BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: English should not be the official language of the United States

Resolved: English should not be the official language of the United States Definitions English-a language should not be-ought not be official language- language in laws,and documents united states-inside the US border V:diversity-different races C:human life-life of humans I will now state my case V:diversity-not all people can speak English,they speak different languages C:human life-with humans who will speak the different languages Contention1-Not everyone can speak English People all over the world immigrate to the US and their home country may have not spoken English. So if they make English the official language in laws,and documents then the non-speaking English Americans will miss out. Contention2-Relationships between countries can make learning English dangerous Let's say a man from Vietnam immigrates to the US. Then relationships between the US and Vietnam becomes sour. The Vietnam government says that learning English or adopting US customs becomes an act of treason. But,the man's family still lives in Vietnam,so if he learns English his family might get harmed. good luck to my opponent!
Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

I actually did bring up the fact SBSP is illegal (1st round)Inherency- I easly won this. Why? He dropped the fact it is against the Debate hand book for funding as an Inherent barrier therefore he doesn't have Inherency. As Con in a policy debate I only need to win one area to win the debate, but for the sake of debating I'll continue. Harms- Can I clue you in on something. Nobody uses Harms anymore it's just a brink for an advantage. Example: China won't give us more REMs, we should mine astriods, if we don't we have nuclear hollicost. Second of all the hasn't been a war involving a nuke since WW2 and we've gone through many wars and we're still here. Solvency- I actually refuted this as well in my 1st round yet again. With the fact that the millitary has tried to do this but has failed all 4 times. You can't solve when something fails every time you do it. Advantages- He dropped advantages after the 2nd round you can't do something without an advantage. Attacks1. Countries can use this as a wepon. It's in space right. It's a lasser right. It shoots right. So what makes you think NK won't use it to light SK up.2. He agrees so therefore since his whole arguement is based off of a couple pieces of eveidense they're now null and void. Conclusion I've won every stock issue and in policy the Con only needs to win one.
Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

Answers 1. They are 100% legal you have posted no proof that lasers are illegal. 2. 20 Billion and everything will be done along with 1,000 built 3. Yes 4. In the plan they will run it (MDA) 5. $671 billion and cut 20% from 2011 Reminder that no new evidence or cards are allowed. Inherency I have won on this because I have proven that there is not a current plan in my Carafano 10 card. this is my inherent boundary sorry I did not understand what the question meant. So as you can see I have upheld my inherency and proven the plan is needed. Harms My harms were left untouched meaning the con concedes global nuclear war is harm. With this in mind this means he agrees that a nuclear war will break out and kill everyone. Because I have protected my inherency this means that my opponent concedes to the fact that without something being done the human race will go extinct. Solvency All of my opponents arguments toward my solvency do not mention this laser defense. So this means he must concede that lasers will work. Lastly he attacks the cost. But he mentioned in cross ex that saving the human race is worth 20 billion dollars and as i have proven this plan will save humanity so my opponent has already agreed that my plan is worth the cost. Refuting Last Arguments a. My inherent barrier is the current plan dose not do enough to protect the Untied States b. My opponents card only talks about how people feel about the economy and has no warrant also in cross ex he mentioned it is possible the economy could have gotten better. Answers to his answers of my answers(lol) a. My plan protects us from every country that is why there are 1,000 b. My opponent did not attack their accuracy until the point where I could not make an argument to answer but in my solvency I mention this has been tested and works. Along with the fact that lasers can reach space as seen by long range lasers which can hit reflectors on the moon. It is just consecrated light and if the light of the sun reach earth so can this light. c. Dictionary's are not reliable when they are online and unpublished. d. I do not even understand what he wrote. f. Not when the card mentions that the Kessler syndrome is just a fiction of a anime. a. No card of proof b. They are a world power and such require defense from missiles. Answers to his attacks 1. I did not drop the point only mention THIS IS NOT A WEAPON IT DOSE NO HARM!!! 2. Yes. But not a GBI of the kind you are talking of. Other he never answered sufficiently as to how the country would protect from 500 nukes. He only mentioned other country's would help but if they are the country's attacking us they will not help. Conclusions All my points are dropped, and all of his arguments have been dis-proven by me. I can not stress enough that this is a multi-use defensive laser. THIS IS NOT A WEAPON AND DOSE NOT BYPASS THE LAW!!!!! I have won this debate and I have proven that this plan is needed to handle the human extinction and my opponent conceded to many of my points.
Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

1. It's never been tested in space only on Earth. 2. It's in the rule book. 3. yes 4. yes 5. Other countries have these systems so the even can shoot them down. My questions 1. Do you reallize SBL are illegal? 2. Is it 20 billion total or 20 billion for all? 3. Do average Americans matter? 4. What is the U.S. military power? 5. What is the DOD yearly funding?
Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

Questions 1. Why do you feel that this will fail in space? 2. Why is Cost not an inherent barrier 3. Is 20 billion dollars worth the human race? (Yes or No) 4. Is it possible the economic status has changed from 2011-2012? (Yes or No) 5. How do you plan to protect against a nuclear attack of the 500 weapons without this plan if one happened right now
Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

1. my opponent stated that his inherent barrier is spending but here is a paragraph from Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley, "Money isn't an inherent barrier to solving the problem. If the only change needed to the status quo programs is additional funding then the affirmative is not inherent. Inherency must come from the structure of programs or the lack of Programs." As you see here my opponent doesn't have an inherent barrier therefore he isn't inherent and in policy debate the Con only needs one stock issue in order to win, but for the sake of debate I'll continue.2. My opopent states that his plan will cost $20 Billion. In today's economy we can't afford that type of money. Here's some cards to back me up. ----Average Joe is rating econ as poor The Economic Collapse 11 (Uh Oh: 90 Percent of Americans Rate Economic Conditions in the U.S. As “Poor”, http://sgtreport.com..., accessed Oct. 26, 2011, AL) Uh oh – are we rapidly reaching another major economic tipping point? According to a new CNN/ORC International Poll, 90 percent of the American people believe that economic conditions in the United States are “poor”. This represents a significant increase from when the same question was asked in June. Back then, 81 percent of the American people considered economic conditions to be “poor”. To put this in perspective, only 11 percent of Americans rated economic conditions in the U.S. as “poor” back in January of 1999.The Federal Reserve and the Obama administration keep telling us that we are in the middle of an “economic recovery”, but obviously what average Americans are experiencing on the street is a different story. Millions of families have been absolutely devastated by mass layoffs, heartless foreclosures or bad debts. All of the recent polls show that satisfaction with government is at an all-time low and anger at Wall Street and the financial community is rising to dangerous levels. In the United States today, the economy is the most important issue for most Americans. When you have 9 out of 10 Americans rating economic conditions as “poor”, that is a very troubling sign.Inherencya. Most of our nations enemies are in Asia so therefore we needed the missiles on the west coast instead of the east because we have no western nation enemy.b. You have no evidence saying yours is better, you have the burden of proof and I have the burden of presumption so until you post evidence stating the accuracy of SBI then we can assume it's an utter failure.c. It's a dictionary it's reliable.d. Do you denny it's a lesser? f. Your card is from 2010 but mine is from 2011. We should take my card over yours.Advantage.a. China is keeping NK under raps and the UN is keeping the middle east under raps we're the best nation in the world.b. Do you Deniy the fact U.S. is a world power.My Attacks.My opponet drops the fact that weponizing space is illegal.2. He states SBI have been tested but on the ground thus making it a GBI.
Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

1. That's still a 29% failure range. You would need more tests to lower that #.2. It's a dictionary source that everyone can view on the internet.3. It's the same thing. There will be the same outcome as in World War 1 and arms races.4. They're the same thing. You say they are destroying missles from space. So they are intercepting missles.5. They work with the NAvy and Air Force in Defense. It's part of the air force so yes.My questions1. What's your inherant barrier?2. How much will this cost?3. Who is your advisor?4. How many are you making?5. How long will it take to build?
Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

Cross Ex Questions 1. If 5 hit to kill test have passed and 7 have been conducted. What is to stop the other 2 (failed test) from being the ones which hit and kill millions? 2. Where is the credibility in the source Freedictionary.com 3. are you aware my plan dose not weaponize space only defends from weapons in space? 4. are you aware I am using lasers to defend and not interceptors. 5. Is Lockheed Martin Corp. a government agency?
It would be beneficial to kill every human besides 10 humans form the DDO website.

Humans don't hatch . . . Ok, so first, even if you rape the unwilling women, you are only marginally increasing reproductive success. I provided that argument earlier with the assumption that all three women would mate. Rape is harmful because it promotes the degradation of women. It itself is another harm even if you improve genetic diversity. Plus, I would rather commit suicide than carry a child that I did not want, so you would lose me anyways. Extend all of the dropped arguments about underpopulation harms, the fact that his goals contradict is ideas, the fact that repopulation will be difficult, and the fact at thett3 will not be on board.
It would be beneficial to kill every human besides 10 humans form the DDO website.

I thank the Honorable royalpaladin for accepting this troll debate.I will post a little backstory so you are not lost.*Clears mouth*It is 17 months into the future. The world has invented a weapon that can kill every human, yet not damage the ecosystem(besides diseases) or the world's cities. 10 people can be saved if they some how escape the weapons range. Thaddeus presents a small floating city hiding in the depths of lake saint clair. The city would rise up in times of conflict and darkness. The city, the SS DDO, is rising and the DDO members are racing to the city, before the weapon is unleased. These are the few stories of some to retract to the safety of the SS DDO.Western- I, living near lake saint clair, was able to get there in time. I taken a car the the shore where I found Thad packing internet cables and others tools up a ramp that lead about 150 feet to the city doors. I walked without threat to the city and claimed a houseThad- Thad was next to go to the city. He, too, claimed a house.The rest of the other 10 DDO members you made it followed such way showen above. Other DDO members never claimed a bed. Like JT, who was pushed other the railing by 16kadams, who then, was rammed over the same rail by Medic with a fridge, Medic got a heart attack form the physical stress and died. The rest of the DDO members bomb the Earth. We have hope it would create a new world. I will explain.All the Worlds diseases will be killedBecause the DDO members dont have any diseases, most diseases would be killed on the spot because their host was killed. So when DDO repopulates the world, there is no disease.No popluation crisis Nuff' said.
It would be beneficial to kill every human besides 10 humans form the DDO website.

Troll Debate. The full resolution is: There is benefits in killing the most of the Human Race besides 10 DDO'ers. They are: WesternMarch Thaddeus RoyalPaladin LDF TUF Mestrai nonentity LK Drafter Innoman By accepting this you assume no DDO'ers have any disease of any kind and that food water and lube along with shelter.
Golden Goose overall

There is nothing cooler than wearing men's biker rings. A lot of people are starting to adore this kind of jewelry. Around the globe made from various materials like steel, gold, titanium, silver etc. If you want to add rough edge to your conservative attire, then this is the product. Even if you don't own a motorcycle, this biker ring is a perfect accessory to enhance the entire get up. Young people would want to wear it, since it can bring out their inner rock star attitude. It could add extra kick to your garments. Dynamic stock trading content an individual get a "big picture" view of what's happening on Wall Street and the markets nearly. When you are take a look at Dynamic Market Content, you just aren't supposed to repay a regarding attention to minor movements of individual stocks or maybe picture [b][url=http://www.goldengoosesneakershop.com...]Golden Goose Sale[/url][/b] overall. Instead, you want to monitor what is occurring in a holistic fashion. I crave new experiences and exploring new posts. So when I am not at in "the lab", once we call it, I am out seeking new ideas and traveling, meeting new people and learning about different civilizations. AL:I am very much looking to meeting the women of Portland and plan to offer recommendations on how inform if a shoe is comfortable before you permit the stow. The other reason I enjoy making personal appearances proven fact that I get great feedback [b][url=http://www.goldengoosesneakershop.com...]Golden Goose[/url][/b] from my customers. I really meeting them and learning about their lives, and the direction they wear their ANYI LU shoes. My customers are my best inspiration. The Joker has stringy hair, themes hair grease might relax in order. The facial skin should be face painted mostly white with some red near the lips and black about the eyes. The Joker's hair additionally green, in which means you might spray some green on it or go so far as to temporarily dye it. Is a good teen chooses not to dye his hair, confront makeup end up being good enough for everyone to recognize The Joker from The [b][url=http://www.goldengoosesneakershop.com...]Golden Goose Outlet[/url][/b] dark knight. I would describe my designs as garments full of color, life and creative visual elements, spunky and dull. Certainly not your all the time traditional pieces. I think they are fun with each having their own distinctive accents that bring flare to your design issues. Follow the tips above an individual are likely to get abs you desire this spring. If you had questions on building abs I think you will have found this article useful.
Democracy is wrong

Although democracy may be flawed, there is no fairer alternative system of government. No minority, no matter how well informed, or well intentioned, should be permitted to dictate to the majority. For example, 50% of my country's wealth is owned by the richest 5% of the population, most of them aristocrats that have never done a day's work in the lives. I could lead the revolution and overthrow the monarchy then redistribute the nation's wealth so that 95% of the people would be financially better off. However, once in power, I would be leading a one-party, socialist republic and the public would have no other option than to accept all my policies, no matter how daft they might be.
Democracy is wrong

I am against democracy. I don't believe every person should get one vote and that majority rules the minority. It may be the best we have, but it is very much flawed. When I try to make a smart decision such as where to eat, I do not ask 9 people and than let the majority decide. I will weigh opinions differently. Someone who has eaten at a restaurant that I'm debating on going to will have more influence with me than 8 people who haven't.
Rap Battle

My opponent's account has apparently been closed.He is probably the worst debator I have opposed.When his inability to rap was exposed, he was deposed.Our battle was one that was juxtaposed, me versus a guy who blows.I could go on much longer, but I feel this is enough.If you hoping for more flair to my battle, tough.I'm busy as it is, this is getting pretty rough.Please vote Pro, and let me win without a scuff.I hope to try this again soon against a better opponent.I hope to be this website's main rap proponent.Peace.
People instigating debates not accepting newbie opponents is elitist

I made the mistake of checking your profile, seems I have a formidable opponent who is strong on logic. Anyway, back to the debate to find out how practical it is- I have another term to propose to make debating easier time-waster = someone who accepts a debate without serious commitment to fulfill the instigators criteria. The main point of my argument is that people setting the criteria for opponents so that new comers can't join in is elitist. It is off putting to new comers who after signing up can't join any debate. They can't vote. The only way to join in (with the debate portion of the site) is by starting a debate, or commenting on a debate. Starting a debate may seem too formidable, and commenting too little. Some new users will be put off. Not necessarily based on their debating skills or commitment to debating. Thus debate. org become an elite of users who have been able to over come this barrier. I believe the first reason instigators do this is because they are worried people with low ratings will have poor skills and are likely to forfeit, they will in effect be "time-wasters". I understand this is annoying, however high ratings isn't the way to correct this problem. Instead they should petition the site's owners to add features that mitigate the effects of time wasters. Feature which could mention if it will add to the debate? I believe the second reason instigators do this because they think it will some how improve the quality of debates on the site. Not only is it wrong to assume new comers will be a time-wasters, it is wrong to assume someone who has a high rating won't waste your time. An analogy might be Wikipedia. It does not assume that a new editor is a bad editor, rather it uses features in the software to mitigate the effect of bad editors. . http://c2.com...
People instigating debates not accepting newbie opponents is elitist

I am arguing Pro, that people instigating debates that won't accept newbies is elitist. The site will have less participants, as there is no starting point for new comers. This is especially true as other facilities are restricted such as voting and Identity conformation. Note, I am not arguing that voting should be open to everyone. --terms-- "people instigating debates" = People starting a debate on http://www.debate.org... "newbies" = People who have just joined the site "elitist" = Long term members of the site deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect and social status. "1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... --Rounds (Pro/ Con)-- 1. Offer/ Acceptance 2. Opening Statement/ rebuttal 2. Rebuttal closing statement/ Rebuttal closing statement
Torture is ethical when it is 100% sure that torturee has life-saving information. (Copy 2)

I would like to debate the ethics of torture in a very specific theoretical scenario. I will be debating the PRO side, as in PRO-torture(in this specific scenario). Please skip the accepting rounds, etc, and begin with arguments. Thanks! SCENARIO: US Gov has in their custody a man named John. John is a known terrorist. Assume that the US Gov is 100% sure that John has information about multiple bombs in major cities which will soon explode, killing thousands. John has admitted to knowing this information multiple times, and the US Gov has proven that he knows it through various other sources. Furthermore, intelligence from John's home country, Terroristlandia, indicates that in the past, when John was tortured for information, he spilled very valuable information which was accurate, and saved lives. Let us assume that torturing John WOULD save lives. I argue that in this case, torturing John is ethical. I would like for somebody to convince me otherwise. Please keep in mind: I am using a scenario in which we are 100% sure that the torturee has life-saving information. Torturing those who "might" have life saving information is another debate for another day. I had to repost this debate because my last opponent would argue that we cannot know for sure if somebody has information worth torturing for. Yes, in real life, it is unlikely that we would know for sure if John has info. BUT in this scenario we are assuming that we are 100% sure. Arguing that we can never really be sure is invalid. Thank you for accepting my challenge!
Is Capitalism an Inherently Exploitative System

You're welcome. About the "forfeit", I was busy all day yesterday so did not get the opportunity to post for round three. However, I will address some your previous statements. My examples of law(s) were to outline that employees are in fact protected from exploitation, which by definition, is anything that does not coincide with the requirements of their position. Capitalism is not an "inherently exploitive" system, as it is a mutual agreement in which both parties benefit from. If people did not partake in work and earn their own money, what would the other alternatives be? That individual would (most likely) resort to over-reliance on the state, I.E welfare. Which technically does classify as "exploitation" as they are providing nothing, and receiving free benefits. Capitalism is essentially about earning your own merits, and working hard to achieve. A business employer works hard to get to his/her position, and the same goes for an employee in maintaining their position. Additionally, I have read Marx and Engles, among others. The history of socialism concludes that in practice it is a failed and unsustainable system. (1.) http://www.fee.org...