BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A SkyLift or a Tram Must Be Built for Batu Caves

I agree that it is an amazing structure. That is the reason why we need a tram/sky lift -- so that more people, the elderly, the children and the handicapped could also see it. The Swiss has successfully installed a cable car in Gunung Mat Chincang in Langkawi, Malaysia without damaging the ecosystem. I think they can do it in Batu Caves too. As for the cost, I think the Malaysian government could use the same system it has used before -- those who want to use the cable car must pay, but those who prefer to scale the stairs could do it for free, just like it has always been. The cable car will definitely attract more tourists, and in the long run, the investment will be worth it. http://en.wikipedia.org...
A SkyLift or a Tram Must Be Built for Batu Caves

My argument is this, The Batu Caves is an amazing structure said to have been around for around 400 million years. too install a tram would be nothing short of defacing the architectural feat. Furthermore, it would surely be more likely to turn tourist away seeing as it had been defaced in such a crude manor. Lastly, the cost to install such a system would be large and it would have to make tourists pay to see this beautiful limestone hill
A SkyLift or a Tram Must Be Built for Batu Caves

Batu Caves limestone temple in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia is one of the most visited limestone temple outside India. You could only reach it if you are fit enough to scale 272 steps and fight the monkeys manning the stairs. Shouldn't the authority build some form of automatic lifting system to help the elderly and tourists to take them on the temples? Forget the tradition. Should religion accepts modernization too ? Reference: http://www.jomjalan.com... http://www.jomjalan.com.my...
The CW Should sart a pprecurser to the Justic League incluseding the Arrow, flash, and batman

I will never understand why Warner Bros can make great movies and tv shows but what the put on there own tv network, CW, is so bad. There have been a few gems over the years but mostly it like CW is saying why try. Like Gotham let make a decent show that people want to see, and then air it on a tv network we don't own. That is why I don't trust shows any more on CW; if it was good chances are Warner Bros whould air it on another network.
The CW Should sart a pprecurser to the Justic League incluseding the Arrow, flash, and batman

Umm DC still has the rights they are leasing it to CW to do the show. Gotham is on Fox and not CW. Birds of Prey was a flop. Smallville is part of what I was talking about. Smallville was not like any of the Superman Comics it insted went agianst them for drama. CW would have 3/4 of the movie about how loves who, and how every one feels. Like 10 min of them fighting bad guys.
The CW Should sart a pprecurser to the Justic League incluseding the Arrow, flash, and batman

The CW already has the rights to the Arrow and the Flash and possible others and have shown the willingness to try. I don"t believe any other network will give the DC universe a chance other than maybe NBC where the series "Constantine" is currently airing. The CW also with "Gotham" and previously "Smallville" and "Birds of Prey" Have shown that they are at least interested.
The CW Should sart a pprecurser to the Justic League incluseding the Arrow, flash, and batman

I am not against the concept so much as against CW doing it. Yes CW has done Arrow good, but CW as a history of making the worst super hero shows. They butcher these great stories. I was excited about the new Flash show for months, and was really disappointed with the show. As a rule CW tries to make things way to much about drama, and not an action packed show like it should be. The drama should flow naturally from the action, and not like it action is getting in the way of the drama.
Video games count as free speech, and should be protected under the First Amendment.

If you consider the point that it is in the hands of the parent to say what games are acceptable, then I believe you are arguing the wrong side of this argument. It sounds like you are saying that the kind of games available should not be in the hands of the state or any protection agency, but in the hands of the parent to decide. As a parent can decide not to let their child see a movie, or read a book, or go to a certain museum. all of which are clearly protected under the 1st amendment. I wish I had used my first argument to its full extent, I hope to hear back soon.
Video games count as free speech, and should be protected under the First Amendment.

I hope that you are well. I would suggest that you don't forfeit. You still have one last round to make your case and I suggest that you use it to your advantage. I will object to what you have written thus far and make my argument for why violent/mature video games should not be made available for purchase to minors. I'm assuming that you're justifying the sale of mature video games to young children based on the idea that violence is not promoted by video games. I agree with this premise, but I do not believe that this should be the merit upon which we decide whether or not we should sell mature video games to children. Instead, I believe that we should prevent the sale of these games to children because they are not old enough to understand the implications of violence in society. A child may be desensitized towards violent displays of human interactions and this will affect his ability to react appropriately to real life demands. For example, a child may witness violence in the streets and think it normal due to prior exposure via video games. Children are easily impressionable. If a video game commercial claims their product is cool then the child will have little contrary reason to believe otherwise. He may or may not have responsible parents that are monitoring his exposure to these kinds of adverts. A child does not typically question the suggestions and commands of others and may be influenced to purchase a product that is not appropriate for his age. The decisions of whether or not children should be playing these games should be in the hands of the parents, and not in the child's.
Video games count as free speech, and should be protected under the First Amendment.

Thank you for accepting, I will jump right into my argument. First, and foremost, I shall try to dispute the idea that exposure to violence is causing people of easy influence (Kids and the like) to act violent themselves. I am not going to try to argue that certain games are not violent, because that argument would be as moot as it is wrong. In my opinion, which is backed by many and opposed by many as well, it is not video games which have been causing us to believe there is an increase in crime, but it is the fact that reporting violent news has become easier than ever. In fact the crime rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years [1] (I wrote that 2 days ago, I have been a hospital since then, I humbly forfeit on the grounds that I am in no mental, physical, nor the emotional state to make sense.)
Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society

I believe that feminism is simply not relevant in our modern day society. Every round besides the acceptance round will be for arguments, rebuttals are accepted. Subjective arguments are immediately dismissed. Offending the opponent or talking about non debate related things are considered trolling and are absolutely banned. Do not over use caps lock and signs or symbols. Also, do not rebuttal definitions in arguments, you can do so in the comments section. Thank you. Definitions: Feminism: Any group that declares themselves as feminists and/or A movement for granting women political, social, and economic equality (or advantage) with men. Our society/modern day society/our modern day society/the like: A lot of feminists point out data that are quite exclusive to third world countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. This should need no further explaining, if you try to twist my definition or haunt me with political correctness, you are doing it wrong. Beneficial: does more good than harm to everyone.
Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society

Thanks con. I understand that your data is from 2010 and that still makes it five years behind. You could get data from this year, and the information could be easily manipulated as most companies don't reveal their employee pay rates. America has an unpaid 12 week maternity leave according to Wikipedia which isn't a lot compared to other countries but is still something not offered to their male co workers. Again, the data can not be confirmed and therefore shouldn't be your main argument or even an argument. Parental leave is different from maternity leave. Yes, I was only rebutting an argument and even if feminist groups redefined rape, it still doesn't prove my point wrong. Boys are just as vulnerable as girls. I know, a lot of people oppose feminism but usually they are simply considered sexist or trolling. The republican party isn't that anti feminist. AND they lost quite a few elections Sources. .. Well, brainwashing really wasn't a good word but you do realise that most feminists are women and most women are feminists. Again, if you want to prove me wrong you can just go ahead and ask every women you see whether they are feminists. They are still majority. And yes, they are quite close minded, at least the ones I have see. It seems like they would not consider any other ideology and dismiss any attempt proving them wrong as trolling. And what is MRA? This is voting period so I am not going to add anything. Feminism is NOT beneficial to our modern society.
Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society

Sorry for forfeiting, there was a couple of urgent things I had to take care of. Since the BoP is on me, I will now give to arguments, one for the last round and one for this round. 1) Feminism had been beneficial but now we already have left the prejudice behind us. I am not saying that gender equality is no longer at presence, but only that it doesn't really matter anymore. If male truly have a significant advantage towards woman, if we really have control simply for being who we are, why would feminism even exist? And yes, you would ask me for evidence and I do have it, LOGIC. If man do have the upper hand wouldn't we want to control any outcry? Any voices? If not, wouldn't that mean we are NOT the sexist person feminism portrays us to be? 2) Feminists fail to uphold gender equality. They are hating on men and developing into a supremacy or at least gender exclusivity. If both genders are supposed to be equal, how come in every Japanese train/subway there are one whole car reserved for woman? How come feminist Marilyn Frenc's quote saying all men are rapists are still such a popular ideology with feminists? How come Room to Read and many famous foundations alike only offer academic education to women and in fact have a ad saying "Transform a Girl's Life, send her to school" on the home page and noone says anything meanwhile boy only schools are considered sexist? (St. Mary's, classic example). How come the "sorry, it's a boy" commercial was passed on to the Superbowl and even considered "Not Sexist" and to date not a single person apologised? I get it, you may think that these are just individual examples, and you may be right, however, without feminism this would be much harder to do. What I am insisting is that we simply drop feminism as an ideology in our world. Or at least introduce some kind of Masculinism without being called sexist.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Clarification Question: The answer is no. North Africa is part of the Near East, as defined by the U.S. Department of State, not the Middle East. 1) There are many pertinent agencies in the U.N. who would be likely to contribute funding. a) International Labor Organization b) International Telecommunication Agency c) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization d) International Development Association of the World Bank Group e) World Tourism Organization There are also a large number of countries in the U.N. concerned with human rights (i.e. every single one except Saudi Arabia) 2) I am attempting to weed out the corruption in the current democracies as well as selling the concept of democracy to other countries. This will create true democracy vs. the current faux democracy. 3) The definition of promote, according to Oxford Dictionaries, is this "further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage:" (verb). In other words, no. This is the promotion of democracy. 4) The goal of governing bodies is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I focus specifically on the pursuit of happiness because it can be restated as quality of life, which contains liberty, and, to some extent, life. 5) I am trying to solve for the numerous human rights violations via the promotion of democracy.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

So, I'll answer my opponent's questions first. 1. I believe if you put in a little bit of the card with the source I provide, you'll be able to check the sources. 2. Sure, a total of five questions. I'll have one clarifying question. So, first is my clarification question. Do you defend North Africa as well? On to my five questions. 1. Where does the plan get funding? If you don"t spec the specific agency, I"ll assume normal means. 2. Can you develop on your plan a little bit more? What exactly are you implementing? 3. Your second contention says they can be changed with little effort. Isn't that democracy assistance, not democracy promotion? 4. Why does democracy insist on happiness, and not morality? 5. What exactly are you trying to solve for?
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

I'm gonna copy the outline for my Affirmative here. It'll be a tish confusing, but I bet that you can follow it. Value: Pursuit of Happiness/Quality of Life Criterion: Pragmatism Thesis: Democratic values should be promoted in the Middle East in order to attempt to fix human rights violations. This promotion will take effect in the following four steps: 1. The U.S. will ask the U.N. for help in the promotion of democracy. If the U.N. doesn"t help, then step 1 will be repeated, or the process will end, seeing as the burden of promotion will be upheld. 2. The combined force will insert itself into the currently running democratic systems in the middle east elections as long as lethal resistance is not present. 3. The insertion will involve the combined force running the elections with the caveat that they will leave should a total of 1/3rd of the voting population requests it. 4. For governments that aren"t democratic, the combined force will simply distribute flyers via airplane, if this is not a dangerous action. Contention 1: The Middle East has Gross Human Rights Violations, due to Corrupt Governance The following human rights violations would be fixed if democracy was instituted. Subpoint A: Child Labor (CIA World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2016) Meta A: Yemen 23% of children between the ages of 5 and 14 (have to work as child laborers) 1,334,288 (total children) Meta B: Turkey 3% of children between the ages of 5 and 14 321,866 Meta C: Syria 4% of children between the ages of 5 and 14 192,915 Meta D: Lebanon 7% of children between the ages of 5 and 14 54,387 Meta E: Iraq 11% of children between the ages of 5 and 14 715,737 Meta F: Egypt 7% of children between the ages of 5 and 14 1,066,526 Meta G: Bahrain 5% of children between the ages of 5 and 14 5,530 Meta H: Total 3,691,249 Subpoint B: Religious Freedom is Legally Prohibited or Discouraged with Lethal Force (U.S. Department of State, DoS Staff, 2013) Meta A: Yemen Meta B: United Arab Emirates Meta C: Saudi Arabia Meta D: Iraq Meta E: Iran Subpoint C: Gender Inequality is High in the Middle East (United Nations Development Program, UNDP Staff, 2015) Meta A: Yemen Rank 155 (out of 188 total countries for gender equality) Meta B: Turkey Rank 71 Meta C: Syria Rank 119 Meta D: Jordan Rank 102 Meta E: Qatar Rank 116 Meta F: Lebanon Rank 78 Meta G: Kuwait Rank 79 Meta H: Iraq Rank 123 Meta I: Iran Rank 114 Meta J: Egypt Rank 131 Contention 2: These Countries are already Democratic, just Corrupt (CIA World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2016) The countries, being technically democratic, can be changed with a little effort. Subpoint A: Yemen Subpoint B: Turkey Subpoint C: Syria Subpoint D: Lebanon Subpoint E: Israel Subpoint F: Iraq Subpoint G: Iran Subpoint H: Egypt Final Focus: In order to fix these violations, the U.S. and U.N. will take advantage of the current social media outrage and technical democracies. Two quick questions: 1) Can we check each others sources online? 2) Can we have a total of 5 questions, with the exception of questions meant to clarify defintions or reasoning?
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

This round will also include DA's, CP's, T shells, and K's, so don't accept either if you don't know what those are. The second part of round 1 will be the 1AC. The first part of round 2 will be the first CX time. Max 10 questions, and if you don't agree with that, add in what you feel should be the proper amount of questions at the end of the 1AC. The second part of round 2 will be the answers to those CX questions. The first part of round 3 will be the 1NC. The second part of round 3 will be the CX questions. Again, 10 questions max. The first part of round 4 will be the answers to those CX questions. The second part of round 4 will be the 1AR. The first part of round 5 will be the 2NR. The second part of round 5 will be the 2AR. When placing cards, write out the tag and cite as usual, but when placing the actual cards, just type in what you would say if you were in a real LD debate. If there's any questions, comment. Good luck to my opponent.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Road Map: Contention 1 & K: Contention 2: CP & DA: Voting Issues: Contention 1& K: My opponents attacks here don't actually address the fact that I'm making the people liberators. Instead of forcing them to be victims, I am giving them the option to break the cycle or continue it. Contention 2: My opponent brought up the old argument "Just because you can does not mean you should." I will counter with this. Just because you can doesn't mean you shouldn't. There is every reason to attempt to fix the issues found in the listed, technically democratic countries. CP & DA: The crux of the attacks here comes down to one thing. My opponent has argued that I am not actually talking about the U.S., but the U.N. In actuality, I'm doing both. I am saying that the U.S. should channel its promotional powers into the U.N., because the U.N. will help greatly in this promotion. It's like saying that to eat a salad, you should use a fork. It's a common sense measure that still results in you eating the salad. Voting Issues: 1) I have demonstrated that, by my implementation plan, people who are unhappy will become happy, thereby achieving the goal of today's debate, the pursuit of happiness. 2) My steps are very practical, leading me to take the win on a pragmatic ground. 3) My 1st contention still stands, weathered, but standing. 4) My 2nd contention is basically uncontested. 5) My opponents CP and DA actually assist my case. I see no other vote than a vote in affirmation.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

We're going to go with Contention 1 and the K (since they're pretty much together). Then the CP. Then the DA. Then Contention 2. Then the Overview and Voters. Also, thanks to my opponent for a very quick, nice, and fluid debate. Starting with the Human Rights Debate, my opponent says his implementation takes into account the "victims". However, the fact that my opponent is focusing on human rights is the problem. By talking about human rights, my opponent is seeing these people as "victims". Also, extend the alt, which says we need to leave it to the government. This is the only way to prevent the violent cycle of decolonization. My opponent doesn't attack the alt, so you should vote on the alt already. If you don't buy that, let's go to the CP. My opponent's only statement on the CP is that Brazil is part of the UN, so it helps his case. However, the resolution is "Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East." My opponent said this was irrelevant in his last speech, which I don't know why. So, my opponent can't defend the UN. The arguments that my opponent made connecting Brazil and NED are NEG arguments, so since I've won the CP and the DA, that's another reason to vote NEG. I think the DA went with the CP statement. My opponent's contention 2 doesn't have evidence or offense. Just because they can be changed with little effort doesn't mean we should. He also just lists a few countries as subpoints, but I don't know if it's real or what it means. Either way, it's not a reason to vote AFF. The way you look at this round is really simple. I won the K, which says my opponent's focus on human rights is bad, and we should leave decisions to the government. I won the CP, which says Brazil should promote good governance in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania. Don't let this be an AFF argument, the AFF can only defend the US, not the UN. And, I won the DA, which says democracy promotion through NED is bad. My opponent's only offense on that was in the CP argument, which I won. Today, even if I only won one of these arguments, I still win the debate since I have enough offense, which is why you must negate. Good round.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

As brief road map, I'll go over my case first, then I will go over my opponents. My Case: Contention 1: My opponents attacks here are baseless. They point out that people don't actually work to get out of their unjust governance when another country labels them as victims. My implementation takes this into account. The goal is to avoid any and all fighting. There are two things that will happen. A country will have it's elections run for it, until such time as it has lost corruption, or a country will have pamphlets distributed to it via airplane. This allows for people, people who would label themselves as victims, to take control of their government and save themselves. In elections, this is due to no actual liberation taking place, only an opportunity for liberation is put in place. In pamphlet distribution, this allows for people to choose for themselves whether or not they want control. We are not reducing these people to victims of a regime. We are giving them an opportunity to stand up for themselves and take what they need. Contention 2: My opponents attacks here fall. I didn't say that the corruption was bad (though it is). I merely pointed out that they were technically democratic. These countries are the countries in which elections would be taken over. This would lead to people removing the corruption themselves, not the U.N. Opponent's Case: CP: This actually helps my case. Brazil, being a part of the U.N., will be able to cooperate with the rest of the U.N. with their already effective techniques. In the case of NED, Brazil would be capable of getting NED, an obviously well funded organization, to a state where NED can actually be positive, rather than negative. DA: As pointed out under "CP", this is actually helps the affirmative. K: This point also falls. For details, check "Contention 1" Cross Exam: 1) My opponent is restating fact. 2) Irrelevant 3) Yes, but why? 4) I've addressed this in "Contention 1". 5) I've addressed this in "CP". Final Thoughts: I have two things to point out. The U.S. is still the instigator of this movement. They would be furthering a cause. This means that the burden of promotion is still upheld.