When you see a random white guy walking down the street, it is safe to assume he is not a Muslim. This assumption could very well be correct but that doesn't take away from the fact that he could be a terrorist. The definition of a terrorist is not a Muslim extremist but rather one who use inflicts fear on others as a means of coercion. Because of 9/11, we are compelled to believe that terrorist are only Muslims and they will once again hijack a plane and that's not necessarily true. We have no legitimate way of knowing who is a threat to us just by looking at them. It is not a safe practice to just keep an eye out for someone who looks like a terrorist. Our nation is built on the principle that every citizen has their rights and they can't be taken away just because others are scared. It is important to keep our country safe but we shouldn't sacrifice everything to help calm a some people's nerves.

When faced with an extremely conflicting and critical situation, many people would resort to torture as a means of getting the information they need. Choosing this side is unnecessary as there will almost always be a way to get what you need without sinking as low as to torture another human being. Bargaining or reasoning are equally if not more effective than torturing. Character is who we are when the situation is difficult to deal with, not when everything is okay. Even if you're the good guy or his arch nemesis, resolving to torture someone is going against who you are. Human. Sometimes, we may not choose the right path, but the times we do make up how we truly are.

If students were allowed to choose the school they attended they would be able to claim that they have trouble doing things because of how far away they live. For example, I live in south Grand Prairie and because my mom is a teacher at an IISD, I chose to go to school in Irving. The distance can sometimes be a burden but I have to make it work. If a student is willing to work hard and prove that they deserve to be there as much as anyone else, then their should not be an issue with allowing them to attend the school of their choice. By choosing the school they will attend, the students are committing themselves to literally go the distance and be just as successful as students who go to school in their own district.

Allowing presidents to serve up to two terms was created for a reason. A president may have a good thing going but more often than not, every good leader has their downfall. Sometime citizens are conflicted over which candidate to vote for and too many mistaken views on a candidates ideals can cause the wrong president to be chosen. It is our duty as citizens to make sure the country is run in the best manner possible by the person who is most qualified. It is extremely foolish to allow a terrible president to run again and again. However, an unfit president can be impeached but the best way to prevent a disastrous term is to not allow it at all. Allowing presidents to constantly run can cause an unsafe lack of balance in political opinions. This could lead people to riot and cause more political and social unrest.

By making it nearly impossible for many people to come to America, the government has brought this dilemma of deportation on themselves. In today's society, many people dream of coming to America to make something of their lives and do an honest living. These are the people who truly make up the ideal population in America and deserve to stay here, legalized or not. It is the corrupt views of people who believe they are better than others that causes this topic to be debatable. Most people can commit a crime and walk away with a mere warning, as opposed to illegal immigrants who get caught doing something and are immediately taken away. The government talks about being fair to everyone but it is clear that "everyone" is only who they want them to be.

I feel that this argument should be on the NO side because it says that "force is too strong of a word," meaning that devoloped countries shouldn't force developing countries to protect the environment but rather help them in the best way possible. This argument states that developed countries should give this and that not force anything onto the developing nations. I understand what is being implied but it just feels out of place.

Developing countries should be allowed to improve and stabilize their economies without having to fear that a developed country will do cut off their resources just to protect the environment. In an ideal country the economy is run well without having a major impact on the environment. Developing nations rely on the developed countries as sources of trade, money, or even jobs. By cutting them off, all the developed nations have done is made the problem worse. At that point, the developing nations will have virtually nothing to support the little industry they have and will have no chance of development. This ensures that the environment will not be protected, let alone considered, by these countries.