BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

a) DA stands for dis-advantage. b) You can think of the DA, CP, and my K as contentions. 1. I'm not sure what you mean by this question, but I'll try to clarify the NED Funding DA. Pretty much, democracy promotion in the US is funded by NED, but NED is worsening the situation rather than actually promoting democracy. A lot of aid is going to NED, but NED isn't promoting democracy. 2. Yes, it is, but the topic is the United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East, not the UN. 3. According to Scott and Steele 05, NED's grants are worsening the situation with democracy promotion. 4. Elections are part of the government as well. The Kritik also talks about human rights discourse, not just governments. 5. I don't have an answer to this question. If you have evidence supporting that statement, you can use it in the 1AR.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

I have a couple of clarifying questions: a) What does DA stand for? b) Do you have Contentions? Now for my actual questions: 1) How does NED actually achieve this "aid"? 2) Isn't Brazil a member of the U.N.? 3) If Brazil is effective, why isn't Ned? 4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your Kritik only apply to the actual running of governments, as opposed to the elections, for which my implementation applies? 5) Wouldn't working with Brazil help NED actually achieve what it attempts to achieve?
The US Patriot Act is necessary for the safety of America.

< > The same way they always have... through intelligence gathered by our anti-terrorist organizations. < > You mean the way we did when we suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? When the USA wants to go to war, it does so. The Patriot Act would only facilitate a war. <> I don't care to speculate. I'm only here to debate why the US Patriot Act is NOT necessary for the safety of America. In closing, a very wise person once said, "If the USA PATRIOT ACT were "necessary for the safety of America", then America would have been invaded years ago before the Act was ever enacted. Intelligence reports claim we are no safer now than before 9/11..."
The US Patriot Act is necessary for the safety of America.

Yes the Armed Forces and President are necessary for American safety. But without the Patriot Act, how are they going to acquire the information necessary. Without the Patriot Act, we'd be attacking enemies blindly and without sufficient information. And trust me, bad communication is the worst thing that can happen. So I ask you.... if not the Patriot Act, then how are we to aid our President and Armed Forces in International Affairs?
The US Patriot Act is necessary for the safety of America.

I am not in disagreement over any of your points you've posted in Round 2, but they have nothing to do with being "necessary for the safety of America". The US government has countless anti-terrorist organizations that include the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the FBI, the CIA and even the Police Departments of America, which are "necessary for the safety of America". The US Patriot Act is helpful, but not as "necessary for the safety of America" as the Fire Departments of America. The point of this particular debate is to prove that the US Patriot Act is "necessary", not just beneficial.
The US Patriot Act is necessary for the safety of America.

The Armed Forces are essential to our safety. The President of the United States is indispensable to the safety of the USA. The entities that this country cannot exist without are "necessities". The US Patriot Act is helpful to the safety to America, but it's NOT necessary, as the US has known great safety without it. Also, the US Patriot Act cannot ensure absolute safety for the United States of America, so claiming that it is necessary is an erroneous statement.
Homosexuality

For starters, I appreciate the fact that you will never bring harm to a gay person. 1. You are correct. Homosexuality is not the norm. However, there is no scientifically evidence stating that homosexuals are not fully developed humans. As far as the religious side of things, I will get to that in a minute. 2. You are correct in saying that a man can not reproduce with another man. But saying that just because someone cannot reproduce means they are not human is entirely illogical. Many heterosexual men and women are infertile and unable to reproduce. Are they sub human as well? Also, as far as morals go, just because something does not fit your morals does not automatically mean that it does not exist or it is wrong. Morals are something that are taught from childhood. Meaning different people can have different morals. 3. Obviously a man cannot breast feed a child. Once again you have stated the obvious. But just because a religion does not like something does not mean that it is inherently evil. But more on that later. 4. Numerous homosexual couples have raised children in very loving homes and those children have had no ill effects whatsoever. There have been actual studies showing that children raised by a gay couple are happier than those raised by a straight couple. In fact, children raised by a gay couple have actually been shown to do better on average than others. Now I'm not saying that all children raised by their birth parents are stupid, nor am I saying that all kids raised by a gay couple are geniuses. What is a PROVEN FACT, though, is that there is no scientific evidence showing that children raised by gay couples have any problems directly resulting from that. 5. As far as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah goes, you are incorrect. In original texts, no where did it state that the sins committed in Sodom were of a "lustful" nature. Look something up for yourself before you start quoting things. It doesn't pay to just take everything someone says on faith. 6. As far as Christianity is concerned, we could turn that into a whole other debate in itself (which I wouldn't mind haha) what I will say is that 1. The story of Jesus is almost exactly word for word the same as the story of Horus in Egyptian mythology 2. The Christian Roman Emperor Constantine sat down with a council of people and decided what THEY deemed suitable to put in the bible. They could have put anything into it. Knowing this, no one should trust anything that the bible says as anything more than a good story. 7. See above^ Don't worry. You won't offend me. I've had my fair share of people say nasty things to me and my boyfriend. Also, I am really very sorry that you find homosexuality so gross. While I can safely assume that you are not gay yourself, there are many gay people out there that are very nice people and you could probably make some great friends if you opened your mind up a little.
The gay alelle

Gay alleles are definitely a real thing. It is the only logical explanation for why people are gay especially at such a young age. It is simple. When this so called gay allele is turned on... no pun intended it makes people gay. It is in our genetic coding and most people are wired to be straight but occasionally we get people with the gay allele turned on which explains why people are gay. Being gay is not a choice. It is determined by our genetic coding. People who possess this tend to be gay. They also have the mentality that there is no gay allele and it is a choice but that is obviously false.
americas weight probem is only getting worse

The true question to be asked here, is this: Do your arguments prove beyond any doubt that obesity, in America, will never be solved? (This is your job in the Pro position) Because as of right now, we can only treat it but, we have not found a cure. We do not know what our future entails for us, but I do know that I believe in America, and just as it has in the past, it will conquer every disease and cancer that fills it's land. Until someday, we no longer face these problems, and freedom and basic needs are supplied to the entire world. Someday, we will no longer have diseases, including obesity (which will prove an easier one to solve), and since we are always moving towards that day, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of days away: All problems are getting better including the problem that is obesity.
americas weight probem is only getting worse

FOOD- ok first of all the price of food has to do with everything. The less the junk food costs, the more people will but it. The more the healthy food costs the less people will buy it. MY OPPONENT-- " The cheaper our food is the better our economy is." Ok so I thought we were debating "Americas weight problem is only getting worse" not "food pricing being lowered betters our economy" economy and weight problems, in this case don't correlate at all. MY OPPONENT--"2.Food is the one thing--either then water and shelter, that we all need. A large percentage of our income goes towards it and thusly it would have more people selling food, it is a market that can not fail. And if more people are selling it more people are advertising it." I really don't see where your going with this. yes we all have basic needs i.e. food shelter water etc. I am trying to prove that we are abusing the use of food which causes our weight problem to get worse. Not that we are without the need of the essential survival needs. MY OPPONENT-- "3. For the convenience of speed, so you can spend as much time at home with your family before you go to work, or as much time sleeping before you have to get ready. Running isn't just having the willingness to get to your car earlier, it is having the willingness to get up an hour earlier." I don't think you understood my point here seeing as I am trying to prove that people in general are getting worse due to television, etc rather than exercising. so I extend my arguments there. MY OPPONENT-- "And on the tv people are told to exercise and do other things like that. On nickelodeon it even asks children every hour or so to 'get out and do something'" Yes it does say that on tv. , but I am sure that is not going to prevent the kids from watching tv just because a tv host advises them to do so. It starts with motivation. There is no real motivation, other than the humility in it which I have already rebutted. Medical treatment-- liposuction or not, it all falls under the same basic principal. Getting over our weigh problem takes personal development, not just sitting there and letting someone else do something for you. Most likely you will just get worse because you are not learning anything, ie personal sacrifice. There fore people tend to gain weight back, leading to wasted money, and lack of motivation nation wide. (not to imply that this is a nation wide problem, just that it is growing consistency) I would like to end by reminding the audience that my opponent has strayed from the topic on several contentions (1, 2, and 3) leaving the fourth one really the only one worth debating. Given all the evidence I have provided, I strongly advise everyone to vote pro for this. -Fo-shizzle
americas weight probem is only getting worse

Have you proved your side? I really don't think you have. 1. The price of food does not prove anything. The price o food going down is a good thing, that is good for our economy. If the price of donuts goes down; it is because all the prices of food is going down. The cheaper are food is the better our economy is. 2. Food is the one thing--either then water and shelter, that we all need. A large percentage of our income goes towards it and thusly it would have more people selling food, it is a market that can not fail. And if more people are selling it more people are advertising it. 3. For the convenience of speed, so you can spend as much time at home with your family before you go to work, or as much time sleeping before you have to get ready. Running isn't just having the willingness to get to your car earlier, it is having the willingness to get up an hour earlier. 4. And on the tv people are told to excercise and do other things like that. On nickelodeon it even asks children every hour or so to 'get out and do something' These four things do not prove that obesity will ever be solved. Medical treatment-- surprisingly I did not mean medical treatment as just liposuction. You can now go to a real 'food' rehab if the need arises. You can also have your stomach size reduced, which in turn stops your from eating more; instead of just removing some of the side-effects; it gets to the root of the problem. Now that I have debunked any of your evidence that will 'prove' obesity is unsolvable, and the 'pro' side must prove their side, I submit to the voters that it is impossible to know that obesity will never be solved, and that it is truly growing worse.
americas weight probem is only getting worse

I would have to disagree. I don't believe the weight problem will be fixed over time, as it has not in the past. I will provide some results given www. obesityinamerica. org 'Approximately 62 percent of female Americans are considered overweight65' 'Approximately 67 percent of male Americans are considered overweight66' MY OPPONENT: "It seems bad now, but it is getting better. " I really find this hard to believe as i see obesity grow around us everywhere. I will prove this by giving a few examples. 1. A box of 12 'ding dongs' = $2.50 One health bar=$5.00 2. Food is everywhere - beaming from roadsides, advertised on television, screaming in bright colors from grocery store shelves, glowing in vending machines down the hall from your cubicle. 3. exercise has almost been reduced from society. Why run when you can get somewhere just as easily by driving? 4. for entertainment, all anybody has to do it gaze into a television screen now. There is not as many motivating factors in society for these people as much as there has been in the past. The popularity issue doesn't help much either. There self-esteem is hurt when they are made fun of, but that often just makes it worse. people who are criticized usually don't do anything to help it. for example: If you tell an emo person not to jump off a cliff, what are they going to do? They will probably explore their options. They think that life is hard and will only get worse for them. Their problems will probably increase rather than decrease. Same with obesity. Why should they stop and try to help their problem when it is EASIER to not do so? Would someone go jog a mile, because someone called them a profain name? or would it be easier to eat away the stress of their problems? MEDICAL TREATMENTS- Medical treatments such as liposuction, Do not help obesity problems. It simply takes away the fat they already have, but their problem won't vanish with their fat. 46% of liposuction patients, grow obese again within the next five years. I believe that obesity is a growing factor in america, and given our condition, it will only get worse.
americas weight probem is only getting worse

I believe that the weight problem over time is being fixed. It seems bad now, but it is getting better. We are treating it as a psychological problem and creating weight rehabs for those who have this problem. We have medical treatments, and ever day I swear I see less and less obese people. It is obviously not popular to be overly skinny or fat anymore and with this peer pressure comes the decreased amount of over weight people. I believe in the future of America, I believe that we will continue to become greater, and eventually we will defeat obesity. It may be getting worse, but over a larger span of time I know that it will get better. So in that sense, it is getting better, and eventually it will be.
Pathfinder vs Pazio is far better then Dungeons and Dragons by WOC

Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons was a clunky beast, though well-loved to this day. Both Paizo and Wizards of the Coast saw the flaws inherent in the game, and set about to remedy them. Paizo made a fairly faithful recreation of 3.5, keeping the d20 system almost entirely intact. In many ways, Pathfinder core could be another module under the d20 license. Wizards, however, decided to dramatically alter the way that the game was structured. These changes were resented by a large group of gamers who had gotten used to playing 3rd Edition, and many of them accused Wizards of making a blatant cash-grab. This may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to whether or not 4th Edition is a good system. While Paizo has done wonderful things as a company, their game suffers from being tied to 3rd Edition's rule set. 4th Edition offered something new for people who had become accustomed to playing RPGs on consoles and computers. The game became far more flexible in party composition, class/race combos, stat assignments, skill choices, magical items, and spell lists. Encounters were plainly set up, with clear experience budgets to allow DMs to slot in new monsters, as well as an explanation of what each monster actually does. Ultimately, this flexibility allowed for more creative encounters, challenging the players to work strategically as a team across all levels.
Pathfinder vs Pazio is far better then Dungeons and Dragons by WOC

Last Argument round. Roll your 20. I think this comes down to a very fine line of esthetics and what people play with. However the over all art work is still far superior. The raised the bar in the gaming world, not because they had to (like dnd ) but because they wanted to. The playablity of starting mages and middle of the road melee is no longer the meet bag in mid levels helps gameplay. for the amount of people working on it, they are staying true to gaming, while WOC is not a money machine. While they may have started teh buisness, they obviuosly are trailing in my opinion. PS, my last fighter, Samantha, Female Fight 8, Rouge 1, Wizard 1, Str 10, Dex 16, Con 11, Wis 12, Int 16, Cha 15. She died. I cried.
Pathfinder vs Pazio is far better then Dungeons and Dragons by WOC

I would like to rebut some of the points that you made in your initial argument. 1) The art quality is extremely subjective. If you enjoy Wayne Reynold's pulpy art, then you'd love Pathfinder. Remember, though, that he also did most of the artwork for the Eberron campaign books (both 3.5 and 4th Ed). 2) Paizo wants campaigns to slowly grow to high levels, because Pathfinder starts to fall apart from sheer weight at those levels. Character growth far outstrips the basic monsters' growth past 12th level or so, so the most fun adventures are going to be around the midpoint of a character's "lifespan." D&D, however, is set up to have combat remain enjoyable from 1-30 levels. 3) This is something that both Pathfinder and 4th Ed share, so your point is invalid. 4) Character customization out of the core books is actually easier with D&D. Your character is allowed to choose from two different attributes to buff their defenses, for example, meaning that there is less reliance on putting points into Dexterity, for example, as a "god stat" that almost every character needs. While the role system more clearly defines classes, how those roles are addressed is up to the players, and several classes can cover for more than one role. Add to this prestige classes (at level 11) and epic destinies (level 21), and 4th Ed's PHB offers just as much, if not more, customization than Pathfinder. 5) Skills checks are still either wholly the province of the person whose class allows 8 skill points per level, or nerf those class's advantage to allow the character who only gets 2 skill points (show me the fighter who has a bonus to Int, and I'll show you a very fluffy player) to actually pass something. 6) Spellcasters don't just nuke everything. Given time to prepare spells, they humiliate any attempt to make combat interesting for other players. This starts happening around level 10, and scales with their primary attribute (Int/Wis). I would love to say more, but I'm at the limit.
Pathfinder vs Pazio is far better then Dungeons and Dragons by WOC

A few new ones that My friend hasn't heard of. Rebut 1) Spells make melee characters worthless, by your arument makes both systems silly not pathfinder vs DND. To wit, beginning spell casters in DND are usesless untill they hit the magic FIREBALL stage. In Pazio they have far more to offer at beginning levels. In addition the cost for regents and items is a DM not game problem to enforce. 2) Except in the 2nd rnd of combat, in which case they are at teh disadvantage of the Fighter or anyone else in a group. 4) 4th ed and 5th ed, keep changing there systems, obvioulsy there is a flaw. Both are flawed, quite frankly a skill system like (vtm or larp or fate) works easier. both system fall apart here. 4th ed is still a walking clumby golem just a different stone. 5) So? 6) its a problem for both games (f) agrees with you. We ave both come up with ridicules problems for players. But still prefer Coke. Srry Pazio. 7) Conceaded 8) Both games fall apart if you allow magic and treasure. 9) personal experience says other wise. 10) Again applicable with both and many ways around it. Ill reiterate, whose books are art, there stories are beautiful and well written. The items usually ahve beautiful illustrations that allow a feel for the game not included in DND. DND chose not to use art work and raise teh bar untill pazio because they didn't feel like raising the bar. 2) the characters and there paths of development allow far better development then the original line path or the anything goes path. 3) why is there a 5th ed coming out if there wasn't a problem with 4 that a whole new product line is needed. (critz)
Pathfinder vs Pazio is far better then Dungeons and Dragons by WOC

Pathfinder and 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons both came out around the same time with the same goal: improve the increasingly clunky 3.5 Edition. Both teams came at this from two different approaches. Pathfinder acts almost as a patch of a patch, almost a Dungeons and Dragons 3.75. Fourth Ed Dungeons and Dragons, however, decided to center the game around combat encounters, abstracting much of the adventures that happen without violence. By making the changes that they did, Wizards of the Coast managed to create a system in which there is just as much creativity, only without the floaty 3rd Ed elements. 1) Spells make melee characters worthless. 2) Skill point buys make each skill check either laughably easy for the rogue or nearly impossible for anybody except the rogue. 3) It's simpler to put powers into small blocks, instead of spreading them over several pages in multiple books. 4) Pathfinder still handles combat maneuvers in 3rd's clumsy style. A player sacrifices any ability to actually damage an opponent for a small tactical advantage, which, considering how fast most monsters can be downed, is never worth it. This leads to most fights having only one or two players do anything more than throw damage. 5) It is expected that each player use one item slot solely for their class's stat-boosting item. Almost all other magic items pretty much duplicate a wizard or cleric spell. 6) Pathfinder's CR system is both more vague and more complicated than 4th Ed's encounter budget. 7) Monsters are far easier to create and slot into appropriate adventures in 4th Ed. 8) Pathfinder's combat falls apart above 10th level, with wizards and druids finding almost no challenge in encounters not specifically built to nerf them. 9) 4th Ed is far easier to pick up and play for both players and DM. 10) Removing single attribute dependence allowed more class/race creativity without becoming useless and keeping any one skill from being overpowered (Dex).