BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecut

While I may not have Evidence to Prove my opponents Poll inaccurate I HAVE provided evidence that polls are not accurate. We do not decide elections based on polls.... Also As I challenged the Accuracy of the Poll it has become the Burden of the AFF to prove it accurate. I have said we should not put store in a poll without knowing sample size, people included in the poll. My opponent accuses me of Logical Fallacy, but REALLY!??!?! his entire standing is based on Fallacy, he has not offered ANY refutation, or any defense of his points. Merely restating them, as if they held true.... This is a MASSIVE LOGICAL FALLACY, assuming something as fact because he says it is. Not only is this a Fallacy but has destroyed the integrity of the debate... The second poll merely provided that people want Crimes punished, this can be effectively done by U.S courts, my opponent did not link this to the Affirmative stance in the Resolution. I would Again like to point out my opponent has not responded to ANY arguments so just extend those through the round... These points are considered conceded on Pro's part. Lets look to my last round arguments.... I provided an Attack on the Burden, showing that Popular Will does not meet the burden, because what people want is not always what is best. I may not want to go to school but it is best for me if I do.... Thus, Both of my opponents surveys do not meet his burden and My arguments do.... My Opponent has not met the Burdens to LD style debate, which is that he MUST uphold a value.... My opponent provides no links to any sort of value and no links even to his own Burden.... In LD debate as well as in most debates the Pro has the burden to prove the resolution true, he has not done so.... I have the burden to prove it not true... I HAVE done so.... My opponent has not linked anything, has just a bunch of floating arguments, due to the merits of this debate and debate in general the decision must be Con... Vote CON!!!! If you vote otherwise, please post a reason, if you vote CON as well I urge a reason, as this Preserves the integrity of debate.... Just to summarize what has been established as fact for purpose of this debate due to concension and failure to answer. Joining the ICC destroys U.S National Security Joining the ICC could Destabilize the World. The ICC has no deterrence Value The Current system can provide as Well as the ICC
The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecut

My opponent has no imperical evedence proving the burden i've placed on him, and he gave the example of Tom Bradley trying to prove that ALL polls are inaccurate. It is a logical fallacy to say that one poll was inaccurate, therefore ALL polls are inaccurate. Until he proves MY poll to be inaccurate, which is pretty much impossible to do, you must look to the one who actually proves the burden. Also, 91% of the nation wanted human rights violations, which are crimes against humanity, prosecuted.
The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecut

My opponent Drops Both Values, Criterion and Cases instead he focus' on one subpoint of his contention one, saying this proves his entire Case.... So lets look at this point then shall we... Here were my attacks I placed on it last round, that remain un-refuted... 1. AFF provides no sample size this could be a sample of 100 people. 2. unless 100% of the population was interviewed studies such as this do not reflect the American People. 3. Presidential Elections are not decided based on Polls, unless we join the ICC by national vote we cannot say that the people want anything. we are a representative government thus what the government wants/doesn't want is reflected by the people. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now here is the burden he assigned himself and me: "Because the United States is a high-powered democracy of the people, my burden is to prove that it is in American citizen's best interest to join an international court, such as the ICC, whereas the negative's burden is to prove the opposite." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now My opponent does not meet this burden in two major ways. 1. The Survey does not always reflect the will of the entire American people, we can see a perfect example in the 1982 California elections for governor when Tom Bradley was way ahead in the polls on election day but lost the election by 100,000 votes(1.7%). This proves that Polls and Studies are not accurate. Furthermore the U.S is representative democracy so the peoples voices are reflected in the government and the government has not ratified. 2. Assuming for a brief moment that these outlandish claims are true AFF would still not meet his burden. His burden Specifically said "in American citizens best interest." this doesn't mean "it is what they want" but rather "what is best for them." I have proved in my Case that Submitting would destroy National Security and destabilize the World.... This is not in the American Citizens Best Interest. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lets look at the Framework and standing points(excluding what I adressed ubove) Value: National Security Criterion: Realist Pragmatism Burdens: My burden outweighs for it when we weigh choices as per my burden we find what is in Americas Best Interest. Burden: Pros must outweigh cons and there must be a necessity to do join. Clarification: Court=ICC or one with a similar construction. 1. Compromises National Security A. Court will be Abused B. Restricts Much of U.S military action. 2. No deterrence Value 3. Submission causes Global Destabilization Apart from those My opponent dropped his whole case Extend My Arguments against those
Resolved: All 50 states should constitute a noise ordinance for vehicles that play loud music.

Recap... Conduct: Con - Pro was a multi-accounter, and no longer exists. S/G: Tied - Pro had no gross violations, though he only lasted a single round. Argments: Con - Con's inequality, status quo, and self-defense arguments were quite strong, and were obviously never touched. Sources: Con - Con has more sources, and explains how a couple of Pro's sources don't actually help his position. Clearly, 6 points go to Con today.
Resolved: All 50 states should constitute a noise ordinance for vehicles that play loud music.

We've all heard it, ear splitting loud music coming from a car driving down a quiet residential street, or maybe from across the parking lot at a public beach. Loud music is a distraction to others and may effect the way others drive. it can also be dangerous in an emergency. Contention 1: Source -http://www.muni.org... My first contention is that it can cause danger to other drivers on the road. One thing everyone learns in driving school is to pay attention on the road, look in your mirrors, and look what it around you. Emergency vehicles are a good thing to look out for. The ability to hear approaching emergency vehicles is greatly diminished or completely absent. This can lead to delayed response times for emergency responders and increases the chance of a collision should the driver not yield to the emergency vehicle. My second and last contention (http://www.fresnofamous.com...) is that loud music can disturb residents. In addition to the obvious roadway dangers presented, loud music blaring from a motor vehicle disturbs residential areas. If you are home sleeping late, how would you like it if some person decided to crank up music, no matter what it is, wake you up and disturb you? Not fair, is it? Examples of current violations: California - (http://www.washington-square.org...) California Vehicle code Section 27007: No driver of a vehicle shall operate, or permit the operation of, any sound amplification system which can be heard outside the vehicle from 50 or more feet when the vehicle is being operated upon a highway, unless that system is being operated to request assistance or warn of a hazardous situation. A violation is a misdemeanor crime and can result in a fine of up to $1,000 and / or six months in jail. Thank you.
Resolved: Having Cancer is a choice

I had my suspicions at your second point but I DEFINATLY knew it was at point 5 about the "cancer parents raising cancer children". I complete LOVE your approach at this rather than sticking "lets debate gay marriage" title which could bring closed minded people with an unrelenting mindset to argue completely RIDICULOUS points. And if you don't change anyone's stance at least you'll have at least SOMEONE rethinking their argument points against gay marriage. Something logical and arguable!And, yes my friend, REALLY f*cking stupid!And you're welcome, I enjoyed it :)
Resolved: Having Cancer is a choice

In case you havent picked up on it, in this debate all I did was take arguments typically used against allowing Gay Marriage and replaced 'being gay' with 'having cancer' just to show how stupid those arguments against gay marriage are. I know it probably wont change anyones stance on the issue but I still did it because when you look back on the points I gave.... Theyre pretty f*cking stupid right? Thanks for reading :D
Resolved: Having Cancer is a choice

1) Cancer: As Natural As the Flesh it DestroysIt really is...Cancer isn't named per say in the Bible for the mere reason that the name "Cancer" was only relatively given but the affliction of leopards don't dispel its existence in the Bible2) Cancer Hopping: Left to Everything BUT Human Choice It has been scientifically proven that Cancer effectively "Cancer Hops" from one once prime host to the next member of society for fresh ground leaving trails of "Minor Cancer-ettes" in its wake leaving the original person still afflicted while the "Chief Cancer" has gone to new grounds.3) Cancer for a Higher PurposeGod IS all powerful and all good which is WHY he deals out Cancer. He does it for either the growth or benefit of the person or someone in the persons life. People in need of help often don't admit it, so God allows them this extra push.4) Childless MarriagesThere are couples who CHOOSE to not have kids, or CHOOSE sterilization, but non of which CHOOSE Cancer. If marriage was truly for reproduction, those who choose not to have kids would simply choose to have Cancer giving them a reason to fulfil what they want.5) "Cancer Hopping" Yet AgainAlso straight forward here, parents are in constant close proximity with their kids therefore opening the window for the involuntary spread of Cancer6) Cancer and ReligionCancer is natural (my point in #1) and although it isn't SUPPORTED by religion, it is subtly addressed and is taken like any other tribulation in the Bible as a growing/learning experience.7) You Can't Outlaw something that Isn't a ChoiceSince Cancer is so obviously something that isn't chosen, it would unconstitutional to have it outlawed in the first place. If we outlaw something as basic as Cancer we might as open up the high security prisons for people who chose Dwarfism.8) Children Will be Fully FunctionalChildren raised by Cancer ridden parents grow up function like normal children. If anything, children of Cancer parents grow up to be BETTER off for it having more tolerance for the world around them for those with and without Cancer.9) Change is GoodThat kind of traditional thinking is the same argument used to keep women and African Americans from being a functioning, equal part of society, but strides in their favor have bettered our country. And if my opponent had the bedrock of America in mind, he would've kept in mind that our society was founded on the premises of freedom and equality, both of which are impeded if Cancer Marriage is continued to be outlawed.10) Further SegregationThere is nothing disgraceful or unsacred about two people with Cancer getting married. It wasn't their choice to have Cancer and denying them the same opportunities as those without Cancer is unconstitutional and immoral.11) Marriage is About LoveThe Bible is all about love, and marriage is all about solidifying that love. Someone with Cancer shouldn't be denied either.12) It's About the LoveThe only perversion of Marriage is anyone founded on the basis of something other than love. Cancer should not be a factor in this!
Resolved: Having Cancer is a choice

Alrighty then:1) Cancer is not naturalIt isnt.... Where in the Bible does it say that having Cancer is natural? Cancer being natural and not a choice isnt in the Bible ANYWHERE so people are choosing to have Cancer2) People who have cancer causes other people to have cancerIf one person has cancer and it is considered to be 'acceptable', then others will come forward and have Cancer too, because having cancer is a choice3) God wouldnt make people who have CancerGod is all powerful and all good, so why would he make someone have Cancer? He wouldnt! So people must be choosing to have cancer because God certainly wouldnt make someone who has cancer...4) People who have cancer cant reproduceMarriage is meant for reproduction, and people who have cancer cant reproduce. Therefore it is a perversion, a choice, and shouldnt be allowed5) Cancer Parents will raise Cancer childrenPretty straight forward6) Cancer on top of not being natural also isnt supported by religionNo religion condones cancer or acknowledges its existence so how could cancer be natural? It isnt, because Cancer is a choice7) Legalizing Cancer will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviorOnce people are allowed to have Cancer, other things like having Aids and Herpes will also become legal! We cant let that happen!8) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home, and having cancer changes thatChildren only function when they are raised by parents who dont have Cancer. Those who are raised by Cancer parents may be confused in their life and not be fully functional. 9) Cancer marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time and is the bedrock of society in America. If you legalize Cancer Marriage then the fabric this country was founded on will be changed forever10) Civil Unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are betterPeople who have Cancer who are a part of Civil Unions will have all the same benefits as people who are married, which is better then actually letting Cancer couples get married since it preserves the sacredness of marriage11) Marriage is defined in the Bible between one man and one woman, nothing about cancerThe Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and someone who has cancer, or a woman and someone who has cancer, therefore people with cancer shouldnt be allowed to get married12) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Cancers are allowed to get marriedIts just a perversion of what Marriage is!
Atheism is an illusion.

if i am not a disbeliever and my position is god is false.. i must have a false position according to the theism i am opposing, because surely my position is not true? it has to be disbelief.. or your position is forfitted.. and you are an agnostic atheism is disbelief, a theist is an atheist to all other possibilities to the contrary... atheist=a theist, belief to the contrary love for love, is hate for hate.. the more positive is the more negative by necessity of opposition for positive to exist.. the brighter the light is the more damage to my eyes from the light if any.. theism is positive atheism is negative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- god as in creator, any god.. there can only be 1 god.. because the creator is the creation, because the creation cant exist without the creator i have evidence god is false.. my position is i know god is false.. but i have to be an atheist according to a theistic world view so, if i am unresonable in stating there is absolutly no god.. is it resonable to believe nature is a machine? or construct, intended, specified nature is opposite of machine
Atheism is an illusion.

You claim to have evidence that god is false, that does not essentially mean that you believe there is NO God. For example: Muslims believe that the other gods from other religions are false but that does not make them atheists. Can you please elaborate on what you mean with that statement and provide the evidence? Please specify which god you are referring to that is false. Can you also perhaps state whether you believe there is absolutely NO god or not? My position is that no one can reasonably state that there is absolutely NO God.
Atheism is an illusion.

i think my main point this debate is making you forfit your pro position.. theism is atheism i have evidence that god is false.. so this makes me an atheist according to your world view because surely i am not right about it? constructions are machines, nature is random.. random is the opposite of specified, intent is specified nature is chaos, and life being nature, there is no, before life. matter is eternal, no beginning and no end, only now
CRISPR (Good Or Bad)

First off I would say a thank you for accepting, but your blant rudeness will lead me to heavily critiques your arguments 1) You don"t answer my arguments and say I have no evidence when you don"t have any yourself. Please watch the film GATTACA and you will see where I"m going 2) It can"t cure all diseases like Autism, which is unknown what DNA strand it origins from. So that argument is invalid 3)How does drafting have anything to do what I am taking about. Plus a more prefect baby will be better than more babies. It"s like 1M troops vs a nuke IMPACT3) You don"t have any evidence of this either, so please find some before you claim ridiculousness 4)Again that is not what I am claiming...I am saying hypothetically a situation in which this were to occur You failed to have any evidence when you claim I don"t have any. And you just insulted me on my views. Judges please vote me in conduct on this argument. Please have a more respectful character when your debating and stop insulting my opinions
CRISPR (Good Or Bad)

You're reasons are by God awful 1) Just... Not true at all. Where are you proofs to back it up? 2) CRISPR is more than just babies, but curing cancer, removing malaria, and a bunch of other stuff. Perfect babies will NOT take jobs away from us, because there are NO perfect people. CRISPR will just add enhancements, but it will not make them remove jobs from us. 3) So can drafting people into the army. Does same effect IMPACT3) This can happen with literally ANYTHING. Take the arms race between the US and the USSR 4) That doesn't mean you still shouldn't improve the country. We know 4 already, and in-fact there wont even be a perfect society. But that's like saying, "I'm against George Washington because a great president does not lead to a great country"
CRISPR (Good Or Bad)

CRISPR genetically modifies DNA. This can be used to remove genetic de effects from babies. People might use it to create a perfect baby without any bad parts to it. My pro will argue for it and I will argue CON 1) CRISPR will ruin countries competitiveness 2) Perfect babies will take away jobs from people like us 3) This power could be used for un ethical reason, like increasing military IMPACT3)Countries will be threatened and build military arsenal up 4) A perfect society does not lead to a perfect country
proof of gods existence

If you say God made the planets and a creator is needed for everything, who created GOD?? If you can't accept universe popped into existence(which I don't either) then how God just came out of nowhere? Who made the so-called heavens if you think they are true? As for Jesus's disciples, I don't really believe much in Christianity. How can a person come back from the dead? And why hasn't he made another appearance? I think he was just a person surrounded by rumors, for if I was in the medieval times I could just propose a new God of my style, and believe me, they WOULD accept. Why??
proof of gods existence

You say the proof is Bible. But wasn't it written by human hands? As for the God building the Earth, why didn't he build another life-supporting planet? If you say the world is created by God, then who created GOD??? If you believe the universe can't just pop into existence, has God just popped into the world? And I am here, despite planning against him and insulting him by saying Optimus Prime is a God. Plus God may have built the Earth, then where is his responsibility for it? We have the potential to obliterate the planet with global warming and lack of resources. If you say he left it to us, then there would have been some belief for it, like yours is that he made the Earth? Will another Earth be made when this expires??? What religion do you follow? What more proof does your God have then my belief of Transformers? I need an answer, and we are not free to visit heaven. We have to die first, and its one-way trip. What makes you think heavens and souls are real? What if we are just human, body and all? What if once we lose it, we vanish from the universe forever? I refuse he is the reason why I am what I am. You mean to say I am an atheist because of him? LOL
proof of gods existence

Is there any proof that a figure such as God exists? The 5 senses can't sense God, the 6th sense is not yet proved to be there or just intuition. There has been no modern sighting of him. If you say God is present everywhere, I might as well say Optimus Prime(a transformer) is a God, but none can see this alien so none will believe. Why not the same with religion? If you can accept an unknown person as God but not a fictional character I lack a reason to see why.
Seize all military involvement in the middle-east

Plagiarizing from the internet is, according to me, not considered arguing, but I will try to address the few arguments you present. "The enemy wants to kill Americans on American soil" If you harass a snake, it will, naturally, attack you. If you, on the other hand, leave it alone, nothing will happen to you. It is very likely the same case with the conflict ongoing in the middle east. "When the U.S. doesn't have a strong military presence and lead the attack, someone else does." Why is this a bad thing? This debate concerns the spending of US dollars on a war that is pointless from our perspective, not the military activities of other nations. "So George Bush finished his term and the U.S. pulled out of the area. ISIS took over positions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria." Hardly a valid argument: Bush ended his final term in 2009, but all of your linked sources are from 2015. These events cannot be directly connected to the end of Bush's presidency. "What happens when the U.S. leaves the Middle East? This:" As with your previous arguments and sources, this cannot be directly connected to a lack of US military presence. furthermore, we continue to supply both training and military equipment to our allied forces in the areas of operation. Surely these vast amounts of resources would have prevented the events referred to, if they were used properly. in conclusion, atrocities such as the ones you refer to have occurred both before and after the United States' presence in the area was ended and can therefore not be used as reliable arguments in this debate.