BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Domestic Violence Awareness should be increased.

To conclude, I believe domestic violence is horrible and needs to be stopped. Raising awareness, on one hand, can cause the limited funding and sources to run out and leave victims alone when most in need. My opponent stated raising awareness can decrease the chances of it occurring frequently, but what is not taken into account is the long-lasting effects of domestic abuse that cannot be erased by talking about it. according to the organization safe horizon, "more than 3 million children have witnessed it in their homes every year" (1). Domestic abuse affects not only the victim directly affected, but it also affects those who surround them like children. These scarring events can never be completely forgotten. Also, my opponent said abusers may realize the consequences of their actions, but in many cases, as stated by the National Center on Elder Abuse, "Abusers use...threats, emotional insults and economic deprivation as a way to dominate their victims and get their way" (2). Psychological abuse is part of the domestic abuse, but because there are no physical and visible scars, abusers can get away with it. They do not have to worry about going to jail, hence promoting psychological abuse as the main method of control. Lastly, my opponent said domestic abuse awareness provides, in other words, moral support. This is not enough for victims trying to escape. Perpetrators are most of the time smart about their abuse and know how to keep it behind locked doors, "An abusive husband may control his victim in part by making sure she is completely dependent on him financially...ending a marriage to an abusive, controlling spouse can seem practically impossible" (3). In many situations, the victim is seemingly lost and has nothing to help them escape. A support system is not sufficient. Domestic violence awareness should thus not be increased because there are more negative repercussions than positive ones. (1) https://www.safehorizon.org... (2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (3) https://www.forbes.com...
Domestic Violence Awareness should be increased.

My opponent stated that Raising domestic violence awareness will not completely stop it from happening but only make it worse. This may be true but it can decrease the chances of it occurring so frequently. John Cohn who shows a huge interest in domestic violence awareness stated in September that " some abusers really will respond"either because they have so much to lose by risking jail time, or because they feel enough regret to be open to what counselors will tell them." The abuser may begin to realize that there can be serious consequences to their actions or simply that, that is not the way to solve problems. Many begin to feel as though jail is not for them and will begin to regret being an abuser and will not do it again. My opponent also stated that not all domestic violence victims can be helped, however raising awareness will not just physically help victims but it may also let them see that they are not alone. For example, as stated in my first claim that someone people prefer to be asked because they feel as if it is their fault and begin to feel ashamed or embarrassed. As stated in the article "why domestic violence victims don't leave" posted on may 31, 2016 "It is the biggest fear of a woman who is being abused that people won"t believe her." Women feel as though they do not have the proper support system to fully admit that they are being abused. By raising awareness it will help prevent domestic violence from happening as often as it does.
Domestic Violence Awareness should be increased.

As I mentioned in my previous claim, raising awareness can make the perpetrator feel targeted and cause an increase in abuse. Rather than raise awareness for drugs and alcohol, it would encourage the perpetrator to take out his anger because of the people who judge him/her. Humans can be deceitful, cynical, and untrustworthy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Every minute, about 20 people are physically abused by an intimate partner in the U.S.," (1). The sad truth is that when victims decide to stand up for themselves and ask for help, they cannot all be helped. Currently, there are not enough funds to help everyone and increasing awareness will not benefit victims because they will be risking their lives to receive help but not be able to receive it on time. The National Network to End Domestic Violence reported that "more than 22,000 calls were answered by local domestic violence hotlines, and on that same day, more than 9,500 requests for services were unmet due to inadequate funding or staff available to assist these survivors" (2). In my claim, I am referring only to the present. In the future, when funds are increased, raising awareness would be beneficial, but as of now, there are not sufficient services to aid all the victims. Like my opponent said, some people are blinded by the love they feel for their partner despite the horrible treatment, so if the day comes when they are ready to leave, but they cannot receive help, they will end up going back to the same situation as before and giving up on ever leaving their perpetrator. (1) https://www.bjs.gov... (2) https://www.forbes.com...
Domestic Violence Awareness should be increased.

Spreading awareness of Domestic violence might even help solve other important issues as well. As the article Raising Awareness for Domestic Abuse stated, "It is estimated that 25-50% of perpetrators are under the influence of alcohol. Drug and alcohol use are known to impair judgment, reduce inhibition, and increase aggression." With raising awareness for domestic violence, it will help spread awareness for alcohol and drug addicts. Due to lack of drug and alcohol use, it will help lower the occurrence of domestic abuse. People won't go into a relationship so trusting because they claim they are in love or that their partner is not capable of ever hurting them. This is what a woman stated her experience to be, "My husband would throw me out at night when he was drunk. I slept in a cupboard behind the local freezer shop. My husband broke my ribs, tore my hair out, perforated my eardrum and head-butted me." There's no way of knowing if your partner is truly who they say they are or what they are willing to do and how far they"ll take it. Some people are blinded by the sweet talks and getting treated like royalty early in the relationships that keep them from noticing that those are possible signs of an abuser. The idea of "crazy love" can easily lead someone to become or continue being a victim.
Domestic Violence Awareness should be increased.

Domestic abuse awareness should not increase because abuse will still continue to occur. According to The Center for Family Justice, "Domestic abuse is a pattern of coercive, controlling behavior that is a pervasive life-threatening crime affecting people in all our communities, regardless of age, gender, economic status, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or education" (1). We can all agree that domestic abuse is immoral and wrong, but by informing people that abuse is happening everywhere, it is not going to stop it from continuing. The action of bringing awareness can backfire in the sense that the perpetrator can become enraged if he or she hears about it and abuse his victim more. Any talk of domestic abuse around an abuser can tick them off and endanger the victim further. As reported by the domestic abuse shelter website, "On average, a woman will leave an abusive relationship seven times before she leaves for good" (2). Awareness can push women to leave their harmful relationships, but it is not always effective because they can easily be persuaded to go back for multiple reasons and before they can leave for good, a tragedy can occur. "Approximately 75% of women who are killed by their batterers are murdered when they attempt to leave or after they have left an abusive relationship" (2). Awareness gives the victim the courage to leave but in many cases, the victim has been isolated and has no resources like family to escape their abuser. These statistics are devastating and heart-wrenching, but what we can see is that bringing awareness to domestic abuse does not always accomplish its goal, rather it has the opposite effect. (1) https://centerforfamilyjustice.org...... (2) http://www.domesticabuseshelter.org......
Domestic Violence Awareness should be increased.

Domestic abuse awareness should be increased. Many People are aware of the seriousness of Domestic Violence, yet some still do not think it is a big deal. Men and women suffer through this traumatic experience alone because they feel as if they must go through it alone. Gloria who is an AP interview stated, "More women have been killed by partners since 9/11 than deaths from attacks, ensuing wars." This is an important issue because most people think that domestic violence only happens to women, but it can happen anyone literally anyone can be a Domestic violence victim. There are many people who are still living in silence because they are afraid or feel they do not have the proper support system. The fact that more women have died due to abuse by their partners than deaths related to wars, is just ridiculous. This should be eye-opening and want us to spread awareness. People don't always feel comfortable simply talking about it with someone. Julie who was a Domestic Violence victim said, "I wanted someone to ask me about the abuse. I couldn't ask for help. I was ashamed." Rather than having support and able to speak up, some victims prefer someone to ask them about it because they're afraid and ashamed to simply come out about it. This continues to make the victims feel at fault for what is happening to them, which means they will continue to remain in silence.
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

For my first argument I would like to point out that my opponent has completely ignored a huge portion of my arguments by calling them irrelevant, when they were in fact totally relevant. The arguments he say pertain only to nuclear energy actually pertain to the water that deuterium comes from, which is used in both fission and fusion. Since we are doing a policy debate my opponent cannot add new arguments from this point on, (no new arguments in rebuttals) therefore I have won all of those points which he ignored. My opponents evidence states that fusion COULD be achieved within the next century, by which point it will likely be pointless, we need to solve this problem and we need to solve it now, waiting for 2100 won't work, and even then we cant be sure we will get nuclear fusion. My opponent has still not shown any factual evidence that there will be no environmental effects of nuclear fusion, but has relied on biased evidence which only states that there will be no pollution from combustion, which is obvious since combustion doesn't occur during nuclear fusion in the sense they are referring to. He has also failed to ensure that the program will have no other agendas, I cannot be sure what these agendas would be, but without enforcement the program could do anything they please with the funding. Since the PRO has stated that the group will have no agendas I would like to press for evidence and remind him that you can, at any time be asked for evidence backing something you said. Onto my argument from fas. org, I doubt you looked over that whole sight but I am sorry I didn't realise I didn't link you to the exact article, here it is. . http://www.fas.org... This is in reference to the production of deuterium which you have said is so easy to come by, and the fact that you would need to boil lots of water to get the deuterium shows that you would need some form of energy to get it, just so you can make more energy. The argument about the tainted water refers to water from a plant which made deuterium proving that bad things can come of this. Again, the water refers to the production of deuterium, directly linking it to your plan. I believe I have shown that there are hidden environmental effects which would occur if we somehow achieved fusion, and that it is unlikely that we will, also that my opponent's form of research is flawed and could potentially cost the government a large amount of money since my opponent didn't put a cap on the emergency fund, also that my opponent has failed to prove any of these points to be wrong. When judging this debate the judges must ask themselves "Do the large amounts of risks outweigh the slim chance of success, and even slimmer chance that fusion will live up to what it claims to be? ". I stand firm on my arguments and again press for the same evidence as last time, I would also like to remind the judges of several things they may be unaware of about policy debate. 1- Ignoring a press for evidence is not acceptable.
No one wins

First, I would like to apologize to my opponent and to the audience, as I have misread the quote. I meant to say that the "probability" occurs not in the engagement of the act by another party, but that it occurs in how violently it will occur: "but he knows that if he doesn't do it someone else will do it, ***but probably*** more violently" The only way Kyle can be sure he does not become the greater evil, is to not do it at all. Perhaps if he decides to opt out, the next person will find a way to do the act and to make it even less violent. As for the second point, my opponent is incorrect. In my situation, it is still a horrible injustice and the act is still morally wrong, but it is outweighed on the opposite end by a massive amount of good. If he does it, it is a horrible injustice. If he doesn't do it, it is an even MORE horrible injustice. The point is that clear. I did not malign any part of my opponent's argument, I have abided by all of his restrictions. All the elements are there. ******** Let me attack the resolution from another angle. SCENARIO TWO: Kyle is a Hangoyun prince, the crown prince, from a tribe of people that is culturally used to raping and killing any non-Hangoyun female. Sarah is a foreigner, captured by the Hangoyun king. They are both imprisoned in the same room and as a rite of passage, the crown prince of Hangoyunia must rape and kill Sarah, or else be killed himself for disgracing his people. Furthermore, he knows that his brother would like to engage in the act himself in his stead, so that he can become the next crown prince. He is reluctant to do this because it is crude and heartless, much like slaughtering a cow for a festival, but it is also culturally common. Rape and murder are horrible moral injustices to Sarah, as well as to the rest of us, but my opponent never stated that Kyle had to have the same viewpoint. Even if it were a horribly immoral act, these people are unaware of it and thus, it makes no difference. If he does it, Kyle would not have the guilt, and no one would blame him. The entire country of Hangonyunia would celebrate his coming of age and he himself would be glad that he got his rite of passage over with. The only person who carries over those morals would be Sarah, and she would have been raped and killed. Thus, this situation also fulfills all of my opponent's restrictions while showing that Kyle is a complete and total winner, except for the minor amount of pity he had in raping and killing the poor creature, but not much. Thus, I have now produced TWO situations that completely abide by my opponent's restrictions and negate the resolution. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response.
No one wins

1) I would like to start with a quote from my opponent:"My opponent's proposal is that if Kyle does not rape and kill Sarah, someone else *MIGHT* do it. This chance that someone might NOT do it, determines the morality of the situation. If Kyle decides not to do it, he is doing a morally good deed because whether or not someone ELSE will do it, is unknown. " This is poorly misquoted. In my Argument I strictly stated he knows someone else WILL kill and rape Sarah, not might. This fact completely nullifies that whole paragraph. 2) In my opponent's scenario, Sarah is a "evil head of a neo-nazi regime that is taking over Europe" and Kyle is a European soldier. If this is the case then my opponent is correct, it would be morally correct and he could win. In the scenario provided by my opponent the morals are changed. In MY argument I clearly stated that if he kills and rapes Sarah it IS a moral injustice. Therefore neither Kyle or Sarah can win.
No one wins

My opponent is upholding the position that in his scenario, there are no winners. This is his burden. As the contender, I must show that given what my opponent has told me, there are possibilities for this to be untrue. That is, for there to be at least 1 winner. My opponent's proposal is that if Kyle does not rape and kill Sarah, someone else *MIGHT* do it. This chance that someone might NOT do it, determines the morality of the situation. If Kyle decides not to do it, he is doing a morally good deed because whether or not someone ELSE will do it, is unknown. However, I will now offer a series of scenarios throughout the debate in which this result can have a clear winner. Definitions: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Kill: to deprive one of life Rape: (noun 3) 2. unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent SCENARIO ONE: Sarah is a spectacularly beautiful but evil head of a neo-nazi regime that is taking over Europe. Kyle is a European soldier who is trapped with her after an earthquake collapsed a building. There is nothing else in the room besides the two people and their clothes. There is a two part device implanted inside Sarah that is wirelessly linked to a bomb. Help is coming in 1 day, but the bomb within Sarah is set to go off in 2 hours. First, the failsafe for the device must be deactivated through her vagina. Since there are no tools, and it is located 6 inches deep, we will assume that the only way Kyle can deactivate this failsafe is to rape Sarah. After the failsafe has been deactivated, the bomb must be disabled physically, and it is tied to Sarah's central nervous system. Kyle must choke Sarah to death immediately after disabling the failsafe in order to avoid being blown up. In this case, if Kyle decides to do it, he will be a winner. Not only would he have the opportunity to have sex with a spectacular bombshell, but he could also save his life and cripple the neo-nazi regime. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's response.
No one wins

Let's say two people have been captured. One is a male that we'll call kyle, and one is a female we'll call sarah. Kyle is demanded to kill and rape Sarah, and if he doesn't he will be killed. He doesn't want to do this because it would be crude and heartless, but he knows that if he doesn't do it someone else will do it, but probably more violently. He could make it as painless as he could and then he could be set free. If he does do it he is doing a horrible injustice, but if he doesn't do it isn't he doing the same? He should do it.
Randy Rhoads was better than Eddie Van Halen

Many people will know Eddie. To be honest, I knew of Eddie long before I knew of Randy. But, there are many guitarists better than both of them that aren't big names either. Randy Rhoads had his own unique style. Zakk Wylde tries to copy Randy's style, but admits that he can never nail it perfectly. Randy Rhoads is more influential as well. You will hear "that is very Randy Rhoadsish" more times than you will hear "that is very Van Halen Like". Please note that I am not trying to take anything away from Eddie Van Halen in this debate, as he is a very good guitarist that has an effect on my personal playing style. I just believe that fundamentally, Randy was way more unique. Of course, we will never know Randy Rhoads' full potential, because his life was cut off short at too young of an age.
Randy Rhoads was better than Eddie Van Halen

You do have good points, and sorry about the age. If you take a survey of people and ask if they know Rhoads most of them will not but Eddie on the other hand most people will know who he is. Randy also played songs other people (Zakk Wylde) can play but not the same if you know what I mean and only Eddie can play his solos and there is music out there that isn't perfect but makes it sound right.
Randy Rhoads was better than Eddie Van Halen

Randy Rhoads in my opinion was better, and he still to this day has a great effect on musicians, as well as the average person. Many of people are showing Randy Rhoads playing guitar, and listening to how Randy did things. They are reading his material as well as his biographies. While Eddie Van Halen is a good guitar player, he can not hold a candle to Randy Rhoads, who was an outstanding guitarist, teacher, and person. Eddie Van Halen faced his amps whiled doing solos so no one would steal his stuff while Randy Rhoads did what ever he could to teach everyone who wanted to know his stuff. I would like to point out that my opponent made a mistake. Randy Rhoads did not die at the age of 16, but at the age of 25.
Is Thiesm, Racism Same as Nationalism

First off it was a real honor getting to talk with you on these things Its good to know you are bothered by the question of evil, as I am. Religion without faith can be misled but I don't believe it is a disease. I would caution the concept of saying you want to erase religion from the earth. Those you are saying are terrible people may want to erase atheism from the world. This makes you no better than the people you are calling out here. I have no desire as a Christian to wipe anyone off the earth. We have free will and I must respect your free will choice to not believe in God, and I do. All I ask is that you give the same courtesy. If we can do this we can leave the world a better place Blessings to you in all your future endeavors!
Is Thiesm, Racism Same as Nationalism

It is sad and unfortunate that countries exist like this. Since you may change your position to Con, thus negating the current debate, I would liek to pose a question to finish out the debate. Its a question I have always had and I ask it with the deepest respect for your personal position and beliefs. If you are an Atheist and there is no God, why do things like this bother you? Isnt this just our normal animalistic behavior that is trying to ensure the survival of our particular race? (I am not asking to offend or bait, I am truly curious. To any readers, please comment your reasonings as well, I would greatly appreciate it.)Thank You for your honesty and Candor, the floor is yours sir
Is Thiesm, Racism Same as Nationalism

Sorry Friend, I didnt understood what you told in Last round.But I would like to tell you that I might not Stick to my point and Can change the desicion for CON.But I would to tell you that in some nationalist who are also thiest dosent allow my Black friends just because they are Black and not of thier religion. They didnt allow my another friend because he was an Atheist and hated religion.and They are saying thier that thier Religion is thier religion and thier Govt is Supporting them.These kinda of people I dont know why they even Exists.They say they are Nationalist