BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Classrooms should have closed circuit cameras

First of all, I will go on to my rebuttal, The rules never stated that I could not, as you say, "plagiarize", or in other words, copy and paste, therefore your rebuttal on plagiarizing is invalid and should be disregarded. I would also like to state that you only provided only TWO sources for your argument, which is not sufficient enough. You also provided only two statistics. There have been many other sources that contradicted your first point, such as: 1. http://www.college.police.uk... 2. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org... 3.http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au... Another statistic provided by USC College also states that the cameras will reduce crimes. My second contention is that the bullying rate will go down. 1. Nearly 1 in 3 students (27.8%) report being bullied during the school year (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). 2. 41% reported being victims of physical bullying, and 45% reported being victims of psychological bullying (Zweig, Dank, Lachman & Yahner, 2013). 3. Students who experience bullying are at increased risk for depression, anxiety, sleep difficulties, and poor school adjustment (Center for Disease Control, 2012). 4. Students who experience bullying are twice as likely as non-bullied peers to experience negative health effects such as headaches and stomachaches (Gini and Pozzoli, 2013) 5. Although school staff reported a willingness to intervene in bullying situations, less than 40% of staff reported being directly involved in formal bullying prevention activities (National Education Association [NEA], 2011). 6. Approximately 58% of kids admit to never telling an adult when they've been the victim of a bullying attack (i-SAFE, 2004). 7. 160,000 students per day stay home from school because of bullying (National Education Association, 2003). These are all statistics that back up my second contention. Again, thousands of students are being bullied by the minute. Less than forty percent of teachers will interfere with the bully and victim. With CCTVs, teachers and victims won't have to worry about bullies. All of the bully causing negatives will be washed away due to these cameras. Although my opponent attempted to shoot down my point, he has utterly failed in doing so. He also failed to provide a link from his point to the topic. So, to summarize, My opponent's point should be disregarded due to my list of credible sources and due to his weak rebuttal. Side Note: I would also like to add that he has portrayed me as a male, although I am a female.
Classrooms should have closed circuit cameras

Hello.Due to lack of time, I'm going to straight on to rebuttal.Basically, my opponent had one argument. "First of all, closed circuit cameras would stop students from committing crimes, such as cheating on tests, bullying, etc. The idea of closed circuit cameras has gained great momentum in Britain, where 85 percent of schools currently have closed circuit cameras and some schools, such as Stockwell Park High School in South London, have over 100 cameras inside its buildings. During the 2005"06 school year, according to the most recent statistics available from the U.S. Department of Education, 86 percent of public schools nationwide reported that one or more serious violent incidents, thefts, or other crimes had occurred at their school, for a total of roughly 2.2 million crimes. That works out to about one crime reported for every 20 students. And that doesn"t include vandalism and graffiti: Nearly 100,000 incidents of vandalism are reported in the United States public school system every year.With closed circuit cameras, the number of crimes would drop dramatically. Terry Piper, the principal at Seaholm High School in Birmingham, Michigan, feels the time is right for security cameras at his school. After all, dozens of schools in their county have already done it, and with some success. "There are 30 high schools in Oakland County, and every single one of them has security cameras except Seaholm and Groves," Piper says. "They"ve seen thefts go down. They"ve been able to solve instances of They"ve been able to solve instances of vandalism on occasion, and there have been student altercations where they"ve been helpful. They also serve as a deterrent, so you never know how many things might have happened if you hadn"t had them.""1.) Plagiarism:My opponent brought up detailed statistics and arguments, but he provided no link to his source. I was befuddled by this. I soon discovered that my opponent plagiarized.Here are the links that he plaigirized from:1.) http://lawstreetmedia.com...2.) http://www.scholastic.com...2.) CCTVs have not been proved affected. In Britian, CCTVs are widely used. Sociologists studying the issue (about CCTVs) soon discovered that CCTVs have NOT YET reduced crimes. "'Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences,' criminologists found in one study, 'reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre.' A 2005 study for the British Home Office also found that cameras did not cut crime or the fear of crime (as had a 2002 study, also for the British government)." [1]I'd like to remind the judges that all of my opponent's arguments are now invalid, due to plagiarism. [1] https://www.aclu.org...
Resolved: The United States Ought Not to Provide Military Aid to Authoritarian Regimes

There are better ways to stop terrorism besides helping corrupt regimes. I also don't think we should do anything out of fear because that's how bad decisions are made. I'll make this clear, This is no amount of money, No strategic landmark, And no body of water that is worth helping corrupt regimes. I think you mentioned something about training their troops, Correct me if I'm wrong. I have no interest in strengthening the corrupt leader's army. Any military aide, In my opinion, Should come with one or both these contingencies: 1) Authoritarian Regime hands or power or has it forcibly removed if it's a global crisis. 2) Authoritarian Regime allows their citizens to be evacuated from the area, Or we do it forcibly if it's a global crisis. You made a comment that we shouldn't pull out because it will make us look weak to other countries. I don't really care about what other countries think about us. Whether or not they think we're weak, They would find out how mistaken they are if they tried us. You make a appeal to fear and say that we could have another terrorist attack. There is no reason for us to believe that would happen so that is a non sequitur. Even if that would happen, Are you saying we should negotiate with terrorist? Because that's what we're doing if we help an evil country just so we don't "look bad" Your floor. :)
Resolved: The United States Ought Not to Provide Military Aid to Authoritarian Regimes

For voters too lazy to read my speech, Here is the summary: 1. We should militarily aid countries to turn them into Democracy. It shows us as the most thoughtful country for world views 2. Without military aid (to authoritarian regimes), We could have another 9/11 attack imminent. My opponent begins with saying that it is immoral to militarily aid the regimes. However, There is evidence that states it could be morally obligatory to aid the regimes. However, I can prove this wrong with the reasoning stated: Giving military aid to its people is the same as giving aid to the regime, As the resolution's vocabulary proves so. Military aid does not mean just setting troops, It also includes training their troops and providing financial aid to military, Providing armaments, Etc. We can't always station troops in their country for geographical reasons, But there is huge reason as I said in my speech that we should still militarily aid them with finances toward military budget, Or to provide small arms to their military. One I stated was the disaster relief. With disaster relief, We can stabilize the region from possible invasion and from terrorist attacks, Which could stabilize the region, And even introduce them into democracy! Second, As I stated in my evidence (which I believe is sourced, Tell me if it isn't), Bahrain (pronounced Buh-rain) is essential to naval military firepower in the region, And if we were to pull out, We would lose SO MANY important assets to contribute to our global firepower. Next, I also said that with this withdraw, The world could be put into thought that the U. S. Is in decline, And needed to leave Bahrain for military, Financial, Or for political/Sovereign reasons. This could lead more terrorists into wanting another 9/11 attack by believing that we are in a state of decrease in firepower. That attack killed countless lives. If you want our nation to be attacked again and have millions of lives lost, Vote toward the Affirmative today (pro). However, If you want to save countless lives, And turn the world into a more democratized world, Vote for the Negation (con).
Resolved: The United States Ought Not to Provide Military Aid to Authoritarian Regimes

So I'm going to cut right to the meat of the argument. You say that I have to make a compelling case that The United States shouldn't provide military aide to any authoritarian regime and that even a case in favor helping one wins the argument for you. I think you set the goal post in the wrong place my friend. Allow me to move it for you. My counter is simple. We can provide military aid to the people instead of the regimes. If any regime is immoral we should help it. We should condemn it and then help the innocent people under it's rule. This is my goal post. Now if you're going to make some case that The USA will benefit from this, You can spare me. I wouldn't want our country to benefit from any evil act. We get in, Save the people, And get the fork out of the. Easy as pie. Let the corrupt rulers die of ego poisoning and then plant a nice fat flag in their and feed it to the UN. Your floor opponent.
The end always justifies the means

To justify-to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right Just-guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness These definitions are taken from the American heritage dictionary. I felt the need to define these terms for my opponent's lack of source and validity. Therefore, I have used a renowned dictionary to offer clarity to the debate. "For example, lets say I hate smiling and people who smile. One day you walk up to me smiling, and I shoot you in the face. Now, although nothing about shooting you in the face is good, the reason I did it was because I hate smiles and people who smile. Although my reason was not GOOD it was still a reason none the less." A reason, yes. Was it a just reason? Lets find out. Was it guided by... Truth? Reason? Justice? Fairness? "Justify doesn't imply that it has to be good. Just simply, that it provides reason for it. In seeing that you're doing something for the end to be there, it in turn must be the reason for it." Not true. To be justified under the resolution, it must be just. A JUST reason. "For example, If you shoot everyone in the face in order to kill the entire population of human beings. Shooting everyone in the face is done for the reason of wanting to kill everyone." Is that reason just? Having cleared up the "justice" confusion, I leave my opponent with a final thought. Do you want to achieve a good end? Are you justified in using evil means to get there? Always?
The end always justifies the means

Hmm.. Well, where do I start? Let's start with some definitions... Justify/justification -show to be reasonable or provide adequate ground/explanation of some action or belief Ends justifying the means/ends in justification of the means - The consequences of an action dictate the action itself. In order to understand the prospective i'm about to come from, you must first understand taht for an action to be justified, it does not have to be right. Justify basically means to provide a reason for For example, lets say I hate smiling and people who smile. One day you walk up to me smiling, and I shoot you in the face. Now, although nothing about shooting you in the face is good, the reason I did it was because I hate smiles and people who smile. Although my reason was not GOOD it was still a reason none the less. Justify doesn't imply that it has to be good. Just simply, that it provides reason for it. In seeing that you're doing something for the end to be there, it in turn must be the reason for it. For example, If you shoot everyone in the face in order to kill the entire population of human beings. Shooting everyone in the face is done for the reason of wanting to kill everyone. I await my opponents response ;-)
The end always justifies the means

I'd like to start with the definitions I provided and give there source. Justify A) Show to be reasonable or provide adequate ground for http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... B) To provide an acceptable explanation http://en.wiktionary.org... An example of where I'm coming from, is criminal moives. We declare, no matter how outrageous they may be, that the motives of criminal are justified motives for the crimes they commit. Then, we punish them accordingly. Justified is simply, a reason for something. If something has sufficcient reason for something else, then it's justified. You can provide different definitions if you'd like, however that does not prove my definitions to be wrong. Simply put, there are more than one answers to some questions. If I have found these definitions under this word then they aren't false, are they? In this case, you will see, the ends always will justify the means. Whether it be a justification on a scale of good or bad is a whole different debate. The "skewed heavily in the favor of Con's side" resolution is UPHELD!
It is probable that objective moral facts exist

Thank you for the debate, and it will be an honor to learn from this debate. As acceptance, I will provide a few inquiries for which I feel may be better used to facilitate understanding as well as to promote easier construction of points in the context of this resolution: 1> How the belief as treated as the modal operator of an individual in his/her doxastic state affects objective values as stated in the resolution 2> If by "moral fact" you refer to intrinsic states or principles referred to by human ideologies concerning moral values or duties, or any idea concerning moral values that corresponds to an objective fact tangible on a daily basis. 3> If you wish to confine the extent of this debate merely to the probability of existence for the stated objective moral facts as in quantity, or allow interpretation to include the concept of the two outcomes of merely existing or nonexisting. Thank you, and I eagerly await any further developments.
It is probable that objective moral facts exist

NOTE: I prefer to go up against an experienced debater. If you have less than 10 completed debates, please post in the comment section before you accept.TERMSResolved: It is probable that objective moral facts existRounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clashBy "objective" I refer to the state of being true regardless of whether or not any human beings believe it to be true. Stated precisely, a fact is objective if its truth value is independent of the doxastic state of any human persons. By "moral fact" I refer to any normative states of affairs, whether they be about moral values or duties. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not. This is not a debate involving God or the moral argument for the existence of God. The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized

Thanks for the opening argument detectableninja.Duty Of The PhysicianWhat is the duty of a physician?The Hippocratic Oath states this quite well, and is an oath doctors must swear.Here is an excerpt:"I will not prescribe a patient a lethal drug."This states that physicians are not to kill their patients under any circumstances.Harming other's rights?Hypothetical situation- a girl has a PAS.Her family grieves.This is infringing upon the rights of others to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Cost Of Dying 5/6 of US adults have medical insurance, which largely pays for this for them. (1)_=Sources=_http://www.gallup.com...;Sorry if my argument is a bit short, but this is my first debate :I
Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized

Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted Suicide (Hereafter reffered to as PAS) under lawful regulations, should be universally legalized.Definition:Physician-Assisted Suicide: The practice of a liscensed physician willingly perscribing a lethal drug at a patient's request for said patient to ingest or otherwise take, effectively ending his/her own life.Rules:There will be 4 rounds:First: Acceptance/any clarifications or additional definitions.Second: Opening arguments (with a rebuttal from Con)Third: More arguments/rebuttals from both sides.Fourth: No more arguments. Closing statements only (With the EXCEPTION of Pro being able to provide a rebuttal for Con's Round 3 argument)To restate what I said, if the Contender has any questions, or wants to add any definitions, you can do that in your acceptance. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to this debate!
5. War memorials do more harm than good.

You're right I don't necessarily disagree with you that a poorly constructed memorial is harmful...but my point there was that you're argument was too broad. It can be said about any type of poorly constructed structure. What do guns have to do with war memorials? I asked does it being poorly constructed take away from the message it is trying to convey to the public? It could physically harm people but what i got from the topic at hand was not physical "harm" but more of stirring up controversy and negative impact. 2. You could not possibly expect countries to rip down their memorials? memorials are really not that big of a concern tot he environment, old and new. its the cities that were built up around them. The people in the cities, and the things that go on in the city that are the problem. 3. Yes war memorials are controversial because war itself is controversial. But my main point here was that people have a right to commemorate their dead no matter what side they were on. As human beings we should respect others way of honoring their dead even if we disagree with it. Once again your point was very broad, In general my point was that a subversive group could pick any place to use as a rallying point. A memorial for the Nazis or Confederacy may stir up some controversy and could be used as a rallying point but you take it down they will still believe what they believe and they will just find some other place to meet. 4. My argument to your point that memorials glamorize war is that they do not. I argue that they educated future generations. When no one is alive that witnessed the horrors of war we will have these structures, museums, plagues whatever you consider a memorial so that hopefully people will see the horrors of the past and history will not repeat itself. They represent those who have given their lives for a cause. Yes, people will always have their respect and honor even without a memorial but we have been erecting memorials for the dead since the beginning of time. A tombstone can be considered a memorial, so does that mean we need to go marching through Arlington and rip down all the tombstones because that person died as a result of warfare? Memorials are educational tools as much as they are there to commemorate the dead 5. Yes those funds could be used for another cause but that's what those people gave money for. that is what the organization raised money for, that is what the government chose to fund so yes while they could put funds toward other projects that is what people wanted. who are we to tell them how they should spend their money? My main argument was not that we can say ANYTHING is harmful. My argument is that the positive aspects of memorials out weigh the negative. We have been building memorials since the beginning of time. Every culture has its own war memorials. The practice of erecting war memorials can be traced back thousands of years and that because of them we learn about our history and the actions of those people who fought in those wars. we need them to educate those who come after us.
5. War memorials do more harm than good.

First of all I'd like to say that examples of memorials eligible for DGR status would include structures such as statues, honour rolls, decorative gates, monuments, obelisks, ornamental bridges and fountains, that are a focus for public commemorations. I would like the Judge to notice that these are all objects that are meant to make someone have a certain reaction, usually respect and honor, but weather or not that person has a memorial dedicated to them doesn't take away the respect of honor they've earned, it just represents it. So i'd like to say that these objects can do more harm than good, and also, just like it can have positive reactions it can have negative ones too. I have 5 main examples of how war memorials bring more harm than good. 1. A memorial could be harmful if it was poorly constructed or designed. For example if the memorial has slippery steps in winter, if there are pieces falling off. 2. War memorials can be harmful to the environment if the construction damaged wetlands or animal habitat. 3. A memorial like a Nazi memorial or Confederate memorial could be used as a rallying point for subversive groups and cause major controversy. 4. A war memorial could glamorize war and take away from the true cost of the lives it was supposed to honor. Generally, a war memorial should be built to honor the lives of the men and women who fought in that war. It should never glamorize their actions. 5. A memorial could be expensive and take funds away from other, more necessary, projects. Honor does not come from being a name on the wall. The name on the wall simply represents the honor, courage, and sacrifice of that individual. Therefore, you must see how war memorials do more harm than good, because the only Con argument i can really see so far is that war memorials give honor and respect, but the war veterans have that weather or not they have a memorial. Thank You :)