BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
fans acting negatively because of zayn malik leaving 1d

Thank you, juverina, for instigating what I am sure will be an enthralling debate.My duty, as Pro, is to affirm that fans are indeed acting negatively because of Zayn Malik leaving One Direction (1D). I will open with a brief argument, and I will elaborate and construct additional arguments where necessary, in later rounds.A1: Clear evidence of fans acting negatively because of Zayn leaving 1DFrom Popcrush.com, there is clear evidence which affirms the resolution [1]. From the source, there are a couple of Tiwtter comments that are negative and a result of Zayn Malik leaving ID; see for yourself: For example, the first tweet is:1) Directed at Zayn2) Negative (calls him heartless)3) Is a result of Zayn leaving 1DTherefore, we have a fan acting negatively because Zayn left 1DNow, as you may note, the resolution pertains to "fans" (as opposed to a fan), so the second tweet should suffice for the resolution affirmation. However, just to be sure, I will provide another source. According to Hollywoodlife.com, there are plenty more tweets that are "acting negatively" in regards to Zayn. Have a look [2]: For example, have a look at the last tweet.1) She is "angry" (i.e. being negative)2) She is reacting to Zayn because he left 1DSo, I have affirmed the resolution by providing multiple examples which show "fans acting negatively because of zayn malik leaving 1d".References[1] http://popcrush.com...[2] http://hollywoodlife.com...
Homosexuality is natural

I. Homosexuality is a genderMy opponent has dropped my points, he gave refutation backed simply by a definition that doesn't mean what hes tring to portray, now GENDER IS IMPORTANT HERE, if homosexuality is a gender, look at my first contention in round 1, and gender isn't natural is socially constructed, thus I win todays debate, plane and simple! He has yet to refute this with actual evidence thus it flows to me.II. Sex is naturalagain this is to show the difference between gender and sex, we both agreed they were different after round 2 where neither of us refuted it.III. Homosexuality is naturalno homosexual act would not occur without society, my opponent has given no examples of when society disappeared 2 adults that had never known society got it on. HE HOLDS THE BOP DONT LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THIS. he brings up attraction is natural but DOESNT RELATE IT TO HOMOSEXUALITY.IV.Animals and homosexuality So basically his refutation to my card is "its biased" thus because it doesn't side with him its wrong, this isn't an appropriate refutation. So yes I can answer his "Animals and Homosexuality" point.NAARTH states "At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality." so essentially human interaction comes into play leading to distorted animals but again ""Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. " and since society plays into effect with these animals too, this point flows to me.V. Desire vs Need Glad we agree that its a desire and thus arguments including the so called "Need" for sex are flawed.VI.QuestionsMY OPPONENT HAS NOT SHOWN HOW THEY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, I gave you a response and rather than applying his questions that he is requiring to be met, he refuted my answers. Audience realize that he doesn't even meet his own requirements.My opponent also holds the BOP and hasn't fulfilled it, thus we only see a ballot in favor of the NEG.
Homosexuality is natural

I.Homosexuality is a genderThis point was left un-refuted, thus it flows to me and stands as is.II.Sex is naturalthis is true but its important to note that its different from gender, and my opponent didn't address that.III.Gender is not naturalI have won this point, it has ben left essentially un-refuted except un-backed opinion and a definition. So I will address the definition and extend my arguments. Gender:the state of being male or female right, however looking further down on the definition, under FULL DEFINITION it states: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.thus its;Gender: the state of being male or female- the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.which means that Gender is subjective. I would like to point you back to my UNREFUTED QUOTE “socially constructed” aspects of male–female differences (gender) from “biologically determined” aspects (sex). This distinction is now only fitfully respected, and gender is often used as a simple synonym of sex." so gender is a socially constructed aspect, NOT NATURALY CONSTRUCTED. Thus this point shifts in my favor. because it is different from sex. IIII.Natural subjugationThis contention unsupported, he provides a single card to support a contention that is broad and unrealistic. HOWEVER his card that states animals exhibit homosexual activity are flawed, they state "penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.”" none of which is homosexual activity. It also considers Giraffes rubbing necks homosexual activity, but we clearly see that isn't either. Again as my NAARTH card stated "Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. " this point clearly flows to me.V. Desire V. Need;Sex is a not a need it is a desire, if it was a need we would cease to exist because be don't get it. so people like Sisters in the church, monks, priests, ect. who don't participate in sex are all dead. it is a desire because its something they want, they can live without it, so all the arguments about how sex is needed to satisfy a sex drive are false.QUESTIONS;1) I show homosexuality is a gender and gender is a social construct.2) my opponent who holds the BOP hasn't shown chemical composition determines homosexual activity, instead he says they are just fulfilling a desire, this would indicate heterosexuals are homosexual as well if there is only me around.3) Sex is not a natural need, instead its a desire.But these questions aren't the real issue;Because my opponent holds the BOP he must show; Homosexuality is natural. if he doesn't fulfill this Burdon then he doesn't win.
Gold

(1) Economic growth So what if reserves help to gain more money? I didn't say we would lose money, I said economic growth would be curtailed. This is just a red herring. The gold standard curtails economic growth -- it causes deflation and hyperinflation (1). I don't see how Pro's rebuttal relates to this at all. Pro drops all of my claims, warrants, and impacts. (2) Constitution A statement such as "the Supreme Court . . . is not above the Constitution" is contradictory. For all practical purposes, what the Supreme Court says is what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court is equal to the Constitution, since its decisions are equal to the Constitution. The Supreme Court's word is final. There are multiple interpretations of the Constitution, including my opponent's, but unless we have an official interpreter of the Constitution, people could say taxation is unconstitutional and not pay taxes. The Supreme Court's interpretation is final, and, therefore, is infallible. It ought to be treated as infallible. As it stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is. " The law is the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is the law. And Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis, and Juillard v. Greenman are representations of what the Constitution has to say about fiat money. (3) Impractical Paying them in gold itself is costly, since gold is costly. "[A]s to the expenses . . . this is America" isn't a compelling response. I don't see any impact or link here. Mining gold costs money. Pro drops the resources cost, et cetera. To pay them, we have to mine gold. (4) Fiat money In the 1950's and the 1960's, the United States did not operate via a gold standard. It was abandoned in 1933 (2). There is evidence to suggest that deflation was at its highest when the US operated with a gold standard based economy (3). Inflation is not "in the double digits. " There is only positive inflation -- 0.8% last year, and, as of October 15 this year, 0.0% inflation (4). The US has not experienced deflation since the gold standard (4). And 5% is a low unemployment rate. In 1932, just before the US abandoned the gold standard, the unemployment rate was at 23.6% (5); further, this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. - The resolution is negated. - (1) . http://www.j-bradford-delong.net... (2) . http://mentalfloss.com... (3) . http://research.stlouisfed.org... (4) . http://www.usinflationcalculator.com... (5) . http://www.infoplease.com...
Gold

"1) Economic growth Pro doesn't really address this. All he says is that the U.S. treasury can keep gold and silver reserves to curtail loss of money. But he drops that gold standard causes deflation or hyperinflation, and drops that these curtail economic growth." The truth is is that I DID address this, the US Treasury keeps gold and silver in case the economy needs more money, if it does not then it stocks gold and silver for when it does, problem solved, the US Treasury can take care of it all if necessary. "But the mining of gold -- even under Pro's counterplan -- would be extremely expensive, since we would need to invest in technology, and people. We can't pay them in gold, because that is effectively a shift to the gold standard, which -- sans enough gold -- significantly harms the economy." No, we pay them in gold certificates, which are backed by the gold they mined, problem solved, and as to the expenses, this is America. "Pro argues that the Constitution is not free to interpretation. It is, though, free to interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't need to be followed as it was in the 1700's -- Pro assumes that Constitutional originalism is the best, but fails to justify that. As Justice Jackson, when he sat on the Supreme Court, once said, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." The Constitution might have multiple meanings, but somebody must be charged with final interpretation of the Constitution -- that is the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of fiat money, fiat money is Constitutional." No, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, but it is not above the constitution, and I suppose you would have some piece of the constitution that granted the supreme court that authority? I provided quotes from the constitution when I argued that fiat is unconstitutional, you are yet to do so. "Pro says "history repeats itself." This is a bare assertion. So far, the fiat money system has worked perfectly in the United States. Until Pro refutes this, this argument is flawed." Ok, let"s examine this, the last two decades before we left the gold standard, in the 1960s and 1950"s, we had a middle class, and equal opportunity for all. So now we can examine this argument of yours, you say it has worked perfectly, but the only way this is beneficial is that our GDP has increased, so yeah, the fiat system worked perfectly, that is, if you are one of those 0.1% of the population that gets a slice of that GDP. It has not worked perfectly, inflation is in the double digits, our unemployment rate is 5%, the minimum wage is at 7.25$ a hour, our national debt is at 18 trillion, yeah, fiat really helped us out.
Gold

(1) Economic growth Pro doesn't really address this. All he says is that the U.S. treasury can keep gold and silver reserves to curtail loss of money. But he drops that gold standard causes deflation or hyperinflation, and drops that these curtail economic growth. (2) Impractical But the mining of gold -- even under Pro's counterplan -- would be extremely expensive, since we would need to invest in technology, and people. We can't pay them in gold, because that is effectively a shift to the gold standard, which -- sans enough gold -- significantly harms the economy. (3) Constitution Pro argues that the Constitution is not free to interpretation. It is, though, free to interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't need to be followed as it was in the 1700's -- Pro assumes that Constitutional originalism is the best, but fails to justify that. As Justice Jackson, when he sat on the Supreme Court, once said, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." The Constitution might have multiple meanings, but somebody must be charged with final interpretation of the Constitution -- that is the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of fiat money, fiat money is Constitutional. (4) Fiat money Pro says "history repeats itself." This is a bare assertion. So far, the fiat money system has worked perfectly in the United States. Until Pro refutes this, this argument is flawed. Pro dropped money supply, thus conceding the turn. - The motion remains negated.
Resolved: The Proverb "Time is Money" is valid.

Sadly, I've made a poor, perhaps fatal mistake. I forgot that I provided my own definitions, and thus I didn't check to see if my opponent had accepted my definitions. I suppose this is a result of procrastination -- I tend to forget things overtime. At this point, I feel that recovering is nearly impossible. I have violated the rules and all of my arguments were based on PRO's old definitions. ----I personally believe that the definition I proposed would be unfair -- it gives me almost no ground to defend. How is one supposed to prove that wasting time is beneficial? And how doesn't want to use their time for something valuable? ----I think that it is too late to attempt to resolve and argue definitions. Furthermore, I can not find any arguments for my side. I have no option other than to give up. I'll leave it up to the voters to decide.
Resolved: The Proverb "Time is Money" is valid.

I accept the basis of my opponent's definition but I believe that it should be refined to:"Time shouldn't be wasted as it could be useful for making money" Now onto my arguments:Opportunity Costs Opportunity costs are a loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. It is an economically accepted worldwide term. For example, two hours spent in a meeting will have come at the cost of not spending time with your children or checking email. Opportunity costs state that the entity of time, however used, always has possible potential gain. Some of this potential gain could be money. Therefore, time is money. Time and MoneyThis point is very straight forward: you need time to make money. The process of making money, whether it be through a job or through stocks, all take time. Therefore, money cannot be made without time. Hence, time is money. This point, although very short, is an almost irrefutable and an extremely important contention. Time could be used for making moneyThis is somewhat an extension of the previous arguments with examples:Say Person X is at work. His work pays money. However, to earn that money he must spend time (which is impossible otherwise). Therefore, time is money. Say Person Y is at a store. During this time, he could be working and making money. Therefore, according to the definition of "Time shouldn't be wasted as it could be useful for making money", time is money. These contentions have been very short as I plan to direct my focus on my opponent's arguments. Good Luck!
Resolved: The Proverb "Time is Money" is valid.

Hmm. I accept and hopefully this will be fun!--Definition--I believe that the proverb "Time is Money" should be defined as a whole. The words have to be combined together in order to produce the full effect and meaning of the proverb.I think it is supposed to mean something along the lines of "time shouldn't be wasted as it could be used for something valuable"------Well, I await your response and good luck to you too.
Resolved: The Proverb "Time is Money" is valid.

This is for Weirdman's Tournament.Resolved: The Proverb "Time is Money" is valid.Time- The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.Money- A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.Valid- Is correctDEFINITIONS SHALL NOT BE EXPLOITED.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Conclusion and Rebuttals (To balance out the last word advantage, PRO can rebut two points while CON can only rebut one).Good Luck!
Resolved: Estate Tax is neccesary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States

I negate: Resolved: Estate Tax is necessary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States. I will provide some definitions: Estate Tax: a tax imposed on a decedent's property, assessed on the gross estate prior to distribution to the heirs. Natural aristocracy: an aristocracy, which arises out of work and competition rather than birth, education, or special privilege Paraphrase from: The Irony of Democracy. My arguments: Contention 1. An estate tax will lead to a decreasing amount of resources to maintain aristocracy. Aristocratic hereditary titles are based upon the value of the inheritance. "The Death Tax blindly takes its cut and leaves families to pick up the pieces." According to IRS Publication 950, in 2008 an inherited amount of 2 million will be taxed at a rate of 45%. This estate tax cannot maintain aristocracy. http://www.nodeathtax.org... Contention 2. Estate tax hurts the United States and its citizens. By dealing with such taxes, people are more concern about the tax than their business, being more concern on the tax will soon cut the production rate, and by cutting the production rate our economy slows and stocks drop. Sub point a. Estate tax hurts the common people. This tax applies to all U.S citizens. By taking away much of the property before it is passed on causes the heirs to pick up the scraps and live on it. (TomPaine.com) Sub point b. Estate tax has hurt the economy. With the poor economy people are losing jobs, properties lose value, every aspect of society is affected. The economics of the Estate Tax stated, "The estate tax is a leading cause of dissolution for thousands of family-run businesses. Estate tax planning further diverts resources available for investment and employment." Sub point c. The estate tax is a corrupt tax. Politicians do not transfer this tax for welfare services. TomPaine.com stated, "A big chunk has gone to CEOs, investment bankers and hedge fund managers. This past year, 25 hedge fund managers each took home at least $130 million. Henry Paulson, our about-to-be Treasury Secretary, pocketed over $30 million. Average CEO pay back in 1966 was 60 times that of the typical American worker. Now it's 400 times." Sub point d: It has doesn't help the U.S government only corrupt insurances. Nodeathtax.com states, "In the end, the IRS takes $20 billion a year out of our economy that should be used for job creation, the insurance industry takes billions more, and small business owners spend precious time and money to deal with this horrendous tax instead of being productive." In conclusion estate tax is unnecessary and corrupt to maintain natural aristocracy. By allowing it to become necessary we are adding it as a harmful issue into natural aristocracy, thus contaminating its true meaning. I have proven that estate tax does more harm than good. If we do support this tax we are also supporting a corrupt natural aristocrarcy. Vote Con. Thank you and I await Pro's reply
Resolved: Estate Tax is neccesary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States

Artificial aristocracy: an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class (source T.J.) Natural aristocracy: The grounds of [natural aristocracy] are virtue and talents. Artificial aristocracy is privilege that has been either inherited or acquired not on the basis of virtue and talent. The modern sociological term for this would be "ascribed status". As Warren buffett said, "The idea that you get a lifetime of privately funded food stamps based on coming out of the right womb strikes at my idea of fairness." Or as FDR most eloquently put it, "Inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government." My opponent has to prove that a tax on estate is not necessary to maintaining a natural aristocracy, yet when one is born into the world, or at the passing of a parent, is automatically entitled to a sum of money that is completely arbitrarily deserved (unless he killed the parent [joke]), that one automatically entitled to more educational, social, political advantages of another-- even if this is in the slightest form possible, it is still a artificial. I close by stating that any form of money artificially inherited, awards artificial aristocracy, which as Jefferson said "is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy."
Resolved: Estate Tax is neccesary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States

I negate: Resolved: Estate Tax is neccesary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States. First my opponent has not provided any rules so I would like to provide some: No new arguments may be made after round 2. Cases will be made in round 2. Pro must prove that it is absolutely necessary to have estate tax to maintain a natural aristocracy in the United States. I will prove that estate tax is not necessary to maintain a natural aristocracy in the United States. I look forward to your reply. Thank you.
Resolved: Estate Tax is neccesary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States

Resolved: Estate Tax is neccesary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States "For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy." -Thomas Jefferson This Jeffersonian concept will stand as the basis for my resolution