BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Both are significant issues, the latter was highlighted on an episode of Law & Order and Lethal Weapon. ATTACKING MY OPPONENT'S CASE: Unfortunately, this debate is about the overall effectiveness of economic sanctions, and the moral good thereof. Simply insisting that economic sanctions are a viable solution based upon 2 handpicked success stories is not enough to convince me that they are the way to go. Let's examine the results: The economic sanctions report my opponent cited was dated 2005, yet in 2008 there were 32 new cases in Bolivia alone. What happened with the sanctions? Togo simply redefined what constitutes human trafficking. Between 2002-2007, 20 Togoese girls were brougth to New Jersey under the guise of a hair salon, where are the sanctions? UAE has had thousands in the last 2 years, where are the sanctions? A simple google search demonstartes that I do not need to go on to show the ineffectiveness of these sanctions just 5 years removed from their application. I defend Diplomacy as the first step in the resolution of conflict. Diplomacy is the least restrictive and least invasive of approaches. My opponent conceded non economic sanctions as a viable alternative. My paragraph 2 was an inference of nation's inherent responsibility to police themselves of international crime. This should be pre-emptive of any other measures endorsed by the U. N. or any humane organizations. My opponent led us down a tangent of another partial success story of Canada vs Korea, and chased another rabbit regarding phytoplankton in Antarctica. Again, I agree that everyone should become better stewards of our natural resources, yet it does not really apply to the resolution at hand. My opponent seems to have mixed up the dates of 1997 Iraq with 1990 Iraq. Further, that example was to shed light on the atrocities the common Iraqi citizen had to endure as a result of those sanctions. Similarly, the suffering of citizens due to the sanctions in Gaza/Hamas were even more devastating. My example of the interruption of free trade goes hand in hand against my opponent's argument. It has a 3 fold effect: 1) The imposing nation(s) lose trade. 2) The nations being sanctioned loses trade. 3) Other nations lose trade. Also, my opponent failed to take into consideration the differences between unilaterally imposed sanctions, versus mulitlaterally imposed sanctions. I have demonstrated that: A) Economic sanctions have proven largely unsuccessful (64% unsuccessful) B) Economic sanctions can be inhumane (Iraq & Gaza) C) There ARE viable alternatives to economic sanctions (diplomacy & non economic sanctions) For these reasons, I respectfully request a PRO ballot.
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE: I affirm the resolution as stated. SOR: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. VP: Justice = fairness to all parties VC: Human Rights. "As the performance of our duties of every kind depends on life, and the performing them with vigor and efficacy depends upon health, we are very strongly affected with whatever threatens the destruction of either. Burke" C-1: Economic sanctions are unjust in regard to human rights because they have a history of ineffectiveness, thereby wasting time and effort. Research from the Heritage Foundation indicates that economic sanctions have proven to be effective a mere 36% of the time. This exercise in futility endangers the lives of all parties involved, thus unjust as it clearly hampers human rights. C-2: Citizens of the country (ies) being sanctioned often bear the brunt of suffering while the intended targets enjoy status quo. This too is unjust in regard to Human Rights. The underlying premise is that the citizens will tire of any depravities, and thus either demand change or effect a change of leadership to alleviate their suffering. Either way, it often unjustly puts citizens in harm's way directly or indirectly. "Leaders often obtain things they need from other sources sympathetic to their cause, while their people continue to suffer those comforts. Orwell" C-3: Sanctions also affect the citizens of the imposing nation (s) in the form of lost trade, and hurt feelings. Not only do they lose trade and capital, it also affects the symbiance and interelational harmony amongst nations. Nations will be forced to choose one side or the other, or attempt to ignore the situation by remaning neutral. This choice is humanely unjust to the citizens of countries because nations will likely harbor feelings of resentment toward one side or the other. Further, this goes against the concept of International Free Trade. By restricting free trade, economic sanctions have the potential to deprive businesses, ergo people, the right to earn the maximum profit in trade which is also unjust. C-4: It is not feasible to impose true economic sanctions. To effectively stop the flow of goods, the imposing country would have to surround the entire perimeter/border, control all seaports, control all mail, and all airports. Every parcel, every shipment would have to be inspected. Such control would not be tolerated. It would take extensive manpower, further endangering lives, and deprivation of human rights. For these reasons, it does not pass the common sense test to use economic sanctions to achieve foreign policyobjectives.
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Hello to whoever my opponent is, This is an old topic from Jan/Feb 2010. Since schools starting up again, thought id refresh my LD skills. So the speech order will be: 1. AC 2. NC/NR 3. 1AR 4. 2NR 5. 2AR Also, only accept if you are familiar with the structure and style of Lincoln-Douglas debate.
The hardest thing to do in sports is to stop an elite penalty kick

First, typo on "thanky you", sorry. Second, I can easily refute your arguments. The pitching mound is 60 feet, 6 inches from home plate, whereas the penalty spot is 12 yards, or 36 feet from the goal. Like my opponent stated, pitches can reach up to 95, but the average is just 90. Soccer kicks average out around 70 miles per hour, and it is 24 feet and 6 inches closer. Second, the goalie has to protect a "strike zone" if you will, a lot larger than a batter. Almost 50 times the size of the average strike zone. So the batter has a lot easier chance of hitting the ball with the bat, over the keeper getting a hand to a penalty. As a keeper, there is only about 400 milliseconds from the ball being kicked from the spot. If the keeper waits until the ball is kicked, and it is a shot at the post, there is no chance getting to the ball. As a keeper myself, I have to guess which way to dive. Stats show that the keepers guess the direction 57 percent of the time, but they don't always make the save. We have to dive high, or low. For every 3.6 strikeouts Alex Rodriguez got, he had a homer. Albert Pujols has a 1.2/1 ratio. That shows that saving a penalty is a lot harder than hitting a baseball.
The hardest thing to do in sports is to stop an elite penalty kick

For my first point i would like to bring up that hitting a baseball in the MLB is much harder than stopping a penalty kick. When guys in the major league are being paid millions of dollars to hit a baseball close to three times out of ten, then it must be a hard thing to do. Pitches in the MLB can reach upwards of 95 mph and only gives the batter .4 seconds to react and hit the ball. plus the pitcher can throw curve balls and change-ups to throw off a batters timing. making it even more of a challenge for the batter to hit the ball.
The hardest thing to do in sports is to stop an elite penalty kick

I would like to convince that stopping a penalty kick is harder than anything in sports. Last year, across all of soccer, the average stopped penalty kick was 21 percent. Also, in a penalty shootout, the score is usually 5-4, 5-3, 4-3, etc. And when players do not convert, it is usually a miss, or a poorly taken shot. Plus, the goal is 24 feet wide, and 8 feet high. That is 192 square feet of space for a ball to fit in. The soccer ball is .003 space of the goal (do the math if you want. Soccer ball is 8.9 inches across. Divide .003 by 2304, which is the number of square inches in the net). Thanky you for whoever takes this debate. Also, you may choose any other thing for the hardest thing.
Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned

Experimenting on animals for scientific purposes should not be banned because of several things, such as : 1. There is no such things as rights for animals,that's why scientist have been experimenting on animals. If there is rights for animals that means every human being must be a vegetarian. 2.If scientist don't use animals for experiment on diseases and cures then there's no medicine for such diseases. Imagine one of your family suffer a disease with cure that can't be found because scientists aren't allowed to work on them, Who'd you blame?
Campaign Finance Reform

A campaign lives and dies by money and it's getting worse and worse every election cycle. When money is more important than votes, we find that anybody we need to elect is going to be far more indebted to the money than the people. The current system is a legal nightmare, a joke, and an albatross around the necks of everybody in politics. I don't know what the solutions to the problems are, but I do know that the problems are not going to be solved by doing nothing. We need to reform the system because the current system is categorically broken. 1) Politicians are indebted to the money. 2) The superwealthy rather than the most qualified can most easily seek office. 3) To comply with the current system you need an army of lawyers. 4) The 3rd party candidates cannot afford an army of lawyers and thus are forbade. 5) The rules are seemingly random and makeshift as to what is an isn't acceptable. 6) Campaign rules at present violate freedom of speech dictating what is and isn't acceptable. 7) Regardless if somebody opts into campaign finance they are buried by the 527s and are hamstrung by the rules and unable to fight back. 8) The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent. We need to find a way to remove money from the equation without limiting free speech or making it a requirement to hire an army of lawyers, shutting out third-party voices and insulating incumbents from the will of the people. The money in politics must be removed, not half-socialized, if you want and agree to jump through certain hoops, only to be buried by a quasi-independent group's 24/7 attack ads with bottomless funds and vile lies. We need something better than the best politician money can buy. There are a good number of proposals to draw from, from clean money to state funded elections as to how we remove money from having a greater input to our democracy than the people. -- We need Campaign Finance Reform.
Abortion is Morally Permissible/Ethical

I would just like to point out that the reason that you probably don't mind the killing of an unborn HUMAN BEING is because your living, why would you care? technically the fetus has to be alive to even develop it may not have the characteristic that you consider a human being but it's still living. and what do you say about a special needs person? not all could could communicate or a person considered a "vegetable" or a person in a coma? if your son gets in a car accident and ended up in a coma should they have him killed or would you kill him because he's not conscious? I mean he is missing one of the five principles of being a "person (not trying to threaten you in anyway) and just because someone considers being a person having those characteristics dose not mean they're right and you just said "killing" last i realized murder is murder no matter how you put it, if you kill a human without a real reason. example self defense, if someone is trying to shoot you or break in your house ect. then it is considered ok. when you kill an animal it is usually to eat, in some cases also self defense, or research, you are basically massacring the fetus and then just throwing it away for self convenience and selfishness. When you have sex you are well aware of the consequences, why not just accept responsibility for your own actions? If we look at this in another way, it is like me telling someone you should have been aborted and then kill them. . http://www.youtube.com...;
show chior is a sport

My opponent elegantly ends his argument by shouting "SHOW CHOIR IS NOT SIMPLE MOVEMENTS. UGH," denouncing my middle school show choir with "let's be honest.. [your middle school show choir is] not really show choir..." and indirectly challenging me to a dance-off. Because my opponent has repeatedly failed to present evidence on how Show Choir, in studios and schools outside of his own, also do physical workouts and such, only relying on his own personal accounts and experiences to support his argument, he has made an argument which is not credible and prone to exaggeration. My argument still stands that show choir is simply a group that sings, occasionally using physical gestures to add some "pizzazz" in terms of presentation, and not a sport. Universally, show choir (as in schools and organizations outside of my opponent's show choir group) does not use a large amount of physical exertion.
show chior is a sport

some show choirs require higher, more intense workouts than others but normally it includes; dancing for up to 6 hours straight, we do a camp over the summer which is all working out and gaining strength. we run, we do strength workouts. just like any other sport. also..... SHOW CHOIR IS NOT SIMPLE MOVEMENTS. UGH. you were in middle school show choir which is lets be honest.. not really show choir, more of a choir with some dance moves. show choir is acting, hard dancing all while trying not to pass out from breathing so hard. i bet after 8 minutes of intense dancing you would be breathing and sweating like crazy. try twenty minutes of non stop.
show chior is a sport

Yes, show choir can involve some "dancing," but sometimes the "dancing" aspect can be something as simple as waving your hands, or kicking your legs. According to sources such as a website known as Perform Those Arts, while show choir may have some physical activity, because it is an activity with no clear-cut victory conditions.I ask that my opponent explain more about the physical conditioning that show choir expects and what is typically involved in a show. As of now, my opponent has failed to properly explain this, and has only used personal accounts to support his argument, which are both less credible, and subject to exaggeration.
show chior is a sport

sweetheart..... i said SHOW choir, not choir. choir is much different than SHOW choir. the singing part is the art, its sound. the dance makes it also a sport. I've been in show choir for years and watched them perform since i was a kid. we are always kicked out of the sport category while we are both an art AND a sport. so yes i agree that it can be considered an art because it makes you feel something BUT it requires physical activity and competition just like any other sport.
show chior is a sport

My opponent's arguments are as followed: choir is a sport because you sweat, practice a lot, and occasionally dance.In my years of Middle School Chorus, and watching my friends in the high school choir, I have found nothing to suggest that choir is a sport. Yes, while some choirs may physically exert themselves during a performance such as dancing, it does not mean that choir in its entirety is to be defined as a sport. As I have previously stated, the very definition of singing is to utter words or sounds musically. Nowhere in its definition does it suggest any physical activity aside from the use of one's voice.Because not all choirs dance or do any physical activities aside from singing, choir is not a sport.My opponent has not explained how all choirs do physical activities whilst singing, only using personal experiences to back his claims, he has failed to produce a valid argument for why choir should be defined as a sport.
show chior is a sport

your not really understanding what I'm saying. middle school choirs barley move but high school show choirs are a different story. show choir is both a art AND a sport. singing is the art part, the dancing and competing is the sport portion. you must understand that we don't sing out of tune, we do dynamics, get voice teachers, and so much more. there are so many things we have to do at the same time: dance at a high level, dress changes, facials, acting, breathing technique, dynamics, dance technique. we work out all the time because we have to have strong arms and sometimes even lift people up. we don't just move our arms slightly.... we move across the stage and kick our legs around and throw our arms up and do flips and lift people. people have passed out afterwards from working so hard. i cant breathe after performing and I'm sweating up a storm.
show chior is a sport

Yes, some choirs "dance" a wee bit while singing to liven up the show, but simply because some choirs choose to dance doesn't mean that, by default, singing must be considered a sport. Many choirs simply stand up, sing songs for a fair amount of time, and finish. My chorus class hardly made any gestures or did any "dancing." We would simply stand up, sing songs (out of tune and not following the rhythm, might I add) and finish. We didn't exert any physical actions other than use our voice, and stand up for around 20 minutes. That is not a sport.
show chior is a sport

you seem to be forgetting the dance part of show choir which can last up to twenty minutes. thats 20 minutes of fast paced dancing and movement along with singing and acting. if you got up and danced hard for 20 minutes straight i can garuntee you would be axhausted. now just regular choir where you stand and sing in place is different. show choir is a mixing of all kinds of things. show choir fits the definition of a sport; it is a physical activity that requires skill and we compete against other teams for entertainment. yes the singing part can be considered an art but the dancing and all that show choir includes makes it sport
show chior is a sport

Singing: to utter words or sounds in succession with musical modulations of the voice (Dictionary.com)Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. (Oxford Dictionary)Physical: Bodily contact or activity (Oxford Dictionary)Choir and singing is not a sport because, why it may involve, as my opponent claims, a fair amount of practice, energy, and competitions, it is not a competitive physical activity such as basketball or baseball.My opponent's main claims as to why choir should be classified as a sport are because he practices singing a lot, competes, works hard and sweats. Yes, sports do involve a lot of devotion and practice, and normally has competitions, these qualities do not necessarily mean that an activity is considered a "sport." Art, for example, is an activity that involves a lot of practice. The most devoted artists go as far as to give their sweat and blood (from papercuts). Sometimes, there are art competitions. However, even though art possesses these qualities, it is not a "sport."
America should have followed Alexander Hamilton's model and set up a Constitutional Monarchy.

"I apologize for missing the second round of this debate. " No worries. .. I was out of town anyhow. Looks like we both forfeited round two. "One of the biggest concerns of Hamilton, John Adams, and many of the other founding fathers was that the poor would be protected from the rich, but that the opposite would not be true. " Then I am a little confused because prior to this statement, you quipped that Ron Paul and yourself believe that the government rips us off to feed a bloated welfare system, all of which I agree with, however this is a clear contradiction. As well, it no sooner answers how the Hamiltonian system will eliminate or mitigate this effect. In the final analysis, my opponent has not substantiated any of the claims he initially made nor did he explain how he would have implemented them, indeed, he even neglected to explain how Hamilton planned on implementing these policies. It then becomes just more platitudes with no actual solution that is so prevalent among bureaucrats. My opponent could not argue the fact that under his Hamiltonian policy change, there would be nothing barring from someone such as George Bush to be in office for LIFE -- an enormous drawback if you ask the average American. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is the Constitution which stipulates term limits. Why do you suppose that is? It is to keep down tyranny and as a checks and balances system. The Voters, as in, "We the People," elect who we want, the way the Constitution says. Under your Hamiltonian system, the Constitution would be vastly different and only a few people would have the right to choose their elected officials. I say, let a good system breathe. Sometimes attempting to make improvements only makes things worse. And since the US Constitution is the benchmark and model for ALL other nations, I scarcely can see why under your plan something might actually be improved.
America should have followed Alexander Hamilton's model and set up a Constitutional Monarchy.

I apologize for missing the second round of this debate. I had finals and was unable to devote time to much else but studying. Thank you for accepting this debate. While I definitely see the problems you've pointed out, I would say that there are many problems with the current system of government and that no government can ever be perfect because they are designed and run by imperfect people. So while I can agree with you that this system of government would have it's faults I would disagree that it would be worse than the system we have now. I am also a libertarian. I am going to write in Ron Paul's name when I go to vote in November. During a debate Dr. Paul said something that really stuck with me. He said that it is no wonder we have extreme amounts of crimes being committed in this country. People see their government steal from it's people everday through the welfare system. The government takes the money from the rich and gives it to the poor. Most people try to justify this because the government is the entity taking the money. Bottom line though is that it's stealing. Dr. Paul was absolutely right. One of the biggest concerns of Hamilton, John Adams, and many of the other founding fathers was that the poor would be protected from the rich, but that the opposite would not be true. Too much government leads to despotism but too little leads to anarchy. This fear has now been realized. Our government responds to every wish of the mob even if that wish is to steal from certain citizens simply to make the majority's life easier. Remember, everyone has rights not just the majority. As Hamilton put it, our current system is "democracy checked by more democracy." Hamilton also proposed that when it came to the elected for life Senate only people of great property should be allowed to vote for it. The common people would vote for the House of Representatives. This system would have protected the rich from Franklin Roosevelt's socialist policies. Also, because we would still have a House of Representatives the common people would still be protected. I also believe that this system would have been good for another reason. I don't like big government. I think that over the years America has started getting away from the principles of Liberty that it was founded upon. With our government set up according to Hamilton's model the Senate and the House would have very different outlooks on what was better for the country. (One looks out for the rich the other for the common.) This would mean that because of their disagreements less laws would be put into action. This would have been the ultimate check and balance on the government's power.