BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

While my opponent makes good arguments on case he has dropped the fact that the gesture is what truly counts, even if the minorities don't fully use their gift of increased radio, then they will still be left with the fact that there are people in the world whom are there to help mend the racist wounds that have plagued our nation for so long. (That's our Katz evidence from the first speech.) Contention 3, that is completely not true, in the first speech I specifically cite evidence from my amajor article, the argument you make against it doesn't really make much sense because it specifically states within the article "This tactic forces the viewers' attention toward more salient and visible attributes of criminal suspects, such as their race or ethnicity. Through the course of watching this crime script the audience notices that criminal suspects are generally non-white males. The great prevalence of violent crime in local news and the tendency of crime reports to feature non-white perpetrators." In this, it means that news stations focus much more on the ethnicity of criminals than their actual crimes. If anything, the Amajor evidence is very much so relevant to this debate and your arguments are wrong. Virillio - I shall continue to argue that there is a very bad link of this argument to my own case, the evidence never shows any reason to believe that increasing broadband will lead to nuclear war or any such thing in the US. While I will not argue that nuclear war nor any big weapon war is bad, I will argue that racism is much much worse. Many people would rather loose their lives than live in a society where they are persecuted and hated upon simply because the color of their skin or their ancestors heritage. Death is final and absolute, where as persecution will continue until something is done. As the pro, I urge you to vote in my factor for the eradication of racism in the US and allow for a nation in which we are able to get rid of these racist ideals and allow for one in which we are able to be one as a nation. The world in which we refuse to help with the problem of racism, we are left with one in which these ideals are perpetuated and will eventually spread to both sides and shall lead to a nation that is exponentially divided into one that is full of hatred. Vote pro for a nation without racism and for a nation that is one as a whole. The world of the Con is simply one in which we say "I don't care about all of these racial persecutions and will just continue on and allow for our nation to be divided further." Peace
The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

By conceding the defaulted "death count" framework of this debate, you're argument on "how are we better than the Nazi's" is mitigated by the simple fact that us not increasing broadband investment doesn't KILL PEOPLE. I'll concede point A. under contention one but you have also not correctly answered point b. that it doesnt make sense that a governmental investment would knock down any barriers that prevented minorities from "voicing their opinions" before. Also, because you still have not given solid statistics on HOW increasing broadband cures racism, my subpoints C and D still stand strong that it doesnt make sense that you solve racism seeing as broadband networks don't really allow people to "voice" their voice any better and also the fact you have no evidence stating that minorities will actually use the broadband to "voice their opinions". You have also completely conceded my second contention that funding for this seems non existent because in the eyes of Congress and the FCC, "solving for racist ideals" isnt exactly a prioritized action of pragmatism. On contention 3:, nowhere in your plan does it state that "many radio hosts are racist towards African Americans and other minorities and these minorities have no way in which they are able to fight back". Your plan is to simply increase an investment in the national broadband plan. The specific cites you have listed do not say this but instead, simply state that radios/television often connect violent crimes w/minorities. Without certain evidence, this argument doesnt make sense in the context of this debate. This is your Amajor citation. You say that we hold a very weak link to your plan but this is actually quite the contrary. Your plan doesnt stat that " we are to unify the US as one and not divide it by racism", but rather, increase investment in the national broadband network. That sounds like a drastic increase/attempt to further technology to me. As stated before, because you have conceded that there is no real racist threat from a lack of broadbands, your advantages to the pro are almost non existant. However, even if you as the audience grant him his racism harm, you have to remember he has also considered the utilitarian framework in which body counts determine the winner of this debate. Remember that the integral accident could be one of nuclear response or any major weapons of mass destruction failing resulting in the loss of many lives. In terms of body count, this will heavily outweigh any "racism" claims my opponent can attempt to garner.
celebrity protection

Celebrities should be educated and know there are good and bad people on this world. And the difference between goo and bad people. Paparazzi are not bad people, they may go over and beyond to get what they want. But, they do what they for a job. How would you like if you were a baker, but was not allowed to cook for other people. (Traditional Economy) only you and your family. In America you wouldn't like that. Same here, paparazzi are photographers who want to take pictures and make juicy stories, and have news for us ordinary people who need gossip and drama.
Burning the American Flag Should be illegal

The American flag is a symbol of America the Confederate flag is a symbol for the South, the maple leaf is a symbol for Canada, and a cross is a symbol for Christianity. Cutting down a maple tree in Canada will start a riot, burning a cross around a Christian will offend that person. The American flag is our symbol and if you are offended and don't like how we do it in America why are you even here in the first place. But if you were like in another country and burnt the American flag in a crowed, us Americans will get mad at the other country and conflict will come. You said we always make new prints of a flag, but we have persevered flags from history. The same American flag the was shot at by the Confederates at Fort Sumter is still in the Smithsonian, same with the flag that flew over Baltimore in the War of 1812. Its seems like making new flags are worthless because the ones that mean the most are persevered the most. Burning the American Flag is legal in this country because of the First Amendment. But why will someone stay in America and protest as they can leave will no violence and making everybody angry?
Burning the American Flag Should be illegal

First I want to say I think its wrong to burn it but it should not be illegal. The American flag is a symbol of our country and represents us. Some people in their mind it is just a piece of paper that has been copied millions of times so its not really anything important. If somebody hates what the government is doing that can be used as protest. It is wrong in my mind but it can be used to express feelings toward the government.
Burning the American Flag Should be illegal

The British didn't care because there another country. But with with sports logos that's way different, Sports are something we are to have fun over. Sometimes we will have to much fun and destroy logos. I am yes one of them, I am a Carolina fan last week was a Dook game. But I love my country and will never put fire to my flags. If your mad at the government you can do two things, leave the country or protest with a sigh or some sort. A sight is more peaceful and won't get everybody mad over a pissed of American trying to start a war. Packing up your bags is another way to find a better government. I bet there is some place across the pond with a government that won't start anonymous wars. I bet if you burn the American flag on the side of the road to protest, people will look at you and tell you to leave the US before you start another civil war.
Burning the American Flag Should be illegal

Okay first the confederate flag is not a symbol and if you believe that it means that you support slavery. Back to topic the British nearly destroyed that flag, do they care, no. People have this illusion that the American flag is great and should be protected. Its just stupid thinking that that should be illegal. That is just saying like you can burn a sports logo. The truth is people do not like are country that much same to a sports team. Truth is the government has done stupid things and have put us into wars for no reason I could burn it saying the government has been doing stupid things and there will be bad consequences. That's what it means; that's why it should not be illegal.
Women Should Have the Right to Fight on the Front Lines. **March Tournament**

I have rebutted every single one of your point's and made my own arguments. Yet in this round your just taking portions and sentences of my argument and just implying your own personal thoughts into them. I really don't see any way of arguing in this round because you really didn't give me an argument to rebut against. So the point's that you implied your personal opinion on I will clarify more in this round I guess. "WW2 was allot more of a gruesome war then wars we have today" Meaning women have fought along time ago, allot of them survived. Also sexism was very big back then, but yet they were allowed to fight. So what has changed now? "Lets state a scripture" I only used 1 or 2 scriptures. Nothing really big nothing that controls this whole argument. "Simply, if you love your country and want to protect it, then you should have every right to weather you are a man or a women" Like I have said MULTIPLE times, you consider the consequences before doing something major like enlisting, yet you do it anyways because you love your country. "Many people want to complain that women don't have the mental and physical capabilities that men do" Men and Women are help up to the same standard when It comes to physical ability, they are all tested the same. "As you can see, women are just as capable for saving a life then a man." Like I've said.....again...it doesn't matter what your orientation is or color is, a women is just as capable as a man is in fighting in a war. "The reality of modern warfare is that there are no front lines" Meaning that all wars are dangerous, not just the front lines. Back to con!
Women Should Have the Right to Fight on the Front Lines. **March Tournament**

"For many years women have been allowed to fight in comeback"From my research, this is not true. Only women in the Soviet Union were allowed to fight in WWII (AKA the worst human catastrophe in all of history) [1]. But how is this an argument for letting women have the right to join the military at any time? This reasoning and argument is the equivalent of saying "WWII was good because it happened". Um, wot?"WW2 was allot more of a gruesome war then wars we have today"I agree thousands of times. WWII was the worst thing that happened to human civilization in all of its history thus far. But what is the necessity of having women in combat, if we do not have gruesome wars anymore? What is the necessity of having a woman fight alongside a man, when the "gruesomeness" is much lower than a time that women were not allowed to fight in the US? Your "point" is rendered invalid."Lets state a scripture"Let's try to keep this topic less about religion and more about the ethics of letting women in the military."Simply, if you love your country and want to protect it, then you should have every right to weather you are a man or a women"Not if you are going to be terrorised by domestic forces via sexual assault."Many people want to complain that women don't have the mental and physical capabilities that men do"I don't. I'm not arguing that they don't have the same capabilities. I agree, men and women are equal in terms of ways they can do things, both mentally and physically. You are making a logical fallacy by saying that if you agree that women and men are basically equivalent in terms of mental stature and physical stature, then you must agree that they can serve alongside one another in front line combat."As you can see, women are just as capable for saving a life then a man."I 100% agree. But this doesn't further your case at all... this just says that women and men are basic equals. Your point is invalid."The reality of modern warfare is that there are no front lines"Oh, okay. Then how can we give women the right to fight on the front lines if they don't have front lines? You are basically conceding to the fact that women should not have the right to fight on the front lines because the front lines do not exist. Sorry that this was a shorter round, but because you used a logical fallacy as most of your case, I only have to prove that the assertion is false and that your points are invalid.[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The world is flat.

My first argument that the Earth is flat is gravity. Gravity, which is a force we can easily witness in our everyday lives, would cause any flat shaped to collapse instantly into a sphere. The gravity on a flat Earth would simply not keep it together.Second, elaborating on gravity, since the center of gravity of a flat Earth is at the center (obviously), the farther to the edge you traveled, the more the Earth would feel slanted upwards. If you could walk from the center of the flat Earth model to the edge, it would gradually feel like you were walking up. By the edge, the concern wouldn't be falling off of the edge, but rather, falling back to the center of gravity. Standing on the side of a flat Earth would actually feel perfectly flat and normal.Declaring that gravity does not exist is not a rebuttal to this evidence. Gravity is not a "theory", it has been proven by Sir Issac Newton.That is clearly enough evidence. I am not expecting to have to use more, but if I do, I will in the next rebuttal round, as well as disprove my opponent's theories.
Minors Who Have Sex Before The Age of Consent With Adults Should Face Legal Consequences

Preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not a reason for masturbation over sex, given my opponent's statements on contraception. If promoting sexual responsibility is what he wants, he should not discourage contraception. I would very much like to see the study that says all medical experts agree with my opponent's claim. Just because something is unhealthy does not mean it should be illegal. That is absurd. My opponent has not responded to several of my claims. I will consider them conceded unless he responds in the final round.
Minors Who Have Sex Before The Age of Consent With Adults Should Face Legal Consequences

Statutory rape laws should not exist, since nobody should be punished for consensual sex. Age limit laws do nothing to prevent minors taking alcohol and cigarettes. The only people who can determine someone's maturity level are themselves. As for lying, lying would be unnecessary if these things were legal. The comment about the 8 year old is a straw man. It doesn't matter how unlikely the situation is. It is possible. The policy if such a situation would occur must thus be in place, and logical. Obviously a kid buying contraception is probably for sex. That doesn't mean they should be spied on. In the current system, people who sell alcohol and cigarettes to minors are punished. I agree that it sends a message about accountability. It is for that reason that the law should not get involved, because it lowers the impact of direct consequences in favor of arbitrary consequences. Punishing minors for having sex does not deter lying about age, it encourages it. And punishing both parties for the sex is just silly. Punishing one at least pretends there is a victim, but punishing both clearly means that it was a victimless crime. Adults can masturbate too. There is no difference. This argument is like saying people don't need to eat because they can just imagine food.
Minors Who Have Sex Before The Age of Consent With Adults Should Face Legal Consequences

Con says this is wrong because everybody matures at a different rate. By the same logic we should get rid of statutory rape laws, because sometimes the minor might have been mature enough to consent. We should also get rid of age limits on alcohol and cigarettes, because what if the minor is mature enough.Minors that lie about their age to get sex are putting well-intending adults at risk. In most jurisdictions mistaking the age is not considered an excuse. It should, but it's not. So we need to penalize minors that lie about their age for purposes of getting sex. Minors that lie about their age to get alcohol or cigarettes are also punished. There's no good reason for an exception.A sexually active 8 year old was almost certainly confused and pushed into having sex by the adult even if the adult had somehow gotten the 8 year old's active participation. Same principle as would apply in most alcohol or tobacco cases involving an 8 year old. The kid is unlikely to even know what these things are at that age or to have a very poor idea of it.If a kid is buying contraceptives what reason would he be doing that unless he's going to have sex? Obviously that's very good evidence that he's about to engage in sex, so spying on them makes sense.Sex may be human nature, but the same can be said of pleasure-seeking in general. We make minors wait to enjoy the pleasures of alcohol and cigarettes and even sex. The only difference with the last one is that only adults that help minors have sex get in trouble. This sends a message to the minor that they are not accountable for their actions. It also enables minors to lie about their age, and then blackmail the adult. If both were culpable that would deter that from happening.Minors can masturbate. They don't need to be having sex.
Minors Who Have Sex Before The Age of Consent With Adults Should Face Legal Consequences

I accept. My opponent's argument rests on the axiom that minors are not mature enough for sex. His only evidence for this claim, however, is that society has judged this. However, society can be wrong. Just because more people hold a certain view than the opposite view does not morally prove anything. Everybody matures at a different rate. Saying that minors are not mature enough is wrong, because a minor can be much more mature than an adult. In his description of the punishment that may be given to minors, he states that they should not be put on the sex offender registry. This is obvious, as no offense has been committed. This whole argument is like punishing people for committing suicide. In terms of lying to the adult, the lying should only be used to acquit a statutory rape defendant. Not to convict a teen of something that shouldn't be a crime. Next, my opponent says that minors under the age of accountability should not be held to these laws. This is absurd. My opponent's whole point is to protect young children from sex, but only wishes to punish the sexually mature children. While I hold that neither demographic should be punished, the thought of a sexually active 8 year old is much more disturbing than the thought of a sexually active 16 year old. Now for the ways to get caught: 1. Obviously this would be considered evidence 2/3. My opponent wishes to use STDs, pregnancy, etc... as evidence. While this would happen, it would extremely cruel to punish teenagers after they have been through such things. STDs and unwanted pregnancies are punishment enough. Also, these consequences are a far more effective deterrent. If my opponent's proposed law is to promote sexual responsibility, spying on kids for buying contraceptives is extremely counterproductive. All the problems caused by underage sex would increase, because no teen would buy contraception. The reason that a contraception law is a deterrent but an underage sex law is not is simple: sex is human nature, sexual responsibility is not.
Minors Who Have Sex Before The Age of Consent With Adults Should Face Legal Consequences

There are many things that we as a society have wisely judged as something that minors should not be allowed as they are not mature enough yet. These things include alcohol, tobacco, and sex. Yet only with the last one are minors given free reign to be free of prosecution when they freely indulge in these activities with an adult.Minors who choose to do things they have been forbidden to do due to their lack of maturity should face consequences in order to deter them from this behavior and to send a clear message to them that this is not age appropriate.Creating this new crime of "willful engagement in sexual relations underaged" will help send a clear message to the youth that the age of consent laws are not just for protecting them from perverts but also meant to mean that they are not mature enough for sex just the same as they are not mature enough for alcohol or cigarettes.Minors that willingly have sex whether with another minor or an adult could just face a small fine and probation for a first time offense, and then juvenile hall for their second. They certainly shouldn't be placed on the sex offender registry. But they should at least face punishment.Since it puts adults at risk who mean to follow the law minors that lie about their age to obtain sexual services should be considered to have committed an additional offense, both civil and criminal.This obviously wouldn't apply to minors who are below the age of accountability or minors who are forced to have sex, just minors that willingly engage in it.In some cases immunity could be granted to minors in order to get them to testify against statutory rapists. That would help increase prosecutions of statutory rapists.Ways a person could get convicted:1. Caught in the act or on a recording device.2. As the result of evidence showing sexual relations under age must have happened. This would include STDs unless there is an explanation of how the person may have gotten the STD without engaging in any illegal activity, so another law should also be created, the crime of "being guilty of either having committed willful engagement in sexual relations underaged OR having engaged in illegal use of a drug or drug paraphrenalia", the lesser penalty would apply. 3. Other ways of proving "sexual engagement underaged" would include pregnancy or having an abortion or a miscarriage, or obtaining the morning after pill as a minor. How to investigate and find them:Minors should be allowed to buy contraceptives, but this should be held as evidence of intent to engage in sexual relations giving probable cause to the police to record the evidence, watch the person, talk to their friends and family, in order to collect enough evidence to lead to catching and arresting them. Cops undercover and hired "snitch students" could also be sent into high schools and even middle schools to find and bust minors who are willfully engaging in sex.
An afterlife exists.

I've chosen Samuel60. Definitions: Afterlife: "The realm... in which an essential part of an individual's identity or consciousness continues to exist after the death of the body (brain death, after complete nonfunctional activity of the brain ) in the individual's lifetime." Exists: "have objective reality or being." Debate format: R1: Acceptance R2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con) R3: Rebuttals to opening arguments R4: Defense of your original arguments. Rules and Other Debate Information: BOP is shared. No forfeits. No insults. No semantics. Follow the format. 72 Hours to Post Argument. 9,000 Characters Max. 10 day voting period. 7 point voting system. Open Voting Posting sources in the comments is allowed.