Democracy does not mean complete freedom. In a country known for its politics corruption, it is hard to establish a not-compulsory election - people could be going to vote for wrong reasons, and "bought" votes would be a problem. I agree with the argument that "For if the elector does not have much knowledge about politics, when voting is compulsory, it will motivate the voter to search for information in order to choose a candidate. The elector may watch debates, read newspapers, discuss with other people about the election etc. The elector consequently gains knowledge and political education naturally with the use of voting as an obligation. " - obligating people to vote ensures that every voice in the country is being heard and makes it harder for corruptors to buy votes from the less educated citizens.

I believe that, yes, Rio could greatly benefit from the Olympics. I agree with the argument that "It is especially worth mentioning some major impacts on infrastructural investments and tourism (arrivals and receipts), not only during the games, but including the periods before and after the competitions." - The infrastructure is the a long-lasting benefit, as we have seen in the South Africa's World Cup - larger airports, well-built metro system. Much of the spending on the Olympics will reflect on the daily lives of the city citizens after the event, but it is important not to invest in infrastructure that will probably not be used after the event, as has happened in Atlanta, Georgia (United States) in its Olympics.

Sex Ed should be at the basis of each school's syllabus. Especially in Brazil, a country which has a high level of teenage pregnancy. There should be investments and supervision towards ensuring the biological, psychological aspects and family planning. Saying that it encourages an early sex life is a fallacy. Children and teens are exposed to sex everyday through mass media, such as television and music. But high-quality information does not always come to their ears. The subject is a taboo, especially for the older generations, and this becomes a problem when parents are not discussing it with their children. The problems which a lack of information on the matter provoke, such as unplanned pregnancy and acquiring STIs (which cost a lot of money from the public health funds), are already enough reason for the government to create programs with qualified individuals to bring information to schools in even the most remote locations.

There is no way for death penalty to be established in the country in the reality of today. Even in the United States, a First World Country which practices the penalty, there has been cases in which innocent people were killed, mistaken as criminals, and one life lost should not be accepted. There should be investments on improving the after-lives of former convicts and tougher laws. Killing criminals is not a solution - life inprisonment makes more sense, especially if one considers the high levels of corruption in Brazil.

I agreed with most arguments, favor and against. But one thing which wasn't pointed out was the actual damages against the original authors - I do not think there is enough damage to establish a crime. As said by the "against" pair, it is necessary to analyze each case, and even then it would be difficult to reach a consensus due to the fact that the topic is very controversial. When some is a text a plagiarism and when is it a mere quotation? It may be hard to establish plagiarism as a crime, too, because the majority of students who commit it do not have the necessary information on the subject. There are not specific laws in Brazil about it either, therefore, students tend to feel free to do it, even though it is morally and academically "wrong".