BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modified Policy Debate

Obviously I will extend my arguments from Round 2. Unfortunately, my opponent had a computer malfunction while preparing his case for Round 2. I encourage due empathy for my opponent from the voters. NEGATIVE CRYSTALIZATION The NEG has cited various justifications to maintain our presence in Afghanistan. Without introducing new evidence, I will touch upon the major voting issues. 1. Leaving Afghanistan with the job undone is unprofessional and sends a message that we can't finish what we start. The Global War on Terror is not a sprint, it is a marathon. That was clearly communicated at the outset by President Bush that it would take a very long time. 2. Every terrorist that we eliminate is one less terrorist that can attack us or our allies. 3. We have the lead role in NATO and UN actions to put a stop to Taliban & al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan. 4. All things considered, we are the best outside solution to helping protect the innocent Afghan citizens that are being victimized. 5. Under no circumstances can we allow Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to fall into the hands of terrorists. 6. The production and export of illegal opiate based drugs is a crime against the humanity of the international community. Ultimately, it seems that if the Taliban would simply live and let live, Afghanistan could exist in harmony and tranquility. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and will not be the case. Unless someone stands up to the Taliban, they will continue to terrorize Afghan citizens, threaten the U.S. & their allies, and cause destabilization throughout the south central region of Asia. The U.S. is the only force that has the resources and the will to stop it. For these reasons, the U.S. should maintain their presence in Afghanistan. I respectfully request a Negative ballot. Thank you!
Modified Policy Debate

Thanks again to Gavin. I will address my opponent's challenges, then address my opponent's case. RC1 - My opponent stated that there is no way to prevent their attacks while we are attacking them. I invite the judges to recall the events of September 11, 2001. We were attacking neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban, yet we were attacked on our own soil. We will not stop them from attacking us by simply taking a reactive and quite frankly a passive approach by not attacking them. Further, if the majority of their numbers truly resided in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, our Intelligence agencies would be aware of this information and redirect our assets to those locations. RC2 - Our troops are among the bravest of our citizens, yet the military is comprised of members who voluntarily accepted employment knowing in advance the risks associated with such a career choice. I speak from experience having served 20 plus years in the U.S. Army, including Operations Desert Shield & Desert Storm. As I stated, Afghanistan is unable to defend itself, and requested assistance from Karzai. Why did we not refuse the request and leave? Friends help friends in time of need. RC3 - The substance of this premise was missed. We want to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Left unchecked, this would open a door of catastrophic mischief for terrorists groups. RC4 - While there is always unfortunate collateral damage in any conflict, if we were not there at the behest of the Afghan government, perhaps we would withdraw. We are not in Afghanistan to make it an American colony, we are there to eliminate terrorists, and make it safer for both Afghan citizens, and ultimately American citizens. RC5 - American pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer produce sufficient quantities of lab tested and FDA approved opiate based medicines. Unfortunately, self serving elements within Afghanistan attempt to send illegal drugs to the U.S. with an ulterior motiff of harming our citizens. Similar international crime occurs from Russia, Mexico, and South American countries just to name a few. Our government is attempting to protect our citizens by taking necessary actions to thwart the import of these poisons to our citizens. OPPONENT's CASE We are paying for this war with tax revenues. Every nation has debt, yet no nation owns the U.S. We are, and we remain a sovereign nation. The war also generates revenues which go back into the GDP. Military and private companies make and spend money. This creates the need for goods and services. To quote Zig Ziglar, We get the things we want by helping enough other people get the things that they want. While there are certainly folks that do not want us in Afghanistan, there are others that do. Our presence there helps us protect our citizens which is an inherent responsibility of government. Other than a loosely worded short paragraph, my opponent has yet to affirm the resolution with substance beyond a hint of a Lincoln-Douglas type CBA. Thus my opponent's self imposed burden of responsibility has not been achieved, therefore at this point, I respectfully request a negative ballot. Thank you.
Modified Policy Debate

Gav, Thanks so much for helping us test our Negative Policy harms. Poke all the holes in it that you can, I would rather get creamed here in DDO than have my team's case dismantled at a tournament. Thomas Resolved: The United States government should substantially reduce it's military and/or police presence in Afghanistan. We stand in negation of the resolution. Richard Holdbrooke, speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government, stated that our purpose in Afghanistan was to help the Afghan people stand on their own feet. Source: USA Today 26 MAR 2009. The negative will demonstrate the harms involved in significantly reducing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. C-1: Both al Qaeda and Taliban operatives and trainees pose a direct threat to the citizens of the United States, their allies, and interests. Members of these groups are dedicated to the principles of their cause, and will continue to carry out terrorist acts, and human degredations if they are not stopped. The U.S. is among the few nations even capable of putting a stop to and/or reducing this violence. Further, the U.S. has a responsibility to all Americans to keep them safe from said terrorist attacks. Then President Bush stated that it is better to fight them over there, than to fight them here in America. C-2: A primary responsibility of any government is to protect the citizens under it's governance. With rogue organizations with radical ideologies such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, the legitimate government of Afghanistan is unable to address the problems and harms that these organizations pose. Both NATO & the U.N. are assisting, however, the U.S. makes up the lion's share of assistance. If the U.S. were to leave, elements of NATO and the U.N. would likely follow. C-3: Exigence. If the Taliban and al Qaeda are not stopped, there remains the strong probablility that they will flow over into neighboring Pakistan. Pakistan is on eof the few nations in the world that possesses nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons were to fall into the hands of rogue terrorists with nothing to lose, the results could be catastrophic. Efforts to keep this from happening are imperative, and U.S. presence is paramount to that end. C-4: Human rights violations are occurring as we debate. If the U.S. forces were to leave, unimagineable atrocities are bound to occur. The entire nation will be propelled into a state of disorganized chaos. Citizens will tire of the degredations and revolt against their oppressors, but will ultimately be crushed due to lack of training and weaponry. The Afghani police assets will be unable to control the situation. The resulting carnage will be unthinkable. C-5: An estimated 90 % of the world's opiate based illegal drugs are produced in Afghanistan. These drugs are a cancer to the world. By removing the U.S. forces, we are all but endorsing the production and sale of illegal drugs on an international scale. Sources include: Brookings Institute Card, DOD Card, & Forensic Quarterly cards. For these reasons, we respectfully request a negative ballot.
Water is a human right and therefore cannot be owned, sold, bartered or traded

Now my first argument is if who ever owns the water (example government) can sell the resource to industries such as agriculture, oil and gas companies. Agriculture is a renewable profitable industry and oil and gas is an industry that our economy relies on. Currently 1 and 14 jobs are directly or indirectly involved in the oil and gas industry. My second point is water is getting more valuable then ever, and since Canada and the U.S own about 15% of the worlds drinkable water, they could sell to the highest bidder and make a huge profit.
Water is a human right and therefore cannot be owned, sold, bartered or traded

In her book Water Wars, the Indian author Vandana Shiva lists nine principles underpinning water democracy. At least two of these principles are directly compromised by the privatization of water. Point number four states that "Water must be free for sustenance needs. Since nature gives water to us free of cost, buying and selling it for profit violates our inherent right to nature's gift and denies the poor of their human rights." When private companies try to make large profits through high water prices, it denies the poor the inalienable right to the most necessary substance for life. In accordance with this fact, point number seven states, "Water is a commons. . . It cannot be owned as private property and sold as a commodity." How can one justify claiming water as their own through contractual agreement while letting another human being go thirsty? Water is a commons because it is the basis of all life. Water rights are natural rights and thus are usufructuary rights, meaning that water can be used, but not owned. As far fetched as water ownership may seem, it is happening at an increasing rate around the globe. I, for one, would not want to live where such an important life necessity becomes market-driven -- to increase corporate profits -- and is available only to those who can afford to pay. It is the state's function to allocate water in the broadest public interest.
Water is a human right and therefore cannot be owned, sold, bartered or traded

Hello, to everyone who reads this and to my worthy opponent. Well, I completely agree that water is a human right and cannot be owned sold or bartered. To assure you guys, water is actually free. Nobody stops you from drinking water from the ponds or rivers. If anyone does that you can shut them up by shouting it out that water is a gift of god and not your property. For instance the rural India, everybody pumps up water from the underground aquifer " mostly to irrigate the fields; but the same water is also used for daily needs like bathing, drinking etc. The water one gets in the drinking bottles is also free, what the companies charge for is the plastic used in making the bottle, the cost of molding a bottle and that of purifying the water and adding essential minerals. THANK YOU!
creatioism better explains the universe than theory of evolution

the process of natural seection is that thos animals who are more powerfull will survive and their successor will have more power and advantage than their predecessor : thus new species are evolved. example sharp teeth tigers. sharp teeth tigers will survived and dull teeth tigers wll get killed. n the successors of sharp teeth tigers will have teeth sharper than before.: this is how evolution take place according to evolutionists. but the example shows that a feature of the tiger species got improved a little. the tiger species, those who survived did not change into something totally different than tiger. but darwin claimed just that: a completely new species has evolved from a totally different species: human evolved from old world monkeys.now the question is how come darwin know that human evolves from old monkey ? what is the evidence ?
creatioism better explains the universe than theory of evolution

the theory of evolution said that all the creatures evolve by naural selection. they evolve by natural section from a common ancestor. brieafly speaking, inherited traits (genes) flow from one ancestor to another. evolution occurs whn there is a change in the structure of genes.now accoring to darwin and evolutionary biolgist richard dawkins, this change in genes caused by natural selection.nature selects randomly some people and evolve them into a better one.now friends, in this genetic era, we all know that to manipulate a piece of gene, it takes huge effeort, both moneary and technological, mosty intelligent. it cannot happen naturally. then how come, evolution (change in genetic structure) happens naturally ? out of the blue ? my theory is that this evolution is done by some entity, hugely advanced in technology and intelligence a creator. what do you think ?
creatioism better explains the universe than theory of evolution

To start, my opponent has dropped his argument from the complexity of manipulating genes. My opponent also has not responded to my points against an 'intelligent designer' and instead has spent the last round asking questions about how evolution works and has continued to show his lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. He has brought a new point this round, that environmentally caused changes in a species are too miniscule and not significant enough to change one species into another. I will respond to that point here.My opponent claims that "those who survived did not change into something totally different than tiger." My opponent again shows his general lack of understanding on this subject. "Evolutionists" do not claim that a change in the sharpness of teeth in the general population of tigers will cause them to evolve into a totally new species from that alone. Evolutionary theory states that species can evolve into new species as a result of lhundreds of thousands or millions of years of such "miniscule" changes. For example, consider a population of chimpanzees who are split in half through adverse geological conditions i.e. an earhquake that physically separates half the population from the others. The physical conditions and general locales will have changed the factors acting on the species and so they would evolve separately, perhaps in different ways from each other. Now if we looked at these species after say 1 million years of separation, they would look very different considering the fat that as physical conditions change, so do traits favored by natural selection.Extra thick fur could be advantageous to an animal living in the Artic, though disadvantages to an animal living in the Sahara. As such, natural selection might favor thick fur for animal A and gradually hase it out for animal B. But back to our example, after 1 million years of geographic separation and different survival factors acting on the population, the conclusion comes from no stretch of the imagination that different traits would be favored among the two populations and thus they would evolve differently, perhaps into different species altogether.I believe I have adequately shown that the "miniscule" changes observed by my opponent gradually lead to larger changes as environmental conditions change, while my opponent has yet to prove substantially that natural processes are incapable of evolving organisms, eventually resulting in a biologically diverse range of life we see today on our planet and that an intelligent creator does not run into the same problems as the supposed problems my opponent brings with naturally occurring evolution(as I brought up in R2).
Gun Control

This will be the ultimate gun control debate. Please, no semantics or trolling. I am looking for someone who is well educated, and knows how to support gun control. I am against it myself, and I will be attempting to show my voters that Gun Control is unconstituional, (it is acceptable when it comes to nuclear arms and most military grade equipment) morally wrong, and impractical. Those who accept have half of the burden of proof, they must show that Gun Control is constitutional, not morally wrong, and practical.
Rap Battle

You shouldn't have come, that was really dumb now you gotta mess with the number 1 and while im popping down yo pimps, you'll be Dirty Sanchezing your own lips. Come, I dare you, to fight me like a man what's wrong, you picking fights cuz you can? Well, dis Nigga gonna be on you now, and I'll keep showing up to run you outta time, you shouldn't have messed with the all time pro, I can pop you down while smoochin yo ho What's wrong, you got your tail between your legs? Is it cuz you get let off easier when you beg? Guess what, Idon't take no mercy, and I know you'll be asking "why am i so jerky" well, next round you'll know, but right now Ima fired up, so i'll just shoott this pimp down BANG BANG BANG!!!
the best choice i ever made

This is the worst choice that you have ever made. It is not just stupid but selfish for as you say your family are poor and starving and this could be their best chance. You just threw this amazing chance away. I do not even see the moral argument for this. If you gained the money justly (I do not see anything unjust about gambling) than you ought to keep if you are struggling not just for your sake but for your family's sake. You could have rebuilt your and your family's lives but you chose to return the money! That is ridiculous.
The United Nations is terminally paralysed: the democratic world needs a forum of its own

This was a recent intelligence squared debate and an interesting motion. I think that it's an insane idea to put the united nations to one side where all countries can join and to introduce a new world forum where it is not a world forum, but a democratic forum. This will increase international tensions between the democratic and non-democratic world and will completely untie all of the work that the united nations has done during it's active years. Don't you think this would be a repetition of history like Wilson's league of nations only accepting 'friendly countries' but crumbled in the end because not enough countries were in the league? In the end, the united nations was formed and here we are now trying to reverse it? A new democratic forum would split the modern world into two and is completely the wrong way to go.
Ivf

Although slow and tedious, you do bring up a good point about trying IVF one embryo at a time. But, I unfortunately have to bring up that one round of in vitro fertilization can cost between $10,000 and $20,000, and there is no "return policy" if it doesn"t work. Soooo, unless somebody has thousands of dollars just lyin' around, that solution would prove to be a long stretch. IVF just isn't practical, or ethical, no matter how you put it. (Mama's Heath, 2013)
Ivf

You bring up a good point, like the situation with "Octomom". But they can also think about alternatives, even though they are also ethical issues. For one, they can put the extra children for adoption, still pretty evil. Another option is to try the IVF one egg at a time. Also, IVF has a 30% success rate. Even though that is pretty small, the percentage to have more than one egg that holds is pretty small. Check out this website, it gives the percentages of IVF patients and how many children they have (http://invitrofertilization.weebly.com...). So IVF has all its kinks covered, if I say so myself.
Ivf

IVF and abortion are both evils; the embryos wasted during IVF is just the lesser of the two evils. I wouldn't say that that's a great title to have. To counteract your statement about the embryos being used... what happens when multiple embryos take and the result is multiple babies? This can be a good thing, obviously, but it significantly increases the risk of complications with the babies and the mother. Not only this, but multiple babies are hard to care for. Basically, these couples might receive 'more than they bargained for', and some may not take to that as kindly as one would wish. (FSSC, 2016)
Ivf

I understand that, that is a waste of good embryos, something that can't be regained unlike men and their sperm, but this is a necessary evil. I hate to bring up this topic, but abortion is kind of in the same boat to a certain degree. A fertilized embryo is being wasted through abortion, but with eggs that are stored, those are still good eggs that can be fertilized and create a beautiful human being. Even though many are wasted, many are used as well, and as this trend grows then there will be even more eggs being used. (http://www.bbc.co.uk...)
Ivf

In order for the women to continue to reproduce, they would have to dig into the supply of sperm in sperm banks. Although a pretty smart solution, the role sperm banks play in IVF is wasteful. Because dozens of embryos are made in every singular IVF proceeds, hundreds of thousands of "unused" embryos are left over. Couples struggle with what to do with their extra embryos and, in the United States alone, there are an estimated 500,000 embryos in cryopreservation awaiting final disposition. Most likely, a lot of those embryos will never be used. How could the wasting of life be considered humane? (Aleteia, 2014) **First round (BabyQuest on CBS, 2008) Second round (Aleteia, 2014)
IOT and Privacy

The internet of things is all about device interoperability. Being able to use an iphone, android, PC, MAC, Redhat, etc to access the same device. At the most basic level the traffic from your device to the device you wish to access shows that you have accessed it. With the internet of things we are not discussing sophisticated methods like proxy servers to maintain privacy, we are discussing making connections between unlike devices using common applications. There can not be full anonimity in that model, so privacy is not achieved. At best you can only achieve a portion of privacy, and that is dependent work and knowledge of the individual users. At a fundamental level the internet of things concept is about functionality which is diametrically opposite security, and therefore privacy.
We Should Send Troops Into Syria

By sending troops into Syria we would be spending money we don't have. Right now we are trillions of dollars in debt and he last thing we need is for that number to increase. We have been in to many wars already in the bast 20 years. If you look at government spending we spend an ungodly amount of money on our military, money that could be used back home. Also when has the United States sending troops to other countries helped them? Not very often it just makes more and more war.
We Should Send Troops Into Syria

The Syrian government was given a red line and they crossed it with the use of toxins on their own people. And here Obama is pondering over this when it should be a quick boast into Syria and knock their regime away. Of course Obama believes that sending weapons to the rebels will be efficient and successful. Look how Egypt turned out to be while using these tactics. It's time we take our own actions and start acting like the freedom fighting America we are. To you that would be a yes.
We Should Send Troops Into Syria

The Syrian government was given a red line and they crossed it with the use of toxins on their own people. And here Obama is pondering over this when it should be a quick boast into Syria and knock their regime away. Of course Obama believes that sending weapons to the rebels will be efficient and successful. Look how Egypt turned out to be while using these tactics. It's time we take our own actions and start acting like the freedom fighting America we are.