BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act

Ok So bacially he is dropping his entire case and trying to win off a Nietzche K. He says he is not being unfair because in the 1AR new arguemtns are allowed. I agree, however, what you cannot do is read your opponents case and search the internet for a K designed to contradict it. He says he is following Ld procedure, but I'm pretty sure you don't research a K after your opponent has read his case. It's fine if you have a K on you before your opponent starts his case, but you cannot find a K suited to your opponent's case after he reads the case, so vote him down solely for ground skew. I said justice is linked to his value, but he said kick his case and he should win solely off of the K. He is affirming, so he cannot do this. The affirmative must defend the status quo, only the negative is allowed the option of winning only by disproving an opponent's case. Therefore, he cannot win even if he completely hypothetically destroys my case if he has no case of his own to defend successfully.Also, he is running a morality K. His logic is this. human worth= linked to morality, so I can run a morality K on anything linked to morality. This logic is utterly flawed to a point where you should vote him down just because of this.Basically any action I take could be linked to morality, such as walking or opening a door. Just because human worth partially concerns morality, that is not the framework i am running. You look at the state of exception and realize human worth is more policy oriented than a moral framework. He says state of exception is involved in every decision, this is where he is wrong. Whenever a government chooses to uphold the constituitional rights and due process of law, that is when they are preventing the sate of exception Contention one: he says this is my only attack but he only had one contention. 7 times in which terroists have been apprehended is not enough to justify constituitional violations and the SOE. vote neg.
Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act

1) Not unfair. New arguments in the 1AR are acceptable. 2) Not going for a tie. I kicked the case, but went on to the Kritik, which goes un-refuted by the con, meaning you have to default Pro solely off of this. 3) Can't determine human worth without morality to tell us this "worth" that these humans have, which means, whether he'd like to admit it or not, he's still going to be linking into morality and the harms that are explained in the K. He might come back and say something about how with justice i'm going to be linking into morality as well, however, I kicked the case in Round 2, so vote neither aff nor neg based on the case. He's going to tell you that he'll be more encompassing with human worth, but since he's not refuting the fact that human worth is based on morality, he's going to still be linking into the harms explained with morality in the K. 4) The state of exception is nonunique to the Patriot Act, meaning that every possible decision that the government makes can link back to the state of exception, meaning you have to throw out this from the beginning. The only offense that the con is attempting at is off of the "no evidence/timeframe difficult" argument. However, as seen in CX, I've given you specific empirical evidence that stated that the US has prevented 19 or more possible terrorist attacks with information made possible through the Patriot Act. Meaning, even if you don't buy the K at all, you still are going to be voting Pro based on the fact that I am going to be respecting human worth more in the round as I am saving American lives through the information from the Patriot Act.
Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act

Affirmative case: ok, i do not understand the purpose of his rebuttal. first of all he is pulling out citations o the rebuttal, which is unfair. second, he just said kick the aff case is irrelevant, but he is affirmative so he just attacked himself. he knows he is losing, and is merely trying to have a tie, don't let him do this, he started the debate, he should accept a win or loss. He is running a k on morality, but i am not running a moral framework, i am running human worth, that can encompass morality but doesn't have to be morality. He basically just destroyed his entire case with his own K because he crittiqued morality yet justice concerns moral decisions to ensure fairness He attacks my case by saying the state of exception is involved in every decision a government makes but he doesn't explain how. I'm pretty sure not every action the US government takes conflicts with the constituition He says philosophers deny life, but the person saying this is a philosopher, so what is the purpose of this? So you can basically drop his K and Perm The Alt. Voters: He doesn't refute that human worth is more encompassing, winning value debate. He doesn't attack contention one, so extend that He doesn't refute the fact the timeframe to determine success is too small and he has no imperical evidence.
Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act

1) Kick the affirmative case, it is irrelevant. Vote neither aff or neg because of this. 2) The state of exception is non-unique. aka: the state of exception is applied to literally every decision the government makes. 3) Is the kritik on Human Worth A) Freedom To Choose Values Is Key to Happiness and Life 1) WE EACH MUST CHOOSE OUR OWN PATHS – MORALITY IS HARMFUL AND A POOR POLICY GOAL. Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1881, Daybreak, p.63 Insofar as the individual is seeking happiness, one ought not to tender him any prescriptions as to the path to happiness: for individual happiness springs from one's own unknown laws, and prescriptions from without can only obstruct and hinder it.- The prescriptions called ‘moral' are in truth directed against individuals and are in no way aimed at promoting their happiness. They have just as little to do with the ‘happiness and welfare of mankind' - a phrase to which it is in any case impossible to attach any distinct concepts, let alone employ them as guiding stars on the dark ocean of moral aspirations. 2) FOLLOWING ONE'S OWN RULES IS SUPERIOR TO CONFORMING TO SOCIETY. Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1882, Der frohliche Wissenschaft Lured by my style and tendency, you follow and come after me? Follow your own self faithfully – take time – and thus you follow me. B) Link: The affirmative case is based on philosophy, moralism, and promoting a universal cause. This was clarified in cross-examination. C) Implications 1) PHILOSOPHERS BIGOTEDLY DENY LIFE, CAUSING IMMENSE HARM. Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1888, Gotzen-Dammerung Let us consider finally what naivety it is to say ‘man ought to be thus and thus!' Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the luxuriance of a prodigal play and change of forms: and does some pitiful journeyman moralist say at the sight of it: ‘No! Man ought to be different'? ...He even knows how man ought to be, this bigoted wretch; he paints himself on the wall and says ‘ecce homo!'
Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act

I negate I value Human Worth(respecting rights autonomy, and life of an individual) prefer for 3 reasons: first: without human worth a govt can never be just in its actions because it isn't doing its job of protecting the people second: human worth is prerequisite to any moral framework because morality concerns ourselves with the treatment of others criterion: Preventing the permanent state of exception Agamben defines the state of exception as "similar to a state of emergency but involving the ability of a sovereign to trascend judicial laws" The state of exception is simply when governments call a state of emergency due to often a single incident to justify the violations of inherent rights, most often privacy. Many examples of state of exceptions have arisen, and none of them were beneficial. Agamben writes "The entire third reich of the Nazi was a state of exception" as well as "japanese internment camps, in whic thousands of japanese were forcibly removed from their homes because of world war 2" Contention one: Patriot act is state of exception The patriot act fulfills the requirements for a SOE. Agamben explains "a SOE has... suspension of judiciary activities... invasions of rights..." Agamben himself says "9/11 was a state of exception" The alternative is to reject the aff and reject Patriot Act On to aff case My value is more encompassing, it encompasses justice because justice concerns the treatment of others Criterion: Its a metaphorical contract, nobody really signed it, he says everybody in us signs it when they enter, but nobody chooses where they are born, also sc says people have a right to revolt against unjust and infrniging laws warrant for locke: He was quoted by founding fathers, sure, so that means he's the god of justice? C1: No statistical or imperical evidence of if this has worked, aff says the only evidence is there is no attacks, but timeframe is too short to determine success. Too little space btw
Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act

I affirm. Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act. My value for the round is justice, defined as giving each his due. This value must be paramount in the round because: 1) because of the word "just" in the resolution, meaning justice is implicit and must be debated as so. 2) without justice, a well functioning society cannot occur, because each person must be considered and cannot be overlooked during a government's decisionmaking. My criterion for the round is that of Adhering to Locke's Social Contract. In short, Locke's contract says that the government and the people have a long-standing relationship with eachother, in that the people give up certain rights to the government in exchange for the government's protection. This must be the main criterion when evaluating this round as because the Patriot Act gives up certain rights to the government, it allows for the protection of the people in that it allows the government to better protect its people. Contention One: The Patriot Act keeps terrorist organizations in check. Under the Patriot Act, the government is allowed to monitor the people, to make sure of their loyalty to the US. If the government catches a terrorist organization plotting an attack, it can intervene and stop a catastrophe from happening before innocent lives are lost. The impact off of this is that when we choose the Patriot Act, we are going to be allowing for more justice in society in that we will be saving innocent lives and making sure these dangerous terrorists are not allowed to harm American society. By doing so, we are going to be adhering to Locke's social contract in that the people will be giving up their right to privacy (albeit in a very small sense- as per the Patriot Act, only those suspected of terrorism are monitored) in exchange for government prote
Utilitarianism is a sound theory

Resolution: Utilitarianism is a sound theory The very purpose of this debate is to explore the meaning of Utilitarianism. Almost all my arguments would be derived from the book Utilitarianism, written by John Stuart Mill. The book can be found at http://www.gutenberg.org... (no copyright given the fact that the book was written long long time ago). Definition - Utilitarianism The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. General Rules R1. Acceptance R2. Opening arguments (my opponent can start presenting your counter-arguments if he or she wishes. But he or she is not obliged to do so.) R3. Counter-arguments/Rebuttals R4. Closing arguments. Special Rules My opponents should attempt to present at least one example whenever he or she puts forward a theory (or counterexample) to show the implication of the theory. Dry theoretical debate does not suit my particular appetite, unfortunately. May both of us enjoy this debate and let's begin
Labor Unions protect workers rights.

I have a question, do you really think some one like Donald Trump cares about a waiter in on of his casinos? Yes they have a legal obligation to care about their employees, but they don't they see men and women in the working class as numbers, I think there is still a place for labor unions. The time I start believing in the right to work is when big companies start seeing people as people, not as numbers. That is how I feel and I will stick up for the working class until my last breathe.
Labor Unions protect workers rights.

I do not think Unions are beneficial to this country or to anyone for that matter. This is not 1911 when the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire took place. Corporations and factories today have a legal obligation to ensure there is no neglect on their part. If there is, we have Torts to settle that. Also, workers comp insures if a person is hurt on the job and is not able to work to their full potential , they are compensated. Unions keep people in jobs that do not deserve to be there. Unions promote entitlement and decrease competition.
Labor Unions protect workers rights.

Labor unions help workers from corporations that see all their employees like numbers. Big corporations are only concerned about their money and how low their taxes will go, or how much money they can get under the table to have more, They could not care any more or less if their workers were hurt. Labor unions also get their employees the money they deserve, and at the wages they deserve. No one will look out for you more than a labor union. I know that there are some bad things about them, but in this case I think the good weighs out the bad. And in states that have labor unions, and forced unionism, the job loss in forced labor union states is about 1.1 million less than in states that are right to work states. This is because the workers have no representation. These are my opening statements and know I hand it over to the con side of this debate. If the con side of the debate would like a source for my job loss stat I will also post the link to it attached to my argument.
Macro evolution 7

< > People tend to believe they can measure up many things by "eyeing" it, but never have I known anyone to eye a body (or anything else) and know how long it has been dead. When have you heard of a crime scene investigator being able to accurately determine a time of death based on appearance? At the very least the temperature has to be taken. It's always a guess that has to be confirmed with lab work, so I refute your claim (from what I could make of it). < >1 Carbon dating "is why your dinasuars were dieing before the earth was created"? So how were they able to thrive? You didn't answer anything with that statement. It makes no sense whatsoever. I appreciated the debate and thank you, but you failed to answer the burden of proof, which was on you, to make a strong argument as to why "macro evolution" could not have taken place. Your claims were questionable, at best. Better luck next time!
Macro evolution 7

carbon dating is based on the thory that the earth is 4.5 billion years onld and they know how really old carboon looks and they know what brand new carbon looks like then they took the diffrence diffided by 4.5 billion thats why when you carbon date a living human or someone burried with in a hundred years are carbon dated its 14,000 years plus please thats obvious to the eye how old they are so why does carbon dating give 14,000 years huh? there is your reason not to use carbon dating and also that is why your dinasuars were dieing before the earth was created
Macro evolution 7

HA! My argument was "I disagree and view dinosaur fossils and carbon dating as very clear evidence that proves the Earth is far older than 10,000 years." My argument stands. Since your argument is based on the age of the Earth, my point invalidates the rest of your argument, as its foundation has been obliterated. You don't get to delcare that you don't want me to take this approach in the debate. That would be like me asking you to play a game of soccer with me, then telling you that you cannot use your legs or feet to make contact with the ball, in addition to not using your hands. It's too late for that. You should've mentioned that handicap in your opening, not Round Two. Get it? Good! Address my point with the proper respect it deserves, then I will address yours.
Macro evolution 7

Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times _______________________________________________________________________________ First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that. " here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old 1. The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out . 2. ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it. 3. ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen 4. ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth. 5. next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was ï¿½ of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period. Ok well there you go
The solution to illegal immigration requires enforcement of our current laws

A fence is part of the fix, not the entire fix 1. I'm not talking about the fence they show on CNN. I'm talking about this fence: http://www.usillegalaliens.com.... It is double-panel, with patrol in between. Not as easy to get through as the one shown on CNN. With regards to those overstaying their visas, no one method is going to stop all, but the fence will stop some 2. The cost is justified. Those who enter the country illegally threaten our sovereignty. How about instead of having the federal government do all these things it's not supposed to be doing, let's have it do one thing it is supposed to do for a change: secure the border. Besides, they're not just entering the country illegally. If they are working and paying taxes, they've committed fraud with American documents. If they are working and not paying taxes, they've committed tax evasion 3. Money? Are you serious? We have illegal immigrants in our prisons, on health care paid for by government, and in our schools. All those things cost us money, so obviously that's not why. It wouldn't be a huge expansion of government, rather it would just involve requiring proof of residency to be shown if people wish to have access to the treasury, and as I said in 2, it's more than illegally being here that they're doing With regards to the idea that we need to treat them for emergency care, I ask this: why should a federal law requiring us to treat illegals in emergency care be followed, while another federal law requiring them to be deported should be vigorously ignored? 4. It doesn't need to be the prerogative of business. But when employers enjoy being able to hide these guys and pay them $3/hour under the table, etc... they know exactly what they are doing and should be punished. If government is unwilling to enforce its current laws, I don't trust them to enforce any new law. The 1986 amnesty had a promise they would enforce a new and tougher law, and that didn't work out You're talking about a guest worker program, and that's a different debate