BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

I will defend my case, then move on to my opponent's case, and then voting issues My opponent has not addressed my value, criterion, and both of my contentions. So they should all be allowed to extend. My opponent hasn't shown any effort in trying to debate the resolution. He states that because economic sanctions are capitalized that they refer to an article. However, if you looked at the January/February LD (Lincoln-Douglas) resolution, you would see that economic sanctions don't refer to an article. My opponent states that since he posted definitions first, we should accept his definitions. However, if my opponent truly knew how to debate Lincoln-Douglas format (which I'm beginning to highly doubt), he would know that the con is allowed to counter-define and show why there definition should be used. I already stated in the NC my rationale for my counter-definitions, which my opponent did not address. So therefore, my definitions should extend as well. Any new arguments regarding this in the 2AR should not be considered since according to Lincoln-Douglas rules, this is my last speech. Moving on to my opponent's side of the flow: In Lincoln-Douglas, you need a value and criterion to show what you're upholding and how you will achieve them. Again my opponent hasn't offered any, so when voting we must default to my value and criterion. My opponent hasn't offered any analysis or reasoning as to why we need to affirm the resolution, while I have shown why we need to negate the resolution. My opponent hasn't refuted my counter-definitions. All he states is that since Affirmative goes first, there definitions should be used. I have already refuted this point (see above). My opponent hasn't debated anything in this case, except the fact that economic sanctions were capitalized in the resolution, so therefore it must refer to an article. Once again I have said that you need to take a look at the January/February resolution and you will see that it doesn't refer to an article. Voting Issues: These are the reasons why you should vote for negation 1. My opponent doesn't have a value and criterion so we need to default to mine. All my opponent debates are definitions, but Lincoln-Douglas is a debate of values. 2. My opponent has not shown any analysis or reasoning as to why we should affirm the resolution, while I have shown why we need to negate. 3. My opponent has not addressed my case at all, so it must be assumed he agrees with me. Thank you for this debate.
Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

It appears that my opponent did not understand my argument. As the first to post definitions and their corresponding sources, it is only reasonable that my definitions stay. My opponent specifically capitalized "Economic Sanctions," which led me to believe that he was citing an article. So, I found that article, gave its resource, and effectively put pressure on my opponent to prove why an article written by one man should be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Sadly, my opponent has failed to do so. As I was the first to define and the only one to provide direct sources, my definitions stand. All arguments extended. Do not be swayed by my opponent's attempt to skip over the point of my previous post. Thank you.
Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

This debate shall be full of joy and interest. My opponent creates two conditions as to whom can accept the debate: 1) the affirmative must debate LD. LD - praise to God . http://dictionary.reference.com... I do debate regarding praise to God. Therefore, I have met my opponent's first condition. 2) the affirmative cannot "don't the Jan/Feb resolution. " My opponent's second condition does not make sense. Since the statement does not make sense, it shall be disregarded. Thus, I have already met the second criteria. (Essentially, there is no second criteria. ) I am so excited to take the initiative and post argumentation. Thanks, Con! Great decision to depend on an online opponent for practice and possible learning for self purposes. Do not thank me, Con. I thank you. I shall define key aspects of the resolution. My opponent has generally passed this burden to me, which deserves another "thanks" within itself. Economic Sanctions - article created by Franklin Foer. "Economic Sanctions" is the name of the article, so it applies to the resolution's reference in its entirety. . http://www.slate.com... ought - used to express duty or moral obligation. Since my opponent negates a negative statement, my opponent must prove why there is duty or moral obligation to use Economic Sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives. . http://dictionary.reference.com... It shall be up to my opponent to clarify foreign policy objectives. It would be unfair to define all the terms; I must not take advantage of my opponent's fantastic opening. Economic Sanctions is an article created by one man, in his own perspective and bias. Why should it be used to achieve foreign policy objectives? It is my opponent's duty to prove this, which he has failed to do. He must be waiting to gather enough information to astound the audience with a response. I shall await. Besides, my opponent is negating a negative statement. As Instigator, it is my opponent's responsibility to provide argumentation. The affirmative awaits an original and joyous argument from the opposing side. Thanks for the opportunity.
Man-Made Global Warming is a Hoax

I personally am for the fact that man-made global warming does not exist, and that the earth is simply going through an ice age. Let me explain, an ice age goes through two phases. The first one is the obvious "freezing" phase and the second phase is a predominantly warm one(see link 1). We are obviously in the predominantly warm phase, but going back into the cold phase. At both poles there is rapidly growing ice. I as a conservative taking the harder side to argue must work very hard to convince the public, while my partner must simply keep them on his side. Always question the obvious, don't follow the crowd just because it's easy. 1 http://www.amnh.org... 2 http://www.thenewamerican.com...
Southern State's Secession

The Southern states should be allowed to secede in my opinion. The southern states should be allowed to secede because the already act like their own nation, however, the are labeled as States of the USA. I believe they have already seceded in their own belief but, the government is not willing to let them secede. I believe that if the southern states do secede though, they should be subjected to international rules and laws that would prevent them from doing anything that other countries cannot do.
Abortion Is Wrong

So what the pro has come and told me is that we all should donate all the money we have stored to cure other people who we have no relation to against our own will cause it saves a life. "Before I get started, I want to make something clear: The unborn fetus is no different than you and me. They are alive and human, as I showed, and deserve every bit of respect and care that a 2 year old would get." So does the women .Forcing her to change her priorities ,diminish her ambition is is not right. She must have the option to decide. "Now, with that in mind we can look at what you said with a clear mind. You said, "... what right do you have to put that women in torture in order to save a life of a person who she does doesn't even care about[?]" Well, if the fetus is the same as any other person, can we say that a woman has the right to kill anyone she doesn't care about, just because she'll be in pain? So no, the woman doesn't have the right to kill someone because she doesn't want to go through pain" There is a difference between this killing and the other killings .The can't not leave without the support of the mother but the mother can certainly live without the child .I am not obliged to donate my money so that a person can live on a life-support. nor is the mother. I will give you another example , suppose a terrorist organisation kidnaps a person .You don't know him ,but you still feel sad for him,you want him to survive . But than the terrorist organisation announces that they will free the person if you(out of nowhere) cut of your arms or give up your career if not that they will kill the person after torturing him for nights and days . Now you will not do that even if it saves the persons life(I don't know about you but most of us wont) . Now the government forces you to cut of your arms without even giving you a choice .I am saying that this choice is what matters most . Taking that away is not right. , "I believe a women should have control over her own body." I agree. A woman should be able to choose her school, her husband, her education, where she works, where she doesn't work, what she says; she should be able to control her own body. But we've made it clear that the fetus inside of her is not her own body! No woman has 20 fingers and 20 toes, two hearts, 4 lungs, and 4 eyes." You are right but the child is inside of her and she doesn't want it . A stranger enter your house .You tell him to get out .but he says you have no control over him you only have control over your house .But don't you think you still have a right of who lives in your house and how it is used. I will lastly put a point about the your statement about rape victims in the comments .It is not always that a victim move on with the life in a short period of time .Many a time the mere taught of the child (who is also the son of the person who raped her ) reminds her of the rape .This forbids her from moving on and trying to live a normal life . WITH THIS I REST MY CASE.
Abortion Is Wrong

Before I get started, I want to make something clear: The unborn fetus is no different than you and me. They are alive and human, as I showed, and deserve every bit of respect and care that a 2 year old would get. Now, with that in mind we can look at what you said with a clear mind. You said, "... what right do you have to put that women in torture in order to save a life of a person who she does doesn't even care about[?]" Well, if the fetus is the same as any other person, can we say that a woman has the right to kill anyone she doesn't care about, just because she'll be in pain? So no, the woman doesn't have the right to kill someone because she doesn't want to go through pain. Then you say, "I believe a women should have control over her own body." I agree. A woman should be able to choose her school, her husband, her education, where she works, where she doesn't work, what she says; she should be able to control her own body. But we've made it clear that the fetus inside of her is not her own body! No woman has 20 fingers and 20 toes, two hearts, 4 lungs, and 4 eyes. So what you really meant to say, I believe, is that she should be able to control the person who is inside of her. But she can't. We have laws against murder, just that our legislative system hasn't realized that this is. To your story about having someone connected to me, you also need to keep in mind, that this person will only be connected to me for 9 months. For the first three, he's realatively unnoticable, for the next 6 he causes me to vomit in the morning and feel very sick all day. Then at the end he causes me an almost insurmountable amount of pain, then, he is brought into this world to get to enjoy life. In that very real story, I still wouldn't seperate myself from him, especially seeing the ways of 'separation'. In an abortion procedure, the fetus is torn apart by forceps. Then the skull is crushed so that it can slide out of the birth canal easier. That's one way, or another, where a chemical is injected through the stomach into the placenta and it burns the fetus for 1-2 hours until the baby dissolves. It's not so nice as the word 'abortion' makes it appear. Lastly, a woman isn't allowed to kill somebody to further her education, get a promotion, study, or not go through pain. So she doesn't have the right stay away from pain if it costs someone else their life.
Abortion Is Wrong

OK lets get started .Sorry for the delay. My first argument was to prove that pregnancy if painful,potentially torturous for a women who doesn't want the child.My question is what right do you have to put that women in torture in order to save a life of a person who she does doesn't even care about .Doesn't the women have the right to decide whether she wants to go through this pain or no t.I believe a women should have control over her own body. Imagine that you wake in the morning, you find yourself connected to a person .the person makes you sick ,the person makes you go through pain .But if you separate form him he will die .i don't think this is a sufficient reason to stay attached to that the person . It's definitely not a sufficient enough reason to force someone else to stay attached to that person. EQUALITY Suppose a women wants to put her career before having the child .She has to take maternity leave .She will get paid paid but wont develop wont get a promotion in that period .While her male counter part might get the promotion . A teen getting pregnant can't put all her efforts into studies while the guy who got her pregnant can study.If she wants to study and be better than the rest she has the right to do so .Further if she thinks she is not ready to go through that pain she has every right not to .
Abortion Is Wrong

I want to begin by proving the livelihood of the unborn (meaning they're alive) and their humanity. According to the Oxford Dictionary, life is defined as: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. The unborn very clearly lie within that definition, they have the capacity for growth, reproduction and functional activity. And then they also are continually changing preceding their death, which hopefully, isn't while they're still inside the womb. So the unborn are alive. Second, the unborn are human. Science has shown us this time and time again. In all the leading embryology textbooks, the authors admit that from the moment of conception, a zygote (which what is formed when a sperm and egg meet) is a distinct, living and whole human being. So the unborn are human as well as alive. With this in mind, does it make sense to kill a human being, so that another human being doesn't go through pain? Certainly not. The unborn are alive and human, just as the mother is human. These two should have equal value in society's eyes. However, this is where your argument fails. Look at this like an equation. You have two variables, a mother and a child (the child being in the womb). You can add pain to the mother, and life to the child, or you can have the mother, and take the child out of the equation (abortion). You then are left with mother. Now we said the child and the mother are both worth the same, because they're both alive and human, correct? In that case, you can likewise have mother and child again, and either add pain to mother, and life to the child, or take the mother out of the equation (kill the mother) and you are just left with the child. One equation you are left with the mother; the other equation you are left with the child. But because the mother and child are both equally valuable, then both of those equations should be equally viable. However, we don't condone the killing of the mother so she doesn't have pain, because it's not right to kill for it. And that's what happens with abortion, you kill. So no, it doesn't make sense to kill the child to gain comfort for the mother.
Abortion Is Wrong

All the best to my competitor. Lets have fun. First of all I am going to concede that we don't know whether the unborn is alive or not. What I am going to argue is that even if the unborn is a person it is legitimate to remove the life of the person in order to stain a life of the women. I am going to argue on two main points. 1. The physical pain due to pregnancy. 2. The emotional pain due to pregnancy. 1 Physical Pain. Women have to face large amount of pain during the pregnancy . a)Morning sickness (Nausea) occurs in about seventy percent of all pregnant women, and typically improves after the first trimester. Although described as "morning sickness", women can experience this nausea during afternoon, evening, and throughout the entire day. b)the other discomforts being- 2 Back pain 3 Pelvic girdle pain 4 Carpal tunnel syndrome 5 Leg cramps 6 Constipation 7 Contractions 8 Dehydration 9 Edema 10 Regurgitation and heartburn 11 Varicose veins 12 Hemorrhoids 13 Pica 14 Round Ligament or Lower abdominal pain 15 Increased urinary frequency 16 Diastasis recti or abdominal separation 17 Striae gravidarum I am not going in depth with each one of them you can read it by the following link . http://en.wikipedia.org... I believe that when a women does mot wants to go in this pain she has every right not to . I believe that the women is in the best condition to decide whether she wants to go though this pain or not . 2 . Emotional pain During pregnancy their are Hormonal changes in the women . This leads her to make choices which she wouldn't have other wise. She has to change her lifestyle in order to take care of the baby. She has to stop drinking even though she may not want to. She is forced to take care of the a child even if she doesn't want to. I don't think it is justified to do so . She has to put the child before her career.
Education is the most powerful weapon

I have been learning things and activities and I come across this word that my mother says all the time is that education is the most powerful weapon I have hearing this an thinking into this is that it could be true. Think about it. Education is what that has caused us to have computers and all this good ideas. It is what I am thinking is that education is very powerful. I have also known to research that how people made things is because of education. The learning part. This is the key to the things we make. I am thinking that you should believe that it is true. So yes. I again will say that education is the most powerful weapon and this thinking I have will never fall from my head. Anybody watching this, you will find out a surprise that education is the one that changed you life. Believe this and if you don't fine! Thinks you want until you will learn that it will change your life forever. This again will be my topic and I will sow you my proof for this. If you want to fight over, than do it. I am giving you a choice to think.
Amazons of Themyscira may have engaged in homosexual activities.

My opponent states that we are in agreement, but I would like to reiterate that this is not so. To affirm his resolution, he must advocate possibility (as in there is some evidence, but it's not conclusive). I am advocating fact (as in there's conclusive evidence). Thus, my points don't support his case. As for the matter of "some" and "all", I was not arguing from the latter position in the previous round and thus have no problem with my opponent insinuating that some of the Amazons may have engaged in homosexuals. Rather, I'm arguing against the term "may" as the comics confirm that Amazons of Themyscira DID engage in homosexual activities. Since "may" and "did" are conflicting terms, my case does not support my opponent's. Thus, I urge you voters to vote for my case rather than my opponent's case. With that said, I thank my opponent for arguing and I thank you voters for reading. Good night! :D
Amazons of Themyscira may have engaged in homosexual activities.

< > We are in agreement of my suspicions. Some Amazons, but not all, did engage in homosexual activities. < http://en.dcdatabaseproject.com...; Thanks for the link. I didn't know DC created it, so many thanks! < 1) Some embark on homosexual relationships. 2) Some of them turn to masturbation. 3) Some of them abstain altogether.>> I believe that these points completely support my claim: "Amazons of Themyscira may have engaged in homosexual activities." Not all of the Amazons, as I did not claim "The Amazons of Themyscira may have engaged in homosexual activities." I simply indicated that some may have done so. Thanks for the debate, L-M. As always, it's been a pleasure.
Amazons of Themyscira may have engaged in homosexual activities.

Greetings. I would first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and extending the challenge to all debators. With formalities out of the way, let us proceed. Ladies and gentleman, notice that the resolution states "Amazons of Themyscira may have engaged in homosexual activities." In other words, my opponent advocates uncertainty as "may" is defined as the following (according to American Heritage Dictionary): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This may 1 (mā) Pronunciation Key aux.v. Past tense might (mīt) -Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice the emphasis on "may" being presented as a possibility in the example "It may rain this afternoon." If one were to prove that "it WILL rain this afternoon", one would have disproved the idea in the above assertion that there's merely a chance of it raining. With that said, I assume you all see where I'm going with this. My opponent advocates that it's merely a possibility that the amazons of themyscira engaged in homosexual activities, but I will prove beyond the notion of a doubt that they did. Now in case some of you aren't familiar with the subject, my opponent and I are discussing the amazons of themyscira. In other words, we are talking about the Amazons from the fictional series many of you know as Wonder Woman. Here is a line taken from DC comics database: "They live in a world where homosexuality is completely accepted -- while some Amazons are chaste, others have loving consorts." http://en.dcdatabaseproject.com... Further confirmation? Sure thing. In the Paradise lost story arc, Phil Jimenez confirms that the amazons resorted to one of the following (as suggested by Wonder Women herself): 1) Some embark on homosexual relationships. 2) Some of them turn to masturbation. 3) Some of them abstain altogether. The Paradise Lost arc is broken down into Wonder Woman (vol. 2) issues 164-170. Thus, homosexual activities on the island of Themyscira cannot be regarded to as a possibility. Rather, it is comic book fact. Thus, I urge that you vote in favor of the con.