Debate #11 - Death Penalty For Juveniles? Background:  On Tuesday, March 1st, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the death penalty for criminals under 18 was unconstitutional in a 5-4 vote, overturning a previous ruling in 1989 that the execution of 16 and 17 year olds was allowable.  In addition, the United States is the only modern industrialized nation to allow for the execution of minors, and one of the few that allow the death penalty at all. Question:  Was the court correct in overturning the 1989 ruling and thereby making the execution of minors unconstitutional? Possible Thoughts: #1) Yes. Minors are incapable of understanding right and wrong the way an adult with full life experience is capable of.  They should still be punished for their crimes, but not with a death penalty that ends all hope of rehabilitation. #2) Yes. In fact, the courts should render all forms of the death penalty illegal.  Not only does the death penalty not act as a deterrent, it sends a message that the government endorses the idea of an eye for an eye.  Furthermore, the death penalty is racist.  Trials involving blacks accused of a crime are much more likely to involve the death penalty if it is black on white violence instead of black on black. #3) No.  When a juvenile is put on death row, this means two things are required.  First, they were tried as an adult, meaning that the court decided that they were capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.  Secondly, they were convicted of a crime (often murder, rape, or both) so heinous that our society has no choice but to execute them.  These two facts alone are enough to justify an execution, not to mention the fact that the death penalty is a deterrent as well as just plain old justice. What do you think?

Debate #10 - Moral Values in Election 2004? Background:  The most popular statistic of Election 2004 is the exit poll stating that 22% of Americans considered the issue of moral values the most important in their decision between the presidential candidates. Question:  What is the significance of this statistic?  And more generally, what do you make of the results of the election? Stances: #1) America is heavily influenced by the religious right.  40% of Bush voters described themselves as Christian fundamentalists, and this chunk of voters considered the issues of abortion and gay marriage more important than anything else.  In fact, it's highly probable that by moving against gay marriage laws, the judges in Massachusetts and other places prompted a moral backlash that mobilized the religious right, losing the election for Kerry.  Middle America suffers from a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the nation due to its lack of diversity and exposure to the rest of the world.  In fact, over 60% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq is directly linked to Al-Qaeda. #2) The statistic is meaningless and is used as a scapegoat of liberal apologetics who refuse to acknowledge John Kerry's bumbling campaign.  In the exit poll, most choices were quite specific, such as "the war on iraq", or "the war on terror."  Moral values however, cover a broad range of issues.  In fact, when you put the issues into groups, War issues come to 34%, Economic issues come to 33%, and moral values end up dead last at 22%.  In addition, in the eleven states that had defense of marriage referendums, Bush increased his 2000 showing by less than he did in states without defense of marriage referendums.  Alongside with the fundamental perceptual disconnect between Democrats and Republicans in terms of the war on terror, John Kerry's inability to define his position on the most trivial of issues was his downfall. What do you think?

Just in case nobody noticed (right), I was closed for the summer and will be back to updating in a month.

Debate #9 - Steroids in Sports? Question:  Accusations have been flying back and forth between players, owners, and fans about the usage of steroids in baseball.  Do steroids have a place in baseball? Stances: #1) No.  We must enact stringent mandatory testing laws.  Steroids have no place in baseball, and furthermore, they are dangerous to the health of the players.  (What about the rights of the players not to have to be subject to constant tests?  By creating mandatory testing, you are in essence sending a message to the player that you don't trust them and that they are criminals waiting to be caught.) #2) Steroids aren't good but it is the right of the players to use them.  If people don't want to use them, then don't. (Doesn't this put pressure on people who currently don't use a dangerous product to use it?  Doesn't the MLB have to be responsible in some way for the health of it's players?) #3) Steroids are a net plus for the game.  They make players better, stronger, faster, something both the management and the fans like to see.  (Do the deaths of players from Ephedra and other such substances deter you from this stance?)

Debate #8 - One nation under God? Question:  The Supreme court is currently hearing a case that could strike the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance under allegations that this violates the separation between church and state.  The phrase "under God" actually did not exist in the original pledge and was added in by a unanimous vote in 1957 to distingush us from Communist Russia.  Should the phrase be in, or out? Stances: #1) Out.  Keeping the statement under God is an official government endorsement of a religion, something that violates the separation of church and state.  (What would you say to people who maintain that it is not an endorsement but rather an acknowledgement of our tradition?) #2) In, but let it remain optional to say. (Isn't this a wishy washy stance?  By saying that it should be optional, you're basically admitting that it would be offensive to some to recite, meaning that they would be offended by listening to everyone recite it too.) #3) In, and mandatory to say.  The majority of America is Christian and the majority of American's founders were Christian, simple as that.  (But isn't America all about protecting the rights of the minority?  Don't you feel they are being infringed?)