BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Color guard is not a sport.

This debate is about modern day color guard and whether or not they should be considered a sport. I am AGAINST the concept of color guard being a sport. Anyone is open to debate me, but I would like to see a current guard member and her/his opinions. Definitions color guard: non-military color guard mainly using flags, rifles, and sabres (possibly katanas, which is what I used) sport: a competitive activity between two or more individuals or teams in which there is a definitive clash among the participants where they interact and adapt to their opponents using a high degree of athleticism in order to directly score definitive points I would assume that this is common sense, but it seems like a nice formality. 1. Follow an organized debate structure 2. No plagiarism/trolling/deconstructional semantic/etc. 3. Terms/definitions are OPEN to debate, although then the Pro must fight a two-front war. Round Structure: 1. Setup/Accept 2. CON constructive/ PRO constructive 3. CON refute+ extend (opt.)/ PRO refute+ extend (opt.) 4. CON refute+ extend (opt.)/ PRO refute+ extend (opt.) 5. CON summary, reasons why they won/ PRO summary + final refute, reasons why they won I only think it's fair for PRO to have the final say because I (CON) instigated this debate.
Abortions has scientific benefits and should be legal.

How is that situation not analogous? Because you don't want it to be? You are taking an unconsenting life, which YOU recognize, in order to save another. The situation seems perfectly analogous. The reason that you don't think it is is simply because it is damaging to your stance and the stigma that is placed on the unborn to typically not be recognized as a life. But, you recognize this life, so there is no reason to think that the situations are not virtually identical. I agree, I think that in medical emergencies, abortions are legitimate. I don't think a mother should be able to have an abortion for just any 'good' reason. I also don't think taking a life in the name of saving others is legitimate. I have proved these points above. If stem cells can be extracted and the embryo is safe, I don't see the relevance to the debate. This debate is about abortion, not stem cell research. If we aren't killing the embryo, than it isn't relevant to the topic. This doesn't effect the argument. So, if the baby is going to be born prematurely, we should kill it and save it from a 'terrible' life? Should we kill all handicapped people then because they don't have a 'full' life? This is a terrible mentality. To think that kids with birth defects don't deserve to live is pretty terrible. Since you have proved that it is possible to save an embryo without killing it, what is the 'scientific' advantages of abortion. You just won me the debate. If it is possible to access all of the 'saving millions' advantages you claim without performing abortions, what reasons do you have left to support abortion? I think you have forgotten that the debate is on abortion, not stem cell research. The reasons you have provided is that the mother should have the choice to abort because she probably has a good reason and that we can save a bunch of people with stem cells. The mother doesn't have the right to take a life on a whim. This is a rights violation. You admit this by observing fetus' as life. Abortion isn't necessary to get the benefits of stem cell research. You were kind enough to point this out. We no longer have a reason to support abortion.
Abortions has scientific benefits and should be legal.

I hope this becomes a reputable debate. "Lets say your in a hospital. Someone is dying due to heart failure. You are taking a nap in the lobby. Should we cut your heart out and give it to him in order to save his life at the cost of yours? We'd be saving his life after all. "- Wingnut "What about multiple people? Say we could save three or four lives with your organs. Should we be able to kill you without your consent and harvest your organs to save their lives? "- Wingnut First and foremost i find these analogies far from the reality which is abortion. I will continue an arguement about this in a few. Example A:Lets say a coke-addict is pregnant, . http://www.fetal-exposure.org... . http://www.sciencedaily.com... Now after reading those do you think that a baby really stands a chance? Its abortions like this that need to be done. Do YOU think it would more cruel for a baby to come out 5 months early or with a cocaine addiction or possibly brain damage that wont allow them to participate in society? I am in no way denying life of a fetus but its cases like this that strethgen stem cell research as benefitial thing to the world. Researches are coming out now that prove an stem cells can be extracted and the embryo would be safe. . http://www.nytimes.com... "As far as the mothers decision being righteous, that is obviously a brave assumption. Does the law condone the taking of a life for simply any reason that someone else sees fit? Does any reason, other than to save her own life, warrant the taking of another life? The legal system says no. We aren't allowed to just kill people on the assumption that the murderer 'must have a good reason'. Why is abortion different? "- Wingnut Well i have proven that it is possible to save an embryo after extract the stem cells which have the ability to cure MILLIONS. Which ends the point of "killing" another. Ill save any other info for a future rebuttle. I await your rebuttle if you disagree.
Abortions has scientific benefits and should be legal.

In what way does taking a life to save someone else's outweigh the ethical dillemna? Claiming that taking the fetus' life and saving someone else's via stem cells is analogous to the following scenario. Lets say your in a hospital. Someone is dying due to heart failure. You are taking a nap in the lobby. Should we cut your heart out and give it to him in order to save his life at the cost of yours? We'd be saving his life after all. What about multiple people? Say we could save three or four lives with your organs. Should we be able to kill you without your consent and harvest your organs to save their lives? Obviously we don't condone this. The only reason this even seems plausible when dealing with a fetus is because some people don't view it as a human life. This is ignorant. To deny a fetus as a life is to deny all rational forethought. Its obvious that a fetus is a person. Even if you don't believe life begins at conception, the potential for life equates it to a living breathing person. As far as the mothers decision being righteous, that is obviously a brave assumption. Does the law condone the taking of a life for simply any reason that someone else sees fit? Does any reason, other than to save her own life, warrant the taking of another life? The legal system says no. We aren't allowed to just kill people on the assumption that the murderer 'must have a good reason'. Why is abortion different?
Abortions has scientific benefits and should be legal.

A very heavily debated subject, that i thought i would indulge my in.People say that abortion is wrong because your taking the life of a unborn fetus. But the scientific studies show that things we can do with stem cells(which come with the unborn fetus) outweigh any ethical problems. futhermore, there should be no problems because obviusly if a women goes in for an abortion she has a reason and the right to get an abortion. Anyone welcome and thank you.
more gun regulation should exist

con gives some anecdotal evidence for defying the proposition that the more guns a country has the more overall homidide it has. to be sure, there are exceptions. but the studies i showed illustrate that the norm is as i stated. background checks or resonable regulateions do not contradict the 2nd amendment. they just add some reason around the edges. and this isn't without precedent. even the 1st amendment has some well known exceptions. con argues an invasion could occur. this is true, but is a far fetched scenario such that hte only way you could side with con is to engage in radical thought. besides, no one is talking about necessarily taking away guns, at most have more background checks. this would mean more regulation and my resolution would be true without taking away so many guns.
more gun regulation should exist

more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.
more gun regulation should exist

i guess i can commend con on finding a conflicting study than my links. i wasnt sure they existed. not sure what to make of it, but that doesn't mean his studies automatically trump mine. i can say my studies were oxford, harvard, and an apparently unaffiliated one. con's study is a pro gun website, biased. but back to teh resolution. background checks for all, would be more regulation. do 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market? checks would have zero percent effect, not stopping one person? this by common sense standards is absurd. those kinds of all or nothign statements are usually bunk. it's like saying crime laws have no effect, and 100% of would be criminals will just commit crimes anyway. at least if he admitted that some would be swayed, it'd have a better sensibility to it, but then that might make him need to concede the debate. but even if he admitted it stopped some, this would be like saying we shouldn't have crime law because some people will commit crime. please address these crime analogies. and state for the record, if you think it, that 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market. id think actually making the statement would give one pause.
Bush used classic bait-and-switch manipulation to get our country into Iraq

Pffffffftttttttttttttt... Whatever BANDWAGONERS you guys would all suck as president and if you had had the same stuff to deal with what wold you have done. It is going to take another 9/11 for you to wake up...again, and then another 2 years later you'll be like ...dude why are we fighting...end of debate I dont care vote for him you all are dumb on this site anyways.
Bush used classic bait-and-switch manipulation to get our country into Iraq

Anonymous, I have already tried to get you to focus on the title of this debate, and I have failed. Please re-read the title, and then provide evidence that Bush did NOT use bait and switch. I see very well that you don't care whether he did or not, but that is not relevent. This debate is about whether or not he did in fact decieve the american people into supporting this war. Your only valid point up until now is that Saddam actually did have WMD, which is not supported by the evidence that the American people have recieved over the last 5 years. If there were any evidence AT ALL of WMD, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly would be having an orgasm over it and it would be all over the news as if Russian Panzers were rolling on Canada, so it is pretty logical to assume that there were no WMD. PLEASE USE YOUR LAST ROUND TO REFUTE THE TITLE
Bush used classic bait-and-switch manipulation to get our country into Iraq

"All the words we are writing in this box have very little net effect on the votes, compared to simply taking the pro or con stance on the title." I assume you say this because you are the type of person who does not read entire posts before responding or voting? Anyways, you used like 7 paragraphs to say, "Bush used bait and switch" I used 4 to say "I doubt it, and if he did, so what". What more do you want? "Your argument rests on the fact that Saddam Hussein may have used the WMD or given them to someone that could have. This argument is absolutely absurd. If hussein developed and distributed these weapons he would be inviting a massive retalitory nuclear strike against his country" Dur da DUR DUH!!! That is why he would hide them or send them away at the first sign of us coming to check it out. And yet, somehow you think that statement proves Sadaam had no WMD. Wow...THis is an area where a Nuclear missile can be bought on the black market for 20 million dollars. Sadaam Hussein is (was) a terrorist, and you are telling me that he didn't have a stockpile? If we were to nike them right now, I guarentee the last thing they would do is launch back at us, and wed be like WTF???? Because too many people are jumping on your bandwagon. You are doing like every other Liberal who is tired of having a republican leader; you are capitalizing on peoples stupidity. George Bush never directly answers people's questions because people are stupid. If the thirteen colonies had adapted todays common attitude bout Iraq we would all be speaking British or german, depending on that whole World war 2 thing, which by the way nobody wanted to enter that either, and if we hadnt... anyways, we cant kill terrorism, but we can fight it. I like Bush because he told you all to go F yourselves, "Im president, not you".
Bush used classic bait-and-switch manipulation to get our country into Iraq

Fraud? What fraud? CNN announced for like 3 months that we were going into Iraq to look for WMD's...geesh how dumb can you be? You really think Iraq didn't have them? I suppose you think Korea isn't developing their nukes either? Iraq is a sandy place full of holes and caves you think they didn't have time to move/hide their WMD? Maybe Bush did have financial motives in going to IRaq? Quite frankly, so what? Everything any government has ever done has been out of financial motives, including and especially the American government. Is it possible maybe that despite his desire to get richer, he also saw the good side of it too? Everyone is like, YEAH lets go get those terrorists, then all of a sudden..."oh...you meant that kind of war"? I know you are gonna say we were only supposed to hit afghanistan, but afghanistan is only one of the many countries over there that provides support and shelter for terrorists. Is Bush a jerk? Yes. IS he any worste than most of our presidents have been? No. He is a horrible public speeker, but he is still a genius or he wouldn't have come close to office. He doesn't respond hatefully to criticism, instead he basically ignores it, or tells you to screw off, you aren't president, he is. Nobody talks about all the good we have done in Iraq, or all that Bush has been doing to help Africa also. Most people who say they hate him start to stammer when I just ask "why" as they try to remember how their parents/friends explained to them why he is a jerk. He is just another rich guy, making more money and trying to do his job, and you guys need to stop hating, which I imagine you will when you realize how much these people hated us before we went to Iraq that is why they kept coming over here and blowing stuff up. If he did bait and switch, Im glad. Sadaam is dead, Osama is running scared, and we have a stronghold in the middle east. If we don't play Rome, someone else will inevitably, and that someone else may just be someone who hates us like they hate us.
Is Monarchy better than republic, constitutional or otherwise.

First of all I would like to point out that my opponent is under the assumption that all Republics are Democracies, which time has told they are not, for example the Untied Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic Republic of North Korea which were harsh communist Dictatorships. A Republic is a nation lead by a president, the F"rer of Nazi Germany was technically a president, Adolf Hitler, who was a president with complete control of the Chancellory. The points made about the 'Sanity' and 'Health' of the Monarch can be resolved, all monarchs have been subject to their lords of the manors of which are controlled by them, if they are worried about the health of the king then a Reagent is decided by closest relation to make decisions on behalf of the queen. E.G. The Prince Reagent George the IV for his father King Geore the III, king of the United Kindom of Great Britain and Ireland and colonies subject to the second British Empire. The ideals of the Windsor Family have been the same ever since the Queen Victoria of the UK, the ideals of the family were the same ever since it's Dynasty started, the same with the Tsardom of Russia, even though the horrible dictoarorship and enforcement of Russiafication the ideals had stayed the same. But both republic and Monarchies have done horrible acts, such as the murder of millions of Native American by the United States of America in the war of 1812. The statement that a republic is better in almost every way is a bold statement. They both have advantages as disadvantages. Monarchy: Quicker decisions, almost instant. Secure Ideals and constant culture You can't please everyone. Secure long term plans to the nation such as the economic industrialisation of Russia during the Tsardom of Nicholas III. Republic: Promotes Extremist wings such as communism or fascism Short terms lead to lost projects an half finished plans. Fairer reprentation but the basis of society keeps fluctuating.
What is a fit punishment that those who have been convicted on the charges of heresy? Flame or flame

To not believe in God is the greatest sin, you will burn in hell anyway so you should burn here, death by Flame. I'd implore you to consider the effect of only killing with the flame, it does not sound as horrific and dramatic as Flame. http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com... - this will happen to any heretic (although individually for greater effect over the weak-minded population
What is a fit punishment that those who have been convicted on the charges of heresy? Flame or flame

I have a series of counter arguments to present regarding the arguments you have made. 1. It is vital to point out the fact that the scourge of heresy has not yet become a crime due to the legislature currently being being occupied by the enemies of God. I must say, I have send around 300 emails to my local MP, denouncing him for his heretical practice demanding he renounce thence and propose a bill to make the crime of heresy an illegal offense. For evidence, see the following: http://www.alamy.com... 2. Witchcraft as well as the carrying out war with the God are not worse than heresy. All crimes against the lord are equally bad and shall be punished as such. We much understand that while witchcraft and heresy are different in terms of content and effect. Bewitching is estimated to cost the UK 1998872 Billion Burundian franc in revenues to the crown, which even outweigh the benefits from the 'Schmuckus' industry from my friend Beigel Bill and his wife John Johns. 3. I am shocked by your failure to consider the tremendous negative effects upon her majesty's treasury of the existence of heresy. I shall engage in the floccinaucinihilipilification of such by pointing out the threefold growth in the Lohmaju industry, particularly that of Mehmet's Meals, a family run Kebab shop in lovely Cleethorpes, in addition to Yigit's Yums in Great Grimsby. I will provide some evidences of said fact: https://www.politico.eu..., https://www.shutterstock.com..., http://www.alamy.com..., https://www.oddee.com....
What is a fit punishment that those who have been convicted on the charges of heresy? Flame or flame

I think that heresy is the worst crime man can commit. Almost as bad witchcraft or declaring war on God. It is absolutely vital they face the Flame preferably in public on live TV so that others will not follow in there disgusting habits, however it must be Flame and not flame with which they are punished as flame is for less severe crimes such as blasphemy or adultery.
Stand your ground.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com... There's the source I meant to post in my last round for black on black murder rates. I'm just going to wrap up by saying that my opponent hasn't shown an instance in which a legitimate murder occurred and the criminal got away with it because he somehow invoked SYG. All of the instances my opponent posted have an aggressor and a defender. Past criminal record is of little matter, because if they fulfil the states SYG laws, it wouldn't change anything. SYG is designed to do 1 on thing. Legally allow those in danger to protect themselves without having to flee and without having to worry about criminal prosecution.
Stand your ground.

1. That is ridiculous. I'm going to call bull on that type of scenario unless you can provide a source. I'm not sure why you're providing these scenarios of people who use SYG. If both parties are alive, there's no need to press charges, unless it's for criminal discharge of a firearm. 2. You're not necessarily answering my question. I believe that if you are confronted, you shouldn't have to retreat. Period. Why should you have to? Why should you have to have no choice in your actions because someone confronts you? If you are confronted, you should be able to respond with an equal amount of force. 3. Not really, and race of the victim of does matter. In America, the majority of murders are black on black. So with that in mind, it would make sense for more blacks to be killed in a SYG situation. I would provide a source for the b/b murder, but I'm on an iPad and I can't highlight. Just google black on black murder statistics and click the link to "theobjectivestandard.com"
Stand your ground.

Thanks PRO for catching my wording mistake. I meant the obligation to retreat, not the right to retreat.1. I'm not sure if this is your wording or my interpretation, but in all violent crime, there is a perpetrator and a victim.It is naive to think so. In many cases the "victim" goes back and gets their gun, returning to the scene, provoking a second round of confrontation, and kills the "aggressor". Also, consider a gang shootout where both sides use the stand your ground defense:http://www.tampabay.com...Neighbors shooting each other and both (successfully) invoking stand your ground defenses:http://www.tampabay.com...2. Why should the victim have to retreat?The victim only has to retreat when it makes logical sense to do so. The victim does not have to retreat when retreat would further increase the danger or retreating is not possible. Zimmerman had a right to be where he was when the confrontation took place, however that was the only place that would inspire a confrontation. 3. How does this show SYG applies inconsistently?It shows that someone is less likely to go to jail for killing a black person. Regardless of the race of the perpetrator, the message is the same.