BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should replace capital punishment with gladitorial combat

We should replace the death penalty with gladitorial combat. Everyone subject to this would still recieve all of teh legal privileges of our system. We would just take the death row inmates, and when it comes time to put them to death, we make them fight each other in a public arena. When the inmates would have otehrwise been lethally injected/electric chaired, we will draw them a random matchup from another death row inmate who would have also been put to death anyway at that time. This makes it impartial and doesn't effect the lifespan of one of the inmates. The inmate who wins/survives would stay in prison and go on to fight again later down the road. This has positive benefits that I will go into upon response. Please don't turn this into a debate on capital punishment. For the sake of argument we are assuming that the current death penalty is OK. Thanks in advance for the response.
Kazakhstan should not have the same sex marriage

First, I'd like to state my attitude about the subject and then I'll express my argumentation in 2 titles: 1-) The concrete harm of the homosexual people in Kazakhstan 2-) Why nothing will change about childbearing Attitude: The exact amount of homosexuals in Kazakhstan is not known, but according to the beliefs of the experts, 10% of Kazakh citizens belong to some sexual minorities, which are called LGBT(1). These people are allowed to have affairs, but their relationship won't be recognized by the government, which means the people you've heard about can't have got married in Kazakhstan, maybe in the Netherlands or somewhere else (2). What I advocate for today is that the status quo is not reasonable for homosexuals because they don't have the right to have a family. 1-) Just like us and other heterosexual people, family and the recognition of it is important. You wouldn't think of a normal couple living together without marriage, right? They wouldn't be a family! It's the same for homosexual people, as they want to have a recognized "family establishment". Because they're not allowed, they feel themselves under pressure and not "together" enough, which causes a lot of botheration in their lives. They're also influenced badly from the perception of the community, which we can see clearly from the sentence "I'm dissatisfied.". The legalization of the homosexual marriage can help the perception get better for the homosexual people, which I plan to explain more detailed in the 3rd round (I'll also explain why it should improve that way) 2-) You told me that people should get in heterosexual affairs and have children so that the humanity can continue. I disagree with this argument, because the homosexual people don't have children today either, even when they're not allowed to marry. It's because they won't have heterosexual affairs anyway, it doesn't depend on if they are allowed to get marry or not: They won't become heterosexuals if you prevent them to live in sexual minorities, maybe some of them'd love to (who knows?) but they can't because what makes them homosexual is the release of the sexual hormones. Sources: (1) http://en.tengrinews.kz... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

I am about ready to throw this stupid computer into the middle the street. >-> Yes, vote pro. Also I'm extremely sorry for this round. Thanks for being such a good sport about my conduct, I wish we could have had a better round. I promise I had a lot to say, but I just never got the time. (also for the record, I was saving often. My computer is just spazzing out on me when I'm DDO.) Again, vote Pro. I'm sorry. I have to go spend my entire Thanksgiving break writing a college paper now. Ugh...
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

I was really hoping it wouldn't come to this, but it looks like it has. I'm sorry to my opponent but it looks as though I won't have time to type out my first round arguments. I'm going to have to pass this round. I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to my opponent, and ask that he as well passes next round so that we can continue this debate properly. It would appear that I had accidentally erased the arguments I had written earlier.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

+ Although this is the current LD topic, this debate will not take place in an LD format. + All arguments should be written to be as clear and concise as possible. + Arguments do not have to include data. However if data is not included, then clear philosophical warrants should be made. I will be arguing that individuals have a moral obligation to assist others in need. My opponent can argue whatever he likes, so long as he stops me meeting my burden of proof. The Voting period will be two weeks. There will be three rounds of debate, and one round of acceptance. There will be 72 hours to argue during each round. There will a character limit of 8,000.
THW: ban the development of artificial superintelligences (ASIs)

I already defined "utility function" in round 2: "it has a utility function- that is, it has some criteria by which it measures the world, and acts such that it maximises the score it gives the world on its utility function". The utility function can be thought of as a mathematical way of expressing an AI's goals. A human programmer can program exactly what they want a spaceship to do without the need for AI, before the spaceship is launched. "So to send a signal, and then receive confirmation that the signal was acted upon would take 2 years." In a similar way, imagine something went wrong with your ASI while it is a light year away- it would take a year or you to know about it, and, as explained earlier, your ASI would necessarily resist any attempts to change it, as changing its utility function is necessarily going to rate lowly on its utility function. "And as to the rest, you constantly mix together sentient and non sentient AI" There is no such thing as "non-sentient AI", and the definitions of the debate made that clear- "intelligence: reasoning and logical abilities."- something which can reason is necessarily sentient. "I can agree with you that a sentient AI could be scary" is more or less conceding the motion- AI is dangerous, and therefore should be banned. "It can hack away to it's hearts content, it won't accomplish anything." Once again, you're underestimating ASIs- as mentioned before, computing singularities aren't at all beyond today's technology, and if one to occur even in an isolated system, the result would be an intelligence so incredibly sophisticated and developed that it would be to us as we are to bacteria. If it wanted to escape the computer, it would certainly find a way to do so. If nothing else, it could manipulate its human programmers, as it would understand out minds so well that it would know exactly what to do to get what it wants. This also begs the question of what use an ASI would actually be if you really did find a way to place so many safety precautions in front of it that it effectively cannot do anything. I think we can all agree that sentient (as all AIs have to be, by definition) ASIs would be incredibly dangerous, and would either be too much of a liability to be worth having, or would have to be placed under constant supervision and endless safety protocols to the extent the ASI would be useless and ineffective. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and the readers and voters for it. For the above reasons, I urge the voters to side with the motion that THW ban the development of ASIs.
THW: ban the development of artificial superintelligences (ASIs)

I don't get your first paragraph. Please define utility function. You use it very ambiguously. As to the space travel, if a space ship is one light year away the commands from earth would take 1 year to reach the space ship because the signal (light waves) move at the speed of light. So to send a signal, and then receive confirmation that the signal was acted upon would take 2 years. And as to the rest, you constantly mix together sentient and non sentient AI. You can have a hyperintelligent AI, but without sentience it can't make decisions on its own. Its basically a glorified script. Why would you ever give a cake calculator or a footage scanner sentience. It isn't necessary. A non-sentient AI doesn't think "Oh, I'll get a reward if see 10 more crimes, better manipulate people into murdering each other". It scans footage. If it sees movement it analyses the movement. If the movement fulfils enough criteria to be considered illegal it signals a human or a police robot or something. It's just a list of very advanced if statements. Sentient AI on the other hand doesn't exist at the moment. I can agree with you that a sentient AI could be scary, but that's the one you put into an offline computer. It can hack away to it's hearts content, it won't accomplish anything. You'd have to give the computer limbs so that it could interact with the world, but why do that. I honestly can't think of many reasons to give a sentient AI limbs. The primary use for a sentient AI would probably be to give advise to us humans, most other tasks can be done with a non sentient AI. And there is no need to for and advisory AI to have anything but a screen and maybe some speakers. How would it ever get out of it's computer? And since all your arguments this round have been about scariness and danger, I'll take it that I won on efficiency and usefulness.
THW: ban the development of artificial superintelligences (ASIs)

Definitions: "THW" this house would, i. e. the motion being argued "artificial": created by humans "superintelligence": an entity with intelligence equivalent to, or greater than that, of a typical human. "intelligence" reasoning and logical abilities. "ASI" artificial superintelligence. R1: acceptance and definitions only. R2: first arguments, and con's first rebuttals. R3: main body of argument and rebuttal.
The Draft violates the 13th Amendment

There actually has been a related case in Butler v Perry where something similar was discussed. In the case, a state law where able-bodied men are required to work to build and maintain roads when called upon by the state was challenged for violating the 13th Amendment. The Supreme Court defended the law by stating that the amendment was meant to abolish slavery, not serving in the military or being required to work on public works when called by the state. Serving in the military, even against your will, is not involuntary servitude. In the decision, the Supreme Court stated,"[The 13th Amendment] introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers."However, a more direct case concerning the draft was Arver v US during WWI when the Selective Service Act was imposed. In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court stated,"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."Stating that because this war was instated by the people as they elected Congressmen to represent them and Congress is responsible for declaring war and have the power granted by the Constitution to:"To raise and support Armies""To provide and maintain a Navy"Imposing a military draft falls within these powers to raise and support Armies.I look forward to Pro's response.Sources:http://www.usconstitution.net...http://caselaw.findlaw.com...The US Constitution
The Draft violates the 13th Amendment

I have never seen a supreme court case or any form of precedence on this either way. The closest thing I could find to a precedent was Rostker v. Goldberg, which only dealt with the gender discrimination aspect. However, the 13th Amendment seems pretty clear, let’s look at what it says:Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislationLet’s break this down. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude….shall exist within the United States.So this says we can’t have slavery or involuntary servitude. Now as I am sure you noticed I left out a part:except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.So there is an exception and that is if they are convicted of a crime. The draft is involuntary servitude as it forces people to do something “in the SERVICE of their country” against their will. What crime have they been convicted of? If they have been convicted of a crime then perhaps they could be drafted. Even indentured servitude to pay off debts as long as it is mutually agreed upon, would be allowable under this wording, but that is a whole different debate. The involuntary aspect is what is important. If you enlist, then you are giving your voluntary permission. This only applies to everything after the Civil war, as prior to that, there was no such prohibition as slavery was still legal, so anything written about that before this time would have been overruled by the 13th Amendment. So overall, my premise is simple and can be supported by the Constitution itself.
Students should be required to wear school uniform.

Thank You I hope this is a good debate! 1. Violates student"s freedom of expression The first Amendment gives students the freedom of expression. (Talk about us) We can give limitations to gang clothes but otherwise the students could wear whatever they want No one can show their individualism with uniforms. 2. Uniforms are extremely expensive According to BBC most uniforms are extremely expensive and some can"t afford them Uniforms are expensive. As stated by statisticbrain.com, who sources the US Department of Education, NCES, ECS, NAESP, and University of Florida and last verified on July 22, 2012, the average annual co st of school uniforms is $249 a kid. Uniforms esp. jackets. are more expensive than a regular child"s clothing This will badly affect poor families. 3. causes bullying Uniforms Represents a school This is bad b/c someone from a rival school could start bullying or fighting outside of school while walking to and from school. More fights are likely to develop more often. Because of these uniforms, people could get bullied Thank You And Please vote CON/NEG
Students should be required to wear school uniform.

Hello, everyone, welcome to this debate. Today I would like to debate in affirmation of the topic that students should be required to wear school uniform. My first justification is that it creates an orderly, organized atmosphere which enforces discipline. My second argument is that it eliminates part of the popularity system. And my last argument is that it generates revenue for the government. Although this has no solid, tangible evidence, it is true that having uniforms creates an organized and orderly atmosphere. It is no secret that private schools and schools of high ranking all require their students to wear uniforms. When students are required to wear uniforms, discipline is in action. And discipline constitutes good education. A subpoint of this argument is that it gives the wearer a sense of honor and pride to wear such a uniform. My next point of analysis is that this eliminates the popularity system. Go to any school, and you could be sure to find some sort of clique or group ruling the school, or at least a complex system of factions. This is inevitable. And one of the main causes of this is fashion. At the initial first day of school everyone is at square one. No one knows no one, and there is no popularity system. So how does people know who's going to be popular, and who to be friends with? The first reactions is to look at their clothes. Do they dress nice? Do they wear this brand? Once a group of girls have established a clique, there is already a system of clans and gangs beginning to form. The remedy to this phenomenon is to eliminate a cause of popularity, fashion, by making uniform-wearing mandatory. Only this way will people consider others for who they really are, not by their clothes. My last contention is that this generates revenue for the government. When the uniforms are sold to the students, they have to pay taxes, which therefore generates funds for the government. This might seem pretty minimal compared to other revenue-earning tactics, but consider this: thousands of schools across the country, with hundreds of students flooding the campus every year, selling uniforms. After a decade or so, we would have cleared a significant portion of our national debt while giving leeway to other fund-needing programs. To sum it all up, my three main assertions are that: uniforms create a sense of conduct, uniforms eliminate the complex popularity system in schools, and lastly, uniforms generate significant revenue for the government. Thank you.
Abortion

we as humans of america, do not have a right to life. abortions are legal, and any fetis could get their right to life taken. and i never said babies were annoying and i used bugs to represent life...i look at all life as equal not just all human life as equal. humans are monsters, to other species, like encaging animals in zoos and stepping of bugs like their lives mean nothing..but this arguement is pretty weak cause i dont debate with fact and proper gramer and im probly only making sense to myself soo il probly be back to hold a proper and convincing debate tomarrow or something. i deem you as a winner, nice job
Abortion

If you want to give yourself the same value of a bug, that is your problem. We are discussing the state of modality of abortion, not bugs. You say it is not different to kill a bug than to kill a human being? First of all, humans have the right of life. You then state that it is okay because the person who is murdering her child, has a reason? She should have thought of that before. If I were to murder you because you bothered me, would the fact that you bother me justify my action? If abortion were moral, (the murder of a human to-be, or simply a small cute human) then the murder of someone, lets make it you for this example, should also be moral right? Suppose I murdered you last week, I get caught, and I admit to it. The judge is now deciding my punishment because I am guilty of your murder. I ask permission to speak to the judge and I say: "Well I think you sir are a hipacrit. Youve never killed a bug? Say no and thats a bs lie. Whats the difference between killing a human (who was annoying) or killing an insect? Theyre both life, only insects dont count because theyre...what? at least with murder people have a reason."Guess what? I would have gone to Jail. We as humans, In America a least, have the right of life. It doesn't matter If the baby is to young to understand anything, it is on its way to becoming a human, and my opinion is that he should be allowed to have a life, because he is no longer sperm in a testicle, but he is on his way to becoming a man or woman. For you to take away the baby's life would be unmoral, because you do not have the right to decide if a baby on its course to being a person should be allowed to live or not. You don't want a baby because you are to young to take care of it, then what the heck are you doing having sex, if your not old enough to take care of the result? You don't have money to take care of him, put him in an orphanage. It is embarrassing? Should have thought of that before you lead your body to sexual intercourse. Its not my problem. What If I told you that you wouldn't be talking to me right now if your mom would have aborted you? Does that seem fair at all?
it is wrong to be gay

Hey FreakShow, I'm sorry to inform you that you are terribly mistaken in what that verse is really talking out about is gang rape. back then gang rape was a common way to humiliate their enemies. being as the angles were telling the people of Sodom what to do, and how to act, of course they took offence to it, I'm sure that if some people came in to your community, and started telling you that say Zeus was real and that if you didn't stop following God and turn to the "one true god Zeus" you would think that they were crazy and if they continued to do so, you would start taking offence to it. I also want to point out that this man, (Lot) was willing to have his two daughters raped, and possibly killed with horribly violent deaths. this is the champion of God that you chose to support your argument, I'm sorry but the God I believe in, doesn't support the forcing of woman being raped. I would also like to use a verse from the bible. "Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven." Luke 6:37 (NLT) Romans 3:23 (KJ21) for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So even IF your right and it is a sin to be homosexual, then let only a human completely free of sin judge them, if no one can come up and say they are truly free of sin then let it be between them an the man up stairs.
it is wrong to be gay

Thank you for responding to my challenge DeepInThought. Fist off I would like to point out that all your arguments so far have been pure idealistic based about how all should be treated equally. I would like to remind you that the point of the debate is that being gay is wrong. I will give you a story from the bible to show you that God hates homosexuals and how your -constructive members of Society really act towards God and his followers. Genesis 19:1-11 That evening the two angels came to the entrance of the city of Sodom. Lot was sitting there, and when he saw them, he stood up to meet them. Then he welcomed them and bowed with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "come to my home to wash your feet, and be my guests for the night. You may then get up early in the morning and be on your way again." "Oh no," they replied. "We'll just spend the night out here in the city square." But Lot insisted, so at last they went home with him. Lot prepared a feast for them, complete with fresh bread made without yeast, and they ate. But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!" So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection." "Stand back!" they shouted. "This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he's acting like our judge! We'll treat you far worse than those other men!" And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But the two angels reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men, young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside. (NLT) Here I have given proof that homosexuality is wrong