BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legal Abortion

Abortion should be legal because if it isn't then you are saving lives - saving lives is inherently flawed (see: my entire case). We shouldn't save lives because saving lives is heteronormative (again: see my entire case).I don't need to speak about if I think murder should be legal or not because that is extra-topical. I don't understand what your drug question is about. I'm not advocating against or for anarchy, that's not topical.My opponent refutes *none* of my case - take it at its full weight.
Legal Abortion

No, I was using my Turn to better understand your argument... But, the debate is not "is criminalizing abortion dictatorial?" The debate is "should abortion be legal?" If you have already agreed with me that abortion is murder, then how can you argue that abortion should be legal? Are you suggesting we make murder legal? And if you are worried that by criminalizing abortion would create a dictatorship then shouldn't we legalize all forms of drugs? Because by not accepting that act is another form of what you called "normalization" as a matter of fact, every law would be "not accepting the queer" in one way or another... Where do we draw the line? Or do you suggest we go to an anarchy
Legal Abortion

My argument is this: you are attempting to save innocent lives. Saving lives is heteronormative and normalises the queer - and makes them "other". Otherness creates conflict and arises dictatorships.Your case makes dictatorships, yes. As for the "no statistical support" - I provided quality sources for you and I quoted them (they are behind paywalls so I will not provide the full text because I doubt the authors want that) - just saying that my arguments are unsubstantiated is fallacious.In the end my opponent just says my argument doesn't make sense - never attacking. He also provides no reasons to vote in negation, just that doing so saves lives - I AGREE but saving lives is INHERENTLY flawed!Easily vote in affirmation because of the dropped arguments and a lack of constructive arguments on my opponent's side. Thank you ~
Legal Abortion

I accept. Since I am the affirmative I assume that I will be providing my case in this round, per DDO customs. I would like to accept my opponent's argument that abortion is murder - something that I wholeheartedly agree with. Abortion is murder no matter how you slice it - by being the negation on this resolution, my opponent is trying to restrict murder and save lives. By being the affirmative I am against the idea that we have a moral or ethical duty to save lives.In this round I will be attempting to kritik the resolution by means of "Queer Theory", a kritikal argument known mostly in policy debate.Link: The negation is necessarily trying to reduce the amount of deaths in the world. The fatal assumption within this type of thinking is that the obsession over life is something that we should all have - something that I will be attacking.Professor Lee Adelman explains in "No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive" that to advocate for life in the future is an attempt to normalise the homosexual soul and to advocate for the heterosexual one. He says, "[t]his conflation of homosexuality with the radical negativity of sinthomosexuality continues to shape our social realitydespite the well intentioned efforts of many ... to normalize queer sexualities within a logic of meaning that finds realization only in and as the future."This means that the negation is necessarily arguing FOR heteronormativity and normalising the queer. (Normalising means to make them part of the "normal" group or the heterosexual one - not to think that they are equals - far from it!)Impact: Gust Yep, Karen Lovaas and John Elia, professors of San Francisco University in the journal "the Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2/3/4" in 2003 explain that to normalise the queer and to make the unnormalised queer feel "Other" is the root cause of all violence in the world. They say: "Normalization is the process of constructing, establishing, producing, and reproducing a taken-for-granted and all-encompassing standard used to measure goodness, desirability, morality, rationality, superiority, and a host of other dominant cultural values. As such, normalization becomes one of the primary instruments of power in modern society ... Normalization is a symbolically, discursively, psychically, psychologically, and materially violent form of social regulation and control" All violent dictators (the ones that have control over the masses) are a direct result of this normalisation of the "others" - or the queer individuals in society! Dictatorship is inevitable without the queered masses.Alternative:Vote against the team that is advocating for the normalisation of the masses and leading to dictatorships! Allow abortion and allow the queer! Vote against the heteronormative approach of viewing the world and allow the queer-focused one to have a say!Thank you ~
Legal Abortion

I went back and re-read both sources that you used earlier in the debate... Actually what they are saying is by normalizing the "queer" you are then going to have a control issue therefore "dictatorship" normalization happens when we begin to accept that which is different this making it normal... So what your sources are saying is that by making it legal you will create a dictatorship... Kind of contradictory... Furthermore... Voters should vote pro because I am the only one to actually stay on topic... The topic was not "how to prevent dictatorship" it was "should abortion be legal" and as it stands, murder in this country is illegal... And if we can come to a consensus that abortion is murder (it is in fact killing an organism that has brain function) then it stands to reason that abortion in and of itself should be illegal.
stop people from killing cats

Stopping people from killing cats may as well be stopping them from killing... well. anything. May countries consume cats and other various animals and even have cat farms similar to cow and pig farms. Preventing people from killing these cats would drive many into hard times as cats are often what they have for meals, similar to the American Ham and cheese sandwich or PB&J. The killing of cats should and can not stop. The torturing and or cruel killings of cats are all ready illegal in the US. So anything that would come from voting AFF would only be bad, such as overpopulation and starvation. Where as the NEG supports that people be allowed to eat the meat that is readily available. Thank you..
ESPN's 15-Year TV Broadcasting Deal with the SEC

Last year, ESPN and the SEC signed a 15-Year, $2.25 billion TV Broadcasting deal, which coincides with a 15-year $825 million deal ESPN currently has with CBS. (http://sports.espn.go.com...) (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com...) What does this mean? This means that SEC sporting events, especially football, will receive a ridiculous amount of exposure to about everyone in the country. While ESPN and the SEC are not taxpayer funded organizations, there is one aspect of this deal that makes this whole contract stink; BCS. The BCS is exactly why this deal should not be allowed to take place. ESPN is the most watched sports broadcasting channel. If you want to know what happens in the sports world, or watch sporting events, you can likely find out what's happening by turning your TV channel to ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic, or ESPNU. ESPN also has ESPN 360, ESPN Radio, ESPN Deportes, etc. Sports is synonymous with ESPN. Interestingly enough, ESPN also just agreed to a four-year deal with the BCS regarding, television, radio, and digital rights, which starts in 2011. So we have ESPN in a contract with the SEC and the BCS, and a sport (football) whose national championship matchup is decided primarily by opinions and judging in a system where exposure is key. Any football fan already knows how controversial the BCS is. It just got worse. The human judged Harris Interactive College Football Poll, and the USA Today Coaches poll account for 2/3 of the BCS ranking. The BCS computer is responsible for the other 1/3 of the BCS ranking. For a single fan, who follows his/her team closely and watches every game, we know about our team. For a college football coach (a voter in the poll) who is trying to prepare his team for a football game, and athletic director (a voter in the poll) who simply is a human and doesn't like a rival school (and whose vote may reflect those feelings) or a journalist (a voter in the poll) who has another job to do, they do not have time to watch or go to 50 football games from around the country every week. So what do they do? They catch the highlights on TV, and listen to what the "experts" have to say, likely on ESPN. See the conflict? ESPN is in a contract with the SEC. ESPN will obviously show a plethora of SEC games and highlights, because it is in a contract with the conference. The SEC will be getting a ridiculous amount of exposure. It's no doubt that this exposure will reflect a positive image upon the SEC in the eyes of the voters. ESPN media heads would also not dare to shine too much of a negative light on SEC teams, as they're in a contract with the conference. The SEC will look better than it is, therefore, tarnishing the judging system, and human component, of the BCS. (http://collegefootball.rivals.com...) In conclusion. When you are the largest sports media outlet in the world and you sign a contract to promote one conference, and also have ties, and a major influence, to determine who plays in the BCS National Championship Game, something has to give. It's practically bribery. Vote no. This deal should not be allowed to take place.
Affirmative Action is Right and Necessary

yes, companies DO want educated blacks in their system to avoid lawsuits and to APPEAR as if they promote diversity. but really what they want is 1 or 2 black people to say AHA! SEE! THERE IS A TANIQUA BROWN WORKING UNDER OUR EMPLOYMENT. NO DISCRIMINATION HERE. MOVE ALONG... but that's not enough. hiring one or two black people for the sake of avoiding legal controversy is disgusting. there are thousands upon thousands of black people in this counttry receiving an education. yet most corporate leaders are white. do you think that's a coincidence? i understand that affirmative action is like reverse discrmination. however i think that's almost necessary to reverse the ideology for hundreds of years that black people are inferior. again, the reason why i say affirmative action is necessary is because it should be TEMPORARY. it should be a stepping stone towards equality. giving black people the opportunity to utilize the education they have fought to receive and show that they are competent workers, instead of the lazy criminals that the media and society portray them as, IS and SHOULD BE considered necessary for the benefit of our society. right now we are not taking advantage of our educated and willing black citizens, but are instead opressing them by keeping them to low-paying jobs and making their advancement in this country harder and harder with each passing generation.
Affirmative Action is Right and Necessary

I agree that having more successful African Americans will help demonstrate their equal capability of holding leadership roles and powerful positions to those racist people that do exist in this country. However, I am not in favor of a process that would ultimately do more harm than good by: enacting resverse discrimination, promoting lesser-qualified people over more qualified people, and perpetuate the notion that black people are underprivileged and should be treated any differently than white people in this country. In this day and age, education is arguably one's best asset when it comes to finding a job. And granted the 'system' isn't perfect in the sense that higher education tends to be increasingly unaffordable, and therefore deters many people from receiving a college degree. However, there ARE exceptions and there ARE ways to work around this problematic trend. The key is to EDUCATING minorities and the under-privileged about the options that they have. I am a firm believer in when there's a will, there's a way. The Democratic side of me is all about increasing funding for schools in poor neighborhoods. These neighborhoods will not be selected on the basis of the color of the town's population, but rather on its economic need. This will promote academics over crime, and perhaps (hopefully) increase awareness about the value of an education. Then it will be up to the INDIVIDUALS to seek out ways to attend college, stay out of trouble and find jobs. Let's face it -- affirmative action or not, large corporations SALIVATE over intelligent and qualified African Americans who apply for positions within their company. HR departments go nuts over it; hiring these employees make these companies seem open to diversity (always a good crutch to avoid lawsuits) as well as increase their popularity/promote a good image. That's what many African Americans today don't realize. People WANT them to succeed. Many people might not want to pay out of their own pockets for them to succeed, bust all-in-all most people are not angry racists who base their lives around the opression of black people. They simply do not want to be discriminated against themselves in order to assist others.
Affirmative Action is Right and Necessary

i accidentally posted this in the comments section... the difference between immigrants and enslaved people is just that - they were ENSLAVED. they did not come to the US by choice, but were taken from their home and families to a country where they would be abused for years, then freed, and then continue to be mistreated. and i'm tired of people saying they "could have gone back to africa." that's like me saying that you could go back to whatever country YOUR ancestors came from. do you want to? probably not. because you have been assimilated into the united states culture and way of life, and supposedly live in a country where there is liberty and justice for all. but many black people do not have liberty OR justice. most of them live in fear for being attacked thanks to racial profiling, or have no method of defense (legal) when being subjected to acts of pure hatred or racism. either because of financial reasons or just outright fear. my point is this: perhaps if black people were given jobs... maybe even in leadership roles or positions of power/authority, america will no longer remain so ignorant to think that black people are incapable of holding such jobs. and eventually we will no longer need affirmative action, because our eyes will be opened to the reality that blacks are just as capable as anybody else of holding decent jobs. let's help end racism by promoting affirmative action and encouraging businesses to give these minorities a fair shot regardless of the color of their skin. 4 Seconds Ago
Affirmative Action is Right and Necessary

1) Yes, early American settlers were racist... just as countless other nations were racist at the time. I'm not saying that it was "okay" to have that frame of mind, but many wars were fought with racism and nationalism at their cores. So what. This is an undeniable, sad truth. But I disagree with people who blame "no nuclear family" due to slvary as a reason for why the black community (in this particular example) has struggled. Reason being that many other groups have also endured a similar fate. For example, many immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries have had to separate from their families for economic reasons. It was not uncommon for men (husbands and fathers) to go to America to find work. After he had made a living, it was typical that he sent for his wife and children at a later date -- sometimes even years -- after he had already been in this country. I know that my ancestors in particular have not only separated fathers from wives and children, but mothers and siblings as well. Also, in many cases, the male head-of-household left their wives and chilren to find work in other parts of the country to send money home. Sometimes these men returned, and sometimes they didn't. 2) I am aware that racism exists in the workforce, and that blacks may have struggled to find work from the time of their emancipation until present day. However, African Americans are not the only group who have endured a great amount of racism and have had to overcome obstacles based on stereotypes and prejudice. It is common knowledge (at least it should be -- maybe that's the problem) that the Irish and Italian immigrants in particular had a Hell of a time finding decent work in this country. The Irish resorted to becoming policemen and firemen; ironically those jobs were considered the lowest occupations one could have, despite the reverence and respect that most people adhere to those positions today. And many Italian-American immigrants, such as the ones in my family, resorted to low-paying, blue collar jobs in factories and on the streets as well. They didn't make a lot of money and many immigrants from a particular culture DID live amongst one another... in "ghettos" or whatever... but these groups persevered and overcame various obstacles without any affirmative action necessary. Why should blacks (again - in the example set forth by the Instigator) be treated any differently? I thought you were all about them being given the same rights?
Affirmative Action is Right and Necessary

early american settlers were racist. they captured people in africa, forced them to work in america under ridiculous conditions, then freed them and left them homeless; many families were broken up to begin with, so a lot of households had no nuclear fmaily at its core. once freed, black people had a hard time finding work due to discrimination. many found blue collar jobs as time went on and endured harsh work conditions because they had no other choice. they worked for low wages; this caused them to live in bad conditions otherwise known as "ghettos." because of bad working/living conditions, many blacks turned to crime as a way to earn money or get ahead. and thus they acquired the black sterotype that all african americans are criminals. meanwhile there were hardworking men and women trying to raise families and live by the words of MLK, who was assassinated for speaking out for equality. the blacks have been repeatedly repressed, critisized and sometimes even killed for speaking out and promoting equality. their hard work has been underminded or unnoticed. long after segregation has ended, hatred and racism still exists. maybe blacks can drink out of the same water fountains as us, but can they get the same jobs? no. my point is what's the use of ending segregation without making attempts to lessen racism? by doing one thing we are saying that blacks are equal and should not have to drink out of another water fountain. but then our racism negates that step because we keep blacks confined to ghettos; their inability to advance and make money and earn respect in our society inevitably leaves them poor with nowhere else to live then amongst themselves in poor conditions. yet we critisize them for where thye live... it's a catch 22. if we want them to stop rsorting to crime in order to survive, then we must give them opportunities!
Cheer

Sport- an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Cheerleading involves physical exertion Teams compete against one another for cheerleading. A sport would have to require athletic skills.(gymnastics, strength, coordination) It takes cardiovascular effort , endurance, and skill. These are all athletic skills. http://www.youtube.com... This is a link to a video of the varsity cheerleaders from my school doing a competition. Notice the strength and coordination. If something had gone wrong, the flyer in the stint could have been hurt severely and they would have lost. It requires a lot of concentration. "Just because you can compare cheerleading to sports that are accepted a sports doesn't mean it's accepted as a sport." Well just so you know, comparing it to oil rigs doesn't help you either.
Cheer

If we go by the dictionary definition, then yes, cheerleading is a sport but I'm more interested in society's definition versus dictionary definition. "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." "There ARE competitions for it" -There are Magic the Gathering competitions too. Which is, most definitely, not a sport. "And also it requires a lot of strength and courage." -So does oil rigging. "It's also very dangerous" -So is oil rigging. "It's more dangerous than football." -So is oil rigging. "And whoever decides to debate this an says its NOT a sport is either talking about football cheer which isn't a much of a sport as competition cheer or they have never cheered before and don't understand what it takes. I'm a base and it takes a lot of strength to do it." -This has nothing to do with anything. Just because you can compare cheerleading to sports that are considered sports doesn't mean it's accepted as a sport.
Cheer

Cheerleading IS a sport. There ARE competitions for it. And also it requires a lot of strength and courage. It's also very dangerous. It's more dangerous than football. And whoever decides to debate this an says its NOT a sport is either talking about football cheer which isn't a much of a sport as competition cheer or they have never cheered before and don't understand what it takes. I'm a base and it takes a lot of strength to do it.
Cheer

It seems my opponent was not willing to argue for the second round. In that case, I will proceed to prove that cheerleading is a sport. Some people view cheerleaders as pretty little girls sitting on the sidelines with giant bows and lots of makeup that cheer for a football team. But cheerleaders actually do a lot more. Like I said before, cheerleading takes a lot of strength, courage, balance, coordination, and cardiovascular effort. A sport, according to the Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Advisors, is a "physical activity [competition] against/with an opponent, governed by rules and conditions under which a winner is declared, and primary purpose of the competition is comparison of the relative skills of the participants." Because cheerleading follows these guidelines, it is a sport. - Teen Ink According to the New York Times, cheerleading is the fastest growing girls (and some boys) sport in America. Most Americans fail to distinguish sideline cheerleaders (whose goal is to cheer for their football team) from competitive cheerleaders. Like gymnasts (who are considered athletes) cheerleaders must learn to tumble. They preform standing back handsprings, round off back handsprings, layouts, and full layout twists as well as many others. We also preform other things such as throws and lifts (stunts). Of course, you cannot have a stunt without a flyer. Flyers are tossed into the air and preform extreme stunts for which strength and coordination is required. All sports have rules and guidelines and so does competitive cheerleading. A whole routine must be preformed in a little more than three minutes and they are required to stay in averts in area (a.k.a. The mat). The cheerleaders are awarded points for difficulty, technique, sharpness and creativity. Cheerleaders visit the emergency room 5 times more than any other sport. They do not wear protective pads of any kind so in this case, coordination and being attentive is very important. (References from teen ink) The ultra intense cheer competitions are proof that cheerleading is a sport.
Gay Marriage

Marriage is that moment went you want to be with the person you love for the rest of your life. My opinion, marriage should be banned period but obviously that isn't going to happen. Just remember that the leading cause of divorce is marriage. But back to my point. If two people are in love they should have every right to get married. Gays will fight like straight people do, they will make love like straight people do, and they will live their lives together like straight people do. Also, if you think gays can be together, then why can they not get married?