'Physicians, lawyers, real-estate brokers and pilots all take high-stakes standardized tests to ensure they have the necessary knowledge for their professions.  If standardized tests were an unreliable source of data, their use would not be so widespread.')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Standardized testing has not improved student achievement. After No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2002, the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading.    A May 26, 2011, National Research Council report found no evidence test-based incentive programs are working: "Despite using them for several decades, policymakers and educators do not yet know how to use test-based incentives to consistently generate positive effects on achievement and to improve education." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Standardized tests are an unreliable measure of student performance. A 2001 study published by the Brookings Institution found that 50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were temporary and "caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning..." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory against non English speakers and students with special needs.  English language learners take tests in English before they have mastered the language.  Special education students take the same tests as other children, receiving few of the accommodations usually provided to them as part of their Individualized Education Plans (IEP). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. According to late education researcher Gerald W. Bracey, PhD, qualities that standardized tests cannot measure include "creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance, reliability, enthusiasm, empathy, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: '"Teaching to the test" is replacing good teaching practices with "drill n\' kill" rote learning. A five-year University of Maryland study completed in 2007 found "the pressure teachers were feeling to \'teach to the test\'" since NCLB was leading to "declines in teaching higher-order thinking, in the amount of time spent on complex assignments, and in the actual amount of high cognitive content in the curriculum."  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'NCLB tests are drastically narrowing the curriculum. A national 2007 study by the Center on Education Policy reported that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math.  A 2007 survey of 1,250 civics, government, and social studies teachers showed that 75% of those teaching current events less often cited standardized tests as the reason. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Instruction time is being consumed by monotonous test preparation. Some schools allocate more than a quarter of the year\'s instruction to test prep. [Kozol] After New York City\'s reading and math scores plunged in 2010, many schools imposed extra measures to avoid being shut down, including daily two and a half hour prep sessions and test practice on vacation days.  On Sep. 11, 2002, students at Monterey High School in Lubbock, TX, were prevented from discussing the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks because they were too busy with standardized test preparation. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Standardized tests are not objective. A paper published in the Fall 2002 edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Resources stated that scores vary due to subjective decisions made during test design and administration: "Simply changing the relative weight of algebra and geometry in NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress) altered the gap between black and white students." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students. According to education researcher Gregory J. Cizek, anecdotes abound "illustrating how testing... produces gripping anxiety in even the brightest students, and makes young children vomit or cry, or both."  On Mar. 14, 2002, the Sacramento Bee reported that "test-related jitters, especially among young students, are so common that the Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Older students do not take NCLB-mandated standardized tests seriously because they do not affect their grades. An English teacher at New Mexico\'s Valley High School said in Aug. 2004 that many juniors just "had fun" with the tests, making patterns when filling in the answer bubbles: "Christmas tree designs were popular. So were battleships and hearts." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Testing is expensive and costs have increased since NCLB, placing a burden on state education budgets. According to the Texas Education Agency, the state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students, while the cost to Texas taxpayers from 2009 through 2012 is projected to be around $88 million per year. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'The billion dollar testing industry is notorious for making costly and time-consuming scoring errors.   NCS Pearson, which has a $254 million contract to administer Florida\'s Comprehensive Assessment Test, delivered the 2010 results more than a month late and their accuracy was challenged by over half the state\'s superintendents.  After errors and distribution problems in 2004-2005, Hawaii replaced test publisher Harcourt with American Institutes for Research, but the latter had to re-grade 98,000 tests after students received scores for submitting blank test booklets.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'The multiple-choice format used on standardized tests is an inadequate assessment tool. It encourages a simplistic way of thinking in which there are only right and wrong answers, which doesn\'t apply in real-world situations. The format is also biased toward male students, who studies have shown adapt more easily to the game-like point scoring of multiple-choice questions. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'America is facing a "creativity crisis," as standardized testing and rote learning "dumb down" curricula and jeopardize the country\'s economic future. A 2010 College of William & Mary study found Americans\' scores on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking have been dropping since 1990, and researcher Kyung-Hee Kim lays part of the blame on the increase in standardized testing: "If we neglect creative students in school because of the structure and the testing movement... then they become underachievers." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Finland topped the international education (PISA) rankings from 2001-2008, yet has "no external standardized tests used to rank students or schools," according to Stanford University researchers Linda Darling-Hammond and Laura McCloskey.  Success has been achieved using "assessments that encourage students to be active learners who can find, analyze, and use information to solve problems in novel situations."')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Excessive testing may teach children to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives.  China displaced Finland at the top of the 2009 PISA rankings because, as explained by Jiang Xueqin, Deputy Principal of Peking University High School, "Chinese schools are very good at preparing their students for standardized tests. For that reason, they fail to prepare them for higher education and the knowledge economy."  China is trying to depart from the "drill and kill" test prep that Chinese educators admit has produced only "competent mediocrity."   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Using test scores to reward and punish teachers and schools encourages them to cheat the system for their own gain.  A 2011 USA Today investigation of six states and Washington DC found 1,610 suspicious anomalies in year-over-year test score gains.  A confidential Jan. 2009 memo, prepared for the DC school system by an outside analyst and uncovered in Apr. 2013, revealed that 191 teachers in 70 DC public schools were "implicated in possible testing infractions," and nearly all the teachers at one DC elementary school "had students whose test papers showed high numbers of wrong-to-right erasures," according to USA Today.  178 Atlanta public school teachers and administrators from 44 schools were found to be cheating on standardized tests according to a July 2011 state report. At one school, teachers attended "weekend pizza parties" to correct students\' answers, according to ABC News.  Ultimately in Apr. 2015, 11 of those district employees were convicted of racketeering, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Standardized tests are an imprecise measure of teacher performance, yet they are used to reward and punish teachers. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, over 17% of Houston teachers ranked in the top category on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills reading test were ranked among the two lowest categories on the equivalent Stanford Achievement Test. The results "were based on the same students, tested in the same subject, at approximately the same time of year, using two different tests." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Each state develops its own NCLB standards and assessments, providing no basis for meaningful comparison. A student sitting for the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is asked a completely different set of questions from a child in California taking the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test, and while the former includes essay questions, the latter is entirely multiple-choice. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Open-ended questions on standardized tests are often graded by under-paid temporary workers with no educational training. Scorers make $11-$13 per hour and need only a bachelor’s degree, not necessarily related to education. As one former test scorer stated, "all it takes to become a test scorer is a bachelor’s degree, a lack of a steady job, and a willingness to throw independent thinking out the window…” ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'Schools feeling the pressure of NCLB\'s 100% proficiency requirement are "gaming the system" to raise test scores, according to an Arizona State University report in the June 22, 2009, edition of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership.  Low-performing students are "encouraged to stay home" on test days or "counseled to quit or be suspended" before tests are administered. State education boards are "lowering the bar": manipulating exam content or scoring so that tests are easier for students to pass. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 22, description: 'An obsession with testing robs children of their childhoods. NCLB\'s mandate begins in third grade, but schools test younger students so they will get used to taking tests.  Mar. 2009 research from the Alliance for Childhood showed "time for play in most public kindergartens has dwindled to the vanishing point, replaced by lengthy lessons and standardized testing."  A three-year study completed in Oct. 2010 by the Gesell Institute of Human Development showed that increased emphasis on testing is making "children feel like failures now as early as PreK..." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should tablets replace textbooks in K-12 schools?', position_one: 23, position_two: 24)
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Tablets help students learn more material faster. Technology-based instruction can reduce the time students take to reach a learning objective by 30-80%, according to the US Department of Education and studies by the National Training and Simulation Association. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: '81% of K-12 teachers believe that "tablets enrich classroom education." The survey of technology in the classroom by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) also concluded that 77% of teachers found technology to "increase student motivation to learn." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks on one device, plus homework, quizzes, and other files, eliminating the need for physical storage of books and classroom materials. The average tablet contains anywhere from 8 to 64 gigabytes (GB) of storage space. On the Amazon Kindle Fire, for instance, 1,000 books take up one GB of space. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'E-textbooks on tablets cost on average 50-60% less than print textbooks. According to a 2012 report from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), K-12 school districts spend more than $8 billion per year on textbooks.  E-textbooks can save schools between $250-$1,000 per student per year.  Tablet prices also continue to drop, making them increasingly affordable. Tablets cost on average $489 in 2011, $386 in 2012, and are projected to cost $263 in 2015. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Tablets help to improve student achievement on standardized tests. Publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt tested an interactive, digital version of an Algebra 1 textbook for Apple\'s iPad in California\'s Riverside Unified School District. Students who used the iPad version scored 20 percent higher on standardized tests versus students who learned with traditional textbooks. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Tablets contain many technological features that cannot be found in print textbooks. Tablets give users the ability to highlight and edit text and write notes without ruining a textbook for the next user. Tablets have a search function, a backlighting option to read in low light, and a built-in dictionary. Interactive diagrams and videos increase student creativity, motivation, attentiveness, and engagement with classroom materials.')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Print textbooks are heavy and cause injuries, while a tablet only weighs 1-2 pounds. Pediatricians and chiropractors recommend that students carry less than 15% of their body weight in a backpack, but the combined average weight of textbooks in History, Mathematics, Science, and Reading/Language Arts exceeds this percentage at nearly all grade levels from 1-12.  According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, during the 2011-12 school year more than 13,700 kids, aged 5 to 18, were treated for backpack-related injuries. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Tablets help students better prepare for a world immersed in technology. Students that learn technology skills early in life will be better prepared to pursue relevant careers later in life. The fastest growing and highest paying jobs in the United States are technology intensive. Employment in "computer and information systems" is expected to grow by 18% between 2010-20, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'On a tablet, e-textbooks can be updated instantly to get new editions or information. Schools will not have to constantly purchase new hardware, software, or new physical copies of textbooks. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that "too many students are using books that are 7-10 years old with outdated material." Tablets are especially beneficial for subjects that constantly change, such as biology or computer science. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Tablets lower the amount of paper teachers have to print for handouts and assignments, helping to save the environment and money. A school with 100 teachers uses on average 250,000 pieces of paper annually.  A school of 1,000 students on average spends between $3,000-4,000 a month on paper, ink, and toner, not counting printer wear and tear or technical support costs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Tablets allow teachers to better customize student learning. There are thousands of education and tutoring applications on tablets, so teachers can tailor student learning to an individual style/personality instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. There are more than 20,000 education apps available for the iPad alone. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Files on one tablet can be downloaded onto any other tablet, increasing flexibility and convenience for teachers and students. E-textbooks and other files can be stored on "cloud” servers and accessed on any equivalent device. Users can sign into an account on a different device and access all of their information.')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'High-level education officials support tablets over textbooks. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Federal Communications Commission chair Julius Genachowski said on Feb. 1, 2012 that schools and publishers should "switch to digital textbooks within five years to foster interactive education, save money on books, and ensure classrooms in the US use up-to-date content." The federal government, in collaboration with several tech organizations, released a 70-page guide for schools called the "Digital Textbook Playbook," a "roadmap for educators to accelerate the transition to digital textbooks." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Students who own tablets purchase and read more books than those who read print books alone. The average tablet-owning US student reads 24 books per year on a tablet compared with 15 in print for those who do not own a tablet.  According to a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 30% of e-content readers (including 40% of those under age 30) say that they now spend more time reading than they used to due to the availability of e-content. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 23, description: 'Using a tablet is so intuitive that it makes learning fun and easy. In two isolated rural villages in Ethiopia, the One Laptop Per Child organization dropped off closed boxes containing tablets pre-loaded with educational apps, taped shut, with no instruction. Within five days, elementary school-age students without prior education were using 47 apps per child, per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs, and within five months they had successfully hacked the tablet\'s operating system and customized the desktop settings. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Handheld technological devices including tablets are associated with a range of health problems. Handhelds contribute to Computer Vision Syndrome, which causes eyestrain, headaches, blurred vision, and dry eyes, according to the American Optometric Association.  People who use mobile devices more often have a higher incidence of musculoskeletal disorders associated with repetitive strain on muscles, including carpal tunnel syndrome, neck pain ("text neck"), shoulder pain, and fibromyalgia.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Using tablets is more expensive than using print textbooks. Implementing tablets in K-12 schools requires purchasing hardware (the tablet) and software (the textbooks), building new wi-fi infrastructure, and training teachers and administrators how to use the technology. Implementation costs for e-textbooks on iPad tablets are 552% higher than new print textbooks in an average high school. Lee Wilson, a prominent education marketing expert, estimated the annual cost per student per class with tablets to be $71.55 vs. $14.26 for print textbooks. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Tablets have too many distractions for classroom use. Students may pay attention to apps, email, games, and websites instead of their teachers. 87% of K-12 teachers believe that "today’s digital technologies are creating an easily distracted generation with short attention spans."  Four-fifths of students aged 8 - 18 multitask while using digital media. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'People who read print text comprehend more, remember more, and learn more than those who read digital text. The brain interprets printed and digital text in different ways, and people generally read digital text 20-30% slower than print.   According to Pulitzer Prize winning technology writer Nicholas Carr, peer-reviewed studies show that reading hyper-linked text may increase the brain\'s "cognitive load," lowering the ability to process, store, and retain information, or "translate the new material into conceptual knowledge."  In addition, students who type lecture notes instead of write their notes by hand tended to write more, process less, and perform worse on recall tests.')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Many students do not have sufficient home internet bandwidth to use tablets. Students "need home broadband to access digital content and to complete Internet based homework," according to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, but about a third of Americans – 100 million people – do not have broadband internet at home.  A 2010 FCC survey found that nearly 80% of K-12 schools reported broadband connections that were "inadequate to meet their current needs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Manufacturing tablets is environmentally destructive and dangerous to human health. According to the New York Times, the "adverse health impacts from making one e-reader are estimated to be 70 times greater than those from making a single book." One tablet requires the extraction of 33 pounds of minerals, 79 gallons of water, and 100 kilowatt hours of fossil fuels resulting in 66 pounds of carbon dioxide. Print books produce 100 times fewer greenhouse gases. Two gallons of water are required to make the pulp slurry that is pressed and heat-dried to make paper, and only two kilowatt hours are required to form and dry the sheets of paper. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'A broken tablet requires an experienced technician to fix, which can be costly and time-consuming. Textbooks can usually be repaired with basic supplies such as glue or tape.')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Print textbooks cannot crash, freeze, or get hacked. Unlike tablets, there is no chance of getting malware, spyware, or having personal information stolen from a print textbook.')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'The average battery life of a tablet is 7.26 hours, shorter than the length of a school day. Tablets constantly need charging, increasing electricity demands on schools and the need for new electrical outlets. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Tablets are more susceptible to theft than print textbooks. In San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles, robberies related to internet-enabled handheld devices (including tablets) have accounted for 50, 40, and 25 percent respectively of all robberies in 2012. Stolen and lost internet-enabled handheld devices have cost Americans more than $30 billion in 2012. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Tablets enable students to cut corners or cheat on schoolwork. Students can easily avoid reading and analyzing texts on their own because they can quickly look up passages in an e-textbook and search for answers on the internet.')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'The higher cost of tablets marginalizes poorer school districts and increases the "digital divide." Rich school districts can afford to implement e-textbooks on tablets, while poor school districts cannot. Low income schools are less likely to implement an e-textbook program than to pay for teachers or basic classroom supplies.')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Tablets increase the number of excuses available for students not doing their schoolwork. Students have new available excuses, including: "the tablet broke/froze," "I forgot the tablet at home so I can\'t do schoolwork today," and "I couldn\'t find my charger."')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Tablets shift the focus of learning from the teacher to the technology. This change marginalizes decades of learned wisdom in the teaching profession in favor of an unproven technology. According to education reformer Mike Schmoker, until the core elements of literacy and critical thinking are learned by every student, "it makes little sense to adopt or learn new programs, technology, or any other innovations." Technology gets in the way and makes learning and teaching more burdensome. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Many textbooks are not available in digital format or on the specific tablet used by a school. As of 2012, only 30% of textbook titles are available electronically. There are many different companies that manufacture tablets, and most contract with one specific e-book seller. This means that some textbooks may not be sold across all tablets.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Tablets may be too difficult for less-technologically-savvy students to operate. When Daytona State College conducted an electronic textbook focus group, the most common reason given for withdrawing from the group was "I did not feel that I had the technical ability to read or reference my textbook from a computer." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 24, description: 'Tablets are unnecessary because print textbooks that are not brand new still convey relevant information to K-12 students. A K-12 student learning from an older print textbook still learns the basics of anatomy, physics, algebra, geometry, and the US government.')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Is a College Education Worth It?', position_one: 25, position_two: 26)
Tag.create(topic_id: 13, name: 'education')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College graduates make more money. In 2016, the average income for people 25 years old and older with a high school diploma was $35,615, while the income for those with a bachelor\'s degree was $65,482, and $92,525 for those with advanced degrees.  The median income for families headed by a bachelor\'s degree holder was $100,096 in 2011—more than double than that for a family headed by a high school graduate.  The median increase in earnings for completing the freshman year of college was 11% and the senior year was 16% in 2007.  85% of Forbes\' 2012 America\'s 400 Richest People list were college grads. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'More and more jobs require college degrees. Only 34% of American jobs require a high school diploma or less in 2017, compared to 72% in the 1970s.  During the recession between Dec. 2007 and Jan. 2010, jobs requiring college degrees grew by 187,000, while jobs requiring some college or an associate\'s degree fell by 1.75 million and jobs requiring a high school degree or less fell by 5.6 million.  According to a June 2016 study, 99% of job growth (or 11.5 million of 11.6 million jobs) between 2010 and 2016 went to workers with associate\'s degrees, bachelor\'s degrees or graduate degrees.  Based on economy and job projections calculated by Georgetown University, in 2018, approximately 63% of jobs will require some college education or a degree. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College graduates have more and better employment opportunities. 85.2% of college freshman in 2015 said they attended college to "be able to get a better job."  In Jan. 2017, the unemployment rate for college graduates aged 25 and over with a bachelor\'s degree was 2.5%, compared to 3.8% for those with some college or associate\'s degrees, 5.3% for high school graduates, and 7.7% for high school drop-outs.  In 2015, 6.2% of college graduates were underemployed (insufficient work), compared to 12.9% of high school-only graduates and 18.7% of people without a high school diploma.  College graduates are more likely to receive on-the-job formal (22.9%) or informal (17.2%) training, more access to technology, greater autonomy, and ability to enhance skills compared to high school graduates.  58% of college graduates and people with some college or associate\'s degrees reported being "very satisfied" with their jobs compared to 50% of high school graduates and 40% of people without a high school diploma. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans. 70% of college graduates had access to employer-provided health insurance compared to 50% of high school graduates in 2008.  70% of college graduates 25 years old and older had access to retirement plans in 2008 compared to 65% of associate\'s degree holders, 55% of high school graduates, and 30% of people who did not complete high school. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'Young adults learn interpersonal skills in college. Students have the opportunity to interact with other students and faculty, to join student organizations and clubs, and to take part in discussions and debates. According to Arthur Chickering\'s "Seven Vectors" student development theory, "developing mature interpersonal relationships" is one of the seven stages students progress through as they attend college.  Students ranked "interpersonal skills" as the most important skill used in their daily lives in a 1994 survey of 11,000 college students.  Vivek Wadhwa, MBA, technology entrepreneur and scholar, states, "American children party [in college]. But you know something, by partying, they learn social skills. They learn how to interact with each other…They develop skills which make them innovative. Americans are the most innovative people in the world because of the education system." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College graduates are healthier and live longer. 83% of college graduates reported being in excellent health, while 73% of high school graduates reported the same.  In 2008, 20% of all adults were smokers, while 9% of college graduates were smokers.  63% of 25 to 34 year old college graduates reported exercising vigorously at least once a week compared to 37% of high school graduates.  College degrees were linked to lower blood pressure in a 30-year peer-reviewed study and lower levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) by a Carnegie Mellon Psychology department study.  In 2008, 23% of college graduates aged 35 to 44 years old were obese compared to 37% of high school graduates.  College graduates, on average, live six years longer than high school graduates. [19, 20]')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College graduates have lower poverty rates. The 2008 poverty rate for bachelor\'s degree holders was 4%, compared to a 12% poverty rate for high school graduates.  In 2005, married couples with bachelor\'s degrees were least likely to be below the poverty line (1.8%) compared to 2.7% of associate\'s degree holders, 4.6% of couples with some college, and 7.1% of high school graduates.  According to the US Census Bureau, 1% of college graduates participated in social support programs like Medicaid, National School Lunch Program, and food stamps compared to 8% of high school graduates in 2008. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'The children of college graduates are healthier and more prepared for school. A Lancet medical journal study from 1970 to 2009 showed college graduates had lower infant mortality rates than high school graduates.  Mothers with only a high school education are 31% more likely to give birth to a low-birth-weight baby than a woman with a college degree.  Children aged 2 to 5 years old in households headed by college graduates have a 6% obesity rate compared to 14% for children in households headed by high school graduates.  18% more children aged 3 to 5 years old with mothers who have a bachelor\'s degree could recognize all letters compared to children of high school graduates.  In 2010, 59% of children in elementary and middle school with at least one college graduate for a parent participated in after-school activities like sports, arts, and scouting compared 27% for high school graduate parents. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College graduates are more productive as members of society. Henry Bienan, PhD, President Emeritus of Northwestern University, argues that a college education results in "greater productivity, lower crime, better health, [and] better citizenship for more educated people."  A 2009 study found 16 to 24 year old high school drop-outs were 63% more likely to be incarcerated than those with a bachelor\'s degree or higher.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from Sep. 2008 to Sep. 2009, 43% of college graduates did volunteer work compared to 19% of high school graduates and 27% of adults in general.  In 2005, college graduates were more like to have donated blood in the past year (9%) than people with some college (6%), high school graduates (4%), and people who did not complete high school (2%). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College graduates attract higher-paying employers to their communities. A 1% increase in college graduates in a community increases the wages of workers without a high school diploma by 1.9% and the wages of high school graduates by 1.6%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'Learning is always worthwhile. According to Rebecca Mead, staff writer for The New Yorker, college teaches students "to nurture critical thought; to expose individuals to the signal accomplishments of humankind; to develop in them an ability not just to listen actively but to respond intelligently;" all of which "are habits of mind…from which a letter carrier, no less than a college professor, might derive a sense of self-worth."  In 2011 74% of students said college helped them "grow intellectually" and 69% said college helped them grow and mature as people.  Jonathan D. Fitzgerald, MA, Visiting Professor at Eastern Nazarene College, argues, "The value of a liberal arts college education --to you, to employers-- is that you\'ve spent four years in a place where you were forced to consider new ideas, to meet new people, to ask new questions, and to learn to think, to socialize, to imagine. If you graduate, you will get a degree, but if you are not a very different person from who are you are today, then college failed." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College allows students to explore career options. Colleges offer career services, internships, job shadowing, job fairs, and volunteer opportunities in addition to a wide variety of courses that may provide a career direction. Over 80% of college students complete internships before graduation, giving them valuable employment experience before entering the job market. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'People who do not go to college are more likely to be unemployed and, therefore, place undue financial strain on society, making a college degree worth it to taxpayers. Young people "not engaged in employment/education or training," AKA NEET, are more likely to receive welfare than youth in general, they are more likely to commit crimes, and they are more likely to receive public health care, all costing the government extra money. In total, each NEET youth between the ages of 16 and 25 impose a $51,350 financial burden on society per year, and after the person is 25 he or she will impose a financial burden of $699,770.  The total cost of 6.7% of the US population being NEET youth is $4.75 trillion, which is comparable to half of the US public debt. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'Colleges provide networking value. Harvard Business School estimates that 65 to 85% of jobs are acquired through networking.  College students can join fraternities and sororities, clubs, and teams as well as participate in a variety of social functions to meet new people and network with possible business connections. Internships offered through colleges often lead to mentors or useful contacts within a student\'s preferred field. Many colleges offer social media workshops, networking tips, career-related consultation, and alumni networks. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College education has a high return as an investment. Return on investment (ROI) is calculated by dividing the gain from an investment (here the money earned as a result of a college degree) by the cost of the investment (the money spent on a college degree). A college degree has a return of 15% per year as an investment, larger than the stock market (6.8%) and housing (0.4%).  Completing some college, but not earning a degree, resulted in a 9.1% return on investment.  If a student spent $17,860 (the average cost of tuition and room and board in 2012-2013 for four years at a public university ), that student could expect a 15% return of $2,679 each year. According to a 2011 Pew Research survey, 86% of college graduates believed college was a good personal investment. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'College exposes students to diverse people and ideas. Students live, go to classes, and socialize with other students from around the world and learn from professors with a variety of expertise. The community of people on a college campus means students are likely to make diverse friends and business connections, and, potentially, find a spouse or mate. Access to a variety of people allows college students to learn about different cultures, religions, and personalities they may have not been exposed to in their home towns, which broadens their knowledge and perspective. 70.7% of college freshman in 2015 said they expected to socialize with someone of another racial or ethnic group while in college, while 59.1% said college would help improve their understanding of other countries and cultures.  In 2004, 79% of people with graduate degrees and 73% of college graduates thought it "very important to try to understand the reasoning behind the opinions of others" compared to 67% of associate degree holders, 64% of high school graduates, and 59% of high school drop-outs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 25, description: 'Earning a college degree is a major life achievement. College graduation can represent an attainment of the American Dream, the culmination of years of hard work for the student, and the payoff for sacrifices made by supporting parents and friends. Blogger Darrius Mind wrote that his graduation day at Wilberforce University was, "probably the best day of my entire life. That was the day I finished my challenge to myself and also the day I made history in my family, it was the day I EARNED my college degree." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Student loan debt is crippling for college graduates. As of June 2016, about 42 million Americans owed $1.3 trillion in student debt, and 45% of people with student loan debt said college was not worth it.  10% of students graduate with over $40,000 in debt and about 1% have $100,000 in debt.  The average student borrower graduated in 2014 with $28,950 in debt.  In June 2016, undergraduate college graduates had an average of $37,173 in loan debt.  According to the US Congress Joint Economic Committee, approximately 60% of 2011 college graduates have student loan debt balances equal to 60% of their annual income.  Missing or being late for loan payments often results in a lower credit score and additional fees, thus escalating the debt problem and potentially jeopardizing future purchases and employment.  As of Dec. 31, 2016, about 8 million people who owed $137 billion in student loan debt were in default (meaning no payment had been made in at least 270 days). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones. According to a 2012 Federal Reserve Study, 30-year-olds who have never taken out a student loan are now more likely to own homes than those who have taken out loans. Auto loans are also trending down at faster rates for those with student debt history than for those without.  In 2013, student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%).  Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the "transition to adulthood" milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents\' homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Many college graduates are employed in jobs that do not require college degrees. According to the Department of Labor, as of 2008, 17 million college graduates were in positions that did not require a college education.  1 in 3 college graduates had a job that required a high school diploma or less in 2012.  More than 16,000 parking lot attendants, 83,000 bartenders, 115,000 janitors and 15% of taxi drivers have bachelor\'s degrees.  College graduates with jobs that do not require college degrees earn 30-40% less per week than those who work in jobs requiring college degrees. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Many recent college graduates are un- or underemployed. In 2011 50% of college graduates under 25 years old had no job or a part-time job.  The unemployment rate for recent college graduates was 8.8% in Feb. 2013, down from 10.4% in 2010, but up from 5.7% in 2007.  The underemployment (insufficient work) rate for college graduates in 2015 was 6.2% overall: 5.2% for white graduates, 8.4% for Hispanic graduates, and 9.7% for black graduates.  According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 44% of recent college graduates were underemployed in 2012. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Many people succeed without college degrees. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the 30 projected fastest growing jobs between 2010 and 2020, five do not require a high school diploma, nine require a high school diploma, four require an associate\'s degree, six require a bachelor\'s degree, and six require graduate degrees.  The following successful people either never enrolled in college or never completed their college degrees: Richard Branson, founder and chairman of the Virgin Group; Charles Culpepper, owner and CEO of Coca Cola; Ellen Degeneres, comedian and actress; Michael Dell, founder of Dell, Inc.; Walt Disney, Disney Corporation founder; Bill Gates, Microsoft founder; Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple; Wolfgang Puck, chef and restauranteur; Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple; Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Many students do not graduate and waste their own and their government\'s money. About 19% of students who enroll in college do not return for the second year.  Overall, 41% of students at four-year colleges and universities did not graduate within six years: 41% at public schools, 34% at private non-profits, and 77% at private for-profits.  The federal government allocated $176.83 billion for college loans, grants, tax benefits, and work studies in 2013.  State governments spent $81.2 billion supporting public colleges in 2012.  Students who started bachelor\'s degrees in the fall of 2002 but did not graduate within six years accounted for $3.8 billion in lost income, $566 million in lost federal income taxes, and $164 million in lost state income taxes in one year.  The government gets fewer tax dollars from non-college graduates than from college graduates who have higher wages.  Students who drop out during the first year of college cost states $1.3 billion and the federal government $300 million per year in wasted student grant programs and government appropriations for colleges. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Student debt overwhelms many seniors. Whether they co-signed for a child or grandchild\'s education, or took out loans for their own educations, in 2012 there were 6.9 million student loan borrowers aged 50 and over who collectively owed $155 billion with individual average balances between $19,521 and $23,820.  Of the 6.9 million borrowers, 24.7% were more than 90 days delinquent in payments.  Almost 119,000 of older borrowers in default were having a portion of their Social Security payments garnished by the US government in 2012. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Learning a trade profession is a better option than college for many young adults. Trade professions are necessary for society to function, require less than four years of training, and often pay above average wages. The high number of young adults choosing college over learning a trade has created a \'skills gap\' in the US and there is now a shortage of \'middle-skill" trade workers like machinists, electricians, plumbers, and construction workers. One 2011 survey of US manufacturers found that 67% reported a "moderate to severe shortage of talent,"  "Middle-skill" jobs represent half of all jobs in the US that pay middle-class wages.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "middle-skill" jobs will make up 45% of projected job openings through 2014, but as of 2012 only 25% of the workforce had the skills to fill those jobs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'College degrees do not guarantee learning or job preparation. Many students graduate from college with little understanding of math, reading, civics, or economics.  In 2011, 35% of students enrolled in college reported they studied 5 hours or less per week and there was a 50% decline in the number of hours a student studied and prepared for classes compared to a few decades ago.  36% of students demonstrated no significant improvement on Collegiate Learning Assessments after 4 years of college.  In 2013 56% of employers thought half or fewer of college graduates had the skills and knowledge to advance within their companies.  30% of college graduates felt college did not prepare them well for employment, specifically in terms of technical and quantitative reasoning skills.  A 2011 Pew Research survey found that 57% of Americans felt higher education did not provide students with good value compared to the money spent. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Student debt could cause another financial crisis. As of 2012 student loan debt was over $1 trillion dollars, and more than 850,000 student loans were in default.  According to the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, student loans are "beginning to have the same effect" on the economy that the housing bubble and crash created.  Former Secretary of Education William Bennett, PhD, agrees that the student loan debt crisis "is a vicious cycle of bad lending policies eerily similar to the causes of the subprime mortgage crisis."  On Feb. 3, 2012, an advisory council to the Federal Reserve also warned that the growth in student debt "has parallels to the housing crisis."  As of Jan. 2013, the rate of default on student loans hit 15.1%--a nearly 22% increase since 2007. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Tuition has risen quicker than income, making college unaffordable for many. From the 1986-1987 school year to the 2016-2017 school year, the average cost of one year of college (including room and board) increased for 4-year private schools (109.6%) and 4-year public schools (125.7%), while median family income only increased 10.0% between 1986 and 2015.  From the 1976-1977 school year to the 2016-2017 school year, annual tuition rates rose for community colleges (173.1%), 4-year public colleges (271.2%), and private 4-year colleges (213.5%).  Parents\' contributions to college expenses dropped 21.5% from 2010 to 2016.  And a Mar. 2017 study found that 14% of community college students were homeless and 51% had housing insecurity issues (inability to pay rent or utilities, for example), while 33% experienced food insecurity (lack of access to or ability to pay for "nutritionally adequate and safe foods"), though 58% of the students were employed and 42% received federal Pell Grants. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Too many students earning degrees has diluted the value of a bachelor\'s degree. Rita McGrath, PhD, Associate Professor at Columbia Business School, stated "Having a bachelor\'s used to be more rare and candidates with the degree could therefore be more choosy and were more expensive to hire. Today, that is no longer the case."  A high unemployment rate shifts the supply and demand to the employers\' favor and has made master’s degrees the "new bachelor\'s degrees."  According to James Altucher, venture capitalist and finance writer, "college graduates hire only college graduates, creating a closed system that permits schools to charge exorbitant prices and forces students to take on crippling debt." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'The total cost of going to college also includes the cost of missing opportunities to make money at a job. The total cost of going to college means more than tuition, fees, and books; it also includes an opportunity cost which equals at least four years of missed wages and advancements from a full-time job--about $49,000 for a 4-year degree and $20,000 for a 2-year degree. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'A college degree is no guarantee of workplace benefits. In 2013, 68.9% of employed new college graduates did not receive health insurance through their employers and, in 2011, 27.2% received retirement coverage (down from 41.5% in 2000). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Student loan debt may not be forgiven in bankruptcy and may not have the same borrower protections as other consumer debt. A 2011 study found 60% of people attempting to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy were unsuccessful.  In order to discharge a student loan in bankruptcy, the borrower must prove "undue hardship," which can be difficult as in the case of Doug Wallace, Jr. who fought for six years to have his $38,000 in student loans discharged after becoming blind and being unable to work; his student loans were not discharged although his medical debt was immediately discharged.  Medical, legal, credit card, loan, and even gambling debt can immediately be discharged in bankruptcy.  Private student loans often do not have the same protections as federal loans like income-based repayments, discharges upon death, or military deferments. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'Colleges may be indoctrinating students instead of educating them. According to William Hare, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Mount Saint Vincent University, "teachers may abuse their power and authority and seek to impose certain beliefs and values, actively discouraging their students from raising problems or objections."  A 2010-2011 UCLA survey of full-time faculty at 4-year colleges found 50.3% identified as "liberal" compared to 11.5% who identified as "conservative."  David Horowitz, MA, conservative activist and author, asserts that university "curriculum has been expanded to include agendas about ‘social change’ that are overtly political." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 26, description: 'College stress can lead to health problems and other negative consequences. 40.2% of college students reported feeling "frequently overwhelmed" in a 2012 survey about stress levels.  According to the University of Florida’s Counseling & Wellness Center, "The competition for grades, the need to perform, relationships, fear of AIDS, career choice, and many other aspects of the college environment cause stress."  According to the Director of Student Health Services at Biola University, college stress can lead to "headaches, weight gain, chronic digestive disorders, fatigue, increases [in] blood pressure, insomnia, teeth grinding in sleep, general irritability, reoccurring feeling of hopelessness, depression and anxiety and low self-esteem." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Is the D.A.R.E. program good for America\'s kids (K-12)?', position_one: 27, position_two: 28)
Tag.create(topic_id: 14, name: 'america')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'testing
  dasdsaf

dsafdhfs   https://www.reddit.com/
https://www.google.com/')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'The D.A.R.E. program helps prevent drug use in elementary, middle, and high school students. According to the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), participants in the D.A.R.E. program report lower alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use than students who did not receive the program.  40% of participants who used alcohol at the beginning of the program reported reductions in alcohol use after receiving the curriculum, and 32% reported discontinuation of alcohol use altogether. Studies of D.A.R.E. by the Research Triangle Institute  and in the Journal of the National Medical Association  found that D.A.R.E. graduates are five times less likely to initiate smoking compared with non-D.A.R.E. control groups, and report lower levels of tobacco use in 5th and 6th graders in the one to two years following program graduation. A 2010 peer-reviewed evaluation of graduates from D.A.R.E\'s "Take Charge of Your Life" curriculum by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that students who had used marijuana by the 7th grade were significantly less likely to use marijuana by 11th grade, compared with students in the control group. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'D.A.R.E. improves decision making and attitudes toward drug use. Peer-reviewed studies show that D.A.R.E. has beneficial effects on student knowledge of drugs, attitudes about drug use, social skills, decision-making skills, attitudes toward the police, and normative beliefs about the prevalence of drug use by peers.  A 2002 study from the University of Akron concluded that overall decision-making skills for D.A.R.E. graduates were 6% higher than for students that did not enroll or graduate, including those that received other forms of prevention education.  D.A.R.E. graduates showed a 19% reduction in perceptions that their peers were using drugs and that such drug use was acceptable. According to SAMHSA, assessments of D.A.R.E. graduates 8 and 14 months after graduation show lower expectation of positive consequences of drug use, lower personal acceptance of drug use 2 and 8 months after graduation, and greater use of intervention strategies to turn down an offer to use drugs 2, 8, and 14 months after graduation. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'D.A.R.E. improves social interaction between police officers, students, and schools. Results from a 2008 peer-reviewed study indicate that students who are taught by a police officer during the D.A.R.E. program have more positive attitudes toward the police following graduation. Schools have reported D.A.R.E. officers as providing a "sense of safety and calm" in the wake of school shootings and street violence. According to a school official in Colorado, "police are often looked at as the bad guy, or the one that\'s going to come in and get you for being a bad guy, and I think that D.A.R.E. provides an opportunity for our young kids particularly to find out that officers can be a resource for protection, for answers for some questions, for direction and for care." Police officers report that D.A.R.E. has made them "seem more human in the eyes of children in the community." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'D.A.R.E. is popular with kids and parents. A 2007 survey showed 95% of 5,376 kids surveyed felt the program helped them "decide against using drugs in the future" and 99% of 3,095 parents surveyed showed "very positive support" for D.A.R.E. and felt their children "benefited from the program." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'Students who enroll in D.A.R.E. have better attendance in the classroom. A 2010 peer-reviewed study on the D.A.R.E. program found that students were more likely to attend school on days they received D.A.R.E. lessons. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'D.A.R.E. is certified as an "evidence-based substance abuse prevention program" by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Since Dec. 2006, the "Keepin\' It REAL" curriculum (which D.A.R.E. adopted in 2009) has made SAMHSA\'s list of evidence-based drug use prevention programs. SAMHSA concludes that "no adverse effects, concerns, or unintended consequences were identified" with the program, and finds that D.A.R.E. is scientifically proven to improve four different student outcomes: alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use; anti-substance use attitudes; normative beliefs about substance use; and substance use resistance. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'D.A.R.E is the most prevalent school-based substance abuse prevention program in the United States. D.A.R.E. administers a school-based substance-abuse prevention and decision-making program in 75% of US schools districts and in 43 countries (as of 2013).  As of 2009, the program had trained over 50,000 police officers to teach its program every year to 36 million K-12 students worldwide and 26 million in the US alone. Every US President since 1988 has declared one day each year to be National D.A.R.E. day. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 27, description: 'D.A.R.E. has great goals that should be pursued regardless of cost or efficacy. If D.A.R.E. can prevent even one child from becoming addicted to drugs or dying from a drug overdose then it is worth funding.')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'Research has shown that the DARE program actually increases drug use among children.')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'The D.A.R.E. program does not help prevent drug use in elementary, middle, or high school students. A 2004 meta-analysis of 11 peer-reviewed studies concluded D.A.R.E. is "ineffective" at preventing drug use in students and D.A.R.E. graduates "are indistinguishable from students who do not participate in the program."  A 2011 study of all meta-studies of D.A.R.E found the program to be "ineffective in reducing illicit drug use among youths, especially in the long term."  A national study funded by the US Department of Justice concluded that D.A.R.E. has "small effects on drug use," and is "significantly" less successful at preventing drug use than other programs.  The Government Accountability Office concluded that the program had "no statistically significant long-term effect on youth illicit drug use," and the US Surgeon General cited D.A.R.E. as an "ineffective primary drug prevention program."  Studies evaluating the original D.A.R.E. curriculum, through D.A.R.E.\'s "Take Charge of Your Life" curriculum, through the present "Keepin\' It REAL" program, overwhelmingly conclude that D.A.R.E. does not prevent drug use.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'D.A.R.E. is associated with increased drug use. A peer-reviewed, six-year study of D.A.R.E. from 1989 to 1996 concluded that suburban students who participated in D.A.R.E. reported a 3%-5% higher rate of drug use than suburban students who did not participate.  Suburban students reported higher use of alcohol in the previous 30-days, higher lifetime alcohol use, higher 30-day total drug use (including marijuana, hallucinogens, cocaine, and smokeless tobacco), and higher lifetime total drug use. A 2009 peer-reviewed study of graduates from D.A.R.E\'s "Take Charge of Your Life" curriculum found a 3-4% increase in alcohol and cigarette use among 11th grade students who were not using either substance by seventh grade (at the beginning of the study) compared to those who never enrolled. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'D.A.R.E. graduates do not show any long-term increase in knowledge of drugs, attitudes about drug use, social skills, or attitudes toward the police. According to a peer-reviewed meta-study, any of these short-term positive effects of the D.A.R.E. program disappear "typically within 1 to 2 years," and "the effect on drug use behaviors (measured in numerous ways) are extremely rare and when identified are small in size and dissipate quickly."  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'D.A.R.E. causes kids to ignore legitimate information about the relative harms of drugs. Kids eventually ignore the D.A.R.E. program\'s zero-tolerance message when they see friends or family members using drugs such as alcohol, marijuana, or tobacco without any immediately adverse consequences. This causes kids to ignore genuinely useful information about the relative harms of different drugs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'D.A.R.E. is a "potentially harmful therapy" that violates the Hippocratic Oath. Scott O. Lilienfeld, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Emory University, states in the peer-reviewed journal Perspectives on Psychological Science that D.A.R.E. may increase intake of alcohol and other drugs, making it a "potentially harmful therapy (PHT)." D.A.R.E. "overestimates the number of children and adolescents who engage in drug abuse," and normalizes the use of substances like alcohol because of an "excessive focus on severe substances" such as cocaine and heroin. The program therefore violates the physician and psychologists\'s Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'Students respond negatively to the D.A.R.E. program. A survey of D.A.R.E. by the California Department of Education found that 40% of students told researchers they were "not at all" influenced by D.A.R.E., and nearly 70% reported neutral to negative feelings about those leading the program.  33% of middle school students and 90% of high school students reported "negative" or "indifferent" feelings towards D.A.R.E. Students reported that the D.A.R.E. message is repeated so often at school that the concept has lost its meaning and becomes tedious. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'D.A.R.E. lures parents into a false sense of security about their kids\' drug use. Some parents become less involved with the education of their child in drug abuse awareness because they believe D.A.R.E. is doing it for them. According to Lance Miles, former fifth-grade teacher whose students took D.A.R.E. classes weekly: "A lot of parents aren\'t doing their jobs, and we\'re left to do that job [at school], telling them things they ought to be taught about at home... There\'s only so much that teachers and police officers can do before parents must take over." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 28, description: 'The number of schools partnering with D.A.R.E. has steadily declined and revenues have fallen year after year, proving that teachers and administrators do not believe it works. According to a 2012 study, about 60% of school districts have eliminated D.A.R.E. since the mid-2000s in the 32 states where data were available.  D.A.R.E.\'s 2011 annual report showed total revenues around $3.7 million, down from $9.7 million in 2000. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should teachers get tenure?', position_one: 29, position_two: 30)
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends. Women were dismissed for getting married, becoming pregnant, wearing pants, or being out too late in the evenings. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure prohibits school districts from firing experienced teachers to hire less experienced and less expensive teachers. The threat of firing has increased in recent years as many school districts face budget cuts.  Marcia Rothman, a teacher for 14 years, said at a Dec. 16, 2010 protest in New York, "They don’t want old experienced teachers who are too expensive. It’s a concerted effort to harass older teachers, so they can hire two young teachers." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure protects teachers from being fired for teaching unpopular, controversial, or otherwise challenged curricula such as evolutionary biology and controversial literature.  According to Edison State College teacher David McGrath, tenure "ensures academic freedom to teach important concepts such as evolution, and classic texts such as \'Huckleberry Finn,\' \'To Kill a Mockingbird\' or \'Catcher in the Rye,\' all of which have been banned by some school districts, as recently as this year , in America." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'The promise of a secure and stable job attracts many teachers to the teaching profession, and eliminating teacher tenure would hamper teacher recruitment. Starting salaries for teachers are frequently lower than other occupations requiring similar levels of education and training.  A Mar. 2008 report by the Economic Policy Institute found that public school teachers received 15% lower weekly earnings than workers with comparable education and work experience. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure helps guarantee innovation in teaching. Without the protection of tenure, teachers may feel pressured to use the same lesson plans and teach directly to standardized tests.  Former California Teachers Association President Barbara Kerr said, "Teachers are afraid to try new, innovative things if they are afraid of losing their job.” ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Teacher tenure is a justifiable reward for several years of positive evaluations by school administrators. Administrators are responsible for evaluating teachers before granting tenure and helping to develop struggling teachers. The existence of inadequate teachers should be blamed on the poor judgment of administrators, not teacher tenure. According to a 2008 report by the National Council on Teacher Quality, not a single state has even "partly” developed a "meaningful” tenure-granting process.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure is a good system that has become a scapegoat for problems facing education. Eliminating tenure will not reduce class sizes or make schools cleaner and safer.  If tenure is abolished, problems of underfunding, overcrowding, and lack of control over students’ home lives will persist. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure allows teachers to advocate on behalf of students and disagree openly with school and district administrators.  Award-winning history teacher Kerry Sylvia said that without tenure, she would be afraid of being fired because of her public opposition to initiatives by administrators. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Contrary to public perception, tenure does not guarantee a teacher a job for life. Each state\'s tenure laws establish strict requirements and processes for removing a tenured teacher. Tenure also guarantees teachers a termination hearing before the board of education or an impartial hearing panel. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure protects teachers from being prematurely fired after a student makes a false accusation or a parent threatens expensive legal action against the district. After an accusation, districts might find it expedient to quickly remove a teacher instead of investigating the matter and incurring potentially expensive legal costs. The thorough removal process mandated by tenure rules ensures that teachers are not removed without a fair hearing. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure encourages the careful selection of qualified and effective teachers. Since it is difficult to remove tenured teachers, tenure encourages school administrators to take more care when making hiring decisions. Additionally, tenure prompts administrators to dismiss under-performing teachers before they achieve tenure and cannot be removed as easily. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'The formal dismissal process guaranteed by tenure protects teachers from punitive evaluation systems and premature dismissal. It allows under-performing teachers a chance to improve their skills rather than be hastily fired. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 29, description: 'Tenure allows teachers to work more effectively since they do not need to be in constant fear of losing their jobs.  Without the anxiety and fear of losing employment, teachers can focus their efforts on providing the best education for students.')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Tenure makes seniority the main factor in dismissal decisions instead of teacher performance and quality.  Tenure laws maintain the "last-hired, first-fired" policy. On Feb. 24, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, claiming that basing layoffs on seniority harms younger teachers as well as "low-income students and persons of color."  On Oct. 6, 2010, both sides settled to cap or end layoffs at schools. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers. Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal.  For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing. It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City.  New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly.Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'With most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude."  A Nov. 21, 2008 study by the University of Washington\'s Center on Reinventing Public Education found that the first two to three years of teaching do not predict post-tenure performance. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Tenure does not grant academic freedom. No Child Left Behind in 2001 took away much academic freedom when it placed so much emphasis on standardized testing.  According to an Oct. 1, 2006 survey published in Planning and Changing, 56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone. To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure.  A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Tenure is unpopular among educators and the public. An Apr.-May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured.”  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children. Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults.” ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Teacher tenure requires schools to make long-term spending commitments and prevents districts from being fiscally flexible. Teacher employment contracts generally lack provisions for declining enrollment and economic turmoil. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Tenure lets experienced teachers pick easier assignments and leaves difficult assignments to the least experienced teachers. Senior teachers choose to teach more resource-rich and less challenging populations instead of the classrooms that would benefit the most from experienced teachers.  Public Agenda President Deborah Wadsworth argues that teacher tenure leads to "a distribution of talent that is flawed and inequitable.” ')
Reason.create(position_id: 30, description: 'Most school board presidents criticize teacher tenure. In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted in the United States?', position_one: 31, position_two: 32)
Tag.create(topic_id: 16, name: 'america')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.   In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."  On June 9, 2016 the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that "[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment," thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and "good cause" for concealed carry licenses in California.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%).  Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). Firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths, representing 1.3% of total deaths topping liver disease, hypertension, and Parkinson’s disease, as well as deaths from fires, drowning, and machinery accidents.  David Frum, Daily Beast and CNN contributor, stated, "American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds."  A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death"  According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7%; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'High-capacity magazines should be banned because they too often turn murder into mass murder. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.  When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.  David H. Chipman, Senior Vice President of Public Safety for ShotSpotter and former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) agent, stated that a high-capacity magazine "turns a killer into a killing machine."  Some gang members use high-capacity magazines, such as 30 rounds or even 90 rounds, to compensate for lack of accuracy and maximize the chance to harm. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'More gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States.  A woman\'s risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.  During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.   A 2003 study of 23 populous high-income countries found that 86% of women killed by firearms were in the United States and American women are 11.4 times more likely to be the victims of gun homicides  57% of mass shootings involved domestic violence.   For example, the 2011 mass shooting at a Seal Beach, CA hair salon reportedly began because of the shooter\'s custody battle with his ex-wife who was a hair stylist at the salon.   31 states do not ban convicted misdemeanor stalkers from owning guns and 41 states do not force convicted domestic abusers from relinquishing guns they already own.   76% of women murdered and 85% of women who survived a murder attempt by an intimate partner were stalked in the year before the murder or murder attempt. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'Guns are rarely used in self-defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior.  In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide").  Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'Legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. A June 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report states that "[a]lmost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction."  Between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million guns were stolen from US homes during property crimes (including burglary and car theft), a yearly average of 232,400.  Ian Ayres, JD, PhD, and John J. Donohue, JD, PhD, Professors of Law at Yale Law School and Stanford Law School respectively, state, "with guns being a product that can be easily carried away and quickly sold at a relatively high fraction of the initial cost, the presence of more guns can actually serve as a stimulus to burglary and theft. Even if the gun owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and would never use it in furtherance of a crime, is it likely that the same can be said for the burglar who steals the gun?" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'Gun control laws would reduce the societal costs associated with gun violence. According to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), in 2010, gun violence cost each person in the United States roughly $564 and the US government $5.5 billion in lost tax revenue; $4.7 billion in court costs; $1.4 billion in Medicare and Medicaid costs; $180 million in mental health care for victims; $224 million in insurance claims processing; and $133 million for law enforcement and medic response to shooting injuries.   In 2010, there were 36,341 emergency room visits and 25,024 hospitalizations for gun injuries, costing an estimated $6.3 million.  84% of those injured by firearms are uninsured, leaving taxpayers responsible for most of those bills through programs like Medicaid.     According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the costs of gun violence can include legal services, medical costs, perpetrator control, policing, incarceration, foster care, private security, lost earnings and time, life insurance, productivity, tourism, and psychological costs (pain and suffering), among others.  Homicide rates doubling has been associated with a 12.5% decline in property values. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines. According to a Pew Research survey in Mar. 2013, 83% of all adults surveyed (and 79% of gun-owners; 86% of people living with a gun-owner; and 74% of NRA households) approve of background checks for private and gun show sales.  As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").  56% of all adults surveyed approve of assault weapon bans and 53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans.  89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.  Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'More gun control leads to fewer suicides. Between 1999 and 2013 there were 270,237 firearm suicides in the United States, accounting for about 52% of all suicides during those years.  According to a Mar. 2014 study published in the International Review of Law and Economics, when gun ownership went down in the United States, overall suicide rates went down.   Firearm-related suicides accounted for 61% of the gun deaths in the United States between 2000 and 2010.  A Dec. 2009 study published in Health Policy, found "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."  A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'Enacting gun control laws such as mandatory safety features would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths. Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.   According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Physicians Alliance, states with the highest concentration of guns have nine times the amount of accidental gun deaths and "89% of unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home—and most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents’ absence."  The US General Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.  Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children’s behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves… [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot \'gun-proof\' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent. The FBI found that in 2013 arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).  A June 1985 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "the weapons used [in altercations]… were those closest at hand."  An editorial published in the June 1985 American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns."  A 1993 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. None of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 was stopped by an armed civilian.  Gun rights activists regularly state that a 2002 mass shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia was stopped by armed students, but those students were current and former law enforcement officers and the killer was out of bullets when subdued.  Other mass shootings often held up as examples of armed citizens being able to stop mass shootings involved law enforcement or military personnel and/or the shooter had stopped shooting before being subdued, such as a 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, MS; a 1998 middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, PA; a 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs, CO; and a 2008 bar shooting in Winnemucca, NV.  Jeffrey Voccola, Assistant Professor of Writing at Kutztown University, notes, "The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'Countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements.  In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total).  In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people).  Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total).  In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).  The United States, categorized as having "permissive" firearm regulation by GunPolicy.org, ranked first in international gun ownership rates with 88.8 guns per 100 people (about 270,000,000 guns total).   In 2007 the United States had 12,632 gun homicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people) and 17,352 gun suicides (5.76 deaths per 100,000 people).   Harvard professor David Hemenway, PhD, wrote "We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides."  According to a Mar. 2016 study, gun homicide rates in the United States were 25.3 times higher and gun suicides were 8 times higher in 2010 than in other populous, high-income countries. Additionally, 90% of women, 91% of 0- to 14-year olds, 92% of 15- to 24-year-olds, and 82% of all people killed by firearms were from the United States. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, JD, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer\'s single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee \'to keep and bear arms\' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."  Michael Waldman, JD, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 31, description: 'Civilians, including hunters, should not own military-grade firearms or firearm accessories. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation.  The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most common arms were long rifles that had to be reloaded after every shot. Civilians today have access to folding, detaching, or telescoping stocks that make the guns more easily concealed and carried; silencers to muffle gunshot sounds; flash suppressors to fire in low-light conditions without being blinded by the flash and to conceals the shooter’s location; or grenade launcher attachments.  Jonathan Lowy, Director of Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, "These are weapons that will shred your venison before you eat it, or go through the walls of your apartment when you’re trying to defend yourself… [they are] made for mass killing, but not useful for law-abiding citizens." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."  The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders."  While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased.  John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on \'shall-issue\' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent."  A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized.  Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don\'t obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, \'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.\'" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year.  The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families."  Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals."  Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama\'s: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."   Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."  A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun.  Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.  Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, and they spent $7.7 billion on guns, sights, ammunition, and other hunting equipment.   High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year.  According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called \'Assault weapons\' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term \'assault weapon\' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie… [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled \'assault weapons,\' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer."  According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally.  John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, gun rights activist, stated, "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them."  According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who "used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence" obtained the gun from a family member or friend.  Despite Chicago\'s ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders.    Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."  The NRA\'s Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."  Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, "The Second Amendment isn\'t there for duck hunting, it\'s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws such as background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks would require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid\'s 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you\'re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected."   Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases.  Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people\'s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns. According to the CDC\'s "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer\'s (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide).  The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms.  Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths.  Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws and lower gun ownership rates do not prevent suicides. Lithuania has one of the world\'s lowest gun ownership rates (0.7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45.06 per 100,000 people in 1999, the highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information.  Japan has a low gun ownership rate at 0.6 guns per 100 people and a high suicide rate of 18.41 suicides per 100,000 people in 1997 (ranking it 11 out of 71 countries).   South Korea has a low gun ownership rate (1.1 guns per 100 people) but has a high rate of suicide and the highest rate of gun suicides (12.63 per 100,000 people in 1997).   By contrast the United States has the 26th highest suicide rate (12.3 suicides per 100,000 people in 2011) and the highest gun ownership rate (88.8 guns per 100 people).   Jim Barrett, author for TheTruthAboutGuns.com, stated, "the theory that the restriction or elimination of guns would have a positive effect on the overall suicide rate in the U.S. does not hold up under scrutiny." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety.  Guns don\'t kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres.The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers\' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind."  Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA\'s Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives."  The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they\'re [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life."  According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws would prevent citizens from protecting themselves from foreign invaders. The Libertarian Party stated, "A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion."  Counsel for the NRA stated, "It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an \'unorganized\' armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant."  Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).  . The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014.   Mexico\'s gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets.    Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico\'s one gun shop sold 6,490 guns,  yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control laws are racist. Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners.   Charles Gallagher, MA, PhD, the Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."  In the late 1960s, gun control laws were enacted in reaction to the militant, gun-carrying Black Panthers.  Adam Winkler, MA, JD, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor, stated "The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns" so, after the Civil War, there was "constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African Americans because they would rise up and revolt.”  In Virginia, in response to Nat Turner\'s Rebellion (also called the Southampton Rebellion, in which slaves killed 55 to 65 people in the most fatal slave uprising in the United States) in 1831, a law was passed that prohibited free black people "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead and all laws allowing free black people to possess firearms were repealed. .')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'The Second Amendment was intended to protect gun ownership of all able-bodied men so that they could participate in the militia to keep the peace and defend the country if needed. According to the United States Code, a "militia" is composed of all "able-bodied males at least 17 years of age… under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."  Therefore, the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment would have been composed of almost all adult men and, in turn, that most adult men should not have their right to own firearms infringed.  A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register their gun ownership on public records.  Daniel J. Schultz, lawyer, stated, "the Framers [of the Constitution and Bill of Rights] understood that \'well-regulated\' militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined would post no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to \'insure domestic Tranquility\' and \'provide for the common defence.\'" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 32, description: 'Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates."  Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws.  According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?', position_one: 33, position_two: 34)
Reason.create(position_id: 33, description: 'Concealed handguns deter crime. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robbery by 3%, according to a 2000 analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Lott calculated that 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies could have been prevented between 1977 and 1992 if concealed carry had been legal in every US state during that time period.  In addition, a 2013 peer-reviewed study in Applied Economic Letters, found that between 1980 and 2009, "states with more restrictive CCW [carrying concealed weapons] laws had gun-related murder rates that were 10% higher."  Detroit Chief of Police Larry Craig said permitted concealed weapons are "a deterrent," and "Good Americans with CPLs [concealed permit licenses] translates into crime reduction."  A 2013 survey of 15,000 current and retired police officers found that 91.3% support the concealed carry of guns by civilians. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 33, description: 'Responsible citizens should have the right to arm themselves against criminals with guns. Violent criminals will always have guns. Rather than being victims, concealed handgun carriers have a sense of safety and security, especially when going outside at night or in dangerous areas. According to a 2001 study by the National Opinion Research Center, 59% of people who carry a gun outside the home do so because it makes them feel safer.  In Florida, the percentage of concealed handgun permit holders who are female rose from 15% in 2004 to 23% in 2014. One of these female permit holders stated that women "need to be able to defend their home and defend themselves if they go out. It\'s just a safety issue."  In addition, a study by criminologist Gary Kleck, PhD, concluded that "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection."  A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that when someone draws a concealed gun in self-defense, the criminal retreats 55.5% of the time. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 33, description: 'The right to carry concealed handguns is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The entire Second Amendment states: "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  The federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the Dec. 11, 2012 case Moore v. Madigan, ruled 2-1 that the Second Amendment\'s right to bear arms "must be interpreted to include a right to have a concealed gun in public, to have it ready for use, and to have it for self-defense."  The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Peruta vs. San Diego by a 2-1 vote on Feb. 13, 2014 that the Second Amendment requires states to "permit some form of concealed carry for self-defense outside the home." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 33, description: 'Most adults who carry concealed handguns are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms. According to a 2000 report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant, in Texas the general public is 5.3 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses and 14 times more likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than concealed carry weapon permit holders.  An analysis of crime data by Nick Leghorn, blogger at "The Truth About Guns," found that concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina are five times less likely to kill someone than the general public, 5.48 times less likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm, and 6.6 times less likely to drive drunk.  The Christian Science Monitor reported that "the number of incidents in which concealed-gun carriers kill innocent people is a fraction of 1 percent of all gun-related homicides." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 33, description: 'Carrying a concealed handgun could help stop a public shooting spree. After the Apr. 20, 1999 Columbine High School massacre, the state of Colorado enacted the 2003 Concealed Carry Act to allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon. The CATO Institute concluded that this law helped to stop a massacre at the New Life megachurch in Dec. 2007 when a volunteer security guard for the church who was carrying a concealed handgun shot an attacker who had opened fire in the church.  According to John R. Lott Jr., PhD, "when states passed concealed carry laws during the 19 years we studied (1977 to 1995), the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 33, description: 'Concealed handguns protect people who cannot always rely on police forces for protection. A 2013 research article in the Wall Street Journal reported that the average police response time to an emergency call is 11 minutes, with some responses taking much longer. In Detroit the average response time is 58 minutes.  Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack said, "police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact."  In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that police officers have no legal duty to protect citizens from violent crime. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 33, description: 'The majority of Americans support allowing the concealed carry of handguns. According to an Apr. 2012 poll conducted for Thomson Reuters, 75% of Americans support "laws allowing law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon."  A 2013 CBS News and New York Times poll found that 65% of Americans "oppose a federal law requiring a nationwide ban on people other than law enforcement officers carrying concealed weapons." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 34, description: 'Permitting concealed handguns increases crime. States that passed "shall-issue" laws between 1977 and 2010 had a 2% or more increase in the murder rate, and at least 9% increases in rates of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny, according to an Aug. 2012 paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.  A 1995 peer-reviewed study of five urban cities, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, concluded that gun homicide rates increased "on average by 4.5 per 100,000 persons" following the enactment of "shall-issue" laws.  A May 2009 peer-reviewed study in con Journal Watch found that "shall-issue" laws were associated with increased numbers of aggravated assaults between 1977 and 2006.  Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck said, "I have seen far too much gun violence in my lifetime to think that more guns is a solution... a gun is more likely to be used against you than you use a gun in self-defense." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 34, description: 'Carrying a concealed handgun increases the chances of a confrontation escalating and turning lethal. A Nov. 2009 peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that someone carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun.  According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "members of the public who carry guns risk escalating everyday disagreements into public shootouts, especially in places where disputes frequently occur—in bars, at sporting events, or in traffic."  For example, on Jan 13, 2014, a retired police officer with a legally concealed handgun shot and killed another man during an argument over text messaging in a movie theater. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 34, description: 'Second Amendment rights have limits. The entire Second Amendment states: "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It does not mention concealed handguns.  US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court\'s 5-4 majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."  In May 2014 the US Supreme Court declined to hear Drake v. Jerejian, a case challenging New Jersey\'s issuance of concealed weapons permits only to citizens who can prove a "justifiable need." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 34, description: 'Concealed carry application requirements and background checks do not prevent dangerous people from acquiring weapons. Between May 2007 and Mar. 11, 2014, 14 law enforcement officers and 622 other people were killed nationally (not in self defense) by private individuals legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.  Between 1996 and 2000, the Violence Policy Center states that concealed handgun permit holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81% higher than the rest of the Texas population.  In 2007 the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reviewed a list of concealed gun permit holders in Florida and found that 1,400 had pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony, 216 had outstanding warrants, and 128 had active domestic violence injunctions. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 34, description: 'Criminals are more likely to carry a gun if they suspect that victims may also be armed. Felons report that they often carry firearms to deter victims from resisting. According to a survey of incarcerated felons by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 75% reported carrying a gun while committing a crime because "there\'s always a chance my victim would be armed." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 34, description: 'Public safety should be left to professionally qualified police officers, not private citizens with little or no expert training. Some states, such as Georgia and Maryland, do not require any training before receiving a concealed carry permit. In Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and Vermont, a permit is not necessary to carry a concealed gun.  In states that do require training, it can be inadequate. For example, while Wisconsin requires that concealed weapons permit holders have training, there is no minimum training time requirement.  Mark Schauf, Police Chief of Baraboo, WI, said, "as police officers, we\'re required to have training before we get our weapons and a certain number of training hours throughout the year. If we have to be trained, it would only make sense that a person in public would want to be trained, as well." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 34, description: 'Concealed weapons laws make the non-carrying public feel less safe. A Mar. 10, 2014 poll of Illinois citizens concluded that 52.3% of the public felt less safe following the July 2013 passage of a law allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns in public.  A July 2013 peer-reviewed study of 1,649 students at 15 colleges published in the Journal of American College Health stated that 79% would not feel safe if faculty, students, and visitors carried concealed weapons on campus.  An Apr. 2010 poll of registered voters across the United States found that 57% feel less safe after learning that concealed guns may lawfully be carried in public. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should we privatize Social Security?', position_one: 35, position_two: 36)
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'The current Social Security program will become insolvent by 2034, so a better system is urgently required. Due to an aging population and lower birthrate, the ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking, thereby reducing the funds available for future retirees. In 1940, the payroll tax contributions of 159 workers paid for the benefits of one recipient. In 2013 the estimated ratio was 2.8 workers to each recipient.  Since 2010, Social Security has been paying out more in benefits than it receives in worker contributions. According to the 2015 Social Security Trustees\' report, the trust funds will run out of money by 2034.  Using the existing system to avert the pending collapse of Social Security would require deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes. A better solution is to switch to private retirement accounts that would be funded with existing payroll taxes. The CATO Institute\'s Project on Social Security stated that moving to personal retirement accounts can "reduce Social Security\'s debt and bring the system back into solvency." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'With personal accounts, retirees will see higher returns on their investment. The year-over-year growth rate for private investments (6.38% average real returns on investments in the S&P 500 between 1984-2014) is much higher than the return gained by retired workers in the current Social Security program (between 2.67% and 3.91% return on the contributions made by a medium income, two-earner couple as of Dec. 2014).    Martin Feldstein, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Reagan presidency, wrote that with a private account earning a modest 5.5% real rate of return, "someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit."  Privatizing Social Security will put more money in the pockets of retirees.')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Private accounts give individuals control over their retirement decisions. Americans are capable of making their own decisions regarding how their retirement contributions are invested.  Peter Ferrara, former Director of the International Center for Law and Economics, stated that private accounts "would allow workers personal ownership and control over their retirement funds and broader freedom of choice," and if the accounts were optional (as they were in President George W. Bush\'s plan) they "would also be free to choose whether to exercise the personal account option or stay entirely in the old Social Security framework." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Individual investment accounts would boost economic growth by injecting money back into America\'s financial system. Peter Ferrara, former Director of the International Center for Law and Economics, stated that "The reduced tax burden and higher savings and investment resulting from personal accounts would substantially boost economic growth. This would result in more jobs, better jobs, and higher wages and overall income."  In the decades following Chile\'s privatization of its pension system in 1981, the savings accounts that were established generated the equivalent of about 40% of GNP, and Chile\'s annual growth rate rose to above 7%, double the country\'s historic growth rate, according to José Piñera, Chile\'s former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Privatization reduces government workforce, red tape, and wasteful spending. Minimizing the requirement of the federal government to provide retirement benefits reduces the bloated bureaucracy of the US government. The Social Security Administration currently employs almost 60,000 people at more than 1,400 offices around the country, with an operating budget of $12.5 billion (for financial year 2016).     In 2014, about 26% of US federal spending, or $906 billion, went toward Social Security.   If retirement benefits were managed by private companies, government bureaucracy would be greatly reduced.')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Being able to invest in one\'s own private retirement account removes the uncertainty that accompanies the current, government-controlled program. According to a 2010 Gallup poll, 60% of currently working adults assume they will not receive Social Security benefits when they retire.  With private accounts, individuals will be paying into a fund that they control, instead of a government-controlled trust fund that may run out of money before they ever receive the benefits they’ve earned. Edward P. Lazear, PhD, Chairman of the President\'s Council of Economic Advisers during the George W. Bush presidency, stated that "private accounts enhance, rather than reduce, the likelihood that contributors will receive what they expect. Benefits are more, not less, secure with private accounts" because while the government could succumb to pressure to reduce benefits or change the age of eligibility at any time, returns on, for example, US Treasury bonds "will be paid with virtual certainty." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Private retirement accounts give workers the contractual right to retirement benefits, a right missing from the current Social Security system. In the 1960 US Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor, a retiring legal immigrant eligible for Social Security benefits who paid into the system for 19 years was denied his Social Security retirement money after being deported for being a member of the Communist Party.  Michael Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, stated that "under a privatized Social Security system, workers would have full property rights in their retirement accounts. They would own the money in them, the same way people own their IRAs or 401(k) plans. Congress would have no right to touch that money." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'A system using private accounts would be restricted to allow only low-risk investments so returns would be assured. Converting Social Security into private accounts does not mean workers would be free to put their contributions into high-risk ventures. People would not be allowed to invest their Social Security savings in individual stocks or other highly volatile investments. President George W. Bush\'s 2005 plan would only have allowed relatively low risk investments such as "a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds."   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Social Security taxes have become excessive. The maximum Social Security tax instituted by the Social Security Act of 1935 was $60; as of 2015 it is $7,347 for employees and employers – which is over 700% higher than inflation.  The Social Security tax rate has risen from 2% to 6%, and is as high as 12% for the self-employed. The amount of income that is subject to payroll tax has climbed from $3,000 in 1935 to $118,500 in 2015.   Rather than having so much of their earnings be taken by the government in the form of high Social Security taxes, money put into private accounts would remain under each worker\'s control.')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Private accounts would allow benefits to be inherited. The present system is inequitable because people who live shorter lives collect less of their earned benefits and yet those benefits cannot be transferred to family members. Personal accounts will provide the option to bequeath assets to heirs upon death, an option currently missing from Social Security. As President George W. Bush stated in his 2005 State of the Union speech, "you\'ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren." 26 Michael Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, stated that privatizing Social Security would be a "big boost for the poor" because of inheritable benefits. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Private accounts cannot be raided by Congress or the President. In the past, budget surpluses in Social Security were used by the federal government to fund other government spending, including the purchase of Treasury bonds to offset budget deficits.  Money kept in private accounts is under each individual beneficiary\'s control so it cannot be diverted for non-Social Security purposes.')
Reason.create(position_id: 35, description: 'Private accounts benefit the poor and minorities. In the current system, groups of people with shorter life expectancies (such as the poor and African Americans, for example) effectively have their income transferred to people with longer life expectancies because the latter can collect their benefits for longer.    As stated by President George W. Bush, "Personal accounts, which could be passed along to the next generation, would go a long way toward reducing that disparity." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Privatizing Social Security would do nothing to solve its impending insolvency, and would actually make it worse. The trust funds are destined for insolvency because the program\'s cost is increasing at a faster rate than revenue from payroll taxes. The situation will get even worse if a portion of each individual\'s payroll taxes is diverted away from the Social Security trust funds and into individually controlled retirement accounts, shrinking the funding source for future retirees\' benefits.   According to a 1997 Brookings Institution analysis, if just 1% of payroll taxes had been diverted to private accounts in 1998, the trust funds would have been insolvent by 2015.  William A. Galston, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, said about President George W. Bush\'s 2005 privatization proposal that "it was not clear how private accounts were even part of the solution. At best, they would function alongside of, and in addition to, needed fiscal reforms; at worst... they would exacerbate the system\'s fiscal woes." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Private Social Security accounts will undermine the guaranteed retirement income provided by Social Security by putting peoples\' retirement money at the whim of the stock market. During the 2008 financial crisis, the three main stock market indexes all dropped precipitously: the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 33.8%, the S&P 500 dropped by 38.5%, and the NASDAQ fell 40.5%.  Due to the "boom and bust" cycles of the market, those who retire during an economic downturn would be significantly worse off than those who retire during a boom.  Even diversified mutual and bond funds carry significant risk and are not guaranteed or insured by the government. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Many people lack the basic financial literacy to make wise investment decisions on their own. A 2015 survey published in USA Today revealed that only 39% of Americans know the annual percentage rate (APR) on their primary credit card, and almost 45% don\'t know what a credit score evaluates.  According to researchers Annamaria Lusardi and Olivia S. Mitchell of Dartmouth College, financial illiteracy is widespread among older Americans. In their Oct. 2009 study on financial literacy among adults over 50, Lusardi and Mitchell found that only half of the participants could answer two simple questions on compound interest and inflation. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Privatizing Social Security would dramatically increase the national debt. Transitioning to private accounts while continuing to provide benefits to current Social Security beneficiaries would leave a multi-trillion dollar hole that would need to be filled by more government spending. According to Bloomberg Business, President Bush\'s plan would have required "Washington to borrow at least $160 billion a year in the early years," increasing the nation\'s debt by 40%.  MIT economist Peter A. Diamond estimates that the costs incurred during the transfer to private accounts would add $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the country\'s national debt, which "could trigger an economic crisis." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Privatizing Social Security would expand, not reduce, government bureaucracy. In 2014, Social Security paid benefits to 42 million retired workers and their dependents.  Creating and tracking this many individual private retirement accounts would generate more government bureaucracy and would require the hiring and training of tens of thousands of new government workers to oversee accounts and explain the system to millions of people. The administrative costs of the current system were less than 1% of total revenues in 2014.    ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Guaranteed benefits would be reduced significantly under a privatized system. In order to fund private retirement accounts, special insurance protections that are provided by Social Security, such as disability and survivor\'s insurance, would need to be reduced. A 2005 Century Foundation analysis of the Bush Administration\'s privatization proposal demonstrated that the diversion of payroll taxes to private accounts would reduce benefit levels by 44% below their 2005 levels by 2052.  Economist Dean Baker estimated that an average 15-year-old in 2005 who retires in 2055 stands to lose more than $160,000 of his scheduled benefits under Bush\'s plan, and gain less than a third of that loss back from his investment in a private account. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'If workers had to adopt private accounts, unscrupulous financial advisors could take advantage of novice investors. According to the FBI, there were 1,846 cases of securities and commodities fraud pending as of 2011, and some of the schemes defrauded several thousand investors each. Many of the victims were elderly investors.  The Obama Administration\'s Council of Economic Advisors estimated that Americans lose about $17 billion per year on retirement investments that are arranged to benefit financial advisors at the expense of investors.   After the United Kingdom introduced private accounts in the 1980s, unscrupulous salespeople advised millions of people to invest in risky personal pensions dependent on stock market returns. As a result of the losses incurred, the UK government had to pay out more than £13 billion (equivalent to about US$20 billion as of Aug. 2015) in compensation to the victims.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Privatizing Social Security will put billions of dollars into the pockets of Wall Street financial services corporations in the form of brokerage and management fees. Private Social Security accounts will be a boon to Wall Street, where banks and investment advisors could receive over $100 in fees for each account.  Since the number of Social Security beneficiaries is expected to grow to more than 125.7 million by 2090,  Wall Street will have guaranteed access to a rapidly growing pool of customers courtesy of the federal government.')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Social Security is highly efficient in comparison with private accounts. Social Security provides benefits through a centralized, highly efficient process administered directly by the US government, with an administrative overhead of less than 1%.  Moving benefits into individual private accounts creates a decentralized system that will have to take into account the full diversity of opinions, preferences, and expectations of individual investors, which may increase the program\'s annual administrative costs by more than 83% (from less than 1% to 1.83% of assets), amounting to $54-$117 per worker per year.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Other policy changes can fix Social Security more effectively and less disruptively than privatization. Future budget shortfalls can be eliminated by reducing benefits, increasing taxes, and/or raising the retirement age.     In 2010, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that either a 15% cut in benefits or a 2% payroll tax increase could keep the trust funds solvent for an additional 44 years. In addition, the CBO found that eliminating the payroll tax cap ($118,500 as of 2015) would also keep the trust funds solvent for another 44 years.  Higher returns could be offered to retirees if Congress allowed the Social Security Trust Funds to invest in equities in addition to bonds. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'The accusation that Social Security has been "raided" by the federal government is misleading and does not provide a justification for privatizing the program. When there have been surpluses in the Social Security trust funds, that money has been invested in US government bonds that partially fund the running of the federal government. As Steve Vernon, research scholar with the Stanford Center on Longevity, explained, "They spent this money on all the various operations of the federal government... When you buy any investment, like a stock or a bond, the entity that issues it usually spends the money you paid for that stock or bond." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 36, description: 'Social Security is an equalizer, leveling the playing field for rich and poor, whereas private accounts would favor the wealthy. Social Security taxes are weighted to balance the system for all levels of wage earners, while private accounts favor the rich because low-income earners without their own savings would have their retirement funding dependent on the success of the markets.  Both the General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration examined a private accounts system established in three Texas counties, and both organizations "concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better [under a privatized system], at least initially," according to the Texas Tribune. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Are cell phones safe?', position_one: 37, position_two: 38)
Reason.create(position_id: 37, description: 'Numerous peer-reviewed studies have found that cell phone use is not associated with an increased risk of brain tumors. An Oct. 20, 2011 study of 358,403 Danish citizens – the largest study of its kind to date – concluded that "there was no association between tumors of the central nervous system or brain and long term (10 years +) use of mobile phones."  A July 27, 2011 study found that there was no association between cell phone use and brain tumor risks among children and adolescents.  Numerous other studies published from 2001-2013 have similarly concluded that there is no association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors.      ')
Reason.create(position_id: 37, description: 'Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer. Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is non-ionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer.  According to the authors of a 2005 peer-reviewed study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a "biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 37, description: 'Cell phone radiation levels are tested and certified to remain within levels deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit.  This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufactures of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 37, description: 'Studies have shown an association between cell phone use and a decreased risk of certain brain tumors. According to a peer-reviewed Dec. 2006 study of 420,095 cell phone users in Denmark, the results showed a "reduced brain tumor risk" among long-term subscribers.  Two other peer-reviewed studies also found that cell phone users had a slightly decreased risk of developing brain tumors. A July 20, 2005 Danish study  found a "decreased risk for high-grade glioma," a malignant brain tumor, and a 2005 Swedish study  also found a "decreased odds ratio" for developing glioma as well as meningioma, another type of brain tumor.')
Reason.create(position_id: 37, description: 'US government agencies conclude there is no scientific evidence proving that cell phones cause cancer or other health problems. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC),  US Government Accountability Office (GAO),  and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),  have all concluded that there is no evidence in the scientific literature proving that cell phones cause brain tumors or other health problems. According to the FDA, "attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection [between cell phone radiation and head tumors] have failed." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 37, description: 'There has been no rise in the rate of brain cancers despite a massive increase in the use of cell phones. If cell phones were causing cancer we could expect a significant rise in the rate of brain and other related cancers. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years.  Between 2004 and 2010 there was still no significant change in the incidence rate of brain tumors. Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase from 209 cases to 221.8 cases per 100,000 people, but this slight increase was attributed to better tracking and recording of cases.  During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from 182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 37, description: 'Like cell phones, other devices including radios, televisions, cordless phones, and pagers all safely transmit signals using RF radiation. Radio has used RF radiation since at least 1893  and television has used it since at least 1939.  The safe, long-term use of those RF-using devices helps prove that cell phones are also safe.')
Reason.create(position_id: 38, description: 'Numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown an association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. According to a Mar. 2008 meta-analysis of cell phone studies there is a "consistent pattern" connecting cell phone use and an increased risk of developing glioma, a type of brain tumor.  A Mar. 31, 2009 study found that long term cell phone use (10 years +) "approximately doubles the risk" of being diagnosed with glioma on the same side of the head where the cell phone is held.  In Apr. 2013 another study of Swedish cell phone users also found an association between cell phone use and the development of glioma and acoustic neuroma - a benign tumor formation on the nerve near the ear.  That study’s conclusions were confirmed by a different study in Apr. 2014.  Other studies published from 2005-2013 have similarly concluded that there is an association between cell phone use and increased risk of developing brain and head tumors.    ')
Reason.create(position_id: 38, description: 'The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release announcing it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents that are "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents).  The classification was made after a working group of 31 scientists completed a review of previously published studies and found "limited evidence of carcinogenicity" from the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless phones, radio, television, and radar. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 38, description: 'Due to the relatively recent adoption of cell phones, the long-term safety of the technology cannot be determined conclusively and caution is warranted. Research on glioma brain tumors shows the average latency period is 20-30 years.  Although cell phones were introduced in 1983, it was not until 2003 that over 50% of the US population had a wireless subscription, so the 20 year mark for mass cell phone use has not yet been reached.   The May 17, 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest study ever to examine possible links between cell phones and brain tumors, concluded that overall there was "no increase in risk" for glioma or meningioma brain tumors,  but the average user in the study had less than eight years of cell phone exposure.  In his review of the INTERPHONE study results, Dr. Rodolfo Saracci stated that "none of today’s established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 38, description: 'Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and RF radiation has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer in laboratory animals. A peer-reviewed Jan. 2012 study in the Journal of Neuro-Oncology concluded that RF radiation "may damage DNA and change gene expression in brain cells" in mice.  An Aug. 2009 meta-study found that RF radiation "can alter the genetic material of exposed cells."  A 2004 European Union-funded study also found that cell phone radiation can damage genes.  On May 26, 2016, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) released its study on cell phone radiation, finding an increased incidence of malignant tumors of the brain (gliomas) and heart tumors (schwannomas) in rats exposed to RF radiation.  The NTP researchers also found DNA damage in the rats exposed to the highest levels of RF radiation. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 38, description: 'Children may have an increased risk of adverse health effects from cell phone radiation. According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults.  A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 38, description: 'Radiation from cell phones can damage sperm. Cell phone storage in front pockets has been linked to poor fertility and higher chances of miscarriage and childhood cancer.  According to the Cleveland Clinic Center for Reproductive Medicine, semen quality "tended to decline as daily cell phone use increased."  According to a May-June 2012 meta-study in the Journal of Andrology, "men using mobile phones have decreased sperm concentration" in addition to "decreased viability" of their sperm. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 38, description: 'Prenatal exposure to radiation from cell phones may increase the risk of ADHD and other behavior problems in children. According to a peer-reviewed Nov. 2008 study in the journal Epidemiology, exposure to cell phone radiation while in the womb "was associated with behavior difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of school entry."  A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings.  A peer-reviewed Mar. 15, 2012 study found that mice exposed to cell phone radiation in the womb "were hyperactive and had impaired memory" as adults. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 38, description: 'Cell phone radiation may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers. A 2005 study in the International Journal of Cardiology found that mobile phones may have "adverse effects" on pacemaker functions under certain conditions.  According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), radiofrequency energy from cell phones can create electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers, especially if the cell phone is placed close to the heart.  The American Heart Association includes cell phones on its list of "devices that may interfere with pacemakers." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?', position_one: 39, position_two: 40)
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The study also found that the expertise of researchers unconvinced of human-caused climate change is "substantially below" that of researchers who agree that human activity is primarily responsible for climate change.  The 2013 Cook review of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found that only 78 studies (0.7%) explicitly rejected the position that humans are responsible for global warming.  A separate review of 13,950 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found only 24 that rejected human-caused global warming.  A survey by German Scientists Bray and Von Storch found that 83.5% of climate scientists believe human activity is causing "most of recent" global climate change.  A separate survey in 2011 also found that 84% of earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrological scientists surveyed said that human-induced global warming is occurring. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Rising levels of human-produced gases released into the atmosphere create a greenhouse effect that traps heat and causes global warming. As sunlight hits the earth, some of the warmth is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (NO2). These gases trap heat and cause the planet to warm through a process called the greenhouse effect.  Since 1751 about 337 billion metric tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production,  increasing atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm (parts per million), to a high of 400 ppm in 2013.  Methane, which is increasing in the atmosphere due to agriculture and fossil fuel production, traps 84 times as much heat as CO2 for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere,  and is responsible for about one-fifth of global warming since 1750.  Nitrous oxide, primarily released through agricultural practices, traps 300 times as much heat as CO2.  Over the 20th century, as the concentrations of CO2, CH4, and NO2 increased in the atmosphere,   the earth warmed by approximately 1.4°F. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'The rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century was clearly caused by human activity, as it occurred at a rate much faster than natural climate changes could produce. Over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century.  Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen from about 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013.  CO2 levels are estimated to reach 450 ppm by the year 2040.  According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanology, the "extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events."  Some climate models predict that by the end of the 21st century an additional 5°F-10°F of warming will occur. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'The specific type of CO2 that is increasing in earth\'s atmosphere can be directly connected to human activity. CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal  can be differentiated in the atmosphere from natural CO2 due to its specific isotopic ratio.  According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that rising CO2 levels are the result of human activity, not natural processes such as ocean outgassing, volcanic activity, or release from other "carbon sinks."  US greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in 2012 totaled 6.5 million metric tons,  which is equivalent to about 78.3 billion shipping containers filled with greenhouse gases. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Average temperatures on earth have increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural climate changes. A 2008 study compared data from tree rings, ice cores, and corals over the past millennium with recent temperature records. The study created the famous "hockey stick" graph, showing that the rise in earth\'s temperature over the preceding decade had occurred at a rate faster than any warming period over the last 1,700 years.  In 2012 the Berkeley scientists found that the average temperature of the earth’s land increased 2.5°F over 250 years (1750-2000), with 1.5°F of that increase in the last 50 years.  Lead researcher Richard A. Muller, PhD, said "it appears likely that essentially all of this increase [in temperature] results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."  In 2013, a surface temperature study published in Science found that global warming over the past 100 years has proceeded at a rate faster than at any time in the past 11,300 years.  According to the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report, human actions are "extremely likely" (95-100% confidence) to have been the main cause of 20th century global warming, and the surface temperature warming since the 1950s is "unprecedented over decades to millennia." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Natural changes in the sun\'s activity cannot explain 20th century global warming. According to a Dec. 2013 study in Nature Geoscience, the sun has had only a "minor effect" on the Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, and global warming from human-produced greenhouse gases has been the primary cause of climate change since 1900.  Another 2013 study found that solar activity could not have contributed to more than 10% of the observed global warming over the 20th century.  Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979-2009 show the sun\'s energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase.  According to a 2013 IPCC report, there is "high confidence" (8 out of 10 chance) that changes in the sun\'s radiation could not have caused the increase in the earth\'s surface temperature from 1986-2008.  Although warming is occurring in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is actually cooling. If the sun were driving global warming, there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Global warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is causing the Arctic ice cap to melt at an increasing rate. From 1953–2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade.  As of 2014, Arctic sea ice was being lost at a rate of 13.3% per decade.  As the Arctic ice cover continues to decrease, the amount of the sun’s heat reflected by the ice back into space also decreases. This positive-feedback loop amplifies global warming at a rate even faster than previous climate models had predicted.  Some studies predict the Arctic could become nearly ice free sometime between 2020-2060. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Sea levels are rising at an unprecedented rate due to global warming. As human-produced greenhouse gases warm the planet, sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion of warming ocean waters as well as melt water from receding glaciers and the polar ice cap.  According to the IPCC, there has been a "substantial" human contribution to the global mean sea-level rise since the 1970s, and there is "high confidence" (8 out of 10 chance) that the rate of sea-level rise over the last half century has accelerated faster than it has over the previous 2,000 years.  A 2006 study found that "significant acceleration" of sea-level rise occurred from 1870 to 2004.  Between 1961 and 2003 global sea levels rose 8 inches.  An Oct. 2014 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the rate of sea level rise over the past century is unprecedented over the last 6,000 years.   A separate Oct. 2014 study said that the global sea level is likely to rise 31 inches by 2100, with a worst case scenario rise of 6 feet.  Climate Central predicts that 147 to 216 million people live in areas that will be below sea level or regular flood areas by the end of the century if human-produced greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Ocean acidity levels are increasing at an unprecedented rate that can only be explained by human activity. As excess human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, the acidity level of the water increases. Acidity levels in the oceans are 25-30% higher than prior to human fossil fuel use.  According to a 2014 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, oceans have absorbed about 30% of the CO2 emitted by humans over the past 200 years, and ocean acidity could rise approximately 100-200 percent above preindustrial levels by 2100.  According to a 2013 report from the World Meteorological Organization, the current acceleration in the rate of ocean acidification "appears unprecedented" over the last 300 million years.  High ocean acidity levels threaten marine species,  and slows the growth of coral reefs.  According to a 2014 report by the Convention on Biological Diversity, "it is now nearly inevitable" that within 50-100 years continued human produced CO2 emissions will increase ocean acidity to levels that "will have widespread impacts, mostly deleterious, on marine organisms and ecosystems." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Ocean temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate due to global warming, and are causing additional climate changes. The IPCC stated in a 2013 report that due to human-caused global warming, it is "virtually certain" (99-100% probability) that the upper ocean warmed between 1971 and 2010.  An Oct. 2014 Nature Climate Change study said that the oceans are the "dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system."  A separate Oct. 2014 study found that the oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat generated by human-caused global warming.  Since 1970 the upper ocean (above 700 meters) has been warming 24-55% faster than previous studies had predicted.  A May 2013 study published in Geophysical Research Letters found that between 1958-2009 the rates of warming in the lower ocean (below 700m) "appear to be unprecedented."  According to an Oct. 2013 study, the middle depths of the Pacific Ocean have warmed "15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000."  Warmer ocean waters can harm coral reefs and impact many species including krill, which are vital to the marine food chain and which reproduce significantly less in warmer water.  Warming oceans also contribute to sea level rise due to thermal expansion, and warmer ocean waters can add to the intensity of storm systems. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates due to global warming, causing additional climate changes. About a quarter of the globe\'s glacial loss from 1851-2010, and approximately two thirds of glacial loss between 1991-2010, is attributable directly to global warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases.  According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, global warming from human-produced greenhouse gases is a primary cause of the "unprecedented" retreat of glaciers around the world since the early 20th century.  Since 1980 glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness.  According to a 2013 IPCC report, "glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide" over the prior two decades, and there is "high confidence" (about an 8 out of 10 chance) that Northern Hemisphere spring snow continues to decrease.  If the glaciers forming the Greenland ice sheet were to melt entirely, global sea levels could increase by up to 20 feet.  Melting glaciers also change the climate of the surrounding region. With the loss of summer glacial melt water, the temperatures in rivers and lakes increase. According to the US Geological Service, this disruption can include the "extinction of temperature sensitive aquatic species." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Human-caused global warming is changing weather systems and making heat waves and droughts more intense and more frequent. The May 2014 National Climate Assessment report said human-caused climate changes, such as increased heat waves and drought, "are visible in every state."  A Sep. 2014 American Meteorological Society study found that human-caused climate change "greatly increased" (up to 10 times) the risk for extreme heat waves in 2013.  According to an Aug. 2012 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, there is a "high degree of confidence" that the Texas and Oklahoma heat waves and drought of 2011, and heat waves and drought in Moscow in 2010, "were a consequence of global warming" and that "extreme anomalies" in weather are becoming more common as a direct consequence of human-caused climate change.  A 2015 study found that globally, 75% of extremely hot days are attributable to warming caused by human activity. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Dramatic changes in precipitation, such as heavier storms and less snow, are another sign that humans are causing global climate change. As human-produced greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas.  In a process known as a positive feedback loop, more warming causes more humidity which causes even more warming.  Higher humidity levels also cause changes in precipitation. According to a 2013 report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the recorded changes in precipitation over land and oceans "are unlikely to arise purely due to natural climate variability."  Higher temperatures from global warming are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western United States (1950-1999) were human-induced.  Since 1991, heavy precipitation events have been 30% above the 1901-1960 average in the Northeast, Midwest, and upper Great Plains regions.  A 2015 study found that global warming caused by human actions has increased extreme precipitation events by 18% across the globe, and that if temperatures continue to rise an increase of 40% can be expected. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 39, description: 'Permafrost is melting at unprecedented rates due to global warming, causing further climate changes. According to a 2013 IPCC report there is "high confidence" (about an 8 out of 10 chance) that anthropogenic global warming is causing permafrost, a subsurface layer of frozen soil, to melt in high-latitude regions and in high-elevation regions.  As permafrost melts it releases methane, a greenhouse gas that absorbs 84 times more heat than CO2 for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere, creating even more global warming in a positive feedback loop.  By the end of the 21st century, warming temperatures in the Arctic will cause a 30%-70% decline in permafrost.  According to a 2012 report, as human-caused global warming continues, Arctic air temperatures are expected to increase at twice the global rate, increasing the rate of permafrost melt, changing the local hydrology, and impacting critical habitat for native species and migratory birds.  According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, some climate models suggest that near-surface permafrost will be "lost entirely" from large parts of Alaska by the end of the 21st century. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change.  The Cook review  of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies found 66.4% of the studies had no stated position on anthropogenic global warming, and while 32.6% of the studies implied or stated that humans are contributing to climate change, only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly stated "that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming."  A 2012 Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and instead believe that climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment (37%), mostly by the environment (5%), or that there’s not enough information to say (5%).  In 2014 a group of 15 scientists dismissed the US National Climate Assessment as a "masterpiece of marketing," that was "grossly flawed," and called the NCA’s assertion of human-caused climate change "NOT true." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Earth\'s climate has always warmed and cooled, and the 20th century rise in global temperature is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years. Although the planet has warmed 1-1.4°F over the 20th century, it is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years.  A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics found that "many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."  A 2005 study published in Nature found that "high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100" in the Northern Hemisphere.  A 2013 study published in Boreas found that summer temperatures during the Roman Empire and Medieval periods were "consistently higher" than temperatures during the 20th century.  According to a 2010 study in the Chinese Science Bulletin, the recent global warming period of the 20th century is the result of a natural 21-year temperature oscillation, and will give way to a "new cool period in the 2030s." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 do not necessarily cause global warming, which contradicts the core thesis of human-caused climate change. Earth\'s climate record shows that warming has preceded, not followed, a rise in CO2. According to a 2003 study published in Science, measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2.  In 2010 the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study of the earth\'s climate 460-445 million years ago which found that an intense period of glaciation, not warming, occurred when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than they are today.  According to ecologist and former Director of Greenpeace International Patrick Moore, PhD, "there is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Human-produced CO2 is re-absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks," negating any climate changes. According to a 2011 study published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, many climate models that predict additional global warming to occur from CO2 emissions "exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative."  About 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities has already been re-absorbed by the earth’s carbon sinks.  From 2002-2011, 26% of human-caused CO2 emissions were absorbed specifically by the world’s oceans.  A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found evidence that forests are increasing their growth rates in response to elevated levels of CO2,  which will in turn, lower atmospheric CO2 levels in a negative feedback. According to an Aug. 2012 study in Nature, the rate of global carbon uptake by the earth\'s carbon sinks, such as its forests and oceans, doubled from 1960-2010 and continues to increase. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'CO2 is already saturated in earth’s atmosphere, and more CO2, manmade or natural, will have little impact on climate. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the amount of additional warming caused by the increased concentration becomes less and less pronounced.  According to Senate testimony by William Happer, PhD, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, "[a]dditional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. The technical jargon for this is that the CO2 absorption band is nearly \'saturated\' at current CO2 levels."  According to the Heartland Institute\'s 2013 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, "it is likely rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have little impact on future climate." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Global warming and cooling are primarily caused by fluctuations in the sun\'s heat (solar forcing), not by human activity. Over the past 10,000 years, solar minima (reduced sun spot activity) have been "accompanied by sharp climate changes."  Between 1900 and 2000 solar irradiance increased 0.19%, and correlated with the rise in US surface temperatures over the 20th century.  According to a 2007 study published in Energy & Environment, "variations in solar activity and not the burning of fossil fuels are the direct cause of the observed multiyear variations in climatic responses."  In a 2012 study by Willie Soon, PhD, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years was identified.  According to a 2012 study published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, "up to 70% of the observed post-1850 climate change and warming could be associated to multiple solar cycles." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'The rate of global warming has slowed over the last decade even though atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized a slowdown in global warming over the past 15 years in its 2013 report.  According to the Heartland Institute\'s 2013 NIPCC report, the earth "has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2."  In Aug. 2014 a study in the Open Journal of Statistics analyzed surface temperature records and satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere and confirmed that this slowdown in global warming has occurred.  According to Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Lindzen, PhD, the IPCC\'s "excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the [climate] models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Sea levels have been steadily rising for thousands of years, and the increase has nothing to do with humans. A 2014 report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that a slow global sea level rise has been ongoing for the last 10,000 years.  When the earth began coming out of the Pleistocene Ice Age 18,000 years ago, sea levels were about 400 feet lower than they are today and have been steadily rising ever since.  According to Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, PhD "it is clear that natural variability has dominated sea level rise during the 20th century, with changes in ocean heat content and changes in precipitation patterns."  Freeman Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Physics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, has stated that there is "no evidence" that rising sea levels are due to anthropogenic climate change. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'The acidity levels of the oceans are within past natural levels, and the current rise in acidity is a natural fluctuation, not the result of human caused climate change.  The pH of average ocean surface water is 8.1 and has only decreased 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial revolution (neutral is pH 7, acid is below pH 7).  In 2010 Science published a study of ocean acidity levels over the past 15 million years, finding that the "samples record surface seawater pH values that are within the range observed in the oceans today."  Increased atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the oceans results in higher rates of photosynthesis and faster growth of ocean plants and phytoplankton, which increases pH levels keeping the water alkaline, not acidic.  According to a 2010 paper by the Science and Public Policy Institute, "our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the oceans." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Predictions of accelerating human-caused climate change are based upon computerized climate models that are inadequate and incorrect. Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes.  A 2011 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science study using observational data rather than computer climate models concluded that "the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity" and overestimate how fast the earth will warm as CO2 levels increase.  Two other studies using observational data found that IPCC projections of future global warming are too high.   In a 2014 article, climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer, PhD, concluded that 95% of climate models have "over-forecast the warming trend since 1979."  According to Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg, Tim Ball, PhD, "IPCC computer climate models are the vehicles of deception… [T]hey create the results they are designed to produce." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Glaciers have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes, not human activity. The IPCC predicted that Himalayan glaciers would likely melt away by 2035, a prediction they disavowed in 2010.  In 2014 a study of study of 2,181 Himalayan glaciers from 2000-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding.  According to a 2013 study of ice cores published in Nature Geoscience, the current melting of glaciers in Western Antarctica is due to "atmospheric circulation changes" that have "caused rapid warming over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet" and cannot be directly attributed to human caused climate change.  According to one of the study authors, "[i]f we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today."  According to Christian Schlüchter, Professor of Geology at the University of Bern, 4,000 year old tree remains have been found beneath retreating glaciers in the Swiss Alps, indicating that they were previously glacier-free. According to Schlüchter, the current retreat of glaciers in the Alps began in the mid-19th century, before large amounts of human caused CO2 had entered the atmosphere. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Deep ocean currents, not human activity, are a primary driver of natural climate warming and cooling cycles. Changes in ocean currents are primarily responsible for the melting Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, and Arctic permafrost. Over the 20th century there have been two Arctic warming periods with a cooling period (1940-1970) in between. According to a 2009 study in Geophysical Research Letters, natural shifts in the ocean currents are the major cause of these climate changes, not human-generated greenhouse gases.  According to William Gray, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, most of the climate changes over the last century are natural and "due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in deep global ocean currents."  Global cooling from 1940 to the 1970s, and warming from the 1970s to 2008, coincided with fluctuations in ocean currents and cloud cover driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - a naturally occurring rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns.  According to a 2014 article by Don Easterbrook, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, the "PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 40, description: 'Increased hurricane activity and other extreme weather events are a result of natural weather patterns, not human-caused climate change. According to a 2013 report from the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, the increase in human-produced CO2 over the past century has had "little or no significant effect" on global tropical cyclone activity. The report further states that specific hurricanes, including Sandy, Ivan, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Ike, were not a direct consequence of human-caused global warming.  Between 1995-2015 increased hurricane activity (including Katrina) was recorded, however, according to the NOAA, it was not the result of human-induced climate change; it was the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns, driven primarily by natural ocean currents.  Many types of recorded extreme weather events over the past half-century have actually become less frequent and less severe.  Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, PhD, states that she is "unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events" to human-caused climate change.  Richard Lindzen, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also states that there is a lack of evidence connecting extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods, to human-caused global warming. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Was Ronald Reagan a good president?', position_one: 41, position_two: 42)
Tag.create(topic_id: 21, name: 'america')
Tag.create(topic_id: 21, name: 'politics')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Character: Reagan\'s charm, geniality, and ability to connect with average citizens as well as world leaders earned him the nickname "The Great Communicator." Through his speeches and actions, Reagan restored the confidence of the American public in the office of the president. Decades after he left office, Reagan\'s legacy remained strong with admirers wanting to add his portrait to Mount Rushmore and to US currency. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Crime: On Oct. 2 1982, Reagan launched a "War on Drugs" that helped reduce the high rate of casual drug use lingering from the 1970s.  He increased funding for the drug war from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $2.75 billion in 1986.  Reagan also signed eight major Executive Orders related to crime and justice as well as five major crime bills: Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1984, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Defense: Reagan strengthened the weak, ineffectual, and vulnerable military which Carter left behind. The Reagan administration funded research and development of weapons systems, including stealth technology and precision weaponry, later used in both Persian Gulf wars. Reagan\'s largest peacetime defense buildup in history, which included larger training ranges and military pay increases, helped invigorate the American military from its Vietnam War-era despondency. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Economy: Reagan\'s economic policies, such as a reduction in government spending and regulation and cuts in taxes, resulted in an unprecedented 92-month long economic boom, from Nov. 1982 to July 1990, with expansion and growth in the GDP (+36%), employment (+20 million jobs), and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (+15%). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Education: After "A Nation at Risk", a negative report on the nation\'s educational system, was released in Apr. 1983, President Reagan increased the budget for the Department of Education by $6 billion over the next three years. During the Reagan Administration, state education aid increased 20%, or almost $35 billion and, in 1988, it comprised a nearly 50% slice of revenue from all sources for education. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Environment: Between 1982 and 1988, Reagan signed 43 bills designating more than 10 million acres of federal wilderness areas in 27 states. This acreage accounted for nearly 10% of the National Wilderness Preservation System at the time. Reagan had signed more wilderness bills than any other president since the Wilderness Act was enacted in 1964. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Foreign Policy: Reagan helped bring an end to the 46-year-old Cold War, through a combination of hostile, anti-communist rhetoric and a massive arms buildup followed by skillful diplomacy and disarmament. On Nov. 9, 1989, just over two years after his famous Brandenburg Gate speech, the Berlin Wall fell, marking the end of communism in Germany.  On Dec. 15, 1991, after four bilateral summits with Reagan, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Health: On Apr. 7, 1986, Reagan signed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) into law. As of Sep. 30, 2010, COBRA is still in effect and gives some workers who lose their health benefits, for example in situations such as job loss or reduction in hours worked, the right to choose to continue health benefits provided by their employer\'s group health plan. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Labor: When Reagan followed through on his Aug. 3, 1981 threat to fire 12,176 striking air traffic controllers (PATCO), he held the controllers to their signed affidavit stating that they would not "participate [in any strike] while an employee of the Government of the United States."  Reagan brought in military air traffic controllers as replacements to ensure there was no disruption of a major public service.  His actions helped curtail future frivolous strikes as they plummeted from an average of 300 each year in the decades before the PATCO strike to fewer than 30 in 2006. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Science/Technology: Reagan was a big supporter of the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA). In his 1984 State of the Union Address, Reagan announced plans for what came to be the International Space Station.  On Jan. 30, 1987, Reagan also announced that he planned to fund the building of the Superconducting Super Collider, a $4.5 billion dollar particle accelerator used for high energy physics research.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Social Policy: To "finally break the poverty trap," as Reagan stated in his 1987 State of the Union Address, he signed the Family Support Act on Oct. 12, 1988.  The Act required states to establish and operate a Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program (JOBS) to assure needy families with children obtain the training and employment necessary to avoid long-term welfare.  Reagan also helped save Social Security by passing the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. It provided extra revenue dedicated to securing the solvent future of Social Security. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Taxes: Through massive tax cuts, Reagan helped restore an economy that had both high inflation and unemployment left over from the 1970s. As he brought taxation down from 70% to 28%, Reagan proved that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, increases economic activity, and boosts tax revenues. Government revenues from income tax rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 41, description: 'Other: Reagan helped to reduce inefficiencies in the federal bureaucracy. When Reagan took office, it took seven weeks to get a Social Security card and 43 days to get a passport. By the time he left office, both could be had in 10 days. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Character: Reagan\'s hands-off leadership style manifested into an inability to control his administration from potentially illegal activities, e.g. the "Iran-Contra" scandal.  His "troika," the nickname given to Chief of Staff James Baker, Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver, and Counselor Edwin Meese, made many of Reagan\'s key administrative decisions for him. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Crime: In a Sep. 28, 1981 speech to the International Chiefs of Police, Reagan claimed that people who commit violent crimes "are not desperate people seeking bread for their families; crime is the way they\'ve chosen to live."  This attitude failed to address the stark realities underlying crime, namely the national culture of poverty and discrimination. Violent crime nationwide increased 21% from 1981-1989.  The "War on Drugs" wasted billions of dollars and escalated drug-related crime.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Defense: Reagan increased the defense budget for an unprecedented six consecutive years. This spending produced an unsustainable bubble in the defense industry that led to decades of restructuring. By the early 1990s the defense industry had too many factories and too many workers to support with its smaller budgets. For example, in the early 1980s there were 50 large defense suppliers to the US government. By 2004 there were five.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Economy: Reagan pledged during his 1980 campaign for president to balance the federal budget, but never submitted a balanced budget in his eight years in office. In 1981, the deficit was $79 billion and, in 1986, at the peak of his deficit spending, it stood at $221 billion. The federal debt was $994 billion when he took office in 1981 and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989.  Reagan also added more trade barriers than any other president since Hoover in 1930. US imports that were subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Education: In his two terms in office, Reagan slashed federal aid to schools by more than $1 billion, and he cut the Department of Education budget by 19%.  One of Reagan\'s campaign promises was to abolish the Department of Education, which he considered a "bureaucratic boondoggle." After intermittent attempts to fulfill this promise, he gave up in 1983 due to lack of Congressional support. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Environment: As a president who said "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do," Reagan issued leases for oil, gas, and coal development on tens of millions of acres of national lands. Reagan\'s appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Anne Gorsuch, tried to gut the 1972 Clean Water Act, cut EPA funding by 25%, and mismanaged a $1.6 billion program to clean up hazardous waste dumps.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Foreign Policy: Reagan broke his own vows not to make deals with terrorists or states that aided them. In the "Iran-Contra" scandal, Reagan\'s administration bypassed congressional restrictions on aiding Nicaragua\'s Contra guerilla fighters, in part by diverting money to them from the sale of missiles to Iran.  Reagan also initiated military involvement in Libya, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Lebanon. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Health: Reagan almost completely ignored the growing AIDS epidemic. Although the first case of AIDS was discovered in the early 1980s, Reagan never publicly addressed the epidemic until May 31, 1987 when he spoke at an AIDS conference in Washington, DC. By that time, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with the disease and 20,849 had died. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Labor: On Aug. 3, 1981, Reagan ordered 12,176 striking air traffic controllers (PATCO) back to their jobs, disregarding the workers\' complaints of stress, staff shortages, and outdated equipment. PATCO was one of the few unions that had endorsed Reagan in the 1980 election. Reagan repaid them by giving them only 48 hours to cancel the strike and banning them from federal service for life. The ban was not lifted until 1993 by President Bill Clinton. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Science/Technology: Reagan\'s over-ambitious space-based laser strategic defensive system, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or "Star Wars," proved to be too technically complex and expensive to complete.  From its inception in 1983 to its demise in 1993, the program cost taxpayers $33 billion dollars. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Social Policy: Reagan believed that widespread freeloading plagued welfare and social programs. As Reagan slashed spending in his first term on programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing, the poverty rate climbed from 12% to 15% and unemployment rose from 7% to 11%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Taxes: Reagan\'s "voodoo" economic policy, where tax cuts were believed to somehow generate tax revenues, failed to account for his administration\'s excessive spending which increased from $591 billion in 1980 to $1.2 trillion in 1990.   Reagan both increased and cut taxes. In 1980, middle-income families with children paid 8.2% in income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988 their income tax was down to 6.6%, but payroll tax was up to 11.8%, a combined increase in taxes.  Reagan pushed through Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 42, description: 'Other: Reagan opposed many important civil rights measures that further alienated him and the Republican Party from African-Americans. On Mar. 16, 1988, Reagan vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act. He was opposed to extending provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He initially opposed making Martin Luther King, Jr.\'s birthday a national holiday. He was also loyal to apartheid South Africa, considering that country a friend and ally.  ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?', position_one: 43, position_two: 44)
Tag.create(topic_id: 22, name: 'america')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'The United States should maintain the Cuba embargo because Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it. Proclamation 3447 signed by President Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1962, established the embargo against Cuba to reduce "the threat posed by its alignment with the communist powers."  The embargo was strengthened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act , and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (also known as Helms-Burton)  which specified conditions for terminating the embargo. According to US law, Cuba must legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions. Since Cuba has not met these conditions, the embargo should not be lifted.')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'Ending the embargo before the Cuban government meets the conditions specified by US law would make the United States look weak. Lifting the sanctions unilaterally would be an act of appeasement that could embolden Cuba to join forces with other countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, China, and Iran to promote anti-American sentiments or socialism in the Western Hemisphere.  The United States should not risk sending the message that it can be waited out or that seizing US property in foreign countries, as Castro did in Cuba when he took power, will be tolerated. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'The Cuban government has consistently responded to US attempts to soften the embargo with acts of aggression, raising concerns about what would happen if the sanctions were fully lifted. President Carter tried to normalize relations with Cuba by opening the US Interests Section (a de facto embassy) in Havana in 1977. Fidel Castro then orchestrated the Mariel Boatlift, which sent 125,000 emigrants (including criminals and mentally ill people) to the United States.    In 2003, President George W. Bush began to ease restrictions for visiting family members in Cuba, but tightened the rules in 2004 in response to Cuba\'s crackdown against political dissidents.  President Obama relaxed the US travel policy in 2009 to allow unlimited travel to Cuba to visit family members.  That same year, the Cuban government arrested an American aid worker and sentenced him to 15 years in prison, and he was not released until Dec. 2014.  Since the United States agreed to re-open the US embassy in Cuba, the Cuban government has continued to persecute and arrest its own citizens. There were 630 political arrests in June 2015.  One protestor claimed "The Cuban government has grown even bolder" as a result of the normalized relations, just before he was detained along with 89 other dissidents prior to Secretary of State John Kerry\'s arrival in Havana in Aug. 2015. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'The embargo enables the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights. Several international organizations have written about the long history of human rights abuses and repression in Cuba. At least 4,123 people were detained for political reasons in 2011, and an estimated 6,602 political detentions occurred in 2012.   The Congressional Research Service reported that there are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012 (although the Cuban government reports 57,337 prisoners) - among the highest in the world on a per capita basis.   The freedom of expression and right to assemble are severely restricted by the government. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act stated that the United States has a "moral obligation" to promote human rights in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the embargo is a bargaining tool. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'Since there is virtually no private sector in Cuba, opening trade would only help the government, not regular Cuban citizens. The 90% state-owned economy ensures that the Cuban government and military would reap the gains of open trade with the United States, not private citizens.  Foreign companies operating in Cuba are required to hire workers through the state; wages are converted into local currency and devalued at a ratio of 24:1, so a $500 wage becomes a $21 paycheck. A Cuban worker was quoted as having said, "In Cuba, it\'s a great myth that we live off the state. In fact, it\'s the state that lives off of us." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'The United States is able to target the Cuban government with its embargo while still providing assistance to Cuban citizens. US policy allows people to visit family members and send money to relatives in Cuba, and also permits travel for humanitarian and educational reasons. Over one billion dollars in remittances (money transferred from abroad) are sent to Cuban families each year, mostly from relatives in the United States.  Congress has given USAID a total budget of $197 million between 2001 and 2012 to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'The uncertainty over who will succeed Raúl Castro makes it unwise for the United States to change its policy before a new leader is in place. An aging Fidel Castro yielded power to his younger brother Raúl for health reasons, but Raúl is also over 80 years old and there are questions about how much longer the Castros will remain in charge of Cuba. John Hughes, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and former President of the American Society of Newspapers, stated: "The worst scenario would be the emergence of an Army strongman who plunges the country into martial rule."  The embargo will be a necessary bargaining chip when a new leader takes power.')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'The majority of Cuban Americans, the people who understand the situation best, support the embargo. US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a Cuban American, and long-time proponent of the embargo, wrote in a press release, "In addition to imposing economic pressure on the Castro regime and holding it accountable for actions against U.S. interests, the embargo is a moral stance against the brutal dictatorship. Over the last 50 years, the embargo has served as a constant form of solidarity with the Cuban people."  In 1991, 87% of Cuban Americans in Miami supported the embargo, and as of 2011, 53% still support maintaining it.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'Cuba should be subject to sanctions because it is known to have repeatedly supported acts of terrorism. Cuba has been on the US "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list since 1982.  The US State Department consistently finds evidence of Cuba\'s involvement in promoting violence, giving terrorists a safe haven, and harboring US fugitives. Members of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a terrorist organization that operates in Spain, live in Cuba.  Black Panther activist and convicted murderer Joanne Chesimard, known as Assata Shakur, is one of 90 or more criminals who fled the United States and received political asylum in Cuba.  In 1996, Castro\'s military shot down two American civilian aircrafts, killing four people.  Cuba has also supported armed insurgencies in Latin America and Africa. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'Cuba has not demonstrated a willingness to negotiate in good faith with the United States. President Barack Obama stated in a Sep. 28, 2011 "Open for Questions" roundtable, "Now, what we\'ve tried to do is to send a signal that we are open to a new relationship with Cuba… [W]e have to see a signal back from the Cuban government... in order for us to be fully engaged with them. And so far, at least, what we haven\'t seen is the kind of genuine spirit of transformation inside of Cuba that would justify us eliminating the embargo."  Fidel Castro responded the following day by calling Obama "stupid" and saying, "Many things will change in Cuba, but they will change through our efforts and in spite of the United States. Perhaps that empire will fall first."  Even though President Obama made efforts to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba in 2015, the Cuban government has failed to improve on human rights. According to a 2015 Human Rights Watch report, "Detention is often used pre-emptively to prevent individuals from participating in peaceful marches or meetings to discuss politics." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 43, description: 'The embargo should be maintained because open travel is insufficient to promote change in Cuba; many democratic countries already allow travel to Cuba with no results. Lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba would not lead to improved conditions or the spread of democracy. More than 2.7 million people from around the world visited Cuba in 2011, including more tourists from Canada than any other country.  Despite the steady flow of tourism from western countries, the Cuban government still maintains total control over its people. Most Cuban nationals are banned from tourist areas such as resorts and beaches, so there would be limited contact with US citizens vacationing there.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals. Feb. 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of the embargo, and the goal of forcing Cuba to adopt a representative democracy still has not been achieved. Fidel Castro resigned his presidency in 2008, and abdicated his role as the leader of Cuba\'s communist party in 2011 due to illness. His brother Raúl then stepped in to take his place.   If 50 years of sanctions have not toppled the Castro regime, there is no reason to think the embargo will ever work.')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'The embargo is a relic of Cold War Era thinking and is unnecessary because Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States. Cuba\'s relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War raised concerns about US national security, but that era is long over. The USSR dissolved in 1991, and American foreign policy has adapted to the change in most aspects apart from the embargo.   The US Defense Intelligence Agency released a report in 1998 stating "Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region."  The embargo can no longer be justified by the fear of Communism spreading throughout the Western Hemisphere.')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'The embargo harms the US economy. The US Chamber of Commerce opposes the embargo, saying that it costs the United States $1.2 billion annually in lost sales of exports.  A study by the Cuba Policy Foundation, a nonprofit founded by former US diplomats, estimated that the annual cost to the US economy could be as high as $4.84 billion in agricultural exports and related economic output. "If the embargo were lifted, the average American farmer would feel a difference in his or her life within two to three years," the study\'s author said.  A Mar. 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that removing the restrictions on agricultural exports and travel to Cuba could create as many as 6,000 jobs in the US.  Nine US governors released a letter on Oct. 14, 2015 urging Congress to lift the embargo, which stated: "Foreign competitors such as Canada, Brazil and the European Union are increasingly taking market share from U.S. industry [in Cuba], as these countries do not face the same restrictions on financing... Ending the embargo will create jobs here at home, especially in rural America, and will create new opportunities for U.S. agriculture." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended. Cubans are denied access to technology, medicine, affordable food, and other goods that could be available to them if the United States lifted the embargo. A report by the American Association for World Health found that doctors in Cuba have access to less than 50% of the drugs on the world market, and that food shortages led to a 33% drop in caloric intake between 1989 and 1993. The report stated, "it is our expert medical opinion that the US embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba."  Amnesty International reported in 2011 that "treatments for children and young people with bone cancer... [and] antiretroviral drugs used to treat children with HIV/AIDS" were not readily available with the embargo in place because "they were commercialized under US patents." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'The United States should not have different trading and travel policies for Cuba than for other countries with governments or policies it opposes. The United States trades with China, Venezuela, and Vietnam despite their records of human rights violations. President George W. Bush lifted trade sanctions on North Korea in 2008 even amidst concerns about that nation\'s desire to develop nuclear weapons.  Americans are permitted to travel to other communist countries, nations known for human rights violations, and even places on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.  Citizens may go to countries like Burma, Iran, and North Korea if given a visa, so there is no justification for singling Cuba as the one nation in the world that is off limits. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'It is hypocritical for the US government to promote democracy by prohibiting Americans from traveling there. It is hypocritical to restrict American rights as a means of forcing another country to embrace freedom. It is also hypocritical to demand that Cuba adopt a representative democracy given the long history of US support for brutal dictatorships in countries that favor American interests, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.  The United States even backed Cuban dictator General Batista (who was overthrown by Fidel Castro), someone known to have killed, tortured, and imprisoned political dissenters, because he was friendly to American interests.  Furthermore, the US has a higher per capita incarceration rate than Cuba, about 716 prisoners per 100,000 people compared to an estimated 510 per 100,000 in Cuba, so concerns about the number of prisoners there is hypocritical. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'Most Americans want improved diplomatic ties and open travel and trade policies with Cuba. A 2012 opinion poll of more than 1,000 US adults found that 62% of respondents thought the United States should re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, while only one in four was against it. Among Americans surveyed, 57% think that the travel ban to Cuba should be lifted, while only 27% think the ban should remain. Regarding the trade embargo, 51% of Americans want to open trade with Cuba, compared to 29% who do not. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'Cuban Americans, the people who understand the situation best, think the embargo is not working. More than 80% of Cuban Americans surveyed in 2011 said the embargo has worked not very well or not at all.   Even though President Obama eased restrictions related to Cuba in 2009, his support among Cuban Americans in Florida increased from a third of the community in 2008 to more than half in the 2012 presidential election. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'Free trade, not the isolation of an embargo, can promote democracy in Cuba. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan (R) said, "I think we ought to treat Cuba like we do any other country in the world... our biggest commodity is democracy, and we ought to be spreading that any place we can. And what made this country great is free trade."  An influx of US tourists and businesses would expose the sheltered island to our culture and freedoms, and weaken the Castro regime\'s control over information coming into the country. Trading with China led to economic reforms that brought 100 million people above the poverty line and improved access to health care and education across the country. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'Lifting the embargo would put pressure on Cuba to address problems that it had previously blamed on US sanctions. Cuban officials have not been forced to take responsibility for problems such as a failing health care system, lack of access to medicine, the decline of the sugar industry, decrepit plumbing systems, and water pollution because they use the embargo as a scapegoat. The Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs reportedly blamed the embargo for a total of $1.66 billion in damage to the Cuban economy.  President Bill Clinton said in a 2000 interview, "[S]ometimes I think [Fidel Castro] doesn\'t want the embargo lifted... because as long as he can blame the United States, then he doesn\'t have to answer to his own people for the failures of his economic policy." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'Most of the world opposes the embargo, and maintaining it is detrimental to the reputation of the United States among the international community. The United Nations has formally denounced the US embargo on Cuba every year since 1991. In 2013, 188 countries in the UN General Assembly voted to condemn the US policy; only Israel sided with the United States.   American allies, such as Canada, Britain, Italy, Mexico, and France are the leading suppliers of tourists to Cuba.  The US sanctions make the US look stubborn and childish in the eyes of the world. During his Mar. 2012 visit to the island, Pope Benedict XVI said the embargo "unfairly burdens" the Cuban people. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 44, description: 'The embargo prevents the people of Cuba from joining the digital age by cutting them off from technology, and restricts the electronic flow of information to the island. Fewer than one in four Cubans accessed the internet in 2011. Maintaining the embargo gives the Cuban government an excuse for not building a better technological infrastructure and prevents foreign companies from expanding internet access to Cubans.  Some US companies have blocked access to their sites in Cuba for fear of breaching the embargo. Microsoft, for example, has disabled access to Messenger, a chat program, since 2009.  A Google spokesperson said the company blocks Cuban access to its Earth, Toolbar, and Analytics programs because "As a US company, we comply with US export controls and trade sanctions that limit us from offering certain services in certain countries." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?', position_one: 45, position_two: 46)
Tag.create(topic_id: 23, name: 'america')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks across the world. Drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia have killed upwards of 3,500 militants, including dozens of high-level commanders implicated in organizing plots against the United States.     According to President Obama, "dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, US transit systems, European cities, and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives."  David Rohde, a former New York Times reporter held hostage by the Taliban in Pakistan for several months in 2009, called the drones a "terrifying presence" for militants.  On Nov. 1, 2013 drone strikes killed Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon. The traditional weapons of war - bombs, shells, mines, mortars - cause more unintended ("collateral") damage to people and property than drones, whose accuracy and technical precision mostly limit casualties to combatants and intended targets.  Although estimates vary because of the secretive nature of the program, it is estimated that 174 to 1,047 civilians have been killed in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia since the United States began conducting drone strikes abroad following the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, roughly 8-17% of all deaths from US drones.      In comparison, in World War II, civilian deaths, as a percentage of total war fatalities, are estimated at 40 to 67%.   In the Korean,  Vietnam,  and Balkan Wars,  the percentages are approximately 70%, 31%, and 45% respectively.')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drones make US military personnel safer. Drones are launched from bases in allied countries and are operated remotely by pilots in the United States, minimizing the risk of injury and death that would occur if ground soldiers and airplane pilots were used instead.  Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their affiliates often operate in distant and environmentally unforgiving locations where it would be extremely dangerous for the United States to deploy teams of special forces to track and capture terrorists. Such pursuits may pose serious risks to US troops including firefights with surrounding tribal communities, anti-aircraft shelling, land mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombers, snipers, dangerous weather conditions, harsh environments, etc. Drone strikes eliminate all of those risks common to "boots on the ground" missions. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drone strikes are cheaper than engaging in ground or manned aerial combat. With approximately $5 billion allocated for drones in the 2012 Department of Defense budget,  America\'s entire drone program constitutes only about 1% of the entire annual military budget.  In comparison, the military\'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone cost the United States $9.7 billion in fiscal year 2012.  US manned military attack aircraft cost anywhere from $18,000 to $169,000 per hour to operate - six to 42 times more than attack drones.  Al Qaeda spent roughly half a million dollars to plan and execute the attacks on the United States on Sep. 11, 2001.  In response, the United States spent roughly $2.2 trillion on funding manned air and ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on homeland security costs in the following decade - over $4 million for every dollar al Qaeda spent. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drone strikes are legal under international law. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for a nation\'s inherent right to self-defense when it has been attacked.  The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has said that Article 51 applies if the targeted state agrees to the use of force in its territory, or the targeted group operating within its territory was responsible for an act of aggression against the targeting state where the host state is unwilling or unable to control the threat themselves.  Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have officially consented to US drone strikes within their countries because they are unable to control terrorist groups within their own borders.  Former US State Department Legal Adviser and current Yale Professor of International Law Harold Koh says that a state engaged in an "armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense" is not required to provide targets with legal processing before using lethal force, and a country may target individuals in foreign countries if they are directly participating in hostilities or posing an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent.  The United States also has the right under international law to "anticipatory self-defense," which gives the right to use force against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defense is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drone strikes are legal under US law. Presidential powers under Article II of the US Constitution allow the use of force against an imminent threat without congressional approval.  Additionally, in 2001 Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), authorizing armed conflict with al Qaeda and associated forces indefinitely.  The AUMF states that the President is "authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."  The AUMF does not have a geographic boundary, and the Obama administration notes that al Qaeda militants far from the battlefield in Afghanistan are still engaged in armed conflict with the United States and therefore covered under the law. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drones limit the scope and scale of military action. Since the 9/11 attacks, the main threats to US security are decentralized terrorist networks operating in countries around the world, not large countries fighting with massive air, ground, and sea armies. Invading Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia to capture relatively small terrorist groups would lead the United States to expensive conflict, responsibility for destabilizing those governments, large numbers of civilian casualties, empowerment of enemies who view the United States as an occupying imperialist power, US military deaths, and other unintended consequences. America\'s attempt to destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan by invading and occupying the country resulted in a war that has dragged on for over 12 years. Using drone strikes against terrorists abroad allows the United States to achieve its goals at a fraction of the cost of an invasion in money, manpower, and lives.')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drone strikes are subject to a strict review process and congressional oversight. President Obama, in his "Presidential Policy Guidance" released on May 23, 2013, established five criteria that must be met before lethal action may be taken against a foreign target: "1) Near certainty that the terrorist target is present; 2) Near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed; 3) An assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation; 4) An assessment that the relevant governmental authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons; and 5) An assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons."  Intelligence committees and "appropriate" members of Congress are briefed on every strike that America takes.  Months before the targeting of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the Obama administration submitted information for comment to the Department of Justice, which conducted additional analysis to ensure that the action was consistent with US laws. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drone strikes are carried out with the collaboration and encouragement of local governments, and make those countries safer. US drone strikes help countries fight terrorist threats to their own domestic peace and stability, including al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, al Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and al Qaeda in the Maghreb in Algeria and Mali. Yemen’s President, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, has openly praised drone strikes in his country, stating that the "electronic brain’s precision is unmatched by the human brain."  In a 2008 State Department cable made public by Wikileaks, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani asked US officials for more drone strikes,  and in Apr. 2013 former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf acknowledged to CNN that his government had secretly signed off on US drone strikes.  In Pakistan, where the vast majority of drone strikes are carried out, drones have contributed to a major decrease in violence. The 41 suicide attacks in Pakistan in 2011 were down from 49 in 2010 and a record high of 87 in 2009, which coincided with an over ten-fold increase in the number of drone strikes. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'The United States cannot risk falling behind the rest of the world in the development of drone technologies. More than 87 countries own some type of surveillance or attack drone, changing the way nations conduct war and threatening to begin a new arms race as governments scramble to counterbalance their adversaries.  In 2010 Iran unveiled what it claimed was its first armed drone,  and China unveiled 25 drone models.  In 2011 there were 680 active drone development programs run by governments, companies, and research institutes around the world, compared with 195 in 2005.   The Teal Group, a defense-consulting firm, estimated in June 2013 that the global market for the research, development, and procurement of armed drones would nearly double over the next decade from $5.2 billion annually to $11.6 billion.  Insurgent groups are also moving to acquire this technology; in 2011, Libyan opposition forces bought a drone during their attempt to overthrow dictator Moammar Gadhafi  and Lebanese militant group Hezbollah claimed in 2012 that it flew an Iranian-made drone over Israel. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'Drone pilots have a lower risk for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than pilots of manned aircraft and other battlefield soldiers. Drone pilots suffer less than traditional pilots because they do not have to be directly present on the battlefield, can live a normal civilian life in the United States, and do not risk death or serious injury. Only 4% of active-duty drone pilots are at "high risk for PTSD" compared to the 12-17% of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 45, description: 'The majority of Americans support drone strikes. According to a July 18, 2013 survey by Pew Research, 61% of Americans supported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.  Support spanned the political divide, including Republicans (69%), independents (60%), and Democrats (59%).  A Mar. 20, 2013 poll by the Gallup organization found that 65% of Americans believed the US government should "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against suspected terrorists" and 74% of Americans who "very" or "somewhat" closely follow news stories about drones supported the attacks.  A May 28, 2013 Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll found that 57% of Americans supported drone strikes targeting "al Qaeda targets and other terrorists in foreign countries." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill. People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone attacks become motivated to join actions against the United States. According to author Jeremy Scahill, the vast majority of militants operating in Yemen today are "people who are aggrieved by attacks on their homes that forced them to go out and fight."  Support for al Qaeda in Yemen is "indigenously spreading and merging with the mounting rage of powerful tribes at US counterterrorism policy" as the drone strikes have "recruited thousands."  The number of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) core members grew from 300 in 2009 (when US drone strikes resumed after a seven-year hiatus) to 700 in 2012, resulting in an exponential increase in the number of terrorist attacks in the region.  Both the "Underwear Bomber," who tried to blow up an American airliner in 2009,  and the "Times Square Bomber," who tried to set off a car bomb in New York City in 2010,  cited drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia as motivators for the plots.')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes target individuals who may not be terrorists or enemy combatants. President Obama\'s policy of "signature strikes" allows the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the military\'s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to target anyone who fits a specific terrorist profile or engages in behavior the US government associates with terrorists, regardless of whether or not they have been conclusively identified by name as enemy combatants.  Classified documents leaked in Oct. 2015 showed that in one five-month period of drone strikes in Afghanistan, as many as 90 percent of those killed were not the intended targets, and that those unintended deaths were classified as "enemies killed in action" regardless of whether they were civilians or combatants.  At the height of the drone program in Pakistan in 2009 and 2010, as many as half of the strikes were classified as signature strikes.  According to top-secret intelligence reports reviewed by McClatchy Newspapers, drone operators are not always certain of who they are killing "despite the administration\'s guarantees of the accuracy of the CIA\'s targeting intelligence."  The CIA and JSOC target "associated forces," "foreign fighters," "suspected extremists," and "other militants," but do not publicly reveal whether those killed are actively involved in terrorism against the United States.  In two sets of classified documents obtained by NBC News describing 114 drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan between Sep. 3, 2010 and Oct. 30, 2011, 26 strikes targeted "other militants," meaning that the CIA could not conclusively determine the affiliation of those killed. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes kill large numbers of civilians and traumatize local populations. According to a meta-study of drone strikes, between 8 to 17% of all people killed in drone strikes are civilians.  Since the United States began conducting drone strikes abroad following the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, it is estimated that between 174 and 1,047 civilians have been killed in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.     According to 130 interviews with victims and witnesses of drone strikes by researchers from Stanford and New York University, people who live in the affected areas experience harm "beyond death and physical injury" and "hear drones hover 24 hours a day," and live with the fear that a strike could occur at any moment of the day or night.  According to Clive Stafford Smith, Director of human rights organization Reprieve, "an entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups."  Yemeni tribal sheik Mullah Zabara says "we consider the drones terrorism. The drones are flying day and night, frightening women and children, disturbing sleeping people. This is terrorism." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes mostly kill low-value targets who are not significant threats to US safety and security. Drones kill very few "high-value" targets with alleged leadership roles in al Qaeda or anti-US Taliban factions.  Reuters reported that of the 500 "militants" the CIA believed it had killed with drones between 2008 and 2010, only 14 were "top-tier militant targets," and 25 were "mid-to-high-level organizers" of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other hostile groups.  The CIA had killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than mid-to-high-level during that same period.  According to the New America Foundation, from 2004 to 2012 an estimated 49 "militant leaders" were killed in drone strikes, constituting "2% of all drone-related fatalities." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes violate international law. Under international humanitarian law, the targeted individual must be directly participating in hostilities with the United States.  Under international human rights law, the targeted individual must pose an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent.  Simply being suspected of some connection to a "militant" organization — or, under the CIA\'s policy of "signature" drone strikes, fitting the profile of a terrorist in an area where terrorists are known to operate – is not legally sufficient to make someone a permissible target for killing.  Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations, states that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life," even in times of armed conflict.  Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force by one state against another,  with the exceptions of (1) the consent of the host state,  and (2) when the use of force is in self-defense in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat, where the host state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action.  Members of militant groups with which the United States is not in an armed conflict are therefore not lawful targets.  Amnesty International says drone strikes can be classified as "war crimes" or illegal "extrajudicial executions." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes are secretive, lack sufficient legal oversight, and prevent citizens from holding their leaders accountable. Drones are used in conflicts where war is not openly declared and authorized by Congress, allowing the executive branch to have nearly unlimited power over secret wars across the world. Strikes by the CIA (responsible for approximately 80% of all US drone strikes worldwide) are classified under US law as Title 50 covert actions, defined as "activities of the United States Government... where it is intended that the role... will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly."  As covert operations, the government cannot legally provide any information about how the CIA conducts targeted killings.  The CIA has yet to officially acknowledge its drone programs anywhere in the world,  let alone describe the rules and procedures for compliance with US and international law.  The administration only gives drone program details to members of Congress whom it deems "appropriate,"  and it has sought to prevent judicial review of claims brought in US courts by human rights groups seeking accountability for potentially unlawful killings. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes violate the sovereignty of other countries. Strikes are often carried out without the permission and against the objection of the target countries. Pakistan\'s foreign ministry on June 4, 2012 called drone strikes "illegal" and said they violated the country’s sovereignty.  On Oct. 22, 2013, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said that the "use of drones is not only a continued violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve at efforts in eliminating terrorism from our country... I would therefore stress the need for an end to drone attacks."  The United Nations\' Human Rights Chief,  Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights,  and Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions  have all called US drone strikes a violation of sovereignty, and have pressed for investigations into the legality of the attacks. In a July 18, 2013, 39-country survey by Pew Research, only six countries approved of US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes allow the United States to become emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war. According to Keith Shurtleff, US army chaplain and ethics instructor, as soldiers are "physically and psychologically removed from the horrors of battle and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is a danger of losing the deterrent to war that its horrors normally provide."  Without this deterrent, it becomes easier for the United States to start new battles and extend existing conflicts indefinitely. Drone pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton, in a July 29, 2012 interview with the New York Times, acknowledged the disconnect of fighting a "telewar with a joystick and a throttle" thousands of miles away from the battlefield, then driving home to have dinner with his family. "I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy," he said. "I have a duty, and I execute the duty. No one in my immediate environment is aware of anything that occurred."  According to Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), it\'s "such a trend to dehumanize warfare. It\'s machines and computers doing the job... [but this] is not video games, these are real people and it\'s real death and we\'re making real enemies around the world by continuing with the drone strikes." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'US drone strikes give cover for other countries to engage in human rights abuses. America\'s use of drones in foreign countries makes it all but impossible to demand that other countries self-impose limitations on their own drone use. Just as the United States justifies its drone strikes with the argument that it is at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates, drone strikes may be used by other countries to target what they consider terrorists and what Americans would consider as cover for human rights abuses against non-combatants.  China could justify drone strikes against Tibetan separatists in India, Russia could justify attacks against rebels in Chechnya, or Turkey could target Kurdish insurgents in Iraq. Philip Alston, former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that an "arms race" spurred by the widespread use of drones by the US government is already well under way. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Drone strikes are extremely unpopular in the affected countries. General Stanley McChrystal, former leader of the US military in Afghanistan, says that the "resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who\'ve never seen one or seen the effects of one."  76% of residents in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of northwestern Pakistan (where 96% of drone strikes in the country are carried out) oppose American drone strikes.  16% think these strikes accurately target militants and 48% think they largely kill civilians.  Only 17% of Pakistanis back American drone strikes against leaders of extremist groups, even if they are conducted in conjunction with the Pakistani government.  On three separate occasions, Pakistan\'s Parliament has voted to condemn the attacks and end the country\'s cooperation with the CIA,  and leaders in the FATA voted on Nov. 4, 2013 to block NATO supply lines unless the United States stops its drone strikes.  On Dec. 16, 2013, Yemen\'s parliament passed a motion calling for the United States to end its drone program in the country after a wedding convoy of 11 to 15 people were killed by a US drone strike. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 46, description: 'Many drone operators have emotional and psychological stress. A study from the US Air Force’s School of Aerospace Medicine, Department of Neuropsychiatry, found that drone pilots, in addition to witnessing traumatic combat experiences, face several unique problems: lack of a clear demarcation between combat and personal/family life; extremely long hours with monotonous work and low staffing; "existential conflict" brought on by the guilt and remorse over being an "aerial sniper"; and social isolation during work, which could diminish unit cohesion and increase susceptibility to PTSD.  According to a study of 709 drone pilots by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, approximately 8.2% reported at least one adverse mental health outcome, most commonly disorders related to adjusting to re-entry into civilian society, depression, and relationship problems. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Are social networking sites good for our society?', position_one: 47, position_two: 48)
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media spreads information faster than any other media. 78.5% of traditional media reporters polled used social media to check for breaking news.  59% of Twitter users and 31% of Facebook users polled followed breaking news on these sites.  Social media sites are one of the top news sources for 46% of Americans, compared to 66% for television, 26% for printed newspapers, and 23% for radio.  Social media users have been responsible for reporting events before traditional media outlets, including the Paris attacks in France on Nov. 13, 2015 (Twitter, Facebook, and Vine),  the Ebola outbreak in Nigeria and Sierra Leone in July 2014 (Twitter),  the Boston marathon bombing on Apr. 15, 2013 (Twitter),  and the Aurora, CO, theater shooting on July 20, 2012 (Twitter and YouTube).  President Donald Trump said that the immediacy that Twitter affords him is the reason why he tweets, noting that press conferences and press releases take too long to reach the public. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Law enforcement uses social media to catch and prosecute criminals. 73% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think "social media helps solve crimes more quickly."  A survey by the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that 85% police departments use social media to solve crimes.  The New York Police Department was one of the first forces to add a Twitter tracking unit and use social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online.  Social media sites have helped in the prosecution and conviction of a number of crimes, including: a professional soccer player charged with inappropriate activity with a minor in the UK in 2016,  a gang charged with the beating of a gay couple in Philadelphia, PA, in 2014,  and rioting hockey fans in Vancouver (Canada) in 2011.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media sites help students do better at school. 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social media to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments.  After George Middle School in Portland, Oregon, introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments.  A Jan. 2015 study published in the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology said college freshman should use social networking sites to build networks of new friends, feel socially integrated at their new schools, and reduce their risk of dropping out. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media allows people to improve their relationships and make new friends. 93% of adults on Facebook use it to connect with family members, 91% use it to connect with current friends, and 87% use it to connect with friends from the past  72% of all teens connect with friends via social media.  83% of these teens report that social media helps them feel more connected to information about their friends\' lives, 70% report feeling more connected to their friends\' feelings, and 57% make new friends. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media helps empower business women. Being able to connect on social networking sites gives business women a support group not readily found offline, where female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are outnumbered by male CEOs 474 to 26.  Many social media sites are dominated by women: 80% of Pinterest users,  70% of Snapchat users,  68% of Instagram users,  64% of Twitter users, and 58% of Facebook users, are women.  Business women use Twitter chats to support each other, give and receive peer knowledge, and have guest "speakers" share expert knowledge.  One.org helps African women entrepreneurs connect on social media to grow their businesses. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work. 96% of recruiters use social media in the recruiting process; 87% use LinkedIn, 55% use Facebook, and 47% use Twitter.  48% of job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job.  67% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 45% use Twitter, and 40% use LinkedIn.  69% of students use social media when finding internships. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Being a part of a social media site can increase a person\'s quality of life and reduce the risk of health problems. Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a "contagion" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media facilitates face-to-face interaction. People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings.  Pew Research Center\'s Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media increases voter participation. Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social media sites that their friends voted.  Amongst students who are somewhat, not sure, or unlikely to vote, 35% stated that social media was most likely to influence them to vote in the 2016 presidential election; this was higher than all other mediums including television (30%), radio (14%), print (9%), and direct mail (6%) or email (5%).  During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media facilitates political change. Social media gives social movements a quick, no-cost method to organize, disseminate information, and mobilize people.  The 2011 Egyptian uprising (part of the Arab Spring), organized largely via social media, motivated tens of thousands of protestors and ultimately led to the resignation of Egyptian President Mubarak on Feb. 11, 2011.  A July 4, 2011 tweet from @Adbusters with the hashtag #occupywallstreet started the American Occupy movement,  and Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter, and FireChat, were used by pro-democracy Occupy protesters to organize and share event details in Hong Kong in 2014.  In 2015, the Black Lives Matter grassroots campaign addressed racism and police brutality in the United States and successfully pressured the 2016 presidential candidates to publicly address the issue. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media is good for the economy. Social media sites have created a new major industry and thousands of jobs.  A McKinsey Global Institute study projected that the communication and collaboration from social media added between $900 billion and $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service.  A report by Deloitte found that "Facebook added $227 billion and 4.5 million jobs to the global economy in 2014."  Facebook posted $5.38 billion for first quarter 2016 revenue, up from $3.54 billion for first quarter 2015 earnings.  Snapchat was valued at $24 billion the day its stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media sites empower individuals to make social change and do social good on a community level. Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, "Never Seconds," which exposed the state of her school\'s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of "Friends of Never Seconds" charity to feed children globally.   Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy.  Hillsborough, CA, freshman varsity soccer goalie Daniel Cui was blamed for and bullied about a losing season until over 100 of his teammates and classmates changed their Facebook profile photos to one of Cui making a save, silencing the bullies and building Cui\'s confidence.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media helps senior citizens feel more connected to society. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study, the 65 and older age group is one of the fastest growing demographic groups on social media sites, with usage rising from 2% of seniors in 2008 to 35% in 2015.  Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media helps people who are socially isolated or shy connect with other people. More than 25% of teens report that social media makes them feel less shy, 28% report feeling more outgoing, and 20% report feeling more confident (53% of teens identified as somewhat shy or "a lot" shy in general).  Youth who are "less socially adept" report that social media gives them a place to make friends  and typically quiet students can feel more comfortable being vocal through a social media platform used in class.  Shy adults also cite social media as a comfortable place to interact with others. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media allows for quick, easy dissemination of public health and safety information from reputable sources. The US military and Department of Veterans Affairs use social media to help prevent suicide.  The World Health Organization (WHO) uses social media to "disseminate health information and counter rumours," which was especially helpful after the Mar. 2011 Japanese earthquake and nuclear disaster when false information spread about ingesting salt to combat radiation.  The Boston Health Commission used social media to get information to its 4,500 Twitter followers about clinic locations and wait times for vaccines during the H1N1 outbreak. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media can help disarm social stigmas. The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities.  The Stigma Project uses Facebook to "lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising."  Gay people speaking openly on social media, like Facebook site Wipe Out Homophobia, help achieve a greater social acceptance of homosexuality.   Jenny Lawson, author of the blog "The Bloggess" and New York Times bestseller Let\'s Pretend This Never Happened, has made public her struggles with OCD, depression, and anxiety disorders, which has lessened the stigma of the diseases for others. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: '"Crowdsourcing" and "crowdfunding" on social media allows people to collectively accomplish a goal. A mother was able to find a kidney donor for her sick child by posting a video on her Facebook page.  Planethunters.org, a science social media site, have discovered new planets via crowdsourcing.   Crowdrise, a social network devoted to crowdsourcing volunteers and crowdfunding charity projects, raised $845,989 in the 18 days following Hurricane Sandy.   The Ice Bucket Challenge fundraising campaign for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) went viral on social media, raising $100.9 million in donations in one month alone.  Pencils of Promise used social media for crowd funding, which has helped the non-profit build 329 schools and educate 33,000 children. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media provides academic research to a wider audience, allowing many people access to previously unavailable educational resources. Information previously restricted to academia\'s "ivory tower" can now be shared with the public who do not have access to restricted journals or costly databases. Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Corporations and small businesses use social media to benefit themselves and consumers. 85% of fans of brands on Facebook recommend the brand to others and 71% of internet users are more likely to purchase from a brand that they are following on social media.  Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported "at least one measurable business benefit."  In 2015, 98% of Fortune 500 companies used social media.  Amongst these corporations the most popular sites were LinkedIn (used by 93% of companies), Glassdoor (87%), Twitter (78%), Facebook (74%), and YouTube (64%).  Benefits for the consumer often include special promotions, product information, technical support, and customer service. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media offers teachers a platform for collaboration with other teachers and communication with students outside the classroom. More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students.  Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social media sites like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype.   Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over 65.5 million users in 2016. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media offers a way for musicians and artists to build audiences even if they don\'t have a corporate contract.  64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the "hit-maker" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%).   Pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old. In 2016 at 22 years old, Bieber\'s net worth was estimated at $200 million.   The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Colleges and universities use social media to recruit and retain students. 96.6% of four-year institutions use Facebook to recruit students, 83.4% use Twitter, and 79.3% use YouTube.  Colleges and universities use Facebook apps and other social media tools to increase student retention.  Social networking sites are also being used to give students a support system at community colleges that consist mostly of commuter students. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 47, description: 'Social media allows for rapid communication during crisis events. Over one-third of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed say that they use social media to notify the public of emergencies or disasters.  Facebook allows users in a crisis region to mark themselves as safe and check to see that friends and family are safe,  such as after the Apr. 2015 Nepal earthquake, the Sep. 2015 Chile earthquake, and the Nov. 2015 Paris terrorist attacks.  During the Paris terrorist attacks, Parisians tweeted their personal address alongside the hashtag #PorteOuverte (French for "open door") to offer shelter to people who were stranded.  In the aftermath of the Sydney café hostage situation in Australia in Dec. 2014, local residents tweeted their routes to work with the hashtag #IllRideWithYou to offer support to Muslims in fear of an Islamophobic backlash. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media enables the spread of unreliable and false information. 64% of people who use Twitter for news say that they have encountered something they "later discovered wasn\'t true," and 16% of Twitter news users say that "they had retweeted or posted a tweet they later discovered to be false."  In the three months prior to the 2016 US presidential election, false news stories about the two candidates were shared a total of 37.6 million times on Facebook.  False information spread via social media can lead to violence or threats of violence. In Dec. 2016, a 28-year-old man was arrested after firing a shot in a Washington, DC, pizza restaurant; he had read false information on social media claiming a pedophile ring led by Hillary Clinton was operating in the basement.  A University of Michigan study found that even when false information is corrected, the numbers of people who see or share the correction via social media is lower than number who saw or shared the false information in the first place. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media lacks privacy and exposes users to government and corporate intrusions. 81% of people surveyed feel "not very" or "not at all" secure when using social media sites to share private information.  48% of people reported some difficulty in managing their privacy settings.  13 million users said they had not set or did not know about Facebook\'s privacy settings.  The US government submitted 36,812 requests for data from Facebook and 7,036 requests from Twitter in 2015, approximately 80% of which were honored at least in part.   The National Security Agency (NSA) can monitor social media activity and read the content of private social media messages simply by entering a person\'s username into their system.  Contego Services Group, which specialize in worker compensation claims, has a unit dedicated to social media monitoring to detect fraud. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Students who are heavy social media users tend to have lower grades. 31% of teens say that using social media during homework reduces the quality of their work.  Students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 while non-users had an average GPA of 3.82.  Students who used social media while studying scored 20% lower on tests.  College students\' grades dropped 0.12 points for every 93 minutes above the average 106 minutes spent on Facebook per day.  One study found that in schools which introduced a ban on cell phones, student performance improved 6.41%.  Another found that grades began a steady decline after secondary school students reached 30 minutes of daily screen time. After four hours, average GPAs dropped one full grade. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media can lead to stress and offline relationship problems. 31% of teens who use social media have fought with a friend because of something that happened online.  A 2016 study found that overuse of social media as an adolescent may decrease success in relationships later in life as online communication hinders the development of conflict management skills and awareness of interpersonal cues.  One study found that the more Facebook friends a person has, the more stressful Facebook is to use.  Researchers have found that "active Twitter use leads to greater amounts of Twitter-related conflict among romantic partners, which in turn leads to infidelity, breakup, and divorce." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media can entice people to waste time. A survey of internet users aged 16-64 found that the average daily time spent on social media is 1.72 hours, which accounts for 28% of total time spent online.  36% of people surveyed listed social media as the "biggest waste of time," above fantasy sports (25%), watching TV (23%), and shopping (9%).  When alerted to new social media activity, such as a new tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task. In 30% of cases, it took two hours to fully return attention to the original task. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Using social media can harm job stability and employment prospects. Job recruiters reported negative reactions to profanity (63%), poor spelling or grammar (66%), sexual content (70%), and references to illegal drugs (83%), guns (51%), and alcohol (44%) on potential employees\' social media.  55% of recruiters report reconsidering hiring applicants based on social media activities.  Anthony Weiner, former US Representative, was forced to resign after a Twitter sexting scandal.  Curt Schilling, former All-Star pitcher, was fired from ESPN for his Facebook comments about transgender people; he had previously been suspended for a tweet in which he compared radical Muslims to Nazis. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'The use of social media is correlated with personality and brain disorders. A University of Pittsburgh study found that social media use was "significantly associated with increased depression" amongst adults aged between 19 and 32.  Another study found that addictive social media use reflected increased narcissistic personality traits.  Researchers have found that "interruptions due to phone notifications can cause inattention and hyperactivity in the general population."  A UK government study found that 41% of children who spend over three hours on social media on a normal school day reportedly suffer from mental health difficulties compared with 21% who spend no time on the sites. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media causes people to spend less time interacting face-to-face. A USC Annenberg School study found that the percentage of people reporting less face-to-face time with family in their homes rose from 8% in 2000 to 34% in 2011.  32% reported using social media or texting during meals (47% of 18-34 year olds)  instead of talking with family and friends. 10% of people younger than 25 years old respond to social media and text messages during sex.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Criminals use social media to commit and promote crimes. Gangs use the sites to recruit younger members, coordinate violent crimes, and threaten other gangs.  Sex offenders use social media sites to find victims for sexual exploitation.    78% of burglars "admitted they use Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Google Street View to select victims\' properties," and 54% said that "posting status and whereabouts on social media is the most common mistake made by homeowners."  Social media has also led to the phenomena of "performance crimes," so called as participants film their crimes and upload them to social media. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media can endanger the military, journalists, and activists. The US Army notes that checking in with location based services on social media like Foursquare or Facebook could expose sensitive whereabouts and endanger military personnel and operations.  In 2015 a freelance journalist and activist was executed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) for reporting on life under the regime via Facebook.  In 2015 and 2016, a number of Bangladeshi bloggers who posted their thoughts on atheism on social media were killed by religious fundamentalists who opposed their postings.  In 2011, a blogger was found murdered by a Mexican cartel with the note "this happened to me for not understanding that I shouldn\'t report things on the social networks."  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media harms employees\' productivity. A global online survey found that 50% of workers check or use social media at least once a day during work hours.  A survey of Irish workers found that 78% use a personal device to access social media at work.  Two-thirds of US workers with Facebook accounts access the site during work hours.  Even spending just 30 minutes a day on social media while at work would cost a 50-person company 6,500 hours of productivity a year.  A Pew Research Center study found that 56% of workers who use social media for work-related purposes think it distracts them from the work they need to do. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media facilitates cyberbullying. 52% of students have reported being the victim of cyberbullying with 84.2% naming Facebook as the site through which they have been bullied, followed by Instagram (23.4%), Twitter (21.4%), and Snapchat (13.5%).  17.5% of male students and 21.3% of female students have admitted committing bullying behavior online.  54% of teens have witnessed cyberbullying including on sites such as Facebook (39%), Twitter (29%), YouTube (22%), and Instagram (22%).  Middle school children who are victims of cyberbullying are almost twice as likely to attempt suicide.  Adults can also be victims of cyberbullying, with social, familial, or workplace aggression being displayed on social media. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media enables "sexting," which can lead to criminal charges and the unexpected proliferation of personal images. Almost 40% of teens report "sexting" - posting or sending sexually suggestive messages - with 22% of teen girls and 18% of teen boys posting nude or semi-nude photos.  As a result, teens and adults are being charged with possessing and distributing child pornography, even when the teen took and distributed a photo of him/herself.  88% of private self-produced sexual images posted to social media are stolen by pornography websites and disseminated to the public, often without the subject\'s knowledge. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'People who use social media are prone to social isolation. Social media can exacerbate feelings of disconnect (especially for youth with disabilities), and put children at higher risk for depression, low self-esteem, and eating disorders.  The "passive consumption" of social media (scanning posts without commenting) is related to loneliness. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media aids the spread of hate groups. A Baylor University study examined Facebook hate groups focused on President Barack Obama and found a resurgence of racial slurs and stereotypes not seen in mainstream media in decades.  A study of English-language Twitter posts found that around 10,000 tweets per day contained racial slurs, 30% of which were deemed derogatory.  Social media can create a "\'radicalization echo chamber\' where followers reinforce for each other extremist propaganda and calls for violence," says John Carlin, JD, Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department.  The Christian Identity, a faction of the white supremacist group Aryan Nations, uses social media to recruit members , and Die Auserwahlten, a skinhead crew founded in Nebraska, was created by people who had met each other on social media. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Children may endanger themselves by not understanding the public and viral nature of social media. The 2012 film Project X, about an out of control high school house party due to social media promotion, prompted copycat parties across the US resulting in arrests for vandalism, criminal trespassing, and other offenses.  Up to 600 Dutch riot police had to be called in to break up a teen\'s birthday party to which about 30,000 people were accidentally invited after a Facebook post thought to be private went viral.  A similar incident happened in Los Angeles and resulted in the teen host beaten and hospitalized. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media enables cheating on school assignments. Students in California, New York City, and Houston posted photos of standardized tests to social media sites, allowing students who had not yet taken the tests to see the questions (and potentially find answers) ahead of time.  The SAT has had similar problems with students posting parts of the exam to social media.   In Mar. 2015, two students in Maryland were accused of cheating on the 10th grade Common Core tests by posting questions on Twitter. Pearson, a company that administers standardized tests, identified 76 cases of students posting test materials online spanning six states in the first three months of 2015. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media sites\' advertising practices may constitute an invasion of privacy. An ExactTarget marketing report tells companies, "When a user clicks on a [Facebook] like button belonging to your brand, you\'re immediately granted access to additional information about this customer, from school affiliation and workplace information to their birthdate and other things they like… [M]arketers can access and leverage data in ways that will truly alarm customers."  From social media sites, simple algorithms can determine where you live, sexual orientation, personality traits, signs of depression, and alma maters among other information, even if users put none of those data on their social media profiles. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media can facilitate inappropriate student-teacher relationships. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) opened 222 cases about "inappropriate relationships" between educators and students in the 2015-16 school year; 86 cases were investigated in 2007-2008 and education experts blame the rise of social media for this increase.   Pamela Casey, a District Attorney in Alabama who has prosecuted teachers who had relationships with students, says that social media adds to the problem: "We say and do things on social media and cell phones that we wouldn\'t say and do in person... As a result, there\'s a wall that\'s been removed."  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Unauthorized sharing on social media exposes artists to copyright infringement, loss of intellectual property, and loss of income. According to Business Insider, "illegally uploaded videos routinely clock up tens of millions of views, and hundreds of thousands of shares" with profits going to those who shared the content rather than those whose created it.  YouTube vloggers report that unauthorized sharing of their videos on Facebook is costing them millions of dollars in lost profits with one reporting $20,000 in lost profits from just one video.  Photographer Daniel Morel was awarded $1.2M in damages after Getty Images and AFP were found to have willfully infringed his copyright by selling photos he had posted on social media without his permission. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Using social media can harm students\' chances for college admission. College administrators scan Facebook profiles for evidence of illegal behavior by students.   A 2016 Kaplan Test Prep survey found that 35% of college admissions officers checked an applicant\'s social media to learn more about them, up from 10% in 2008. 42% of these admissions officers discovered information that had a negative impact on prospective students\' admission chances.   In 2014, only 3% of students surveyed believed the content of their social media presence could hurt their prospects of admission. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media posts cannot be completely deleted and all information posted can have unintended consequences. The Library of Congress has been archiving all public tweets from Twitter\'s Mar. 2006 inception forward.  Information about an affair posted on Facebook, for example, can lead to and be used against someone in divorce proceedings because the information, once posted, can never be completely deleted. 81% of members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) said that they have seen in a rise in the use of social media as evidence in divorce proceedings with Facebook being cited as the primary source in 66% of divorce cases. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 48, description: 'Social media users are vulnerable to security attacks such as hacking, identity theft, and viruses. Social media sites do not scan messages for viruses or phishing scams, leading to large-scale problems like the virus Steckt.Evl spread from Facebook\'s chat window.  68% of social media users share their birth date publicly, 63% share their high school name, 18% share their phone number, 12% share a pet\'s name; each of those pieces of information is frequently used for account security verification and can be used for identity theft. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?', position_one: 49, position_two: 50)
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games.  A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'There is broad consensus among medical associations, pediatricians, parents, and researchers that violent video games increase aggressive behavior. A 2014 study published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture found that 90% of pediatricians and 67% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior among children. . More than 98% of pediatricians in the United States say that too much exposure to violent media heightens childhood aggression.  In addition, 66% of researchers agreed or strongly agreed. Since only 17% of researchers disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 17% were undecided, the study concluded "That means that among researchers who have an opinion, eight out of 10 agree that violent games increase aggression."  A joint statement by six leading national medical associations, including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, stated: "Well over 1,000 studies - including reports from the Surgeon General\'s office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations - our own members - point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior. Video games often require players to simulate violent actions, such as stabbing, shooting, or dismembering someone with an ax, sword, chainsaw, or other weapons. Game controllers are so sophisticated and the games are so realistic that simulating the violent acts enhances the learning of those violent behaviors.  A 2015 peer-reviewed study found "compelling evidence that the use of realistic controllers can have a significant effect on the level of cognitive aggression."  Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto III.  Bruce Bartholow, professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, spoke about the effects of simulating violence: "More than any other media, these [violent] video games encourage active participation in violence. From a psychological perspective, video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior. Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence."  A Sep. 2014 peer-reviewed study found that first-person shooter games trained players to have better accuracy in shooting a gun outside the game, and made them more likely to aim for the head. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games. The teenage shooters in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre of 13 students played violent combat games.  Many mass shootings have been carried out by avid video game players: James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting (2012); Jared Lee Loughner in the Arizona shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others (2011); and Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway (2011) and admitted to using the game Modern Warfare 2 for training.  An FBI school shooter threat assessment stated that a student who makes threats of violence should be considered more credible if he or she also spends "inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. Desensitization to violence was defined in a Journal of Experimental Social Psychology peer-reviewed study as "a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence." The study found that just 20 minutes of playing a violent video game "can cause people to become less physiologically aroused by real violence" People desensitized to violence are more likely to commit a violent act.  By age 18, American children will have seen 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence depicted in violent video games, movies, and television.  A Sep. 2011 peer-reviewed study found a causal link between violent video game exposure and an increase in aggression as a result of a reduction in the brain\'s response to depictions of real-life violence.  Studies have found reduced emotional and physiological responses to violence in both the long and short term.  In a 2005 peer-reviewed study, violent video game exposure was linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'By inhabiting violent characters in video games, children are more likely to imitate the behaviors of those characters and have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy. Violent video games require active participation and identification with violent characters, which reinforces violent behavior.  Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. Child Development and Early Childhood Education expert Jane Katch, MST, stated in an interview with Education Week, "I found that young children often have difficulty separating fantasy from reality when they are playing and can temporarily believe they are the character they are pretending to be." US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent in Brown v. ESA that "the closer a child\'s behavior comes, not to watching, but to acting out horrific violence, the greater the potential psychological harm." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another\'s feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy.  A study published in the American Psychological Association\'s Psychological Bulletin found that exposure to violent video games led to a lack of empathy and prosocial behavior (positive actions that benefit others).  Eight independent tests measuring the impact of violent video games on prosocial behavior found a significant negative effect, leading to the conclusion that "exposure to violent video games is negatively correlated with helping in the real world."  Several studies have found that children with high exposure to violent media display lower moral reasoning skills than their peers without that exposure.  A meta-analysis of 130 international studies with over 130,000 participants concluded that violent video games "increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and aggressive behaviors, and decrease empathic feelings and prosocial behaviors." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'Video games that portray violence against women lead to more harmful attitudes and sexually violent actions towards women. A 2012 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that video games that sexually objectify women and feature violence against women led to a statistically significant increase in rape-supportive attitudes, which are attitudes that are hostile towards rape victims.  A 1998 peer-reviewed study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women, while 28% portrayed them as sex objects.  Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape, such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape.  Carole Lieberman, MD, a media psychiatrist, stated, "The more video games a person plays that have violent sexual content, the more likely one is to become desensitized to violent sexual acts and commit them."  In Dec. 2014, Target Australia stopped selling Grand Theft Auto V in response to customer complaints about the game\'s depiction of women, which includes the option to kill a prostitute to get your money back. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'The American Psychological Association (APA) lists violent video games as a risk factor for aggressive behavior. In its Aug. 2015 resolution on violent video games, the APA wrote: "WHEREAS many factors are known to be risk factors for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition and aggressive affect, and reduced prosocial behavior, empathy and moral engagement, and violent video game use is one such risk factor."  Dr. Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University, wrote: "Playing a violent video game isn\'t going to take a healthy kid who has few other risk factors and turn him into a school shooter, but it is a risk factor that does drive the odds for aggression up significantly." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'Violent video games reinforce fighting as a means of dealing with conflict by rewarding the use of violent action with increased life force, more weapons, moving on to higher levels, and more. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. The reward structure is one distinguishing factor between violent video games and other violent media such as movies and television shows, which do not reward viewers nor allow them to actively participate in violence.  An analysis of 81 video games rated for teens ages 13 and up found that 73 games (90%) rewarded injuring other characters, and 56 games (69%) rewarded killing.  People who played a video game that rewarded violence showed higher levels of aggressive behavior and aggressive cognition as compared with people who played a version of the same game that was competitive but either did not contain violence or punished violence. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 49, description: 'The US military uses violent video games to train soldiers to kill. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter game America\'s Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield.  While the military may benefit from training soldiers to kill using video games, kids who are exposed to these games lack the discipline and structure of the armed forces and may become more susceptible to being violent.  Dave Grossman, retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Army and former West Point psychology professor, stated: "[T]hrough interactive point-and-shoot video games, modern nations are indiscriminately introducing to their children the same weapons technology that major armies and law enforcement agencies around the world use to \'turn off\' the midbrain \'safety catch\'" that prevents most people from killing. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Sales of violent video games have significantly increased while violent juvenile crime rates have significantly decreased. Total US sales of video game hardware and software increased 204% from 1994 to 2014, reaching $13.1 billion in 2014, while violent crimes decreased 37% and murders by juveniles acting alone fell 76% in that same period.  The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2012 was 38% below 1980 levels and 63% below 1994, the peak year.  The number of high school students who had been in at least one physical fight decreased from 43% in 1991 to 25% in 2013, and student reports of criminal victimization at school dropped by more than half from 1995 to 2011.  An Aug. 2014 peer-reviewed study found that: "Annual trends in video game sales for the past 33 years were unrelated to violent crime... Monthly sales of video games were related to concurrent decreases in aggravated assaults." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed. Many studies failed to control for factors that contribute to children becoming violent, such as family history and mental health, plus most studies do not follow children over long periods of time.  Video game experiments often have people playing a game for as little as ten minutes, which is not representative of how games are played in real life. In many laboratory studies, especially those involving children, researchers must use artificial measures of violence and aggression that do not translate to real-world violence and aggression, such as whether someone would force another person eat hot sauce or listen to unpleasant noises.  According to Christopher J. Ferguson, PhD, a psychology professor at Stetson University, "matching video game conditions more carefully in experimental studies with how they are played in real life makes VVG\'s [violent video games] effects on aggression essentially vanish." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'The US Supreme Court ruled that violent video games do not cause youth to act aggressively. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that California could not ban the sale of violent video games to minors. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that studies purporting to show a connection between violent video games and harmful effects on children "have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger.  Katherine Newman, PhD, Dean of Arts and Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, wrote: "Millions of young people play video games full of fistfights, blazing guns, and body slams... Yet only a minuscule fraction of the consumers become violent."  A report by the US Secret Service and US Department of Education examined 37 incidents of targeted school violence between 1974 and 2000. Of the 41 attackers studied, 27% had an interest in violent movies, 24% in violent books, and 37% exhibited interest in their own violent writings, while only 12% showed interest in violent video games. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings.  An Apr. 2015 peer-reviewed study published in Psychiatric Quarterly found that playing violent video games had no impact on hostility levels in teenagers. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Violent video games allow players to release their stress and anger (catharsis) in the game, leading to less real world aggression. A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that children, especially boys, play video games as a means of managing their emotions: "61.9% of boys played to \'help me relax,\' 47.8% because \'it helps me forget my problems,\' and 45.4% because \'it helps me get my anger out."  Researchers point to the cathartic effect of video games as a possible reason for why higher game sales have been associated with lower crime rates.  A peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Adolescent Research concluded that "Boys use games to experience fantasies of power and fame, to explore and master what they perceive as exciting and realistic environments (but distinct from real life), to work through angry feelings or relieve stress, and as social tools." The games serve as a substitute for rough-and-tumble play. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Violent video game players know the difference between virtual violence in the context of a game and appropriate behavior in the real world. By age seven, children can distinguish fantasy from reality, and can tell the difference between video game violence and real-world violence.  Video game players understand they are playing a game. Kids see fantasy violence all the time, from Harry Potter and the Minions to Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry. Their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality prevents them from emulating video game violence in real life.  Exposure to fantasy is important for kids. Fisher-Price toy company stated: "Pretending is more than play: it\'s a major part of a child\'s development. Fantasy not only develops creative thinking, it\'s also a way for children to deal with situations and problems that concern them." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and "prosocial” behaviors. Research shows that playing violent video games can induce a feeling of guilt that leads to increased prosocial behavior (positive actions that benefit others) in the real world.  Another study published in Computers in Human Behavior discovered that youths exposed to violence in action games displayed more prosocial behavior and civic engagement, "possibly due to the team-oriented multiplayer options in many of these games."  In a 2013 peer-reviewed study published in PLOS ONE, "Three experiments failed to find a detrimental effect of violent video games on prosocial behavior [positive actions taken to benefit others], despite using contemporary and classic games, delayed and immediate test-phases, and short and long exposures."  Researchers have shown that playing video games also results in increased moral sensitivity. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Nearly all young men play video games, so the fact that some people who commit violent acts also played games should not be surprising, nor does it imply a causal relationship. An estimated four out of five US households with a male child own a video game system. Although boys play an average of nine hours per week,  only a small percentage of them display violent behavior. Patrick M. Markey, PhD, Director of the Interpersonal Research Laboratory at Villanova University, stated, "90% of young males play video games. Finding that a young man who committed a violent crime also played a popular video game, such as Call of Duty, Halo, or Grand Theft Auto, is as pointless as pointing out that the criminal also wore socks." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Many risk factors are associated with youth violence, but video games are not among them. The US Surgeon General\'s list of risk factors for youth violence included abusive parents, poverty, neglect, neighborhood crime, being male, substance use, and mental health problems, but not video games.  A peer-reviewed study even found a "real and significant" effect of hot weather on homicides and aggravated assaults, showing that heat is a risk factor for violence. Smoking is a known risk factor for lung cancer, but there is no good evidence that video game playing is a risk factor for violence. An Aug. 2014 peer-reviewed study published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture pointed out that "As more people have been exposed to violent video games, serious and deadly assaults have not increased."  A 2014 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Communication also found that as video game playing increased, there was less youth violence. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Violent video games provide opportunities for children to explore virtually the consequences of violent actions and to develop their moral compasses. Violent games allow youth to experiment with moral issues such as war, violence, and death without real world consequences.  A researcher at the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media wrote about her research: "One unexpected theme that came up multiple times in our focus groups was a feeling among boys that violent games can teach moral lessons... Many war-themed video games allow or require players to take the roles of soldiers from different sides of a conflict, perhaps making players more aware of the costs of war." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Violent video games may decrease crime because people are busy playing the games instead of committing violent acts. Some researchers say that violent people often seek out violent video games, and that the time they spend playing the games is taking them off the streets, leading to decreased crime. This is known as the "incapacitation effect."  Steven Levitt, PhD, economics professor at the University of Chicago and co-author of Freakonomics, stated, "It just stands to reason that if you find an activity that keeps potential criminals busy for six waking hours a day, then it probably makes sense that they\'re going to be doing less crime."  One study estimated that this effect leads to about ten fewer crimes per day nationwide. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use. Per capita video game sales were $5.20 in the United States compared to $47 in Japan. In 2005, the United States had 2,279 murders committed by teenagers (27.9 per million residents) compared to 73 in Japan (3.1 per million). A study of the countries representing the 10 largest video game markets internationally found no correlation between playing video games and gun-related killings.  Even though US gun violence is high, the nine other countries with the highest video game usage have some of the lowest violent crime rates (and eight of those countries spend more per capita on video games than the United States). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'The competitive nature of a video game is what arouses aggression, not the level of violent content. A peer-reviewed study in Psychology of Violence determined that the competitive nature of a video game was related to aggressive behavior, regardless of whether the game contained violent content or not. The researchers concluded: "Because past studies have failed to equate the violent and nonviolent video games on competitiveness, difficulty, and pace of action simultaneously, researchers may have attributed too much of the variability in aggression to the violent content."  A follow-up study tracked high school students for four years and came to the same conclusion: the competitive nature of the games led to the increased hostile behavior. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 50, description: 'Older generations often unfairly disparage new things that youth like, such as video games. The "moral panic" that many adults feel about video games is an exaggerated sense of public concern, fear, and anxiety over a perceived threat of social corruption.  Other examples of moral panic from history include rock and roll, comic books, radio, television, cell phone use, and social media.  An Oct. 2013 study in Psychology of Popular Media Culture found that people who had no experience playing video games were six times more likely to believe the games contributed to mass shootings. Older Americans were five times more likely than young people to think that the games caused mass shootings.  The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooter, for example, was originally and incorrectly reported to be an avid player of violent video games. Investigators later showed that the shooter\'s favorite games were Super Mario Brothers, Dance, Dance Revolution, and other non-violent video games. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Is golf a sport?', position_one: 51, position_two: 52)
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Golf meets the definition of the word "sport" found in many dictionaries. Merriam-Webster defines sport as "physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game)."  Dictionary.com says a sport is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Golfers burn more calories than gymnasts. Golfing without a cart burns an average of 360 calories per hour (306 with a caddie), compared to about 345 doing gymnastics and 273 bowling playing table tennis or doing yoga.   Golfers who play a nine-hole course (2-2.5 miles ) without a cart while carrying their own clubs burn 721 calories (613 calories if a caddie carries the bag of clubs which weighs 30-50 pounds on average).   Professional tournaments have four rounds of 18 holes, which would be 4,904 calories burned over four days.')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Golf requires coordinated muscle use. The golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs according to a study in the BMJ (British Medical Journal).  Playing golf on a professional level requires athletic ability to walk long distances (4-5 miles per 18-hole course ) and hit long drives with consistent depth and aim. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'The International Olympic Committee considers golf a sport. The Olympics are the ultimate worldwide sporting event, and golf was selected by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for inclusion starting in 2016. It had been included in two prior Olympics of 1900 and 1904. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'College and university athletic departments classify golf as a sport. Golf falls under the purview of the athletic departments of colleges and universities, and is subject to the authority of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).  Golf athletic scholarships are offered for men at 294 Division I schools and for women at 238 Division I schools. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Professional golfers are considered athletes by mainstream media. The Associated Press has named a golfer as its Female Athlete of the Year 24 times since the award began in 1931, meaning golfers account for 30 percent of the honorees. The Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year has been a golfer nine times, or 11 percent of the honorees. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers consider golf to be a sport. Nike\'s website calls golf a "great sport" and makes products to help "athletes to perform at their physical and mental peak."  Golfer Tiger Woods is the richest athlete in history and was the first athlete to surpass one billion dollars in career earnings (prize money and endorsements).  Woods has many sponsorships in common with athletes from other sports, including Gillette, Rolex, and NetJets. Golfers are often represented by agents from major sports management companies.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Physical training leads to improvement in golfer\'s performance. In golf, like in other sports, there is a correlation between physical training and improved performance. A 2009 peer-reviewed study found that golfers who focus on balance, flexibility, posture, core stability, strength, power, and cardiovascular training have better results.  Rory McIlroy, World No.1 for 95 weeks (2012-2015), credits his training regimen with helping him reach the top spot. Tiger Woods has reportedly bench pressed as much as 315 pounds. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Golf\'s demand for physical exertion often results in injuries. Golf is so physically demanding that up to 62 percent of amateur golfers and approximately 88 percent of professional golfers suffer injuries each year. Playing golf can lead to problems in the lower back, elbow, wrist, hand, shoulder, or head.  More than half of professional golfers have had to stop playing because of their injuries.  One-third of PGA (Professional Golfers\' Association) players have experienced lower back injuries that lasted more than two weeks. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Golf is one of dozens of independent sports like running or swimming. A June 2011 peer-reviewed study categorized 159 sports as one of three types: combat, independent, or object. Golf is one of 74 independent sports, along with others such as gymnastics, track and field, swimming, speed skating, and surfing. Not all sports have to be object (like football and baseball), or combat (like boxing and karate). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 51, description: 'Golf has many more commonalities with other sports. Golf has many things in common with other sports, including: professional men\'s and women\'s tours with rankings, tournaments all over the world, millions of fans, television coverage, scoring, and winners. The TV guide lists golf events under sports programs.  Golf even has an anti-doping policy and conducts drug tests on the players because performance enhancing drugs could improve a player\'s results.')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'Golf better matches the definition of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement."  Dictionary.com says a game is "an amusement or pastime; a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'Unlike a sport, golf does not require rigorous physical activity. Burning 360 calories per hour playing golf without a cart or caddie is far less than the number of calories burned per hour in competitive sports: 900 in soccer, and 727 in football, basketball, and tennis.   Nearly half of the maximum calories burned while playing golf are from walking the course and carrying the clubs, but the US Supreme Court ruled that walking is not an essential aspect of golf. In PGA Tour v. Martin (2001), the justices ruled 7-2 that the pro tour had to allow a golfer with a disability to use a golf cart because it would not "fundamentally alter the nature" of the activity.  Using a cart while playing golf reduces the number of calories burned by 42% percent (from 721 to 411 for nine holes). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'If an activity does not make you break a sweat, or if it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Professional golfers are sometimes overweight, old, or out of shape, and their caddies carry the equipment for them. There is no running, jumping, or cardiovascular activity in golf. Many pro golfers smoked while playing (Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Fuzzy Zoeller) or smoked and drank while playing (John Daly). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'The fact that golf can be difficult and requires practice and skill to achieve proficiency does not mean it qualifies as a sport. Brain surgery, chess, and computer programming are difficult tasks that also require practice and mental acuity, but they are clearly not sports.')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'Golf involves competition, keeping score, and declaring a winner, but those qualities alone do not make it a sport. Spelling bees, poker, and darts are competitions with scores and winners, which are sometimes broadcast on the sports network ESPN, but those activities are not sports. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'Sports experts agree that golf lacks the athletic rigor needed to be a real sport. Golf was ranked 51 out of 60 activities by a panel of sports scientists, athletes, and journalists assembled by ESPN. They ranked the athletic difficulty of 60 activities based on ten categories such as endurance, agility, and strength. The panel determined that the level of athleticism in golf ranked lower than ping pong and just ahead of roller skating. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'Athleticism does not correlate with performance when it comes to golf. The fact that golfers are able to be competitive professionally so far past the age of peak athleticism -- age 26 according to a June 2011 peer-reviewed study -- shows that golf is not a sport. For example, Tom Watson nearly won one of the biggest tournaments in professional golf, the British Open, at age 59 in 2009. Jack Nicklaus won 11 of his 18 majors after turning 30.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'If you can compete in a professional tournament with a broken leg, it is not a sport. Tiger Woods not only played the 2008 US Open with two stress fractures in his left tibia, he actually won the whole event. Woods even played an additional 18 holes to break a tie score following the first four rounds. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'The possibility of getting injured while playing golf does not make it a sport. Many non-sport activities, such as sitting at a desk and typing all day, lifting a heavy box, or sleeping in the wrong position, also commonly lead to injuries.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'The decision to include golf in the 2016 Summer Olympics is questionable. Golf has been excluded from the Olympics for more than a century, as have other non-sports, including croquet (last included in 1900), motorboat racing (last competition in 1908), and tug of war (last done in 1920). After being included in the 1900 and 1904 Olympic games, golf was removed for what will have been a 112-year absence before returning in the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Race walking, pistol shooting, and rhythmic gymnastics have been in the Olympics longer than golf.  Some people believe the decision to allow golf in the Olympics was a political move based not on its merit as a sport, but as a game that attracts lucrative financial sponsorships.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 52, description: 'Golf does not require defense against the player\'s opponent. Some people think that if an activity does not involve defense or an opponent trying to affect your performance, then it is not a sport. In hockey, a player can steal the puck and a goalie can block a shot. In football, a pass can be intercepted and someone can be tackled to prevent him from scoring. There is no defense in golf, and participants are unable to impact the outcome of their opponents\' scores.')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should the United States return to a gold standard?', position_one: 53, position_two: 54)
Tag.create(topic_id: 27, name: 'america')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'Gold retains a value that has been recognized across the globe throughout history. Our paper money is a "fiat" currency that can be printed without limit and has no real value – its value is only maintained by the "full faith and credit" of the government. Gold has real value due to its beauty, usefulness, and scarcity. Humanity has recognized the value of gold as a medium of exchange dating back to 550 BC, when the King of Lydia (modern day Turkey) began minting gold coins.  Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, says gold "retains an intrinsic, stable value better than anything else." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'A gold standard puts limits on government power by restricting its ability to print money at will. With a fiat currency the government can essentially manufacture money virtually out of thin air.  Since leaving the gold standard in 1971 US currency in circulation (M1) increased from $48.6 billion to over $1 trillion dollars in 2012.  Between 1971 and 2003 the entire supply of money (M3) in the United States has increased by 1,100%.  Under a gold standard, new money could only be printed if a corresponding amount of gold were availabe to back the currency. This restriction is an existential check on government power. According to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field (1863-1897)," arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'Our current fiat monetary system is inherently un-democratic. Our current fiat monetary system empowers an unelected central banking committee (the Federal Reserve) to determine whether the supply of money grows or is reduced rather than allowing market forces to determine the supply of money as they would under a gold standard. Fiat dollars allow government to spend money without raising taxes, which shields them from democratic accountability. Instead, they impose the hidden tax of inflation. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'Returning to a gold standard would lower inflation rates and slow the rise in consumer prices. Historically, the United States has had lower levels of inflation when on a gold standard. From 1880-1913, under a gold standard, average inflation was 1.6% per year.  In 1971, when Nixon took the United States off the gold standard, inflation was at 3.3%. By 1979 it had risen to 13.3%.  In a study of 15 countries covering the years 1820-1994, Federal Reserve economists found the average annual inflation rate under a gold standard was 1.75%, versus 9.17% when not on a gold standard.  From 1971 to 2003 the dollar lost nearly 80% of its purchasing power due to inflation.  Between 1971 and 1980 the inflation rate rose from 4.4% to 13.5%.  By 2011, the dollar\'s purchasing power had been reduced to the point that it has the same purchasing power as 19 cents did in 1971. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'Returning to a gold standard would reduce the US trade deficit. Our current fiat money system allows the Fed to finance large trade deficits by printing money, allowing Americans to purchase imported goods "without really paying" for them.  Since abandoning the gold standard in 1971, the United States has had the highest trade deficits the world has ever seen – reaching a high of $378.6 billion in 2009.  Since 1995, foreign nations have taken the fiat dollars received in payment for exports, and used them to invest in United States debt (Treasury Bonds). In this way, foreign creditors have financed 50% of the US national debt since 1995.  According to US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), this "free lunch cannot last. Printing money, buying foreign products, and selling foreign holders of dollars our debt ends when the foreign holders of this debt become concerned with the dollar\'s future value." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'A gold standard would restrict the ability of the federal government to increase the national debt. Under the fiat money system used by the United States the government can raise money by issuing treasury bonds – which the Federal Reserve can purchase with newly printed money. These bonds count toward the national debt. Between 1971 and 2003, the national debt went from $406 billion to $6.8 trillion - an increase of 1,600%. This increase in debt corresponded with an 1,100% increase in the money supply (M3) between 1971 ($776 billion) and 2003 ($8.9 trillion).  As of Dec. 26, 2012 the national debt stood at $16.3 trillion.  As a percentage of the GDP (gross domesic product) the national debt has more than doubled since leaving the gold standard in 1971 - going from from slightly under 30% to 67.7% in 2011. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'A gold standard would force the United States to reduce its military and defense spending and could prevent unnecessary wars. According to US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) "fiat money enable[s] government to maintain an easy war policy... To be truly opposed to preemptive and unnecessary wars one must advocate sound money to prevent the promoters of war from financing their imperialism."  The government\'s ability to limitlessly print fiat paper money allows it to fund a massive global defense establishment, including 662 military bases in 38 countries  and costly foreign military interventions.  The United States spent $711 billion on defense spending in 2011, more than the other top 13 countries combined.  This level of spending would not be possible if the United States returned to a full gold standard.')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'Returning to a gold standard would stabilize the price of oil and help slow the rise in gasoline prices. Since leaving the gold standard in 1971, inflation has reduced the value of the dollar, and inflated the price of oil about 32 fold.  In 1973, Saudi Arabia (and in 1975 all OPEC nations) agreed to trade oil only in dollars.  This created a new international demand for the fiat dollars the Fed was now printing and as more dollars flooded the world, general inflation (as well as spikes and collapses) in oil prices followed.  When on a partial gold standard in the 1950s and 1960s the nominal price of oil was stable, averaging $2.90 a barrel. By June 2008 the nominal price of oil hit $126.33 per barrel. Adjusted for inflation, a barrel of oil cost $20 in 1971 – it now costs close to $100.  According to Charles Kadlec, founder of Community of Liberty and Forbes contributor, if the gold standard had been maintained the price of gasoline today would likely be about $1.00 a gallon. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'A gold standard would reduce the risk of economic crises and recessions such as the housing bubble and financial crisis of 2008-2009. The ability of the Federal Reserve to print fiat money and maintain easy credit by keeping interest rates too low from 2001 to 2006  was a significant cause of the real estate bubble which led to the Great Recession.   The response to the recession has been more of what caused it in the first place – printing money. Over $2 trillion in bailouts for failed financial institutions was paid for with Federal Reserve money,  setting the stage for another possible bubble and collapse.  The Fed\'s history of providing economic stablility with fiat money has not been a good one. Since the United States abandoned the gold standard there have been 12 financial crises, including the financial crisis of 2008-2009. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'A gold standard self-regulates to match the supply of money to the need for it. Since gold is a finite natural material, and must be mined and processed at a significant cost, it tends to be produced at levels consistent with demand. Under a gold standard, creating more currency requires obtaining more gold, which raises golds market price and stimulates increased mining. More gold is then used to back more money until a point when currency levels are adequate, the price of gold levels out, and mining gets scaled back.  It is a self-regulating system.  Under a fiat money system the production of money has no natural self-regulation mechanism.')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'Under a gold standard the United States had stronger economic growth over its history. Over the 179 years the United States was on some form of a gold or metallic standard (1792-1971), the economy grew an average of 3.9% each year. Since 1971, under a fiat money standard not backed by gold in any way, economic growth has averaged 2.8% per year.  This lower growth rate translates into an economy that is about $8 trillion dollars smaller than it would have been had the gold standard not been abandoned in 1971. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'A gold standard would prevent government from overprinting money to bail out financial corporations. To fund the past bailouts of financial corporations like Bear Stearns ($29 billion) and AIG ($180 billion),  the Fed created massive amounts of new fiat money. In Apr. 2008, the yearly growth rate of the money supply was 1.5%. By Aug. 2009 it was at 14.3%.  Between Dec. 2007 and Dec. 2008 the Fed\'s balance sheet (assets held such as government bonds) had gone from a yearly growth rate of 2.6% to 152.8%.  This massive expansion of the money supply put the country at risk of significant future inflation.')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'Under the gold standard, income levels in the United States were rising much faster and unemployment levels were lower. In the decades prior to the United States abandoning the gold standard (1950-1968), the real median income for males rose 2.7% per year. Since leaving the gold standard in 1971, the average median income has only increased 0.2% per year.  If the gold standard had not been abandoned in 1971, and income levels had continued to grow at the prior rates, the average median family income today would be about 50% higher.  In addition, unemployment levels were lower in the decades leading up to the United States abandoning the gold standard. Between 1944 and 1971, while on a partial gold standard, unemployment averaged 5%. From 1971 to present, unemployment levels have averaged 6% under the fiat money standard. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 53, description: 'Many politicians, businessmen, and organizations support the return to a gold standard. United States Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has made the return to a gold standard a central focus of his political career, arguing that government creation of fiat money is "morally identical to the counterfeiter who illegally prints currency."  Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, argues that a "new gold standard is crucial,"  to save the country from a "crisis that would be even worse than 2008."  Many organizations support a return to a gold standard including the American Principles Project,  the Lehrman Institute,  and several economists of the Austrian school affiliated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'The value of gold fluctuates widely and would not provide the price stability necessary for a healthy economy. Between 1879 and 1933, when the United States was on a full gold standard, the inflation adjusted market price of gold fluctuated from the $700 range (1890s) to the $200 range (1920s). From 1934-1970, when the US was on a partial gold standard, the inflation adjusted price of gold went from $563 to $201.  In 1980, the inflation adjusted price of gold was $2,337, much higher than than today\'s price of $1,672 per ounce (Dec. 19, 2012).  Fluctuations like these would be damaging to a gold standard economy, since the value of a dollar would be attached to the value of gold. For example, a 10% increase or decrease in the value of gold would eventually result in a 10% rise or fall in the overall price level of goods across the country - such fluctuations would destabilize the economy. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'A well-managed fiat monetary system is the best way to keep inflation down, not returning to a gold standard. In 1981, when annual inflation was at 10.3%,  Congress authorized a US Gold Commission to study returning to the gold standard as a way to bring down the inflation. The commission concluded that "restoring a gold standard does not appear to be a fruitful method for dealing with the continuing problem of inflation."  By 1982, the monetary policy decisions of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker had already stopped the inflation.  By 1983 growth in consumer prices was down to 3.2% from a high of 13.5% in 1980. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'Gold standards create periodic deflations and economic contractions which destabalize the economy. Under a gold standard, economic growth can outpace growth in the money supply since more money cannot be created and circulated until more gold is first obtained to back it. When this happens deflation and economic contraction occurs. Between 1913 and 1971, when the United States was on some form of a gold standard, there were 12 years when deflation occurred – the highest levels were in 1921 (-10.5%), 1931 (-9.0%), and 1932 (-9.9%).  According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "the length and depth of the deflation during the late 1920s and early 1930s strongly suggest a monetary origin, and the close correspondence... between deflation and nations\' adherence to the gold standard."  Since leaving the gold standard in 1971 there has only been one year (2009) in which any deflation occurred (-0.4%). ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'The gold standard caused many financial panics, bank failures, and prolonged the Great Depression. Between 1879 and 1933 the United States had financial panics in 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933.  During the panic of 1933 alone 4,000 banks suspended operations.  Many of these panics were exacerbated by contraction in the money supply caused by the gold standard (more money could not be printed without first acquiring additional gold to back it).  Many economists contend that the gold standard played a role in preventing the United States from stabilizing the economy after the stock market crash of 1929, and prolonged the Great Depression. In 1933, when the United States went off the full domestic gold standard, the economy began to recover.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'A gold standard would limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to help the economy out of recessions and depressions. Under the current fiat money system the Federal Reserve can use monetary policy to respond to financial crises by lowering interest rates during a recession, raising them during a period of inflation, and injecting money into the economy when necessary. A gold standard would severly hamper it from performing these functions.  After the 2008 financial crash, the Fed’s TARP (troubled assest relief program) created $700 billion to bail out financial institutions and stabilize the economy.  According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, without the Fed\'s intervention a "powerful deflationary forc[e]"  would have been created. Without the intervention of the Fed it is possible the 2008 crash could have led to another Great Depression. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'Returning to a gold standard would limit government’s ability to address unemployment. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a gold standard "means swearing that no matter how bad unemployment gets you are not going to do anything about it using monetary policy."  Under our current fiat money system, the Fed can expand the US money supply by purchasing treasury bonds and the government can use this money to help put the unemployed to work through public spending  as the Obama administration did with the $787 billion fiscal stimulus.  It is estimated that the 2009 Obama stimulus prevented the loss of about three million jobs.  Under a gold standard the stimulus could not have occured.')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'Returning to a gold standard could destabilize and crash the already fragile United States economy.The last time the United States moved from a fiat monetary system to a gold standard was in 1879, when the United States returned to a gold standard after the Civil War. The shift caused a massive deflation.  Given the current fragility of the United States and global economy, the deflation caused by moving from a fiat money system to a gold standard would severly harm, if not crash, the economy. According to economist Barry Eichengreen, it would be a "recipe for disaster." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'A gold standard would increase the environmental and cultural harms created by gold mining. Returning to a gold standard would create increased demand for gold and mining activity would increase. Many gold mines use a process called cyanide leach mining that creates large scale water pollution  and massive open-pit scars on the land. Producing one ounce of gold creates 70 tons of mine waste. In addition nearly 50% of global gold mining occurs on indigenous lands,  where the communities\' land rights are often violated.   For example, in Nevada, Barrick Gold is currently engaged in a legal fight to dig out a 2,000 foot open-pit gold mine on Mt. Tenabo, a sacred mountain of the Western Shoshone. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'Returning to a gold standard would be a large waste of time, money, and resources.Gold mining and refining is expensive and time consuming. According to Barrick Gold (the world’s largest producer), an ounce of gold cost $560 to produce in 2012.  All the human labor used for mining, refining, and storing gold is time and energy diverted from the real economy. The direct costs associated with a fiat paper money system (paper and printing costs) are much lower (a paper federal reserve note only costs $0.087 to produce).  Economist Milton Friedman estimated that for the United States to maintain the gold reserves necessary to back its currency, it would cost 1.5% of the national income. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'A gold standard makes the supply of money vulnerable to the ups and downs of gold production. Under a gold standard the supply of money would be dependent on how much gold is produced. Inflation would occur when large gold discoveries were made and deflation would occur during periods of gold scarcity.  For example, in 1848, when large gold finds were made in California, the United States suffered a monetary shock as large quantities of gold created inflation. This rise in US prices caused a trade deficit as US exports became over priced in the international marketplace. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'A gold backed currency could not expand fast enough to maintain a healthy rate of international trade and economic growth.At current mining rates, the total world gold supply increases about 1.5% to 2% per year , which is not enough to maintain a healthy rate of global economic growth. According to United Bank of Switzerland economist Paul Donovan, the nominal rate of growth in world trade should be around 6% to 6.5%. If an international gold standard were to be re-introduced this growth rate could not be maintained. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'Returning to a gold standard could harm national security by restricting the country’s ability to finance national defense. In times of war, a quick expansion of currency to finance war buildup is sometimes necessary and a gold standard would prevent this from occurring. In order to help finance the Civil War, President Lincoln authorized the printing of $450 million in fiat currency known as "greenbacks."  The United States financed its involvement in WWII in large part by having the Fed print money (which was not convertible to gold by the public since 1933), selling war bonds, and running large deficits. According to Congressional Research Service (CRS) researchers, "the means by which the increase in the money supply came about was through the Federal Reserve’s purchase of government bonds. In effect, the Federal Reserve made a loan to the government of newly printed money." By 1946, publicly held debt was 108.6% of GDP. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'Returning to a gold standard would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, given the scarcity of gold and the vast amount of money already in circulation in the United States. As of 2012 the US treasury held about 260 million troy ounces of gold reserves. At the market price of gold, about $1,662 an ounce (as of Dec. 27, 2012), that would equal about $434.6 billion in gold. However, the current United States money supply, including cash in circulation and bank deposits, is about $2.6 trillion. In order to peg the dollar to gold, the United States would either have to vastly increase its gold holdings, set the dollar price of gold at $10,000 an ounce, or suffer a massive deflation and contraction in the money supply (or some combination of the three).  All the gold that currently exists in the world - about 5.5 billion troy ounces - would be worth about $9.1 trillion dollars at current market prices.  Even that is not enough to cover the $16.3 trillion national debt of the United States. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 54, description: 'Many prominent economists oppose returning to a gold standard. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has called returning to a gold standard "an almost comically (and cosmically) bad idea,"  and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, has said "the gold standard would not be feasible for both practical reasons and policy reasons."  In one survey of 50 economic experts, all senior faculty members at "elite research universities," not a single one believed returning to a gold standard would be "better for the average American" in terms of price stability or employment outcomes. According to one economic advisor to the Congressional Budget Office, "Love of the G.S. [gold standard] implies macroeconomic illiteracy." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate result in employers creating more jobs?', position_one: 55, position_two: 56)
Reason.create(position_id: 55, description: 'US businesses move overseas because the United States has one of the highest statutory federal corporate income tax rates in the world. The United States has the highest top-bracket federal corporate income tax rate (nearly 40%) among OECD countries, and the third-highest in the world, behind the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico. The United States also has the highest "effective" corporate tax rate (29%) of the G20 countries.  These high tax rates force American companies to relocate their employees overseas. For example, Johnson Controls, a company with a market value of $23 billion, moved its headquarters from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Ireland in 2016. In a memo to employees, a spokesperson said the move would save the company about $150 million dollars in US taxes annually, explaining that setting up headquarters abroad "retains maximum flexibility for our balance sheet and ability to invest in growth opportunities everywhere around the world." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 55, description: 'High corporate income tax rates encourage US companies to store their foreign earnings abroad instead of investing it into expansion and employment in the United States. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that untaxed foreign earnings of American companies totaled approximately $2.6 trillion in 2015.  A J.P. Morgan study found that 60% of the cash held by 602 US multi-national companies was sitting in foreign accounts. If an income tax cut were offered to companies that returned this cash, the study estimated that $663 billion would be invested into business expansion and job growth in the United States. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 55, description: 'Lowering corporate income taxes results in increased international investment in the United States and thus more jobs. According to a working paper published by the OECD, countries with higher corporate tax rates lose revenue in foreign direct investment (FDI) as compared to countries with lower corporate tax rates.  A peer-reviewed study published in Applied Economics looked at corporate tax rates and FDI in 85 countries. The study found that a 10% reduction in the corporate income tax rate was associated with an increase in foreign direct investment equivalent to 2.2% of the country\'s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That investment money could be used by US businesses to invest and expand their workforces. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 55, description: 'The average five-year unemployment rate decreased from 1987-1991 after the United States lowered its top corporate income tax rate. During Ronald Reagan\'s presidency (1981-1988), the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (implemented in July 1987) lowered the top federal corporate income tax rate from 46% to 34%.  From 1982-1986, the average unemployment rate was 8.2%. From 1987-1991, the average unemployment rate was 5.9%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 55, description: 'Raising corporate income taxes lowers worker wages, which leads to increased unemployment. Using 1970-2007 data from the United States, a Tax Foundation study found that for every $1 increase in state and local corporate tax revenues, hourly wages can be expected to fall by roughly $2.50.  Lower wages for workers results in a decreased ability to buy goods, which leads to lower income for businesses and a net increase in unemployment. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 55, description: 'High corporate tax rates create uncertainty for businesses, preventing them from investing and employing more people. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said lowering corporate income tax rates would provide a "certainty premium" that would allow businesses to expand. "If we can just allow people to keep their confidence up by getting some of these issues off the table," he said, "you would see the economy grow and momentum continue to build, and unemployment continue to ease down... All that will continue to build on itself." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 55, description: 'Lowering the corporate tax rate leads to economic growth and job creation because companies have more money to invest. A tax cut that increases corporate or personal income equivalent to one percent of GDP increases GDP by between 2-3%, according to a peer-reviewed study by UC Berkeley Political Economy Professor David Romer, and former head of Obama\'s Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer. A tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers GDP by roughly three percent. Higher GDP leads to job growth because companies make more money and have more to invest.  The President\'s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB), which operated during President Obama\'s tenure, in a paper titled "The Report on Tax Reform Options: Simplification, Compliance, and Corporate Taxation," called for lowering the corporate tax to "increase the stock of available capital - new businesses, factories, equipment, or research - improving productivity in the economy," and said that it would reduce the incentives of US companies to shift operations and employees abroad. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 55, description: 'The current federal corporate income tax rate is above the rate that maximizes revenue to corporations and the US government, preventing additional job growth. The "Laffer" curve theorizes that at a 0% tax rate the government would not receive any revenue and at a 100% tax rate businesses would choose not to operate at all. According to several peer-reviewed studies on the Laffer curve, the corporate income tax rate that maximizes revenue to both corporations and the US government is 30%, lower than its current rate of 35%. That excess revenue can be used by businesses to invest and expand. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 56, description: 'The federal corporate income tax rates were the highest in US history when the unemployment rates were the lowest in US history. From 1951, when the top marginal corporate income tax rate rose from 42% to 50.75%, to 1969, when rates peaked at 52.8%, the unemployment rate moved from 3.3% to 3.5%. From 1986 to 2011, when the top marginal corporate income tax rate declined from 46% to 35%, the unemployment rate increased from 7% to 8.9%.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 56, description: 'A "tax holiday" in 2004, which temporarily lowered the corporate income tax rate for companies that brought back cash stored overseas, resulted in companies cutting jobs. In 2004, Congress passed a repatriation tax holiday that allowed companies to bring back profits earned abroad at a 5% income tax rate instead of the top 35% rate. Fifteen of the companies that benefited the most from the tax holiday subsequently cut more than 20,000 net jobs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 56, description: 'Companies hire employees because they need workers, not because of corporate income tax rates. According to a blog post from billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, "you hire people because you need them. You don\'t hire them because your taxes are lower."  In a survey of 53 prominent American economists, 65% said that lack of demand was the main reason why employers were not hiring new employees as compared to 27% who said that uncertainty about corporate taxation was the main reason.  A study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office found that a reduction in corporate taxes "does not create much incentive for them [businesses] to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products."  The Roosevelt Institute, a New York-based think tank, stated that "corporate tax cuts will only increase payouts to wealthy shareholders and will not increase investment or create jobs." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 56, description: 'Complaints about high federal corporate income tax rates causing high unemployment are unfounded because loopholes and deductions enable many companies to pay less than the statutory rate. Of the 500 large cap companies (a market capitalization value of more than $10 billion) in the Standard & Poor (S&P) stock index, 115 paid a total corporate tax rate – federal and state combined – of less than 20% from 2006-2011, and 39 of those companies paid a rate of less than 10%.  An analysis comparing the tax rates of 258 profitable Fortune 500 companies between 2008 and 2015 found that almost 40% paid zero taxes for at least one year over the eight-year period. Of those 258, 18 companies paid less-than-zero over the entire period.  A study comparing the effective tax rates of the 100 largest US multinationals to the 100 largest European Union [EU] multinationals, during the period of 2001-2010, found that US multinationals have a lower average effective tax rate despite having a higher statutory rate. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 56, description: 'Corporate profits in the United States are the highest they have been in 61 years, yet the federal unemployment rate is higher than most of the rest of the developed world. In 2011, corporate profits made up 10% of US GDP, the highest percentage since 1950.   In 2011, the US unemployment rate was 8.9% compared to the OECD (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development) average of 8.2%.   Despite the highest corporate income tax in the world, corporate income tax revenue only brought the US federal government the equivalent of 1.2% of GDP in 2011 (the lowest percentage in recorded history), compared to the OECD average of 2.9% in 2010. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 56, description: 'Lowering the corporate tax rate raises the deficit, which hurts job creation. Lowering the federal corporate tax rate reduces the amount of money the US government receives in tax revenue, thus reducing federal government programs, investments, and job-creating opportunities. When the Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top marginal rate from 46% to 34%, the federal deficit increased from $149.7 billion to $255 billion from 1987-1993. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 56, description: 'Complaints about high federal corporate income tax rates causing high unemployment are unfounded because corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash. A report by Moody\'s Investor Service stated that non-financial US companies held onto $1.77 trillion in 2016, an increase from the previously historic high of $1.68 trillion in 2015.  This cash could have been, but was not, used to hire more employees and lower the unemployment rate. President Obama, in a July 22, 2009 press conference, stated "companies [are] making record profits, right now. At a time when everybody\'s getting hammered, they\'re making record profits." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 56, description: 'The US economy added 15 million jobs in the five years immediately following a large federal corporate income tax increase in 1993. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 added three new corporate tax brackets and increased the income tax rates for corporations making income over $10 million.   The US economy added more than 15 million jobs and grew at an average annual rate of 3.8% in the five years after the legislation was passed. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should churches (defined as churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?', position_one: 57, position_two: 58)
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments.  The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good.  Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc.  These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God.  Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees \'on the public payroll.\' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven\'t had to face in the past… We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings."  Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'US churches have been tax-exempt for over 200 years, yet there are no signs that America has become a theocracy. If the tax exemption were a serious threat to the separation of church and state, the US government would have succumbed to religious rule long ago. As the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'Taxing churches when their members receive no monetary gain would amount to double taxation. The late Rev. Dean M. Kelley, a leading proponent of religious freedom, explained that church members are already taxed on their individual incomes, so "to tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be \'double taxation\' indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the up building of the fabric of democracy." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'The only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on the 960,000 public charities that aid and enrich US society. If only churches were taxed, government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'Small churches, already struggling to survive, would be further endangered by a new tax burden. A 2010 survey by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover.  If these churches were obliged to pay taxes, their existence would be threatened and government would thus be impeding religious expression. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'The vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates.   There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011.   The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches.')
Reason.create(position_id: 57, description: 'Withdrawing the "parsonage exemption" on ministers\' housing would cost American clergy members $2.3 billion over five years, which would be a major blow to modestly paid men and women who dedicate their lives to helping people in need.  According to the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns less than $28,000 per year. The NACBA also states that one in five pastors takes on a second job to earn extra income, and that only 5% of pastors earn more than $50,000.  As stated by D. August Boto, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, "the housing allowance is critically important for making ends meet—it is not a luxury." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith… I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers\' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties.  In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars."  The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket,"  was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified. Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economic times. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property.  New York\'s nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue.  Lakewood Church, a "megachurch" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology\'s annual income exceeds $500 million.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'Despite the 1954 law banning political campaigning by tax-exempt groups, many churches are clearly political and therefore should not be receiving tax exemptions.   Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches\' exemption status.  In Oct. 2010, Minnesota pastor Brad Brandon of Berean Bible Baptist Church endorsed several Republican candidates and dared the "liberal media" to file complaints with the IRS. Brandon later announced on his radio program: "I\'m going to explain to you what happened… Nothing happened." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year. US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates.  As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland\'s Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn\'t have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn\'t be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 58, description: 'The "parsonage exemption" on ministers\' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers\' expense. The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000.  In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA,  and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment.  Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should college football replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a playoff system?', position_one: 59, position_two: 60)
Reason.create(position_id: 59, description: 'A post-season playoff leading up to the National Championship would replace the subjectivity of human and computer polls with the objective measure of winning or losing a game.')
Reason.create(position_id: 59, description: 'A 2007 Gallup poll showed that 85% of college football fans supported a change to a playoff system of some kind. 69% of fans surveyed preferred the idea of a playoff tournament involving the top four, eight, or 16 teams to replace bowl games while 16% preferred a one-game playoff between the top teams emerging from the post-season bowl games.')
Reason.create(position_id: 59, description: 'If a team loses one game it is probably out of contention for the National Championship; if it loses twice there is little chance the team will qualify for any BCS game. Therefore, if a team loses early in the season then the rest of its games lack excitement, and the claim by BCS proponents that every game counts does not hold true.')
Reason.create(position_id: 59, description: 'A playoff system would give each school an opportunity to earn a fair share of the revenue distributed to the 11 conferences in the FBS. Since the BCS conferences automatically qualify for BCS bowl games, they receive a disproportionate amount of the annual bowl revenue. Since football earnings fund other sports, this disparity affects athletes in all sports. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 59, description: 'The BCS human polls are subject to bias, which has been cited as one reason the University of Utah was kept out of the 2008 championship game.  One third of the standings are based on how the coaches rank the teams, which assumes that coaches have time to watch all of the games while also preparing their teams each week. A playoff system, used by most other sports, would eliminate the controversy.')
Reason.create(position_id: 59, description: 'The BCS rewards undefeated BCS teams, so schools sometimes try to schedule games against weaker opponents to protect their records. A playoff would remove the easy schedule and make the championship solely about performance.')
Reason.create(position_id: 59, description: 'A playoff system would not mean the end of the BCS rankings, which could still be used to determine the top 4, 8, 12, or 16 teams, depending on how many playoff games are feasible. Every game during the regular season would still be as important as under the current system, because a few losses would make it difficult for a team to qualify for the playoffs.')
Reason.create(position_id: 59, description: 'The national champions in other major college sports are determined by playoff systems. Even the 140 plus football teams of the NCAA\'s FCS (formerly known as Division I-AA) compete in a 16-team tournament. The only reason that the BCS is still controlling the football post-season is because the system has become entrenched.')
Reason.create(position_id: 60, description: 'A playoff system would extend the 13 week regular season by at least a month, which would interfere with athletes\' college studies and which could potentially lead to more injuries from playing.')
Reason.create(position_id: 60, description: 'The BCS system makes every regular season game crucial for the teams in contention to finish in the top two. The importance of every game increases attendance and revenue, which is shared with other sports and non-athletic programs at each school.')
Reason.create(position_id: 60, description: 'Before 1998, bowl revenue was shared only by the conferences that had teams playing in the major bowl games,  (2.3 MB)  but the BCS changed the system to share the revenue with every conference. Replacing the BCS would decrease the revenue to conferences without teams in the playoffs.')
Reason.create(position_id: 60, description: 'The BCS rankings are designed to favor consistency over the course of the entire season. It rewards teams that beat the opponents they are supposed to beat as well as underdogs that upset higher-ranked teams. Under a playoff system, a team could lose an entire season\'s worth of hard work by having one bad day.')
Reason.create(position_id: 60, description: 'The college football post-season bowl games are popular and profitable. Critics of BCS say that most people want a playoff system, but the bowl game attendance numbers contradict their argument. Attendance at the 2008 season bowl games was nearly equal to each stadium\'s capacity, in some cases exceeding it. For example, the Rose Bowl capacity is 91,000 and attendance was 93,293. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 60, description: 'The proposed playoff system alternatives are actually less fair than the BCS system in place. In a league of 120 teams, there is no way for every team to play each other in the course of the regular season, let alone in a playoff during the post-season.')
Reason.create(position_id: 60, description: 'The BCS conferences have stronger teams in them. An undefeated or one-loss record in a BCS conference should mean more than the same record in a weaker, non-BCS conference because the teams are not facing opponents of the same quality. The BCS rankings consider strength of schedule in the computer rating formulas, and the human voters account for it as well.')
Reason.create(position_id: 60, description: 'A playoff system would entail each team playing games in different cities during the holiday season in December and January, with no way to predict where any game besides the first one would take place.Students and alumni would be unable to make travel plans in advance to support their teams.')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Is it appropriate to build a Muslim community center (aka the \'Ground Zero Mosque\') near the World Trade Center Site?', position_one: 61, position_two: 62)
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'The "Ground Zero Mosque" will be an asset to the city. According to plans released by the Cordoba Initiative - the group behind the project - what is planned is a community center with a library, a gym, a swimming pool, a basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant, a 9/11 memorial, child care facilities, and a culinary school. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'The Muslim community center is a major economic investment that will pump over $100 million in infrastructre into lower Manhattan and will create as many as 150 full-time and 500 part-time jobs in an area that desperately needs it. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'Contrary to what many believe, the \'Ground Zero Mosque\' is not a mosque. A mosque is a Muslim holy place in which only worship can be conducted.  The community center is 16-stories high with a 2-story prayer space that is, according to its builders, "open to everyone." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'The United States was built upon tolerance and religious freedom, and a mosque at Ground Zero would represent American values.  We should not allow the 9/11 terrorists\' message of intolerance to reign in our country.')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'Muslims have the same right to build a house of worship in Lower Manhattan and to pray for the victims of 9/11 as any other group.  Approximately 60 Muslims were murdered in the 9/11 attacks. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'The Park51 project allows Muslims to remind Americans that the destruction that struck the Twin Towers does not represent Islam.  Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, not Islam.  As filmmaker Michael Moore posted on his blog, "Blaming a whole group for the actions of just one of that group is anti-American. Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. Should Oklahoma City prohibit the building of a Catholic Church near the site of the former federal building that McVeigh blew up?" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a moderate Muslim who has been preaching in New York for 27 years. He intends to use Park51 as a place where moderate Muslim voices "are amplified" to condemn terrorism and work for peaceful and harmonious relationships with New Yorkers.  Rauf is an American citizen who says he "votes in elections, pays taxes, pledges allegiance to the flag, and is a Giants fan." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'It is appropriate for a mosque to be built near Ground Zero because one existed on floor 17 of the South Tower of the World Trade Center and was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'Several family members of 9/11 victims have publicly supported the Park51 project. Frank Tatum, who lost his mother on 9/11, stated, "We do have religious freedom. I know the [9/11] wounds are still very open, mine included, but you have to look at the big picture. You can\'t practice these freedoms only when it suits us. You have to practice them all along." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'Cancelling the plans to build the "Ground Zero Mosque" will signal to Islamic extremists that America is anti-Muslim, which may endanger Americans and put the country at risk of a future terrorist attack.  According to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, if Park51 were moved "…the headline in the Muslim world will be Islam is under attack in America, this will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment…" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'We are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect Muslims from tyranny. We should also be protecting them from tyranny at home by standing up for their rights, including freedom of religion. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'The name Cordoba House was chosen to represent Cordoba, Spain, a Middle Age city where Muslims, Christians, and Jews co-existed peacefully during a famous period of cultural enrichment.  On July 13, 2010, to satisfy critics, the project was renamed Park51 to put emphasis on the community center aspect of the project rather than religion. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 61, description: 'A Muslim community center receiving funding from Arab sources overseas is not problematic because Arab investment in the United States is nothing new. Arab countries held approximately $8 billion in foreign direct investment in the United States in 2009.  Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been derided for receiving funds from "radical" Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, but bin Talal is not a radical. He has made several large investments in the United States, and is reported to be the second largest shareholder of News Corp, the parent company of Fox News. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'The 9/11 attacks were committed by Muslim terrorists in the name of Islam. Building a Muslim mosque on the hallowed ground near the World Trade Center site is an insult to the memory of those killed on Sep. 11, 2001.  The World Trade Center site should remain a sacred burial ground and a war memorial free from the hurtful and antagonistic presence of a nearby mosque.')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'The "Ground Zero Mosque" would become a permanent lightning rod for anti-Muslim feelings.  According to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, "All the proposed Muslim community center near Ground Zero will do is create more division, more anger, and more hatred."  That divisiveness is not good for anyone, especially Muslims.')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'There should be no mosques near Ground Zero until there are churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia, or until Christians or Jews are allowed to enter Mecca. Islamists that call for tolerance need to address their own practices before they criticize America\'s. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the spiritual leader of the proposed "Ground Zero Mosque," is a radical Islamist who has refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization and has laid blame on the US for the Sep. 11 attacks.  In a July 2005 speech, Rauf has even stated that "the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.”  In a Sep. 30, 2001 interview on 60 Minutes about the 9/11 attacks, he said that "the United States\' policies were an accessory to the crime" and that "Osama bin Laden was made in the USA." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'The financers of the "Ground Zero Mosque" have ties to radical Islamic extremists. According to an Aug. 23, 2010 Fox News report, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has received funds from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who has allegedly funded radical Islamic Madrassas around the world.  15 of the 19 jihadis in the Twin Tower attacks were Saudis. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'Several prominent Muslims believe the "Ground Zero Mosque" should not be built, including Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and Stephen Schwartz, Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. There are over 100 mosques in New York where Muslims can worship freely.  The Muslim Canadian Congress stated that "We believe the [Park51] proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating \'fitna,\' meaning \'mischief-making,\' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'The idea of a Muslim mosque near Ground Zero where Muslims killed so many Americans is morally repugnant.A Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslims were slaughtered would never be tolerated, and neither would a pro-Japanese monument near Pearl Harbor. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'CNN, Rasmussen, and Quinnipiac polls show that 68%, 54%, and 71%, respectively, of Americans feel that the "Ground Zero Mosque" should not be built at its proposed location. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'Building the "Ground Zero Mosque" will endanger New Yorkers because anti-Muslim extremists will target it for an attack.  On Oct. 3, 2010, the New York City Police Department confirmed it was investigating death threats against Imam Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan.  A Florida pastor threatened to burn 100 Korans on 9/11/10 if the Muslim community center were built at its proposed location, a provocative act which many believed would have led to violent retaliation from Muslim extremists. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: 'The name Cordoba House proves that the \'Ground Zero Mosque\' is intended to be a victory monument for terrorists. According to former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, "The name \'Cordoba House\' is a deliberately insulting term that refers to Cordoba, Spain - the capital of Muslim conquerers who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world\'s third-largest mosque complex." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 62, description: '45-51 Park Place, the proposed location of the "Ground Zero Mosque," sits well within the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center site. The current businesses in the neighborhood, even if unsavory, are irrelevant to this fact. Human remains were found within 350 feet of the proposed Muslim community center. Jim Riches, a former New York City Deputy Fire Chief whose son, Jimmy, was killed on 9/11, stated, "I just think it\'s very insensitive to say it\'s not hallowed ground because of who\'s occupying the buildings. The strip club didn\'t murder my son." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?', position_one: 63, position_two: 64)
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The study also found that the expertise of researchers unconvinced of human-caused climate change is "substantially below" that of researchers who agree that human activity is primarily responsible for climate change.  The 2013 Cook review of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found that only 78 studies (0.7%) explicitly rejected the position that humans are responsible for global warming.  A separate review of 13,950 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found only 24 that rejected human-caused global warming.  A survey by German Scientists Bray and Von Storch found that 83.5% of climate scientists believe human activity is causing "most of recent" global climate change.  A separate survey in 2011 also found that 84% of earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrological scientists surveyed said that human-induced global warming is occurring. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Rising levels of human-produced gases released into the atmosphere create a greenhouse effect that traps heat and causes global warming. As sunlight hits the earth, some of the warmth is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (NO2). These gases trap heat and cause the planet to warm through a process called the greenhouse effect.  Since 1751 about 337 billion metric tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production,  increasing atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm (parts per million), to a high of 400 ppm in 2013.  Methane, which is increasing in the atmosphere due to agriculture and fossil fuel production, traps 84 times as much heat as CO2 for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere,  and is responsible for about one-fifth of global warming since 1750.  Nitrous oxide, primarily released through agricultural practices, traps 300 times as much heat as CO2.  Over the 20th century, as the concentrations of CO2, CH4, and NO2 increased in the atmosphere,   the earth warmed by approximately 1.4°F. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'The rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century was clearly caused by human activity, as it occurred at a rate much faster than natural climate changes could produce. Over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century.  Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen from about 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013.  CO2 levels are estimated to reach 450 ppm by the year 2040.  According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanology, the "extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events."  Some climate models predict that by the end of the 21st century an additional 5°F-10°F of warming will occur. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'The specific type of CO2 that is increasing in earth\'s atmosphere can be directly connected to human activity. CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal  can be differentiated in the atmosphere from natural CO2 due to its specific isotopic ratio.  According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that rising CO2 levels are the result of human activity, not natural processes such as ocean outgassing, volcanic activity, or release from other "carbon sinks."  US greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in 2012 totaled 6.5 million metric tons,  which is equivalent to about 78.3 billion shipping containers filled with greenhouse gases. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Average temperatures on earth have increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural climate changes. A 2008 study compared data from tree rings, ice cores, and corals over the past millennium with recent temperature records. The study created the famous "hockey stick" graph, showing that the rise in earth\'s temperature over the preceding decade had occurred at a rate faster than any warming period over the last 1,700 years.  In 2012 the Berkeley scientists found that the average temperature of the earth’s land increased 2.5°F over 250 years (1750-2000), with 1.5°F of that increase in the last 50 years.  Lead researcher Richard A. Muller, PhD, said "it appears likely that essentially all of this increase [in temperature] results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."  In 2013, a surface temperature study published in Science found that global warming over the past 100 years has proceeded at a rate faster than at any time in the past 11,300 years.  According to the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report, human actions are "extremely likely" (95-100% confidence) to have been the main cause of 20th century global warming, and the surface temperature warming since the 1950s is "unprecedented over decades to millennia." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Natural changes in the sun\'s activity cannot explain 20th century global warming. According to a Dec. 2013 study in Nature Geoscience, the sun has had only a "minor effect" on the Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, and global warming from human-produced greenhouse gases has been the primary cause of climate change since 1900.  Another 2013 study found that solar activity could not have contributed to more than 10% of the observed global warming over the 20th century.  Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979-2009 show the sun\'s energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase.  According to a 2013 IPCC report, there is "high confidence" (8 out of 10 chance) that changes in the sun\'s radiation could not have caused the increase in the earth\'s surface temperature from 1986-2008.  Although warming is occurring in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is actually cooling. If the sun were driving global warming, there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Global warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is causing the Arctic ice cap to melt at an increasing rate. From 1953–2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade.  As of 2014, Arctic sea ice was being lost at a rate of 13.3% per decade.  As the Arctic ice cover continues to decrease, the amount of the sun’s heat reflected by the ice back into space also decreases. This positive-feedback loop amplifies global warming at a rate even faster than previous climate models had predicted.  Some studies predict the Arctic could become nearly ice free sometime between 2020-2060. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Sea levels are rising at an unprecedented rate due to global warming. As human-produced greenhouse gases warm the planet, sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion of warming ocean waters as well as melt water from receding glaciers and the polar ice cap.  According to the IPCC, there has been a "substantial" human contribution to the global mean sea-level rise since the 1970s, and there is "high confidence" (8 out of 10 chance) that the rate of sea-level rise over the last half century has accelerated faster than it has over the previous 2,000 years.  A 2006 study found that "significant acceleration" of sea-level rise occurred from 1870 to 2004.  Between 1961 and 2003 global sea levels rose 8 inches.  An Oct. 2014 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the rate of sea level rise over the past century is unprecedented over the last 6,000 years.   A separate Oct. 2014 study said that the global sea level is likely to rise 31 inches by 2100, with a worst case scenario rise of 6 feet.  Climate Central predicts that 147 to 216 million people live in areas that will be below sea level or regular flood areas by the end of the century if human-produced greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Ocean acidity levels are increasing at an unprecedented rate that can only be explained by human activity. As excess human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, the acidity level of the water increases. Acidity levels in the oceans are 25-30% higher than prior to human fossil fuel use.  According to a 2014 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, oceans have absorbed about 30% of the CO2 emitted by humans over the past 200 years, and ocean acidity could rise approximately 100-200 percent above preindustrial levels by 2100.  According to a 2013 report from the World Meteorological Organization, the current acceleration in the rate of ocean acidification "appears unprecedented" over the last 300 million years.  High ocean acidity levels threaten marine species,  and slows the growth of coral reefs.  According to a 2014 report by the Convention on Biological Diversity, "it is now nearly inevitable" that within 50-100 years continued human produced CO2 emissions will increase ocean acidity to levels that "will have widespread impacts, mostly deleterious, on marine organisms and ecosystems." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Ocean temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate due to global warming, and are causing additional climate changes. The IPCC stated in a 2013 report that due to human-caused global warming, it is "virtually certain" (99-100% probability) that the upper ocean warmed between 1971 and 2010.  An Oct. 2014 Nature Climate Change study said that the oceans are the "dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system."  A separate Oct. 2014 study found that the oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat generated by human-caused global warming.  Since 1970 the upper ocean (above 700 meters) has been warming 24-55% faster than previous studies had predicted.  A May 2013 study published in Geophysical Research Letters found that between 1958-2009 the rates of warming in the lower ocean (below 700m) "appear to be unprecedented."  According to an Oct. 2013 study, the middle depths of the Pacific Ocean have warmed "15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000."  Warmer ocean waters can harm coral reefs and impact many species including krill, which are vital to the marine food chain and which reproduce significantly less in warmer water.  Warming oceans also contribute to sea level rise due to thermal expansion, and warmer ocean waters can add to the intensity of storm systems. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates due to global warming, causing additional climate changes. About a quarter of the globe\'s glacial loss from 1851-2010, and approximately two thirds of glacial loss between 1991-2010, is attributable directly to global warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases.  According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, global warming from human-produced greenhouse gases is a primary cause of the "unprecedented" retreat of glaciers around the world since the early 20th century.  Since 1980 glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness.  According to a 2013 IPCC report, "glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide" over the prior two decades, and there is "high confidence" (about an 8 out of 10 chance) that Northern Hemisphere spring snow continues to decrease.  If the glaciers forming the Greenland ice sheet were to melt entirely, global sea levels could increase by up to 20 feet.  Melting glaciers also change the climate of the surrounding region. With the loss of summer glacial melt water, the temperatures in rivers and lakes increase. According to the US Geological Service, this disruption can include the "extinction of temperature sensitive aquatic species." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Human-caused global warming is changing weather systems and making heat waves and droughts more intense and more frequent. The May 2014 National Climate Assessment report said human-caused climate changes, such as increased heat waves and drought, "are visible in every state."  A Sep. 2014 American Meteorological Society study found that human-caused climate change "greatly increased" (up to 10 times) the risk for extreme heat waves in 2013.  According to an Aug. 2012 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, there is a "high degree of confidence" that the Texas and Oklahoma heat waves and drought of 2011, and heat waves and drought in Moscow in 2010, "were a consequence of global warming" and that "extreme anomalies" in weather are becoming more common as a direct consequence of human-caused climate change.  A 2015 study found that globally, 75% of extremely hot days are attributable to warming caused by human activity. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Dramatic changes in precipitation, such as heavier storms and less snow, are another sign that humans are causing global climate change. As human-produced greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas.  In a process known as a positive feedback loop, more warming causes more humidity which causes even more warming.  Higher humidity levels also cause changes in precipitation. According to a 2013 report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the recorded changes in precipitation over land and oceans "are unlikely to arise purely due to natural climate variability."  Higher temperatures from global warming are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western United States (1950-1999) were human-induced.  Since 1991, heavy precipitation events have been 30% above the 1901-1960 average in the Northeast, Midwest, and upper Great Plains regions.  A 2015 study found that global warming caused by human actions has increased extreme precipitation events by 18% across the globe, and that if temperatures continue to rise an increase of 40% can be expected. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 63, description: 'Permafrost is melting at unprecedented rates due to global warming, causing further climate changes. According to a 2013 IPCC report there is "high confidence" (about an 8 out of 10 chance) that anthropogenic global warming is causing permafrost, a subsurface layer of frozen soil, to melt in high-latitude regions and in high-elevation regions.  As permafrost melts it releases methane, a greenhouse gas that absorbs 84 times more heat than CO2 for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere, creating even more global warming in a positive feedback loop.  By the end of the 21st century, warming temperatures in the Arctic will cause a 30%-70% decline in permafrost.  According to a 2012 report, as human-caused global warming continues, Arctic air temperatures are expected to increase at twice the global rate, increasing the rate of permafrost melt, changing the local hydrology, and impacting critical habitat for native species and migratory birds.  According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, some climate models suggest that near-surface permafrost will be "lost entirely" from large parts of Alaska by the end of the 21st century. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change.  The Cook review  of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies found 66.4% of the studies had no stated position on anthropogenic global warming, and while 32.6% of the studies implied or stated that humans are contributing to climate change, only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly stated "that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming."  A 2012 Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and instead believe that climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment (37%), mostly by the environment (5%), or that there’s not enough information to say (5%).  In 2014 a group of 15 scientists dismissed the US National Climate Assessment as a "masterpiece of marketing," that was "grossly flawed," and called the NCA’s assertion of human-caused climate change "NOT true." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Earth\'s climate has always warmed and cooled, and the 20th century rise in global temperature is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years. Although the planet has warmed 1-1.4°F over the 20th century, it is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years.  A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics found that "many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."  A 2005 study published in Nature found that "high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100" in the Northern Hemisphere.  A 2013 study published in Boreas found that summer temperatures during the Roman Empire and Medieval periods were "consistently higher" than temperatures during the 20th century.  According to a 2010 study in the Chinese Science Bulletin, the recent global warming period of the 20th century is the result of a natural 21-year temperature oscillation, and will give way to a "new cool period in the 2030s." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 do not necessarily cause global warming, which contradicts the core thesis of human-caused climate change. Earth\'s climate record shows that warming has preceded, not followed, a rise in CO2. According to a 2003 study published in Science, measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2.  In 2010 the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study of the earth\'s climate 460-445 million years ago which found that an intense period of glaciation, not warming, occurred when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than they are today.  According to ecologist and former Director of Greenpeace International Patrick Moore, PhD, "there is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Human-produced CO2 is re-absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks," negating any climate changes. According to a 2011 study published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, many climate models that predict additional global warming to occur from CO2 emissions "exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative."  About 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities has already been re-absorbed by the earth’s carbon sinks.  From 2002-2011, 26% of human-caused CO2 emissions were absorbed specifically by the world’s oceans.  A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found evidence that forests are increasing their growth rates in response to elevated levels of CO2,  which will in turn, lower atmospheric CO2 levels in a negative feedback. According to an Aug. 2012 study in Nature, the rate of global carbon uptake by the earth\'s carbon sinks, such as its forests and oceans, doubled from 1960-2010 and continues to increase. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'CO2 is already saturated in earth’s atmosphere, and more CO2, manmade or natural, will have little impact on climate. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the amount of additional warming caused by the increased concentration becomes less and less pronounced.  According to Senate testimony by William Happer, PhD, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, "[a]dditional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. The technical jargon for this is that the CO2 absorption band is nearly \'saturated\' at current CO2 levels."  According to the Heartland Institute\'s 2013 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, "it is likely rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have little impact on future climate." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Global warming and cooling are primarily caused by fluctuations in the sun\'s heat (solar forcing), not by human activity. Over the past 10,000 years, solar minima (reduced sun spot activity) have been "accompanied by sharp climate changes."  Between 1900 and 2000 solar irradiance increased 0.19%, and correlated with the rise in US surface temperatures over the 20th century.  According to a 2007 study published in Energy & Environment, "variations in solar activity and not the burning of fossil fuels are the direct cause of the observed multiyear variations in climatic responses."  In a 2012 study by Willie Soon, PhD, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years was identified.  According to a 2012 study published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, "up to 70% of the observed post-1850 climate change and warming could be associated to multiple solar cycles." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'The rate of global warming has slowed over the last decade even though atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized a slowdown in global warming over the past 15 years in its 2013 report.  According to the Heartland Institute\'s 2013 NIPCC report, the earth "has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2."  In Aug. 2014 a study in the Open Journal of Statistics analyzed surface temperature records and satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere and confirmed that this slowdown in global warming has occurred.  According to Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Lindzen, PhD, the IPCC\'s "excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the [climate] models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans" ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Sea levels have been steadily rising for thousands of years, and the increase has nothing to do with humans. A 2014 report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that a slow global sea level rise has been ongoing for the last 10,000 years.  When the earth began coming out of the Pleistocene Ice Age 18,000 years ago, sea levels were about 400 feet lower than they are today and have been steadily rising ever since.  According to Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, PhD "it is clear that natural variability has dominated sea level rise during the 20th century, with changes in ocean heat content and changes in precipitation patterns."  Freeman Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Physics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, has stated that there is "no evidence" that rising sea levels are due to anthropogenic climate change. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'The acidity levels of the oceans are within past natural levels, and the current rise in acidity is a natural fluctuation, not the result of human caused climate change.  The pH of average ocean surface water is 8.1 and has only decreased 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial revolution (neutral is pH 7, acid is below pH 7).  In 2010 Science published a study of ocean acidity levels over the past 15 million years, finding that the "samples record surface seawater pH values that are within the range observed in the oceans today."  Increased atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the oceans results in higher rates of photosynthesis and faster growth of ocean plants and phytoplankton, which increases pH levels keeping the water alkaline, not acidic.  According to a 2010 paper by the Science and Public Policy Institute, "our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the oceans." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Predictions of accelerating human-caused climate change are based upon computerized climate models that are inadequate and incorrect. Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes.  A 2011 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science study using observational data rather than computer climate models concluded that "the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity" and overestimate how fast the earth will warm as CO2 levels increase.  Two other studies using observational data found that IPCC projections of future global warming are too high.   In a 2014 article, climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer, PhD, concluded that 95% of climate models have "over-forecast the warming trend since 1979."  According to Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg, Tim Ball, PhD, "IPCC computer climate models are the vehicles of deception… [T]hey create the results they are designed to produce." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Glaciers have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes, not human activity. The IPCC predicted that Himalayan glaciers would likely melt away by 2035, a prediction they disavowed in 2010.  In 2014 a study of study of 2,181 Himalayan glaciers from 2000-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding.  According to a 2013 study of ice cores published in Nature Geoscience, the current melting of glaciers in Western Antarctica is due to "atmospheric circulation changes" that have "caused rapid warming over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet" and cannot be directly attributed to human caused climate change.  According to one of the study authors, "[i]f we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today."  According to Christian Schlüchter, Professor of Geology at the University of Bern, 4,000 year old tree remains have been found beneath retreating glaciers in the Swiss Alps, indicating that they were previously glacier-free. According to Schlüchter, the current retreat of glaciers in the Alps began in the mid-19th century, before large amounts of human caused CO2 had entered the atmosphere. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Deep ocean currents, not human activity, are a primary driver of natural climate warming and cooling cycles. Changes in ocean currents are primarily responsible for the melting Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, and Arctic permafrost. Over the 20th century there have been two Arctic warming periods with a cooling period (1940-1970) in between. According to a 2009 study in Geophysical Research Letters, natural shifts in the ocean currents are the major cause of these climate changes, not human-generated greenhouse gases.  According to William Gray, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, most of the climate changes over the last century are natural and "due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in deep global ocean currents."  Global cooling from 1940 to the 1970s, and warming from the 1970s to 2008, coincided with fluctuations in ocean currents and cloud cover driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - a naturally occurring rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns.  According to a 2014 article by Don Easterbrook, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, the "PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 64, description: 'Increased hurricane activity and other extreme weather events are a result of natural weather patterns, not human-caused climate change. According to a 2013 report from the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, the increase in human-produced CO2 over the past century has had "little or no significant effect" on global tropical cyclone activity. The report further states that specific hurricanes, including Sandy, Ivan, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Ike, were not a direct consequence of human-caused global warming.  Between 1995-2015 increased hurricane activity (including Katrina) was recorded, however, according to the NOAA, it was not the result of human-induced climate change; it was the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns, driven primarily by natural ocean currents.  Many types of recorded extreme weather events over the past half-century have actually become less frequent and less severe.  Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, PhD, states that she is "unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events" to human-caused climate change.  Richard Lindzen, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also states that there is a lack of evidence connecting extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods, to human-caused global warming. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should College Football Replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS)
with a Playoff System?', position_one: 65, position_two: 66)
Reason.create(position_id: 65, description: 'A post-season playoff leading up to the National Championship would replace the subjectivity of human and computer polls with the objective measure of winning or losing a game.')
Reason.create(position_id: 65, description: 'A 2007 Gallup poll showed that 85% of college football fans supported a change to a playoff system of some kind. 69% of fans surveyed preferred the idea of a playoff tournament involving the top four, eight, or 16 teams to replace bowl games while 16% preferred a one-game playoff between the top teams emerging from the post-season bowl games.')
Reason.create(position_id: 65, description: 'If a team loses one game it is probably out of contention for the National Championship; if it loses twice there is little chance the team will qualify for any BCS game. Therefore, if a team loses early in the season then the rest of its games lack excitement, and the claim by BCS proponents that every game counts does not hold true.')
Reason.create(position_id: 65, description: 'A playoff system would give each school an opportunity to earn a fair share of the revenue distributed to the 11 conferences in the FBS. Since the BCS conferences automatically qualify for BCS bowl games, they receive a disproportionate amount of the annual bowl revenue. Since football earnings fund other sports, this disparity affects athletes in all sports. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 65, description: 'The BCS human polls are subject to bias, which has been cited as one reason the University of Utah was kept out of the 2008 championship game.  One third of the standings are based on how the coaches rank the teams, which assumes that coaches have time to watch all of the games while also preparing their teams each week. A playoff system, used by most other sports, would eliminate the controversy.')
Reason.create(position_id: 65, description: 'The BCS rewards undefeated BCS teams, so schools sometimes try to schedule games against weaker opponents to protect their records. A playoff would remove the easy schedule and make the championship solely about performance.')
Reason.create(position_id: 65, description: 'A playoff system would not mean the end of the BCS rankings, which could still be used to determine the top 4, 8, 12, or 16 teams, depending on how many playoff games are feasible. Every game during the regular season would still be as important as under the current system, because a few losses would make it difficult for a team to qualify for the playoffs.')
Reason.create(position_id: 65, description: 'The national champions in other major college sports are determined by playoff systems. Even the 140 plus football teams of the NCAA\'s FCS (formerly known as Division I-AA) compete in a 16-team tournament. The only reason that the BCS is still controlling the football post-season is because the system has become entrenched.')
Reason.create(position_id: 66, description: 'A playoff system would extend the 13 week regular season by at least a month, which would interfere with athletes\' college studies and which could potentially lead to more injuries from playing.')
Reason.create(position_id: 66, description: 'The BCS system makes every regular season game crucial for the teams in contention to finish in the top two. The importance of every game increases attendance and revenue, which is shared with other sports and non-athletic programs at each school.')
Reason.create(position_id: 66, description: 'Before 1998, bowl revenue was shared only by the conferences that had teams playing in the major bowl games,  (2.3 MB)  but the BCS changed the system to share the revenue with every conference. Replacing the BCS would decrease the revenue to conferences without teams in the playoffs.')
Reason.create(position_id: 66, description: 'The BCS rankings are designed to favor consistency over the course of the entire season. It rewards teams that beat the opponents they are supposed to beat as well as underdogs that upset higher-ranked teams. Under a playoff system, a team could lose an entire season\'s worth of hard work by having one bad day.')
Reason.create(position_id: 66, description: 'The college football post-season bowl games are popular and profitable. Critics of BCS say that most people want a playoff system, but the bowl game attendance numbers contradict their argument. Attendance at the 2008 season bowl games was nearly equal to each stadium\'s capacity, in some cases exceeding it. For example, the Rose Bowl capacity is 91,000 and attendance was 93,293. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 66, description: 'The proposed playoff system alternatives are actually less fair than the BCS system in place. In a league of 120 teams, there is no way for every team to play each other in the course of the regular season, let alone in a playoff during the post-season.')
Reason.create(position_id: 66, description: 'The BCS conferences have stronger teams in them. An undefeated or one-loss record in a BCS conference should mean more than the same record in a weaker, non-BCS conference because the teams are not facing opponents of the same quality. The BCS rankings consider strength of schedule in the computer rating formulas, and the human voters account for it as well.')
Reason.create(position_id: 66, description: 'A playoff system would entail each team playing games in different cities during the holiday season in December and January, with no way to predict where any game besides the first one would take place.Students and alumni would be unable to make travel plans in advance to support their teams.')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Does Lowering the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Create Jobs?', position_one: 67, position_two: 68)
Reason.create(position_id: 67, description: 'US businesses move overseas because the United States has one of the highest statutory federal corporate income tax rates in the world. The United States has the highest top-bracket federal corporate income tax rate (nearly 40%) among OECD countries, and the third-highest in the world, behind the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico. The United States also has the highest "effective" corporate tax rate (29%) of the G20 countries.  These high tax rates force American companies to relocate their employees overseas. For example, Johnson Controls, a company with a market value of $23 billion, moved its headquarters from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Ireland in 2016. In a memo to employees, a spokesperson said the move would save the company about $150 million dollars in US taxes annually, explaining that setting up headquarters abroad "retains maximum flexibility for our balance sheet and ability to invest in growth opportunities everywhere around the world." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 67, description: 'High corporate income tax rates encourage US companies to store their foreign earnings abroad instead of investing it into expansion and employment in the United States. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that untaxed foreign earnings of American companies totaled approximately $2.6 trillion in 2015.  A J.P. Morgan study found that 60% of the cash held by 602 US multi-national companies was sitting in foreign accounts. If an income tax cut were offered to companies that returned this cash, the study estimated that $663 billion would be invested into business expansion and job growth in the United States. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 67, description: 'Lowering corporate income taxes results in increased international investment in the United States and thus more jobs. According to a working paper published by the OECD, countries with higher corporate tax rates lose revenue in foreign direct investment (FDI) as compared to countries with lower corporate tax rates.  A peer-reviewed study published in Applied Economics looked at corporate tax rates and FDI in 85 countries. The study found that a 10% reduction in the corporate income tax rate was associated with an increase in foreign direct investment equivalent to 2.2% of the country\'s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That investment money could be used by US businesses to invest and expand their workforces. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 67, description: 'The average five-year unemployment rate decreased from 1987-1991 after the United States lowered its top corporate income tax rate. During Ronald Reagan\'s presidency (1981-1988), the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (implemented in July 1987) lowered the top federal corporate income tax rate from 46% to 34%.  From 1982-1986, the average unemployment rate was 8.2%. From 1987-1991, the average unemployment rate was 5.9%. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 67, description: 'Raising corporate income taxes lowers worker wages, which leads to increased unemployment. Using 1970-2007 data from the United States, a Tax Foundation study found that for every $1 increase in state and local corporate tax revenues, hourly wages can be expected to fall by roughly $2.50.  Lower wages for workers results in a decreased ability to buy goods, which leads to lower income for businesses and a net increase in unemployment. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 67, description: 'High corporate tax rates create uncertainty for businesses, preventing them from investing and employing more people. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said lowering corporate income tax rates would provide a "certainty premium" that would allow businesses to expand. "If we can just allow people to keep their confidence up by getting some of these issues off the table," he said, "you would see the economy grow and momentum continue to build, and unemployment continue to ease down... All that will continue to build on itself." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 67, description: 'Lowering the corporate tax rate leads to economic growth and job creation because companies have more money to invest. A tax cut that increases corporate or personal income equivalent to one percent of GDP increases GDP by between 2-3%, according to a peer-reviewed study by UC Berkeley Political Economy Professor David Romer, and former head of Obama\'s Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer. A tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers GDP by roughly three percent. Higher GDP leads to job growth because companies make more money and have more to invest.  The President\'s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB), which operated during President Obama\'s tenure, in a paper titled "The Report on Tax Reform Options: Simplification, Compliance, and Corporate Taxation," called for lowering the corporate tax to "increase the stock of available capital - new businesses, factories, equipment, or research - improving productivity in the economy," and said that it would reduce the incentives of US companies to shift operations and employees abroad. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 67, description: 'The current federal corporate income tax rate is above the rate that maximizes revenue to corporations and the US government, preventing additional job growth. The "Laffer" curve theorizes that at a 0% tax rate the government would not receive any revenue and at a 100% tax rate businesses would choose not to operate at all. According to several peer-reviewed studies on the Laffer curve, the corporate income tax rate that maximizes revenue to both corporations and the US government is 30%, lower than its current rate of 35%. That excess revenue can be used by businesses to invest and expand. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 68, description: 'The federal corporate income tax rates were the highest in US history when the unemployment rates were the lowest in US history. From 1951, when the top marginal corporate income tax rate rose from 42% to 50.75%, to 1969, when rates peaked at 52.8%, the unemployment rate moved from 3.3% to 3.5%. From 1986 to 2011, when the top marginal corporate income tax rate declined from 46% to 35%, the unemployment rate increased from 7% to 8.9%.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 68, description: 'A "tax holiday" in 2004, which temporarily lowered the corporate income tax rate for companies that brought back cash stored overseas, resulted in companies cutting jobs. In 2004, Congress passed a repatriation tax holiday that allowed companies to bring back profits earned abroad at a 5% income tax rate instead of the top 35% rate. Fifteen of the companies that benefited the most from the tax holiday subsequently cut more than 20,000 net jobs. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 68, description: 'Companies hire employees because they need workers, not because of corporate income tax rates. According to a blog post from billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, "you hire people because you need them. You don\'t hire them because your taxes are lower."  In a survey of 53 prominent American economists, 65% said that lack of demand was the main reason why employers were not hiring new employees as compared to 27% who said that uncertainty about corporate taxation was the main reason.  A study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office found that a reduction in corporate taxes "does not create much incentive for them [businesses] to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products."  The Roosevelt Institute, a New York-based think tank, stated that "corporate tax cuts will only increase payouts to wealthy shareholders and will not increase investment or create jobs." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 68, description: 'Complaints about high federal corporate income tax rates causing high unemployment are unfounded because loopholes and deductions enable many companies to pay less than the statutory rate. Of the 500 large cap companies (a market capitalization value of more than $10 billion) in the Standard & Poor (S&P) stock index, 115 paid a total corporate tax rate – federal and state combined – of less than 20% from 2006-2011, and 39 of those companies paid a rate of less than 10%.  An analysis comparing the tax rates of 258 profitable Fortune 500 companies between 2008 and 2015 found that almost 40% paid zero taxes for at least one year over the eight-year period. Of those 258, 18 companies paid less-than-zero over the entire period.  A study comparing the effective tax rates of the 100 largest US multinationals to the 100 largest European Union [EU] multinationals, during the period of 2001-2010, found that US multinationals have a lower average effective tax rate despite having a higher statutory rate. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 68, description: 'Corporate profits in the United States are the highest they have been in 61 years, yet the federal unemployment rate is higher than most of the rest of the developed world. In 2011, corporate profits made up 10% of US GDP, the highest percentage since 1950.   In 2011, the US unemployment rate was 8.9% compared to the OECD (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development) average of 8.2%.   Despite the highest corporate income tax in the world, corporate income tax revenue only brought the US federal government the equivalent of 1.2% of GDP in 2011 (the lowest percentage in recorded history), compared to the OECD average of 2.9% in 2010. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 68, description: 'Lowering the corporate tax rate raises the deficit, which hurts job creation. Lowering the federal corporate tax rate reduces the amount of money the US government receives in tax revenue, thus reducing federal government programs, investments, and job-creating opportunities. When the Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top marginal rate from 46% to 34%, the federal deficit increased from $149.7 billion to $255 billion from 1987-1993. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 68, description: 'Complaints about high federal corporate income tax rates causing high unemployment are unfounded because corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash. A report by Moody\'s Investor Service stated that non-financial US companies held onto $1.77 trillion in 2016, an increase from the previously historic high of $1.68 trillion in 2015.  This cash could have been, but was not, used to hire more employees and lower the unemployment rate. President Obama, in a July 22, 2009 press conference, stated "companies [are] making record profits, right now. At a time when everybody\'s getting hammered, they\'re making record profits." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 68, description: 'The US economy added 15 million jobs in the five years immediately following a large federal corporate income tax increase in 1993. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 added three new corporate tax brackets and increased the income tax rates for corporations making income over $10 million.   The US economy added more than 15 million jobs and grew at an average annual rate of 3.8% in the five years after the legislation was passed. ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?', position_one: 69, position_two: 70)
Tag.create(topic_id: 35, name: 'america')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'The United States should maintain the Cuba embargo because Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it. Proclamation 3447 signed by President Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1962, established the embargo against Cuba to reduce "the threat posed by its alignment with the communist powers."  The embargo was strengthened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act , and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (also known as Helms-Burton)  which specified conditions for terminating the embargo. According to US law, Cuba must legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions. Since Cuba has not met these conditions, the embargo should not be lifted.')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'Ending the embargo before the Cuban government meets the conditions specified by US law would make the United States look weak. Lifting the sanctions unilaterally would be an act of appeasement that could embolden Cuba to join forces with other countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, China, and Iran to promote anti-American sentiments or socialism in the Western Hemisphere.  The United States should not risk sending the message that it can be waited out or that seizing US property in foreign countries, as Castro did in Cuba when he took power, will be tolerated. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'The Cuban government has consistently responded to US attempts to soften the embargo with acts of aggression, raising concerns about what would happen if the sanctions were fully lifted. President Carter tried to normalize relations with Cuba by opening the US Interests Section (a de facto embassy) in Havana in 1977. Fidel Castro then orchestrated the Mariel Boatlift, which sent 125,000 emigrants (including criminals and mentally ill people) to the United States.    In 2003, President George W. Bush began to ease restrictions for visiting family members in Cuba, but tightened the rules in 2004 in response to Cuba\'s crackdown against political dissidents.  President Obama relaxed the US travel policy in 2009 to allow unlimited travel to Cuba to visit family members.  That same year, the Cuban government arrested an American aid worker and sentenced him to 15 years in prison, and he was not released until Dec. 2014.  Since the United States agreed to re-open the US embassy in Cuba, the Cuban government has continued to persecute and arrest its own citizens. There were 630 political arrests in June 2015.  One protestor claimed "The Cuban government has grown even bolder" as a result of the normalized relations, just before he was detained along with 89 other dissidents prior to Secretary of State John Kerry\'s arrival in Havana in Aug. 2015. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'The embargo enables the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights. Several international organizations have written about the long history of human rights abuses and repression in Cuba. At least 4,123 people were detained for political reasons in 2011, and an estimated 6,602 political detentions occurred in 2012.   The Congressional Research Service reported that there are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012 (although the Cuban government reports 57,337 prisoners) - among the highest in the world on a per capita basis.   The freedom of expression and right to assemble are severely restricted by the government. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act stated that the United States has a "moral obligation" to promote human rights in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the embargo is a bargaining tool. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'Since there is virtually no private sector in Cuba, opening trade would only help the government, not regular Cuban citizens. The 90% state-owned economy ensures that the Cuban government and military would reap the gains of open trade with the United States, not private citizens.  Foreign companies operating in Cuba are required to hire workers through the state; wages are converted into local currency and devalued at a ratio of 24:1, so a $500 wage becomes a $21 paycheck. A Cuban worker was quoted as having said, "In Cuba, it\'s a great myth that we live off the state. In fact, it\'s the state that lives off of us." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'The United States is able to target the Cuban government with its embargo while still providing assistance to Cuban citizens. US policy allows people to visit family members and send money to relatives in Cuba, and also permits travel for humanitarian and educational reasons. Over one billion dollars in remittances (money transferred from abroad) are sent to Cuban families each year, mostly from relatives in the United States.  Congress has given USAID a total budget of $197 million between 2001 and 2012 to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'The uncertainty over who will succeed Raúl Castro makes it unwise for the United States to change its policy before a new leader is in place. An aging Fidel Castro yielded power to his younger brother Raúl for health reasons, but Raúl is also over 80 years old and there are questions about how much longer the Castros will remain in charge of Cuba. John Hughes, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and former President of the American Society of Newspapers, stated: "The worst scenario would be the emergence of an Army strongman who plunges the country into martial rule."  The embargo will be a necessary bargaining chip when a new leader takes power.')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'The majority of Cuban Americans, the people who understand the situation best, support the embargo. US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a Cuban American, and long-time proponent of the embargo, wrote in a press release, "In addition to imposing economic pressure on the Castro regime and holding it accountable for actions against U.S. interests, the embargo is a moral stance against the brutal dictatorship. Over the last 50 years, the embargo has served as a constant form of solidarity with the Cuban people."  In 1991, 87% of Cuban Americans in Miami supported the embargo, and as of 2011, 53% still support maintaining it.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'Cuba should be subject to sanctions because it is known to have repeatedly supported acts of terrorism. Cuba has been on the US "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list since 1982.  The US State Department consistently finds evidence of Cuba\'s involvement in promoting violence, giving terrorists a safe haven, and harboring US fugitives. Members of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a terrorist organization that operates in Spain, live in Cuba.  Black Panther activist and convicted murderer Joanne Chesimard, known as Assata Shakur, is one of 90 or more criminals who fled the United States and received political asylum in Cuba.  In 1996, Castro\'s military shot down two American civilian aircrafts, killing four people.  Cuba has also supported armed insurgencies in Latin America and Africa. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'Cuba has not demonstrated a willingness to negotiate in good faith with the United States. President Barack Obama stated in a Sep. 28, 2011 "Open for Questions" roundtable, "Now, what we\'ve tried to do is to send a signal that we are open to a new relationship with Cuba… [W]e have to see a signal back from the Cuban government... in order for us to be fully engaged with them. And so far, at least, what we haven\'t seen is the kind of genuine spirit of transformation inside of Cuba that would justify us eliminating the embargo."  Fidel Castro responded the following day by calling Obama "stupid" and saying, "Many things will change in Cuba, but they will change through our efforts and in spite of the United States. Perhaps that empire will fall first."  Even though President Obama made efforts to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba in 2015, the Cuban government has failed to improve on human rights. According to a 2015 Human Rights Watch report, "Detention is often used pre-emptively to prevent individuals from participating in peaceful marches or meetings to discuss politics." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 69, description: 'The embargo should be maintained because open travel is insufficient to promote change in Cuba; many democratic countries already allow travel to Cuba with no results. Lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba would not lead to improved conditions or the spread of democracy. More than 2.7 million people from around the world visited Cuba in 2011, including more tourists from Canada than any other country.  Despite the steady flow of tourism from western countries, the Cuban government still maintains total control over its people. Most Cuban nationals are banned from tourist areas such as resorts and beaches, so there would be limited contact with US citizens vacationing there.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals. Feb. 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of the embargo, and the goal of forcing Cuba to adopt a representative democracy still has not been achieved. Fidel Castro resigned his presidency in 2008, and abdicated his role as the leader of Cuba\'s communist party in 2011 due to illness. His brother Raúl then stepped in to take his place.   If 50 years of sanctions have not toppled the Castro regime, there is no reason to think the embargo will ever work.')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'The embargo is a relic of Cold War Era thinking and is unnecessary because Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States. Cuba\'s relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War raised concerns about US national security, but that era is long over. The USSR dissolved in 1991, and American foreign policy has adapted to the change in most aspects apart from the embargo.   The US Defense Intelligence Agency released a report in 1998 stating "Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region."  The embargo can no longer be justified by the fear of Communism spreading throughout the Western Hemisphere.')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'The embargo harms the US economy. The US Chamber of Commerce opposes the embargo, saying that it costs the United States $1.2 billion annually in lost sales of exports.  A study by the Cuba Policy Foundation, a nonprofit founded by former US diplomats, estimated that the annual cost to the US economy could be as high as $4.84 billion in agricultural exports and related economic output. "If the embargo were lifted, the average American farmer would feel a difference in his or her life within two to three years," the study\'s author said.  A Mar. 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that removing the restrictions on agricultural exports and travel to Cuba could create as many as 6,000 jobs in the US.  Nine US governors released a letter on Oct. 14, 2015 urging Congress to lift the embargo, which stated: "Foreign competitors such as Canada, Brazil and the European Union are increasingly taking market share from U.S. industry [in Cuba], as these countries do not face the same restrictions on financing... Ending the embargo will create jobs here at home, especially in rural America, and will create new opportunities for U.S. agriculture." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended. Cubans are denied access to technology, medicine, affordable food, and other goods that could be available to them if the United States lifted the embargo. A report by the American Association for World Health found that doctors in Cuba have access to less than 50% of the drugs on the world market, and that food shortages led to a 33% drop in caloric intake between 1989 and 1993. The report stated, "it is our expert medical opinion that the US embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba."  Amnesty International reported in 2011 that "treatments for children and young people with bone cancer... [and] antiretroviral drugs used to treat children with HIV/AIDS" were not readily available with the embargo in place because "they were commercialized under US patents." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'The United States should not have different trading and travel policies for Cuba than for other countries with governments or policies it opposes. The United States trades with China, Venezuela, and Vietnam despite their records of human rights violations. President George W. Bush lifted trade sanctions on North Korea in 2008 even amidst concerns about that nation\'s desire to develop nuclear weapons.  Americans are permitted to travel to other communist countries, nations known for human rights violations, and even places on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.  Citizens may go to countries like Burma, Iran, and North Korea if given a visa, so there is no justification for singling Cuba as the one nation in the world that is off limits. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'It is hypocritical for the US government to promote democracy by prohibiting Americans from traveling there. It is hypocritical to restrict American rights as a means of forcing another country to embrace freedom. It is also hypocritical to demand that Cuba adopt a representative democracy given the long history of US support for brutal dictatorships in countries that favor American interests, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.  The United States even backed Cuban dictator General Batista (who was overthrown by Fidel Castro), someone known to have killed, tortured, and imprisoned political dissenters, because he was friendly to American interests.  Furthermore, the US has a higher per capita incarceration rate than Cuba, about 716 prisoners per 100,000 people compared to an estimated 510 per 100,000 in Cuba, so concerns about the number of prisoners there is hypocritical. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'Most Americans want improved diplomatic ties and open travel and trade policies with Cuba. A 2012 opinion poll of more than 1,000 US adults found that 62% of respondents thought the United States should re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, while only one in four was against it. Among Americans surveyed, 57% think that the travel ban to Cuba should be lifted, while only 27% think the ban should remain. Regarding the trade embargo, 51% of Americans want to open trade with Cuba, compared to 29% who do not. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'Cuban Americans, the people who understand the situation best, think the embargo is not working. More than 80% of Cuban Americans surveyed in 2011 said the embargo has worked not very well or not at all.   Even though President Obama eased restrictions related to Cuba in 2009, his support among Cuban Americans in Florida increased from a third of the community in 2008 to more than half in the 2012 presidential election. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'Free trade, not the isolation of an embargo, can promote democracy in Cuba. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan (R) said, "I think we ought to treat Cuba like we do any other country in the world... our biggest commodity is democracy, and we ought to be spreading that any place we can. And what made this country great is free trade."  An influx of US tourists and businesses would expose the sheltered island to our culture and freedoms, and weaken the Castro regime\'s control over information coming into the country. Trading with China led to economic reforms that brought 100 million people above the poverty line and improved access to health care and education across the country. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'Lifting the embargo would put pressure on Cuba to address problems that it had previously blamed on US sanctions. Cuban officials have not been forced to take responsibility for problems such as a failing health care system, lack of access to medicine, the decline of the sugar industry, decrepit plumbing systems, and water pollution because they use the embargo as a scapegoat. The Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs reportedly blamed the embargo for a total of $1.66 billion in damage to the Cuban economy.  President Bill Clinton said in a 2000 interview, "[S]ometimes I think [Fidel Castro] doesn\'t want the embargo lifted... because as long as he can blame the United States, then he doesn\'t have to answer to his own people for the failures of his economic policy." ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'Most of the world opposes the embargo, and maintaining it is detrimental to the reputation of the United States among the international community. The United Nations has formally denounced the US embargo on Cuba every year since 1991. In 2013, 188 countries in the UN General Assembly voted to condemn the US policy; only Israel sided with the United States.   American allies, such as Canada, Britain, Italy, Mexico, and France are the leading suppliers of tourists to Cuba.  The US sanctions make the US look stubborn and childish in the eyes of the world. During his Mar. 2012 visit to the island, Pope Benedict XVI said the embargo "unfairly burdens" the Cuban people. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 70, description: 'The embargo prevents the people of Cuba from joining the digital age by cutting them off from technology, and restricts the electronic flow of information to the island. Fewer than one in four Cubans accessed the internet in 2011. Maintaining the embargo gives the Cuban government an excuse for not building a better technological infrastructure and prevents foreign companies from expanding internet access to Cubans.  Some US companies have blocked access to their sites in Cuba for fear of breaching the embargo. Microsoft, for example, has disabled access to Messenger, a chat program, since 2009.  A Google spokesperson said the company blocks Cuban access to its Earth, Toolbar, and Analytics programs because "As a US company, we comply with US export controls and trade sanctions that limit us from offering certain services in certain countries." ')

Position.create(description: 'Yes')
Position.create(description: 'No')
Topic.create(description: 'Was Bill Clinton a Good President?', position_one: 71, position_two: 72)
Tag.create(topic_id: 36, name: 'america')
Tag.create(topic_id: 36, name: 'politics')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Character: Clinton was deeply religious from a young age and regularly attended a Baptist church as an adult. He once said, "Religious faith has permitted me to believe in the continuing possibility of becoming a better person every day, to believe in the search for complete integrity in life."  Clinton\'s private marital issues were unrelated to his ability to govern the US. Even after the news of his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky broke in early 1998, his approval rating was 63 percent according to a Washington Post poll. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Crime: The crime rate fell every year that Clinton was president and was at a 26-year low by the end of his two terms. He got funding for 100,000 new police officers nationwide. He signed the 1993 Brady Bill requiring a waiting period and background check to purchase handguns. Clinton\'s 1994 Crime Bill included a ban on assault weapons, and there was a 40 percent decline in gun crime by 2001. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Defense: Clinton presided over a modernization of the US military which led to increased readiness and efficiency. His administration focused on precision weapons and the use of GPS (Global Positioning System) technology. The result of his focus was lower collateral damage, lower casualty rates, and advanced communications. He also increased pay and benefits for military personnel. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Economy: The US went from having the largest budget deficit in American history ($290 billion) in 1992 when Clinton was elected to having a budget surplus of $127 billion when he left office in 2001. 22.5 million new jobs were created and unemployment dropped from 7.5% when Clinton took office to 4.0% by the end of his second term, the lowest in 30 years. The poverty rate dropped to 11.8% in 1999, which was the lowest it had been since 1979.  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Education: Clinton\'s Goals 2000 program distributed two billion dollars between 1994 and 1999 to set uniform standards in US schools. His 1994 Improving America\'s School Act (IASA) received support from Republicans and Democrats and from the education and business communities. IASA required that standards and accountability be the same for economically disadvantaged students as for other students. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Environment: Clinton\'s pro-environmental policies included preserving 4.6 million acres of land in national monuments, strengthening the Safe Drinking Water Act, and enacting tougher emissions and energy efficiency standards. The communities of more than 44 million Americans were brought up to clean air standards during his presidency. The Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department prosecuted 241 environmental-related crimes in 1999, more than twice as many as in 1992, the year before Clinton took office. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Foreign Policy: Clinton played an instrumental role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, which culminated in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.  He helped to get former Soviet nations to give up their nuclear arsenals and improve their control of nuclear materials.  Clinton worked with NATO, a military alliance between Europe and North America, to bomb Serbia to end Slobodan Milosevic\'s ethnic cleansing campaign. Clinton then sent 20,000 American troops to enforce peace in the region, a mission with no American casualties.  He nearly orchestrated a historic Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement at Camp David in 2001.')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Health: Clinton sought to bring attention and action to the fight against HIV/AIDS. Funding for AIDS-related programs increased 150 percent during his presidency, and he was a leader in developing international initiatives to search for a vaccine.  He signed the Newborns\' and Mothers\' Health Protection Act of 1996, allowing women to stay in the hospital for 48 to 96 hours after giving birth instead of being kicked out in less than 24 hours. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Science / Technology: Clinton\'s instructions to NASA in 1993 led to productivity gains and reduced overhead for the International Space Station program, as well as a better research relationship with Russia.  Clinton fought to bridge the "digital divide," an inequality of access to technology that would make poor people even more disadvantaged in education and employment opportunities. His policies helped schools and libraries introduce computers and the internet to people who wouldn\'t otherwise have had access. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Social Policy: In 1996, Clinton fulfilled his campaign promise to reform welfare by creating new rules that required recipients to work within two years of getting benefits and limited the time most people could spend on welfare to five years.  As proof that the reform was successful, 10 years after he signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, welfare rolls had dropped from 12.2 million to 4.5 million. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Taxes: The $290 billion national deficit of 1992 became a $124 billion surplus by 1999 because Clinton\'s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 raised taxes on the top income rate from 28 percent to 39.6 percent, thus increasing tax revenues.   Just as the 1980s economic boom followed a tax increase by Reagan, the economy likewise improved after Clinton raised taxes in 1993.  He also limited the ability of corporations to claim deductions for entertainment expenses. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 71, description: 'Other: Clinton was aware of the threat of Al Qaeda and authorized the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. He sought to hunt down bin Laden after the Oct. 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but the CIA and FBI refused to certify bin Laden\'s involvement in the terrorist act. "I got closer to killing him than anybody\'s gotten since," Clinton said in a Sep. 24, 2006 interview with Chris Wallace. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Character: Constant scandals took Clinton\'s focus off running the country. When Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment, he became the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his own conduct.  An affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky culminated in Clinton\'s impeachment by the House of Representatives on Dec. 19, 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The only other president in US history to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868.  Some blame Clinton\'s moral shortcomings for disenfranchising Democratic Party members and Independents, and causing Al Gore to lose the 2000 presidential election. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Crime: The number of federal prisoners doubled under Clinton, and 58 percent of them were serving time for drug-related offenses. Resources were geared towards incarceration instead of rehabilitation or crime prevention.  Clinton\'s 1994 Crime Bill was filled with "pork spending" that distributed $10 billion to states and special interest groups. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Defense: Clinton was unable to fulfill his campaign promise to repeal the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Faced with strong opposition from conservatives early in his presidency, Clinton settled on a compromise policy referred to as "don\'t ask, don\'t tell," which allowed gays to serve in the military if they did not disclose their sexual orientation. Neither conservatives nor liberals were satisfied by the outcome. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Economy: Clinton gets too much credit for the good economy of the 1990s, which was already growing when he took office. The Republican-controlled Congress helped improve the economy by exercising fiscal restraint.  Clinton\'s failure to regulate the financial-services markets enabled the bad lending and Wall Street scams that led to the 2007 banking crisis. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Education: Clinton\'s Goals 2000 program did not ensure uniform quality of standards among all the states because he compromised on oversight to get the program passed. The impact therefore varied by state and Clinton never fulfilled his goal of equalizing education standards and improving results for all students. By 2000, six years after IASA was implemented, only 17 states were in full compliance with the standards. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Environment: Clinton passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) despite the fact that it traded lower environmental standards for increased free trade.  NAFTA resulted in more air pollution on the US/Mexico border, which experts estimated would cost $15 billion to clean up.  Clinton also signed a 1995 measure to allow logging in national forests which suspended environmental laws protecting those forests. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Foreign Policy: A year after 18 American troops were killed in a failed 1993 mission to capture a warlord in Somalia, Clinton was hesitant to take action to stop a genocide in Rwanda. While he failed to act, more than half a million Tutsis were murdered. Critics accused Clinton of appeasement when he gave China Most Favored Nation (MFN) status despite their terrible human rights record and when he granted North Korea concessions in exchange for a promise to discontinue their nuclear weapons program. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Health: Health care reform was Clinton\'s major goal when he took office but his administration was ill-prepared for such a large task and made several missteps. Republican opposition was insurmountable and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) declared on Sep. 26, 1994 that Clinton\'s plan would never pass. The failure is considered the biggest of his administration in part because it led to the Republicans regaining control of Congress in the next election but also because he expended a lot of political capital without getting anything in return.   ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Science / Technology: Clinton cut NASA\'s budget by $715 million in 1995 (about 5%) and did not restore the bulk of the money until three months before he left office. The result was a space program struggling to operate with less money for most of Clinton\'s time in office. Some blame the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia explosion on Clinton\'s decision to slash NASA\'s budget by an aggregate of $56 million over his presidency. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Social Policy: Clinton neglected to take to steps to restructure Social Security and Medicare. In anticipation of the upcoming Baby Boom generation retiring and drawing heavily on those social services, Clinton should have worked to secure those programs. In a June 20, 2004 interview with 60 Minutes, he admitted "I\'m sorry on the home front that we didn\'t get healthcare and that we didn\'t reform Social Security."  ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Taxes: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 increased the gasoline tax by 4.3 cents per gallon, which directly impacted the middle class.  The 1993 tax hikes cannot be credited with the economic boom of the 1990s: it was after the Republican Congress passed tax cuts in 1997 that the economy really became stronger and the budget was balanced.  Clinton designed his tax plans to place an unfair burden on the wealthy, punishing the most productive members of the US economy while cutting taxes for the least productive. ')
Reason.create(position_id: 72, description: 'Other: Clinton failed to deal with the threat of Osama bin Laden, whose terrorist acts escalated and culminated in the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks that killed 2,973 people. Clinton was too distracted by scandals such as the threat of impeachment to take action against Al Qaeda.  A former CIA station chief in Pakistan said Clinton ordered the CIA to capture bin Laden alive, which resulted in a missed opportunity to kill him at an al-Qaida training camp in 2000. ')

Position.create(description: 'Avacado')
Position.create(description: 'Orange')
Topic.create(description: 'Which is the superior fruit?', position_one: 73, position_two: 74)
Tag.create(topic_id: 37, name: 'fruit')
Tag.create(topic_id: 37, name: 'controversial')
Reason.create(position_id: 73, description: 'Avocados are a naturally nutrient-dense food and contain nearly 20 vitamins and minerals.')
Reason.create(position_id: 73, description: 'Because I can use avocados in a lot of tasty dishes such as guacamole, salad, tacos, sandwiches, burgers, etc.')
Reason.create(position_id: 73, description: 'It\'s green, nuff said.')
Reason.create(position_id: 74, description: 'One orange offers over 170 different phytonutrients and more than 60 different flavonoids.')
Reason.create(position_id: 74, description: 'It\'s orange, nuff said.')

Position.create(description: 'Cat.')
Position.create(description: 'Dog')
Topic.create(description: 'Which is a better pet: cats or dogs?', position_one: 75, position_two: 76)
Tag.create(topic_id: 38, name: 'controversial')
Reason.create(position_id: 76, description: 'Dogs really are man\'s best friend.')

Position.create(description: 'dsad')
Position.create(description: 'fsfsd')
Topic.create(description: 'testing', position_one: 77, position_two: 78)
Tag.create(topic_id: 39, name: 'dsad')
Reason.create(position_id: 77, description: 'fsfsd')