BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms

My opponent has failed to recognize that private schools have the right to institute their own rules, and do so without permission or thoughts from the parents. My opponent’s response to my arguments is similar, and mine will be also. My opponent entirely misses the point; he ignores the argument itself and instead responds with “that should be the decision of so-and-so.” By completely dodging the argument itself, he has essentially dropped the argument, and decided to argue something irrelevant to the topic at hand. The resolution isn’t that parents should have an active rule in making decisions with/for private schools. The resolution is that private schools should have school uniforms implemented. 1. Your response is irrelevant to my argument. I argued student equality and self-esteem in this section and you responded that patrons should be able to decide whether they send a student to a school that has uniforms. Implementing school uniforms institutes a controlled environment that helps take pressure off of children. 2. It doesn’t matter what the parents decide, or what the parents do about it. The fact remains that implementing school uniforms that free dress clothing is a potential distraction to students, and it’s a benefit to have that distraction removed via uniform implementation. 3. It is irrelevant what the parents and students want. This is a private school, and private schools have the sole power over any rules they decide to implement. Implementing uniforms eliminates a variable that is prone to bullying, which can therefore reduce bullying and victims. If bullying continues this time focused on a different variable, the problem lies within the bullies themselves and not any variables that are prone to being victim by bullies. At that point, schools should take action to eliminate bullying itself. In addition, your argument doesn’t even apply to how uniforms provide a sense of community, which is psychologically beneficial to students. 4. I am arguing that it is worth it, and that this is one of the several benefits uniforms provide. All of these benefits provide justification that schools implement school uniforms. 5. Same as three. 6. Again, it does not matter what families think; private schools exercise the sole power to implement any rules they want. You did not respond to the argument itself, and have therefore dropped the argument. 7. Again, its not about what parents think. The Long Beach study had every student in the district wear uniforms for years. This means that schools of all sorts had to have their students wear uniforms. Other than that, you have done nothing to refute the statistics I have presented showing that uniforms help to prevent student behavioral problems. This debate isn’t about what families think they need for their children; it is about private schools implementing a policy that is overall good for the well being of students as a whole. Private schools have the right to institute many rules that public schools cannot, including the ability to implement school uniforms.
Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms

1. The patrons of private schools should be the ones to decide if they want to send their students to a school with uniforms or to a school without these uniforms so their children can learn to handle peer pressure in a controlled environment. 2. Parents should be able to judge if their child is having trouble focusing and is likely to be distracted by clothing. 3. Parents and their children should have the right to decide if they want to implement this band-aid solution to bullying or not. 4. Parents and school staff should be able to the safety benefits of uniforms are worth it. 5. See number 3 6. This is the most ridiculous claim I"ve ever read. Regardless, the patron families should decide for themselves if that"s a valid concern or not. 7. Again, risk management should be up to the parents to assess. As a side note, I will say that uniforms are more commonly found in higher SES schools, so any correlation between uniforms and benefits that might be due to being a nicer school in general should be studied in a controlled, longitudinal manner. There are neighborhoods where gang violence is a problem and neighborhoods where it"s not. It seems silly to use a blanket solution for a wide variety of neighborhoods where the families living in them are most capable of diagnosing what they need and what they don"t. The nature of a private institution is one in which it can decide for itself what its policies are, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Lying/Cheating is Always Morally Unacceptable

The argument revolves around whether it is morally right or wrong to lie/cheat. I concede there are times when you can justify the use of lying/cheating. Just like there are times when you can justify the use of killing ie. self defense or stealing ie. starving and about to die. That does not change the fact that the act itself is still morally wrong. If it weren't, why would you need to justify it based on the circumstances? It is an inevitable part of human nature but that's with the idea of fighting against it (at least for most people). We lie and cheat even though we think it's wrong. What would happen if we thought it were morally permissible in all situations to lie/cheat? Trust, a foundation for many civilized societies, would be lost and getting even the simplest task accomplished involving two people would be near impossible. You can trust people with the assumption that they will find lying/cheating morally wrong and will make an attempt to be honest and good.
Should we only eat healthy food

Pro's position is that we (you, Pro, and I) should never eat unhealthy food. If you ever have a choice between eating unhealthy food and not eating, then you should not eat, according to Pro. You should wait until healthy food is available.(I assume "unhealthy food" refers to food with significantly less nutritional value--vitamins, minerals, protein, etc.--per calorie than other foods.)I contradict that by arguing that hunger is worse than consuming a few empty calories. If you are hungry and all you have available is processed food (e.g. a candy bar), then you should eat it. Hunger is your body's way of telling you that you need energy [1]. Denying your body the energy it needs is unhealthy. And it is sometimes worse than unhealthy. When we are low on energy, we can get grumpy, inattentive, and drowsy. That affects other people. For example, drowsy driving causes thousands of accidents per year [2].If healthy eating is really important to you, then just eat enough empty calories to tide you over.Sources[1] http://www.csun.edu...[2] http://www.nhtsa.gov...
Animal testing should be banned.

My opponent does not contend the point that animal testing is the cause of unspeakable cruelty and also admits to lack of regulations in regards to the testing that is performed. This further highlights the fact that this process is not only archaic, but barbaric as well.My opponent mentions the use of animal testing in regards to treatment of the polio virus. However, as stated in my previous argument, an overwhelming majority (92%) of pharmaceutical drugs that pass animal tests are deemed unsafe for humans. The polio virus vaccination was one of the 8%--an outlier case, if you will. The ineffectiveness of these drugs cannot be stressed enough. 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs deemed safe in animal tests; the drug Vioxx was proven to protect the hearts of mice, dogs, and monkeys, but led to heart attacks and strokes in 146,000 humans; a scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Science found the animal tests and human results agreed a mere 5%-25% of the time.[1] Even if, hypothetically, animal testing did not entail cruelty and suffering for the lab animals, a method of testing so inaccurate cannot be continued for the health of humans around the world.Animal testing is incredibly costly. Up to $14.5 billion a year is spent on animal testing.[2] One human patient simulator costs $50,000.[3] It would take 290,000 human patient simulators (all of which can be used far more than once) to equal the cost of animal testing.In conclusion, there is absolutely no valid reason to continue the practice of animal testing. Animal testing is costly, ineffective, and above all, cruel. Humans have no right, God-given or otherwise, to inflict pain upon another living creature--animals included. A dog has the intelligence of a two-year-old child,[4] and we would never allow a two-year-old child to undergo such inhumane and appalling test procedures. Thank you to my opponent for participating in this debate!Sources [1] http://www.peta2.com... [2] http://dailycaller.com... [3] http://www.nursezone.com... [4] http://www.livescience.com...
Animal testing should be banned.

Just to start I want to first I'm playing devils advocate to this debate. I do not agree with animal testing, but for the same of debate I will try my best. Animal testing has many pitfalls concerning cruelty and the lack of regulations applied to this research. These applications have also a positive effect as far as human applications and animal applications. Applications such as better animal medications administered to ensure our pets longevity. Pets are one thing having these research trials have advanced the field of medicine in the most profound ways, mankind's advancement in these fields have opted for a new age of medical breakthroughs. For instance, without animal testing the polio virus would still be a huge problem. Now over 90 percent of individuals diagnosed with this, gain immunity after 3 applications of the vaccine. Research through animal testing also has a positive light in the area of financing, the animals involved, for example mice, easily breed in a controlled environment are a valuable resource financially. To be able to test on human candidates the cost would be exponential, not to mention the blow back. Testing on animals is a textbook case of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. In closing I'd like to remind readers that this is strictly a debate my own personal ethics and morality differ from the text above. This is a cruelty nonetheless. I'm essentially pointing out the benefits with animal testing. http://www.philforhumanity.com... http://polio.emedtv.com... http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk...
homework should be banned

My opponent has not shown how the second is the case (happier and less tired). Thus, I can dismiss this without without evidence. On the first part, I will accept this (although I could still dismiss it without evidence if I wanted to), but Pro has not given any reasons WHY it should be banned on this line of reasoning.If stress = justification for banning, then you can ban sports, school as a whole, exams, work etc...Stress is a part of life (even if it is not welcome) and homework, while often stressful, can give students confidence for exams, allow them to practise the areas that they couldn't in class, show to the teacher that they've understood etc... The resolution is negated.Back to Pro!(P.S. Here an interesting read as to why homework is good, although it is a little flash: http://blog.eskool.ca...)
Death penalty

Opening Arguments : The system of law and order is all about justice but where do draw the line to were we become the very evil we wish to destroy. Murder is murder and capital punishment is just that murder, simple to just kill killers but what does that make you? It makes you a killer but with public opinion on your side and a notion of justice which isn't the case. Why is it that America holds a sanctity for life, and yet kill people for killing people how does that make sense its hypocritical. Case: 1. The death penalty can and has killed innocent people, the government has killed innocents making it murder. Under the death penalty rules technically all the people in the cases with innocent people killed should themselves be put on trial and killed. However it doesn't work that way, the accused is the only one getting blamed for a crime and if innocent but proven guilty will get the death penalty but then proven innocent after the sentence has already been carried out the government just goes oops sorry. 2. Death penalty cost more than life in prison without parole. Evidence : Dudley Sharp, Death Penalty Resources Director of Justice For All (JFA), in an Oct. 1, 1997 Justice for All presentation titled "Death Penalty and Sentencing Information," wrote: "Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP." I await response...
Judicial Activism

"LEGAL JUSTICE" is justice (1) according to the applicable law, AND (2) within the limits of the applicable law". === my point on legal justice still stands because this debate is about a judges so called right to act above the law. not them acting within the laws. ==="Thus, I argue that a judges DUTY is to "establish justice" namely, LEGAL JUSTICE, in each particular case. " I am glad my opponent admits that only legal justice is granted. { he has unwittingly forfeited this debate by saying only justice within the law is permitted. } ==="Finally, regarding "imposing justice," courts (acting through judges) technically do not impose justice. They decide cases according to, and within, the law that is applicable to the particular case. If the case is decided without any errors of law, the result is considered as constituting LEGAL JUSTICE. "=== I am glad pro changed his mind that it is not a judges job to impose justice outside the law { if my opponent changed his mind on the resolution why would you not vote con} ==="The law that you cite and rely upon does not apply for another reason. It is federal law. But, the case involved in the above example was an actual case in Minnesota. Therefore, only Minnesota law on defenses to crimes applies. "=== unfortunately my opponent does not realize hat federal law has jurisdiction over state law. ==="Unless you can provide psychological or psychiatric evidence that a mental deficiency (retardation) constitutes a recognized "mental illness, I contend that the defense that you cite, namely, . http://uscode.law.cornell.edu...... , does not apply, and is , therefore, not available to, the defendant in my set forth example just above. "=== normally I would prove this but my opponent has already found it for me. ==="No person shall be tried, sentenced, or punished for any crime while mentally ill or MENTALLY DEFICIENT so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or making a defense"=== so in pro's own quote he admits that mental illness, and mental deficiency s are both covered under that law. now my opponent leaves me with the following burdens of proof ! mental deficiency is caused by metal illness, if you have a mental illness than you are mentally deficient 2nd my opponent already gave the quote. {found above} pro goes back to his original example that has already been disputed. my opponent has given no examples were a judge should act above the law. pro gave two thing I must do to win this debate I answered both of them therefore I must claim victory
Judicial Activism

I would like to thank my opponent for his rebuttal I would like to assert that pro's clarification of his resolution is still "a judge has the inherent authority to not follow the law". to make this an easier debate for my opponent I think the best fix is to simply change "not follow the law" too "not follow a specific law." this seams to be a fair trade from your original resolution and the new one you posed in the second round. ==="LEGAL JUSTICE is justice according to the law." this argument is irrelevant because it is a judge acting within the laws. my opponent claims it is the judicial branches job to impose justice. I would like to know were in the constitution does it state that it is a judges job to impose justice. ==="The example DOES NOT state that the defendant was mentally ill. It states that he was retarded. 'Mental illness' and mental 'retardation' are not the same kind of mental impairment. Therefore, a 'mental illness' DEFENSE cannot be asserted by the defendant. The law that you cite does not apply in the case." my opponent seems to have misread that article because it states "the defendant, as a result of a severe mental DISEASE or DEFECT, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts." {I would like apologist for the use the term retard I now it is an outdated description of that disease} mental retardation is both a disease and a defect so it is a valid defense. "a SPECIFIC law indubitably apples to the case. But if the judge applies that law in the case, the result will be OUTRAGEOUS and UNCONSCIONABLE for either one or both of the parties." I challenge my opponent to find any such instance were this has happened, or an instance were following the law would result in such an act.{please no cases that have already been overturned}
Judicial Activism

to clarify our positions in this debate and please correct me if I am wrong pro is trying to show that a judge "has the inherent authority to not follow the law" con is trying to show that statement to be incorrect my opponent tries to show this to be true in two ways first he states that "it is impossible for the lawmaker to enact laws that will cover all the possible cases that can arise in society." what he fails to see is that if congress does not pass a law agents something than it is not illegal. It is not the judicial branches job to impose justice. it s there job to interpret the laws of congress or to deem them unconstitutional. second now to my opponents example of the mentally ill person charged with burglary, and aggravated assault. he seems to have forgotten that insanity is a valid defense against a crime so the judge did in fact follow the law. (a) Affirmative Defense.ï¿½€" It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. http://uscode.law.cornell.edu...
Multivitamins are Getting in the Brains

Multivitamins are getting into the brains. And once they are in there they will never come out. This is a government conspiracy or maybe aliens or bigfoot. Either way it doesn't matter, we are done for. They say, here take these vitamins, we'll put them in kit kat bars or Captian Crunch. But that is only the beginning. Then they give them a name of the alphabet but they aren't in the dictionary so which is which? I am sure that you have guessed by now where I'm going with this.
Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports

1) Steroids further human achievement and comparisons between human achievements in different eras are moot since the rules change so much. Steroids do further human achievement in sports. But at what cost? What is the purpose of competiting in sports in the first place? Steroids have many negative adverse affects physically (shrunken testicles, acne . . .) and mentally (aggression, violence . . .). The purpose of competing in sports is to use skill, knowledge, and physical investment as a way of competing with others. If we allow sterioids, the best players will only be those people who have cutting edge steroids. Also, it sends a message to kids growing up that they should abandon the values of fair play and seek to better themselves by finding the latest substance.2) The sports benefit economically by allowing performance-enhancing drugs. Someone lived to 122 yeard old, a feat only possible by having new, not primitive technology. The media craze didn't know at the time of their steroid use. Solving a huge math problem but always turning around and using a hidden calculator before turning back around to reveal the answer is much more impressive if people didn't know you had the calculator. People's fascination with sports would die out if they knew everyone was hyped up on steroids because it encourages unfair competition (only those who have the best, newest juice will have the benefits). In response to the analogy, living to 122 years old by having newer technology is a good thing - because there are not the same negatives associated with increasing the maximum livable age opposed to the negatives with steroid use (physical and mental side-effects) as well as the effects it would have on the spirit of the game.Baseball has a lot of steroid use. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records. This is a false correlation. Nobody watches the sport just because its most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Otherwise everyone would watch WWE. 2,000 char limit
Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports

I contend that professional sports leagues should legalize steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I understand that this position may initially be considered blasphemy, but there are multiple reasons that leagues should legalize performance-enhancing drugs. First of all, throughout history, humans have been trying to stretch the limits of what is possible. This includes through the use of any available technology. The fact that humans cannot physically fly did not stop the Wright Brothers from building the first airplane. Yes, legalized use of steroids would create frequent changes in the record books, but those are all part of human achievement. Furthermore, comparisons between eras are already moot, considering the differences between the rules of today and those of 50 or 100 years ago. Also, it benefits the sports economically to allow performance-enhancing drugs. In 1999, when Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire both broke Roger Maris's single-season home run record, interest in baseball soared. Many casual fans found their accomplishments fascinating, as those men were going to a place no human had been before. A comparable analogy would be when the oldest person ever, Jeanne Calment of France, died at the age of 122 years. She would never have been able to live that long with primitive technology, but people were fascinated by her shattering the record (no other human has even lived to 120). Why should a different standard be applied to sports? Baseball was always the sport most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records. Today, players normally are caught and suspended when they take other performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, there is less opportunity to have the excitement of breaking records. Consequently, baseball's ratings have slipped in a time where football and basketball are basking in rising ratings relative to the average TV show. Thus, steroids should be legal in sports.