BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
From a debate judging standpoint Yraelz should win the Britney Spears debate with i-win-347.

As this will be my final round I will request that my opponent does not bring up new points in his final round as I would have no chance to respond. Having said this I will cover each of my opponents points in turn. Point 1: My opponent states that I did not understand which points were a wash, to refute this I must point out that my opponent did not understand how many points I originally put forth. He is stating that I was objecting to Britney Spears needing consoling by saying she is a lost cause, this is not true. I had two objections to Britney Spears needing consoling, I will quote both: a. "No amount of counseling could ever console Britney Spears." b. "She is, as Stephen Colbert called Baghdad, a lost cause." My opponent in that round responded to exactly one of these two, he responded with, "So she's not a lost cause and neither is Baghdad." This response was quite clearly aimed at my response b. my opponent in that round made absolutely no response to my a. argument and thereby conceded the point to my side. Thus even if my point b. and i-win-347's response were a wash I still have point a., something i-win-347 never challenged in anyway. All that i-win-347 did was state reasons why Britney may need consoling, thus our debate ultimately on this point would look like this. i-win-347: Britney needs consoling because of these 4 reasons (insert)! Yraelz: No.... If Britney received consoling it would not help her. i-win-347: (Does not respond) Yraelz: Like I said. ============ Framework: I agree with my opponents framework therefor there is no reason to continue the debate after point 1.
From a debate judging standpoint Yraelz should win the Britney Spears debate with i-win-347.

Point 1: You mistake which claims are a wash. The claims "Britney is a lost cause" and "Britney is a lost cause" are unsubstantiated, not whether or not she needs counseling. Your opponent's central claim is "Britney needs counseling". Your sole refute is that "Britney is a lost cause". So, if we call the 'lost cause' point a wash, we have no reason to object to your opponents claim. Also, he gives us reason, in his opening argument, to allow for counseling. You never deny her emotional instability, attention-mongering, or potential harm and damage causing. ===================== Framework: At this point, the popularity argument comes second to whether or not she is a lost cause because the 'lost cause' argument gives us reason to counsel/not counsel, while the popularity argument simply applies to your alternative. Her popularity has nothing to do with whether or not we should counsel, just whether or not the Earth should be rid of her. ===================== Point 2: You don't make any argument that says she will become MORE popular by jumping off a bridge. You simply say "her entertainment will still remain". This means you don't hold up the popularity argument any better than your opponent. In fact, he makes the argument that she will make more entertaining ventures if she doesn't kill herself, making your opponent more effective on the popularity argument. So, since you don't make the 'more popular after suicide argument' (please point it out if you did), the slightest extra entertainment she provides after not killing herself wins PRO the arg, since not killing herself is more entertaining. ============ Thus, you both lose the argument that Spears is a lost cause, washing it out. This means PRO's statement 'Spears needs counseling' is not refuted. This alone loses you the debate. Still, your alternative is lost as well. PRO states that Spears will continue to provide entertainment (serve some purpose) while you merely allow for her past ventures to 'live on'. PRO allows for more entertainment, making your alternative not viable.
From a debate judging standpoint Yraelz should win the Britney Spears debate with i-win-347.

Alright. ============ Point 1: My opponent and I in the Britney debate both offered unsubstantiated claims. This is true, thus both claims should have the same impact. My opponents claim was: Britney spears needs counseling. My claim was: It's too late for Britney spears. So let us consider these claims a wash like you said. This means that my opponent no longer has the point, "Britney spears needs counseling." Which if we look to the resolution, "Brittney Spears needs to have serious counseling." We can see that he/she obviously no longer is supporting the resolution. Thus, I as the Con win by default, as the Pro has absolutely nothing backing his/her statement up. ============= Point 2: My opponent cites her popularity and I give no reason why she should go off a bridge. This is rather untrue as I do give a reason. My opponent does cite her immense popularity and I agree with him. I further this by saying that even if she takes her own life her songs, and thereby her popularity, will remain. Finally I promote the fact that taking her own life by jumping from a bridge will actually make her more popular. Thus if my opponents paradigm, that of popularity, is what we judge this round on, I am actually doing a better job of upholding the paradigm. Back at you.
From a debate judging standpoint Yraelz should win the Britney Spears debate with i-win-347.

I don't see any reason as to why you should win in the first place, let alone to have the present decision overturned. In your closing round you rely on the argument that no counseling could do her any good. You give me no reason to believe this. You make an unbsubstantiated claim, as does your opponent. "So she's not a lost cause" This means this point is at best a wash. Your opponent cites her inexplicably immense popularity. You give me no reason that we should throw her off of a bridge or why she is a lost cause. With your rather radical notion that she should take her own life, you need to give me at least SOME reason why. Britney Spears has at least the right to the opportunity of help. You give me no reason to think otherwise, losing the debate. Unless, in the later rounds of this debate, you can point out some reason that you provided that would outweigh your opponents logic, I don't see why you should win.
Affirmative action (including in media) is a good thing

So you are admitting that the idea behind affirmative action is racist? All of the points you have just given are about promoting minority races. Promoting one race over another is racist no matter if they are a minority or not. Now I'm glad you brought up ghettos. Using geographical data such as school zones for college admissions and hiring processes I fully support. This has the same effect and eliminates the racial element. Furthermore I would say people tend to get a job where people they know work. Also, You've quoted a study but have left no link to the study. You bring up Asain minorities and claim the scenario is different but I disagree. Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam wrote a book called "almost black" explaining how bad the affirmative action policies are. He literally pretended to be black just to get into med school. Also the scully effect seems pretty coincidental to me. While people may have a role model in a field and have minority hire laws in place it still doesn't produce an equality of outcome. "Women have advanced rapidly in many professional roles since the 1970s, But remain underrepresented in STEM professions. 1 Women constitute about half (48%) of the college-educated workforce in the U. S. , but hold less than a quarter (24%) of jobs in STEM. 2 Only 10% of graduate degrees earned by women are in STEM fields, Compared to 24% of graduate degrees earned by men. " here is a source I found on the statistics. (https://impact. 21cf. Com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/03/ScullyEffectReport_21CF_1-1. Pdf) So the scully effect seems somewhat coincidental to me. My advice is to quit looking through the world with the lense of race and all of these problems will disappear. Then we can focus on helping the poor instead of xyz color group.
Affirmative action (including in media) is a good thing

The idea of affirmative is to give companies incentive to open up an extra position/extra positions for people that are under represented in those fields, This won't close any positions for white people. Many black people live in ghettos and it's hard to leave said ghetto, And due to a study we know employers are more inclined to not hire black people, Because of this African Americans don't have much incentive to study for those fields, So if we have openings in these fields for black people only so they have a secured spot just for them insuring a chance of them getting hired they would have more incentive to join these fields, Same for immigrants for the most part (Asians are an exception) but different scenario. Also in media The Scully effect proves that if you have someone of your gender, Color etc in a certain field represented in media you are more inclined to wanting to join said field. So over all it will be a positive change over a large period of time.
Affirmative action (including in media) is a good thing

Affirmative action in a majority of states is race based. It promotes hiring minorities regardless of skill or experience. I am not against economic or geographic affirmative actions that are merit based. If a person from a poor town regardless of race proves his merit then I have no problem him being granted privileges that will allow him to compete. No matter the field I don't think people should be granted special privilege because of race. The world doesn't require an equality of outcome only of opportunity. The media is quite a big industry so I'm not sure if we're talking about actor's, Director's, Authors, Pod casters, Or journalists. I would simply state that race doesn't play a factor in journalistic integrity, Acting, Or directing. I can see race being a factor in casting but It doesn't mean it must be that way. There are plenty of examples of historic figures being played by different races. (I can provide examples but I feel like it's well known. ) In conclusion, I believe affirmative action is racist and therefore wrong.
Affirmative action (including in media) is a good thing

first of all I should think that a minority being discriminated against because of affirmative action has a whole lot to do with affirmative action. In you're source (10) "the Court fell short of a sweeping decision saying that race could never be taken into consideration. Then, In 2016, The Court upheld by a narrow margin a University of Texas plan to increase campus diversity by considering race among a number of factors in the admissions process. " So race is still legally being allowed to factor schooling. It's racism in an actual law. Now the stop and frisk law which I linked to you earlier is not racist. Nowhere in the law does it condone stopping and frisking people based on race. Furthermore, In order to stop and frisk there has to either have been a call from the area about a crime or probable cause. So the logical conclusion is simply that black and latino people call the cops more. Nothing racially motivated about calling the police. If you read the article I'd linked before "Terry vs Ohio" you'd know that stop and frisk otherwise is unconstitutional. I've read all of you're articles and none of them prove that African Americans are somehow being targeted by lead. Now, We both agree lead is bad for a community but it doesn't cause violence. (1) There is too much date and coincidental evidence to prove such a thing. If you know of a case where people went crazy and started committing crimes cause of the lead let me know. What is far more likely is that low income area's have more infrastructure problems. Low income areas also have more crime problems leading to the correlation. Next you bring up segregation is still an issue in the U. S. I would say that this is still an economic issue. There are no laws that prohibit African Americans from land ownership. If a person chooses not to move it is either because they cannot afford to or because they are choosing to live in neighborhoods they do. Immigration is an entirely different discusion. I would point out that there is nothing racist about immigration as immigrants can come from anywhere. Therefor educating foreigners in the policies and practices of the U. S is an affirmative action I can get behind. I have never denied historical evidence. Saying that I have is creating a strawman which I don't appreciate. Now if I can give a much more accurate summary of your argument. You believe "That inherited differences between the various racial groups determine cultural and individual achievements. Usually promoting black rights over others. " Racism- a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, Usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. (2)
Affirmative action (including in media) is a good thing

In the link I shared his personal opinion might be otherwise but the facts are still the same. Lead in water is a correlation not a causation. Lead doesn't cause people to commit crime just like watching movies doesn't make you do anything. I think most all of you're evidence has been correlation not causation. (https://www. Iperceptions. Com/blog/causation-vs-correlation) Stop and frisk laws, Which I don't promote, Still aren't racist. According to stop and frisk laws, Which I've already clearly defined, People were allowed to be frisked in the area around where a complaint or crime occurred. This simply means that more cops get called to lower income areas that experience more crime. Still no need to bring race into this. As a matter of fact I can't believe I've gone 4 rounds with someone who isn't opposed to or denying racism in something. Like I don't even think you're trying to troll. I'm worried I might have to explain why racism is bad at this point. Also, I meant to address this in round 3. You said "I (and other people on the left) will stop seeing race when racial issues stops being an problem. " You 're defending racism because of racism. If you don't want something to happen to you don't do it yourself. Seems like a simpler solution to me.
Affirmative action (including in media) is a good thing

My sources are posted to my personal account and not in the comments (they wouldn't let me post more than one link). I wasn't aware that Asian Americans were being discriminated against and I don't condone it, But the argument of your own source isn't to get rid of affirmative action but to fix it and get rid of racial quotas, "If race is being used as a positive factor, Meaning that it helps an application, That's good. When it harms an application, That's bad. ", This is an excerpt from your own source and I fully agree with it. Also yes technically blacks and immigrants aren't the only ones that get exposed to lead poisoning but the home countries of immigrants and black majority cities have the most lead exposure (5, 5. 5) out of anywhere else which is why they're more likely to have lead poisoning, And stop-and-frisk laws harm African Americans and Latino Americans way more then any other race(6) due to racial profiling and minority heavy areas being targeted, Which is why blacks are just as likely to smoke weed as Whites in America but are up to 8. 34 times more likely to get incarcerated (7), So saying these things affect anyone is entirely disingenuous and discredits real struggles minorities face in America today. I agree that Asian Americans are being discriminated against but that doesn't mean other minorities aren't. Also I agree that people can hire who ever they want all I'm saying is if minorities know they're less likely to get hired they wouldn't have as much incentive to join these fields but if they have assured spots available they would have more incentive to pursue fields they wouldn't otherwise. My sources for this one will be posted on my account as well.
Affirmative action (including in media) is a good thing

Blood lead content is not a strictly African american problem. It is yet again a geographical problem. It is a problem in multiple different countries and not exclusive to a specific race. (I'd refer you to your own study. ) Stop and frisk laws affect everyone. Stop and frisk is unconstitutional and I won't defend its use but I will say that it isn't racist. Anyone can be stopped and frisked in a place that allows it. Here is the court definition of stop and frisk and at no point does it mention race. (https://caselaw. Findlaw. Com/us-supreme-court/392/1. Html) you brought up Vijay who is Indian American. If a classroom holds 28 people they aren't going to cram 29 into it just to have an affirmative action spot. There is also the open lawsuit against Harvard because of their bias against Asian students. On average an asain student has to score 540 points higher than a black student. ( https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=8ixzZYxM7Hc&t=40s ) Not to mention business aren't going to hire and pay anyone they don't have to. You say that you will stop seeing race issues when race stops being a problem. That is the problem. You are so blindly holding onto the idea that black people are being discriminated against that you are willing to suppress other minorities in your pursuits for a privileged position. There is no law in the United states that directly discriminates against black people except in their gain. Which is a privilege by the way. Also you only posted on of your links in the comments so far which is something I do take issue with.
Affirmative action (including in media) is a good thing

I understand where you're coming from when you say why make it about blacks and just make it about poor people, But there are many issues poor African Americans face that poor white Americans don't like higher lead levels (1), Gangs and drug trade (probably don't need a source for that one), Lesser chance of getting hired (2), Stop and frisk laws (3) etc. I think we should have positions for the poor but only looking at the class aspect and not the racial aspect isn't gonna cut it. Also the Asian guy you sited was trying to get into a position that wouldn't of existed without affirmative action, Remember these are positions made for affirmative action not preexisting positions stolen for minorities. Also The Scully effect didn't bring swarms of women to STEM fields but it did bring a considerable amount (4) which is why data annalists have agreed on this position (it's been peer reviewed). And as to the racist thing, I (and other people on the left) will stop seeing race when racial issues stops being an problem. If I misrepresented your argument please tell me I don't want to fight a straw-man. And sorry if this is sloppy I had to type it twice. My sources will be in the comments.
Conservatism and Libertarianism

Resolved: Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies. I am Affirming. The burden of proof is shared, my opponent needs to show that on balance, the goals of Libertarianism and Conservatism are too far apart to be treated as actual allies. What exactly defines a Libertarian and Conservative will be a point of contention between my opponent and myself, but my opponent acknowledges upon accepting that the definitions need to be within reason. For clarification I will be defending Hoppes thesis that statist conservatism is essentially self defeating. Citing one's sources outside of the debate is permissible.
Life on other planets

Never in my argument did I say that life on other planets had to be sentient. The point that I am trying to make is that at some point, maybe even now, which is extremely likely, that Earth is not the only planet with mass life. Yes, it is very possible that a civilization of any technologically or mentally advanced species can end up destroying itself. We are discovering more and more about every planet as time goes on. 100 years ago, we believed that we were the only galaxy, afloat in an empty, completely lonely space, with absolutely nothing but other stars. And in this last 100 years, we have sent unmanned spacecrafts to the farthest of planets, we have developed machines capable of discovering stars, planets, and solar systems that we could only imagine reaching. Planets so far away that if we traveled at the speed of light, (670,616,629 MPH) it would take hundreds of years to get to it. My point is, with the unbelievably large number of planets, there is almost a guarantee that somewhere, very likely far enough away that we will never know about it, there is life. Life that may be in a suitable planet for them, but not necessarily for humans.
Life on other planets

There is also the possibility that in similar planets that we can agree similar actions may have occurred so any other planet that reach nuclear capability simply destroyed them self because they didn't have the global leaders or the exact timeline we had so a country close in ideals to Nazi Germany could have been the first to make the bomb ending in the destruction of their civilization. Outside of the nuclear bomb they could have just done what we are doing to Earth ozone wise but they have million maybe even billion year head start which led to the eventual death of the bio-sphere. To get off a planet it may be necessary to destroy it in the process using the needed industry to achieve space faring abilities so when life on a planet reaches a point where the ozone is unable to keep in the atmosphere the people went to become a fleet based organization where they go planet to planet scouring it of all resources. Maybe all civilization is just fated to destroy itself through the flawed mortal conception that there is always more out there so what you have is expendable so no sentient life can live on a planet for a long period of time. If you are familiar with a Dyson Sphere it could show how we can see any advanced life because the light from the sun isn't reflecting off the surface of the planet(s) so it's seemingly a part of the void.
Life on other planets

Time, itself, is infinite. There was no "start" to time, nor was there a "start" to existence. Saying that, think of how new humans are to Earth, we are a 200,000 - 300,000 year old race living on a 4,500,000,000 year old planet. Seems long right? That's not it, Earth itself is one planet, revolving around one star, buried in one galaxy, among the hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies out there. The universe is theoretically infinite, and again, so is time. So, with that big picture in mind, how are we not to think that at some point, there was no life on other planets, maybe even other homo sapien life. It is a little bit silly for humans to think that in the incomprehensibly large world that we live it, we are the only ones. Going back to the subject of Kepler 22b, also known as one of "Earth's Twins", why is it that we have billions and billions of life forms on Earth, but we are to say that it doesn't exist on Kepler? What if there are billions of planets out there with strikingly similar characteristics that we have not discovered, or never will discover?
Life on other planets

Well there is no argument that life can exist on other planets just as it does here given the correct conditions but we do need to think about the small chance that we may be the first sentient life to ever evolve (Because of the debate being about life on other planets I'm going to ignore creationism for now). It may not be very likely but in an universe of infinite possibility we could be the first. Now lets take what I just said for a second if we are the first and we can reach a planet is close conditions to Earth chances are they may be just lower in the evolution cycle so we could gene splice them in early stages of development and make SPACE MARINES!!! but on a more serious note we could learn so much and do so much that could potentially impact our civilization to no reverse.