BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.

Let's look at your rebuttals. "2. There's already a fund for the body cameras." Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. "3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie." Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. "4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game." The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. "5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance
Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.

1. No, don't even go there with the stupid logical fallacies, I can't **Flashback** This guy attacked me on here saying that all I used was logical fallacies... I'm going to ignore that. 2. There's already a fund for the body cameras. 3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie. 4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game. 5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves? I can't break down and analyze your argument at a cellular level because I'm a full- time college student, so sorry for the short responses.
Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.

You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.
Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.

Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case. Value: She has no value what so ever, which adds on. Contention 1: "Body cameras can help an investigation" As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, "Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies." As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer. Let's look at her next contention:"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie." Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony. So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras. So by what's obvious today, vote Con! `TheResistance
Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.

Today as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance
Milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate

My opponent starts off by saying that he didn"t say that both can help lose weight, and i never said he said that. What I said is that my opponent brought up the calorie point because of it"s weight correspondence, therefore I said that not everyone is trying to lose weight. So this basically made his argument about Dark chocolate has more calories therefore milk chocolate is better, useless. It is futile to say that both milk and dark chocolate can do something while trying to prove one of them is better. My second point is that they"re both artificial things thus bad for health. Therefore they both cancel out. Fourth, if Hershey's chocolate has whatever problem, we can still eat other brands of milk chocolate. " Well in that case then this applies to dark chocolate as well. There are different types of chocolate that exclude the points that my opponent has made. If my opponent doesn"t let me use other brands, then this is a double standard.
Milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate

First, I said that dark chocolate has more calories but I didn't said BOTH can help lose weight. Second, I didn't said that milk chocolate has no artificial flavors, I only said that dark chocolate has more artificial COLORS than milk chocolate. Third, you can't only use Hershey's chocolate to compare because there are many different kinds or brands of milk chocolate. Fourth, if Hershey's chocolate has whatever problem, we can still eat other brands of milk chocolate. You can't make a judgement or decision or comment based on limited information.
Milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate

First, I would like evidence for the statement that almost all children in the world don't like bitter. Secondly, there are more than just children in the world, adults count. Then my opponent assumes that because someone is overweight, that they want to lose weight. Milk chocolate isn't better for someone who is overweight and not trying to lose weight, in fact someone may be trying to gain even more weight. "As you can see, Hershey"s Candy Coated Milk Chocolate is a composition of 29/43 x 100 ~ 70% sugar by WEIGHT plus some milk and chocolate modified with a bunch of emulsifiers, starches, waxes and artificial flavors." Milk chocolate also has artificial flavors. Extend my age argument. http://www.dyediet.com...
Milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate

-Almost all the children in this world don't like bitter, my opponent is children, but not those adults who are drinking black coffee and don't put sugar in it. -There're about 1/4 people in this world is overweighted, so I suggest those overweighted people don't eat dark chocolate. But overall milk chocolate tastes better than dark chocolate.-Dark chocolate contains more artificial colors than milk chocolate. This is why the color of dark chocolate is darker than milk chocolate. And artificial colors are harmful to everyone no matter what body conditions they are.
Milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate

"Dark chocolate is bitter than milk chocolate. It contains more cocoa than milk chocolate. Many children don't like food that is bitter." My opponent's point is that milk chocolate is better because it's not as bitter as dark chocolate, but it's subjective whether something tastes better if it's bitter or not. For example, I drink my coffee black, even though it is not as sweet as putting anything in. Therefore something being bitter may appeal to someone as better. Dark chocolate has more calories, fat than milk chocolate, and milk chocolate has more calcium than dark chocolate. Well yes that's true, but this depends on where you are at, and what I mean by this is that something having more calories may be good for an anorexic, and something having more calcium may be bad for someone who has too much calcium. Therefore it depends on the person's current situation. However dark chocolate does make someone age less.
It is reasonable to believe that God doesn't exist

CONCLUSION My opponent has forfeited the forth round and possibly may never return to the site. This is why I must add now... IF YOU VOTE BOMB ME SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE A THEIST, IT ONLY PROVES THAT YOU ARE A SIMPLETON. It's clear that, in this particular case, Atheism wins over Theism. I'll summorise anyway: Argument for Scripture: My main point here was that Scripture can't be looked at as strong evidence. If my opponent had supplied any third-party sources which verified Biblical accounts, I could concede this point, but he didn't. The basis of his argument was that there is evidence that some parts of the Bible are true, therefore we should assume it's all true. This is obvious fallacious. Argument from Morality: My main point here was that Objective Morality (Absolute Morality) would condemn otherwise good people to Hell, simply because they had to act immorally to survive or to protect their loved ones. My opponent was unable to refute this. Argument from Ignorance: My main point here was that we don't NEED God to explain, well, anything. The position of "I don't know" is much more reasonable. Since I don't know, the obvious default position is to believe that God DOESN'T exist. Argument from Faith: Finally, I added this on to the end to try and give my opponent a bit of insight into our respective positions. I've never believed in God, thus I've never had any faith to then found any speculation about the existence of God on. Since nothing in my life has happened to convince me otherwise, it is reasonable for me to not believe in God. The resolution has been proven. VOTE Pro. PS: If anyone wants to debate this same resolution or any of the individual points I made, send me a PM.
It is reasonable to believe that God doesn't exist

Obvious resolution is obvious. In my humble opinion, the God/s of the Monotheistic Abrahamic religions doesn't/don't exist. I will argue that this position is more reasonable than the belief in God. My opponent, whoever it is, will argue that believing in God is the more reasonable position. They will NOT argue that Agnosticism is more reasonable than Atheism. My opponent will NOT post any argument in round one, they will simply accept and add any information they think needs to be added. I will begin the debate in round two with my opening argument. IMPORTANT NOTE: Please, if you're going to vote for this debate, please leave your Reason for Decision, detailing why you gave your points the way you did. REMEMBER: Every time you vote-bomb an Atheist, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens! (This line doesn't constitute me actually believing in God. It is obvious sarcasm. Take a conduct point if you want.)
Vanilla ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the Beat for Queen"s (Under presure)

Using my opponent's link as my own source, it states "...Vanilla Ice agreed to pay Queen and Bowie a settlement"Something cannot be stolen if it was paid for, the negation of the resolution is within Pro's "proof". The resolution and Pro's entire debate session did not specify the technicalities. Had the resolution been " The beat for ice ice baby was SAMPLED from Under pressure" or "AT FIRST, the beat for Ice Ice Baby was stolen from Under pressure" then my opponent would have a more binding case. Since that is not the situation, with pro's introduction of songfacts.com, he negated himself. Vote CON. Thank you.
Vanilla ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the Beat for Queen"s (Under presure)

Rebuttals 1. "Please listen to the videos you have listed and listen to the bass line, they are clearly the same. The only thing different is that Vanilla Ice adds one more beat/bass. That is why I brought up joining a band and adding notes"Did I argue that they were not the same? No. They are clearly the same, without doubt, but Pro's resolution was not that the beat of "Ice Ice Baby" and "Under pressure" are the same. His resolution was that the beat was stolen from "Under Pressure". With that in mind, my opponent has yet to disprove or negate both my contentions of the "same-beat" prevalence, and the ownership of song in WHOLE, not in part. Therefore I extend both contentions to the third round. 2. "Also as pro Alisha Keys and Black eyed peas have nothing to do with this debate"I mentioned Alicia Keys and the Black eyed Peas because they both have songs with the exact same beat. (refer to Videos 1 and 2) I admit that the debate has nothing to do with them, but I used them to show the prevalence of "same-beats" in modern music and give Pro an idea of the amount of artists that would be thieves under his accusation. I used it to form the point that having the same beat in modern times is commonplace and does not automatically imply that it was copied or stolen. The mention of Alicia Keys and the Black Eyed Peas, though irrelevant when isolated, returned to relevance when it formed that contention. My opponent's mentioning of his joining a band led to no substantial contention or proof. Therefore, his attempt to denounce my comparison like I denounced his is without merit, given the different situations. I hold that my opponent has failed to refute either contention from round two, so again, I extend. 1) "Same beats" are commonplace in modern times often by chance. My opponent, having the burden of proof, would need an argument more substantial than that to fulfill his burden. 2) A song in WHOLE is what is owned, meaning the lyrics, the key signature, the melody, and all. If a small PART of one song appears in another song, maybe a swift excerpt from the melody or in this case the beat, the ownership does not exist. Hence the beat is not "STOLEN" since no one owned it. If my opponent has objections to this, I would like him to explain why all artists who reuse beats do not simply GET SUED. The only situation under which a beat can POSSIBLY be owned is when the beat is created independently of a song and sold. The patent on "Under Pressure" applies to the song in WHOLE because a whole song was created and then patented. Ripping off parts of songs, unless any of those parts are specifically under patent, unfortunately, is not only legal, but widely accepted and commonplace. Hence it is not thievery, and therefore, Ice Ice Baby did not steal anything ( steal implying that the object in question was owned to begin with). http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Vanilla ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the Beat for Queen"s (Under presure)

As pro I should say bringing up joining a band and Stairway to heaven was only an example of what my argument is. Please listen to the videos you have listed and listen to the bass line, they are clearly the same. The only thing different is that Vanilla Ice adds one more beat/bass. That is why I brought up joining a band and adding notes. Also as pro Alisha Keys and Black eyed peas have nothing to do with this debate. -Beast
Vanilla ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the Beat for Queen"s (Under presure)

My opponents resolution was that Vanilla Ice did steal the beat. His only support for the second round was highly irrelevant and proved and supported nothing:"My argument as pro is tht if I were in a band and I wanted to get popular I could easily put a few extra notes in to Led Zeppelin (Stair way to heaven) and call it my own."There is no need for negation to the quote above simply because the debate has nothing to do with my opponent joining a band, nor does it involve "Stair way to heaven." Now, Pro has the burden of proof, and my responsibility is to negate. So, if he cannot fulfill his obligation to provide proof to his claim, then I win by default. Evidence againstSteal: " take something without permission" [1]1. The world of popular modern music is without pure originality. When one finds two pieces with the same beat, far be it from him to assume that the beat was stolen. I will name a few popular songs with the exact same beat.a. Alicia Keys's "No One" & Black Eyed Peas's "Where is the Love"b. Second example is Video 1 http://www.youtube.com...Having the same beat is simply not enough evidence to prove that a beat was stolen, the prevalence of "same-beats" in modern music is so high, that pro would be suggesting that most artists are theives. I refer to my previous definition of steal. No where in the dictionary is steal described as "replication by chance".2. Furthermore, in order for the beat to be stolen, Pro must prove first that the beat was the property of Queen in the first place. According to a source on music copyrights, it is the song in whole that is under sole ownership by the artist, not the song in part. [2] A beat is merely a part of a song, a rhythmic pattern. Having people own rhythmic patterns is unheard of. Unless "Ice ice baby" in WHOLE is the same or dangerously similar to "Under Pressure" in WHOLE: lyrics, key signature, tempo, melody and all, then nothing is stolen. I will show you that the two songs in question have VERY different melodies and lyrics. Therefore:a. they are not similar or the same ( in WHOLE) B. so nothing was truely stolen. The beat is not owned. 1. proof is in Video 2 and Video 3 http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...SOURCES [1] http://thesaurus.com...[2]http://www.copyrightauthority.com...
Gun Control

Yea you'll want to put "Gun Ban" as the topic with you as con or something along those lines. There are tons of people out there who unironically say no gun control should exist while also saying mentally disturbed individuals are doing all the school shootings. I had assumed you were one of these. More or less you just have to concede and we'll end it quick. Just make a new post for gun bans if that's what you want to talk about. Alternatively, If you think ALL weaponry shouldn't be banned, I. E. Cannons, RPGs, Flamethrowers, Et cetera we can continue with that. There's a big question on where you draw the line with which guns the people should be allowed and which they should not. Are you wanting to defend people's rights to own grenade launchers/flamethrowers/tanks et cetera?
Gun Control

So let me first start off by saying I think gun control is idiotic. Guns have been a heavily debated topic for many years. Many people on the left start to spew out nonsense whenever they talk about gun control. Let me say the thing most people on the right say, Guns don't kill people, People kill people. It's not the guns fault. It's the mentally insane we are talking about. I will hold off on my arguments for now and I would like someone to actually give me a valid argument.
Is the Quran a peaceful book

I have limited time, so I will make this argument a bit short,You forgot to source your arguments, but nevertheless I will continue:Rebuttals: "Or else, similarly, the US Constitution by protecting the right of the individual to bear arms sanctions violence, regardless if this violence is justifiable or not, & therefore, according to your line of reasoning, the US Constitution is violent. " The US constitution, by protecting the individual right to bear arms, protects the rights of the people. It does not promote violence. The Quran says ""Fighting is prescribed for you..." which encourages violence, while the constitution states all people have a right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is not a call to war like many passages in the Quran-it is for your own protection and enjoyment (hunting animals). However it does have legal bounds (no murder, injury, unless defending yourself etc.). The Quran's verses have no legal bounds, you are encouraged to kill:"And kill them (those who fight you) wherever you overtake them""but if they fight you, slay them."while the constitution and the law of the land makes murder illegal. Not quite sure why you compared the constitution with the Quran, because they are not at all like each other."The Prophet said: "Do not wish to face the enemy, but when you face the enemy, be patient (and brave)” [ ^Bukhari #3026 ]"While this in one sense may be a certain side of Mohammed (I assume that is who you mean by "the prophet"), however he had a much more violent nature later in life:"Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam."How is the Quran at all peaceful? It talks of slaughter, pillage, and "honor killings".I am not at all sure that anyone can come to the conclusion that the Quran is a peaceful book. Sorry for a limited argument, but I wish you good luck! http://www.thereligionofpeace.com......