BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

Please note my complete exasperation at my opponent by this last round. First, your evidence was thoroughly refuted, so hate does indeed cause like of education for oppressed groups. "Sure. Consequentialism. " doesn't mean I agree with it. You dropping the question without a direct answer means that you lose the value debate right of the bat, which means that there is literally no way you can win the framework debate, which means that I win. Vote Con. The speech that is stopped is the speech that chills education, as I've said MULTIPLE times. You also lose the criterion debate. Contention 1: COUNTERSPEECH DOES NOT SOLVE. Did you not read any of the evidence presented at any point in this debate? This literally means you can provide for no education for the oppressed that are subjects of hate. I do this, and therefore win this impact. Contention 2: Not dropped, rather pretty well refuted, followed by a Pro's drop of the refutations. Vote Con again. Contention 3: As presented in Round 3, Court Clog is a non-unique argument and can therefore be easily ignored as a judge. Drop this from the debate. To the NC. When did I ever claim to completely solve? That's hilarious. I actually attempt solvency when yours absolutely fails 100% of the time. Negate simply off that. Counterspeech doesn't solve. Look towards my entire 2nd contention in the NC followed by EVERY piece of evidence introduced following that. Contention 2: Thank you for the evidence. However, this is exactly like your third contention and is non-unique. And even if you don't buy that, the system can be built with sever enough consequences to stop this psychological reaction. Problem solved, and negate off that. Her refutations on the third contention can be looked back at Rounds 3 and 4 when they were just as easily parried away by the Con. Vote Con for the following reasons: 1. Framework debate won by the Con since Round 3 2. Value debate immediately dropped by Pro in Round 3 3. Impact debate down the flow carried by the Con 4. Solvency debate won by the Con because Con world outweighs Aff's.
Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

1. Acceptance 2. AC/NC-NR (Pro/Con Constructive and Con Rebuttal) 3. AR/NR (Rebuttals for Pro and Con) 4. AR/NR (Rebuttals for Pro and Con) 5. No new arguments, voters. I negate Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
You should be afraid to speak your beliefs.

We depend on each other to survive. Look at each person as a building block. When one person says something, and they hurt due to what people think, that building block is destroyed. What happens when every block is destroyed because if someone else? Survival decreases. It will always decrease. When people live in fear they tend to not fight back. Dictatorships, slavery, etc. have made people live in fear, and only some of those people used that adrenaline to fight. When most people live in fear, they continue to live under the rule of one person that controls their life since they are scared to do anything with their own. The majority of people that live in fear start to lose their freedom, their hope, their will to continue on. If we live in constant fear, this will happen to the majority of people. Again, I thank my opponent for this debate. You have brought up well put together arguments each round.
You should be afraid to speak your beliefs.

Unfortunately, the problem of fear lies in the peers. When one person expresses fear in speaking their beliefs, the primary focus is on what the peers will think. While your argument is valid and sound, I would have to disagree with the proposal that suggests the change of the speaker. The problem of speaking your beliefs, and the fear that comes with it, depends on the peers. Until an augmentation of the mentality of society, fear will rein supreme over the minds of those whom hide their thoughts. So, in conclusion, fear comes naturally. So, it is natural and right to fear speaking your beliefs. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate such a timely topic. To quote the 12th Doctor: "Let me tell you about scared. Your heart is beating so hard -- I can feel it through your hands! There's so much blood and oxygen pumping through your brain, it's like rocket fuel. Right now, you could run faster and you could fight harder. You can jump higher than ever in your life. And you are so alert, it's like you can slow down time. What's wrong with scared? Scared is a super power! It's your super power!" And Clara Oswald: "I know you're afraid, but being afraid is alright. Because didn't anybody ever tell you that fear is a superpower? Fear can make you faster and cleverer and stronger. And one day, you're going to come back to this barn, and on that day, you are going to be very afraid indeed. But that"s ok. Because if you"re very wise, and very strong, fear doesn't have to make you cruel or cowardly" fear can make you kind. It doesn't matter if there"s nothing under the bed or in the dark, so long as you know it's ok to be afraid of it. So, listen. If you listen to nothing else, listen to this. You're always going to be afraid, even if you learn to hide it. fear is like" a companion. A constant companion, always there. But that's ok. Because fear can bring us together. Fear can bring you home. I'm going to leave you something, just so you"ll always remember" fear makes companions of us all."
You should be afraid to speak your beliefs.

First off, thank you. And secondly, that is a very well argument. Yes, you are correct. We cannot take the feeling out of us. But we can cope with it. We, as people, have lived for centuries with fear. In fear of something, whether it be plague to being forsaken by the god(s) you believe in. Fear produces many things, and anxiety and stress do come with it. But look at what has been accomplished by civilizations before us who have lived in fear. Let's take the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Egyptians; for example, the Egyptians feared the color red. It meant evil to them, and yet, still, they came together as a whole and built great pyramids. The pyramids of Giza. The Great Sphinx. The Ancient Greeks, lived in fear of the gods they believed in. Athens, was built for Athena. That angered their God Poseidon, and they feared the waters for the duration of their age. Yet, that fear drove them to make boats that could endure his rage and fury. The boats that the Ancient Greek civilization made, were unmatched until modern times. If we come together and we don't judge each other because of the fears we have, we even, could create and have accomplishments just as great.
You should be afraid to speak your beliefs.

Nice argument. As humans, we are considered animals. Now, I am sure you have heard the phrase: "you can take an animal out of the wild, but you cannot that the wild out of an animal." This is very true for humans in terms of fear. While humans should not be afraid, they cannot eliminate the feeling. My argument is, if you are afraid to do something, do not do it. Fear produces anxiety and stress. Both of which are harmful to the human body and mind.
You should be afraid to speak your beliefs.

Yes, humans, we, live in fear of not being accepted. Why should we have to live in fear everyday that we won't be liked by this person or that person because of what we believe in? No one should be afraid to speak their mind. No one should live in a world of fear. We, as a whole, need to come together and stop people from doing this. You can't tell someone that what they believe in is wrong. You can't take a person and judge him/her because she is an atheist and you're a Christian. Or some scenario such as that. My argument is built in the foundation of current events. Let's take, gay marriage, for example. Should gay people be allowed to get married, my opinion yes. Now, the point is, that many gay people are discriminated and ridiculed for the gender they like. They are no different than the rest of us, so why are they treated as a different "Thing." They are the exact same person as they are if they say nothing and if they say what they believe in. My question is, what makes a human being different if he/she shares something they believe in than if they don't?
Weapons not made for hunting should be outlawed for civilian use

Thank you for responding. "My dad keeps a pistol in his glove compartment for defense. It certainly isn't designed for hunting. Should that be confiscated? Should he be forced to keep a rifle in the glove box instead?" I'll put it this way. I've never owned, shot, or an any other way used a firearm before. I've never needed to. I get that it makes him feel comfortable, but that right is so easy to abuse that it's just not worth it. It's like a blanky. It makes you feel comfortable, but beyond that it's just not practical. But unlike a blanky, it kills people. "If I want to shoot up my high school or kill the rival drug dealer who is stealing my turf I'll just buy a shot gun and saw the end off or use any one of the many equally deadly hunting weapons (imagine being killed by a compound bow, ouch!)" Well, I don't hunt, and I would much rather see meat killed humanely, but some people do not live within a convenient vicinity to an Albertsons. I would, however, be happy to ban the use of guns within cities. I would have included that in the resolution, but I didn't have room. My full proposition would be as follows: Civilians may not have access to weapons not made specifically for hunting. In order to gain access to hunting weapons, one must pass an extensive background check and be issued a permit, which shall be renewed yearly. Furthermore, guns must be in storage in urban areas, and must be visible at all times elsewhere. So, if you had a gun, it's not like it would be practical to kill someone with it, and hopefully it would be confiscated before you could do any harm. Looking forward to your response!
Weapons not made for hunting should be outlawed for civilian use

My dad keeps a pistol in his glove compartment for defense. It certainly isn't designed for hunting. Should that be confiscated? Should he be forced to keep a rifle in the glove box instead? My opponent seems to want to keep people safe. How is partial gun control going to do that? If I want to shoot up my high school or kill the rival drug dealer who is stealing my turf I'll just buy a shot gun and saw the end off or use any one of the many equally deadly hunting weapons (imagine being killed by a compound bow, ouch!) Banning these weapons won't work.
Weapons not made for hunting should be outlawed for civilian use

On November 5, 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood Soldier Readiness center, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. He used an FN Five-seveN semi-automatic pistol, which, according to wikipedia, is used by SWAT teams because of their effectiveness against body armor. Why would any civilian need that? Now, Mr. Hasan did happen to be in the military, but he did not receive his gun from the military. He bought it legally at a civilian gun store. What that means is that any one of us could be Nidal Hasan, and any of us could be killed or injured. Obviously, we can't take guns away from the military or law enforcement. It wouldn't be very practical for our soldiers and police officers to be carrying around deer rifles. Also, I don't think it's necessary to take away hunting weapons. Even though they can be used to kill people, I do recognize that some people live in very rural areas where it would be very inconvenient to go to the supermarket every week, but they still wouldn't need a Five-seveN or anything of the like. I will allow my opponent to make their argument, and then we can get into specifics.
Weapons not made for hunting should be outlawed for civilian use

"he neglected to recognize that I have made quite a few arguments before even saying that. Because my opponent has done nothing to answer my points, they still stand." No they don't: 1. My last argument did address his claim. Regardless of whether he had already 'said' that we should change the resolution or not, every one of those arguments was for strict/complete gun control, not the resolution I was debating. 2. There wasn't an argument, just a counter-factual assertion. What he claimed was unwarranted and unreasonable anyway. If you've ever argued over the gun control issue before, you'll notice that all evidence on the issue shows that they save more lives than they harm. [1] There is nothing to show otherwise, except for PRO's unsourced assertions. 3. He made an argument for CON. Even if they didn't, PRO did concede that guns provide a feeling of safety (he used an analogy to a blanky) to millions, which is arguably a very large benefit to guns. He made my argument for me; why would I contest that? --- "But one thing is clear: if you want to do well on this debate, you'll have to give it more than a sentence." 1. There were 3 sentences in my last rebuttal. I have given it more than a sentence, so you can vote CON. 2. Why did I 'have to give it more than a sentence' in the first place? I see no reason why PRO's off-topic argumentation justifies anything more, and PRO certainly doesn't give a reason. --- "In the whole debate, all my opponent has said in opposition to my resolution is that guns can be used for self defense, which I negated." 1. He never negated that. He just asserted that my point wasn't true. Google "Gun Control" and you'll see that his claim goes against all evidence on the subject. 2. He never addressed the argument that criminals can still buy hunting weapons to use in crime, so banning non-hunting weapons doesn't work. 3. There is the argument that he is off-topic, which he concedes in the last speech. There's 3 reasons why to vote CON. Lets see what reasons you've been given by my opponent to vote PRO: --- "ask yourself this: if someone in your family was killed by Nidal Hasan, or by any crazed murderer, for that matter, would you be voting the same way?" A lovely appeal to emotion, rather than logic, but I would posit that: 1. Hassan ould easily have gotten weapons on the black market. 2. He could have bought a shotgun and sawed it off. There are many nasty hunting weapons out there. --- "I've never touched a gun, and I seem to have survived for almost 36 years, and I'm still going. You do not need a gun for self defense." 1. PRO's testimony can't be trusted, as he is using it to win his own debate round. 2. Even so, he certainly isn't indicative of the whole nation. [1] ===== Source ===== [1] http://gunowners.org...
Weapons not made for hunting should be outlawed for civilian use

I apologize that I may have shifted a bit. It would have been fine had my opponent ignored the full proposition, but he neglected to recognize that I have made quite a few arguments before even saying that. Because my opponent has done nothing to answer my points, they still stand. My extended proposition; however, does not once contradict the original resolution, so I would attest that it is valid, but clearly my opponent thinks differently. But one thing is clear: if you want to do well on this debate, you'll have to give it more than a sentence. That being said, my opponent has posted no arguments in his favor to speak of, so I have nothing to negate. In the whole debate, all my opponent has said in opposition to my resolution is that guns can be used for self defense, which I negated. Now, before you vote, ask yourself this: if someone in your family was killed by Nidal Hasan, or by any crazed murderer, for that matter, would you be voting the same way? And again, I've never touched a gun, and I seem to have survived for almost 36 years, and I'm still going. You do not need a gun for self defense. And with that, I will give the debate to my opponent, who will hopefully discuss a few points this time.
Weapons not made for hunting should be outlawed for civilian use

"I would, however, be happy to ban the use of guns within cities. I would have included that in the resolution, but I didn't have room. My full proposition would be as follows: Civilians may not have access to weapons not made specifically for hunting. In order to gain access to hunting weapons, one must pass an extensive background check and be issued a permit, which shall be renewed yearly. Furthermore, guns must be in storage in urban areas, and must be visible at all times elsewhere. " --- My opponent has decided that he wants to debate a new resolution. That's fine; he can start a new debate on it.
Memes are better than vines

Actually, there is a lot of funny vines with "Do you know da wae", also you can just show the vines to your friends from your smartphone, instead of acting it, even more, some of the forced memes were based on popular vines. In addition, in your example "Do you know de wae" sound play important role, and if you or your friends don't know what are you talking about, it will be easier to understand it with vines, another example is "Esketit", memes good only when you know about subject lil bit.
Is this a love poem

in conclusion cons has said "con says he has made this assertion "This is defiantly not a love poem!! so con has applied some criteria in order to make this claim but con will not l us what that criteria is for which he evaluated deans poem to make the claim "This is defiantly not a love poem!! with out backing up his assertion ie "This is defiantly not a love poem!! WITHOUT proof con must LOOSE THIS debate I have backed up my claim with example and analysis thusI must win the debate
Is this a love poem

con says "Love is subjective. Arguing love makes you a moron." but con has already told us that "This is defiantly not a love poem!! so con has applied some criteria in order to make this claim so please tell us based on the criteria you used to say deans poem is not a love poem why deans poem is not a love poem as an aside con has just got rid of 1000 years of love poetoy -for him there can be no love poetry as love is subjective -if this poem was one of Shakespeare's love poems con would have no trouble debating pain is subjective too but you know the objective criteria to know if someone is in pain-or cant you tell is somee is pain same with love there are objective criteria I gave the4 definition so debate it on those objective crieria if con does not show us why deans poem is not a ove then he must loose the debate
Is this a love poem

con says "This is defiantly not a love poem!!" now con has to back up his assertion with proof I will give proof of my assertion that this is a love poem love defined to be http://dictionary.reference.com... "noun 1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend. 3. sexual passion or desire" in sense 3 sexual passion or desire these lines are full of passion "oh these syrupy fruity scents are sweet wine to my lips sweet wine upon which I do drunkard be" here the protagonist is showing us his desire longing for what he wants again "oh I smell the fruity-essences I taste their kisses upon my lips" here he is speaking of his his sexual desires passion "oh that fleshy pulp of spongy succulent sweet savory flesh oh that I would churn up the juices of that cornucopia of eatable delights that fount of unimaginable syrupy tastes now it is up to con to prove his assertion with proof ie examples from the poem
Biblical accounts prove God is not loving.

My opponents contention at once reveals his ignorance of Biblical theology AND exposes mankind's hopeless assertion that it could even begin to 'judge' Almighty God. His first *ahem* 'salvo' takes us back close to the beginning of mankind's story.. the flood account. Close but NOT close enough. In order to understand EVERYTHING that follows we MUST understand the 'Fall of Mankind'. In Genesis 2:16 and onwards we learn how God gave Adam every fruit of the garden EXCEPT fruit from the tree of 'knowledge of good and evil' OR (and this is THE IMPORTANT PART) "for in the DAY that you eat it you will surely die." NOW, Genesis 5:3 clearly states that Adam lived 130years before having offspring SO Genesis 2 is obviously talking about something OTHER than regular physical death. "The wages (what we are OWED) of sin (disobedience) is death.." ST Paul later writes. When Adam disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit he, and ALL his offspring (You and I brother) died spiritually.. that is 'separated from God'. This clearly negates the word 'innocent' as my opponent has defined it (in terms of 'innocent babies' being 'murdered' in the great flood etc.) No one is 'innocent' in that we are ALL born sinful. Our very nature is enmity to God purely because we are 'apart' from Him. Mankind got itself into this mess by disobeying the Word of God. Did God then leave us to our own devices? No. Because God is SO loving He made Adam a promise.. that one of his offspring would inherit the 'promised land' and so the Israelites became the keepers of God's promise.. They 'lived by His Word' or promise again. Now to the question of God's Omniscience.. (to know everything) and His Omnipotence. (to be all powerful) AGAIN we must go back to the Genesis account.. God GAVE Adam dominion over the earth and all the animals etc BUT by choosing the enemies word over God's Word Adam then GAVE this world to satan who remains the 'god of this world'.. God is bound by His own word because He Is Truth so He cannot just 'press the reset' button.. He either starts again completely or IF He is a loving Father, He patiently settles down to long haul. The other two examples my opponent uses, Moses and Pharaoh and the accounts of Israel's wars in Numbers MUST be seen in terms of God doing things 'our way'.. The earth was and IS in an continuous state or war and turmoil.. In order that the 'keepers of the promise' not be completely decimated God continually 'sticks up' for them. But really the old testament is God saying 'Look, I've helped you to win wars, given you riches, great kings and many, many prophets and where has it gotten you? You are STILL as sinful and rebellious as ever.." It is to show that even with all the rules and regulations, the harsh punishments and all the OUTSIDE help from God their 'religion' amounted to a great big NOTHING. My opponent is clearly several thousand fathoms out of his depth on this topic. I will accept a short apology and an honourable withdrawal.