Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive

How old were you when you first felt truly aware of the world around you—the politics, the issues, the community decisions? In many cases by 16, you’re already involved in so many decisions about your future. You might be driving, working a part-time job, and navigating big questions about career paths and life goals. But should 16-year-olds also have the power to vote, helping shape the policies that will impact their futures?Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today’s topic is “The voting age should be lowered to 16,” and it’s from our Full-Size Essentials Collection deck. Let’s dig in!The debate over the voting age has been going on for decades. In the U.S., the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971, largely due to the Vietnam War. The idea was that if 18-year-olds were old enough to be drafted, they should be old enough to vote on the policies that might send them to war. Now, the conversation has shifted to lowering the age further, with advocates arguing that 16-year-olds are more informed and capable than ever before.In recent years, countries like Austria and Scotland have lowered the voting age to 16 for certain elections, allowing younger people to have a say in decisions impacting them. And here in the U.S., some cities, like Takoma Park, Maryland, have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds in local elections.This topic is essential today because young people have become more politically engaged than ever before. They’re often at the center of conversations about climate change, gun control, and education reform—issues that will profoundly shape their future. The question of whether they should have a direct say in these matters by voting is relevant not only to teenagers but to society as a whole, as it could redefine the role of youth in our democracy.Now, let’s debate.Agree – The voting age should be lowered to 1616-year-olds are informed and mature enough. At 16, teens often make decisions that carry significant responsibility—like getting a driver’s license, holding part-time jobs, and sometimes even paying taxes. They’re also exposed to more information through technology, making them more aware of social and political issues. Studies show that many teenagers keep up with current events and actively participate in community activities, which shows they can be responsible voters.Encouraging lifelong civic engagement. When people start voting early, they’re more likely to continue voting throughout their lives. By allowing 16-year-olds to vote, we’re creating good habits of civic engagement early, potentially leading to a more active and engaged electorate. Research from the U.K. shows that voters who start at a young age are more likely to stay politically engaged.Youth voices on critical issues. Young people are disproportionately affected by policy decisions on education, climate change, and the economy. Given that these decisions impact their lives significantly, it makes sense to include their perspectives. In recent years, youth-led movements like the March for Our Lives and the Global Climate Strike have demonstrated that young people can advocate effectively on serious issues.Disagree – The voting age should not be lowered to 1616-year-olds lack the life experience and maturity. 16-year-olds, while informed, haven’t lived long enough to fully understand the impact of complex policies. Voting requires not just knowledge but a level of maturity that comes with life experience. In the U.S., 16-year-olds can’t yet buy alcohol, vote in federal elections, or be drafted, suggesting that society already considers them too young for certain responsibilities.Potential for influence from parents or schools. Younger voters may be more easily influenced by their parents, teachers, or peer groups, w...

In 2019, Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro faced global criticism for allowing increased deforestation in the Amazon rainforest to boost economic development. Meanwhile, China's rapid industrialization over the past few decades has lifted millions out of poverty but at a severe environmental cost. These real-world scenarios highlight a crucial dilemma facing many developing nations: Should their right to economic growth take precedence over environmental protection?Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "A lesser developed nation's right to develop ought to take priority over its obligation to protect the environment" and comes from the Global category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.This debate has roots in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, where the concept of "common but differentiated responsibilities" was introduced. This principle acknowledges that all nations have a responsibility to address global environmental issues, but developed countries should bear a greater burden due to their historical contributions to problems like climate change.Today, according to the World Bank, about 84% of the world's population lives in developing countries. These nations often face the dual challenge of improving living standards for their citizens while also addressing environmental concerns. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015, aim to balance economic, social, and environmental sustainability.It's crucial to discuss this because the decisions made by developing nations about their growth strategies have global implications. The International Energy Agency reports that developing countries are expected to account for the majority of growth in energy demand and carbon emissions in the coming decades.Now, let's debate!Agree (Development should take priority):1. Economic development is crucial for improving quality of life. China's rapid industrialization, despite its environmental costs, has lifted over 800 million people out of poverty since 1978, according to the World Bank.2. Developed nations industrialized without environmental restrictions, so it's unfair to impose them on developing countries now. The United States, for example, was the world's largest carbon emitter for much of the 20th century as it industrialized.3. Once a certain level of development is reached, countries can better afford to invest in environmental protection. The "Environmental Kuznets Curve" theory suggests that as per capita income increases, emission levels first rise but then fall as societies can afford cleaner technologies.Disagree (Environmental protection should take priority):1. Environmental damage can have severe long-term consequences that outweigh short-term economic gains. The Aral Sea in Central Asia, once the world's fourth-largest lake, has nearly disappeared due to Soviet-era irrigation projects, devastating local economies and ecosystems.2. Climate change disproportionately affects developing nations. The World Bank estimates that climate change could push an additional 100 million people into poverty by 2030, primarily in developing countries.3. Sustainable development is possible and often more beneficial in the long run. Costa Rica, for example, has achieved growth in its citizen’s development while preserving 25% of its land as protected areas and generating 99% of its electricity from renewable sources in 2021.Now, let's explore some rebuttals.For the first "Agree" point about economic development improving quality of life, a rebuttal might go: While economic growth can improve living standards, it doesn't necessarily lead to better quality of life if it comes at the cost of severe environmental degradation. In China, for instance, air poll...

You work for a large corporation and discover that they've been hiding dangerous safety issues in one of their products. You're living paycheck to paycheck, and if you blow the whistle, you could lose your job which would mean you couldn’t afford to support yourself anymore. But if you do stay quiet, innocent people could get hurt—or worse. Do you risk everything to expose the truth, or do you keep the secret to protect your livelihood? Secrets can be powerful, and the decision to keep or reveal them can come with serious consequences."Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is 'It is ok to keep secrets' and it comes from the Philosophy Category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in."Philosophers throughout history have grappled with the morality of secrecy. Aristotle emphasized the virtue of honesty but also recognized the value of discretion, hinting that not all truths must be shared. Sissela Bok, in her work Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation, argued that secrecy can be both necessary and harmful, depending on its use. She emphasized that while secrets can protect privacy, they can also be a source of manipulation and deception.Meanwhile, philosopher Michel Foucault examined how power dynamics are often tied to secrecy. He suggested that those in control frequently conceal information to maintain power, and that secrecy can be a tool of oppression. On the other side, Confucius highlighted the importance of discretion in personal relationships, advising that not all truths are meant to be shared and that maintaining harmony sometimes means keeping things to oneself.Even historical figures like Benjamin Franklin weighed in, famously stating, "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead," emphasizing the inherent difficulty and risks in keeping secrets over time. The decision to withhold or disclose information has always been a balancing act between protecting individuals and upholding moral responsibility.Secrets are a part of our daily lives, from personal confessions to confidential information at work. They can protect people, maintain relationships, or sometimes lead to deceit and harm. Understanding when it's okay to keep secrets affects our relationships, our work environments, and even our societal structures. This topic matters because it touches on trust, morality, and our sense of responsibility to ourselves and others.Agree – It’s Okay to Keep SecretsDisagree – It’s Not Okay to Keep SecretsProtection of Privacy: Keeping secrets can be a way to protect one's privacy or the privacy of others. People have a right to their personal thoughts and experiences. Sharing everything with everyone can lead to vulnerability and loss of individuality. For instance, sharing personal health issues or family matters might expose someone to unnecessary judgment or harm.Betrayal of Trust: Keeping secrets can lead to a betrayal of trust. When secrets come to light, especially those that involve deception or dishonesty, it can damage relationships. For example, if someone discovers that a friend has kept a major secret from them, it could lead to feelings of betrayal and resentment, harming the relationship.Preservation of Relationships: Sometimes, keeping a secret can help maintain the peace or stability of a relationship. Imagine knowing about a surprise party for a friend—revealing it could spoil the joy. In more serious cases, keeping a secret might prevent unnecessary conflict. For example, withholding a small, inconsequential truth that would only cause hurt feelings without any benefit to the other party.Moral Responsibility: There are instances where keeping a secret might prevent justice or allow...

Every year at tax time, you’re probably hoping to get a refund or may have a tax bill to pay, but how does paying these taxes make you feel? Do you feel like your tax dollars are helping to support society and essential services, or do you think individuals could better spend that money, meaning we should have fewer taxes? Could society function better if taxes were lower, allowing people to choose how they spend or invest their money? Or does this approach sacrifice essential services that support society as a whole?"Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is ‘Low Taxes Are Preferable Over Extensive Government Services’ and comes from our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let’s dig in!"While this is a common debate between Republicans, who prioritize lower taxes, and Democrats, who prefer more government services, this discussion started with the first societies ever created and has inspired philosophical speeches for centuries. American philosopher Henry David Thoreau famously said, “That government is best which governs least,” reflecting a belief that minimal government intervention allows more freedom and prosperity. Meanwhile, others argue for a government role in providing public services to promote equality and well-being, a concept promoted by philosophers like John Stuart Mill, who saw government intervention as a way to ensure equal opportunities for all.This debate is essential to how societies function and impacts nearly every aspect of daily life. Whether through healthcare, education, or social welfare, the balance between taxes and government services influences our economy, freedom, and how resources are distributed. Understanding this debate sheds light on what kind of society we prefer and what values we prioritize—individual freedom or collective support.Agree – Low Taxes Are Preferable Over Extensive Government ServicesIncreases Individual Freedom and Financial Control Lower taxes allow individuals to control how they spend their own money, promoting personal choice in areas like healthcare, education, and retirement planning. By keeping more income, people can invest, save, or spend based on their priorities rather than government-mandated programs.Encourages Economic Growth and Innovation Reducing taxes can stimulate economic growth by allowing businesses to invest more in their operations, leading to job creation and increased innovation. The United States saw rapid economic expansion in the 1980s after a series of tax cuts, with the economy growing at an average rate of 3.6% annually, as businesses had more capital to expand and hire. Advocates believe that less taxation results in more economic activity and a stronger economy overall.Reduces Government Waste and Bureaucracy With lower taxes, the government has fewer resources to manage, reducing the risk of inefficiency and waste. A leaner government can focus on essential functions, streamlining operations, and decreasing taxpayer burden. Studies have found that large government programs often suffer from inefficiencies due to layers of bureaucracy, with up to 30% of funds in some public programs lost to administrative costs.Disagree – Low Taxes Are Not Preferable Over Extensive Government ServicesEssential Services for All Taxes fund essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure like roads and bridges that everyone depends on, regardless of income. When these services are publicly funded, they provide a safety net and level the playing field, ensuring that no one is left behind. Countries with extensive social services, such as those in Scandinavia, consistent...

Should scientists be free to explore every possible avenue to cure debilitating diseases? Or, do we risk crossing an ethical line by lifting restrictions on certain research methods? Stem cell research has sparked intense debates, and at the heart of it lies a fundamental question: How far should we go in our quest to understand—and potentially heal—the human body?Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate—in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is “Any restrictions on the use of stem cells in research should be lifted” and comes from our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Stem cells are unique in that they are the body’s “master cells,” able to transform into many types of cells and potentially regenerate as well. These cells can be used to repair or replace damaged tissue, offering potential cures for a wide range of conditions, from spinal cord injuries to degenerative diseases like ALS.The controversy around stem cell research primarily revolves around the use of embryonic stem cells, which are derived from early-stage embryos. This has led to ethical concerns, as the process of harvesting these cells involves the destruction of the embryo. On the other hand, adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) offer alternatives that do not require the destruction of embryos, but they come with their own limitations, such as a narrower range of differentiation and challenges in harvesting and reprogramming.In the United States, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has been a contentious issue. In 2001, President George W. Bush limited federal funding to existing stem cell lines, citing ethical concerns, but President Barack Obama lifted these restrictions in 2009, allowing more lines to be used in federally funded research. Despite this, state-level restrictions and ongoing ethical debates continue to limit the scope of research. Sam, here I talk about what an embryo means, make sure to include that.Internationally, regulations vary widely, with countries like the United Kingdom and Sweden taking a more open stance, while others, such as Germany and Italy, have stricter controls. This variation has led to a global patchwork of policies that impact the pace and direction of stem cell research.The debate over stem cell research is more relevant than ever as advancements in science and medicine continue to push the boundaries of what is possible. Lifting restrictions on stem cell research could accelerate the development of treatments for currently incurable diseases, improving the quality of life for millions of people. At the same time, ethical considerations remain critical, as the implications of unrestricted research touch on fundamental questions about the beginning of human life and the moral responsibilities of scientists. Debate PointsAgree: Any restrictions on the use of stem cells in research should be lifted1. Accelerates Medical Advancements   Lifting restrictions on stem cell research could speed up the development of treatments for a wide range of diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and neurological disorders. By allowing scientists to explore all potential avenues, including embryonic stem cells, we could unlock new therapies that are currently out of reach. The potential benefits, such as regenerating damaged tissues or organs, far outweigh the ethical concerns for many, as the focus shifts to saving lives and reducing suffering.2. Promotes Scientific Innovation   Removing restrictions would encourage scientific innovation and exploration, allowing researchers to pursue groundbreaking discoveries. Stem cell research has already led to significant advancements in understanding human development and disease mechanisms. By lifting restrictions, we could see eve...

What if getting a college degree didn’t come with a lifetime of debt? Imagine if anyone could attend a public university without worrying about the cost. Today, we're diving into the debate over whether all public higher education in the U.S. should be free.Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "All public higher education in the US should be free," and it comes from the Society category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in.Let's take a stroll down memory lane. Imagine it's 1950. If you wanted to attend a public university, you’d pay around $150 a year. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $1,800 in today’s money—pretty reasonable, right? Fast forward to 1960, and that cost nudged up a bit to about $250. By 1975, it was $600, which might seem like a lot compared to the ‘50s, but still quite manageable.Then came the ‘80s and ‘90s, when things started to change rapidly. In 1985, the cost was around $1,250 a year, and by 1995, it had doubled to about $2,500. Fast forward to today, and the average in-state tuition at a public four-year college is over $10,000 annually. That's a staggering increase, far outpacing inflation and the growth in wages.This rapid rise in tuition costs has left many students and families struggling to keep up. As a result, student loan debt in the U.S. has soared, now totaling over $1.7 trillion. More than 43 million Americans are carrying student loans, and many face decades of repayment.The idea of free public higher education isn’t just about numbers—it’s about the impact on people’s lives. This debate is crucial because education is a key factor in economic mobility and social equity. Access to higher education can open doors to better job opportunities and higher incomes. However, the rising cost of college has made it inaccessible to many, exacerbating income inequality. Understanding this debate helps us consider how society can best invest in its future and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to succeed.Let’s Debate!Agree: All public higher education in the US should be free1. Economic Mobility and Equity   Free public higher education would provide opportunities for all students, regardless of their financial background. This could reduce income inequality and help low-income students break the cycle of poverty. Research shows that a college degree significantly increases earning potential, with college graduates earning, on average, 67% more than those with only a high school diploma.2. Reducing Student Debt   The current system burdens students with massive debt that can take decades to repay. Free public higher education would alleviate this burden, allowing graduates to start their careers and lives without the weight of student loans. This, in turn, can stimulate the economy, as graduates have more disposable income to spend on housing, cars, and other goods.3. Boosting the Economy   An educated workforce is essential for a strong economy. By investing in free public higher education, the government would be investing in the future of the country. A more educated population can lead to higher productivity, innovation, and economic growth. Countries with high levels of education tend to have stronger economies and better standards of living.Disagree: All public higher education in the US should not be free1. High Costs for Taxpayers   Making public higher education free would require a significant increase in government spending, funded by taxpayers. Estimates suggest that the cost could be hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This money could be better spent on o...

Is music the true language of the soul, or are podcasts the perfect way to fill your mind on the go? Today, we're diving into the ultimate audio battle: Music versus Podcasts. Put on your headphones, get ready to rock—or talk—and let’s explore this soundwave showdown!Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is 'Music is better than podcasts,' and it comes from the Pop Culture category in our collab deck with The Conversationalist. Let's dig in.For centuries, music has been a universal language, connecting people across cultures and eras. From the rhythms of tribal drums to the symphonies of Mozart, music has always been a fundamental part of human experience. Enter the 21st century, and podcasts have risen as a new form of entertainment and education, changin the way we share stories, learn, and engage with the world. This debate pits the timeless art of music against the modern world of podcasts. As Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "Without music, life would be a mistake." But would it be any less complete without podcasts?This debate matters because it touches on how we spend our most precious resource—our time. With so much content available at our fingertips, choosing between music and podcasts can shape our daily routines, our moods, and even our intellect. Both forms of audio entertainment have a profound impact on our lives, influencing everything from mental health to productivity. Understanding their roles helps us appreciate the ways we connect with the world around us and with each other.Agree (Music is Better) – 3 Points:Emotional Connection and Expression: Music has the unique ability to evoke a wide range of emotions, from joy and excitement to sadness and nostalgia. It can be a source of comfort and a form of expression when words fail. Scientific studies show that listening to music releases dopamine, the "feel-good" chemical, making us feel happier and more relaxed. Whether it’s Beethoven’s symphonies or Taylor Swift’s latest hit, music resonates on an emotional level.Universality and Accessibility: Music transcends language barriers. It is a universal art form that people of all ages, backgrounds, and cultures can enjoy. You don’t need to understand the lyrics of a song to feel its rhythm or be moved by its melody. From lullabies to wedding marches, music plays a significant role in life’s milestones, making it an integral part of human experience.Cognitive and Health Benefits: Music isn’t just for entertainment; it’s beneficial for the brain. Listening to music can improve memory, enhance cognitive function, and even reduce pain. Research has shown that music therapy can help with a range of conditions, from anxiety and depression to Alzheimer’s and stroke recovery. It has the power to heal and soothe like nothing else.Disagree (Podcasts are Better) – 3 Points:Educational Value and Information: Podcasts offer a wide range of educational content that can enhance knowledge on various topics, from science and history to true crime and storytelling. With podcasts, you can learn new skills, stay updated with current events, or dive deep into niche subjects—all while commuting or doing chores. They make lifelong learning accessible and convenient.Personal Growth and Perspective: Podcasts provide a platform for diverse voices and opinions, offering listeners insights into different perspectives and experiences. They can challenge your thinking, inspire personal growth, and introduce you to ideas you might not encounter in everyday life. Listening to thought leaders, experts, and real-life stories can broaden your understand...

Imagine walking into a voting booth and seeing not just two or three options, but ten or even twenty different political parties on your ballot. While this might seem foreign to many Americans used to the Democrat-Republican dichotomy, it's a reality in many countries around the world. Did you know that in India's 2024 general elections, a record 744 political parties are in the running! Or that in the early days of the United States, there were numerous political parties vying for power before the two-party system became dominant?The American political landscape has evolved significantly since the nation's founding. In the early 19th century, the U.S. saw parties like the Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and later the Whigs competing alongside the Democrats and Republicans. However, by the Civil War era, the two-party system we know today had largely solidified. This raises an intriguing question: Do most nations have too many political parties?Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Most nations have too many political parties" and comes from our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.The concept of political parties is as old as democracy itself, but the idea of a multi-party system really took off in the 19th and 20th centuries. As societies became more complex and diverse, so did their political landscapes. This isn't just about how many names appear on a ballot. When we talk about the number of political parties, we're really discussing representation, governance efficiency, and the very nature of democracy itself. It touches on fundamental questions about how diverse viewpoints can be represented in government and how decisions get made in society.According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, as of 2021, there are over 5,000 registered political parties worldwide. The number of parties that actually win seats in parliament varies widely by country, from two in the United States to 24 in the Netherlands' 2021 election.It's crucial to discuss this because the structure of a nation's party system can have profound effects on political stability, policy-making, and citizen engagement. The largest voter turnout in the US was at 66% in the 2020 Presidential election. Would more people have come out to vote if there were more parties? The number of parties can influence everything from how governments are formed to how effectively they can implement their agendas.Now, let's debate!Agree (Most nations have too many political parties):Too many parties can lead to political instability and weak governments. Italy is a prime example of this problem. Since World War II, Italy has had 69 governments in 76 years, largely due to its fragmented multi-party system. This constant turnover has made it difficult for Italy to implement long-term policies and address chronic issues like economic stagnation.A large number of parties can result in extremist or single-issue parties gaining disproportionate influence. In Israel's 2020 election, the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party won only 6% of the vote but gained significant leverage in coalition negotiations, influencing national policies on issues like military service exemptions and religious law.Excessive parties can confuse voters and complicate the voting process. In the 2014 Indonesian legislative election, voters had to choose from 46 parties. This led to high numbers of invalid votes and made it difficult for voters to make informed choices about party platforms.Disagree (Most nations do not have too many political parties):More parties allow for better representation of diverse...

In the ‘60s, Lenny Bruce, a stand-up comedian known for deeply satirical and controversial routines, was repeatedly arrested for obscenity. His case sparked a nationwide debate about the limits of free speech and the role of political correctness in society. More recently Joan Rivers and Kevin Hart were targeted for things they said or tweeted, with Hart having to step down from hosting the Oscars in 2018. Is their freedom of expression more valuable than the standards of decency upheld or defined by the public? This raises a crucial question we are grappling with every day thanks to social media: what’s more important your freedom of expression or being politically correct? "Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is 'An individual’s freedom of expression is of greater value than political correctness,' and it comes from the Philosophy category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in."The debate between freedom of expression and political correctness is long-standing and deeply rooted in philosophical thought. John Stuart Mill, in his work “On Liberty,” argued that free speech is fundamental to the pursuit of truth and that silencing any opinion is wrong because it robs humanity of the opportunity to hear all perspectives. Meanwhile, political correctness—emerging in the late 20th century—aims to prevent language or actions that could offend marginalized groups, reflecting an effort to create a more inclusive and respectful society. This tension reflects a core question: Should the right to speak one’s mind outweigh the need to avoid causing offense? This topic is particularly relevant in today’s society, where social media platforms amplify voices and make personal opinions more public than ever before. Debates over what can and cannot be said have far-reaching implications for education, workplace policies, public discourse, and even art. N.W.A., Public Enemy, and 2 Live Crew faced criticism for explicit lyrics and themes on their tracks. Critics argued the music was offensive and inappropriate, slapping them with Parental Advisory labels, while supporters saw it as a powerful form of free speech addressing real-world issues. Striking the right balance between protecting free speech and promoting respect for all individuals is a challenge that impacts everyone, influencing how we communicate and how we shape the world we live in.Agree (3 points): An individual’s freedom of expression is of greater value than political correctness1. Fundamental Right: Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies. It allows for the exchange of ideas, criticism of the government, and the advancement of knowledge. Restricting speech, even in the name of political correctness, sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to censorship and the suppression of dissent. As George Orwell famously warned in 1984, controlling language is a way to control thought.2. Pursuit of Truth: Open dialogue, including controversial or offensive ideas, is essential for the pursuit of truth. When people are allowed to express themselves freely, society can challenge and refine its beliefs. Philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that even false ideas have value, as they encourage us to defend and better understand the truth. Censoring speech limits this process, potentially allowing falsehoods to go unchallenged. In modern times, we’re seeing echo chambers created by social media algorithms. Basically you’re fed the same content you engage with, meaning you’re rarely exposed to alternative perspectives. 3. Personal Autonomy: Individuals should have the right to express themselves, even if their views are unpopular or offensive. Freedom of expression is tied to personal iden...

Have you ever gazed up at the night sky and wondered what it would be like to live on another world? As Earth faces challenges like climate change and resource depletion, some people are looking to the stars for humanity's future. But is colonizing other planets or moons a viable solution, or just a sci-fi dream?Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Humans should colonize other planets or moons" and comes from the Science category of our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.The idea of space colonization isn't new. It's been a staple of science fiction for over a century, but in recent decades, it's moved from fantasy to a serious topic of scientific and political discussion. As our technology advances and private companies join the space race, the possibility of establishing human settlements beyond Earth seems more feasible than ever before.This isn't just about adventure or scientific curiosity. When we talk about colonizing other planets or moons, we're really discussing the long-term survival and evolution of our species. It touches on fundamental questions about human nature, our place in the universe, and our responsibility to our home planet.According to NASA, as of 2023, humans have only set foot on one other world - the Moon. But plans are already in motion for lunar bases and Mars missions. SpaceX founder Elon Musk has stated his goal of establishing a self-sustaining city on Mars with a million inhabitants by 2050. Meanwhile, NASA's Artemis program aims to establish a long-term human presence on the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars.It's crucial to discuss this because the decisions we make now about space exploration and colonization will shape the future of humanity for generations to come. It also raises important ethical, financial, and practical questions that we need to grapple with as a society.Now, let's debate! Agree (Humans should colonize other planets or moons):1. Colonizing other worlds is crucial for the long-term survival of humanity. Having settlements on multiple planets would serve as a backup for our species in case of a global catastrophe on Earth, such as an asteroid impact or nuclear war.2. Space colonization would drive technological innovation. The challenges of living in hostile environments would push us to develop new technologies in areas like energy production, resource utilization, and life support systems. These advancements could also benefit life on Earth.3. Exploring and settling other worlds aligns with humanity's innate drive to explore and expand our horizons. It could unite humanity under a common goal, fostering cooperation and pushing the boundaries of human achievement.Disagree (Humans should not colonize other planets or moons):1. The enormous cost of space colonization could be better spent solving problems on Earth. The trillions of dollars required for interplanetary colonization could instead be used to address issues like poverty, disease, and environmental degradation.2. The ethics of colonizing other planets are problematic. We risk contaminating potential extraterrestrial ecosystems and repeating the mistakes of historical colonialization. There's also the question of who gets to go - will space colonies become hideaways for the wealthy while the rest of humanity is left behind?3. The technical challenges of space colonization are currently overwhelming. The harsh environments of other planets and moons, including radiation exposure, low gravity, and lack of breathable atmosphere, pose severe risks to human health and make long-term settlement extremely difficult.Now, let's explore some rebuttals.For the first "Agree" point about species survival, a rebuttal might go: While protecting humanity from e...

Imagine you're looking to buy your first home, but every time you find a promising listing, you're outbid by a corporation with deep pockets. It’s a frustrating reality for many aspiring homeowners across the country. With corporations buying up single-family homes to rent out, the dream of homeownership is slipping out of reach for many. Is this a fair practice, or should there be restrictions? Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks, and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is “Corporations should never be allowed to purchase single-family homes with the intent to rent them out in residential neighborhoods,” and comes from the Economics category in our Full-Size Essentials Collection deck. Let’s dig in!Over the past few decades, corporate ownership of single-family homes has become more prevalent. Investment firms, real estate trusts, and other large entities have increasingly turned to residential real estate as a profitable investment. This trend is relatively new, fueled by factors like low-interest rates and a growing demand for rental housing. Large investment firms as well as individuals both see single-family homes as a stable asset class, offering great potential for rental income and long-term appreciation.According to a 2021 report, institutional investors owned over 200,000 single-family rental homes in the U.S. Companies like Invitation Homes and Blackstone have been acquiring single-family properties across the country, especially in the fast-growing Sun Belt markets like Phoenix and Atlanta, where more than a third of homes on the market are now being purchased by private equity firms or dedicated single-family rental companies. These corporations use algorithms to identify neighborhoods with high rental potential and often purchase homes in bulk. While this can benefit sellers who receive all-cash offers, it limits the options available to buyers relying on traditional financing and significantly reduces the number of homes available to families and first-time homebuyers.In addition to corporations, real estate companies like Redfin and Opendoor have also been actively purchasing single-family homes. They use technology to identify undervalued properties, purchase them for cash, renovate, and resell at a profit. Similar to all the home renovation shows you see on HGTV, but done by these real estate companies. This practice, known as iBuying, can contribute to rising home prices in neighborhoods where it is common. By purchasing homes in bulk and renovating them quickly, these companies can increase demand and drive up prices, making it more difficult for individual buyers to compete.This trend has raised concerns about housing affordability and availability. In some markets, corporate purchases accounted for more than 20% of all single-family home sales. As these corporations purchase homes, the supply for individual buyers dwindles, driving prices up further, surging almost 50% since 2020, making it increasingly harder for regular families to buy a home.Historically, homeownership has been a cornerstone of the American dream, representing stability, investment in one’s future, and a sense of community. The rise of corporate landlords is seen by some as a shift away from these traditional values, raising questions about the role of corporations in residential neighborhoods, as well as the impact on community dynamics. It's important to note that housing is a complex issue with no easy solutions. A var...

Remember the moment when NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem, sparking a nationwide debate? His protest against police brutality and racial injustice led to intense discussions about the role of athletes in activism and the boundaries of political expression in sports. If your favorite player did something similar, would you support their stance, or think politics should stay off the field?Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Boycotts and protests during sporting events are a legitimate political tool," and it comes from the Society Category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in.Sports have always been more than just games; they’re a reflection of society, culture, and sometimes, the battleground for political and social issues. The idea of using sporting events as a platform for protest isn’t new. It dates back to ancient times when athletes were symbols of city-states' prowess and prestige.In the modern era, we’ve seen iconic moments where sports and politics intersect. The 1968 Olympics is a prime example, where American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists in a Black Power salute during the medal ceremony, drawing attention to racial inequality. Fast forward to more recent times, and we have NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice. These acts sparked widespread debate about the role of athletes in political discourse.Historically, the Olympic Games have been a frequent site of political boycotts. For instance, in 1980, the United States led a boycott of the Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, with over 60 countries joining. Four years later, the Soviet Union and its allies boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics in retaliation.These protests and boycotts often stir controversy, but they undeniably bring attention to the issues at hand. The debate about their legitimacy as political tools revolves around whether sporting events should remain a neutral space for entertainment or if they are an appropriate venue for political expression.This topic is especially relevant today as we see a growing number of athletes and teams using their platforms to speak out on social and political issues. From racial injustice to human rights violations, these protests bring critical issues to a global audience, leveraging the massive reach and influence of sports. Understanding this debate helps us consider the role of public figures in activism and the impact of mixing sports with politics.Now, let’s debate.Agree: Boycotts and protests during sporting events are a legitimate political tool. Sporting events draw massive audiences, making them powerful platforms to raise awareness. By staging protests or boycotts, athletes and organizers can bring critical issues to the forefront, sparking conversations and influencing public opinion. For example, when NBA players boycotted playoff games in 2020 to protest the police shooting of Jacob Blake, it sent a strong message about the need for systemic change, reaching millions who might not otherwise engage with these issues.Boycotts and protests in sports have historically led to tangible social and political change. The 1968 Black Power salute by Tommie Smith and John Carlos drew international attention to the civil rights movement, putting pressure on institutions to address racial inequality. Similarly, the boycott of South African athletes during the apartheid era helped to isolate the regime and hastened the end of apartheid.Athletes, like any other citizens, have the right to express their views and use their influence for causes they believe in. Sporting events are among the few places where their voices...

Have you ever wondered why the U.S. presidential election isn't decided by a simple popular vote? Why does a candidate who receives fewer votes sometimes end up in the White House? These questions bring us to a debate that's been raging for decades: Should the Electoral College stay or go?Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "The US should disband the Electoral College" and comes from the US Law category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.The Electoral College isn't just a modern quirk of American politics - it's a system that's been woven into the fabric of U.S. democracy since the nation's inception. The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise, balancing the desire for popular representation with concerns about giving too much power to the masses or to Congress. For more than two centuries, this unique mechanism has determined how Americans choose their president, but it's also been a lightning rod for controversy and debate. Fun fact, At least 10 other countries actually have an electoral college, but they don't function in quite the same way that the U.S. system does.Some more background on how we got here. Direct popular election worried some Founders for several reasons. They feared that a purely democratic process might lead to the election of a populist demagogue aka rabble-rouser aka agitator aka (a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power) or that the general public might lack the information necessary to make an informed choice. There were also practical concerns about coordinating a nationwide popular vote in an era of limited communication and transportation.The idea of allowing Congress to pick our president was proposed in the initial "Virginia Plan," and it was seriously considered. However, this was ultimately rejected due to concerns about the Separation of Power and ensuring the President remained independent from and unbeholden to the legislative branch aka the Senate and House of Representatives aka Congress.The Electoral College emerged as a middle ground. It was designed to filter the popular will through a group of knowledgeable electors, addressing fears about an uninformed electorate and it gave states of all sizes a role in selecting the president, based partly on their population, which helped address the concerns of both large and small states.Fun fact, Congress does actually have a role in the electoral process if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes. In such cases, the House of Representatives chooses the president from among the top three candidates. This has happened twice in U.S. history (1800 and 1824).But this isn't just about how we count votes - it's about representation, the balance of power between states, and the very nature of American democracy. When we talk about disbanding the Electoral College, we're really asking fundamental questions about how our democracy should function and what it means for every vote to count.Ok, but how does it work. Voters in each state choose electors to be part of the Electoral College. The number of electors each state gets is equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. There are currently 538 electors in total, and a candidate needs to win a majority of 270 electoral votes to become president.It's crucial to discuss this because it affects every presidential election and has led to situations where the winner of the popular vote doesn't become president. This happened most recently in 2016 when Donald Trump won the presidency despite receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.Now, let's debate!Agree (The US should disband the Electoral College):

- Desanka, Los AngelesIs magic more captivating than the Force? Can a boy wizard outshine a galaxy far, far away? Today, we're diving into the ultimate pop culture showdown: Harry Potter versus Star Wars. Wands at the ready, and may the Force be with you as we explore this magical debate!Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is 'Harry Potter is better than Star Wars' and comes from the Hot Takes Category of our Collab deck with the Conversationalist. Hot Takes topics were gathered directly from The Conversationalist fanbase and this topic was provided by Desanka. Let's dig in.This debate is rooted in more than just entertainment; it's about the cultural impact of storytelling. J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series has enchanted readers since 1997, while George Lucas's Star Wars saga has been inspiring audiences since 1977. Both have left an indelible mark on pop culture, creating a world of magic and mythology. Philosopher Joseph Campbell once said, "Mythology is the song of the universe, the music of the spheres." Whether it’s the Force or the magic of Hogwarts, both stories offer a mythological framework that resonates deeply with fans.While this topic may seem silly and fun, debating it is good practice and can make a meaningful impact on the world. In a world where pop culture shapes our perceptions and influences our values, understanding why people are so passionate about Harry Potter versus Star Wars can reveal a lot about what we cherish as a society. This debate isn't just about which franchise has the best special effects or the most compelling characters; it's about the stories we tell ourselves and how they shape our understanding of heroism, friendship, and the battle between good and evil.Agree:Character Depth and Growth: Harry Potter offers a rich tapestry of character development. From the Boy Who Lived to the brave members of Dumbledore's Army, the series allows us to grow up with its characters, experiencing their struggles and triumphs. The emotional depth and the relatable growth of Harry, Hermione, and Ron are hard to beat. As Daniel Radcliffe once said, "The books have a warmth and humanity that isn't always there in science fiction."A Magical World with Real Consequences: Hogwarts is a place where magic feels accessible, yet it's grounded in reality. The story touches on real-life issues such as prejudice, loyalty, and sacrifice. The concept of house-elves as a metaphor for social injustice or the tyranny of Voldemort reflecting real-world dictatorships makes Harry Potter not just a fantasy but a mirror to our world.The Power of Love: The central theme of Harry Potter is love and its ability to conquer all. The series consistently shows that love is more powerful than any spell or dark magic. Dumbledore’s words, “Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and above all, those who live without love,” sums up the moral core of the series.Disagree:Epic Scale and Galactic Stakes: Star Wars offers an epic narrative that spans galaxies and generations. Its grandeur is unmatched, with a complex web of politics, rebellion, and the eternal struggle between the light side and the dark side. The vastness of the Star Wars universe provides a sense of wonder and exploration that is unparalleled so much so that we can expect Disney to continue to make Star Wars movies and series til the end of time.Iconic Characters and Timeless Archetypes: Star Wars is a modern myth with characters that have become cultural icons. From the wise Yoda to the fearsome Darth Vader, each character embodies ti...

Imagine you’re a journalist working on an investigative piece about a powerful corporation. You uncover evidence of illegal dumping that’s harming the environment and local communities. The only problem is, the evidence you have was obtained through questionable means—you hacked into a private server. Revealing this information could stop the crime and hold the corporation accountable, but it also puts you at risk of legal repercussions. So, is it worth breaking the law to expose a crime? Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is 'Breaking the law to stop a crime or catch a criminal is justified' and it comes from the Philosophy category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in.The idea of breaking the law for a greater good isn't new. Philosophers and ethicists have long debated the concept of civil disobedience. Henry David Thoreau, in his famous essay “Civil Disobedience,” argued that individuals have an obligation to resist unjust laws. Similarly, in Plato’s “Crito,” Socrates discusses whether it is ever right to disobey the law, suggesting that sometimes the moral law supersedes the written law. This theme also appears in more contemporary settings, such as the actions of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, who broke the law by leaking classified information to expose government overreach.This topic is crucial because it touches on the tension between legality and morality. How do we balance the need to uphold the law with the imperative to achieve justice? This debate is relevant not only for law enforcement and government officials but also for everyday citizens who might face moral dilemmas where breaking the law seems like the right thing to do. It challenges us to consider what kind of society we want to live in and what values we prioritize.5. Debate Points:Agree:1. Greater Good Argument: Breaking the law can be justified if it prevents greater harm. For example, undercover police officers often engage in illegal activities, such as drug deals, to infiltrate criminal organizations and bring them down. These actions, while technically illegal, are aimed at protecting society from far more significant crimes, such as trafficking or terrorism.2. Moral Duty: In some cases, individuals may feel a moral obligation to break the law to prevent injustice. Consider the case of whistleblowers who expose corruption or human rights abuses. They might leak classified information, which is illegal, but their actions can lead to positive changes, greater transparency, and justice for victims. The Nuremberg Trials after World War II set a precedent where individuals were held accountable for crimes against humanity, even if they were following their country's laws.3. Ineffectiveness of Legal Systems: Sometimes, legal systems are too slow or ineffective in preventing imminent harm. Breaking the law might be the only option to avert a disaster. A hacker who disables a terrorist group's communication network to prevent an attack, although committing a crime, might save lives. In these urgent situations, waiting for legal processes could lead to catastrophic outcomes.Disagree:1. Rule of Law: Upholding the rule of law is fundamental to maintaining order and justice. If individuals start breaking the law based on their own judgment, it leads to chaos and undermines the legal system. The law is designed to apply equally to everyone, and once we allow exceptions, it becomes difficult to draw the line. The integrity of the justice system is compromised, and trust in law enforcement is eroded. 2. Slippery Slope: Allowing law-breaking for seemingly good reasons sets a dangerous precedent. It can lead to abuses of power where individuals justify their illegal actions under the guise of achieving a greater good. H...

Have you ever been denied a loan or an apartment rental because of your credit score? Or maybe you've wondered why your score dropped even though you've been paying your bills on time? These questions touch on a debate that's been growing in recent years: Do credit scores really reflect our financial capabilities?Before we dive into the debate, let's understand what credit scores are and where they came from. Credit scores were introduced in the U.S. in the 1950s by the Fair Isaac Corporation, now known as FICO. The goal was to create a standardized way for lenders to assess the risk of lending money or extending credit to individuals.Today, the most widely used credit scores in the U.S. range from 300 to 850. They're calculated using complex algorithms that consider factors like payment history, amounts owed, length of credit history, new credit, and types of credit used. The three major credit bureaus - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion - each produce their own scores based on the information in your credit reports.According to a 2021 survey by Credit Sesame, 55% of Americans have been denied credit due to their credit scores. Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reports that about 26 million Americans are "credit invisible," meaning they have no credit history with a nationwide consumer reporting agency and are more likely to be denied credit as compared to even those with a low credit score. It's crucial to discuss the value of credit scores because this impacts many aspects of our financial lives. These scores determine whether we get approved for loans or credit cards, what interest rates we're offered, and even affect our ability to rent an apartment or get certain jobs. As you go through life, your credit score becomes one of the most important numbers you know, and you quickly learn how to manipulate it—what actions will improve it and what might harm it.As an example, during the housing crisis of 2008, many homeowners were weighing the difficult decision of whether or not to stop paying their mortgages, basically stopping paying a loan that was being tracked on their credit history. As you might remember, this is when the housing bubble burst and millions of homes lost the bulk of their value practically overnight. Many found themselves "underwater," meaning their homes were worth less than the amount they owed on their loans.Walking away from a mortgage, also known as "strategic default," causes a significant drop in credit score, making it difficult to obtain future loans for cars, homes, or even credit cards. However, foreclosures can be wiped from your credit report in 3-7 years leading to approximately 4.4 million homes foreclosed on between 2007 and 2010, according to the Federal Reserve. Its interesting to wonder how many of those were strategic decisions by homeowners knowing that they would just need to rebuild their credit history in order to get out from under an asset that lost a lot of value. Agree (Credit Scores do not accurately measure someone's financial abilities):1. Credit scores don't consider income or assets. A person with a high income and substantial savings could have a low credit score if they rarely use credit, while someone living paycheck to paycheck might have a high score if they consistently make minimum payments on multiple credit cards. But of those two people which would you rather loan money to? 2. Credit scores can be unfairly impacted by factors outside of your control. For example, there are data breaches all the time that expose the personal information of millions of people. That’s just one example of how easy it is to fall victim to identity theft and have your entire credit history collapse through no fault of your own.3. Credit scores don't reflect the full picture of a person's financial behavior. They don't consider rent or utility payments unless they're reported to credit bureaus, w...

Now this is perfect timing as we head into a Presidential Election. What if every presidential candidate had the exact same amount of money to spend on their campaign? Would elections be more fair? Would voters be better informed and less swayed by fancy advertisements and lobbying? Today, we're exploring the debate around a unique proposal for campaign financing.Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending," and it comes from the US Law category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in.The topic of campaign finance has been a contentious issue in politics for decades. In the United States, running for president can cost billions of dollars. Candidates often rely on donations from individuals, corporations, and political action committees (PACs). The current system allows for unlimited spending by outside groups, thanks to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.An equal campaign fund system, sometimes called "public financing," would provide all presidential candidates with the same amount of money, funded by taxpayers. This system would eliminate the need for private donations and the influence of wealthy donors, making the election process more equitable. But would it work? And is it the best way to ensure fair elections?Campaign finance reform is a critical issue because it affects the integrity of democratic processes. The influence of money in politics can lead to unequal representation, where only those with substantial financial backing have a real chance of winning. Understanding this debate helps us evaluate how democratic our elections truly are and whether reforms could lead to more equal and representative outcomes.Now, let's debate!Agree: Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending1.Providing an equal campaign fund ensures that all candidates have the same resources, making elections fairer. It reduces the advantage that wealthy candidates or those with wealthy backers have. For instance, in countries like Canada, campaign spending is strictly regulated, and public funding is available, which helps create a more level playing field for all candidates.2. With equal funding, candidates are less likely to be influenced by wealthy donors or special interest groups. This can reduce corruption and ensure that elected officials are more accountable to their voters rather than to their donors. As far back as 2013, Transparency.org’s Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) reported that 55% of citizens worldwide believed that their “governments [were] run by a few big interests looking out for themselves.” There have been numerous studies done by organizations like the World Bank and the Varieties of Democracy Research group that have shown that countries with strict campaign finance regulations tend to have lower levels of corruption.3. When campaign funding is equal, candidates must rely on their ideas and policies to win over voters, not just their ability to raise money. This can lead to a more issue-focused campaign and a more informed electorate. For example, in some European countries, strict limits on campaign spending force candidates to engage more directly with voters and focus on policy discussions rather than on fundraising dinners and events for the wealthy and special interest groups.Disagree: Every presidential candidate should not be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending1. Limiting campaign spending is a violation o...

Love this topic? Get it in the Essentials Collection Full Size DeckTranscript:Have you ever driven past someone living in a tent on the side of the highway? Maybe you’ve seen them asking for change on a street corner, or huddled in a doorway for warmth. It’s a sight that can spark a lot of different emotions – pity, frustration, even anger. But what about rights? Does everyone, regardless of circumstance, have the right to be homeless?Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Everyone has the right to be homeless." and comes from the Society Category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.Homelessness is a complex issue, with deep roots. For centuries, societies have grappled with how to handle those without a permanent place to live. Long ago, it was pretty normal for some people to move around and not have a fixed home. But as cities grew bigger and people started caring more about owning property, it became seen as a problem. The idea of a “right” to homelessness is a relatively new concept, fueled by a growing homelessness crisis, increase in advocacy groups and a patchwork of local and state laws.It's not just about not having a house - it's also about human rights, how we take care of each other as a society, and personal freedom.   When we talk about whether people have a "right" to be homeless, we're really asking some tough questions about how much freedom individuals should have and what responsibilities we have to each other. I was recently watching the movie "The Beautiful Game" which is a fictional movie about a real and incredibly unique event - the Homeless World Cup that has been taking place in Italy since 2000. Homeless teams are gathered from around the world to compete in a soccer match every year. While it's not a documentary, the film highlights the systemic issues that contribute to homelessness and raises questions about societal responsibility. It's a reminder that homelessness is not just a personal issue, but a complex problem that involves inequality and lack of opportunity.According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on a single night in 2020, more than 580,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. This number has been growing in recent years, especially in big cities.It's important to talk about this because it makes us think about finding a balance between letting people make their own choices and making sure everyone in society is okay. It also makes us wonder if the ways we're trying to solve homelessness now are actually working.Now, let's debate!Agree:1. People should be free to live how they want. Making someone live in a house if they don't want to isn't fair. This idea is based on the concept of personal liberty, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment, for example, protects personal liberty, which some argue includes the right to choose where and how to live.2. Making it illegal to be homeless doesn't fix the real problems. It can actually make it harder for homeless people to get jobs or homes later because they end up with a criminal record. In fact, a 2019 report from the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty found that 72% of surveyed cities had laws restricting camping in public. These laws often lead to fines or arrests, which can make it even harder for homeless individuals to improve their situation. You can see the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sees the value in this argument. In Martin v. City of Boise in 2018 they ruled that it's unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping outside on public property when they...