BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
white people are going extinct

Population decline =/= extinction. Pro ignores my data on infant mortality, life expectancy and standard of living as well as my other arguments. Neither WWII or the American civil war were 'race wars' and only one was global. German and Polish Jews were mostly white as were the majority of soldiers in the US conflict. As soon as white people join the 'other side' then a war would cease to be a race war and would become a war against racists. Pro's definition of extinction clearly applies to species rather than ethnic groupings of a species. If non white people remain we can still reproduce with them (I've done this myself, it's quite straightforward). Historically genocide has been a pastime of white people more than others.
white people are going extinct

1. fallacies of my oponents: = Wiki's map of fertility rates proves nothing proved false by: wikipedia: "if the fertility trend is sustained, it results in population decline. This is forecast for most of the countries of Europe" = In a global race war whites would win easily Proven false by: american civil war and world war II. Just like you, most whites sided with the nonwhites in both occasions Conditions of Functional extinction, wikipedia: # the reduced population no longer plays a significant role in ecosystem function; or # the population is no longer viable. There are no individuals able to reproduce, or the small population of breeding individuals will not be able to sustain itself due to inbreeding depression
white people are going extinct

There is no basis for Pro's claim which is simply hateful fear-mongering propaganda for his racist agenda. Wiki's map of fertility rates proves nothing. While the widespread use of contraception and abortion in developed countries explains the statistics, one will also find that infant-mortality rates are much higher in "fertile" countries. [1] Becoming a minority in some western countries in the future =/= extinction. White people are likely to have high standards of living and healthcare on a world scale and we continue to outlive other ethnic groups. [2] [3] In a global race war of the kind perhaps envisioned by my paranoid opponent, us whities would win easily. Could Pro define "extinction"? Sources in comments.
white people are going extinct

using wikipedia definition: "the term white also functions as a color term for race, often referring narrowly to people claiming indigenous european ancestry" based on the fact that all the white countries have populations below replacement level http://en.wikipedia.org... * note that american white replacement level is only 1.85, but the map includes blacks and mexi-americans making it look higher and trends http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.thelocal.de... http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

I'll let you go first. However, before we begin I'd like to say what I think was responsible for the emergence of the GLBT movement. It had to do mostly with the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s, but it also had to do with Loving v. Virginia, which caused interracial marriage to be legalized in the United States. Yes, that is right: the legalization of interracial marriage had a role to play in today's Gay Marriage. I am not against interracial marriage, but in this case it cracked open the door to gay marriage. If we could've had interracial marriage without it ultimately leading to gay marriage, that'd be great. But the damage has been done. Anyhow, you don't have to give an answer to my above theory. It's just something to think about. If you accept my debate, we'll debate on the topic at hand: Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope.
Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

Since this is the final round, I'll offer a conclusion as to why my opponent has failed to uphold the resolution properly.Conclusion If we take a look at the resolution independently of the argument made in this debate, we should understand that ultimately the point of this debate is for pro to prove how homosexuality itself, is the leading factor in societies downfall. Every single one of Con's arguments explained a proper link between homosexuality, and any one of these percieved downfalls which were each of his conentions. On top of that, none of the percieved downfalls were properly justified as downfalls by my opponent, so how can we conclude by affirming the resolution? The questions I posed in the last round held burdens that meant the answers behind them would be the only factor to uphold my opponents case. Let's look at some of those answers.The answers (A1-2, A5-6), is basing the entire argument around ancient taboo's and their sanctity. At the same time, my opponent never said why violating ancient taboo's is wrong. I shouldn't even have to get into how breaking many of those ancient taboo's has bettered societies, freeing many from slavery, oppression, discrimination, etc. A3 assumes that relationship automatically = acts, without bearing recognition that same detriments can come from all different sexuality preferences.A4 shifts the burden of proof. I did not make the claim, why do I have to prove something someone made up is actually made up?A7 provides a claim once again not supported by evidence. A8 AGAIN only assumes the involvement of one party. The other party not being human, Pro has destroyed his own point.A9 Has left me completely confused.A10 Fails to prove how they aren't closely related to heterosexuality. A13 Data that doesn't suit my opponents bias, will relentlessly be ignored, as admitted by himself.A14 So every group fighting for anything, is only inspired to do so because of the homosexuals? Wow, pretty broad assessment with no actual statistics to back it up.By the end of this debate, I am left having to argue lack of statistics, other people's arguments that I did not make, logical fallacies, and am being asked to provide the BOP on claims I didn't make. This debate was never really a debate, is was a chance for my opponent to continue to show his ignorance. There was no room to argue, because my opponent was never ready to be convinced. On to the voters.
Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

First, this is not a debate on homosexuality all by itself. It is a debate on society's acceptance of homosexuality being a slippery slope. Therefore my points are not "irrelevant." Also, I would like to add that I do not actually advocate Incest, Bestiality, or Pedophila. Well, provided they abstain from sexual relations, a simple romantic relationship between and 18 year old and a 17 year old would be okay, as well as an 18-16 matchup or even an 18 year old and 15 year old matchup. Incest and Bestiality would not be justified under any conditions, but in this case I'm arguing for them to prove my point and win the debate. 1. I did not say that homosexuality and Adult incest are identical. I said that the same logic can be used to justify either one. I used pro-gay arguments to make a pro-Incest argument. Incest, like homosexuality, only hurts the two partners, provided they don't have a kid, and if the two relatives are of the same gender they won't. 2. You define consent as agreeing to the act. But if you don't object to it, wouldn't that also be consenting? 3. If did not say during this debate that homosexuality and pedophilia (not literal pedophila) are the same. But as I've stated above, the same logic can be used to justify both. Please note that in this usage, I'm talking about consenting sexual relationships between 14+ year old teenagers and adults. So what is my overall point? What am I trying to argue in this debate? Well, I'll tell you. If you just use logic, you can find a logical justification for just about anything, just as you can use logic against these things. There has to be some other standard, an ultimate absolute standard, a place where you draw the line, and declare that society must never cross this line. Homosexuality is the first time we crossed this line, and what honestly prevents us from crossing the line further in the future, maybe 20 or 30 years from now? What prevents us from crossing that line right now, aside from the beliefs held by society? And let me remind you that what a society believes changes over time. 50 years ago society shunned homosexuality, the same society that encourages it today. This is why I say that society's acceptance of homosexuality is a slippery slope. I await your rebuttals.
Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

Hello, TUF. Thank you for accepting this debate. According to your profile (which may or may not be truthful) you are an important figure on DDO, and you probably had a lot of other stuff to do. Anyway, what I stated about interracial marriage was not the foundation for my argument. As I stated, it was just something to think about. My foundational argument is to be a lot different. Okay, first of all you're probably right about interracial marriage not being a cause of homosexual marriage. Now, my real arguments shall begin. I will cover Incest (Adult), Bestiality, and sexual relationships between teenagers and adults. 1. Adult Incest They're both adults, they both consent, they love each other, their love doesn't affect anyone else. Sound familiar? These are some of the same arguments used to argue in favor of gay marriage. I'm now using them to justify Incest. 2. Bestiality/Zoophilia The animal does not refuse to consent, the person loves the animal and the animal feels affection for its owner/partner. It doesn't affect anyone else, so we should stop being "bigots" and legalize Bestiality. Once again, I've used some arguments used to justify gay marriage. 3. Sexual Relationships Between Minors and Adults (Consenting) First of all, by the strict definition of the word, this would not be Pedophilia. Anyway, the teenager consents, the teenager and the adult love each other, their love doesn't affect anyone else, and if the teenager gets pregnant she can get an abortion (you Liberals do love your abortions, after all). Guess what! Once again, I used some pro-gay arguments. I have been arguing in favor of the "Slippery Slope," often used in arguments against gay marriage. If all the above arguments can be used for what I used them for, then the slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy. P.S. Actually, homosexual people do get AIDS more than straight people. A group that makes up 2% or so of the US population make up about 60% of AIDS victims. My source for this claim was an article from the AFA Magazine. I await your response.
Did the supreme court have the right to decide for states on gay marriage

Now it dose not mean the Supreme Court was right either because this is an opinion between them and the public of the US and the Supreme Court dose not care about happiness by god if they did they would have taken in account of people who didn't like this at all. The Supreme Court is not made of perfect because I didn't hear about them looking at both sides on how this would effect the others who didn't want this. I don't like gay marriage but long ago I stopped caring about them my religion states where there going so I don't care about them but when I am not allowed to vote because nine people decide to take my right away and put it to use to something that I am against then I have a VERY big problem wasn't I given my unalienable rights to vote when this country was formed. Now you ask me how I would like it if I was told that I couldn't get married because America is stereotypical and I get judged for it well the answer to your question is I would do it anyway I don't care what people think about me I will get married to someone I love and nothing can stop me because in your question you didn't say that it was a law that was put into order that I couldn't get married because the American public is stereotypical. Next I have a question for you what if the Supreme Court lets just say wanted to kill a thousand innocent people in America but the American public dose not want this to happen. Which would you choose the Supreme Court votes on this or the American public. Now you say that the American public is stereotypical, do you honestly believe all of the Americans are stereotypical and the Supreme Court is not? For the next to final thing the gays that kill themselves as you say because of depression are completely stupid I am sorry but if they will kill themselves when they get to have giant parades in streets and they can their rights that were promised to them except for marriage then that is up right ignorant. Gays get to show their love in public all the time but apparently you must not see it. Now for the final thing I will quote my self from the last round if gays cared about marriage then they can go somewhere else that allows their marriage instead of going out and suing the people who wouldn't give them the license and you don't need a license or marriage to show love you have it between you and the person you love. Thank you for reading this.
Did the supreme court have the right to decide for states on gay marriage

Majority can rule against gay marriage all they want that doesn't mean they are right. The Supreme Court is made up of people who care about others and their happiness because they are the people who aren't sexist, racist, or stereotypical. The country was built on the basis of marriage between a man and woman but this country and the people in it have changed. Some have developed feelings for people of the same sex but the stereotype that a man can't be with a man and woman can't be with a woman has held them back from showing the love in the best possible way, marriage. The Supreme Court has opened up that right to those who are gay, you don't have to like it but that's the thing you can't do anything about it. You don't have to open your arms for the gay population but you do have to respect those who have made the decision to open their arms and you especially have to respect those who want to love the same sex. Marriage is the best possible way to express your love with someone, it symbolizes that you give your heart to someone for the rest of your life and that they are your one and only and in America we have taken that right away from people who are gay and it is wrong. How would you like if I told you that you couldn't marry someone you love because the American population is stereotypical and that you get judged because of it? Americans took away the right for gays to marry and the Supreme Court has given it back to them, they have saved some people's lives. Did you know that some gay people have gotten so depressed that they can't be with the person they love because of stereotypes and ignorant people that they have killed themselves? It is sad that some people can't open up their hearts to these special people but I did and I hope that you read this that you have a new perspective on the world. Thank you.
Did the supreme court have the right to decide for states on gay marriage

Now you do have an excellent point but the Constitution dose in fact state that We the people of the United States not. We the nine people of the United States. Majority rules in the US so what ever a decision like this is worth needs to be decided by the citizens no matter how fair or unfair it is and besides knowing how many gays and people that are for gays are now a days gay marriage might have been voted in several new states. Next this is a free nation which should give every right as an American to vote on such decisions that could effect our country. In the 11th amendment it states that the Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. This pretty much sums it all up that the Supreme court was in the wrong to allow gay marriage and not all American have harassed people for being gay some have actually were proud of them. The American public can also make their own decisions which gay marriage is one of them our founding fathers expected us to do this and they also built this country on marriage between a man and a woman. Now for the final thing the gays can love who they want before the decision happened it just was that they couldn't get married and in today's world if they cared about their marriage so much then the people who wouldn't give them the marriage license wouldn't be sued by the gays. Couldn't they just go somewhere else that would allow their marriage to be in progress.
Did the supreme court have the right to decide for states on gay marriage

In America we have a Supreme Court, people who make the major decisions for our country that we as ordinary people can't decide. Gay marriage has been a question tossed in the Supreme Court's face so many times it might as well be boring, but it isn't. In America people have harassed those who have wanted to love someone of the same gender, but why? We are afraid to open ourselves up to change, we can't handle making the decision of whether or not to allow gay marriage in our FREE country. So the Supreme Court made the decision for us. They weren't taking away our rights but telling us that the people who decide someone of the same gender also have rights and we can't discriminate someone against their life choices. In the constitution it states that every has rights and equality yet people believe that because they are white or black, Hispanic or American, or gay or straight that those differences decide the amount of right and equality they get in this country and it is unfair to let an ignorant person decide someone else's fate. The Supreme Court had every right to let someone express themselves through another person they love and you can pout and argue about it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that everyone who enters our borders and is deemed a citizen have rights. They have the rights to love whoever they want whenever they want and they have the right to stand up to people like you who put them down because they are different. Difference isn't a scary thing it is something that we should embrace as human beings, we are all different. All the Supreme Court did was embrace those people's difference. Thank you.
Did the supreme court have the right to decide for states on gay marriage

I am just going to make this a short argument because I have a lot of work to do. The Supreme Court cannot decide for people who want or don't want gay marriage this is for the people to decide upon. Now you say back along time ago in round one that the Supreme Court gave gays rights and I am here right now to denounce that. The Supreme Court legalized their marriage, gays already have had rights heck they have Civil rights you cant even deny a purchase from a gay unless you want to be sued or for it to be considered a hate crime by your peers. Now you say this throughout your arguments saying that we the American people took their rights this is wrong the government did that not the citizens. Since you didn't post your last argument I would like you, if you do post to answer my question not dodge it and move to another thing, I answered your now you answer mine. For the final thing I would like to bring up this again I know that I ended on this in my last argument but I feel like it must be brought back in to it again. Now I said in the last round that marriage dose not mean anything if you love somebody this in my opinion is true I know a few gays some are friends and I saw that their wasn't much care about marriage with them and this proves my point you don't need a license to marry if you love someone you do indeed have love between you and you r partner no matter which gender that might be and this is quote what you said "marriage is the best possible way to express your love to someone. If you think this is true then that is your problem but I don't as you can see. Thank you for reading this have a nice day.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

First let's go over the aff points, then the neg ones. Aff's contention 1 is meaningless - it literally just says that adolescents don't have the right. Restating the topic doesn't have any weight in our debate. Contention 2 says teens need to be ready to face leadership roles. OK, but medical decisions are far too important of decisions to just be experimenting on and practicing for real life. Cross apply my second and third pieces of evidence - the adolescents will make bad, potentially disastrous choices. This isn't the time to be simply practicing for the real world. Because the harms outweigh the benefits, adolescents should not have this right. Contention 3 says that we should look at the impacts to the child. OK, I prove that the decisions children make are often gigantic mistakes. So once again, the harms outweigh the benefits. Now to Framework. Autonomy cannot come first because we are always affected by others. Source 4 Writes (Mutcherson, Kimberly M. (2005) "Whose Body Is It Anyway - An Updated Model of Healthcare Decision-Making Rights for Adolescents," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 14: Iss. 2, Article 3.[ Assistant Professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law-Camden.]) The autonomous person, as the saying goes, is 'his own man' or 'her own woman.' He/she doesn't 'belong' to anyone else, either as property or as possession.... this version of autonomy is both undesirable and unattainable on an individual level, and therefore, destructive from a policy perspective. We all experience dependency, and we are all subsidized during our lives (although unequally and inequitably so). 83 As used in this article, autonomy does not demand a rugged or radical individualism in which people are outside of communities, but instead embraces individuals who make decisions with the support of and in conjunction with the communities, large and small, to which they belong. So because we will always be influenced by the community, the classic definition of autonomy is flawed. So prefer this community idea of autonomy. Neg preserves it much better since neg lets the doctor and parents all give their input on the decisions. As for the opponent's questions, the treatment affects the child, but because children make bad decisions, they should not be making the decisions - it's that simple. They are cared for in the neg world - not just by the parents, but by the best doctors. This way they are ensured proper treatment, while in the aff world, they make bad decisions, causing divorces of their parents too. Now think about it judge - which world is better? Clearly neg is winning. My contentions and counterplan still stand, so I urge you to avoid the affirmative world and negate the resolved. Thank you.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

questions. Who do these treatments effect? So this affects a human. Should the human that controls the effected body have the final say? So are you saying children should stand to the side hopeless and uncared for? How does your value and criterion link back up to each contention? Is forcing a child to take drugs against their will moral? Attacks: Morality must be valued. I agree. I see it better fits my case because forcing a child to take drugs without hearing their opinion, and/or against their will. With increased communication can we not use autonomy. So does this not support my value? For your C2. Is this not why autonomy says "unwanted outside interference"? Everyone is always getting suggestions. It is how we listen to them and choosing if we want to accept them. Defense: There is autonomy. Every single day we have it. We choose what we wear. We choose how long we shower. Autonomy does exist. We are choosing the medicine we want someone else or ourselves to take. The child who these drugs will effect ought to have that right to make those choices. Conclusion: The neg case just holds up the aff's point of autonomy. I have proven it. We must see that I have the burden of proof and have successfully shown how their case supports my own. Please answer all the questions I have put out there.