BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves.

ok so your don't think people need food stamps. you think that a mother of 3 working a forty hour a week job trying to care for her kids doesn't deserve help? you are wrong. i can note that some folks abuse the system but not all not even most. you have tighter regulations and restrictions. i say you are ruthless and selfish individual who goal does not seek the improvement of our nation. did you know that a mother of four with out a job will get around 700.00 a month to feed her children which is alot. but here is the thing as soon as she obtains a job that pays her minimum wage and works her more than 30 hours a week. roughly 217.50 a week before taxes they will change the amount to less than 340.00 requiring the mother who was close to actually getting a head and providing a slightly high grade of life for her children back to were she was earlier. when you cut the support by so much when such a merge job was acquired how do you expect any person to honestly get ahead. i say any person who has never needed government assistance for anything should live with nothing for a week. to all you wonderful college people who think welfare is a drain and you don't think your taxes dollars should help others. i ask did you get government money for your schooling? how about we stop that too. the government is here to assist the population to improve the social standing of all it's people. i don't think as a country we should take what little those underdogs have but stop wasting time and effort on the not needed.
The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves.

Abraham Lincoln was right when he said this because he knew that for you to make it in society you have to work hard, build character, develop morals, etc. It's sad people do not live by that now because everyone thinks everything should be given to them that's why 45.8 million people in august of 2011 was on the food stamp program that is over 15% of the national economy(http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). People just do not work hard no more they think everything should be given to them that's why we should have more restrictions on our food stamp program not grant anybody food stamps because they get spoiled and from then on expect everything be given to them.and that is......... The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves.
The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves.

My opponent would like the government to make people do it for them selves he keeps quoting lincoln "The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves" where would America be? well it would have more starving children. more prostitutes, drug dealers, higher crime rates, people living in parks and under bridges. welfare isn't about the people who abuse it it's about the people who use it. my opponent stated that companies only get sold to rich people of there own choice your right. the choice of board members who want to line there pockets. all the other people the common works the office workers yeah it wasn't there choice but yet they lost their job because of it. a week ago none of those people need aid from the government but know they all do. So 10 guys on a board could buy better suits. 1,000 or even 50,000 people are job less who have homes, families, bills, and urges to eat. These are the people that welfare is designed for. Yet my opponent want to penalize them over the few percent that don't ever amount to anything or live as a constant drain as he says the lazy ones. When in truth less than 20% of welfare recipients use the service fr more than 5 years 30 % use the service for less than 1 year in fact. my opponent claims the rest of the world see's our nation as lazy. when the rest of the world also has similar programs to welfare for it's low income families. yes we are the lead spender but we also have the largest population of people we are taking care of. when you look at many Africa and Asian countries the number of people still starving and dieing from lack of medicine daily is in the thousands even ten's of thousands. That's what my opponent in this issue wants more of our American's dieing in the streets. i am not nor should any one else be in favor of cutting welfare programs or alter the current ones in thing les than to expand them. with out providing our nation with jobs not small jobs making 10.00 or less an hour but real jobs the ones people can raise a family on save money on. http://www.acf.hhs.gov... http://www.answers.com... http://www.ehow.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cato.org...
The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves.

Also I would like to go back to when you sad even if people do become successful rich people buy there company up. .. .well you got to remember they sell them to the rich people so they know that the rich people are going to buy it. Also listing the exact things I want done to food stamps the new restrictions and how it should be reform is a another debate. And something you do not understand is if people are getting something free like food stamps and they are not doing nothing not looking for a job just being lazy there is nothing wrong with them working doing community service or something that will not only make the community look better but also help them they can say you know what I do not want to be picking up trash and painting walls for the rest of my life I want to try to get a great paying job where I do not have to do this also one thing you are missing is if you are successful and you worked hard to get there. .. .. there is nothing wrong with that you should feel proud the sweat of your brow got you where your at. Just like I said I clean bathrooms and clean parking lots bag groceries and when I'm successful I'm going to say that first job I had help me get where I'm at today. It made say I want to do better just like I said if people getting stuff free they just tend to stay that way cause everything is going good for them. Just think of all the people that get food stamps and are not looking for job and abusing the system if they did community service a while to earn them food stamps and they realize I do not want to do this the rest of my life and they open up business and expand them to create American jobs just think how much that would help America. America now has a reputation of being lazy always want something given to them and that is horrible that people think were like that and see back in 1865 when Abraham Lincoln said "The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves" he wanted to prevent America from getting this reputation he wanted America to work for there things build character go farther in life not just take advantage of the Government and be lazy just think of this if people did follow this quote where would America be today
The United Stats Federal Government Should permit Marriage to all!

TOPICALITY Counter Interpretation/Definition: Husband/Husband and Wife/Wife relationships also include marriage. See our Prinston '09 definition that says that "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)". Counter-Standards: Prefer OUR DEFINITION because it comes from the Princeton college of law, so it's a better definition because debate is topic centered around law. Vote Affirmative: Topicality is not a voting issue, it's only a time suck.. Also, this is NOT a valid Topicality argument because we are debating the resolution, which INCLUDES the debate over marriage between homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Don't grant the Con team any offense because we are simply debating the ORIGINAL RESOLUTION. COUNTER-PLAN First of all, they provide no Counterplan solvency; how do we know their CP will solve? However, by giving the same rights to Gays but titling their marriage as something different isn't marriage is OTHER-IZING them, which leads to Dehumanization, which eventually leads to Genocide. You cannot allow this to happen. SOLVENCY My opponent says that if "we allow gay people to be married that doesnt solve the mindsets of people".. however when you allow Gays to be part of the group of those who are married, you are giving heterosexuals a way to get to know homosexuals.. and eventually lead them to be more accepted by society. Also, he says that the government "will be surely overturned due to the majority of the population being heterosexuals." However, an August poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 57% of all Americans agree with equal rights to homosexuals, including marriage. (http://www.pollingreport.com...) DARWIN DISAD Under no circumstances are we promoting homosexuality. The plan is only giving equal rights, including marriage, to be given to ALL PEOPLE, no matter what sexual preference. TURN: Homosexuals can get sex-change operations, so their impact won't happen. They also provide no Uniqueness. IMMIGRATION DISAD Your impacts should have happened already. Since the late 1800s, immigration has increased in America rapidly. Also, recently there have been an influx of illegal immigrants from around the world and there is no overcrowding in America's cities. Also, it is the JOB of the GOVERNMENT to improve the "rights we give to Americans".. failure to do so isn't government at all. AFF OFFENSE TURN Not doing anything about equal rights would mean that we shouldn't have done anything to protect their rights of African Americans, Native Americans, or even Americans at all.. the colonists rebelled from Britain because lack of basic rights. This is against our nation's principles.. and our history.
The United Stats Federal Government Should permit Marriage to all!

Topicalty A. Interpetation: Marriage refers to the state of, or relation between man and woman who have become husband and wife. B.Violation: The affirmative is saying that man and man can be married as husband and husband. This adds a material qualification on who can get married. The affirmative can avoid negative links. C. Standards: there is an unlimited number of conditions the USFG could put on all who can be married. D. Vote Negative- topicality is a priori jurisdictional voting issue, if the plan is not topical the affirmative has failed to justify plan. Counter Plan: The USFG should give the same rights to the Gays but title it something different. Solvency: Even If we allow gay people to be married, that doesnt solve the mindsets of the people. And as we all know the peope are the govenment. Since they are the government this will be surely overturned due to the majority of the population being heterosexuals. Disad Darwin: Allowin Gay marriage would be tampering with survival of the fittest because two males or two females cant produce offf spring. This leads to extinction. Disad Immigration and some Mathus: The more rights we give Americans, the more people will want to come to America! This leads to overpopulation in the US. Overpopulation causes extinction
The United Stats Federal Government Should permit Marriage to all!

Hey Marvin. Thanks so much for allowing me to debate. I hope we'll learn more about this website and how this all works! I'd like to start off the debate by this: Our founding principles were that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator some unalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". This statement applies to ALL people, regardless of race, culture, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Why WOULDN'T we allow the free rights for others that we enjoy ourselves? Regardless of your political standing or religious philosophy, this is a moral issue.. and it's more than that. It's an AMERICAN ISSUE.. and American value. Our nation was founded on these principles: that we accept one another and stand strong as a powerful force for good. This applies to ALL of our nation's people.
The United Stats Federal Government Should permit Marriage to all!

While their rights haven't changed or increased to the rights of Heterosexuals, Homosexuals are becoming ever so populous in the United States of American. Are Homosexuals entitled to marriage or are they over stepping their boundaries? Should the law prohibiting Gay Marriage Be overturned? Okay this will be our first Debate so go easy on us Debate.org community! Affirmative: Zach Negative: Marvin Resolution is the Topic!
The conclusions of "The Veil of Ignorance" are a just standard by which public policy must be made

A better, more complete explanation can be found here: . https://hammeringshield.wordpress.com... I will be arguing that the conclusions drawn from this thought experiment are a just standard of by which public policy should be made. The "conclusions" strictly stated are as follows (and are stated in the link) "1st each person will be given the most extensive basic liberties possible without intruding upon the liberties of others, and 2nd there will be equal opportunity for everyone to climb the economic and/or social ladder and that any social or economic inequalities that are allowed must be arranged so that they improve the access to Primary Goods for the Least Advantaged" The Primary Social Goods: "1) Rights and Liberties, 2) Powers and Opportunities, 3) Income and Wealth, and 4) conditions for Self-Respect". By "just" I mean the dictionary definition "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair" By "Standard" I mean the dictionary definition "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations" By "Public Policy" I mean "the principles, often unwritten, on which social laws are based" Essentially my argument is that for a society to be fair, as one who does not yet know the specifics of their birth would wish it to be, it must adhere to the conclusions of this thought experiment. My opponent will argue that adhereance to these conclusions would make society unfair.
The conclusions of "The Veil of Ignorance" are a just standard by which public policy must be made

As Pro eventually accepted, the crux of this debate is whether the VoI provides just standards that should be used to make public policy. My debate strategy was to focus on the second half of that statement, but I contested both parts. On whether the VoI provides just standards:I showed the conclusions of the VoI are not what Pro claimed they are. Because values define how people would decide to govern themselves under the VoI, the experiment can reach no conclusion whether the people are with or without values. With values, people choose divergent forms of government and rules. Without values, the people have no reason to choose any particular form of government. Thus, the VoI is incoherent. I showed that even if we accept the conclusions as valid, they are too vague to have any impact. On whether those standards should be used to make public policy:I showed that my alternative conception of rights is more concrete and provides greater protection of rights. Prefer the framework of equal concern and respect.
The conclusions of "The Veil of Ignorance" are a just standard by which public policy must be made

This round is titled "closing statements". It"s neither a new argument or a total rebuttal, just a couple of points con and I wish to remind the voters of. I"d like to start by thanking con for this debate. A couple of points: -Liberty is the means by which anything can be done. The VoI promotes liberty for the sake of those who will wish to do something which they can only do through liberty. Perhaps you wish to be a lawyer, or a religious extremist, or a philosopher, or a musician or something else. If you do not know which, you must dream of a nation which gives you the liberty to do any of them or more while also provides protection from the various injustices found in today"s world. This is the essential notion of the VoI. Liberty is not meaningless, especially when you are unsure of your path in life, and even more so when you know that chance may place you in a position in which just "rights" will do nothing for you. -It was never my intention to lay out a plan by which a nation could achieve the dream of the VoI conclusions, only to argue that the conclusions were in fact that which should be dreamt of. The VoI in itself does not solve a problem, it only illustrates them and proposes a state where they are solved. It does not provide the how, only the what and why. The how is subject to the individual, I imagine a country like Norway with a Nordic economic model as being a good example of the how although I will not argue which model is the best model. -If you believe that the conclusions of the VoI are a set of conditions that would yield a just nation, and that politicians and policy makers should keep those ideal conditions in mind when making decisions, then vote pro. Thanks again to my opponent and to everyone that voted or read this debate.
THBT coffee should be banned.

I do agree that people should get their own choice but these choices are turning into addictions which are causing to health problems. And of course there are ways to stop this "choice" but once your addicted to coffee you won't even think about abandoning it from our life. If coffee is banned then there wouldn't be any choice of taking the wrong thing for your health. Coffee has been used in daily life, also people drinking coffee 3 times a day,which might even be pleasuring them , but that is really really hurtful for your health meanwhile it is fun. My Case: Sorry, same here, I did do a little research but forgot to put it down and there were only a few minutes to write my side, I will make sure to prove my self better in the next round.
THBT coffee should be banned.

I hereby state that all the arguments presented do not necessarily dictate my personal opinion on the issue.I accept the criteria.I will start off by rebutting the arguments made by Pro and then present my first two arguments."A) Coffee causes psychological effects." Yes, coffee might be addicting, but so are so many other things in this era, namely, video games soft drinks, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Additionally, pro is forgetting the point that most of these addictions are a choice of people rather than a forced alternative. The people have the choice and resources to get rid of these addictions and escape from the side effect.Also, the laziness, the sudden mood changes, and the unwillingness to work are due a dependence on a certain material, which I already stated is not the only one in today's world. If, we start banning these materials, we will only end up removing all the fun and entertainment the 21st century offers."B) Coffe causes health problems."Again, all these issues are things that many coffe consumers are aware off and they still keep drinking. Also, Pro only pays attention to the addicts who might be victim to extremes like Osteoporosis and forgets the casual coffee drinks who enjoy its pleasures very occassionaly.My Case:I am sorry. Due to time restrictions I will provide my case in the next round.
THBT coffee should be banned.

Thanks for accepting. I look forward to a great debate and wish you best of luck. Criteria: If I can prove that banning coffee will be for the best of the society, I will win this debate. Definition: Ban: "to prohibit especially by legal means" (Merriam Webster). A) Coffee causes psychological effects. Coffee is quite addicting, regular coffee drinkers have started to say that coffee is there morning boost and without coffee they wouldn't have enough energy to do any activities or continue their daily routine. Example, teachers come to school in a gloomy way and get harsh on the students. " In an interview, Roland Griffiths, a professor in the departments of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, said that people who take minimum 100mg of caffeine per day can acquire a physical dependence that would trigger withdrawal symptoms that include headaches, muscle pain and stiffness, lethargy, nausea, vomiting, depressed mood, and marked irritability." ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Most of the coffee drinkers have started to drink more than 3 cups of coffee per day which is causing to have have these symptoms. People have started to get really lazy, just laying in bed unless and until someone hands them coffee If someone is having a bad day they think that coffee could change there mood by cheering them up but they never think how much it is affecting their body. B) Coffee causes health problems. Just like I said in the last paragraph coffee is causing a lot of health problems which is harmful for the society. Since coffee includes too much caffeine which is a drug., might also cause any type of coronary heart disease. At the same time as coffee raises your blood pressure, it also increases the risk of Osteoporosis (" is a disease of bones that leads to an increased risk of fracture.") Moreover, coffee also has a negative effect on their blood vessel tone and function.. Coffee is really harmful for their society and their health. These were some of the reasons why coffee is making a change in the society and to stop this, coffee should be banned. http://www.baristaguide.com... http://news.softpedia.com...
Schools shouldn't have a dress code

When we say "better informed teachers." there has been no program proposed by my opponent. Mediation makes bullying worse and group rehabilitation for bullies makes the issue worse. With no plan going forward this argument holds no weight especially not in the face of all of my empirical evidence that school uniforms are beneficial that have thus far gone unrefuted. While students may not find these specific things distracting, dress codes often extend to far more. Need I remind you that your position in this debate is " I believe that as long as no one is naked or has something inappropriate on their clothing there should be no need for" for a dress code I assume. That means that your position covers allowing far more than ripped jeans. My opponent concludes with more unconfirmable anecdotal evidence. I would urge the voters to hold my empirical, scientific, evidence based arguments over my opponent's anecdotal evidence which cannot be confirmed and does not cover his own position in its entirety.
Schools shouldn't have a dress code

If we better informed the teachers they would learn tactics on stopping the bullying before it even happens. If a teacher sees any budding bullying between one person and another they will know how to stop it. Also I'm ready to state my final case. Kids really don't find shoulders and pants with holes above the knees distracting. Especially with the holes argument, As long as it doesn't show any genitalia, what's so bad about shorts being really short and having holes in pants? Now I understand how spaghetti strap tank tops are not allowed because of the chance of the strap falling down but regular tank tops don't show that much issue. It's not like kids are shirtless, they are only showing their arm all the way to the elbow. Now I can tell you this. Yes my argument did not have all the things to back it up yesterday and here it is. The girl in my story was wearing pants with holes above the knee and nothing else that broke the dress code and I had easy to notice holes in my pants too. This story has happened to me 3 times and it was from different teachers so it wasn't just one teacher.