BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Outsourcing labor is a serious danger to America's economy and needs to be dealt with.

I call the perceptive few the unfortunates because of the difficult life they will ultimately live. They will be drawn to activism only to be frequently crushed by opportunists. They will oppose the seemingly obvious trespasses only to be mocked by the very people they seek to assist. They will become frustrated even in success as they see the fruits of their labor slowly diminished by the silent forces of the ruling minority. And yet, they will continue to battle the forces of social and economic injustice because they see America deteriorating. To do nothing is to die, and too often, to do something brings on a wave of futility. There is a roller coaster of emotions that causes the dedicated activist to frequently question his/her own motivations. In a way, the unfortunates are too purist in their goals, and for this, they will suffer with the pains of inadequacy. But the true unfortunates continues to return to the quest because they have no choice. My final take on the Democrats and the Republicans is that they are as one, and have been for the last 50 years. I have no interest in either party because I refuse to play the fool. As an Independent, I can at least refuse to acknowledge the validity of either of these political establishments. They represent the ultimate spin, and corruptly use the issues of divide and conquer to control the masses. I view labels like liberal and conservative in much the same way as I view political parties. They are meant to confuse the people with theoretical rubbish which has little to do with the welfare of America. Subsequently, I refuse to be pigeon holed in one of the convenient groups. I will proclaim myself an American, and I will further state that I am an avowed nationalist. I think the concept of free trade is bunk perpetuated by the financial elitists, but I love the idea of true competition as it exists in fair trade. I think capitalism is a great system that answers to man's instinctive trait of self interest, but I also believe that capitalism must be regulated so as it provides for the welfare of all Americans. All this by way of saying I believe charity does begin at home, and unless we soon recognize this basic adage, then America will surely continue to diminish in power, influence and economic viability. Good luck to you in your future pursuits. I'm sorry to have interrupted your debate on outsourcing America. Please post it again. I am sure you will get a worthy opponent. If you do have the opportunity to read my book, please take a few minutes to post a review at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and/or Authors Den. Keep up the good work!
Students should use social networking

Now, living in the 21st century...we need a sturdy tech to move with....Students perhaps are the most curious ones who are continuously in search of answers..... about various questions... Let us put it in to perspective...now when students are having a good option of interaction with other students.....why should they not be allowed to use social websites?? .....When they can exchange their ideas and views..which are quite crucial for there mental development.....what's wrong in that.
Students should use social networking

1. Social media can be a distraction in class The first concern that comes to mind when using social media in the classroom is how it will be a major distraction to the students during lessons. Students could easily be sidetracked from an assignment and it could be difficult for teachers to tell who is paying attention or not. 2. Improper use of social media in the classroom Students might take advantage of being able to access social media in the classroom and use it for personal interactions instead of for school related activities. If students are not closely monitored it will be hard to know how if they are using social media properly during class time. 3. Using social media in the classroom can detract from human interaction If students are encouraged to participate in class discussions through social media websites this could impact their ability to interact in face to face situations. Students still need to learn how to have conversations with people even in this modern technology based world. 4. Cyber bullying on social media websites Some students have experienced cyber bullying through social media websites. If social media is allowed in schools this could increase cyber bullying where students write hurtful messages targeting other students. 5. Posting inappropriate content on social media websites One of the reasons social media sites are not allowed in schools is because it is difficult to monitor how students use social media sites. A student may post inappropriate content such as pornography or foul language which would be both distracting and damaging to students.
Students should use social networking

Just because it says it has been cross checked doesn't necessarily mean it true. Who's to say that the information provided is even true? Can it be trusted just because it had credentials? And what about the process? Yeah, there's a lot of work that goes into it but how many people actually check to see if its accurate? Comparing different resources tends to get the student mixed up because now they can't even be sure of the fact that what they're reading is even true information.
Students should use social networking

I can understand where you're coming from, but from my perspective there are some websites that can or will be misleading. If, for instance, a student is researching a paper for history class about a significant event in history and they decide to use Wikipedia. Anyone can use and change the information posted there so then the student conducting the research must now use a different site for their paper. But now the question is, which sites are right and which can be tampered with?
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

I will provide a brief rebuttal to my opponent's case, then restate voting issues: Cross-Ex: Government legitimacy calls for the upholding of natural rights. That has been my stated objective since the first round. My Opponent's Case: *I am stating explicitly that in some cases, doing something--using sanctions--is better than doing nothing, which is what my opponent advocates. *While my opponent is not obligated to uphold my values, he values quality of life, which he has agreed encompasses natural rights. It is therefore his responsibility to uphold natural rights, which is coincidentally my criterion. Furthermore, it is not "blatantly clear and obvious that if one action downgrades the quality of life, the opposite maneuver will increase it." For example, in a country in which the government violates human rights, the imposition of a sanction may downgrade the quality of life for a few, but allowing the continued violation of human rights by not imposing a sanction downgrades quality of life as well. Claim refuted. *My opponent claims that it is not his intent to damage the quality of life. Intent, though, means nothing. He has shown during questioning that the actions proposed by his case will downgrade the quality of life. *Nothing can ever be perfectly planned, but in cases where the very real and present risk of doing nothing and allowing a severe loss of natural rights outweighs the possible risk of imposing a sanction, the risk of imposing an imperfect sanction is one that may be taken. My Case: *See above rebuttal. *I have accepted my opponent's case of Iraq's sanctions as an example of a wrongfully imposed sanction. I repeat, I AM NOT advocating economic sanctions as some sort of foreign policy panacea. I am simply arguing that certain applications of sanctions are effective and morally sound, and therefore sanctions should remain open as an option in foreign policy. *In the literature I read, there were no recorded deaths from the South Africa sanctions. Voting Issues: I have showed that my opponent's case is a case study in self-contradiction. Furthermore, his plan fails to satisfy the criteria of natural rights, nor does it increase the quality of life, which, as he has stated, include the protection of natural rights. He has failed to rebut either of my contentions except for through peripheral attempts on minutia. His contentions are irrelevant to my case and should not, therefore, be considered. I have shown that the intelligent, targeted use of economic sanctions can be effective at achieving foreign policy objectives, thereby protecting natural rights, upholding government legitimacy, and enacting justice, whereas my opponent would willingly allow the further degradation of natural rights through inaction. In light of this, I therefore urge you to vote neg.
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

Response to response-d Cross Ex: * I thank you for clarifying your Value Premise. * I meant, through the clarification necessity on their criterion, what do they wish to accomplish in their case? What about Natural Rights? What are you trying to do with them? ____ Discussing my case: * My opponent is basically implying, in the first argument, that there is no win factor. Basically, doing "something" and doing "nothing" results in harm, not to mention deaths in the country. * It is not, nor never, will it be my job to uphold their values. It is blantantly clear, and obvious, that if one action downgrades the quality of the life - the opposite maneuver will increase it. If we are not doing the damage anymore, than it will increase. The country may progress greater if never having it, causing the improvement of quality of life. * I do not wish to damage, or hurt the quality of life. My statements merely said I will not allow the FURTHER violation, which would hurt the people more than help. If we did this, they would be worse off than without the sanctions. * Sanctions cannot always be well-planned, and can cause unintended deaths. Thus, you cannot fully trust in no harm, and you may believe in possible harm. With that said, they cannot be applied. __ Opponent's Case: * I rebring to my opponent that they cannot always be used properly, and may be misused. Given that concept, you cannot truly trust them. Therefore, not ensuring Government Legitimacy. * For the first contention, my opponent gives examples on NK & Iran. However, there can be different results. As in the Iraq Sanctions and War, the Sanctions caused more deaths than war - thus, the death factor can be differential. * My opponent fails to say, seeing as he is proving they do not cause deaths when used correctly, if there were deaths in the SF Sanctions. We can't trust it when we don't know if it's true. __ Voting Issues: Scenario- * NEG World: More people die everyday in Sanctioned Countries due to deathtolls surpassing that of War. People die due to a low quality of life, and unavailable health supplies (Medicines, Vaccines, etc.), not to mention food and water. * AFF World: The People in Foreign Countries have a higher quality of life due to them not dying, and having the right amount of supplies for life. __ Cont. Voting Issues: * My opponent state their values, but never gave a definite description of what they plan to do about Natural Rights. Thus, you cannot go on what they say. * My opponent is basically making an assumption that the sanctions will be well-thought out, and used properly due to previous sanctions. Therefore, you have no true way to know for sure if you can trust the sanctions to work without major harm, thus you should negate them. * My contentions thoroughly prove the damage they CAN cause, thus stating why it harms the Quality of Life. Thus, I'm increasing it by not allowing the Sanctions to be out. I look to you, the judge(s) to Affirm.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative assertion #1 Boston school busing evidence 1: In Boston about 400 low income black students were bused to white community schools. evidence 2: In 1969 the racial imbalance act was passed in Boston to desegregate schools Affirmitive assertion #2 Students benefit attending racially diverse schools evidence 1: In the real world it is important to understand the importance of diversity evidence 2: In racially diverse schools students tend to perform better academically evidence 3: In diverse schools, no ethnic group is more powerful. Affirmitive assertion #3 New plan introduced would sen students back to neighborhood schools evidence 1: New plan that was introduced will allow students to attend neighborhood schools again evidence 2: Not all neighborhood schools in Boston are quality schools evidence 3: The judeg's plan required students to leave their neighborhoods.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

1. In a school where the student population is more varied, no race group will be more powerful than another. 2. No, the new plan that was introduced will allow students to attend neighborhood schools once again. This will create more segregation and imbalance in Boston schools. 3. Students at first may feel that the judge's decision to assign which school they attend is unjustified, but the court is only trying to create a more diverse school system.
The internet shalt be shutdown

The internet is a blight. It is making children delirious. People die and suicide because of the internet daily. Nowadays, it's quite easy to look up a tutorial on how to kill yourself successfully, via the help of the World-Wide-Web. It's filled with trolls, they make fun of people, take away their pride and leave them in the cold. And it's growing worse, daily. Porn is poisoning the minds of our children. Don't let me even get started on the Deep Web, the place where pedophiles love to hang out, alongside drug dealers, terrorists and hackers. Danger is real, son.
Talk a stranger out of suicide

OMG ADAM IM SO HAPPY FOR YOU!!!!! I CANT BELIEVE THAT TUF JUST PROPOSED TO YOU!!!!!! :DDont play dumb I heard what he said, he said that he wants to be happy together with you!!! I have to give you props you must be a real player if you can get a gay guy to hit on you without even trying, well done sir well done. I also have to give props for making it through the Hamlet recital, when I watched the movie and that long a** scene came up I thought about killing myself. If you didnt jump while sitting through that then deep down you really do want to live. TUF's gay marriage proposal though sort of reminds me of how things can simply fall into your lap without even trying...... Those things can bring good luck or bad luck, and you cant always control which one ends up falling into your life. Sometimes you just have to be frank with people to avoid any drama. I think TUF is a good guy, but trust me Adam, you could do way better. When life gives you lemons you make lemonade, life just gave you TUF but you might want to return him to get your money back. You still have a lot of time to take what life gives you and make something out of it. Thats all anyone can do and Im sure you can still do plenty with what life gives you. Ill see you inside, If you dont come, then TUF might come back out and talk to you again 0_0
Talk a stranger out of suicide

Hi Adam, Its me, Imabench. You probably don't recognize me because of my beard, I grew it while waiting for TUF to hurry up ;D In all seriousness though, I'm guessing that the reason you are still out here is because you are still really committed to jumping........ If your looking for the golden reason to why you should or shouldn't jump though I cant say that I know what it is, I'm just here to try to reason with you if your willing to listen. The fact that you're still here though sort of implies that your open to suggestions though. We all go through pain Adam, whether it comes in the form of being heart broken or having your balls itch so bad it feels like an army of ants has colonized it.... I could never fully comprehend the amount of pain you've went through or even what it is that caused you to do this in the first place, but I do know that suicide is a choice made in times of desperation. You know the phrase "never go to bed angry?"...... Well that's a load of horse sh*t right there. Some of the biggest decisions made in life require more than a day to mull it over or to settle it. Sometimes a good night's sleep calms a person down and helps them think better about their actions, and I think that when it comes down to a person deciding to take his own life or not, well a decision that big requires a lot of time to think about it and mull it over. One of my biggest problems in life is that I am impulsive and make judgement calls, and many times I end up regretting them. Mistakes happen, and you just need to clear your mind and come to the most rational conclusion you can make when all the other options are eliminated. And I have to say Adam..... I'm not entirely sure you've eliminated all the options. Suicide doesn't really solve anything, its just a way to escape from the world and its problems that can still be resolved. I realize that sometimes the biggest meaning in life is doing everything in your power to right something that you did wrong and gain peoples respect back after you lost it. I'm only going to ask you to mull it over again and ponder if suicide is the only way to solve your problems even though suicide doesn't solve any problems at all, and just gives people more problems. I'm going back inside again but let me say one more thing. Suicide sounds like the quick and easy solution, but its not really a solution at all, and sometimes what is quick and easy isn't the right thing to do.
Talk a stranger out of suicide

So the theory here is that someone is on a ledge of a tall building ready to jump off, and commit suicide. Both debaters are going to try and convince the person on the ledge not jump. The winner of this debate will be who the voters decide best deterred the suicide jumper from wanting to commit suicide. RULES:1. Neither debater can pretend to know this person. This Virtual person, is a complete stranger.2. A forfeit goes to show you do not care about the person, and thus all 7 points go the opponent. 3. We are not making direct arguments against each other. We are both writing a letter, speech, or basically whatever you want to say to this imaginary person. For the sake of being random, let's say this person's name is Adam. This way you can refer to him personally by his feux name. 4. The voting criteria is determined by which person best made compelling arguments to not committing suicide, or emotionally deterring speeches that deterred the person from committing suicide. Round 1 Can either be for acceptance, or the Con can make his first speech in it. If choose to use it for acceptance, than I will start in round 2. Good luck to whoever accepts this challenge!
Many homos are playing some gay friendly heteros for fools by turning some gay, deceiving them, ect.

Round 1 Pro states claims Con challenges pro's claims Round 2 Pro disputes con's challenge from round 1 Con defends his or her challenge from round 1 Round 3 Conclusions Rules No new claims in rounds 2 and 3. Argument 1. Many gays have fooled the foolish gay friendly heterosexuals into believing that all gays are born gay. The largest and most reliable study on twins shows homosexuality is caused by mostly unique reactions to enironmental factors including but not limited to experimentation, peer pressure, gay pornography, bad experiences with the opposite sex, sexual abuse, childhood abuse, childhood gender nonconformity, biological randomness,ect. If you don't believe me, download the study for yourself Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors [Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)] by Neil E. Whitehead8 2. Some gay friendly heterosexuals are befriending some gays but have no clue that many gays COMMONLY develop crushes on their heterosexual same sex friends. Google this '5 types of straight crushes' by gay teen expert Ellen Friedrich Here's a quote from the gay teen expert 'Ellen Friedrich' "It is really common for gay teens to develop crushes on close straight friends" 3. Meanwhile, many gays are creating blogs such as 'how to seduce a straight guy in 8 easy steps'. Lesbians have people called 'recruiters' who go around turning heterosexual women gay. Gays are all over the internet on blogs and forums giving each other advise on how to sexually seduce their clueless, gay friendly heterosexual friends. 4. Many homophobes such as myself are constantly being bashed, insulted and labeled 'secretly "gay" by gays because WE are too smart to be manipulated and fall for the tricks, lies and gay propaganda. In reality, it is mostly the gay friendly heterosexuals who are getting turned out by gays. After all, they're the ones hanging out with gays, opening up emotionally to gays and in many cases getting intoxicated with gays. 5. To put the icing on the cake, Gay teen expert Ellen Friedrichs admits that gays COMMONLY develope crushes on their same sex heterosexual "friends". But when some heterosexuals refuse to befriend gays, we're labeled "bigots" and "homophobes" THINK ABOUT IT . It's like high school boys labeling Girls "sluts" for not hanging out with them and giving it up What's funny is, the study I cited clearly conveys 'childhood gender nonconformity' is significant as to why many people end up gay. Gays have launched a social war on traditional gender roles . Keep in mind, I never said all heterosexuals can be manipulated into going gay. The study says unique reactions to environmental factors are the causes of homosexuality. Therefore, some heterosexuals can be turned out into going gay especially when they allow gays in their lives to have an impact and partial control of their environment I never said all gays try to turn stupid gay friendly heterosexuals gay but a significant amount will attempt it.
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

I feel I would be taking too great advantage against my opponent if I were to go line by line. I apologize for forfeiting, however, I still win this round for one reason: Patriotism ignores what is bad. I feel by cross-applying my 5th contention will show precisely why we do should not teach patriotism. As I have iterated prieviously, we should not teach people love for the country, if love for the country is not deserved. And within the context of the resolution, it is not specified if this country is just or not. Therefore, we should not teach patriotism if we do not know if we are teaching something good. Patriotism, in this case, is blind. My opponent argues that we would be able to teach about how dictatorship is bad. But the problem is, that this argument only looks to one country and does not grasp the entire framing of the resolution that clearly specifies all countries including dictatorships. Look to how Sadam Hussein, and even Adolf Hitler used patriotism classes to get their way. You may say that not all countries are bad like that, but Germany was fine, but turned on a dime to pure evil. I therefore ask the judges to take this example and apply it to this resolution. ANY country, even America, can become bad in no time at all. .. so why should we blindly teach patriotism that will show love no matter what. Rather, we should take my secondary option. Teach basic politics to these students. That way, we could hold our country in check and be free from forced love. Patriotism = Forced Love = Blind Love = Fake Love = No point at all Thank you for this debate. And once again I apologize. I'm graduating soon, but yet my work insists on me working 20 hours a week, plus my family is building a new house.