1. Resolved, that parental notification be required for a minor to have an abortion.
Teens are allowed to test for STDs without informing their parents, to buy birth control pills, to get an abortion without parent knowledge or consent, etc. How far should teen liberties go, and should the parents have any say over all this? As of April, 2005 thirty states have laws in place that requires teens to first notify or obtain permission from their parents before getting an abortion.
Pro:
§ "Parents must give consent before their child can have their ears pierced or a tattoo put on. In fact, in public schools and emergency rooms, parents must give consent before their child can be treated with so much as an aspirin. Most voters agree that it is outrageous to allow a child to undergo any surgical procedure, let alone an invasive, irreversible procedure such as an abortion, without parental notification." -Senatorial candidate John Pinkerton (D-CA)
§ The teen is still a minor, under the custody of the parent. The parent has the right to set up house rules, and know what their children is, with the law on their side.
§ If a teen experiences complications during an abortion, and has not told her parents about the abortion, she may not want to reveal such a fact. In this case, complications may go untreated and can become life threatening.
Con:
§ Legal abortion is far less risky than teen childbirth, but each day that a teen takes to muster up courage or whatever else before talking to their parents increases their risks.
§ Desperate teens are not always the most reasonable, and usually take drastic measure, the most common of which is running away from home, which is likely what will happen if they are forced to reveal to their parents that they are pregnant. Some might even seek illegal abortions, which was the leading cause of death among pregnant women during the period when abortion was illegal.
§ A pregnant teen who is only a few months away from her eighteenth birthday may decide to wait and just wear loose clothing until then. In this case, the few months she wastes will cost her dearly, as complications are more likely to arise, and for those who are concerned for the fetus, compelling a teen to wait before an abortion will only hurt the fetus, as they will have developed a functioning nervous system by then and will be able to experience pain.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pare.htm
http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=188
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/ABORTION_PARENTAL_CONSENT.HTM
2. Resolved, that the United States pullout military forces from Iraq within one year.
Even before the war had ended, Americans and Iraqis alike have been urging pullout. Now, as the war has ended, calls for pullout are louder than ever. Some are urging the president to set out a plan, some are urging closer cooperation between the US and Iraq, and others want the US to pull out within one year. The question on that point is, is one year enough for complete pullout?
Pro:
§ Iraqi troops are being now can slowly begin to replace the American troops. If we start focusing n training the troops, and manage time efficiently, US should be able to pull out in one year.
§ As of 9/11/05, $200 billion have been spent on the war and I,885 lives have been lost. It is time to start patching up.
§ Iraqi Prime Minister wants US out in one year. US should show support and confidence in the new Iraqi government by respecting their wishes and pulling out.
Con:
§ Pulling out now suggests that the US listens to violence, not reason and encourages the terrorist attacks.
§ US does need to start pulling out troops, but 1 year is not enough time to prepare Iraq to stand completely on its own.
§ US went into Iraq and kicked up dust. Now it is responsible for settling the dust and cannot just leave Iraqis to choke.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4720083.stm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/23/content_3531504.htm
3. Resolved, that the three strikes law be repealed in California.
The three strikes law is most notably practiced in California. Most states now have versions of the three strikes laws. The first two strikes must be severe crime, either, “violent” or “serious” or both. The 3rd strike can be any small to large crime. After the 3rd strike, it’s a life in prison. Because of the unrestricted 3rd strike, cases have arisen where a committer of a “petty” crime, like stealing pizza or stealing batteries, is sentenced to a lifetime in prison.
Pro:
§ This law, in holding history against the defendant, violates Double Jeopardy clause, not to mention that life sentences because of “petty” crimes is “cruel or unusual punishment.”
§ This may cause a perverse incentive for a severe crime. For example, a person who has stolen a toothbrush may know that there was one witness, and since steeling the toothbrush causes a life in prison, and so does murder, the person may be incline to kill the witness.
§ Sentencing a person to a lifetime in prison for stealing pizza is, though good in intention, adverse to society’s basic common sense.
Con:
§ 3 strikes law has not only not put more people in prison, but has actually reduced prison population, which has made California safer and saved California millions of dollars.
§ The threat of a 3rd strike makes offenders think twice and desire a change in their lifestyles, as parole and probation officers have noticed.
§ Though the unrestricted 3rd strike is harsh at times, it shows a zero tolerance for crimes that benefits societies when viewed from a vantage.

http://www.threestrikes.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
4. Historical Debate: Resolved, that the United States was justified in its creation of Japanese internment camps.
Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 roused suspicions against Japanese Americans. Authorities feared sabotage. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 19, 1842. This allowed military commanders to designate “military areas… from which any or all persons may be excluded.” Concentration camps had begun. In 1945, the exclusion order was finally rescinded, but it was not until 1948 that the last internment camp was closed. The prudence of US internment camps is still widely debated today.
Pro:
§ At a time of crisis, it is better to be safe than sorry, and the government did what was most safe and logical at the time.
§ Although harsh, internment camps were a necessity to ease growing public terror during these bitter and desperate times of war, when people were often illogical.
§ There may have been a network of Japanese Americans spies feeding information to the Japanese military through encrypted messages, according to MAGIC by David Lowman.
Con:
§ .Internment camps violated American principles that citizens hold dear. Habeas corpus; life, liberty, and property without due process, etc…
§ US actions had caused Japanese Americans to lose property worth at least 4 to 5 billion dollars, in 1999 values.
§ Lieutenant Commander Kenneth reported in 1941 that “better than 90% of the Nisei [second generation Japanese] and 75% of the original immigrants were completely loyal to the United States.” In fact hundreds of Japanese Americans fought bravely for the US.

http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/japan_internment_camps.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment_in_the_United_States
5. Resolved, that the Kyoto protocol is beneficial to the United States.
The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is an international treaty that swats at global warming. Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol must reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five more greenhouse gasses or engage in emissions trading. Already, 141 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The US has signed the Kyoto Protocol, but has not ratified it, and is therefore, still exempt from its restrictions.
Pro:
§ The US currently emits 20.1 tons per capita of CO2, compared to the 8.5 tons per capita of the EU and 2.3 tons of China, it’s not looking good. The Kyoto Protocol will force the US start to watching its carbon dioxide emission.
§ The Kyoto Protocol is effective. Already, China has reduced CO2 emissions by 17 % by switching to cleaner and more efficient energy sources, and restructuring its economy.
§ The US ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will set off a scientific effort to produce CO2 efficient methods and machinery, which nations that have ratified the Kyoto protocol are already developing. If the US does not ratify, scientists will have little incentive, and the US will fall technologically behind the other nations.
Con:
§ Even before the Kyoto Protocol, the US had passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagle Resolution, which states that the Senate should not be signatory to any protocol that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” The Kyoto Protocol, though having very good intentions, may result in just what the Byrd-Hagel Resolution is attempting at preventing.
§ The Kyoto protocol is unfair in cutting an unreasonable amount of slack on developing nations.
§ Countries benefiting under the Kyoto Protocol tend to be small countries with little already developed factories and machinery. So building new CO2­ efficient machinery will not be as expensive as replacing all of the machinery that the US currently has.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html

posted - 8:10 PM