BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Assassination, in an effort to save lives.

If you could kill one child just by pulling a trigger, knowing that doing so would save 10,000 innocent children from dying by the childs hands, knowing that if you do not kill the child it will kill those 10,000 innocent children for no reason, knowing there is no way to stop the child and you only have two options, pull the trigger, or walk away, what would you do? Pull the trigger is Pro/For. Walk away is Con/Against. If you walk away, the very next day that child plants a bomb on the cities largest orphanage and kills them all, then is never seen again. If you pull the trigger you get caught and are charged with murdering a child, they find the child's plans and the bomb it planned on using, and you explain why you had to kill it to save the lives of others, you are released but the fact that you killed a child with a gun is on public record permanently. The newspaper the next day has an article titled "Lone Gunman Assassinates Child Terrorist!" and you are never seen the same way by the town again, some hate you, some admire you, others don't know, and employers refuse to hire you after seeing your background check. What do you chose?
The United States federal government should substantially increase communparticipation.

Economy: The plan is specifically going to create jobs through funding of the federal government. If the plan were to not provide jobs as stated then the plan would be vetoed. I hope the negation is not questioning the ability of U.S.F.G. to pass plans that are doing what they were or are meant for. The trend of illegitimacy that you accuse the plan of being is bizarre and should be taken from the record. If you know anything about the economy, creating jobs will cause growth. Consumer spending brings more money to banks and investors. This allows loans to be given for the creation of business which will increase the number of jobs. When People have money, they spend. When people are assured of a job, consumer confidence will be at an all time high, making the cycle continue. Spend, loan, more jobs, repeat. That's the definition of a booming economy. That's not true stimulus has helped keep the banks and the whole capitalism model from falling apart. Affirmative plan is the last step before the turn around comes. Racism: People are racist not because of skin color, but because of social classes. These social classes have been stereotyped to certain races. If we eliminate the class where poverty presides(crime, violence, and non-success) we will solve for racism because the stereotype that causes racism will be eliminated. Solvency: Does not apply because the states were doing both the implementing and the funding. This allows for to much power in one source which is the reason why the plan was not successful. If we allow federal government to fund and states implement then the plan will solve without a doubt. Spending is inevitable, why not spend to solve for the root cause of the economy stagnation? There is no reason no to. Economy is not fragile Obama has thrown billions in stimulus and we have seen a slight turn around. Again if we pass aff plan then the a complete turn around in the economy is inevitable. Link Turn Valid: Maulding 8' 29, best selling economist. Warrant provided impacts of not passing plan now stands. NO- Impact Soft Power key to hegemony. Military has only increased spending to fight unnecessary wars. Hard power in the U.S. is currently dominating in military might and we have been getting attacked by terrorist. It is now time to let soft power lead. TO allow soft power lead we must solve our moral obligation of poverty and racism. Even if we don't solve we must try. 3 quarters of current recruits come from above the poverty line. DMN 8-25 The Dallas Morning News Military is cutting recruits in the status quo to lower end strength and terminal defense Lee 8-17 Intelligence Analyst for the ARMY NATIONAL GUARD. Pull through aff impacts because they have been successfully defended.
The United States federal government should substantially increase communparticipation.

Economy: Just because the government creates jobs doesn't mean your plan creates jobs. Also, let the record show that your exact words were "Jobs provided by the government are endless." This implies that there is no job crisis and therefore we should not need the affirmative plan. Also, giving more social services does not allow for economic growth. The people are just giving money back that was spent on them, therefore creating a balance which does not create growth. The Affirmative's statement that we have already spent so much spending actually negates their case. Since we are still in a recession even though they have spent a multitude of stimulus, it can be assumed that stimulus doesn't help. Racism- The Affirmative themselves stated "Racism is discrimination against race not social classes." Therefore making people not poor does not change their race and therefore racism will continue. Solvency- The state model for my solvency attack does apply. If block grants cant even work on a small scale, there effect on a large scale would be catastrophic. Spending- Uniqueness- Saying spending is occurring now does not make the plan non unique. The uniqueness I presented only said the economy is fragile but it is recovering. Also, claiming that something is going on now so we can do it more and it will be ok is invalid. Suppose we applied this theory to murder. People are committing murder now and the continuation of this is inevitable. However, committing more murders with this an excuse would be unacceptable. Link-Turn: Unless the affirmative presents a warrant to this claim it should not be considered in the debate. Impact: Again, a warrant is needed. Until it is presented, the negs still win on impacts. Military- 1/4 of the military is still a large amount. To be exact, that percentage makes up about 575,629 soldiers. A loss of that large amount would be devastating to our hegemony. Impact- Once again, the Affirmative has failed to present a warrant for its claims. Unless he presents evidence that recruitment is down, the negatives still have their impact. Also, here is some evidence that shows recruitment is UP. http://www.google.com... This article also says that it is up because the economy is down. When it comes down to it, hard power matters most. It is obvious to say that no one messes with China, and that can be attributed to its significant hard power.
The United States federal government should substantially increase communparticipation.

Economy Advantage: Correction the affirmative plan is going to directly create jobs. Jobs provided by the government are endless: Green Jobs, Infrastructure, International Relationships, Community Development. Job loses are slowly dropping and will completely and permanently halt after the passing of affirmative plan, because more people will have jobs provided through the plan and will be putting money back into the economy. When people are putting and investing more money into the economy then more businesses will develop, putting more jobs back on the market. FYI We do solve. The "permanent spending balloon" will solve for the economy because we have already spent so much stimulus as it is that we can only get out of this recession with further spending and stimulation. Extend the 1AC's Impacts of Global Nuclear War causing extinction by econ. Collapse. Racism Advantage: Yes, racism has been in our DNA since the beginning of time and no………. solving for poverty wont completely solve for DISCRIMINATION but it is a step in the right direction. FYI main reasons for continued racism is because of social inequality and lack of opportunity. Pass our plan and everyone is assured a chance at success and opportunity given by the plan erases racism in that area. The plan would solve for racism. Racism is discrimination against race not social classes. Solvency: The solvency presented by the Negative are arguments made for general block grants, not government block grants, not block grants used to fix the economy, just plain block grants by CITIES. And those block grants do not measure the success of a government operated plan. Pull through the 1AC's solvency stating that FEDERAL BLOCK GRANTS ARE SUCCESSFUL when the provide employment. Spending disad: NON-Unique: Spending is occurring in the status and further expenditures by the federal government are inevitable. LINK TURN: Spending is inevitable now, we must now spend to keep from double dip recession. Your Impacts are now inevitable as well. NO IMPACT FOR NEG: Spending doesn't cause econ collapse. AFF IMPACT: Only lack of jobs will collapse an economy. No jobs mean no investments which means no new businesses for jobs which means no consumer spending. No consumer spending is the equivalent of a fail economy. Military Disad: No-Link: 3 quarters of current recruit come from above the poverty line, therefore people join the military for other reasons. NO-IMPACT: Military recruits are lowering terminal defense in status quo. So if we get people out of poverty then there is no impact due to people not being in poverty. We must lead with soft power not hard. China is ever close to our hard power but lacks in our soft power. We need to excel in that area to maintain leadership.
The United States federal government should substantially increase communparticipation.

Economy- The block grants plan does not directly create jobs so therefore the Affirmative cannot claim to solve the Economy. With or without the Affirmative's plan, job losses will continue which will cause poverty to increase. The Affirmative does not solve. This point extends to the Human Capitol argument as well as the Metropolitan Economy argument. The Affirmative's claimed "permanent spending balloon" will not help the status quo. Therefore, the Affirmative's plan does not prevent nuclear war. Racism- Racism is an unfortunate ideal that has been in the fabric of our nation since its creation. It is ignorant to believe that simply solving poverty will wipe it from our very dirty slate. Also, Racism occurs with the wealthy as well. Even if solving poverty would solve racism against the poor which it wouldn't, the Affirmative cannot make a significant dent in Racism in the US without combating it in all cases. Solvency- Block grant woes go from bad to worse. http://blogs.buffalonews.com... "The block grant program may be more screwed up than ever." How does a "screwed up program" solve anything? Easy: It doesn't. Disadvantage, Spending. U: The economy is fragile, but it is improving. L: Social Services and Block Grants are wildly expensive. Any new spending will knock us off the brink and cause economic collapse. !: Economic Collapse leads to global nuclear war. Disadvantage, Military U: Right now, a large portion of our army is made up of people in poverty who join for benefits. L: Giving more social services deters these recruits from joining up. !: Less army = less hegemony = global nuclear war. *This is a direct link to the leadership flow. By increasing social services the affirmative is decreasing our hegemony/world leadership which they concede leads to horrendous impacts.
New Western Feminism is pointless and oppresive.

Resolution: Pro has undertaken to prove that feminism is 1. "pointless," 2. "focuses only on the supremacy of women," and 3. "oppresses the right of freedom of speech." Pro must establish all three points to win this debate, but Pro failed to establish any of them. Not only that, but Pro effectively conceded the debate by establishing that the Equality Canada feminist group is concerned with advancing "education, gender equality, reason and science," "collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality," "consciousness raising activities, to do with equality," and "the taboo subjects of gender equality." (Emphasis added.)We now enter the final round, in which new arguments are not to be entertained. Pro should not introduce new arguments; if he does introduce new arguments, voters should ignore them. Therefore, all seven points should go to Con: S&G for obvious reasons. Conduct because Pro tried to shift the burden of proof, and because Pro forfeited a round. Persuasion because (1) Pro failed to establish any of the three points that he undertook to establish, (2) because---even though it was not necessary since Pro had the burden of proof---Con established that two of those points were false, and (3) because Pro himself established (with his Equity Canada agument) that two of his points were false. Sources for obvious reasons.
New Western Feminism is pointless and oppresive.

First, thanks for accepting. This is a topic that is seldom discussed, and very much needs to be. I should highlight, in case my opponent or the audience forgets, that your duty is to show how the Western Feminism of today is infutile has serves a real purpose in advocating gender equality- meaning financial, legal (or otherwise) equality for both men and women. My task, on the other hand, is to show evidence to the contrary, that it only focuses on the supremacy of women, and oppresses the right of Freedom Of Speech. On Pointlessness Since its prime, when Feminism actually focused on the real needs of women when their rights where obstructed from them, it has become an organisation of blathering bigots, taking to the most futile cases as Protesting Fashion Shows and reporting those who make penis jokes (No, I'm not joking, both cases can be found here:. . http://www.independent.co.uk... + . http://www.guardian.co.uk...)Is Modern, Western Feminism Oppressive? You don't have to look too far to see examples of what I mean. Feminism has taken to the abstuction of the Freedom Of speech of others in its modern era (view You tube links at the top-right of my argument). Just last week, in the University Of Toronto, a group of Feminists pulled a fire alarm in hope of silencing a group of critics. The group that the Feminists tried to silence where a Gender Equality group called Equality Canada. The ground for their protests where that Equality Canada held hidden misogynistic views and that those views where evident on their website. Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you are for truth I encourage you to look at the website yourselves - . http://equalitycanada.com... The list of objections of Equality Canada, the group being abused and protested by the Feminists in the videos I'll provide at the top right hand side, reads like this (again, check the website for proof of this):1. To advance education with discussion of equality-especially gender equality, reason and science. 2. To provide a platform for collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality. 3. To participate in consciousness raising activities, to do with equality, that are routinely ignored.4. To utilise media so that we may discuss the taboo subjects of gender equality. If my opponent can point out any misogynistic nature in that, than she/he can offer a case. Until then, all the Feminists are doing is, once again, restricting Freedom Of Speech, and thus are oppressive.
Abortion should be banned.

Thanking my opponent for his understanding here.Now my opponent has raised only one contention:Killing an innocent human life is not acceptable. My opponent has offered testimonies to support this and I won't deny this fact. Indeed, I concede it.My opponent has asked that I limit my response to his contention only. I will respect that. While I would like to stress that I haven't conceded the debate; I have conceded his contention. While it frustrates me to not be able to introduce my counters - I place respect above it. As a result of this rather bland debate (entirely my fault - I apologise) I will challenge my opponent to a re-match as to allow a fully developed debate to form! For this debate though, I will leave it up to the voters!Hope to see you all soon; hopefully on another debate against Weiler!Until then,J
Abortion should be banned.

The use of force to defend innocent human life is not a very controversial matter. So the only issue here is whether or not the fetus in fact IS innocent human life, I think the expert testimony above is convincing on that matter. I realize my opponent did not intend to forfeit this round, however, since whether or not the fetus is innocent human life is the only issue raised in the body of the debate. I will ask that he confine his closing to this matter alone.
Abortion should be banned.

Much of the abortion debate centers around when human life begins. The overwhelming scientific opinion is that it begins at conception. "A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony. Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated: "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. .. . I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life. .. . I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty. .. is not a human being. This is human life at every stage. " Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. " He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. " He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception. " Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception. " Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. .. . It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception. .. . Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data. " Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter"the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals. " A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, "Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins. ""[1] If human life begins at conception, then the fetus can only be described as innocent human life, and is therefore entitle to the same full legal protection afforded any post-birth human. Sources 1. Entire section quoted from . http://www.epm.org...
White privilege exists

To understand why white privilege exists, one needs to understand what it is. It is not that white people are neccisarily given extra privileges, but that minorities are denied opportunities and rights purley on the basis of their race. 1) 20% of white people and 10% of black/Latino(a) people use drugs like cocaine, but minorities suffer the vast majority of legal consequences, according to the Huffington Post. 2) It is more common for government to order racial profiling of black people than of whites, and stop and frisk primarily affects minorities as well as police brutality/excessive force. That is just within the justice system. There are no prominent hate groups against white people, there are against minorities. White people set the justice system, laws and governance. I disagree with the statement that white privilege cannot be physically seen. It can. In the fact that we are ruled by a vast majority white government, in the Ferguson inspired protests (they're not doing it for nothing), and in day to day life.
White privilege exists

I accept. "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." http://en.m.wikipedia.org... The definition is from Wikipedia. I'm not quite clear on their source. I'd also like to state that white privelages is kind of like the Matrix according to most proponents. You can not see, hear, touch or smell white privelage but trust us, it's there. http://www.youtube.com... Just swap out the word Matrix for the word white privelages in the clip and that's literally how proponents describe it. Anyway, I accept and look forward to my opponent's arguments. As the person proving a positive the burden of proof is on my opponent.
cyborgism: genetic modification of humans

sure. ok, so its NOT possible right now. I get it. but for now, lets pretend that it is. and that it is about as dangerous as a breast augmentation or other cosmetic surgery procedure. it really sucks discussing the parameters of the debated issue in the last round of debate, but whatever. my point is that, excluding the specific health risks ramifications of such a procedure, it would be un ethical to permit genetic modifications of this sort in humans. my ethical objection is not, however, religious or non-intervetionist. i think that permitting such genetic modifications in humans would be unethical because of the inequalities it would create. for example, rich people would be at a great biological advantage because they would be able to afford wings while poor people were stuck on the ground. thus, i think that such modifications to the human body, should they become permitted by scientifivc knowledge in the future, should remain illegal to obtain because they would create immense social inequalities.
cyborgism: genetic modification of humans

What is the moral and ethical debate surrounding the genetic modification of humans? WOULD IT BE FAVORABLE FOR HUMANS TO BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A SURGERY GIVING HIM OR HER WINGS TO FLY? the topic i wish to address is not whether it is scientifically possible for humans to obtain wings through surgery, but whether it such modifications to human genetics should be permitted if they were made possible. in other words, imagine it becomes possible for humans to obtain a surgery similar to a breast augmentation type procedure, but that gives its subject wings. The question is not whether it would be plausible, but rather whether it would be ethical to permit such a procedure... (i know it takes a little imagination and creativity) i personally believe that it would be unethical.
cyborgism: genetic modification of humans

science is quickly developing towards cyborgism. we can imagine a world in which genetic modifications such as those used to increase output and quality of agricultural products could be used to enable certain biological capabilities in humans that evolution has not as of yet permitted. What is the moral and ethical debate surrounding the genetic modification of humans? WOULD IT BE FAVORABLE FOR HUMANS TO BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A SURGERY GIVING HIM OR HER WINGS TO FLY?