BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public colleges and universities shouldn't be able to restrict free speech on campus.

Refutation: Their first voting issue says counter-speech is a good idea. I have two responses: first, they have no evidence supporting it so don't trust this possibly-true argument. Second, I have shown in my Tseis evidence that minorities can't engage in counter-speech without first having speech codes, so turn this argument: we need to negate and stop minority oppression before we can have the aff's benefit of counter-speech. Their second voting issue is about the First Amendment. Not only did they not bring up the Constitution in their original case, they claim I dropped the argument but I directly refuted it last round: "Yes, the Constitution says free speech is good. The Constitution is not inherently moral." I'll elaborate: The Constitution once said slavery was good. Does that make slavery good? Absolutely not! The Constitution is nothing more than some people's thoughts written on paper, that doesn't make it inherently moral or even what we should follow. Also the Constitution argument is not impacted so even if they win that they follow the Constitution we still don't know why following the Constitution is something we ought to do--this argument has no impact in the round. My case: 1) Time/place/manner restrictions: I have clearly won that time/place/manner restrictions are necessary. My opponent did not refute this AT ALL. Since they dropped it, that means they agree with it, so this argument clearly flows to the con. Since my (also unrefuted) observation extends, this single argument is enough for you to negate on it alone. 2) Hate speech: As I've said throughout this round, counter-speech fails massively. Since we're all in agreement that hate speech should be stopped, the sole logical course of action is to negate. Remember, I only need to win one of the above points to win the round. Weighing: Even if they win that following the Constitution is good, I still outweigh on magnitude because helping people is more important than following an old document. For these reasons--and for a better tomorrow--please negate! Thank you.
Public colleges and universities shouldn't be able to restrict free speech on campus.

As this is the last round, I will be bringing up no new evidence. I will open by clarifying my hate speech argument. The example shown of in earlier arguments shows a group of students being exposed to hate speech from a known racist. Afterwards, a few of the students spoke up against his sayings and a survey was taken showing that many of the students thought his points were confusing and out of place in todays society. And now that those students realize how stupid and wrong hate speech is, do you really think they are going to go on and use it? This method, instead of shutting people up, makes them shut themselves up by realizing just how pointless hate speech is. As I have given an ample solution to hate speech without the impediment of the first amendment, this point should go to the AFF. On the topic of the first amendment, I shall again bring to attention the phrasing of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law... ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...". As said previously, the word abridge means, to reduce the effect of a law, and as we can see in the many examples of how schools are abusing speech codes in my round 4 argument, the first amendment is very much being abridged. Not to mention the Tinker vs Des Moines court case which states, "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates.". And seeing as though my opponent made no response to these arguments which where made last round, the point of Law goes to the AFF. Due to the massive mistreatment of speech codes in public colleges and universities, it is imperative that we stop these mistreatment from happening by taking away the schools power to do so. When stating your opinion on a drink is punishable as an equal to sexism, we must not allow these codes to remain in place. And the only way to do so is to take away the power to have speech codes because the people who make these codes will not let that power go easily. For the reason that there are other ways to counter hate speech than silence and the Law is on my side, I ask for a vote for in affirmation. Thank you.
Public colleges and universities shouldn't be able to restrict free speech on campus.

My case, their case. My case: On my point about hate speech, my opponent claims limiting hate speech would fail and the only way to eliminate it is to show people why it"s bad. They completely drop my Johnson evidence showing efficacy of speech codes and my both Coustic-Deal and Tseis evidence showing why counter-speech doesn"t actually eliminate it. Then my opponent says people need to learn to deal with hate speech because that"s the real world. First, that"s ridiculous. College is for education, and we can"t educate with hate speech. We especially can"t educate with the silencing effects of hate speech. You"re not going to prepare for the "real world" if you can"t speak up in college. Second, many workplaces--even government workplaces--do restrict hate speech, so there is no "real world" to prepare for where blatant oppression of minority voices is okay. Finally, my opponent says speech codes are overbroad and would stop free dialogue. But my Johnson evidence suggests a specific code that would work, and Harvard has used a code like this that works well, so clearly it works in practice. They then claim minorities already have a voice and aren"t silenced by hate speech, because you see advocacy posts on the internet. However, what you"re seeing is the people who aren"t silenced, and you miss the thousands who are. Regardless, I have specific evidence minorities are silenced and an example about the internet does not outweigh actual evidence. My opponent completely dropped my point about time/place/manner restrictions, so extend that. Since the next rebuttal is the last one, it"s too late to refute this further. Given my observation that I only need to prove one instance of speech should be restricted, I should win on this alone. Their case: They mention any speech codes lead to uncontrollable bullying. That doesn"t even make sense. As I said again in my Johnson evidence, we wouldn"t make speech codes that protect any one group over others. A good speech code doesn"t say "don"t say racist insults against blacks," it says "don"t say racist insults." A speech code doesn"t cater only to minorities, but to everyone in making the campus a more pleasant place. They also mention schools focusing more on speech codes than classes. A speech code is designed to make class easier. They say codes are taking away rights to opinion, but that"s not what I"m arguing. Yes, the Constitution says free speech is good. The Constitution is not inherently moral. Since I promote a friendly environment for ALL, stop a vicious cycle of hate, and implement time/place/manner restrictions that are necessary for the functioning of college, and since my opponent doesn"t do anything to make life better, please negate! Thank you.
Cannibalism should be legalised

Rebuttals: "I don't see the problem". Becuase the scene is censored. :PAs for no research, here's some for you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... " digging bodies out of their graves and murders..." actually, more of this will happen. It is hard to tell who a rotting person is if you remove their tombstone and selfishly steal the person for your restaurant. Legalizing canniablism will encourage all the (evil and immoral) restaurants to go to a graveyard and shovel-up a person just to earn more money. It would be extremely pain-staking for the restaurant to ask a family for permission whenever they want to obtain the body from the grave and sell it for others to eat. There are some families that believe that if and only if the body is still there, then the soul will rest peacefully. Some superstitious families will not let the restaurant to dig up their dead relatives in order to sell them for food, but those bad restaurants which violate the law complicate the matter even more, adding yet another possible crime to be commited in our country, which is already bad as it is with underage drinking, driving and texting, and etc. etc.Onto you, pro.
Cannibalism should be legalised

I will start with rebuttals "1. BLOOD. SO MUCH BLOOD". Here my opponent claimed that cannibalism is to bloody. Eating meat involves blood, that is not new. But just like the vegetarian community who feel uncomfortable eating meat because they consider it brutal people who are uncomfortable to eat humans can chose to not do it. I don't see the problem. "2. Cannibalism encourages new ways of bullying". In that argument my opponent supported that by legalising cannibalism we will give even more motives for humans to harm each other in order to cut flesh for consumption. He reached to this conclusion by assuming that human meat is addictive. However he provided no evidence to support that. That is of course because that there can be no evidence. No large scale studies regarding the possibility of physiological dependence on human meat for cannibals has ever been conducted. On the other hand as I stated in round 1 "*No meat shall be allowed to be consumed that is sourced from a human that is still alive." Which will make cutting body parts for food a double crime. "3. We do not have "Freedom of eat"." In this argument my opponent irresponsibly projects his own personal view on cannibalism for all of humanity as something that is repulsive. However evidence are not on his side Cannibalism is a taboo. Nobody is willing to admit to it publicly and people often forget that it exists. On the other hand s there have been known many cannibal cases around the world. Here is an example of a successful human meat business. http://www.independent.co.uk... This incident suggests that there is room for a human meat market if we give it a chance! The opposition also made the argument that the economical benefits will be outweighed by the increased cost of police work since eating humans is destroying evidence in homicides. This is a weak argument as according to this line of thought incinerating corpses is equally problematic. It is a well known fact that police removes and preserves all useful evidence before giving permission for anyone else to handle the body. Now unto a new argument for the Pro side. Legalising cannibalism will give people willing to consume human meat an exit to there desire without forcing them to resort to actions that are a threat to our society like digging bodies out of their graves and murders. http://informoverload.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... I have now countered every single opposition argument and showed how cannibalism can be beneficial for every member of tour society. Even for those who do not want to consume human at or sell their own.
Cannibalism should be legalised

I will post new points before I rebut yours.Why cannibalism shouldn't be legalized1. BLOOD. SO MUCH BLOOD. This photo is supposed to be of cannibalism, but Airmax thought it was so bad he censored the whole entire scene. So bloody, violent and gore!! 2. Cannibalism encourages new ways of bullyingAs all of you know, bullies tend to beat people up. And sometimes those people get skin-scratches, and part of their skin falls off. What happens? Well, meat is very addictive, especially human meat. So, obviously, everyone would rush to eat the fallen-off skin and start ravenging crazily.3. We do not have "Freedom of eat"Although the constitution provides many freedoms, some which are not mentioned, as said so in the 9th amendment, freedom to eat is not one of them. You cannot eat raw meat (unless it's sushi or you're crazy). You cannot eat abiotic natural stone material. And most of all, you cannot eat your own species! It gives a sense of guilt to you and you feel weird and sink to a sense of forever depression as you cannot undo the eating of human meat. Because of this, even if human meat was allowed on the market, nobody in their right mind would buy it. It's common sense! Nobody wants to eat their own kind! We are all very similar, and you are me and I am you and etc. etc. We're all one big family! No reason to eat our own family!Now, unto the rebuttals. "Positive results...market,,,benefits...consume" I already rebutted all of this above."Everybody wins". UH-NUH! Villains could actually just cook up a human he recently killed, and voila! No fingerprints or anything on the victim, because the victim didn't exist physically on the planet any more! Normally, even the most twisted minds cannot resort to this. But now, it's legal and wide-spread, so it becomes a natural method for killing another human. The money spent on the new technology and heavy stress on the police force is way more than the financial benefits cannibalism gives. In conclusion, only very few people win in this dumb new court ruling and spreading of the dinning on human meat, and it should never be legalized! NEVER!!!
Cannibalism should be legalised

I am honored to be your opponent. First off all As with any food product that is being sold there has to be regulations around trading human meat as well. Most of them will be similar to the ones used for other meats already. To them there must be added some more that are listed bellow. *All operations regarding human meat sourcing , processing and selling it will be handled by a state-owned company (lets call it Humancorp) :-D. *No meat shall be allowed to be consumed that is sourced from a human that is still alive. *No Human is allowed to pre-sell his body as meat. *No human meat shall be sold that has being sourced from individuals that have being killed with the intend of selling the flesh. *All human meat being traded must be sourced from volunteers or be donated/sold to Humancorp by his closest relatives. A protocol that is similar to the one used for organ transplants will be followed. *The identity of the donor as well as the identity of the costumer of the meat must be confidential. *Human carcasses can be donated or sold to Humancorp. Humancorp can decide on prices potential processing and distribution of the meat as it sees fit as long as it adheres to the appropriate food safety regulations. *A protocol will be developed with which each human carcass will be individually evaluated in terms of safety of consumption (such protocols already exist for other meats). About the Health concerns. Human carcass and human meat consumption is a big health risk in terms of spreading diseases. However science has advanced so much that we can now safely remove parts of the body from one human and place it directly inside another human safely without any type of disinfection (transplants). Compared to that consuming of safety human flesh in terms "that is intended to be cooked and digested and not inserted directly in the body" should be fairly easy with the knowledge the food industry has about safe meat handling. Consuming human meat is a taboo. However there is no obvious reason to enforce this taboo by law. On the other hand legalizing and regulating a human meat can have positive results. *There may be a huge market of human meat out there that can prove a significant source of revenue for the state. Such an opening of human meat market will also offer even more benefits to society such as *Give to the citizens the option to assist their loved ones financially even in death. *Allow people willing to consume human meat the option to do so. With cannibalism in modern society everybody wins :-).
Cannibalism should be legalised

Rebuttals My opponent does not even read his own sources. He referenced . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... in order to support that cannibalism is addictive. However the article makes clear that "the chances of the average person becoming addicted to cannibalism are exceptionally low. " The article makes clear that there is no distinct chemical agent to be addicted to (Addiction may only occur to psychopaths and even amongst them it is a rare condition. All these make human meat significantly less addictive than Coffee or chocolate). My opponent conveniently ignores the conditions of human meat trade that I set in round two" . He claimed that "Some superstitious families will not let the restaurant to dig up their dead relatives", and that "It would be extremely pain-staking for the restaurant to ask a family for permission whenever they want to obtain the body" Both these assumptions are null as I have clearly stated in round two the that all human meat trade will be centrally controlled by a government agency and the meat will be harvested following a protocol similar to the one used for organ transplants. Summarising Pro arguments 1) Human meat trade is a profitable market and can prove a great source of revenue for the government and for individuals. 2) Human meat trade is giving the option to people willing to consume human meat the option to do so. 3) By legalising access to Humans we remove the source for all crimes related to cannibalism. 4) Human meat trade is a humane practise that gives people the option to assist their loved one financially even in death. My opponent by supporting that restaurants will risk going illegal to acquire human meat he admits that human meat trade is viable market with a lot of customers and profit to be made. As a result Con is forced to accept arguments 1) and 4) of the Pro side. I have now shown that properly regulated human meat trade intended for food is a profitable business, and beneficial for the whole of society.
The UN in terms of politics is a joke

The United nations without talking large direct actions in the world since the Korean conflict has been used as a international forum for global relations. I'm not sure what Pro suggests when he says the UN is a joke, but from his argument I can deduce he does not hold them in high regard. His main arguments consist of times when the UN failed to act in a situation that would warrant attention such as the genocide in Bosnia and the recent election in Iran. What Pro doesn't fully comprehend is how the UN system works, they are not world governance, they can not simply send in troops to correct the wrongs of member states. while sending in troops to solve these problems is not in some cases a bad idea, they do not hold the authority to do so. Both situations he mentioned are not international disputes between members. but internal problems in there own countries, the UN has no jurisdiction in this matter. Pro also makes a point that members have to sign on to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights to join the UN, this is false. Officially the UN is "open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations"(1). The UN admittedly has many problems, but these stem from a lack of authority to carry out its mission, the UN would be able to function on a higher level if they had the authority to enforce binding resolutions with military force. But as it stands the UN does not have this authority, and until it does it lacks the capacity to carry out its mission in the truest sense. The point im trying to make is that the UN is not a bad institution, it just needs to be fixed. The UN is not a joke and I believe I have showed that your complaints are baseless. (1)http://www.un.org...
The UN in terms of politics is a joke

In Advance I would like to that my opponent in advance for accepting the offer in joining this debate. The United Nations was set up in 1945 after WW2 to replace the League of Nations to stop wars between countries. Currently, The United Nations has 192 members. The Link below shows all the members of the United Nations at present time, could the apposing delegate be so kind as to count the amount of countries that are on the list on the website WHICH are as to this day violating the UN Human Rights and Peace agreements that every nation must agree on before becoming a full member in the UN: http://www.un.org... As I stated earliar, the United Nations was set up inorder to maintain conflict between the nations of the world. Since the UN has been Established there have been 9 Major Genocides costing the lives of over 6 million and 700 thousand human beings. What were the United Nations doing whilst 6,700,000 people were being killed? (http://www.flashpoints.info...) Examples: During the Bosnian Genocide United Nation Troops under command of the French and the Dutch were told to engage with the Serbs, at the same time they were told, do not engage with the enemy unless fired at. The muslims being the target of the Genocide, The United Nations took over 100,000 muslims and placed them in a UN fortified Fort protected by the blue helmet soldiers. The serbs appeared at the gates Demanding the Muslims. After the UN declined the proposal, the serbs laz siege to the fort. THE UN finally gave in and surrendered the fort over to the Serbs. The Serbs later went on to put muslims in warehouses and lob grenades inside. Modern day Iran,When the presedential ellections took place in Irans capitol of tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being the vicotor for a second term caused out rage all over the country! Causing Riots.Protesters clashed with National troops causing civilian casualties. Iran Later went on to hang several protesters, when it is clearly stated in one of the Human Rights when joining the United Nations that it is the right of every man to protest! WHERE DID THE UNITED NATIONS INTERVENE These are just 2 of the many cases there are all over the world of WHERE the United Nations should have,or should be helping. If the United Nations excpect to have the world listen to them in matters of conflict, the United Nations needs to try a different approach, as seeing as the one currently being used.. has no effect on any nations I look forward for the following debate.
The UN in terms of politics is a joke

The security council's purpose is to provide resolutions concerning security matters around the world, such as peacekeeping operations, international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. You addressed that the practice of keeping permanent members with veto power is a "joke" because they can veto any resolution targeted at them, you used the human rights issues in china as a example. Like I have said before the UN is not world governance, it lacks the authority from the member nations to carry out the mission you think it has. You suggested this is why it is a joke is because it lacks authority but this is not true, the UN carries out several other very important missions, such as humanitarian aid, refugee logistics, and peacekeeping operations. Just because a resolution is non binding or not passed does not mean the member nations cant put sanctions on china(or any other nation) by them selves. The united states trade embargo with Cuba is an example of this, there is no UN resolution regarding this "Economic sanction" if you will. The UN's job is not to force nations into doing what the "western world" thinks is best. Once again I will say I think the word "joke" is not the best word to describe the organizations, because the UN is far from a joke.