BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should School Uniform Be Worn In All Schools SJS

Considering that Pro has failed to answer, or even post his own argument for that matter, I will issue one finial point. Who, in their right mind, actually wants to be told what to wear? Personally, in order for me to do well in school, I have to enjoy going. If I was forced to wear a uniform, I would not enjoy school therefore my test scores would drop. School uniforms are not good for anyone, and until Pro chooses to argue his points, I am done here.
Should School Uniform Be Worn In All Schools SJS

If uniforms were forced upon a school, a majority of students would rebel; thus causing social upheavel and an even greater form of bullying for the students that do not join in. Also, a form of oppression is taking away rights of the citizens, while yes, I understand that we(as students) give up a majority of rights, we should still be allowed to express ourselves in clothing as long as it is not offensive.
Capitalism and low tax is the best and fairest economics system.

It is all matter of who thinks they own what. I believe in fair taxing, and the efficient use of government money, and you can bet I believe in human rights, but I do not believe in hatred of all who own money. The popular magazine, Time, recently featured an article on the giant supermarket chain, Costco. It provides its workers with plenty of money and benefits. The chain whole foods is 93 percent owned by non-executives. Monopolies are the only thing that fully take over industries and rule. That should not be allowed, but unions can promote worker fairness and supply/demand otherwise. The government does technically own the rights to all of the things in its nation if you think about it, so perhaps the more you make, the higher your tax, but not too high to prevent the rich from hiring. If the government wants to really get tax, then instead of attacking shelters, it should try to tax based on competence. Our nation was founded on work, not welfare cheats.
Capitalism and low tax is the best and fairest economics system.

Actually I was arguing for the efficient use of tax, but personal freedoms. You may call it libertarianism. I do believe in corporations to rule the economy, but not able to corrupt the government, leaving a society competent but not corrupt. I do think as well that in the court of law, rich and poor are completely equal. If someones domain is getting so large that they are ruining one persons life, legal action should be made. I also think that there should be a government headhunting force, which helps to allocate jobs with corporations. This will leave a fair society. I also think that healthcare should not be government owned, but rather government sponsored to save money. You should also be able to choose different tax packages, one which is the standard rate, and another that depends on the shape of the economy. Therefore people what they can afford, it is saved by the government, and used in worse times. Unions should also be reformed in order to stop letting workers slack off but give them a chance in life.
Capitalism and low tax is the best and fairest economics system.

Capitalism leaves the economy, the cornerstone of any society, in the hands of a privileged few who seek to exploit it for profit. Because people are naturally greedy, they will always seek to exploit others, especially those who are in a perfect position to be exploited, i.e. people dependent upon consumer goods, people who are brainwashed by the capitalist-owned media. I think you are confusing liberal with socialist. Liberal, as the name suggests, is related to freedom, and therefore the tax cuts advocated by the Republican Party are liberal. Healthcare is socialist, as is state education, a centralised government and even a state-run police force. A liberal system would have no healthcare, no state education and a privatised law enforcement and defence force, as outlined in Adam Smith's text 'An inquiry into the Causes and the Nature of the Wealth of Nations'. With regards to a free market creating a free society, the USA is an example of a society run with a free market, and it merely allows corporations to run wild and tacitly enslave the people. Corporations are free to dodge tax, " la Apple or Amazon, and can even lobby the state to carry out their will, wither through applying pressure or by financing the Republican Party. Socialism, on the other hand, not to be confused with Hitler's National Socialism, the USSR or Maoist China, but more in line with Harold Wilson and the Labour Party in Britain in the 1960s and 70s; controls these corporations and individuals, protecting the workers and the people who have no assets to sell other than their labour. Low tax allows the CEOs of huge multinationals and unscrupulous bankers to rake in salaries and bonuses of millions, while those at the bottom are paid next to nothing. An example of this is the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch, Mike Jeffries, who was paid in 2011 $48,069,473 in compensation, while the workers, often children, are paid less than a dollar a day for their labour. One would think that these phenomenally low costs would translate into lower prices, but they do not, and after seeing Jeffries' pay for 2011, it is fairly self-explanatory who the money goes to. Apple is another example of this, who have paid next to no tax for years, and all of the profits from this scheme have ended firmly in the pockets of executives. Apple products are ridiculously overpriced, and their R&D expenditure is far lower than that of Microsoft or Samsung. When Hammurabi created the Code of Laws thousands of years ago, he envisioned a world in which 'the strong cannot harm the weak'. Regulations on the free market ensure that the rich cannot harm the poor, just like the laws of Babylon ensured that the strong could not harm the rich.
There should be a government regulated service dog registry

Starting off with a brief clarification: Yes, I"m talking about the pet licence. The point I"m simply trying to make is that health is not a concern for dogs, and your licence and proposition won"t add health benefits. Now onto some rebuttals: For the past 2 rounds (where we had arguments) the only problem that still stands that pro is proposing is that "service dogs" get rejected too often. (Since every other point provides no evidence and has been rebutted). Anyways, the pro side also admitted that it is abiding with the law for employees to recognize a service dog. These are a few reasons why his last arguments simply don"t stand: 1.) if your only problem (I mentioned earlier) with the status quo is an illegal action for somebody to reject service dogs. Then I have already won this debate. People doing illegal actions that causes problems, is not the focus, as i) there"s few of them (the people who violate this) ii) proportionally with the hundreds of service dogs Pro has failed to prove that this is even an issue proportionally Even if I take you at your best, making it clear to these public corporations which are usually owned by large corporations, like a governmental welfare station or the target down the street. So fourth, it is much easier for a universal statement solving this solution to be passed through that then what Pro is proposing. Now onto my case: As the debate is coming to an end, it"s important to analyse the clashes and who will provide a better world. Let"s start with Pro Pro"s alternative to the status quo is a system that causes burdens and extra hassle for citizens, this will happen because Pro has failed to provide "why" it won"t happen or responded to that argument. The main focus of this debate is service dogs. And I (con) believe that since service dogs stand to serve mainly physically disabled people, it is important not to cause more hassles on people who already have enough burdens. So fourth, since Pro has no framework, I"ll use my own for measures. My framework simply states: if I can prove either his model causes more inconvenience or negative things for the people in need of service dogs, then I shall win. Hence, I"ve successfully proven so with my first round and previous argument, and Pro failed to respond. All in all, I"ve clearly proved my framework to stand, and backed it up with arguments. The question of the debate is the benefits Pro is stating to negative effects and the status quo. Pro has stated no benefits for the main stakeholder what so ever: The Person who uses the service dog. As I"ve clearly proved this system he"s proposing gives no benefits to the status quo and even causes extra burdens for the main stakeholder. And for all the following reasons stated above, I"ve clearly proved why Con shall win this debate Therefore, I"m proud to stand Con.
There should be a government regulated service dog registry

The licence you are talking about is a simple pet licence that apples to all dogs and is not at all what I am talking about. A licence proving a service dog to be Legitimate would prevent service dogs from being refused access, especially for people with disabilities that are not as obvious, some examples of not as obvious would include: PTSD, Diabetic alert, TBI, Autism, hearing, some mobility dogs. I am not for the most part talking about in a place of work, but rather in any areas needing access, like a movie or a grocery store. I am a girl. Faked service dogs, are currently a big problem throughout the us, an ID system for service dogs would prevent businesses from mistaking actual service dogs from these fakes, and there for keep real teams from being refused, making going out into public at all far easier. You will find with even a quick lookup that the vast majority of teams want some kind of ID system do to the excess of fakes that harm there independence. One of the main reasons an ID is so important is because currently there is no way to prove if a service dog is legitimate or not, meaning businesses are left guessing and teams pay the price, being turned away. Though it is illegal to turn away a service dog team, it does still happen all the time. It is a huge nuisance for teams everywhere.
There should be a government regulated service dog registry

Starting with a few rebuttals: Even according to US laws, any dog is brought under as a pet, service dog or whatever people need dogs for, needs a basic licence. The licence is essentially just a dog licence where the dog"s health and other areas are tested. What Pro is essentially stating this idea of a new licence that "dogs must be under control". He has rebutted to nothing about what I said on my 1st point and just stated his opening remarks again. Nevertheless, even if I take him at his best: The system he"s proposing is the Status Quo. Even according to his own source(1) that he stated in his previous argument, it states "Service animals must be under control" and things like "All service animals must be leashes, threatened".. e.t.c". This is literally evidence that goes against him On a more personal level of the problem he is stating. Nothing has been rebutted to the inconveniences or what humans do in the status quo. Therefore, his thought of and reasoning of getting a licence simply fails to prove so. Furthermore, if the change he is proposing both doesn"t add benefits to the status quo and adds inconvenience for many people, then his claims just simply supports my framework. Now onto some arguments: Pro has centred around this idea that: the ID system he"s proposing is "better" somehow. However, he has used no evidence what soever that getting these licences will benefit the life of the disabled person. Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of service dogs. If pro is proposing such a change for new licence things, it needs to prove that these lessons are necessary as I"ve clearly proved that it can create more burdens for citizens in need of these service dogs. Anyways, with that said that there are a lot of service dogs. If people want a new service dog or are considering to get a service dog, they will choose a dog that fits their needs. Therefore, people already can choose service dogs for themselves with good success at bonding of the dog. So "unqualified" service dogs don"t cause a hassle and there haven"t been any huge proportional complaints that such a system is needed. Furthermore, Pro has stated in round one quote: "I am currently in the midst of training an autism assistance dog for myself" so why do you need a license from a government to prove that it"s a service dog? Even in the status quo, and according to the source you provided source(1), employees at places where people bring their service dogs have universally agreed that a service dog is authentic. With all of that said, I hope the con side has proven clearly to you why I system simple isn"t needed. Therefore, I"m proud to stand con. 1:https://www.ada.gov...
There should be a government regulated service dog registry

I would like to mention that I am referring to US laws, so if you are referring to the laws of a different nation you need to switch focus. America has no form of registry for service dogs, under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) a service animals is defined as, dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. No kind of registration is required, and no proof of the animals abilities or owners disabilities unless taken to a court of law. Read about it here: https://www.ada.gov... Proof of disability can be as little as a note from a doctor or physiatrist. I said nothing of a health assessment, as that would put unnecessary pressure on teams with adopted dogs in particular. I desire an assessment of the dogs ability to work under stress, with basic access. There is no registry in the us of any kind, for the most part it's a trust system unless challenged. I am proposing a basic test to gain an ID that shows the dog fit to work, in the same way you would get a handicap parking permit, or a drivers licence.
There should be a government regulated service dog registry

As the pro side is proposing change to the status quo, I believe that the burden of proof on such a system proposed will be only on the Pro. As Con, I support the status quo. Therefore, if I can prove either his model causes more inconvenience or negative things for the people in need of service dogs, then I shall win. Now I"d like to point out a few things that doesn"t make sense in Pro"s ideal system: 1. ) In the status quo, the majority of citizens who get service dogs need them for whatever reason. So why is a test needed to show that they are disabled? This just adds inconvenience for the person since he/she already has a lot of burden dealing with his/her burdens. 2. ) Pro has also stated that dogs must pass a basic health assessment test. People aren"t idiots. When somebody needs a service dog or a household pet, they"re inclined in societies like the U. S to check the health of the pet they"re considering to buy. Therefore, adding another test is both redundant and inconvenient for the person. Furthermore, the bedrock goal that Pro aims to provide are for the most part, already fully existent in the status quo. All dogs that are legally licensed to serve as service dogs or pets are required a licence by law (the licence includes things like health condition of the dog). For all the above reasons I strongly disagree and is proud to affirm the Con side. As both the model that the Pro is proposing is very similar to the status quo and I have proved why the model simply isn"t needed.
There should be a government regulated service dog registry

First off, I will describe how such a system would work. *The handler must show proof of some kind of disability or substantial mental illness. *The dog must pass a basic public access test (High distraction environment, must show no aggression, be able to ignore food, people, other dogs, and remain in the handler's control) I am currently in the midst of training an autism assistance dog for myself, and having an official registry would make it less likely people would assume Asher a fake service dog, and would make it easier to spot and prosecute fake dogs and handlers.
The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic.

"My opponent is obviously trying to win this debate via semantics, which he is doing a terrible job at. " Terrible job? "It is pretty obvious that my opponent needs to prove that 'The Los Angeles Lakers will not win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic. ' or 'The Los Angeles Lakers will lose the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic. ' to win the debate since not is negative and lose is the opposite of win. " Not so. It is obvious that you are trying to prove that the Lakers will win. However, if there is a chance that the Orlando Magic *might* win the NBA Finals, then the resolution cannot be affirmed, and because burden of proof was never specified in Round 1 by the Instigator, it defaults to the Instigator, and if I can show that my opponent has failed to affirm the resolution, then the vote goes to the Contender, me. So, I really don't have to argue what my opponent wants me to argue. I can argue whatever I want to stop my opponent from properly affirming the resolution, and that is what I have done. "Voters, it should be quite apparent who won this debate. " Yes, it should. "mongeese poorly argued the debate with semantics and offered only one more point, which was rebutted by me. " The point was rebutted, yes, but the semantics were far from poor. In the future, I advise my opponent to use words such as "probably" in the resolution, or make a rule in which the Contender must argue in direct opposition of the resolution, rather than what I have done. However, since he had not done so, my argument was fair play, and it stands. "All my points stand, while mongeese has no points. " All of my opponent's points stand, yes, but they don't help to affirm the resolution. There have always been disruptions in games. The clear winner sometimes loses. This may happen this year. My opponent points out that one of Magic's star players, Jameer Nelson, was injured. What's to stop a Lakers player from being injured by the start of the Finals? If the hotel that they stay at burns to the ground, and they are incinerated alive, Magic will most definitely win. For this entire debate, my opponent has only argued that the Lakers only have advantages over the Magic. However, luck can take care of these advantages. My opponent has not shown that the Magic cannot win, or that the Lakers cannot lose. Therefore, he has ultimately failed to uphold the resolution, as he goes from saying that the Lakers have advantages over the Magic to saying that the Lakers will win over the Magic. There is a fairly decent gap between those two statements that my opponent obviously was unable to cross. "EPIC FAIL for mongeese. " Ouch. *shrugs it off* "Vote Pro. " PRO has failed to affirm the resolution. CON has pointed out why.
The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic.

-He stated "I would like to remind you that you bear a tremendous burden of proof. " --I replied "We each have the same burden of proof. I have to prove that the Lakers will win. And you will have to prove that the Magic will win. Once again, we share the same burden of proof. " ---He replied "Not so. You have to prove that the Lakers will win. I have to prove that the Lakers might not win. " Also, point 2 of his 2 point argument is "The resolution is not, "The Los Angeles Lakers will probably win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic. " It is, "The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic. " If my opponent added the word "probably" or the phrase "most likely," or anything similar, this debate would be about who has the greatest chance of winning the finals. However, this debate is about whether they will win, and I have to show that Magic might win. " My opponent is obviously trying to win this debate via semantics, which he is doing a terrible job at. The resolution is: "The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic. " It is pretty obvious that my opponent needs to prove that "The Los Angeles Lakers will not win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic. " or "The Los Angeles Lakers will lose the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic. " to win the debate since not is negative and lose is the opposite of win. My opponent also provided one more argument. It was: "In head-to-head games this past season, the Lakers played Magic twice. Magic won both times, 106-103 on Dec 20 and 109-103 on Jan 16. This is strong evidence that Magic have a head-to-head advantage against the Lakers. .. " -This is true, but Jameer Nelson, the Magic point guard was on the team at this time. On Dec 20 Jameer scored 27 points and on Jan 16 he scored 28 points. Jameer Nelson is no longer with the team though, as he has a torn labrum and will be out for the rest of the season. Jameer Nelson's replacement is Rafer Alston. Rafer Alston only averages 11.7 PPG. So, if Rafer Alston played in the Dec 20 and Jan 16 games against the Lakers, then the Magic would have lost by double digits on each occasion. Thus, there is strong evidence that the Lakers have a head-to-head advantage against the Magic. Voters, it should be quite apparent who won this debate. mongeese poorly argued the debate with semantics and offered only one more point, which was rebutted by me. All my points stand, while mongeese has no points. EPIC FAIL for mongeese.
The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic.

"We each have the same burden of proof. I have to prove that the Lakers will win. And you will have to prove that the Magic will win. Once again, we share the same burden of proof." Not so. You have to prove that the Lakers will win. I have to prove that the Lakers might not win. My opponent provides a very strong case that the Lakers will probably win the finals. I have two arguments against the resolution: 1. In head-to-head games this past season, the Lakers played Magic twice. Magic won both times, 106-103 on Dec 20 and 109-103 on Jan 16. This is strong evidence that Magic have a head-to-head advantage against the Lakers, and therefore have a high chance of winning. Obviously, the Lakers have been unable to restrain the Magic, and the Magic has defeated the Lakers. These two games show that the Lakers have less than a 50% chance of defeating Magic. 2. The resolution is not, "The Los Angeles Lakers will probably win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." It is, "The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." If my opponent added the word "probably" or the phrase "most likely," or anything similar, this debate would be about who has the greatest chance of winning the finals. However, this debate is about whether they will win, and I have to show that Magic might win. Because the Magic have defeated the Lakers before, they can easily do it again. Therefore, the Magic might lose, so saying that they will win is false. The resolution is negated.
The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org... I set the voting period to 3 days and the time to argue to 24 hours so that the voters will hopefully not be distracted by the actual results of the series too much. To the voters: if voting does not end before the series starts (June 4) then please vote based on the best arguments, not on how the series has played out. To my opponent: just accept the debate in the first round. Do not make any arguments until the second round. Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate, it should be fun.