BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

People People i urge you to go to the website it never says anything about people dying it just talks about side effects. And also how does your Contentions link to your value and criterion ok you also didnt argue against any of my contentions properly you just said this is wrong you never gave evidence while in my case i give evidence and in my take to your case i attack nothing because it all just revolves around a single false stastic come on how can 2 billion people die due to the side effects of a vaccine that means that all the people that have been on debate.org will die due to a vaccine. For those reasons i urge to vote affirmative in the case thank you
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Umm well my statistic is from http://www.cdc.gov... so he is wrong. Also this round was his rebuttal since he didnt rebut abything he considers them true. This means I should win this case by all means. Just as a pointer I would like to tell my opponent that you dont get disqualified from LD for fake statistics, this is moral debate and obviously he doesn't know that. Like Iaid I've taken this case to tournanents in Texas, so if they didn't disqualifiy me, how could you. As well this proves you don't know what your doing. So, this debate should be over here since he technically concidered every statement I made true. Thank you for voting con since my opponent obviously needs some practice.
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Ok my opponents bases his arguement in his stastic that 1 of every 3 people die from the vaccination. I just want to say one thing where did you this statistic from? I read and you MADE IT UP because man it is impossible for 2 billion people to die due to a vaccination. For that reason he is making up his whole case so i should win because according to the LD Debate rules any fake statistics leads to immidiate desqualification
economic growth is only reason for the growth of a country

I think you're definition of the word 'economy' has been greatly misconstrued. Every sector of industy ties in with the economy and if the economy isn't thriving, then neither will any apsect of the country. You've essentially shot yourself on the foot, because the sectors you've mentioned that you believe should be focussed on in alternation to the economy, are in fact, branches of the economy. The creative industries and the environmental sector are part of the economy!For example, the creative industries (arts, television, music, radio etc.) are all funded by the government or private companies, and the amount of funding is subsequently based on how well the economy is doing. You state that if we just focussed on the economy then then progression in the green sector would decline - this is wrong. Economic growth is one of the most crucial tacklers of environmental issues, such as climate change. Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School, stated that the only way the world is going to progress in terms of green energy is through further investment, and that with a stronger economy, emissions could easily be reduced (1). This is evidence from one of the world's top economists that the only way to improve certain parts of the industry, is through economic growth. The richer a country, the better the industries.(1) http://globalenergyinitiative.org...
economic growth is only reason for the growth of a country

As I stated in the first argument, economic growth is not the only reason for the development of a country ,other types growth are also important .If we just focus on economic growth , the other sectors like environment , arts , traditions ,etc. would be neglected and people who work in this sectors would not progress as their means of income would be no more. Moreover the traditions and arts would be lost as no one would be there to preserve them. Environment ,if neglected , would neglect us if we do not try to save it . If we pay attention in all the sectors and not just economy we would develop fast as every sector is progressing.
economic growth is only reason for the growth of a country

economic growth is not the only reason or the development of a country because nowadys green growth is equally important . As our industries are developing the number of trees is decreasing , if we do not give equal importance to green growth , one day we will really face a situation like the film `Avatar` ( in this film humans invade another planet and try to destroy it in search of resources as all the resources on earth ran out) . we also need to support the growth of traditional arts , as now arts are not given the importance they deserve , the various art forms are neglected as if they never existed .Preserving traditions and traditional growth is important because every region is known for its traditions . Imagine someone asking you `what are the special things or traditions of your region ?` you`ll answer ` I have IT industries , and skyscrapers` and if he`ll ask you about traditions you will have no answer becasue traditions were never preserved and they died and all you have is internet and big structures of concrete steel iron and glass but what else? If you have no traditions you will not have a proper way of life because traditions give us a way to live life . I think archeological growth is also important which means preserving of monuments ,if we wiil not preserve our monuments ,which 7 wonders of the world we will have ? The burj khalifa , empire state building ,burj al arab ,taipei 101, OR what? that is why I think economic growth is not the only reason for the development of a country
There should be an optional Cross-Ex round on DDO

Contention 1: Cross-Ex allows a true test of knowledgeCross-examination demonstrates a more true understanding of debate and further defines elite and novice debaters. The goal of a debate is to prove that you have a deeper understanding of the topic by proving that your case is the favorable one. Cross-examination allows the opposite party to truly test the extent of your knowledge by asking pertinent questions. Additionally, it tests the knowledge of the questioner. For example, if you are debating a topic such as:"Resolved: Iran poses a bigger threat to the U. S. than North Korea"An essential part of the PRO's side would be a deep understanding of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's past actions and threats related to closing the strait, and the economic consequences of our oil dependency on Saudi Arabia. This may not truly be expressed in a speech, which is where the Cross-Ex comes into place. Anyone can regurgitate information, rephrase it, and post it on DDO. Not everyone can truly understand it. Cross-ex allows to test the true knowledge of a subject, something that is essential for full debates. Contention 2: Cross-Ex increases excitementCross-examinations happen quickly and allow for quick changes of pace. It allows one speaker to gain a 1-up on the other. I previously touched on this during my first contention, but I will expand this to the spectator sport. Public Forum Debate was invented as a spectator sport alternative to Policy debate. Public Forum has larger cross-examination periods (crossfires) and has a larger presence in circuits such as the NJFL. Public Forum can be exciting with pertinent questions. However, it also shows the competency of the question-asker when questions such as the perhaps cliche: "Can you tell me about the time when you said those things? " questions. I was cross-examining a member from my school's speech team, and I began to bombard him with questions. We were debating the relevancy of oil to the American energy crisis. He stated that we need to rely on the Middle East, and I contended that Canada was an important ally. I sarcastically asked him, "Is Canada an important part of the Middle East? " and in the heat of the moment, he said "Yes. " I then went on to mention the Keystone XL pipeline, which he stated carries oil. Heat of the moment questions like these add tension to debate. After all, debate isn't the "most-friendly" club. Slip-of-the-tongue answers add excitement to debates. Contention 3: Cross-Ex makes debates more realisticSaturday Night Live criticized the Presidential Debates between President Barack Obama and Presidential-Elect Mitt Romney, featuring both characters with lines such as "I never said that. " This happened in real life too, although it was not as funny as the SNL version. This happens in every debate, which is why DDO adding it would only make sense. It makes these online debates more like the real-life famous debates that we see on television. For these three reasons, I strongly urge a >>Pro<< ballot.
There should be an optional Cross-Ex round on DDO

They can be any type of question. DDO -- debate. orgFor the sake of this argument, assume time is a standard two minutes. Cross-examinations can be placed in either after each speech (Pro speaks, con CX's for 2 minutes, then con speaks, Pro CX's for 2 minutes) or after both (Pro speaks, con speaks, con CX's Pro, Pro CX's Con). Assume that both pro and con must be online in order for a cross-ex to take place. Therefore, the two must agree on a time and must click a button such as "Ready to CX. " Once this button is clicked, a data point is logged stating that the user is ready. This will expire after two minutes in order to prevent on party from starting a CX when the other is not ready. I would love a cross-ex option regardless of the outcome of this debate and hopefully others feel the same way (even if you're going con! :P)
There should be an optional Cross-Ex round on DDO

7 Point win for the Pro because Con did not stick to format. Additionally, Con failed to refute any of Pro's aguments. CX on DDO is a necessary addition because: 1) it shows knowledge of the topic 2) it makes debates more realistic 3) it adds excitement to debates and encourages voters For these three reasons, I strongly urge a PRO ballot. (7 pt. win)
There should be an optional Cross-Ex round on DDO

For some reason I would never agree with you. That's nice. .. why? You see, I don,t think you read what I wrote. The arguments were ignored because it did not stick to format. I am just going to be honest with you, I don't have much point but what I said is true and always will. We don't need it, period. The initial resolution and understandings page sets forth the precedent that the CX will be optional. .. therefore, nobody is forced to use it. All of my arguments from the previous round are extended since my opponent failed to refute my arguments.
Age limit for drinking should be lowered to 16

Rebuttals Can't handle responsibility That is but a mere misconception. Even adults don't drink sensibly. Con's argument that it would increase drunk driving is preposterous, as we are only lowering the age limit for drinking, not driving. As far as I know, driving age limit shall remain 18. Interference with school work That is also just an assertion. Drinking may interfere with adults' career and young adults' college work, no problem in that eh? Furthermore, illegal drinking is rampant around these ages, for it is easy for adults to buy alcohol and their children get hands on it on one unsuspecting day. We can make sure that under 16 are only allowed to drink in bars, therefore no one will go to school drunk. Or allow them to drink only after school hours, or only on the weekends. But it will be better if they be treated as normal people. 16 to 18 year olds can easily look above 18 and therefore gain entrance to a pub or bar anyways. Arguments I think the drinking age should be lowered as it will provide early exposure to alcohol and make sure that the child would know how dangerous it is. Educational sessions have a low impact as they have never experienced the effects of the drink and therefore don't know how harmful it is. A practical session is always better. Furthermore, there would be a limit on how much they can drink, such as 250 ml per day. Adults drink very insensibly, and might influence children to do so. But it can also be the other way around.
Age limit for drinking should be lowered to 16

I will limit myself to an opening statement since my opponent didn't provide evidence in round 1.The age limit should not be lowered to 16 due to the fact that people of this age can't handle the responsibility. Drunk driving would increase significantly and cause a great amount of injury and death. Alcoholism rates would also increase, as underage drinking would certainly negatively interfere with school and extracirricular activities. Teenagers also have access to many more outlets than adults do in regards to releasing stress, therefore alcohol consumption at such a young age is unneeded.
Radio stations would be more popular if they didn't play the same songs repeatedly

Yes i agree that music on the radio is usually bland and boring, mostly because the same songs are overplayed. Which is what my point is.I guess some people may seem overwhelmed trying to know all the songs, but i think most people aren't really like that and they just listen to the radio just for fun, not worrying about knowing all the songs. Besides, being overwhelmed with so much music is better than being bored with the same few songs being repeated. I don't know what most people's opinions are about being overwhelmed, but I would guess that most people would agree with my point. So, 'trying to make the radio a better place for people as myself' in my opinion would mean most people."Also I don't really care much about the words of the music, I just listen to the sounds itself. I can't remember words of a song anyways."- Thats mostly the same with me, and is once again agreeing with my point that most people don't care to much about the words. You do know that you are debating AGAINST this issue, right? You seem to be agreeing with me about a lot of things haha :DAnyways, good luck.
Radio stations would be more popular if they didn't play the same songs repeatedly

Ok. I guess first of all, I didn't mean that music not on the radio is bland and boring, I meant it the other way around. Also, the thing is... popular music starts to get sketchy. It starts to get to where, instead of being all about the music, it takes in other factors as well. "fanbase, coolness, how the artist looks, ect." So when an artist starts to do all this other non-musical stuff, their music eventually goes down to where most of the music is uninspired. So people who pay attention to a lot of stuff other than the music itself tend to like generally uninspired music because of the other things about it. That's not to say that all music on the radio is garbage however. But a reasonable chunk is. I would think that if you start giving the radio listeners a lot more songs and variety, that they might feel overwhelmed trying to know all the songs, ect. You seem to be an exception however, and I see that your trying to make the radio a better place for people as yourself. Also I don't really care much about the words of the music, I just listen to the sounds itself. I can't remember words of a song anyways. So do your best, evil villain! (>'o')> (btw don't take the kirby's seriously)
Radio stations would be more popular if they didn't play the same songs repeatedly

In response to: "People who listen to the radio are generally already looking for bad music. Also people who listen to the radio want to know the songs by heart so that they can sing like this ----> <('o'<) ! LaLaLaLa! (>'o')>""If they played more unpopular music the listeners would be all like, "this is liek tutally compleet garbage cuz I dunno teh werdz""I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'bad music' why would anyone search for bad music? If by bad music you mean "the popular music" as i put it, then that would make more sense. I, for one, don't search for that music, i try to search for the music that isn't played as much, if i hear some popular song by lady ga ga for example, i usually just skip to a different station. Also that may be true that they might want to know the songs by heart but consider this: The REASON they know it by heart is because it is so popular and they hear it on the radio all the time. It had to start somewhere, so I say start different songs. They may not know the words at first, but eventually they could. Besides, I don't know if its just me, but I still like music even if I don't know the words. I think that applies to a lot of people. In response to:"People who dont like listening to the same music over and over, and in general bland and boring music at that, should probably just buy an iPod or other musical-playing device, or maybe even CD's, to listen in their car. "That may be true, and is a good idea, but people like me often listen to the radio to try and browse new songs that I haven't heard to add to my ipod. Also I completely disagree that music that is not played on the radio is generally bland and boring music. I think you should go online and browse different songs, there are a TON of just as good songs (although I'm sure most are better) out there that are not played on the radio.
Radio stations would be more popular if they didn't play the same songs repeatedly

Hi there :) I am your challenger. <('_')> Lets get started then, People who listen to the radio are generally already looking for bad music. Also people who listen to the radio want to know the songs by heart so that they can sing like this ----> <('o'<) !LaLaLaLa! (>'o')> If they played more unpopular music the listeners would be all like, "this is liek tutally compleet garbage cuz I dunno teh werdz" People who dont like listening to the same music over and over, and in general bland and boring music at that, should probably just buy an iPod or other musical-playing device, or maybe even CD's, to listen in their car.
Radio stations would be more popular if they didn't play the same songs repeatedly

I will be debating that although it is part of the disk jockie's job to play the most popular songs, the radio station would be MORE popular if they played the "popular" songs just as often as the songs that aren't as popular. In my opinion there are a LOT of good songs out there that are never played on the radio, depriving the listeners. My opponent will be debating that the most popular should be played the most, and not throw in more variety.
Smoking should be illegal in Public areas, and around any children related places, and offsprings

My opponent choses to take up his/hers round completely go off topic, and ignore the title. This debate is about if smoking should be illegal in Public places or around any children. I hope that in round two (round one was acceptance) my opponent won't argue using his/hers theological beliefs, as that is completely irrelevant. I will first present my case, and do rebuttals in upcoming rounds Here are some affects of cigarettes. There are over 7,000 chemicals are in tobacco smoke, 250 are harmful to health. Of the 250 harmful chemicals, 69 causes cancer. Here are the following cancer causing chemicals. Arsenic Benzene Beryllium (a toxic metal) 1,3"Butadiene (a hazardous gas) Cadmium (a toxic metal) Chromium (a metallic element) Ethylene oxide Nickel (a metallic element) Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element) Vinyl chloride Others as well Smoking is addictive, and unsurprisingly can cause death. My goal will be to point out that this should be stopped, and how smoking in public can affect others. My case: I. Harm to others, that are nonsmokers This is probably the biggest reason why smoking should be completely illegal in any public areas. Second hand smoke (which is smoke inhaled by nonsmokers), causes 42,000 deaths in the U.S alone including 900 infants. You can say, that smokers are almost like murders. Altogether that is 600,000 years of life lost, resulting in 6.9 billion dollars of lost productivity. II. Encourages children, or younger people to smoke. A reason why some kids because they see every one else do it, so they are tempted to do as well. As I mentioned the consequence before, smoking should be stopped in public so less kids are tempted to do so. Other reasons are peer pressure and because parents smoke. (Which I will talk about in following argument). III. If parents smoke, children to do too. Research shows that if parents smoke, their kids are more likely to become heavy smokers. If parents quit, their children would most likely will not smoke too. If laws like these are enforced, this could result in younger people not being tempted to smoke. Rebuttals: Since my opponent did not clarify anything about why smoking should be illegal, I won't be able to prove any rebuttals except for the fact that theological beliefs have NOTHING to do with this debate.
Smoking should be illegal in Public areas, and around any children related places, and offsprings

Lets not set this as law. You need to find your strength and show them the law righteously. be free from the law, but in turn you will find a deeper meaning of acceptance and a whole perception in time. The true spirit, that will soon know that it is the lord. read and study much, for a many passages you take zeal in. the bible is one amazing book! unfolding a different view in you. Why or How could i have kept this gift to myself, when the world can finally see this truth right here, but not did you walk with him. When there is finally a chance to receive guidance, where do ya go? why are we not listening , therefore speaking all at once, and there it reign deception . The truth is the hardest to find. go straight through Jesus Christ, our Lord, to Father God, and he will hear you. Ask of knowledge and he will give abundantly. Setting laws involve a much more divine understanding, to have a heart and mind for the whole. As many people there are in the world, it takes responsibility and commitment to be a leader. a virtuous individual who loves all. Jesus Christ can do this all, perfectly..The new covenant, its all in your head, a different set of eyes, A new name, burning fire in your heart, the power of the lord knows how to enter you, do you know how to let him in to your mind.
Its none of your business

Many thanks are in order to my opponent for his well thought out arguments. Let us remember the conditions of this debate. In lieu of arguing the constitutionality of specific "privacy v protection" legislation (which i fear would normally happen to this sort of debate) we have a hypothetical nation. This, as stated before, takes constitutionality out of the equasion, and leaves more room for debating practicality. In our nation today, no one would argue that identity theft is ruining more and more innocent Americans' financial credibility. The FBI website clearly states "A stolen identity is a powerful cloak of anonymity for criminals and terrorists" [1] A privacy-centric society wouldn't necissarily fix this. Remember that we live in a partial-disclosure society. What ths means in terms of identity theft is that there is enough vulnerable information out there for a criminal to assume one's identity, but not enough to expose them. In a full disclosure society, no longer would there be the anonimity that identity thieves enjoy. When they make a purchase, under full disclosure, not only will a name appear on the cashier's computer, but a photo as well. Let me remind the voters that my other arguments have yet to be invalidated by my opponent. I have linked, unchallenged, unabated privacy protection with terrorism, and nuissence conspiracies. Vote con. Because safety IS all our business.
Its none of your business

You did happen to repeat yourself many times, in examples of course. What we all have to understand is this: our business keeps us safe. Your business is your home address, your social security number, your credit card numbers, your phone number, your FaceBook password, etc. If someone got a hold of your home address they could stalk you. If they got your social security number, they could become you. If someone got a hold of your credit card numbers, they could spend your money. You get the idea. My over-all point is that your business keeps you safe.