BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Dogfighting should be legalized in the United States

Observations: 1. Something ought to be legalized if there is a direct benefit to humanity. Pro defends this observation because of the legalization of meat products. We eat meat because it benefits us, at the expense of some animals. Human society is, and ought to be, speciesism and favor the needs of humans over animals. 2. Even if something is not completely beneficial to humanity it can still be legalized because the right of humans to do what they want with their property. For example, eating chips is unhealthy yet is legalized because humans ought have right to choose what to do with their property, provided they do not violate another human"s rights. Economic Benefit Dogfighting provides a vast economic benefit, even while illegal. It is better to legalize and expand the industry rather than to arrest dogfighters and to waste money prosecuting them. . https://www.animallaw.info... . http://www.cnn.com... . http://www.theatlantic.com... . http://journaltimes.com... According to Animal Law, dogfighting in Italy alone is a 500 million dollar industry. This is only a glimpse of what it could be in the much more populous United States. Dogfighting creates 40,000 jobs and would boost local economies. In fact, there could be up to 100,000 more people involved in dogfighting, according to CNN. Legalization would end the criminalization of dogfighting, allowing for society to save money on prison costs. The Atlantic reported that a year at prison costs an average of $44,000. Thus, legalization would negate the prison and trial costs and would increase jobs and industry. Animals shelters can cost 554 thousand to run a year and cost two million to start one. Dogfighting reduces the burden placed on taxpayers while DIRECTLY benefiting the economy. . https://www.aspca.org... . http://www.humanesociety.org... . http://www.petful.com... The ASPCA reports that 1.2 million dogs a year are killed in shelter , and Humane Society found that 80% are healthy, these dogs could be used for dogfighting without killing family pets. The current status quo has animals imprisoned for their whole life and developing "kennel craze" , which makes them aggressive. They can use this aggression in the form of dogfighting to benefit mankind, as opposed to be locked up in a cage their whole life and being killed, wasting money for people and providing no benefit to dogs Conclusion Dogfighting benefits humans with creating jobs and stimulating economies. It is arguably not worse for dogs also, as it provides a way for dogs to do something as opposed to lounging in cages all day.
Resolved: Dogfighting should be legalized in the United States

Second round is for cases only 3. BOP is shared 4. No kritiks/semantics 5. Voting is on arguments only 6. Breaking rules = loss 7. Sources don't need to be in debate, but if you do that put them in an external link. 8. No NAP or annoying libertarian philosophy (counts as a K). Stats master race 9. You accept definitions 10. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate and an capital punishment through Jaguars. Good luck to Con
School Uniforms should be allowed in Shcool

I cannot really have a final statement. But I would like to say that school uniforms are not the worst thing in the world. Students say they don't like school uniforms because they can't express themselves. But I think that this is all just an excuse for not being able to wear comfortable clothes. School uniforms have many good aspects to them as well, as I have stated in the previous rounds, like: Reducing peer pressure, identifying intruders, boosting school spirit, focusing upon learning, and many more. Even though my opponent had not been honest in some ways in this debate, he has been a great opponent and I thank you. I also thank the viewers and voters of this debate for reading all of this. I hope you had a good time reading this. Thank you, everyone. Sources: http://www.frenchtoast.com...
School Uniforms should be allowed in Shcool

Before we go on with this debate, I will ask you to not plagiarize off of other sites while not give them credit. It is not right to plagiarize off of other people, and even worse to no give them credit. You have obviously plagiarized, word for word, every single statement off of "http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...;. You also have plagiarized off of,"http://occupytheory.org...;. Finally, you have copied off of another DDO member's idea and had not given him credit, naming the person "Anonymous". I do believe that only the last 3 sentences are actually original so I will only respond to those. Plagiarism is not a good practice while debating or anywhere else, and I hope you will fix this or I will have to say that you shall lose by forfeit. I want to hear your opinions in your own words, not the opinions and ideas of some other random person. For this reason, I have chosen not to answer your arguments this round besides the last three sentences. Thank you. Answers to Last Three Sentences 1st sentence: All cities do not have serious gang violence. But all of the bigger cities and even a lot of the smaller ones do, and if this is prevented from all schools, then the schools with gangs will benefit. Also, the federal government does not know enough of gang movement to know exactly which cities the gangs are in, so they cannot just enforce these laws in cities where they think gangs are. And what in the world do the students being gay have to do with the conversation? 2nd sentence: Smart intruders who are planning specifically to attack the school probably cannot be prevented because of their prior planning. But there might be intruders that have a gun and just want to kill people with it. These are the people that could be identified without a school uniform and dealt with accordingly. 3rd sentence: If everyone is wearing school uniforms, then no one will be picked on because everyone is wearing it. You cannot pick on someone else for something you are doing yourself.
School Uniforms should be allowed in Shcool

You have stated that school uniforms violate freedom of expression, and that is the only thing you have used as evidence for your whole argument. I agree with that uniforms violate the freedom of expression. But your conclusion is not very strong. You have said,"if you implement uniforms on all schools, people will begin ignoring the laws because if the government can break it, then they can." I do not believe the federal government will ever force all the school districts to wear school uniforms. It has always been and will be more of a school-based thing. The statement I have just made proves your whole conclusion wrong. And also, many of the disputes concerning school uniforms in court have to do with gang behavior. In Oleson v. Bd. of Education of Sch. Dist., a high school student has presented the case of the male students not being able to wear earrings because it relates to gang behavior. The government sided with the school because the school provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and the resulting violence in the schools there. The school and government made the right decision, in this case, because their decisions repressed gang behavior. Now there are also reasons to promote school uniforms. There are also many healthy reasons to enforce school uniforms, such as reducing peer pressure of wearing high-quality clothes, identifying intruders, diminishing social barriers between students, and many more. This is why I promote school uniforms.
School Uniforms should be allowed in Shcool

The Laws that our founders lay down as they created this country, the declaration, the bill of rights, and even freedom will be breached because of school uniforms. I thought america was the land of the free, the land where we can express ourselves, the land where forcing people to go against common sense is illegal. If you allow school uniforms in school, than you must not have read the laws that our founders made. According To a translation of Laws courtesy by the ACLU, First, freedom of expression is the foundation of self-fulfillment. Self- expression enables an individual to realize his or her full potential as a human being. The right of individuals to express their thoughts, desires, and aspirations, and to communicate freely with others, affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself and should not be subordinated to any other goals of society. Second, freedom of expression is vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge. The eminent 19th century civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. But the right to express oneself is not conditioned on the content of one's views, which may be true or false, "good" or "bad," socially useful or harmful. All points of view should be represented in the "marketplace of ideas" so that society can benefit from debate about their worth. Third, freedom of expression is necessary to our system of self-government. If the American people are to be truly sovereign, the masters of their fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed. They must have access to all information, ideas and points of view. The precondition for a free society is an informed and enlightened citizenry. Tyrannies thrive on mass ignorance. This shows that if you implement uniforms on all schools, people will begin ignoring the laws because if the government can break it, than they can. Vote For Freedom Of Expression On My Side
School Uniforms should be allowed in Shcool

This argument is about whether schools should implement uniforms into their school policy. This will be like a 3 on 3 debate, prop 1 goes, opp 1 goes, prop 2 goes, opp 2 goes, opp 3 goes, prop 3 goes. During the first and second round will make the arguments, while the third speakers do refutes, waive, and support. VOTING SHOULD NOT HAPPEN TILL THE END OF THIS DEBATE. Prop goes up first.
The Disney movie frozen is likely an allegory about homosexuality

I'll make this quick too since I don't have much more to say on this topic. It is not that I am incapable of seeing past the most obvious meaning, but for the sake of the argument and for my own enjoyment of the film I simply decide to go with the meaning that is given to me (since it is a kid's movie anyway, something I've already stated). I believe that the argument of physical pain symbolizing emotional pain that comes from "knowing a loved one is going to hell" is quite a bit of a stretch, especially for Disney. If, for argument's sake, the film really does have a homosexual allegory, this statement implies that Disney probably does not support homosexuality, and based on the outcome of the film, it would seem like they do. This just makes a potential homosexual allegory more complicated in terms of why it would even be created. Also, the argument that being gay affects and hurts those closest to you- how? This is not necessarily true, and pro has given no reasons to back this up. I've just about said all I think I need to say, but I'd just like to bring up one major point that I only briefly touched upon before: Elsa and Anna are SISTERS. The only other woman that we see Elsa in contact with throughout the film is a woman she is related to. Since pro is set on the idea that there is an allegory in this film, then wouldn't an allegory about incest be just as likely as one about homosexuality? To wrap things up, I believe Frozen is not an allegory for homosexuality since I don't believe it has one (and if it did, issues such as incest or even a drinking problem are just as likely). Good luck in the votes, Pro. Nice debating with you.
The Disney movie frozen is likely an allegory about homosexuality

I have to make this super quick. My opponents arguments fail because he's incapable of seeing beyond the most obvious meaning. It's required when looking at allegories to look at the actual moral of the story. Obviously the physical pain is meant to symbolize an emotional pain from knowing a loved one is going to hell andit's also meant to portray the social stigma of being a homosexual that also affects and hurts those closest to you. You see how the town reacted when they discovered Elsa had powers (was lesbian). Until my opponent can offer a rebuttal that goes beyond stating the story lines most obvious meaning than people should vote for me to win this debate
The Disney movie frozen is likely an allegory about homosexuality

Pro says that my stating the obvious meanings for why this isn't an allegory is not a decent argument because an allegory is a hidden meaning and I should instead say how other allegories are more likely or how it was made so the audience can project their own allegory onto the screen. In terms of other allegories being more likely, I should point out what I mentioned in my previous argument that Elsa's "secret" is something that causes physical harm. If this is an allegory for homosexuality, it could be interpreted that Disney is saying that gay people are actually dangerous. If you believe there is an allegory in this film, then Elsa's secret could likely be a metaphor for any other issue that somebody might keep secret, possibly one that actually could cause physical harm. (For example, a drinking problem is more likely to cause physical harm to the people around you than homosexuality if you believe there is an allegory in this film. Someone who is an alcoholic may find similarities between him or herself and Elsa as well.) In response to Pro's statement that I should prove "that Disney intentionally made it so that people would project their own allegory onto screen", I don't see why there has to be an allegory at all. I don't think there is one, and there doesn't have to be one either (it is a movie targeted for children after all) especially since the story makes sense without any reading into it to begin with. If you really analyze any piece of work, you can find an allegory that was never intended in the first place. It is simply a matter of how a person looks at a piece of film, literature, etc. Since Frozen is a children's film that has a plot that makes sense without reading into it, I don't think there is an allegory present. If there is, then there are other possible themes that it could represent besides homosexuality.
The Disney movie frozen is likely an allegory about homosexuality

My opponent is saying that Frozen isn't an allegory and explains the most obvious reasons for each situation I bring up.The definition of allegory is that it is a hidden meaning. Almost every work of art be it music, painting, movies or writing contains the most obvious meaning and then layers of different meanings. Usually it's just one layer of extra meaning but if the artist is truly talented it will be tons of layers.To properly argue against my allegory, you need to show how other allegories are more likely. Or you can argue that Disney made this so it would appeal to a lot of people and therefore they intentionally ade it so people would project their own allegory onto the screen.To argue that it isn't an allegory by stating the most obvious meanings is a failure to undermine my premises and my argument still stands. My premises stand and I should win this debate unless my opponent changes his approach. That is all.
The Disney movie frozen is likely an allegory about homosexuality

While I see why people might think this is a gay allegory, I really don't think Frozen is anything more than a fun fairy tale for kids about sisterly love. "Her parents make it clear that she is born this way." I don't think there is any underlying gay themes in this sentence, just something that people can read into the wrong way. Being born a certain way does not necessarily imply homosexuality and in the case of this Disney movie, I don't think it was their intention. People might say they can't help being dyslexic because they were born that way or that they can't help being blind or deaf to name a few examples. In the case of Frozen, it is the fact that Elsa has magical powers and nothing more. I see where my opponent is going with being "in the closet" for her whole life (this was technically a whole room and not a closet, by the way), but this is just a part of the plot. She is there so that she will not physically harm anybody with her powers. If Frozen had really wanted to make Frozen a metaphor for homosexuality, they probably would not have made Elsa's secret something that can cause physical harm. Since being gay is not something people hide because it could physically put people in danger, I find it unbelievable that Elsa's powers are a metaphor for homosexuality. As far as I know, it is never said that Elsa is off-limits, she just isn't as eager to find a man as her sister. Elsa's love life is never mentioned in the film and the fact that she is single throughout the film is not enough evidence that she is a lesbian. It can be inferred that since she spent most of her life locked in her room and had little social interaction. Somebody with little experience with social interaction and a set of powers that she cannot control is probably not especially eager to find a man. Also, Elsa's character has been praised for showing young girls the message that you don't need a man to be a strong character, and her lack of love interest was probably done in part to send this message across. With the song "Let it Go", I believe this is basically the same as what I said for her being locked in her room. This song pertains to her powers, not her "homosexuality". For the term Ice Queen, this is basically the same as what I said about her not having a love interest. She has had little experience with social interactions and her powers prevent her from wanting to get close to anyone. The message about a woman's love saving another woman was meant to be sisterly love, and it also enforces the message for young girls that you don't need a man to save you, which is what I believe Disney was going for with this film. If they had wanted to make it a gay metaphor, I believe they would've had a woman who was not related to Elsa save her instead, which did not happen. In conclusion, I am a strong believer in gay rights, but I don't think that Frozen is a gay allegory.
The Disney movie frozen is likely an allegory about homosexuality

http://www.youtube.com... In the first clip you see, Elsa and Anna are taken to the trolls and the troll king asks if Elsa was cursed or born that way. Her parents make it clear she was "Born This Way". For those who don't know "Born This Way" is a song by Lady Gaga that has basically become the new gay anthem. http://www.mtv.com... Before that song came out, I'm not sure what the gay anthem was, probably something by George Michael. Shortly after this meeting with the trolls Elsa learned her gayness (Ice Powers) was a bad thing that should be hidden or else it will hurt her ad hose closest to her. She spends her entire childhood in the closet pretty much (A metaphor for keeping your homosexuality secret). Later on in the movie, when the prince reveals he is a bad guy he says he went after Anna's hand in marriage because everyone knew Elsa was off limits, despite being single. This is a strong indication that she has no interest in men and is therefore a lesbian. I should also be note sheis the first Disney princess without a male love interest. The second clip in this argument is the song "Let It Go" Where she sings about having to "conceal" her true feelings and pretend to "be the good girl". I assume because society sees her sexuality as bad. She sings of not being able to "go back". Once you come out of the closet there is no going back to being straight. http://www.youtube.com... I've heard the term Ice Queen quite a bit, not now as much as I used to but it is a term used to describe a woman who doesn't have the slightest interest in sleeping with you and I think it's something lesbians get accused of being quite a bit because of their disinterest in men. I find it beyond coincidence that Elsa is a literal ice queen. Above all else the film is about one woman's love for another and a woman sacrificing herself for the woman she loves. I know they're sisters but I think this message is strong, and intentional.
Seeking a discussion rather than a debate regarding the existince of reality.

well,the existence of reality in a discussion depends on few key points 1 the kinda person u r discussing with 2 ur own and the other person's intellect 3 the most important point is to scrutinize a decoy. mostly, in a discussion or in a debate, one would contradict to the existing reality moreover this world has far much more number of talkers than the listeners
The U.S.F.G. should withhold revenue from states unless they legalize same-sex marriage

1. My opponent still fails to recognize the validity in applying the equal protection clause: "no state shall . .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has already applied this to the abortion debate, deciding that the right could be established by the Constitution. Abortion had, until that point, not been recognized as a right deserving of equal protection for the states. My opponent claims that the authority of the government regarding "public health and safety" is different from "ethical issues. " Abortion was much more of an ethical issue. Also, the government gets out of the ethics debate by promoting equality , rather than one ethical view over another. He also makes no mention of the Federal Highway Act. So, you must vote Pro on these grounds. Do not give my opponent leverage to answer these in Round 3, as it is abusive, as there is no Round 4 for me to contest them. 2. My argument is completely topical here, and gives weight as to why it is so important that the federal government ought to override states from prohibiting same-sex marriages. Without a good cause (such as why federal laws are needed to protect marriage), imposing a burden upon states for failing to meet this is unfair. When the 1984 drinking law passed, arguments were made as to why the law was so important that the state would withhold funding, primarily safety. In this case, it involves equality, and include financial stability. 3. The argument for whether the resolution would pass through the U. S. Congress is wholly relevant to this debate, because if it didn't pass through than it would never affect us. My opponent fails to answer this argument, simply dismissing it. The only thing truthful my opponent stated was that this did not affect the "correctness" of a policy. The fact that DOMA has recently been recognized as unenforceable by the Obama Administration makes 2011 the ideal time to pass this law. Additionally, my opponent does not answer the arguments presented that executive orders, Dems controlling the Senate, along with the GOP Split, with Senators Snowe and Collins supporting gay rights legislation, makes this likely to pass in the U. S. Vote Pro on these grounds. 4. My opponent continues to reject the topicality of my arguments, making it convenient for him to flout debating these. Other nations have seized the authority to place burdens upon sub-districts. Due to its positive externalities in nations' views on homosexuality, a potential outcome is stated. h 5. The U. S. Constitution does not grant unlimited rights to the states. When federal laws conflict with state law, federal laws outweigh. My opponent's arguments are irrelevant in this point because my arguments are based upon the 14th Amendment. Additionally, by his logic DOMA would be illegal, as would any federal laws dictating marriage. The Constitution is a living document as should be interpreted as such.