BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People suffering from dementia should be forbidden to drive

Salutations opposition,judges and members of the floor I wish you all a good day and wish both sides to have 2 enjoyable and resolving rounds. Overview 1. Different stages of dementia. 2. Governments should not forbid all dementia patients from driving. 2.1 Mild cases of dementia should be allowed to drive under supervision 2.2 Human rights 1. Different stages of dementia. As opposition has stated dementia comes in stages/periods and progressively worsen. In the earlier stages of dementia patients suffer from protein build up around the base of the skull inhibiting short term memories from forming. Although short term memories are not formed long term memories (Long-term memory refers to the continuing storage of information. In Freudian psychology, long-term memory would be call the preconscious and unconscious. This information is largely outside of our awareness, but can be called into working memory to be used when needed. Some of this information is fairly easy to recall, while other memories are much more difficult to access.) are the basis and needed skills of driving. 2. Governments should not forbid all dementia patients from driving From the arguments above we can naturally draw reason that government should not forbid all dementia patients from driving as my opposition believes. I however believe that the government should asses different cases and legalise all necessary actions such as forbidding them from driving. Mild cases of dementia when forbidden causes stress and anger at being treated wrongly, freedom is a major concept in modern society and you are allowed to do whatever you please unless it interferes with the freedom of others, If mild cases can and want to drive are you taking away the core of our very society we live in. 2.1 Mild cases of dementia should be allowed to drive under supervision Mild cases of dementia may experience mild strokes when startled but with supervision on the car dementia patients are safe and families are relieved of the prospect of their members being safe. A driver who has learnt driving for 3-4 years can easily handle a situation. Even if there are no helper dementia patients store driving skills in the long term memory preventing sudden loss of driving skill unlike opposition side believes. 2.2 Human rights The basic human right in near all countries in the world is freedom, the basic idea of freedom is for one to do as one pleases without interfering with others freedom. What opposition side is trying to prove is that all dementia patients should be banned from driving yet mild cases can and want to drive albeit under supervision. Is that not interfering with the patients free will for their "safety" when they obviously have the capabilities and the will to drive. And to conclude these arguments I believe and demonstrated that governments should not ban all dementia patients from driving and rather should evaluate each case and take useful actions. Thank you Sources http://www.healthline.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://psychology.about.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Quote battle

It's not necessary but you can if you want. I will start now. "I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best." R13; Marilyn Monroe "Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." R13; Martin Luther King Jr.
Quote battle

So I'm new to the site and decided to throw this out there. What I mean by quote battle is that there will be four categories. one for every round. Life, Love, Liberty/Freedom, & Death. you may post two quotes per round pertaining to that subject at the end the voters will vote on who they think had the better quotes. Round 1 just state any questions you may have Round 2 is love Round 3 is Liberty Round 4 is Life Round 5 is Death
Quote battle

"Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.' 'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast' " - Lewis Carol, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland "The sciences, each straining in it's own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but one day, the piecing together of dissociated bits of knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation, or flee from the light into the peace and security of a new Dark Age." - HP Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
social security should b means tested against the rich

My opponent seems to think that individuels and experts in finance are somehow financialy irresponsible, whereas the government is somehow more responsible. This is total nonsense, people will not become "impovershed" by old age, my oponent claims this with no real reason to believe it. The private sector is what produces literaly every single cent of wealth in our economy! The government on the other hand produces no real wealth, they only take it from one place to another. So to say that the people who produce nothing, indebt the nation, inflate our currency, and senselessly destroy economic growth upon thebasis of false threats such as global warming, are somehow more responsible than the people who produce EVERYTHING. Every dollar in circulation and every bit of real wealth is produced by the prvte sector, not the state, therefor the government is innately incapable of creating real capitol in peoples retirement savings. Only of stealing real wealth from others in a variety of mannerisms. For example, the government gets money to fund Scial Security either by:1. People paying into the system, stealing from those who pay into the system. 2. Taking money from taxation, stealing from tax payers. 3. Printing money, stealing money from everyone who owns dollars through inflation4. Loaning money, stealing future tax money through the intrest on this debt as well as money which belongs to future generations by them having to pay it off eventualy. As you can see, the government is incapable of doing aything productive, only of stealing from those that are. Tus they cannot be more responsible or productive than the private sector by definition. By excess wealth you mean wealth that the government stole from others, that's not excess, that is money which belongs to someone else, who produced it via productive activity in a real economy, which you want to steal and give to those who only bog down the economy. My freind, you are thinking like a 4 year old brat, "someoneelse has something that I don't, so I am going to go steal it because it should be mine."Communists are inhereintly selfish and immature.
social security should b means tested against the rich

i mostly just reiterate my last points. as to privatizing ss. if people are left to be in total control of their money, most will be impoverished by old age, and there will be a crisis. also, poor people are subsidized a bit with ss as it is now, and they wouldn't receive that any more, which they should. ie the excess wealth is what should pay for the people who are too poor.
social security should b means tested against the rich

Taxing the rich more is moral? Theft is defined as the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent. Ergo taxes are *literally* theft. Living within the borders of the United States does not imply automatic, non-coerced consent. Maybe my opponent should go research the 14th ammendment, which states:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Why should rich people be discriminated against and stolen from for things that are GOOD, we don't tell gay peoplet= that their marriage certificates will cost double because they are gay do we? Therefor we must apply the same logic on both of these scenarios: abolish it. Abolish federal recognition of marriages of any type as well as abolishing Social Security. The private sector is much better at making money than Uncle Sam, and during the Clinton Administration Uncle Sam stole peoples Social Security money, Uncle Sam spends more money on education and healthcare than anyone else, yet we have the sh*ttiest educations and the sh*ttest healthcare. This is why Milton Freidman said "if you leave the government in charge of the Saharah, in 5 years there will be a shortae of sand." And he was right, therefor Sicia Security should be privatised, and people should be able to control their own retirement. It's their money, they should be able to invest it as they wish.
social security should b means tested against the rich

con and i simply disagree on whether it's okay to tax the rich more. it's better to raise their taxes instead of cutting benefits, i agree it's not ideal to change what we said we'd do per their benefits, but it's essentially the same as just raising their taxes, which is necessary. i could see having everyone have some skin in the game and find more general ways to fix social security, but the focus should be on the rich. afterall it's hte rich who should be more respnsible for borrowed against social security to fund general governmnt and defense. are they going to get away with not paying that back? it's not so radical of an idea or disagreeable to just decrease their benefits. taxing the rich more is moral. it's not fair that a regular person should have to pay for poor people when the rich have excess. i realize the government only spends like ten percent on the working poor, and the rich more than pay for that with current progressive taxes. but social security and medicare involve a lot of subsidizing the poor so i can see rich taxes going higher. plus when the top one percent are getting fifty percent of new income, and everyone else is seeing stagnate or decreasing income, i would focus on the excess.
social security should b means tested against the rich

We shouldn't give higher income people a lower standard of living after retirement just because they are rich, that's dicrimination. A much better idea is to privatize Social Security, then it won't cost us a dime because everyone willl be left in charge of their own retirement. I would also like to point out that balancing the budget is a fiscal issue, not a National Security threat, and if you wanted to balance the budget, you simply abolish all of the unnecisary socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare that drive up the price of healthcare. Or welfare which destroys work incentives. We can also reform our education system to resemble finlands, thus spending only 5,000$ per child annualy like finland, reducing our education expenses by 67%, as well as giving our children a better education.
social security should b means tested against the rich

social security should be means tested against the rich a person making a hundred and fifty thousand dollars is in the ninety percentile of income. if we cut out benefits for the top ten percent, then, we'd be reducing the cost of social security by more than ten percent given theyd otherwise be getting much bigger than average payouts. cutting social security by ten fifteen or twenty percent would go a long way to balancing the budget. that is, if we cut the whole budget by thirteen percent, we'd balance the budget. i'm just arguing that social security shouldn't be exempt. balancing the budget is a national security issue, a major problem that needs fixed.
Scientism Is False

For the defintion of "Scientism" we will use The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought: "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society." Essentially, scientific testing is the sole path to truth.R1: Pre-debate remarks, check-in/acceptance from opponent.R2: Opening StatementsR3: 1st RebuttalsR4: 2nd Rebuttals/Conclusions
Prison sentences are't accurate

In the spirit of fairness, I will wait for my opponent to begin this debate by presenting his argument(s) since he is Pro. If my opponent forfeits the next round, I will present my case and ask that the full forfeit be considered when it comes time to vote. I do not wish this the case though and hope that we can engage in a spirited and well-thought out discussion. I will fully present my case in the final round and include any and all rebuttals in that round as well - should my opponent reply. I now respectfully give the floor back to my opponent in the hopes of a response.
The legalization of LSD

Since my opponent also did not respond to my counter-arguments-- we can also assume what he said also in the previous round... People canNOT abuse this drug dangerously. The effects of LSD are PREDICTABLE LSD doesn't cause major damage to the user's emotions BillNyeTheUsSpy is a great opponent and I hope I will debate with you again. LSD should be legalized because of the fact it releases pain, cures headaches-- and can prevent you from being an alcoholic.. What BillNyeTheUsSpy had said was that the effects are unpredictable, it causes major damage, and people can abuse this drug dangerously.. I ask the audience-- how can the effects be unpredictable if Con just stated what happens from LSD.. Another question, how can you abuse this drug dangerously when it's virtually impossible to overdose from LSD. Last question why isn't enlisting into the army illegal, if enlisting into the army might get you PTSD? For him not answering any of my rebuttals-- I urge the audience to vote Pro.. In conclusion, BillNyetheUsSpy-- your a great opponent and I hope I will debate with you again on some other topic in which you choose. May the winner win :)
The legalization of LSD

Excellent Michael! I will rebuttal in what Con had said. Rebuttal 1: LSD causes major damage to the user’s emotions. This argument can be the same about bullying. Bullying can damage emotionally to both adults and children. Something that will never happen with LSD—is for someone on LSD to kill one another, but bullying may. Take account of the Columbine High School Massacre in which two kids were bullied. The two kids opened fire in the school and injured/killed over 10 people—and then committed suicide. From this incident-- has bullying been illegal in all countries.. NO! The UK does not have any laws against bullying yet-- and bullying still happens resulting in suicide. In 1997, a young child named Kelly Yeomans overdosed off painkillers because of excessive bullying. I haven't heard of anyone commiting suicide from LSD from the sources I have read. Rebuttal 2: The effects of LSD are unpredictable Con had just contradicted itself.. If it’s unpredictable how would you know what will happen via overdosing from LSD, even though it’s unheard of so far. People who served in the Vietnam war have PTSD—known as Post Trauma Stress Disorder. PTSD can cause flashbacks — vivid, disturbing memories of the trauma — as well as sleep problems, nightmares and panic attacks. Should serving the war be illegal? PTSD also makes users experience flashbacks—flashbacks in which contain you being in the war with disturbing events.. It’s also said that PTSD makes it hard for them to tell the difference between a peaceful civilian and an enemy combatant. Rebuttal 3: People can abuse this drug dangerously I thank you for bringing up this claim.. As con had said quote, “If we legalized LSD, overdoses of this would happen..” That may be true, but then should we also make sleeping pills illegal? On April 12, 1987, Mike Von Erich—a famous professional wrestler left a suicide note for his family, then went to Lake Dallas, where he overdosed on the sleeping pill Placidyl and alcohol. This man overdosed via Placidyl—a well known sleeping pill. Other well known celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe—or William Cuppy have died via sleeping pills.. Have they outlawed sleeping pills? No they have not which brings me to the next rebuttal. LSD is first of all non-addictive. It estimates that a lethal overdose would have to be between 200 mg to 1000 mg which is unheard of in the medical books so far. Currently LSD is not known to cause brain damage—so I don’t know where Con came up with that conclusion in his 3rd argument. Until he shows me and the audience the source— it will be considered invalid.. Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... In conclusion, Con had stated good arguments—but part of it contradicts itself—and the other part is invalid—until he provides sources in his next round. Once again—I thank you for this amazing debate—for I have not have a good debate since ever. You can only rebuttal MICHAEL :)
The legalization of LSD

Definitions LSD : Pharmacology . a crystalline solid, C 20 H 25 N 3 O, the diethyl amide of lysergic acid, a powerful psychedelic drug that produces temporary hallucinations and a schizophrenic psychotic state. http://dictionary.reference.com... Legalize: to make legal; authorize http://dictionary.reference.com... OVERVIEW LSD was a drug well known for its psychological effects which can include altered thinking processes, closed and open eye visuals, synaesthesia, an altered sense of time and spiritual experiences, as well as for its key role in 1960s counterculture. LSD was able to let people think more creatively. EVIDENCE 1: LSD is useful for psychotherapy and alcoholism. LSD in the 1960s was commonly used as psychotherapy.. It was believed that it would help patients unblock repressed subconscious material via other psychotherapeutic methods. Some studies in the 1950s show that LSD has a 50% success rate for alcoholics not being an alcoholic—better than Alcoholic Anonymous at a 10% success rate. EVIDENCE 2: LSD can cure headaches “ It can be used to cure migraines and cluster headaches, it has a 45% success rate in curing alcoholism versus therapy's 12%, and therapists have had success in giving it to mental patients and taking it themselves to better understand schizophrenia.”Researchers believe that LSD can be used for curing headaches—something that 1 in 6 Americans have. It was proven that LSD can prevent future cluster headaches from occurring again. “A 2006 study by McLean researchers interviewed 53 cluster-headache sufferers who treated themselves with either LSD or psilocybin, finding that a majority of the users of either drug reported beneficial effects” EVIDENCE 3: It can release pain As seen on the TV show “House”—the painkiller, Vicodin, is a highly addictive drug. However LSD, can be a great substitute because it also alleviates pain. “Even at low (sub-psychedelic) dosages, it was found to be at least as effective as traditional opiates, while being much longer lasting in pain reduction (lasting as long as a week after peak effects had subsided)” Eric Kast—the person who was studying about this reported that patients weren’t feeling less pain—but rather being less distressed by pain. SOURCES http://www.coolove.org...; http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Good luck mate.
Ban Trade With China

If people have no job inflation doesnt matter. Can't afford anything."US image". The US is not a middle school student. We should look out for our own best interests, our image be damned.Equal rights is about US citizens and ppl who live here. It doesn't require us to treat every other country the same.I had to use creative spelling. How else can I argue effectively when the limit is 1000?Con attacks my use of Cuba as an analogy yet says we'd be violating China's 'equal rights' by denying trade with them. If Con's argument has any merit then that would mean we are already violating Cuba's "equal rights"."groups countries into two vagues groups of freedom of speech or not"I never used "freedom of speech". Also, I believe vagues should've been "vague". Guess Im not the only 1 with spelling problems. At least my arguments are a lot clearer than Con.I haven't limited my arguments to 2 categories. I listed many things above about what China is doing wrong for which they should be penalized.
Ban Trade With China

As a conclusion I'd like to review my main points:1. Banning trade increases inflation.2. The US image depends on our policy of free trade.3. Trading with China is part of equal rights treatments and is also shown in the Constitution. My opponent has forfeited a round and I'd truly like to discuss about trade a bit more. With what points Pro has provided I'd like to point out the major flaws in his argument.1. Spelling--Particularily in the 3rd round, Pro has provided a myriad of spelling and grammar errors as well as punctuation mistakes.2. Pro has completely ignored my arguments and only provided cross exchange for my rebuttals. Therefore conceding to all my points.3. Pro's logic falls in trading practices. He consistantly gives Cuba as an analogy to China although both are two separate entities. Also, Pro fails to distinguish different entities and groups countries into two vagues groups of freedom of speech or not which limits his arguments to two catagories.
Ban Trade With China

1. Inflation isnt a problem if people are making >$. Inflation can be tiny but if all jobs r overseas they cant make $ & the low inflation rate does no good. If we ban trade w/China > jobs will b in the US so ppl will have > chances 2 make >$ 2. Trade alters the economy for better /4 worse. It dont serve freedom 2 allow unlimited trade. The US should stop support 4 ‘free’ trade & instead support sensible trade policy based on the real needs of the times not limited 2 'free' trade 3. We already ban trade w/Cuba. Jefferson banned trade w/everbody. Noone argued it violated = rights. Each nation has a rite 2 its own trade policy&theres no right 2 trade w/an unwilling nation 4. Trade has encouraged economic change in China but it remains a dictatorship w/no rights 2 freedom of speech political repression & the largest number of executions in the world 5. Chinas prices r low bcause it treats its workers unfair. Trading with China supports their oppression
Ban Trade With China

Given that Pro has forfeited this round, I will give my rebuttals to his points. 1. Pro's first point actually supports me. The poor human rights record provides even more the reason to trade with China. As China merchants get richer, the border control and human right control have lessoned for more rights so trade can be more open. Therefore, we promote human rights through trade. 2. The reason why we trade with China is because its prices are low. The "unfair" practices lead to these low prices. Who will we trade with if we don't trade with China? It is not worth it to increase inflation and ruin the US economy for just the mere sense of "trade injustice" with China. Thus Pro's points are invalidated.
Ban Trade With China

There are 3 points that support why the US should not ban trade with China: 1. China has stood as the world's leading nations in trade and has helped lower inflation through trading down to a 7.5% rate after a recent peak. The US economy will be devastated if we stop trading with China and increase inflation. 2. The US has countless times stood for free trade. How can we deny trade to China in the face of our own image? Banning trade would hurt the US image and show our thinking to be of hypocrites. 3. Equal rights to all people denotes that to China too. The Constitution itself strives for equality towards all and that applies to China too. Banning trade would be discrimination towards the Chinese people. Sources: . http://tinyurl.com... . http://tinyurl.com... . http://export.gov... I leave it to Pro to give the BOP.