Cedar Hill Prep School

My name is Heer Patel and I believe that Europe should be required to except the African and Middle Eastern refugees.

Here are my 3 points.

1. It is not fair

2. A lot of other states take them in

3. Kids at very young ages are dying.

Assertion: It is not fair that

Reasoning:Many Syrian refugees are fleeing from their homeland and none of them are able to go to the European states, without being an illegal immigrant.

Evidence: Some 4.1 million Syrians are fleeing a homeland riven by more than four years of civil war. Some countries have taken in so many migrants it's caused a population spike, while others have done little or nothing at all.

Assertion:A lot of other countries take them in

Reasoning: Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and a lot of other states take them in. Also a lot of other states are getting requests. Such as Germany, Sweden, France, UK, Denmark, Hungary, and other European countries.

Evidence: Lebanon takes in 1.1 million, Turkey takes in 1.9 million, Jordan takes in 629,000 people , Iraq takes in 249,000 people, Egypt takes in 132,000, etc. Germany got 98,700, Sweden gets 64,700, France gets 6,700, United Kingdom gets 7,000, Denmark gets 11,300, Hungary gets 18,800, etc.

Assertion: Kids at very young age are dying

Reasoning: Since there is war going on in Africa and the Middle East, since the refugees aren't allowed to go to the European countries, they are dying. The European countries are being very selfish in letting these innocent little children die.

Evidence: The biggest driver of the crisis by far is Syria. Four million people, nearly a fifth of Syria's population, have fled the country since the war began in 2011. It's not hard to understand why Syrians are fleeing. ISIS has subjected Syrians to murder, torture, crucifixion, sexual slavery, and other appalling atrocities; and other groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra have tortured and killed Syrians as well.

1. It is not fair

2. A lot of other states take them in

3. Kids at very young ages are dying.

Again my name is Heer Patel and hence, the proposition side has won this debate.

Assertion: People will still ruin their health and make their lungs bad, even if we do make cigarettes illegal

Reasoning: This is because black markets will start and people will buy their cigarettes from there. Also, war will start and lots of people will die and the population will go down in America.

Evidence: War will start because of the people that are really addicted to cigarettes.

Assertion: People will lose their jobs.

Reasoning: In the United States of America, there are only 3 trillion dollars, which is not that much. There are a lot of people in this world that sell tobacco. If we take away all that business, imagine how much lower the money will go!

Evidence: There are over 350,000 acres of tobacco farming land in just the U.S. If we ban all that tobacco from producing, America will lose over a million dollars.

Assertion: There are other drugs that are worse than cigarettes, why not make those illegal first?

Reasoning: Also, there are other things that are not drugs, that are worse on cigarettes, why not make those illegal first? Did you ever think about working on things that are less popular first, so you do not lose money?

Evidence: People get hurt every day with some items. If we ban those, we are saving people in two ways. We are saving the people that are getting hurt with that item and we are saving the people that would have gotten hurt if war started.

I am Heer Patel and the opposition side has won this debate.

Assertion: Cigarettes have caused many people to die.

Reasoning: People that smoke are dying because their lungs are being damaged by inhaling tobacco. Also, people who inhale the smoke when they are wandering somewhere near them, also can get sick. This does not do any good and it damages a perfectly good person.

Evidence: It states in the passage,” Tobacco clearly takes a significant toll on the lives of Americans, causing 450,000 premature deaths each year, and drastic measures should be taken to eliminate the habit from our lives, including, some say, banning cigarettes.”

Assertion: Cigarettes waste so much ingredients just because of force of habit.

Reasoning: They use tobacco blend, paper, PVA glue, and often also a cellulose acetate- based filter.At the end, all this work to make the cigarettes, goes to waste. People are wasting way too much money to smoke once they become addicted.

Evidence: It says in the passage,”Cigarettes can contain over 100 ingredients.” All these ingredients have ruined many people's lives.

Assertion: Smoking is very addicting and it's hard to quit.

Reasoning: When women,that are pregnant, smoke, they ruin their child’s health. When that child, could have been a scientist, doctor, or anything that helps this world, why do you want that child’s health to not be as good as it could have been, Also, being so young and inhaling this chemicals, can also cause the baby to die.

Evidence: It states in the passage that out of the many smokers, 12.7% are or have been pregnant.

Assertion: Taking away the penny makes the price for things grow.

Reasoning:For example, If a store had to round the price of a pizza slice that cost $1.97, it might be more likely to charge $2.00 than $1.95 - so you’d be paying three cents more than you used to. That might not sound bad. When we can save money, even 3 cents, why don’t you? Every penny counts.

Evidence:It says in the passage,”All prices would have to be rounded to the nearest nickel, so costs could go up. But those little extra costs would quickly add up.”

Assertion: Pennies help many charities.

Reasoning: One of these many charities are the many penny drives. Every penny counts in these charities. Taking away the penny closes down many charities that people have worked hard for. Saving many of the beautiful animals, such as the endangered panda, is very important. When you can save all these beautiful animals by just using some extra money to make the penny, then why wouldn’t you?

Evidence: It says in the passage that people collected over 70 million pennies in most countries in penny drives. This means over 700,000 dollars.

Assertion: Many people believe that a penny is good luck.

Reasoning:Taking away the penny is like taking away luck. Many pennies are prized collectibles. Abraham Lincoln, one of the the country’s most beloved leaders, is on the penny, so many people don’t want to abolish the penny.

Evidence: It says in the article,”Indeed, a 2012 survey found that two-thirds of adults want to keep the coin.” This is my last reason to tell you why I think we should not abolish the penny.

Assertion: The penny costs more than how much it is worth.

Reasoning: It costs two cents to make a single penny. A penny is made of zinc and copper, so the zinc industries are paying money to keep the penny in the market, so they do not run out of business. Canada stopped making the penny in 2012, so why don’t we?

Evidence: It says in the passage, that to make one cent, it costs 1.67 cents. This does not seem like a big difference, but to make 100, 000,000 pennies it costs 1,000,000 extra dollars. This seems like a lot.

Assertion: Making the penny go away, won’t affect the memory of Abe Lincoln.

Reasoning: We already have Lincoln’s portrait on the front of the $5 bill and the memorial on the back, and the $5 bill is not going away any time soon. Also, why would we put such a great president on this one cent!

Evidence: Since the penny hurts the national economy, because handling the penny adds an average of 2 seconds for each transaction. Anyway, by abolishing the penny, we are not going to forget one of the greatest presidents, Abe Lincoln.

Assertion: The penny is worthless now.

Reasoning: Before, you could buy something with a penny, so it made sense that the penny was still being produced. At that time, there was something called the penny candy. Now, it costs at least a nickel to buy anything, even a little piece of gum.

Evidence: It says in the passage,”Assuming that the timing was correct before, the penny should have been eliminated in 1950, when the penny was worth what a dime is today.”

Assertion: Taking away the penny makes the price for things grow.

Reasoning:For example, If a store had to round the price of a pizza slice that cost $1.97, it might be more likely to charge $2.00 than $1.95 - so you’d be paying three cents more than you used to. That might not sound bad. When we can save money, even 3 cents, why don’t you? Every penny counts.

Evidence:It says in the passage,”All prices would have to be rounded to the nearest nickel, so costs could go up. But those little extra costs would quickly add up.”

Assertion: Pennies help many charities.

Reasoning: One of these many charities are the many penny drives. Every penny counts in these charities. Taking away the penny closes down many charities that people have worked hard for. Saving many of the beautiful animals, such as the endangered panda, is very important. When you can save all these beautiful animals by just using some extra money to make the penny, then why wouldn’t you?

Evidence: It says in the passage that people collected over 70 million pennies in most countries in penny drives. This means over 700,000 dollars.

Assertion: Many people believe that a penny is good luck.

Reasoning:Taking away the penny is like taking away luck. Many pennies are prized collectibles. Abraham Lincoln, one of the the country’s most beloved leaders, is on the penny, so many people don’t want to abolish the penny.

Evidence: It says in the article,”Indeed, a 2012 survey found that two-thirds of adults want to keep the coin.” This is my last reason to tell you why I think we should not abolish the penny.

Assertion: The penny costs more than how much it is worth.

Reasoning: It costs two cents to make a single penny. A penny is made of zinc and copper, so the zinc industries are paying money to keep the penny in the market, so they do not run out of business. Canada stopped making the penny in 2012, so why don’t we?

Evidence: It says in the passage, that to make one cent, it costs 1.67 cents. This does not seem like a big difference, but to make 100, 000,000 pennies it costs 1,000,000 extra dollars. This seems like a lot.

Assertion: Making the penny go away, won’t affect the memory of Abe Lincoln.

Reasoning: We already have Lincoln’s portrait on the front of the $5 bill and the memorial on the back, and the $5 bill is not going away any time soon. Also, why would we put such a great president on this one cent!

Evidence: Since the penny hurts the national economy, because handling the penny adds an average of 2 seconds for each transaction. Anyway, by abolishing the penny, we are not going to forget one of the greatest presidents, Abe Lincoln.

Assertion: The penny is worthless now.

Reasoning: Before, you could buy something with a penny, so it made sense that the penny was still being produced. At that time, there was something called the penny candy. Now, it costs at least a nickel to buy anything, even a little piece of gum.

Evidence: It says in the passage,”Assuming that the timing was correct before, the penny should have been eliminated in 1950, when the penny was worth what a dime is today.”

Hello, I am Heer Patel and I believe that European nations should not be required to accept refugees from Africa and the Middle East.

1.It will be dreadful for the people in UK.

2. The European nations are starting to overpopulate.

3. There are also chances of a population decrease.

Assertion:It will be dreadful for the people in UK.

Reasoning:In the Middle East, there is a lot of fights going on. This will affect the people in UK. David Cameron is the prime minister of UK. Even if they are willing to take more people, he thinks that since the fighting is going on there, something that could damage UK might start. He thinks that first the Middle East countries should settle down, then they would move on and decide what would happen next.

Evidence: Many people told David Cameron that he did not care about the people there that are drowning and dying. He insisted Britain should not take any further refugees from the war-torn Middle East.

Assertion: The European nations are starting to overpopulate.

Reasoning: If the refugees from the Middle East and the refugees from Africa will go to Europe, than Europe, mainly UK, will be very overpopulated. Overpopulation can result in to many bad things like crime, unemployment and pollution.

Evidence: Europe has 742.5 million people in it, which I believe is a lot. Adding to this by letting these countries join, would be unspeakable.

Assertion:There are also chances of a population decrease.

Reasoning: These countries are fighting and if the refugees come they will bring the fight with them.

Evidence: The Middle Eastern and African countries are warren and letting them in the European countries will affect Europe greatly with a decrease in population.

1.It will be dreadful for the people in UK.

2. The European nations are starting to overpopulate.

3. There are also chances of a population decrease.

Again my name is Heer Patel and ,hence, the opposition team has won this debate.

Hi, my name is Heer Patel and strongly support the idea that the government has not failed in rebuilding the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina.

1.The federal government has repaired and strengthened the infrastructure.

2.They have tried really hard.

3. The Congress has done a lot.

4. All that matters is that they tried.

Assertion: The federal government has repaired and strengthened the infrastructure.

Reasoning: The New Orleans hurricane protection system is now better than it was when Katrina hit. Levees and flood walls have been armored to protect against erosion and pumping stations are being storm proofed.

Evidence: The corps repaired and restored 220 miles of flood walls and levees since September 2005. The project was carried out by 26 corp contractors.

Assertion: They have tried really hard

Reasoning: They spent billions of dollars giving every person who does not have a house, at least a tailor or apartment building. Even if they did not give everyone a big house, they do not get money out of thin air, so what they did was still awesome.

Evidence:Altogether, they have spent over 80 billion dollars for repairing the infrastructure.

Assertion:The Congress has done a lot.

Reasoning: They approved billions of dollars to rescue the people that are suffering and helped a lot of people with that money.

Evidence: Forty thousand personnel from the National Guard work on the Gulf Coast. The American Red Cross cares for about 96,000 people in nine states. Many police officers have walked off the job.

Assertion: All that matters is that they tried.

Reasoning: Okay, they did not do great, but they tried their best. They spent not millions, but billions, of dollars repairing the infrastructure of the golf course. If this isn't enough, just think, where do they get billions of dollars. They don't get out it out of thin air. This says that they have tried.

Evidence: The federal government has spent billions of dollars giiving people homes and fixing the environment.

1.The federal government has repaired and strengthened the infrastructure.

2.They have tried really hard.

3. The Congress has done a lot.

4. All that matters is that they tried.

And hence, the proposition side has won this debate.

Hi, my name is Heer Patel and I support the idea that the federal government has failed in rebuilding the gulf coast after hurricane Katrina.

Here, I will state my points.

1.The food supply and shelter of the people who faced Hurricane Katrina was low. The government did not help enough with this.

2.After some years later, the government has not fixed the problem as much as needed.

3.The federal government did not do enough.

Assertion: The food supply and shelter of the people who faced Hurricane Katrina was low. The government did not help enough with this.

Reasoning: FEMA, federal emergency organization, lost a lot of supplies. They gave loads and loads of ice, but 2 years after the hurricane, people decided to throw the unused $100 million ice away. Also, they paid for the mobile homes costing millions but this was a huge letdown, since these can not be used because they are not used in flooded plains. FEMA turned away doctors volunteering their services and delivery of emergency supplies.

Evidence: In places that desperately needed help, such as the New Orleans Superdome, it took days to deliver medical supplies. FEMA delivered millions of pounds of ice to holding centers in cities far away from the Gulf Coast. FEMA sent trucks carrying ice on wild goose chases across the country. Two years after the storm, the agency ended up throwing out $100 million of unused ice. FEMA also paid for 25,000 mobile homes costing $900 million, but they went virtually unused.

Assertion: After some years later, the government has not fixed the problem as much as needed.

Reasoning: Few years after Hurricane Katrina, people were still struggling because of unemployment and other problems related to economy there. The storm has killed nearly 1833 people and resident were still rebuilding the ravaged cities. So many businesses left the city because of the disaster and did not come back because they were afraid that they will not get enough customers.

Evidence : The US economy rebounded from Katrina but the regions affected by the storm have not. Thousands of people lost their jobs, gas prices soared along with the other energy prices. Nearly 2.3 millions people were left without power.

Assertion: The federal government did not do enough.

Reasoning: They had to give 70 billion dollars more than they did!

Evidence: The total they had to pay was 150 billion dollars for the recovery of Hurricane Katrina, but they only paid 80 billion dollars. Many people did not get what was needed. Even the tailors and apartments were toxic because the air around it was barely breathable and was toxic to animals and humans.

1.The food supply and shelter of the people who faced Hurricane Katrina was low. The government did not help enough with this.

2.After some years later, the government has not fixed the problem as much as needed.

3.The federal government did not do enough.

And hence the proposition side has won this debate.