BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
resolved: hate crime enhancements are unjust in the united states.

The first argument says that all crimes are equal. "all crime infringe upon the rights of others." Thus, are you saying we should punish them the same? If this were actually TRUE, then why do we punish a robbery with 20 years in jail, and punish murders with the life sentence? Obviously, different crimes deserve different punishments. And as so far, hate crime enchancements DO pose more of a threat than a parallel (normal) crime. "there is nothing that can be said about the damaging effects of bias crimes on social order that cannot be said about all crime." When a hate crime is carried out, EVERYONE in that minority group is affected, as the crime was directed towards the group in general, as opposed to a normal crime, and only the individual is affected. The second argument states that a hate crime and a normal crime should be punished the same because the recieving end (the victim) does not particularly feel and bit more emotionally disturbed. Let's keep in mind how false this is. A person being attacked SOLELY based on their skin color or their ethnicity obviously feels a WHOLE lot more unjustified than one who is being attacked because they offended someone. In other words, someone whole is attacked due to his/her identity feels a lot more unjustified than a parallel crime. Finally, the last argument is that we cannot violate someone's right to speech. They state this is true because we are essentially punishing someone's motive. A person's rights are revoked when they violate someone else's rights. So, as so far, the revoking of someone's rights IS justified as the government has the right to violate someone's rights if that person has violated another person's rights. Punishing someone's motive is, in no way, wrong, furthermore. Evidently, we punish someone who fails to murders someone, although no action was actually taken. In that case, we ARE punishing them solely on motive. As the sole purpose of the negative is the NEGATE the proposition, I will only negate the arguments on the affirmative.
resolved: hate crime enhancements are unjust in the united states.

Crimes which arise out of hateful beliefs and desires are not distinctive forms of wrongdoing. Therefore, a category of supervening hate crimes carrying additional penalties is a moral inconsistency in the law that ought to be discarded; such a category of crminality cannot be made compatible with the claim that people should not be punished more severely than the degree of their wrongdoing would demand. The extra punishment forced by penalty-enhancement laws violate this proportionality constraint. Such laws impose upon wrongdoers a penalty in excess of what he or she deserves. Because of this, i affirm. my value for this debate is justice, because without justice, the criminal justice system and democratic society itself is rendered meaningless. my criteria is proportional punishments, meaning that the punishment will be proportional to the severity of the crime. before i continue, i offer the following definitions: hate crime enhancements refers to the harsher or heavier punishment given to an individual who commits a hate crime, or a "criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias agianst a race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual preference, or disability," as defined in the National Crime Victim Survey of 1999. Unjust being that which is not morally permissable or does not come form to commonly accepted notions of what is right and what is fair. my contentions: 1. it is an exaggeration to say tha thate crimes are unique in thier impact on people beyond the immediate victims. all crime infringe upon the rights of others. there is nothing that can be said about the damaging effects of bias crimes on social order that cannot be said about all crime. 2. enhancements are unjust to non-hate victims. it is true that crimes are perpetrated by those who choose their victims because they belong to a protected class should be punished. all criminals should be punished and no one should be victimized. however, other victims of violence suffer equally. the predominant emotional responses of hate violence victims appear similar to those of victims of other types of personal crime. 3. motive doesn't belong in a criminal trial. to punish a person for their motive would be the same as punishing a person for their beliefs, which is a violation of the first amendment. Hate crime enhancements fail to provide justice, a basic democratic principle that must be upjeld in order for the United States to truly be a just government and protect it's citizens. Therefore, i urge you to vote affirmative.
resolved: hate crime enhancements are unjust in the united states.

The opponent has come down to stating 3 statements: 1) "my opponent lacks the evidence necessary to support his belief that victims of hate crimes feel pain from the crimes more acutely." Besides the grammatical flaw, I am PRETTY sure that someone will be pretty unjustified if his house were lit on fire because he of his skin color. This is not an evidence analysis. It's common sense, and it seems as though that has been lost in this debate. 2) "my argument about free thoughts and beliefs, hate crime enhancements punish the biased beliefs which are, as i stated in my previous speech, protected under the first amendment. " Once again, PEOPLE'S RIGHTS ARE REVOKED when they commit a crime. This, the right to speech shall NOT be respected when someone has murdered another man due to his ethnicity. Finally, 3) "there would still be no way to determine who feels more pain. pain can always be determined, but the levels of pain, to a certain point, are subjective. and either way, [...] led up to the crime." Once again, WHY are we debating over this so in depth? Moreover, if there is really no way determining pain, then why has the opponent made it the focal point of their case? Realistically, this should not even be discussed, as it is not gaining any side offense of any sort. In short, because the opponent has failed to drag past any more arguments into the 3rd round, negate.
Private individuals and businesses should be permitted to decline service toward any group of people

When evaluating this debate, we must remember the resolution (what the affirmative is trying to prove): Private individuals and businesses should be permitted to decline service toward any group of people. RESPONSE 1: PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT My opponent asked "if I were to say the purpose of government was to "maximize the autonomy of private business owners," where would that leave us?" BertrandsTeapot, that would actually leave us with an argument and you with a case to prove the resolution true. That is where it would leave us. Now, my opponent, if he adopted that position, would have to prove it to be true (something he resists in general). However, at least it would leave him with some kind of position and reasoning. RESPONSE 2: UNPROVEN RIGHTS My opponent said that the discussion about the purpose of government was pointless, because "unalienable rights, those to which humans around the planet are (or ought to be) entitled, exist independent of any government or justice system." He seems to have forgotten that for the past two debate rounds, I have been asking him to explain what those rights are and prove that they exist. That was the core of my argument about the purpose of government. However, the closest he got to proof was a collection of random quotes without citations. As to the quotes, I am sure that many intelligent people said those things. However, that does not make the people infallible or their arguments true. VOTING ISSUE 1: UNPROVEN RESOLUTION My opponent simply has not proven the resolution to be true. Having not proven his case, he has not shown that anti-discrimination laws which restrict private sector activity are outside the government's scope (since he has provided no scope for the government). He has not shown that restrictions are a violation of human rights, as he claimed. While he explained a bit more during his last round what rights are through his spurious quotations, he did not actually prove that they exist as he (or others) may say they are. Not being convinced of the resolution, this only leaves us with a negative vote.
Private individuals and businesses should be permitted to decline service toward any group of people

I am glad we can agree that this is a philosophical discussion about ethics and the such. However, how are rights and the purpose of government irrelevant? If this debate is supposed to be about "the moral and ethical implications," then how can this discussion even happen without an understanding of rights, justice, and the purpose of government, all of which are philosophical issues, not just matters of opinion. My opponent has the burden of proof, therefore, he must prove that it is unjust for the government to intervene. He must prove all parts of his case; he cannot just presuppose his ideas of rights, purpose, and ethics and then try to force me to agree with them without any proof.
Private individuals and businesses should be permitted to decline service toward any group of people

I appreciate the well thought-out and organized answer, but I'm afraid nearly all of it is rather inapplicable, and irrelevant. This is a philosophical forum, to my knowledge, and this is to be a philosophical conversation. The debate I hoped for was one regarding the moral and ethical implications. Perhaps I worded the resolved incorrectly. The smartest, most astute thing you said was, "Instead, this debate is about what ought to ideally, theoretically happen. While I believe that my opponent has also admitted this, I hope explicitly stating it as such helps for clarity during the debate." Indeed, this is an "ought" discussion. In no reasonable realm should this debate need include the "proving" of the purpose of government, origin of rights, or resolve any of your hypotheticals. Additionally, nearly all of the hypothetical provided by negative are matters of opinion. To "prove" any of them would be to engage in an entirely separate debate where the thesis on said hypothetical becomes what has been resolved and then debate is engaged in on that topic.
Private individuals and businesses should be permitted to decline service toward any group of people

RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS 1: BURDEN OF PROOF When evaluating the resolution (Private individuals and businesses should be permitted to decline service toward any group of people), it is important to know how to vote on it. My opponent, the affirmative, deserves a vote only if he can prove the resolution to be true. He has the burden of proof. For me, the negative, to deserve a vote, I must simply show that the resolution has not been proven by the affirmative. RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS 2: OUGHT TO BE When discussing what ought to be (that which "should be permitted" per the resolution), there is no discussion here about federal jurisprudence or what one constitution or bylaw or the other this resolution would best fit. Instead, this debate is about what ought to ideally, theoretically happen. While I believe that my opponent has also admitted this, I hope explicitly stating it as such helps for clarity during the debate. CONTENTION 1: PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT My opponent claimed that he does not "think the government has the right to impose their wills on private citizens in this regard." However, he never proved why that is so. He did not explain what the purpose of government is. Even if he did, he would need to prove that his theory of the purpose of government is correct. Where does a government even get its purpose? If the government ought to have no say in morality, ethics, goodness, or positivity at all, then how ought it to form its laws? What guides it? Or, perhaps, my opponent is saying that the government ought to not have any say just "in this regard." However, why this random bright line? It seems like special pleading that it ought to use morality in some circumstances but not others. My opponent will need to explain and prove his theory of the purpose of government and show that it affirms the resolution to deserve an affirmative vote. CONTENTION 2: ORIGIN OF RIGHTS My opponent talked about "rights." However, where do these rights come from? Why does the government not have the right to regulate discrimination in the marketplace? Why is it wrong to protest with violence? My opponent must explain and prove that these rights exist and as he says they do. CONCLUSION While my opponent uses many high ideals such as fairness, equal rights, and the role of the government, he has not actually explained these ideals nor proven they actually exist or ought to be valued. I, as the negative, simply request that he prove his case.
Private individuals and businesses should be permitted to decline service toward any group of people

The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, that a cake baker was permitted to decline to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple getting married. This has stirred a great deal of controversy on topics ranging from Freedom of Association to Freedom of Religion to Anti-Discrimination Law to the Civil Rights Act.My contention is that any private person should be permitted to select with whom they do or do not engage in any business dealings. I, personally, would never intend on employing discrimantory business practices in any of the companies I have run, currently run, or potentially will run. I am all for equal rights in as many arenas as possible. However, I don't think the government has the right to impose their wills on private citizens in this regard. This is not an argument stating that discrimination is not immoral, unethical, evil, or otherwise non-negative. It is simply an argument that the government should not be the ultimate decider or private affairs in this regard. I use a thought experiment to prove a point:Suppose there is a restaurant owner in a predominatly-white, known-to-be racist community. Suppose that 100% of the restaurant's regular patrons who compose 95% of its revenue are white. Also suppose that these regular patrons have stated that should the owner allow a single African American customer to be seated, they will collectively join to never eat at the restaurant again. Even if the owner is completely indifferent toward race, is it fair for the government to mandate that he serve a customer whose meal will result in a 95% decrease in revenue. Suppose that this will cause the restaurant to go out of business such that the owner can no longer pay his mortgage or feed is children. Would it be fair for this result to come from a government mandate?Suppose there is another restaurant owner in a generally progressive community. However, over the past year, a number of patrons with their faces painted blue have come into the restaurant with weapons and robbed the cash register. In fact, suppose that every day at 12pm a patron with a face painted blue enters the restaurant and that 100% of these face-painted patrons have committed armed robbery. Would it be fair for the restaurant owner to refuse service to the 366th customer (once the first 365 have committed this crime)? To the exact extent that I believe in the rights of private business owners to discriminate as they choose, I also believe in others' right to protest in virtually any non-violent way (also with minimal or no government intervention).Thanks for reading!
Bad words should be allowed in school.

In most schools today, profanity does count as poor behavior in their policies- however, this is about whether or not they SHOULD be allowed in schools. If they are allowed in schools, points wouldn't be allowed to be taken off for behavior. Freedom is NOT just for being positive- in Brandenburg v Ohio, the supreme court ruled that any free speech is allowed so long as it does not cause imminent lawless action- which is disobeying a law intentionally and fast as a result of your speech. Its fine to go up to someone and say "I don't like you". Look at what we have today- all these people criticizing the government and especially President Obama. This just shows that freedom is for postive and negative, the constitution doesn't care if you are trying to be unkind to someone.CXAre you saying it should be illegal to criticize the government, because that is a negative freedom?
Bad words should be allowed in school.

First, I will establish my case and then refute my opponent's case.I. Limiting speech is a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment gives the freedom of speech; others are not supposed to be regulating what we can and can't say. These rights also apply to minors, as the supreme court has ruled multiple times. Since schools that don't allow profanity are regulating what we can and can't say, then that violates the freedom of speech. (Source: U.S. Bill of Rights)II. Liberty, a fundamental human right, is violated in banning words in schools. John Locke, a key inspiration of our founding fathers, stated that life, liberty, and property were the fundamental human rights. Our founding fathers based our country on these ideals. Banning words in school takes away some of our liberty; you can't do what you want. A political philosophy that we founded our country on was that anyone can do as they want as long as it doesn't hurt others or take money/possesions away from others. III. There is no reason directly related to the use of profanity to why it should not be allowed. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?" Anything can be used as a disruption in class; profanity can be used as a disruption in class, but so can every other word in every other lanugage. The use of profanity isn't causing anyone to die, or be hurt, and it isn't causing anyone to have to pay money. Now onto my opponent's case.My opponent stated that profanity can lower your cumulative grades and you can get expelled for it. The resolution is that profanity SHOULD be allowed in schools- if it is allowed in schools like it should be, you wouldn't be able to get expelled for it. Also, as it is, at most you'd probably get a suspension, never an expusion. Also, he didn't explain how it makes grades lower. He also argues that it can mark people down and make people hate you; however, if you go to a school, most students use profanity, and so that argument is invalid. Also, if it did make someone hate you, that is your problem to deal with; it is not where the school intervenes. The school should not ban something on the basis that it could make someone "hate" you. According to the USA Today, 64% of America uses the F word, so really it is a majority of people rather than a minority.CXHow does profanity lower cumulaitve grades?
Power over others is the cause of unhappiness in the world.

To make things clear, this debate about power being one cause of unhappiness, not the only cause, but a major one. People with power over others are unhappy, and people who are control by others are unhappy as well, lose-lose situation. If someone has power over someone else their first thoughts are; I can now do whatever I want. After experiencing what having power is like, however, they soon realize that they have to do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power, which sometimes leads to their ultimate down fall. One example of this is Regan breaking in to water gate, it would not insure that he would regain power in the next election, but he believed knowing what his opponent was planning would help him. As we all know, because of this incident he had to resign as president, and give up his power. The next example is of a Roman leader that lost his power by having an ego to keep their power by any means possible. Alexander the Great tried to secure his power by taking over his neighbors, but each time they became part of his empire, he had a new set of threats, as his empire continued to grow, it got so big that he was unable to secure it, and the empire he work so hard to build and have power over collapsed. Because these leaders had power over many people, they were in constant fear of losing it. Do you thing Obama was happy when the US's credit rating was downgraded, was Bush happy after 9-11 or when fighting the war on terror. Leaders who have power of their people have to deal with stress that comes from the need to do everything right and make no mistakes so that they can stay in power. Other leaders have constant fear and build up defenses and an army to enforce their power. The king of England had many riches, but could not get a son, even all his power, he was unhappy. Having power is one thing, being controlled by someone else is another thing. Why do you think democracy developed? People did not want to live under the oppression of an absolute ruler; they created new forms of government. Even people living in the United States are unhappy with being controlled by the government. How many people pay taxes with a smile on their face? When people have a bad ruler that makes bad decisions, they make life harder for them, they are unhappy. People who are forced to live in suppression by rulers and society are unhappy. Rulers, good or bad, cause unhappiness and are unhappy themselves.
Jesus and Muhammed, the difference.

As a part of the "Holy Trinity" in the Christian faith, Christ is an aspect of one God. He appears as the father, the son, and the holy spirit, but this is all the same God. This means that Christ must be in agreement with other aspects of the trinity in order to remain one entity; if he is not, he is not in agreement with the understanding of what is meant by the holy trinity, and the premise of the faith itself would be flawed were that the case. If it is understood that Christ follows the "rules" of the faith which names him God, then Christ is the same God who killed myriad persons through war, famine, and general wrath. If Christ is the son of God, he is not peaceful. He is just the form utilized for God to walk the earth.
Jesus and Muhammed, the difference.

The primary observable difference I see between Jesus and Muhammad are that they were men, ostensibly prophets, from two different time periods with two entirely different groups of people following them around recording their comings and goings. Within the context of Islam, Jesus was merely a prophet and not the literal son of God. Within Christianity, however, Christ is God, part of the Holy Trinity. How then is it that he didn't order people killed? God flooded the earth, killing the whole population of the world, save Noah and his family. God demanded the extermination of the Canaanites/Amalekites. If Christ is God on Earth, this is the same supreme being who did all of these things, just not in his corporeal human form. Christ was also in perfect agreement with the father, so how could it be that he was opposed to war? Having one without the other and cherry-picking just the parts of the holy trinity with which a person agrees is inherently flawed.
Debating gods existence is futile

It is pointless and utterly futile to debate an issue with no answer. The god debate is in a rut. It has dug itself into a hole of overused, outdated, child like arguments which will never get anywhere. Even the greatest intellects haven't made any progress. I think its true to say that both sides are wholly influenced by personal preferences and beliefs. We could argue all day about cosmological argument this, and historical accuracy of Jesus, blah blah blah, but where are we getting? And who cares? More should be done to stop hate, extremism, hate crimes, and ignorance, but arguing about dumb arguments for gods existence that most people with half a brain figured out as teenagers wont help. we need inspirational people with ideas people!!!! And finally, science will open our hearts and minds. Not a 2000 year old collection of tribal scribblings.