BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abolishment of Veto Power

As Con, I am debating that veto power should not be abolished. Veto power refers to a privilege held by the five permanent members in the United Nations Security Council that allows them to prevent any substantiated resolutions from being adopted. The 5 permanent members are the following: USA, UK, Russia, China and France. My arguments for this round are related to the establishment of the power to veto. After the World War II, the United Nations were formed in the 1945 with approximately 50 member states. Veto power was given to these five members because of their key roles in the establishment of the United Nations, would continue to play important roles in the maintenance of international peace and security. [1] It was used as one of the incentives for some of the most powerful countries to join and support the United Nations. This veto power is crucial in the status of the contemporary UN as it provided the countries a reason to join. As seen in the failure of the League of Nations, the United Nations would have failed had United States or Russia (then USSR) refused to acknowledge the UN. Simply withdrawing these privileges are unacceptable because a) it would definitely undermine the contribution of the permanent members, which are some of the strongest nations in many aspects (military, economy, political influence, etc. ) b) it is morally wrong to take away powers specially given to the nations and c) the resolution to reform veto power will absolutely not be passed. I apologize for the terrible sign-posting on my argument and I await Pro's response.
Domestic Infastructue

I agree with the need for improved public safety, but I do not think the government can properly provide it. It has a horrendous record -- as you've demonstrated above -- at doing so. The government is in charge of these "domestic infrastructure checkups" now. We see how successful they have been. How often do you hear about a private establishment, such as a theme park, shopping mall, or stadium, having a big safety crisis? It is very rare, because in the event that a private establishment neglects to maintain its customers' safety, there are costs. Not only can injured parties and their families sue for damages, but future business is significantly hamstrung. Thus, private operators have a great incentive to keep people safe, while the government and its bureaucrats has no such incentive. In fact, government bureaucrats actually have a disincentive! That's because many people think like you: That if there is a problem, more taxpayer money should be thrown at it. The government doesn't have to worry about a loss of business or lawsuits. The more crises there are, the more money it can squeeze from taxpayers. Therefore, it is my contention that for public safety, as much public property as possible should be privatized in the most orderly fashion possible. And when I say "privatized" I do not mean a cozy business-government handout system as with Enron and Haliburton, etc. -- I mean the government should sell off its property to private businesses, who would then be fully responsible for maintenance and would face lawsuits and lost business if they failed to protect users' safety. The funds acquired through the sale of federal-government assets should be applied to retiring the national debt; the funds acquired through the sale of state assets should be refunded directly to the taxpayers that have subsidized the public property for all these years. For the reasons stated, I believe this to not only be the most fiscally sound policy, but also the one that would promote the greatest level of public safety. Thank you!
Domestic Infastructue

I am affirmative of having more and more quantitative domestic infrastructure check-ups paid for by the United States Federal Government. The Minneapolis bridge collapse killed 13, injured 60 and cost the government millions that they could have saved if these check-ups were being done. This also goes for the levies in New Orleans. The infastructure is crumbling and the government has to do something about it before, like in Minneapolis, New Orleans and many other places, it is too late.
Domestic Infastructue

I have presented sound arguments for private ownership and control in order to improve public safety. These arguments are premised on the self-evident truth that private owners maximize the utility of their property -- i.e. profit seeking. Private owners would be subject to lawsuits and loss of business if they endangered the public. Government agencies, on the other hand, get more money and more authority whenever they fail, because their "failure" is always attributed to lack of adequate funding. Increased "domestic infrastructure," funded and controlled by the government, would thereby -- according to my logic -- decrease public safety. It is my opponent's job to point out the fallacy of my logic wherever it exists. But unfortunately, my opponent appears to have left the debate. Hopefully he will re-emerge for Round 3.
Are children smarter because of the internet

I am yet to see a single one of the incomplete tasks be achieved. Even the '12 and under' age group was challenged by Pro in the last round.This has been a shambles on Pro's part and decimating the flawed arguments were simply yet another step on my road to greatness.Without further ado, I leave my opponent powerless to thwart me, incapable of escaping the fate of their humiliating defeat.It was a good fight, Pro, but jus tlike all great things this has to come to an end and it is indeed here.
Are children smarter because of the internet

children are not going to school as much as they use to ( <https://www.census.gov...; 74% Percentage of children 3 to 6 enrolled in kindergarten who attended all day, as of October 2009). Children are like sponges like i said in the beginning. They see information and read it and learn it faster than adults can ( http://edlab.tc.columbia.edu...) As a kid in my experience when an adult said a word that sounded big. I started to say that word over and over. I dont think there way to test if children is smarter because of the internet but I know for a fact children learn faster than adults. I know teenagers didnt fit in my 12 and under group i was just saying in general kids ( including teenagers ) are not going to school like there use to.
Are children smarter because of the internet

"Young teenagers and children are not going to school as much as they use to"This is false. Based on no evidence at all and also teenagers do not fit your age group of 12 and under.IT1 is nonsense and still incomplete. Your test has not been done and thus no results have been gained to prove this resolution true.IT3 (defining "Internet") still incomplete.No new points permitted in final round, only retiteration and rebuttals.
Are children smarter because of the internet

IT 1 ANSWERED: Measuring how smart children are is difficult but there is a way. Voluntary children are put in a lock room and gets a test. Then they will receive a smart device with internet and will be left in that room for a couple of months. After the time period the children will receive the same test and all the test will be averaged up to see if there test scores where any higher then the last test scores. IT 2 ANSWERED: To my opinion 12 and under. IT 3 UNANSWERED: IT 4 ANSWERED: Young teenagers and children are not going to school as much as they use too so how are they getting smarter even without the internet. 3 task answered Con what your opinion on "Are children smarter because of the internet"
Are children smarter because of the internet

Incomplete task (IT) 1: Pro has to supply an objective way to measure how smart children are. IT2: What age range are children? IT3: What precisely is the Internet as opposed to things linked to it? IT4: If there has been an increase in intelligence in children since the Internet, was this increase not already occurring prior to it, what evidence is there to ascertain causation as opposed to uncaused correlation? Four tasks, two rounds the latter can have no new points raised. Can Pro make their BoP? Time will tell...
Are children smarter because of the internet

How often do you us the internet? Well if you use the internet a lot you can be smarter than you think. Children has been shaped by the internet effecting their communication, play, and their learning. Homework, Exams, tutoring, tutoring videos, educational videos, "how-to" videos, step-by-step instructions on things that we find difficult to accomplish. Well thanks to the internet anything you need is all around you. Children are like sponges. The internet will spit every type of information it gets on a topic and show you what you need to know about it. When the internet spits all this information children look at the information they are looking up and soak it in. There is a saying that "Teach your child to hold his tongue; he"ll learn fast enough to speak (Benjamin Franklin)."
9/11 was moral

Morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. According to this definition morality is individual and is therefore different to everybody. In 9/11 the bombers thought that what they were doing was moral and was in the name of God (you cannot argue for the hoax theory because that would bring us off topic). Since 9/11 is considered moral to them and they were the ones doing the action that only means that 9/11 was moral in their eyes and therefore 9/11 was moral. You cannot say that it's not because that would be a personal opinion and that is not enough evidence against my claim. My claim is true because it is a well known fact that it was done in the name of God. Which means that logic tells us that they thought that it was moral.
Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

Let's take a look at my opponent's opening statement. She makes a very important point about the resolution being a "universal claim." Even if one accepts the frame work that my opponent has provided, that even one example could some how unravel my logic, we see that the ONE example that she has provided does not even fall under the resolution because it fails to fall under either opponents definition. My opponent provided Radiohead as an example stating, "Radiohead allowed people to download the album free of charge". Legality of obtaining music, is not so concerned with a transaction occurring, so much as it is about authors consent to their music being downloaded for free. Some authors allow this. In those instances it is perfectly legal. In this light, the sole example that my opponent provided to support her premise is completely off topic. With no support for her case her position falls and you must look to the affirmative. Moving on to my arguments... On my first point she points out that due to technological advances artists are in part allowing themselves to be hurt. However, this doesn't make sense. Just because we don't listen to music on record players anymore doesn't mean that businesses should run differently. Her argument fails to show how stealing music is justified. If recording companies run their business the same way they always have, then how does this establish in any way that stealing from the very music providers is justified? It doesn't an ultimately she has not upheld her burden as the negative to negate the resolution. On to my point two... Her response to my second point about terrorism was, "so what?" Contrary to my opponents beliefs, the manner in which one makes money and how one uses it are completely related. They are in fact dependent on one another (you need to get money to spend it). Then she goes on to provide a completely unrelated example of Osama Bin Ladin and homeless shelters. She is trying to show how dirty money is still money, while this is true I would like to provide a counter example. Consider blood diamonds. These diamonds have been banned from international trade because of the horrifying ways they are obtained. If you think that blood money is still money, then I invite you to consult the international community. Ultimately my opponent has not provided a legitimate, topical example negating the resolution. Her attacks on my case how no sway. And she has ultimately failed to uphold her burden as the negative, the burden to prove that obtaining music illegally is justified in any way. She has not done this, therefore you must vote affirmative. Thank you and good debate. (Since this is my last presentation, I would ask the voters to omit any new arguments on the part of the CON as I do not get a chance to respond to them). Thank you
The "War on Terror" is a futile effort and a waste of resources.

Terrorism and Islamic extremism are ideas that are a poison to humanity, their purpose is to incite fear in those that oppose them and ultimately destroy them. It cannot be stopped completely and indefinitely, but the same is similarly true with corruption. My point being is that we don't give up on the matter of corruption, why would we give up on the fight against terror? We need to work towards reducing the strength of terrorist groups in the middle east, and lower the prominence of radical Islam. They are truly crimes against humanity, regardless of if you support the US or not, killing innocents is wrong. If we give in to the demands of terrorists, we give them a power over us. If we allow them to have that power over us, they will not cease in their efforts to destroy our society piece by piece. Why? The answer is simple, they hate us. Regardless of whether we are in their lands or not, they despise what we are and everything we stand for. Freedom and liberty, they resent these things we hold dear. They believe in forcing their will upon others, their final goal is to kill those who do not follow their beliefs, and then impose them upon the public. Terrorism will indeed come for us as long as we exist, however that does not mean we shouldn't our fight. We need to crack down on terrorist groups and work to tear apart the hierarchy of their organizations. However we cannot stop there, more needs to be done. We need to hold countries that support terrorism accountable, whether through sanctions, or war if it comes to it. Giving in to the demands of terrorists is what truly allows them to further their cause, there is a reason we don't negotiate with them.
The "War on Terror" is a futile effort and a waste of resources.

Before I start I want it to be clear that I do not support terrorism. In fact this debate highlights how I think terrorism could be dealt with more effectively. I do not want to discuss patriotism in this debate. I wish to discuss why using U.S resources to fight terrorism is a poor decision. Terrorism is an idea and not a physical force that can be stopped once and for all. By engaging terrorists we not only legitimize them as an opponent, but we waste resources and spread their name to more people. The latter is a major issue, because the number one goal of terrorists is to spread their cause and their name to as many people as possible. Another goal of terrorists is to cripple their target or frighten others until they give into their demands. As long as America exists as a country, it will be the target for terrorists. Since terrorism is an idea, then there is no snuffing it out once and for all. If terrorism cannot be stopped, then The U.S. cannot continue poring infinite resources into fighting terrorism. As said in the beginning, fighting terrorism only helps to highlight them in the media and spread their cause. Money and resources would be better spent on defense of the homeland.
Paramore are not a punk band

ConclusionMy opponent has been unable to address or refute any of my arguments. In summary, Paramore is a punk band based on the definitions for the debate. The band is widely perceived to be pop punk and therefore can be considered to be a punk band. My opponent admits that many see the band this way but argues that Paramore is not "truly" a punk band. As I have argued for in this debate, this claim is akin to the no true Scotsman fallacy. The meanings of words are defined by people and are not static. They are subject to change and can also encompass a wide range of ideas. Genres evolve over time and are often quite vague. My opponent has pointed out 70s, 80s, and 90s punk bands ("The distillers, The exploited, Rancid, etc") and claimed that since Paramore is not like these bands that meet a more specific and earlier definition of punk, it is not a punk band. As I have pointed out, this is fallacious because it is a less explicit attempt to change the definition of punk for this debate. Simply because Paramore does not meet a very narrow perception of what punk is to my opponent is not relevant to the debate. As I said in my previous statement, I have given evidence that Paramore is widely perceived to meet the qualifications for being a punk band based on the definitions given for the debate. My opponent has simply asserted that Paramore is not a punk band because she feels that Paramore does not meet the standards of what she personally feels punk should mean. I feel that I have met my burden of proof to show that Paramore is part of that et cetera. All arguments extended.
Paramore are not a punk band

Thank you for accepting and I am sorry for taking a while to reply! You said: " The artists that belong to particular genres are determined by people, so the fact that many people consider Paramore to be a punk band is evidence that it is a punk band. " That is untrue, to be honest. If I wanted to, I could decide that One direction were a punk band, and I could then get people to agree with me. However, by doing this, it does not mean that they're a punk band! Many people that consider Paramore to be a punk band, a lapping up a label for the band, that has been introduced by the media. Lots of people love the idea of liking a punk band, as it makes them appear alternative and against the flow. By the media declaring that Paramore are a punk band, people instantly like this idea! You defined the meanings of punk and pop punk, yet being a punk band is just not about a fast tempo and aggressiveness. The definition provided could easily be that of rock music and maybe even metal! Anyway, punk music is not always about what I said above. It is often about delivering a political message, that the listener can relate to. I see no sign of Paramore ever doing this! Also, not all punk music has to be fast tempo and aggressive. For example: Rancid were a punk band, with a slowish tempo and raw sound. Paramore do not have this raw sound, as they are a clean-cut, polished band, that are clearly not punk. I mean, are these paramore songs actually punk? http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... The answer is obviously no! You also stated: "Paramore can be seen to be a punk band because they meet all the characteristics of the definition of punk and pop punk. Their songs include electric guitars, drums, an electric bass, and vocals. To further narrow this classification, their songs are often fast-moving and aggressive" Rock music also fits this description. So does metal and grunge. Punk can be classified as different to these genres, due to its rawer sound, and faster tempo. You also keep adding that they're a POP- punk band, yet the pop-punk defines bands like NOFX and earlier Blink 182. Finally, by saying that Paramore are a punk band, you are, to be blunt, being ignorant of real punk music, that actually fits the genuine definition of punk! I have added a few videos of REAL punk music (Rancid, The distillers, Charged GBH, The devotchkas) . They should be under the Paramore videos. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
The origin of the universe being complete impossible to prove

you still have not given me a single piece of hard evidence. Also the entire piece about the monks and how this is all unreal this would make me totally amazingly happy cause then i dont have to eat i dont have to pay the power bill and i can win this argument because i will it. i would very much appreciate it if you could post a link to this fossil evidence of evolution because to my knowledge (as little and unsigneficant as it is) there is still no fossil evidence that has not been disproven. The big bang is also still an insane idea because per the second law of thermo dynamics this would be insane that it can happen over and over again and that it would be possible for an organism to come from nothing. It is also impossible for an entire universe to come from nothing. so every thing you have said still is taken on faith. Last i also have the point that if it was so darn obvious that the world came from the big bang why can't i see it as even a remote possibility. (or any of the other 1,000,000,000 christians on earth
The origin of the universe being complete impossible to prove

In one sense of course you are right. All of our perceptions could be false. If by making this argument you are meaning that it is impossible to prove anything than yes are right. But as this wasn't the argument that you made I assume that you mean that we can't prove the origin of the universe to the same degree to as other things which we are certain enough of to use the word proved. As a Buddhist I would argue that both the Big Bang and the it is all a dream argument are proved to a degree of certainty on par with any other concern of humanity. The evidence for the big bang is overwhelming. Everything in the Universe is moving away from a central point of origin. The data supporting this is massive and has only become more certain as we make further innovations in technology an mathematics. Similarly Buddhism is one of the most scientific of religions. In its purest form you simply sit for long periods of time maintaining mindfulness by such methods of counting breaths and Chanting. The descriptions of enlightenment by Buddhist monks are incredibly consistent. There have been many disputes in Buddhism, but as far as I know none of these disputes have revolved around the nature of enlightenment. Further investigations of blood flow in the brains of Buddhist brains show an incredible similarity. They all show a reduced blood flow to orientation area of the brain. This strongly suggests that it is possible to a reach a point where ones individuality is no longer confined to their physical body. Monks who achieve this state agree that the realization that reality is an illusion is the realist feeling experience they have ever experienced. The evidence for intelligent design is less evident. A study of biology makes it clear that the animal species are neither set and unchanging nor to the evolve in a consistent direction of what an outside observer would call improvement. There is a massive amount evidence that the species were not designed by a creator and remained that way to this day. Not only is the fossil evidence for evolution overwhelming, but DNA studies are much more compelling still. The strongest evidence for a creator is that because no light comes from before the Big Bang. One could think hey something must have caused the big bang. But this assumes that lack of something is a more natural state than existence of something. However, there is no real evidence either way on this matter. So we are as sure as we can be that the Big Bang actually occurred. If religion has taught us anything about the real world, then it is the truth of realization as experienced by Buddhist monks. I submit that it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the universe is an illusion and that part of that illusion is the Big Bang.