BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking

First and foremost, I want to clarify Pro's position. Pro is arguing in favor for the illegalization of smoking. However, what substance Pro contends should be illegal to smoke remains unknown, I will be arguing against the notion that smoking, regardless of the substance, should not be illegalized. Moreover, Pro failed to supply an argument for his position, and merely stated that smoking should become illegal. Since his round is devoid of any argument, I have no rebuttal to offer, but I will provide a few succinct examples to highlight my position. Enforcement: Pro suggests that smoking should become illegal. If we examine the copious number of individuals that smoke tobacco cigarettes on a daily basis, the number is estimated to be around 42 million adults in the U. S. Considering this exorbitant number, enforcing the law and reprimanding those that continue to smoke after enacting smoking as illegal, would not only be an arduous task, but would also be costly, and would potentially divert attention from police to seek harsher crimes. Hookah: As I stated in my opening paragraph, Pro did not include what particular substances should be enacted as illegal to smoke, but merely mentioned smoking exclusively as to become illegal. There are many hookah establishments that encompass the smoking of various hookah in the appropriate establishment that enable social interaction, sampling of different hookah flavors, and even business opportunities for the hookah shops. None of those mentioned pose any threat or should be deemed as an unlawful activity. If a law is enacted constituting smoking as illegal, hookah shops would close, thusly leaving many business owners unemployed, removing social interaction, and the option of smoking flavored hookah. I anticipate Pro's arguments in the following round. . http://www.cdc.gov...
Resolved: Utilitarianism is a flawed moral ideology

Resolution: Utilitarianism is a flawed moral ideologyUtilitarianism- The moral doctrine that any action which brings about maximum happiness ought to be followed/considered rightFlawed- Containing, but not limited to, a mistake, weakness, fault, contradiction, etc....Moral ideology- An ideology that seeks to describe moral and immoral actionsRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments (Shared BOP)Round 3: Arguments/ RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals/ Conclusion
The currents education system

I just have to rebutt your claims since BoP is on you.If i rebutt Con's case effecitivley i win the debateRebuttals-Standaridized Testing: Standaridized Testing preperation is one of the most important things schools can help you get ready for. Getting a good score on the ACT or the SAT maybe the push you need in your resume to get you into your first choice school. So not only is your school doing a great service for you. They are doing it for free. Education is done along side the SAT. Education is defined as : the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or universitySo the SAT preparation is education.-Did you really just say that you only need to learn math to be a mathematician? Are you serious? Hundreds of fields branch out from math not just mathematicians. Engineering for one can be used for your example of geometry. Stats branches into a statsican job. Saying math is only needed with for math only job is very ignorant.-A beauty pagent? You still havent explained how that person somehow got an A and you got a high C/low B. Perhaps they worked harder? I honestly dont know if your just trolling at this point in the debate. If you are in an ap class like me then even if you get a C then you have a bigger weighted GPA then an A in a regular class.Sources:http://bostonreview.net...https://www.bing.com...
The currents education system

There are many things I very much dislike about the current state of education, but I'd like to focus on three main problems I see with education as of right now. 1) First of all, standardized testing. I understand that there has to be some way to measure a teachers status and determine whether or not they're fit for their job, but why dedicate an entire year to it? The purpose of education is right in the name, it's meant to educate students to be smarter than the generation before. I don't know about your school, but my schools' basic premise of the years education is absolutely not educational. Teachers will teach students information that is required for the standardized test, just so they can forget that information in replacement for information needed for the next year. It gets really old, really fast. 2) The second thing I'd like to address is something EVERYONE I know complains about: useless information. In what universe do I need to know about imaginary triangles to be successful? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. The only scenario I'd need that for is if, and only if, I decided to become a mathematician. I converse with many adults, and I still have yet to speak to one that says anything about the Pythagorean theorem other than the fact that they remember it. They should spend less time on the idiotic things and more time on things that matter, like paying taxes or managing my bank account. 3) My last complaint concerning education for this debate is that it's a beauty pageant. The grading system infuriates me endlessly. Why is it that one student barely has to try to get an A, but I work my butt off simply to get a high C or low B? Even though there aren't many ways I can think of to solve this problem, possibly the person whom their job is to maintain the balance of education could. That is my case, now I'd like to hear yours
Cats are superior to Dogs

Cats are better than dogs. First of all, cats need less room. Dogs need room to run around and play, cats on the other hand, could live with you in a studio apartment and never want more. Dogs need space to get active and if you put them in a small space they will get restless and not be the happy little puppy you want them to be. Cats cost less to get and to feed, they don't NEED toys unless you want to give them toys. Dogs need things to chew and, not all, but a large majority chew through things like shoes and socks because they have nothing to play with. Cats have instinct that tells them how to get rid of their waste. Dogs do too, just not to the same amount. Cats will find a nice, often sandyish, area at which to relieve themselves, and they will bury solid waste. Dogs leave their waste out in the open and don't think twice. Some people say that dogs can be a replacement for a child they can never have or adopt, but cats can too. Some breeds of dogs don't shed, and that is why a lot of people like dogs, but there are breeds of cats that don't shed either. I'm not talking about those hairless cats. There are plenty of cat breeds that have hair, but don't shed.
Has the Church Replaced Israel? Replacement Theology Debate

This is a Christian debate. Comment and give your affirmation to debate only if you profess to be a Christian, a believer of Bible. If evangelical, even better. Topic: Has the Church replaced Israel? Replacement theologians try to hold a number of synonyms to avoid the tag "replacement" by saying they believe in "fulfillment theology" or supersessionism where the Church as absolutely fulfilled and superseded Israel. The implications are same no matter what term you prefer to hold. It implies that God has completely done over with Israel; or that after the advent of New Covenant, Israel is no different than China in God's eye; Israel is NOT distinct and special in God's eyes. Edit: It was an open challenge which is now finally accepted by Thg who is qualified to debate. He is doing to present his opening case in the first round itself, so that we can have extended interaction. Let us try not to make new arguments in last round. Voters please vote carefully, without nit picking but judging on the overall truth and plausibility of the arguments of each side (besides the voting criteria already given). Try being as much objective you can and not letting your own theological presupposition against the judgment. I hope you all will learn and enjoy the debate.
Generic "Does God Exist" debate

(Debate impossible to accept, will open the debate if anyone is interested, probably won't be opened until this Saturday or Sunday) It seems that everyone has done a debate like this before, So it's time I do one. Here are the rules: -Burden of Proof is on Pro -No Semantics or Kritiks -Be civil -If Con finds the rules inaccurate or unreasonable then he/or she may alter the terms before the debate but only with an argument as to why. -Faliure to abide by the format by either side will result in a loss of conduct during the voting period. Terms: God: The all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe. Exists: Having objective reality or being. Format: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments (No rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusions and/or More Rebuttals (No new arguments) Once more to clarify, I'll be arguing that God exists, my opponent is to argue otherwise.
Generic "Does God Exist" debate

Although the BoP is on Pro, according to the structure I am supposed to present my arguments and don't rebut. Well, I sure won't have problems abiding to the latter part. Anyway, I am merely going to present one argument, as I expected this debate to be shorter. Since 'God' was not clearly defined I am going to stick to the typical definition as the omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good, creator of the universe. The Evidential Argument From Evil Below I present the problem of evil as formulated by William Rowe (1). 1.There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.2.An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.3.(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. 1) The first premise is sometimes called the factual or evidential premise. To support it I have to give examples of pointless, intense suffering mentioned in the premise. Note that this is not an argument that attempts to establish logical impossibility of God's existence, it merely establishes theism is unlikely to be true.Every fish that gets caught in plastic waste, every bird that gets tainted by oil, every animal killed by predators, dies an utterly pointless death, without any benefit gained from it.No child that dies from easily preventable diseases, no war refugee, benefited in anyway himself or others with the horrendous suffering they have endured or still endure. To defeat this premise my opponent needs to give a very compelling reason why a God, as described above, would let these things happen. 2) The second premise is sometimes called the theological premise, because it seems to follow from what theology tells us about God. I take this to be rather uncontroversial as it appears to be a huge concesion on the theists part to say that a wholly good being would potentially let his creation suffer for no apparent reason. From this, the conclusion follows. Sources(1) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
most self identified political labels r meaningless

most self identified political labels are meaningless for most people, they are more a tool for psychological self identification than anything, more an indicator of the biases you've grown up with than a thought out label. i would bet if you did a study, you would find that there's a significant or even most people, who actually agree with each other more in actual substance than just their self proclaimed label. for example. if you tested this hypothesis. what i would suppose you would find. if you asked people "what should a person on welfare be able to get...." and then list some things, or ask "should food be a necessity for those who are trying their best and aren't lazy" or "which of the following environmental situations do you most support for environmental purposes... water, air, saving natural parks, etc". and continue giving more concrete specific scenarios. i would guess there would be a great number of people who say they are conservative when in reality, they agree on just as much or more things than the liberals.... and vise versa. they only disagree with each other in the abstract, where often the ideologies are so basically vague they are meaningless.
most self identified political labels r meaningless

My opponent has conceded that the original proposition needed some modifications to mount an argument. Given my workload now, I will simply allow my statements/arguments in Round Two to stand on their own merits. They appear sufficient when weighed against Pro"s case, evidence, and major points. I sympathize with Pro, my first debate three weeks ago posed similar problems, placing unnecessary burden on me. I have found the most difficult or second most difficult part of DDO is trying to word a debate in the exact wording desired. Good luck in the future dairygirl4u2c. I hope that we can have a debate over a similar issue on another occasion. Best to dairygirl4u2c.
Taxation Is Theft

My definitions are from google. I trust google. If you automatically choose the definitions (which you don't) you would automatically win. So again, does the definition of Taxation match or even closely line up to the definition of Theft? Let's ask Google taxation - the levying of tax. tax - a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. compulsory - required by LAW or a rule; obligatory. theft - the action or crime of stealing. crime - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by LAW. 2 + 2 = 4 Seems Google knows what she is talking about. Theft does not equal Taxation. action - the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.
Taxation Is Theft

As the instigator and "Pro" side of this debate, I set the definition of terms in the opening round. You cannot change them without somehow arguing that my definitions are inaccurate and establishing your alternative definitions as superior.However, even in your definition, the word "action" is there, followed by the word "or" and then "crime." This indicates that theft is not necessarily a crime, but it could simply be an "action." So even with your definitions, your argument fails. "Also, your second paragraph in round 2 indicates that a state doesn't have to rely on taxes to survive, which isn't true. "This is not an argument. Appealing to a common phrase (death and taxes) is also not an argument. This is a debate, not an assertion contest. Furthermore, whether people who steal need to steal or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is stealing. It is absolutely not relevant to the debate at hand. No definition that I or even you cited makes exceptions for theft based on necessity. Either make an argument on the merits of the resolution or concede.
Taxation Is Theft

Let's ask Google taxation - the levying of tax. tax - a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. compulsory - required by LAW or a rule; obligatory. theft - the action or crime of stealing. crime - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by LAW. 2 + 2 = 4 Seems Google knows what she is talking about. Theft does not equal Taxation Also, your second paragraph in round 2 indicates that a state doesn't have to rely on taxes to survive, which isn't true. There's a reason why there is a phrase: There are two things guaranteed in life. Death and TAXES. That's because NO country or state NO EXCEPTIONS can function without taxing people. "If indeed the state must rely on taxes in order to survive, it is no better than a gang of thieves and should thus be eliminated from society" So we should get rid of these countries: https://en.wikipedia.org... Generally, people who steal don't need to steal (General case here. we're not talking about exceptions). They can get a job. But states/countries NEED to tax. So this statement: "I will not attempt to answer the question of whether a state needs taxation in order to survive, as it is irrelevant to whether taxation is theft." Is false. Because it is relevant to know.
Taxation Is Theft

I will not accept the premise that theft is defined by what the majority of people in a given geographic area deem it to be. If the majority of people in a given geographic area vote to make 2 + 2 = 5, it does not follow that the equation is sound. I will not attempt to answer the question of whether a state needs taxation in order to survive, as it is irrelevant to whether taxation is theft. If indeed the state must rely on taxes in order to survive, it is no better than a gang of thieves and should thus be eliminated from society.
Taxation Is Theft

What's considered theft in the country, is up to the country itself, and on a moral stand point. Any country that taxes people obviously doesn't consider themselves to be thieves or else they wouldn't be doing it. On the moral stand point, any FUNCTIONING country/state has to tax people in order to sustain, so it's not like they have a choice. Government has to take money by force whether the people as citizens or the government itself likes it or not. Thus concluding the my claim Taxation Isn't Theft. Your turn.
Having a broken bone is fun

It is not fun to brake a bone. From personal experience, I know. I broke my ankle this past year in a football scrimmage and it ruined my season. I did not get to start. Nobody will think you are cool if you broke a bone because it doesn't really make a difference. Oh no! Poor Jimmy! After a week nobody really cares and other people have the burden of carrying books for you. And what if you don't have a cast. I had a boot and nobody could sign that. And the very last point is, having crutches. Since I had to use crutches personally, it was very hard to get around. You can't hang out with your friends or do anything. It also changed my ankle forever. Neither ankle will ever be the same.
Having a broken bone is fun

Your bone may get stronger, but we are talking about the period when the arm is broken. Getting out of sports activities may not always be a good thing. For example, if you are an eight grade star and you break your arm, you may lose your scholarship. Attention isn't always good either. You may be in a depressed state and don't want anyone near you. Overall, breaking a bone isn't good. It isn't good for your health, or your mentality. It ruins your present living an any activities your in.
Marilen MInro commuted suicide

I accept. The BOP is completely on you in which you have to prove that "Marilen Mlnro" commuted (committed) suicide. All i have to do is negate your points.The subject in this debate is Marilen Mlnro and suicide. Do you confirm this? (If you don't, this debate is invalidated because of the clear title and that there has been a change in the debate rules- conduct),This is what happens when you type carelessly. Good luck to my opponent.
Marilen MInro commuted suicide

Thank you for apologising about your forfeit in the previous round, but I would still like to say that this type of forfeiting of a round is always inconvenient for opponents, due to them having to wait and so on. Rebuttals (not much to rebut...)"Marlin locked her bedroom door and locked her window and it took the police 30 minutes to break in so no one could save her in time also she was in depression therapy and tried suicide before." First of all, I would like to ask, who is Marlin? If I am right, the title and topic of this debate is whether a person by the name of Marilen Mlnro, had commuted suicide or not. The subject is Marilen Mlnro, not ....... Marlin or Marlin....... Also, your argument is semantically null because this person, who it may be, may have the same name as someone else. This is why I suggest that you should have specified about the subject/person i.e. whoever.Rebuttal Conclusion My opponent has not fulfilled his/her BOP in which he/she has not specified about the chosen subject. My opponent has not provided any justifiable arguments in which he/she has not backed them up, especially with there being no sources.My ArgumentMy goal is that I have to sucessfully refute my opponent's points. I shall help do this now by proving that a "Marilen Mlnro" did not commit suicide. In fact, I shall go further by disproving that there is no such evidence or records about the suicide of a "Marilen Mlnro" at all.Google is one of the largest sites on the internet which allows us to worldwide access of many major and minor achives whether medical, political or historical etc. https://www.google.co.uk... As you can see, there is only one search result for a "Marilen Mlnro"; this being a result linking to this exact webite page. There are no records of any person called Marilen Mlnro or even any suicide records of a person with this name.ConclusionI have successfully refuted and rebutted my opponents point. My opponent has not fulfilled the BOP. I have provided an argument which disproves the existence of someone called Marilen Mlnro and that there are no records of any suicide.I rest my case.I extend my argument in the next round and I look forwards to my opponents response.]Note to my opponent; Always check and proof read the title of any debate, otherwise it can cause problems and can be of great advantage to an opponent.