BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Policy Debate - Transportation Infrastructure

Well then, it has been a while since my last debate or even any sort of activity on DDO. Hopefully, all is well.I have taken it upon myself to start learning Policy debate, and hence we'll be debating the 2012-2013 Policy Topic. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.Substationally - of ample or considerable amount, quantity, sizeTransportation - the act of transporting.Transport - to carry, move, or convey from one place to another.Infrastructure - the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization.Investment - the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. Rules1. No profanity or ad hominem 2. No plagiarism (Cards are exempt from this rule)3. The burden of proof is on the Aff.4. The debate will be carried out in a policy format (or as close as we can do it)4.a The Pro must present a plan that solves for the status quo/problem. 4.b The Con is allowed to run any argument they wish, including T's and kritiks if neccessary (although I probably will not). 5. By accepting the debate, you acknowledge the rules.5.a Any changes or clarifications can be asked in the comments section.
Modern Feminism Is Pointless

In both my daily life and on the news I am seeing more injustices across America. Not for women, but for men. Before you accuse me of being a sexist let me point out that I absolutely believe in equal treatment of women. However, women are still "fighting" for equal rights despite the fact they have the same if not more opportunities than men. The whole idea of modern feminism in my opinion is completely hypocritical. Many women today want to be treated the same as men, but if the going starts to get tough for them they try and act all innocent to get away with things that a man could never get away with. Last year I saw a study done on women fighting in the Armed Forces and 60% of American women think they shouldn't be in combat. What happened to being treated the same as men? So basically you're saying that if it could be beneficial you want that same opportunity, but if it could do you harm you want to be treated differently than men. This is the same attitude that got Casey Anthony acquitted for the murder of her daughter even though it was evident that she had something to do with her daughter's death. When women play all innocent and victimized they can get away with almost anything and they know it. Women are blaming men way too much for their problems when they are just as if not more responsible for their own problems. The reason rape is a lot more common today is because women and girls tend to dress in very exposing clothing which tends to make men unpredictable at times. Almost everywhere I go I see a girl with booty shorts, nylon pants, or their underwear hanging out. If women would cover themselves up more rape would be less frequent. Celebrities like Miley Cyrus who are telling women to act like sluts to get attention are only making things worse for women. There is a reason guys always seem like horny idiots and it's because women give them the idea that they are willing to have sex. If women want to be respected they have to act like proper women, be willing to take responsibility for their own actions, stop blaming men for their problems, and work towards more opportunities instead of waiting for them to be handed out.
Modern Feminism Is Pointless

1) This is not a debate regarding the ethics of abortion. But the legalization of abortion isn't an issue of female superiority. The lukewarm rape exception completely spits on the rest of the anti-abortion arguments. You say killing an unborn child is murder? Well, what aspect of rape makes it non-murder? Abortion is immoral? How does the pregnancy's origin somehow make it moral? Nobody ever says why abortion is a must in those cases and not others. The anti-abortioners just don't want to see someone getting off (ha) scot-free. But really, a rape victim gets an abortion for the same reason as the girl whose condom broke: they don't want a child. "Take responsibility" is purely an emotional opinion. Should we restrict treatment for smokers' lungs because "they knew there was a risk of it physically happening"? Sure, keeping it may seem more humble and responsible, but the fact that abortion is lazy isn't enough of a reason to illegalize it.2) Well, yes, the feminist movement needs a major overhaul. But, in case you weren't able to tell for the entirety of the debate, I have been referring to the philosophy of feminism, not its visibly notorious practices of some current members. I don't know where feminism has insisted its problems are worse than others, and the facts you've shown to "prove" feminism is awry aren't even the faults of feminism. You never specified how Jodi Arias, lazy servicewomen who don't want to combat, and women making their husbands lose their property are products of feminism. They appear to be merely products of anti-man sexism. And of course it's not necessary to start a national protest when a woman is wronged, but when women at large are systematically wronged for an injustice directly related to being a woman, there's a problem that needs to be addressed.3) "Prove the stereotypes wrong" is an utterly problematic argument. It's still unequal--under this approach, a man can act how he wants and not have that impact how he's viewed as a gender, but a woman will have to conform to specific ideals in order to look "respectable." It also shifts the blame--instead of answering accusations of sexism with "Oh, I have a really crappy view of women as a gender, I should change," it's changed to "Well, your group has a crappy view, YOU should change." Um, what were the women doing wrong in the first place? If anything, the prejudiced folks are the lazy ones demanding respect without changing themselves. It also stereotypes women and puts them into a limiting, defining box--under this approach, if some women are prominent and successful, then all of them have the potential to be viewed that way. The right to equality is determined by society's impression of women, not from merely being a human like everyone else. If that's not prejudiced, I don't know what is.The point? By being people, we're all entitled to the basic birthright of respect. There's no "working for" something deserved by default. Let's quit the bizarre justifications and start being decent human beings.
Modern Feminism Is Pointless

Oh, I almost forgot about abortion!!!! Why should women have the right to take away the God-given right of an unborn child TO LIVE. That should not be up to them with the exception of rape and rape ALONE. Fighting for a right to take away a child's right to live is despicable. Especially when it is not because of rape. YOU SCREWED UP YOU TAKE CARE OF IT!!! It's called protection and it is not expensive to get. If you do not have the means to take care of a child you should of thought of that BEFORE you had unprotected sex. There is also such as thing as ADOPTION. When you are first pulled over by a police officer chances are you are only getting a warning. The police officer is willing to give you a chance, and that unborn child should at least have a chance. This one of the biggest problems with Feminism is that it encourages women to not be responsible for their own actions. All feminists are trying to propagate a victim's complex and that is what is convincing people that they actually are victims when they are not. I try to stay out of homosexuality and transgender issues so I am not going to address that. To Viewers and Voters: So to sum this debate up the only thing my opponent has done throughout this entire debate is presented pro-feminist ideals and opinions which do not prove anything. Saying that a movement stands for something does not mean they are actually making a legitimate effort to accomplish their goals. I have presented enough facts and examples to clearly show that even though the feminist movement has some good intentions they show no effort to own up to what they want to achieve, but continue to insist that their problems are more important than others' and always try to show a victim's mentality in the face of an unfavorable outcome. I am not saying there are not injustices against women, but there are not as many as feminists claim there are. Women have the same rights as men according to national law and the constitution of the U.S. The judicial system is fair and will help women if they are suffering injustice if you will let them. It is not necessary to demand a national protest anytime a woman is wronged. Prove the stereotypes wrong, earn respect as individuals rather than as a group, have respect for the legislative and judicial process, and think about how you are affecting others as well as yourself. If you will just realize that this is the real way to win respect for women and that demanding respect and unreasonable privileges and rights is doing more harm than good. That is real feminism and that should be what this movement should be about.
Modern Feminism Is Pointless

1) Yes, I've heard of the Jodi Arias case. What does that have to do with feminism, though? 2) "The feminist movement is putting the idea into people's minds that they are the victims." Huh? And later in that paragraph, you accuse ME of propagating a victim complex. Um, no. It is not my inherent womanhood that makes me a victim; I'm merely affected by external societal attitudes and roles imposed on me, and those attitudes and roles need to change. I wish you'd made it clear to me which subsect of feminism you wanted me to discuss. As for the broad philosophy of feminism, I believe it is important. Whether the movement is changing anything tangible nowadays is a different issue, but just because it isn't changing much doesn't mean that it's "pointless," as you put it. It's an important philosophy to keep in mind to eliminate discrimination. The things feminism opposes are not tangible and can be pretty tough to tackle. Feminists are working to get abortion legalized, provide rights for transgender people, and emphasize sexual consent and anti-rape sentiments in the public discourse. These are all things that improve people's lives. Wendy Davis attempted to block a law that would prohibit women's reproductive rights, a law providing transgender equality is coming to California in 2014, and the SlutWalks broadcasted anti-rape sentiments very clearly. Is everyone paying attention? Is society truly going to change due to this? Maybe they aren't, but even so, these strides are an improvement to SOME. We still have a way to go if equality is to be reached, and feminism does need a major overhaul after going awry in some ways. But the philosophy of feminism is necessary.
Modern Feminism Is Pointless

Okay, it is now Round 4 and let me sum up your argument in this debate. The whole time you have MOSTLY given only pro-feminist opinions as the thesis for your argument. EVERYONE has an opinion so it is therefore useless in a debate like this. MY thesis has been based off past current events, historical events, and personal experiences to show that the Feminist Movement is not only pointless but it is also hurting people. It is painting a bad image on both men and women that is doing a lot of damage and is contributing to the division of society. The very idea of feminism is now becoming an excuse to get away with outrageous things. Jodi Arias tried to play the I'm just an innocent woman who was defending herself role and it was proven she was lying and that she stalked that man and murdered him in cold blood. She actually had the nerve to say that this man tried to rape her. Now that she is guilty she is trying to avoid the death penalty by trying to convince everyone she is crazy when she is completely sane according to experts. You are defending a so-called "movement" that you claim fights against injustice, but they are actually creating injustice. Like I said a lot of men are losing property and things they love because the feminist movement is putting the idea into people's minds that they are the victims. You say that this is an image just projected in people's minds, but the fact that you go along with looking like a victim all the time only strengthens that image. The Feminist Movement has proven that they have a strict agenda of getting more things that could benefit them and throwing out things that could harm them physically. Stop giving me pointless opinions that I have literally heard from EVERY pro-feminist and give me actual facts and events that suggest that feminism has been good for our society in the last 20 years.
NewMexico doesn't exist.

New Mexico does in fact exist. Here is a map of it: You can even take trips to New Mexico (http://www.newmexico.org...). Here is a picture of New Mexico: ConclusionI have provided geographic and photographic evidence that New Mexico does indeed exist. I also provided a link which leads to a website where one can book a trip there one's self. Since I actually provided evidence, and sources; I urge a vote for arguments and sources in the direction of Con. Thank you.
I will not break a rule.

My opponent has forfeited again. In addition to breaking all the other rules he already broke again, he breaks Rule #17. 20. Each round, each player must post a YouTube video by twilitprincess, separate from anything else. 21. CON may not challenge twilitprincess' awesomeness. 22. CON must post a poem praising twilitprincess at some point in this debate. http://www.youtube.com...
I will not break a rule.

By posting nothing, my opponent does not contest any rule-breakages that already exist. Additionally, he once again breaks Rule #12, and also breaks Rules #6 and #15. My opponent has now broken at least seven rules, and loses this debate. 17. CON must post a hyperlink to an image of a character from any anime series each round. 18. CON may not use the letter 'z'. 19. CON must use a number of characters in Round 3 that is a multiple of 1000.
I will not break a rule.

1. One internet meme must be referenced. 2. Each user must write a 100 character remniscence of their middle school years. This is separate from the rest of the round. 3. Each user must write a backwards version of what they have written so far after the first writing. Madam, I'm Adam. On seeing the Madam, I ran and jumped and laughed and smiled. When I saw the Madam, it was like I was seeing myself in a mirror, but all things darkly were removed. Over 9000 of my precious belongings were in the Madam's care. I remember walking down the hallways. I rushed to get to class everyday. It was a bright clean hall. .moor naelc thgirb a saw tI .yadyreve ssalc ot teg ot dehsur I .syawllah eht nwod gniklaw rebmemer I .erac s'madaM eht ni erew sgnignoleb suoicerp ym fo 0009 revO .devomer erew ylkrad sgniht lla tub ,rorrim a ni flesym gniees saw I ekil saw ti ,madaM eht was I nehW .delims dna dehgual dna depmuj dna nar I ,madaM eht gniees nO .madA m'I ,madaM.
I will not break a rule.

0. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses. 4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON. -------------------------- 11. No rule posted by CON may discriminate between the individuals PRO and CON in any way beyond what may be required by the foundation rules. 12. CON must include exactly one palindromic sentence, one polysyndeton sentence, and one biblical allusion in each Round. 13. CON may not use any words not in the dictionary, according to this website: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

I totally disagree. While the chances of a high school baseball player hitting someone with enough force to cause injury is definitely lower than in the majors, metal bats are still a huge risk. A metal bat can be a projectile all by itself, and if the bat accidentally lets go, it can injure another player or a field official. What if the metal back lets go during a back swing and hits the player's own catcher behind him? The first argument you posted was that the MLB should change the bats of players from wood to metal. Metal bats still pose a safety risk, and also since they are already hollow and don't need to be hollowed out, more cheating could happen if the switch you want were made. Metal bats would also break a long baseball tradition. Baseball is basically America's pasttime, and if wooden bats have been used for almost a hundred years the switch would hurt the tradition of the country's national sport. Baseball is a game of tradition and some traditions even if you're considering safety should be maybe managed but not really changed.
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

MLB Baseball players, in comparison to high school athletes, are much similar in size and strength as far as hitting home runs, line drives, and over all ability is concerned. Young gentlemen come straight out of high school and immediately proceed their talents to the majors. To argue that the players of the majors and players of high school baseball teams is rather skewed given that plenty of talent, young, strong gentlemen come straight from their high school primes. As far as safety is concerned, wooden bats break into many sizes and pieces. I've seen plenty of wooden bats break into pieces that resemble shapes that of harpoons used to stick into sides of large oceanic whales and aquatic mammals. With that being said, wouldn't you think that those pieces cause more of a threat to players then a single small baseball does? I would think that the odds of getting hit by a ball launched from a bat is much harder to do given the small size of the ball. The bat breaks into enough more pieces to cause a better threat of hitting a player than the ball would.
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

You argue that metal bats are safer than wood ones but say they are also cheaper. Wood bats break that's true but metal bats are much more dangerous than wood ones. The bat exit speed is a lot higher with a metal bat than it is with a wooden one, and that can cause people who get in the way of a drive from a metal bat to be injured or killed. Even in high school baseball people have been killed by the bat exit speed of a ball coming off an aluminum bat, and in California, the aluminum bats might be banned permanently because of that. If a high school player can kill someone with bat exit speed imagine what an MLB player can do? What if an accident happened involving a metal bat killed someone but if a wooden bat was used that wouldn't have happened? It wouldn't be cheaper to use a metal bat then. With the size and strength of most MLB players and their playing ability just think of the damage they could create with a metal bat. Wooden bats are not only the tradition in major league ball but they are the safer way to go and they would be cheaper over time because there would definitely be safety issues that the metal bat created which would cost a lot. http://www.popularmechanics.com...
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

The real reason there was a strike in 94 was pure player greed. McGwire and Sosa will never be part of the soul of baseball. They weren't gentlemen and they admitted to doing things that dishonored America's pasttime. They can be mentioned sure but there's no way they're the real reason baseball is alive and well. They helped get people involved in baseball who didn't really care about the sport, that's true. What keeps baseball alive and well in America is how its part of who we are as a country. It's kind of like what helps show American sportsmanship to the outside world. It's pretty much impossible to predict that metal bats would really do away with steroids. With the performance advantage some players would have with metal bats, they might assume that adding steroids to that would put them further even more. It may cut costs in terms of money but it will cost baseball what defines it most, and that is as an American tradition. No one wants to see an MLB player using the same bat he did in high school. Baseball and American traditions also don't mix too well with the environment, I don't think anyone will really care that fewer trees will be cut down. Since 1884 Louisville Slugger has been making bats for players and no one seems to have ever complained before about the amount of trees lost or the cost being so high that it was bankrupting a team. In fact the high school baseball web points out that metal bats are more expensive then wooden ones and that most metal bats won't even survive a full college season so imagine the cost to MLB teams in the end? http://www.slugger.com... http://www.hsbaseballweb.com...
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

I'm not arguing tradition, Josh. Your deferring away from the very basis of this argument. We are arguing whether the bats should be changed from wood to metal, we aren't arguing whether the fans will like it or if tradition should be changed. The very reason why there was a strike in 94 was because there was no change to the game of baseball. Clearly change was needed. If change was not needed, there would have been no strike. That was the very basis as to why I mentioned Mcgwire and Sosa. They helped restore the game of baseball. They deserve to be mentioned because they are the soul reason baseball is still alive and well. The game of baseball needs the resurgence of offense in the league. Over the past decade the game of baseball has been nothing but a pitchers game. Metal bats would give the hitters the edge they need to bring offense back into this game the natural way. I believe that with the metal bats instituted, players will stop doing steroids and the era would be over. Needless to say, it is clear that the institution of metal bats would be a prudent idea for the MLB. It would cut costs, be environmentally positive because less trees would be cut down, it would begin a resurgence of baseball, and could possibly end the era of steroids forever.
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

Your argument is now about ethics so I will start there. How can you argue that players like Sosa and McGwire should be a part of this argument because the fans like offense nonetheless? They helped ruin the tradition of baseball as a pure traditional American sport. You are right about what you said in terms of bat weight, no doubt. But Americans don't like it when you start altering traditions even for economics. The 94 strike damaged baseball because it was so against what Americans wanted baseball to be. Metal bats are not the MLB tradition. They are a high school and college item. Regardless, we as Americans view baseball as an institution. If metal bats saved a fortune in equipment costs, they'll damage the great traditions of America's sport! Americans won't line up to see their sport if it keeps changing.