Cedar Hill Prep School

Hello I am Ananya and I am supporting the idea that Europe should be required to accept refugees from Africa and Middle East.

Slogan: Saving one refugee is saving one of us

Assertion: Many people are dying trying to get to the border of Europe.

Reasoning: Lots of people are trying to get in, but either they drown or get killed by a terrorist group, such as ISIS, or something worse. One little boy and his brother and mother died trying to get to Greece, and only his father made it. This may sound touching and so horrific that you might think that this all never happened, but it is true.

Evidence: 250,000 people had died trying to get to a safe haven. This include children, mothers, and fathers. This should decrease to almost 0

Assertion: If Europe/EU doesn't cooperate to allow the Syrian refugees, then they will break apart.

Reasoning: Europe is supposed to be a union, helping each other with each other's crises like the U.S. Instead, they refuse to work each other and pass on refugees to other nations to the point that they loose all the cooperation that they have. If they do the opposite, they will unite strong.

Evidence: Hungary has stopped all of its arriving trains from Germany so that people could not get into the country.

Hello I am Ananya and I refute the fact that European nations should be required to accept refugees from Africa and Middle East

Assertion: The large number of refugees that are arriving to Europe is causing overcrowding

Reasoning: Muslim Refugees are not able to have good locations to go. Most of them head to Europe as one of their only destination. Some small countries are barely having space to keep refugees.

Evidence: Thousands of people are going to Hungary, which is one of the places where they really try to control the growth. In order to keep the population stable, people would have to go to a camp to stay. Hungary is a very small country, and it is taking way too much space.

Assertion: They could affect us in a negative way.

Reasoning: If we allow the refugees to come in, they might affect our society. After all, they are from a dictatorship, so he might have rubbed off them. Their teachings, Islam, says that they can't conflict with other religions, so they might try to change our customs.

Evidence: Islam teachings, the Koran, says that Muslims can't use other races to fight other muslims. These refugees would only violate their own beliefs if they use countries to protect them.

Hello I am Ananya Gangavarapu and I support the idea that the Government has not failed in rebuilding after hurricane Katrina

Assertion: The federal government used a lot of money in funds.

Reasoning: President Bush had sent many funds to organizations so that they can build back New Orleans' infrastructure and other housing.

Evidence: Over 16 billion dollars was dedicated solely to rebuilding infrastructure. Many plans were approved by the government and executed.

Assertion: The government helped strengthen the protection system in cities after Katrina.

Reasoning: The federal government sent help to New Orleans so that the levees can protect the city better than when Katrina struck.

Evidence: Officials changed the design of the levees, making them more durable and more tougher. They also give a 100 year protection system.

Hence the proposition side has won this debate

Hello I am Ananya and I am supporting the idea that the government has failed in building the gulf coast after Katrina

Assertion: The Bush project was not doing its job

Reasoning: President Bush founded the the Bush administration,an organization in which it was supposed to help people who are impacted by storms. This organization ignored the cries for help during Katrina and failed in rebuilding the infrastructure of New Orleans and other affected areas.

Evidence: Only 14% of the New Orleans residents got trailers that were supposed to be use as shelters. Other areas got about 86% of those trailers. This means that New Orleans did not get their wanted amount.

Assertion: A lot of people were displaced.

Reasoning: People were greatly displaced during Katrina. Even today, some of them still are homeless and don't have any place to go.

Evidence: 800,000 people were displaced during Katrina and as of now, 250,000 people are still left homeless and displaced.

Assertion: The aftermath of events after Katrina were a complete disaster.

Reasoning: Many people were knocked into poverty after Katrina. Some families are not able to even own a car! Many people lost their jobs as well, and all the companies left many cities.

Evidence: As of 2000, only one company remained: the power company. 50,000 people lost their jobs. It lost about 100,000 people in just 44 years. It also one of the most poorest cities in the United States.

Hence the Proposition side as won this debate.

Hello, I am Ananya and I do not support the idea that the penny should be abolished. In our daily lives without the penny, costs of things might go higher without the penny. Finally, President Lincoln is on the coin, which abolishing one of his memorials would be unpatriotic.

Abolishing pennies make prices go up by the nearest nickel(or in some cases to the nearest dime). People would be paying more than what was needed. Also, hen people are receiving money, they would either receive either more money or less money. This would make the economy unstable due to the variation in receiving money.

The penny has President Lincoln on the coin. The penny was solely dedicated to him because he was one of the greatest American presidents. If we abolish the penny, we are only disgracing for everything President Lincoln has done for us! He had stopped slavery of African Americans and done everything for them, like declaring the Emancipation Proclimation.

In a survey conducted in 2012, 200 million people want the penny to keep the coin! Many charities also benefit from the penny as well. Penny Drives solely benefit from pennies.

To summarize, my first point was that pennies could cause economic stability, and that abolishing it could destabilize it. My second point(and my final) is that taking Abraham Lincoln's coin is not a good thing. Therefore the opposition tea has won this debate.

Hello, I am Ananya and I do not support the idea that the penny should be abolished. In our daily lives without the penny, costs of things might go higher without the penny. Finally, President Lincoln is on the coin, which abolishing one of his memorials would be unpatriotic.

Abolishing pennies make prices go up by the nearest nickel(or in some cases to the nearest dime). People would be paying more than what was needed. Also, hen people are receiving money, they would either receive either more money or less money. This would make the economy unstable due to the variation in receiving money.

The penny has President Lincoln on the coin. The penny was solely dedicated to him because he was one of the greatest American presidents. If we abolish the penny, we are only disgracing for everything President Lincoln has done for us! He had stopped slavery of African Americans and done everything for them, like declaring the Emancipation Proclimation.

In a survey conducted in 2012, 200 million people want the penny to keep the coin! Many charities also benefit from the penny as well. Penny Drives solely benefit from pennies.

To summarize, my first point was that pennies could cause economic stability, and that abolishing it could destabilize it. My second point(and my final) is that taking Abraham Lincoln's coin is not a good thing. Therefore the opposition tea has won this debate.

Hello, I am Ananya and I support the idea that cigarettes should be made illegal! Cigarettes cost a great deal of money, which makes people very poor. Cigarettes also harm the body and cost the lives of many people.It also influences teenagers negatively due to peer pressure.

Cigarettes are a very dangerous addiction.Since they are very addictive, people are unable to break smoking habit. People also believe that it can help with emotional problems, like stress.

While the smoking give temporary relief from stress, the cigarettes impacts smoker’s mental and physical health.

Another problem with cigarettes is that it causes air pollution. The chemical components inside a cigarette goes into the air and poisons it. As a matter of fact, manufacturing of cigarettes played a role in the smog problem in China. Also, when people smoke, they release those dangerous chemicals and pass it onto other people in the vicinity.

My final problem with cigarettes is they are really expensive. A small pack of cigarettes costs $6 to more than $13! This may not seem much, but as people start to get addicted, they start to lose hundreds of dollars just to cigarettes. This affects people because they won't have money to pay for bills or use it for good causes.

Currently, more than 1/7 of the world population smokes as of 2012, compared to only about a tenth as of 1980. This is really bad because as time goes on, the number of smokers would grow and more people would die. Cigarettes also cause diseases like emphysema(a type of lung disease), and lung cancer. Everyone in the world wants to stop cancer, but that won't happen if the smokers continue this trend of smoking. Every year on average, people waste about 5000 dollars on cigarettes. That is way too much to be spending on cigarettes.

To summarize my points, cigarettes are a dangerous addiction leading to long term mental and physical illness. My second point is that manufacturing of cigarettes cause air pollution, and my final point is that it costs money. Hence the proposition side has won this debate!