BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Professional athletes are overpaid

Ok to stat off this debate I would like to offer the following sources for my reasoning. http://www.ehow.com... http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok according to this the average football professional player gets paid an average of 1.8 million a year. Taken into account the Superbowl winners and hall of fame players. For what these athletes do they are payed much to high considering the ones that some years don't even do anything. I'm talking about the players that sit on the sideline and cheer fr theirs teammates. Now what do they do? They come to practice: ok that is like going to the gym everyday and getting paid over a million dollars for it. I would think that there is something wrong with that. According to my second source the NFL has experienced a need for different programs to be cut because of a loss for money. A money problem that could be associated with the over paid NFL players. Now it is always great to get paid tremendous amounts of money and spend to your heats desire. But what do these NFL people do after they get too old to play? Ok my third source says something very interesting, not only do these players get paid tremendous amounts of money they can't get enough of it. A simple TV dispute and they are asking for 707 million dollars! Seems greedy doesn't it? Well not to them, they get paid so much anyway that money is no option to them and somehow they have to get enough to what? They buy more cars bigger houses. What does this do? It creates a huge amount of our money and economy in the hands of people who can't get enough of it. Don't get me wrong some of the NFL players are very good men and use their money very well, but there are still the others who can't get enough Back to you Con
The USFG should increase its exploration/development of space

Ever since the rocket was invented, scientists have been trying to find a way to not pollute. If they hadn't succeeded in 50 years, what makes you think that they will succeed in the next 8 years? In the 1200's when Europe was discovering the New World, what did they do to the natives? The majority of the native population was killed by diseases brought from Europe, and the rest was driven out. This happened with Cortez, and many other explorers. In the 1800's, the America's was being settled. What did the settlers do to the American Indians? Aside from the many wars fought, the Indians were tricked out of their land. Ultimately, all Indian nations were forced into a few small reservations. In conclusion, every time a new civilization has been found, their resources have been taken, their land have been taken, and their lives have been taken. What do you think will happen when foreign beings discover us? Do you really think that they will give us their technology, or help us cure disease? Probably not.
The USFG should increase its exploration/development of space

Eventually (like 2020 wise) we would be able to come up with a rocket that will not pollute our ozone or our water. but for now we must persist with this. What if these alien forms cant get cancer, but have the ability to prevent cancer. when this is so we can bring them back to earth to help out species. they might also have something that might be able to help out our ozone, stopping it from burning up from our CO2 that we are emitting.
The USFG should increase its exploration/development of space

FIrst of all, the Pro did nothing to refute my arguments in the third round. Nor did they refute my arguments in the fourth round. Second, my impacts outweighs that of the pro. As a result of launching rockets into space, the pro is causing extreme water pollution and extreme water shortages. They are also risking contact with extraterrestrial beings, which may result in diseases, and/or violence. To extend my constructive arguments, rockets launched will not only contaminate water, but it will also destroy the ozone. Right now, we have a small space program, barely launching any heavy rockets, and sustaining the ozone. If development of far space is put into action, the ozone will be destroyed. The Ozone layer is essential to human life. Without it, UV rays will not be able to be filtered. Cancer would break out and all species on earth would be in jeopardy. It is essential for life to exist.
The USFG should increase its exploration/development of space

If we go with this space programme, we also might find a new planet suitable of holding human life when we burn out out beautiful planet earth. We might be able to find a new item on another planet that we cant get on Earth that might be able to help something (for example pollution) and then we might be able to make friends with a possible other life forms on another planet, exchanging our things for theirs, exchanging ideas and items, and then we can have our people living their, and their creatures living here. We could take over universes and all. So why not expand out space search.
The USFG should increase its exploration/development of space

Exactly my point, PatCam The topic is Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere. The Pro's job is to support the resolution^ and the Con(me)'s job is to oppose the resolution. So, To spend money on somthing we cannot use for the better of the people is a waste of money. The millions spent in a spaceprogram could be used to sustain the economy and health of humanity. We can discover a alien race or a really neat rock whilst our streets are controlled by gangs and our doctors lack the education to treat their wounds
The USFG should increase its exploration/development of space

THIS IS A POLICY DEBATE ROUND. Here is the full resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere. ================================= Here is some evidence: http://www.debatecoaches.org...... I would prefer to be negative, but I'm willing to be affirmative just post in the comment section. ================================= Round 1: Challenge/1AC Round 2: 1NC/2AC Round 3: 2NC/(say hello or something) Round 4: 1NR/1AR (5000 Character Max) Round 5: 2NR/2AR
Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

The Pro asks what I am referring to when I say status quo. By status quo, I am referring to the status of women prior to the development of feminism when women could not vote or own property.The Pro then claims that "You don't need an unbalanced diversion to solve and unbalanced way of life" and cites the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This seems to ignore the work of Dr. King as Dr. King clearly understood the civil rights struggle as the "Negro struggle for freedom," as he preferred to it in the 1963 letter from Birmingham jail.The Pro seems to believe that in order to achieve equality you must look at both sides equally, however, in order to do this there must be equality. The reason that the struggle for racial equality focuses so heavily on the African American community is because the African American community is at a disadvantage, while White people are at an advantage.The goal of feminism is the balance the equation when men are at an advantage. In order to balance the equation, therefore, you must add to the side of women and give them parity with men.The pro then concedes that feminism has brought about major positive changes but then asks if feminism was really the best solution. This is a concession of a key point in this debate. The pro is trying to prove that "Feminism should not have been created in the beginning." By conceding that feminism has made positive changes, the Pro has undermined her own argument. If feminism had not been created these changes simply would not have been seen because feminism is the reason these changes happened. Additionally, the Pro asks if feminism is just the solution that became popular, but this ignores the fact that feminism is the name given to the movement that pushed the solution. It was not one of the several options, it was the only option pushing for those changes.https://web.cn.edu...
Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

Had it not been for feminism the status quo for women would have been maintained. What exactly is the status quo. You do not need a unbalanced diversion to solve an unbalanced way of life. Look at martin Luther king junior for example. He did not believe it was about blacks but he believed it was about blacks and whites. So what is stopping us today with racism. The fact that people believe it's one side. Feminism did a lot that I do not take for granted but gender equality would have done more. The issue of feminism might say it is about power structure in the beginning but in many first world countries you can see it's about more so sexism. A unhealthy view of equality between men and women. When you start with something the best way to end with the best results is to tackle all of the issues instead of one. Of course there might be some issues at that time that are more important but does it really need to be pointed out or just solved? It's possible for feminism to be replaced with a more gender neutral definition and view of equality. It would have still made me people aware unequal differences between men and women. Unequal rights. I'm not saying feminism is horrible but I'm saying it is to concentrated on women. As in the definition and the word itself. Women had no equal rights but is feminism the best solution or just a solution that got popular?
Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

The pro argues that feminism should not have been created in the first place, however since Feminism was first established in the 1830s, the movement has brought about many positive changes, many of which we may take for granted today.Prior to the inception of Feminism, women had very little rights, personal, social, political or economic. Women were not allowed to vote, own property, inherit money or divorce their husbands. Feminism first arose to address these and many other issues and with great success. Had it not been for feminism the status quo for women would have been maintained. As Fredrick Douglas said "Power concedes nothing without a demand", and in the case of women's rights feminism was the demand.The issue with the pro's argument is that she argues that Feminism focuses on the issues of women and this does not lead to balance and gender equality, however this means that there must be equality, to begin with, however as I pointed out, prior to the dawn of feminism, women were in no way equal to men and were in every way subservient to men. The Pro thinks that sexism will always exist because there are two sexes, however, the issue with this is that feminism is not about resolving individual prejudices, but about power structures which create inequality.http://people.howstuffworks.com...
Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

I know what you're thinking. I sound crazy. Why on earth with me, a girl wish that feminism wasn't born in the first place. Let me tell you why. Because you can not balance your drink if you tip it to one side. Meaning It should have started gender neutral in the beginning. That would have been a healthier way of tackling the issues of female rights and the inequality that happens between each gender. If you put a label on something to favor one side expect it to bite society right back in the butt in the future. Feminism is not healthy to me. Gender equality is healthy. If we started with that we would have not only tackle the issues of women and men but end with a healthy view of each other. That healthy view is we are different but equal as human beings. Its not a competition. It shouldn't be. We will always be different. You can not get rid of sexism if two sexes exist. I know a lot of you favor women and that's why there will be always inequality. I myself look past my identity and my favoritism and this is just my practical way of thinking.
Planned Parenthood is extraordinarily necessary for affordable women's (and men's) healthcare.

Pro has a responsibility to write a clear resolution:The resolution Pro has offered is not the resolution for which he is arguing. Pro seems to be fixated on low-income men and women, rather than men and women as a whole. I'll address low-income men and women later on, but Pro, instead, must affirm that PP is, on balance, extraordinarily necessary, or extremely essential, for all members of society, not just those low-income families. His arguments for simply low-income families is not sufficient to fulfil his BOP, as the resolution does not specifically pertain to them. 90% of Americans are insured:According to a CNN Money article, "Nearly nine out of 10 Americans now have health insurance, a sharp improvement from two years ago before Obamacare was put in place. " When 9/10's of Americans, how can Planned Parenthood be extraordinarily necessary? A majority of men and women can travel elsewhere and find other healthcare providers. Planned Parenthood is not necessary for about 90% of Americans, defeating the resolution. Existence and Ubiquity of CHC's: There are 13,540 Community Health Centers, which provide comprehensive care to men and women regardless of insurance, in the United States, contrasted with the 665 PP's in the country [2]. CHCs provide the same type of care as PP (excluding abortions). A full list of what they cover can be found here: . http://www.aachc.org...Needless to say, CHC's can do much more than PP can, and for the uninsured as well. On top of that, their ubiquity ensures that low-income people who use PP can find a CHC much quicker and easier. PP is unnecessary. Texas Example:Texas, in 2012, cut all funding to PP and directed that cash towards a 2013 program called the ". .. Women’s Health Program, which provides low-income women with family planning services, health screenings and birth control" [2]. When they did this, Texas was able to manage to create a benefit for women. According to the same source ([2]), the pregnancy rate remained about the same, ". .. falling from 82.2 pregnancies per 1,000 women ages 15-44, to 81.1 in 2013. Abortions dropped during the same period, from 65,547 in 2012 compared to 61,513 in 2013. " Even though funding to PP was cut, women in Texas, thanks to this program were able to find healthcare and family planning services still, rendering PP all the more irrelevant. Conclusion:Little more needs to be said. Pro has completely failed to uphold his BOP, arguing for the wrong resolution and being largely irrelevant. Nonetheless, I have still refuted his claims he has raised and argued for the correct resolution. PP is simply not necessary at all really for men and women's health care. The resolution is negated. Vote Con. ___________________________________________________________Sources: 1. . http://money.cnn.com...2. . http://dailysignal.com...
Planned Parenthood is extraordinarily necessary for affordable women's (and men's) healthcare.

Thank you, Con. The reason that I use the phrase "extraordinarily necessary" is because it is. I would like to start out quoting an article from the Boston Globe: "62 million Americans struggle to access a primary care physician. Nearly half of them are low income, one-third come from rural communities, and almost 40 percent are minorities. This lack of access permeates our entire health system, where 80 percent of adults who visit emergency rooms in a given year do so because they have no other way to seek primary care." PP is an affordable healthcare establishment that provides a variety medical care for men, women, and children (this includes fetuses). This is not limited to reproductive care, either. "People come to Planned Parenthood health centers every day for diagnostic tests, counseling referrals, family planning, and a range of preventative and acute care services" (Boston Globe) The notion that people can simply find another healthcare establishment is not realistic whatsoever. Many require insurance, where PP does not, and are far more expensive. According to Associates in OBGYN Care, "Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization therefore patients need not pay for the services they"re availing. This is a big help for less-privileged patients, for people with no insurance and for teens who find themselves without any support from their parents." In conclusion, it is not realistic to expect low-income members of society, and let's not forget PP's care is extended to all demographics, to "just find another place to go." https://www.bostonglobe.com... http://www.associatesinobgyncare.com...
Planned Parenthood is extraordinarily necessary for affordable women's (and men's) healthcare.

I would first like to define some terms:Planned Parenthood (abbreviated "PP"): a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health as well as maternal and child health services [1]Extraordinarily: beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established; exceptional in character, amount, extent, degree, etc. ; noteworthy; remarkable [2]Necessary: required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential [3]Healthcare: the services rendered by members of the health professions for the benefit of a patient [4]With these definitions, I accept and look forward towards debating this topic. On to you, Pro. _______________________________________________________________Sources:1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://dictionary.reference.com...3. Standard Google Definitions.4. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Race-based and gender-based affirmative action should be banned in US universities.

Who, may I ask, are you even talking to? Anyway, apparently I didn't disagree with racial-based affirmative action, of which you have described being a supporter ? Get outta here. You can refer to literally any paragraph in this debate. But anyway to make it even clearer, I am not in agreement to what you are suggesting. For one, the way you claimed affirmative action works is not always true, as I mentioned in my second argument. For another thing, as I have also said before, the system is unfair as it punishes the descendants of people who had greater privilege in the past. You can't just say that it's a reparation for past wrongs and make it sound fair. It's the same as 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. Equal treatment is simply the only way that society can actually move forward and lessen the race gap as a whole. And regarding that system which you claim exists, even if it is being implemented all the time (which it isn't) it's hardly any more just. It just happens on a lesser scale, but the judging by skin color is still there. And let me ask you something- if your 'system' worked the same way, but favored whites, would you think it is unfair? I can't even write anything else because you've ignored many of the points that I've written. Overall pretty disappointing to tell the truth.
Race-based and gender-based affirmative action should be banned in US universities.

if anything other than what i described is occurring it is unconstitutional. we're in agreement on the other types of affirmative action being bad. and im in agreement that class AAction can be a good thing. opponent hasn't really contested the system as i described it, he just said it doesn't exist that way. so that means he's probably in agreement that that isn't bad, if it's as i described? in that case we'd be in total agreement.
Race-based and gender-based affirmative action should be banned in US universities.

That doesn't happen in all cases. Often there are students with lesser test scores selected based on their race. Just look at Abigail Fisher as an example. Another example is that blacks and Hispanics actually get EXTRA POINTS on their SATs, while Asians get MINUS points. So no, skin color/gender is not taken into account only when the applicants are equal. Sure, blacks are often poor, and you just don't seem to grasp the point that class affirmative action will help poor people, most of whom are minorities, WITHOUT discriminating against working-class whites and Asians. So basically what you are saying is that only blacks are poor because of racism, which is not true. And regarding 'white privilege', so whites do tend to be richer and more well-off, but it is unfair to penalize people who were simply born white and can't change that, just like it is unfair to penalize people who are black or Hispanic or women solely because of that. "Reparation for past wrongs"? Like I said, it's unfair and hypocritical to punish the descendants of people who had greater privilege in the past. Anyone can apply to any university nowadays and can get in on merit if they are good enough and have equal access to education, and if they don't, class-based affirmative action can help regardless. But let me ask you something- what is a greater issue- that there are millions of Americans who are just scraping to live by who need to be assisted, or is the only issue that many of those happen to be black and Hispanic? And does it matter that whites tend to be more well-off ect. when there are virtually no barriers to people of color becoming that way? Why does it matter that whites tend to be more well-off at all? Is that just wrong? If so, that is racism, and it's just as bad as saying blacks shouldn't be able to hold high-paid jobs. It's interesting that you claim on your account to be against racial profiling. Interestingly I found this: that Kennedy signed the bill for affirmative action in 1965 so that people would "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." Which is definitely not what goes on now, so that's further proof that it's not how it's meant to be at the moment.
Race-based and gender-based affirmative action should be banned in US universities.

if race was taken into account over test scores i might agree. but the way the supreme court has allowed affirmative action is where there is two test scores and other quantitative aspects of equal value, and only then can skin etc be taken into account. i dont see a problem with this. there is systemic racism such as blacks growing up in ghettos, and there's still general occasional racism in general. in short, white privilege does in fact exist. "Back then, blacks couldn't get any jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK, women couldn't get certain jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE WOMEN and gays couldn't get certain jobs BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY. That has largely changed today, "sure it's not as bad as it was. but there are still some problems. and there's reparations for past wrongs, and there's current white privlege that must be overcome.