BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be legal

I accept the challenge and will argue that abortion should not be legal. I will now state my points: 1. Women have sex knowing that there is a risk of getting pregnant. If they don't want to have a child, then they should not have sex. 2. If the fetus is beyond 23 weeks, it can feel pain.[1] 3. Abortions cause phycological damage.[1] I want to point out that some of your points are irrelevant. These include: "10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency." That statement is not necessarily true. It would be more likely to decrease teenage pregnancy. Those 3 points I stated earlier are only three of my many dozens of points. Be prepared for very long paragraphs of reasoning against abortion. [1]http://abortion.procon.org...
Voucher Education

1) In your first paragraph you assume that voucher education and free market business are two different animals. They are not. They both provide a service, they both have customers, they both require funding, and they're both regulated by and responsive to market forces. What you appear to be describing is our schooling system in its current form, in which case, you may be right. But the argument in question centers around voucher education, which is a free market. 2) You are over simplifying the situation of the US Postal service. You step over the existence of UPS and FedEx, but you cannot. True, these companies do not deliver a great deal of mail, but they do deliver parcels and packages, which is also a large portion of the US Postal service's business. Further, email has taken away an incredible amount of the post office's commerce. The claim that the post office has no competition is simply unsound. Thank you for mentioning the postal industry, for it further illustrates the power of choice. You have an equal opportunity to select from an assortment of businesses that will ship your packages for you, and these businesses know this. Because the customer can pick any service he wants, businesses must strive to make sure that they pick theirs by improving the quality and price of shipping. 3) Again, you assume that success and profit are not related in the free market. They are, in fact. In the business world, profit is generated by profit. You generally don't have a poor-service business that rakes in mountains of cash. The idea that you present is a circumstance of today's education system, not voucher education. The circumstance being that public schools receive set amounts of tax dollars regardless of their performance. I'd like to ask my opponent to reserve round 4 for a brief conclusive statement that wraps up the sum of his argument. I will do the same.
Voucher Education

I get it. Competition is a great tool in the business market. The mistake that you're making is that business models yield money and their ultimate goal is to bring about more money. The school system is not supposed to work like that. It is intended to yield success and bring about further success. These are two fundamentally different goals and require two fundamentally different approaches. I know that money is involved in the path to success but you can both make and lose money and not have any success at all. This is particularly apparent in sports. The Houston Texans had a $57.6 million profit during the 2005 season, but finished with a winning percentage of just 12.5%. On the other hand, the New York Knicks lost $39 million that same year and only won 28% of their games. I'm not saying that sports success and school success is the same. I am simply pointing out that proper spending yields money, not wins, not losses, not A's or F's; just money! Instead of focusing on the open market, how about comparing education to another indebted government system, the Post Office. The US Postal Service has ZERO competition! And before you bring up UPS or FedEx, know that with the exception of a few certified documents, they send parcels and packages, not mail. Mail goes to the post office, always has and always will. This system is completely funded by the government with the exception of money made through stamps and postage and I think everyone can agree that it will never make money. But the goal is to get mail from point A to point B and in that, it has increased its success exponentially since its establishment by George Washington in 1792. The education system, similarly, will never profit but we are epically failing in educating our youth. This makes the entire system a giant depreciating asset and that is a major problem! We have already deduced that the money we are spending toward education is being used inefficiently. Whether money is given as a voucher or a grant or tuition or an annual budget, it's just dollars and cents until it yields success. It's time that we start getting a return on the money that we contribute on a yearly basis. All I can see in this proposal is more of the same things packaged up in a little voucher ribbon. We need a complete overhaul now!
Voucher Education

1) Your remarks regarding problems with school funding are well-taken; however, my concern is how efficiently the funding is utilized. Under the public school system, school funding (whatever the amount, whatever the source) is used inefficiently. The crux of my argument centers on introducing competition to the educational system. School vouchers are but one method of doing so. I realize that vouchers are not a panacea, but they are, if managed correctly, an effective tool to introduce competition. If history as taught us, the free market system, if properly regulated, produces the most efficient, progressive, and robust delivery system for goods and services. Our challenge is to introduce these forces into our educational system. Merit pay for teachers and other monetary incentives to improve educational outcome, including competition between schools, are imperative. The voucher system is one way to slowly introduce competition between all schools, public and private. 2) Regarding your comments about bulldozing poor-performing schools, and the belief that choice is not an important influence: the concept of a free market is that successful organizations will flourish and unsuccessful organizations will cease to exist. In our scenario, poor performing schools will not be "bulldozed", but will simply shrink into irrelevancy. As parents exercise their right to choose and students migrate from poor performing schools to good performing schools (be they public or private) market forces will supply better schools. Please understand that his is a dynamic process that will eventually seek the best solution. In addition, the premise that properly managed, motivated, and incentivized public schools cannot compete with private schools in a free market system is not a forgone conclusion. I believe that there is a need for and a future for high-performing public and private schools. Choice is a good thing; these options are not mutually exclusive. 3) With all due respect, your solution regarding the privatization of school boards may introduce some expertise from our business community, but it will not introduce competition among schools and it doesn't expand choice. Even if the private not-profit school board was to attempt implementation of strategies from the business community (ie: merit pay), they would still be at the mercy of the politicians, teachers' unions, and other forces that will tend to resist such changes. It's good that we agree there is a problem, as that is the beginning of all solutions. My suggestion regarding school vouchers is only part of a bigger solution that I hopefully have better defined herein.
Extropianism: A Debate on its Validity.

If humanity"s goal is to live forever and it achieves that goal, what is an example of something that is "valuable" for humanity? Also, what is an example of something that will forever improve the human condition? If humans live forever, there is no motivation to work to move humanity "forward" (if this is even possible), today because there will be the same amount of time to enjoy the luxuries that this hard work will bring regardless of when humanity brings these luxuries about. In regard to space exploration, what criteria are we using when we say it "furthers humankind?" Extropianism, especially if followed with only the hope of helping future generations and not ones" own, restricts one"s course of actions and says what is just is that what "furthers" the lives of those who do not even exist yet. So, it says that humans today are supposed to sacrifice the freedom to further their own lives and instead further the lives of random atoms that have yet to even combine into a living, breathing form. In terms of Extropianism giving life meaning, I suppose it does, but only in the sense that humans thrust that meaning on the universe and there is nothing in the universe that dictates that this is how humans should accord value to their lives. If one practices another philosophy that allows him to put his own meaning on the universe, he can choose any kind of meaning and it has just as much validity as extropianism because even according to the extropianist there is nothing in the universe that hints to humanity that this is the goal it should be aiming for.
Extropianism: A Debate on its Validity.

*Note how Con didn't respond to my question of, "ALSO, how does this compare to philosophies such as nihilism, pessimism, absurdism or etc..?". Also take note on how he ignored space exploration.I would like to say that Extropianism isn't going to devalue opportunity costs. We would still weigh what would be valuable to humanity and what wouldn't. Also, being immortal won't impede on our decisions to make decisions. Instead, those decisions will and forever always will improve the human condition. As a collective race to ensure human progression, we must use science to achieve such things. In fact, immortality would improve the idea of opportunity costs. Opportunity costs would now only be the implication of human progression for success. I will answer my own question about how Extropianism compares to Nihilism, pessimism and absurdism. Extropianism, unlike nihilism, pessimism, has EXTREME hope in life and the universe, unlike absurdism. Life and the universe have a meaning, unlike nihilism. Life and the universe do not take place in a chaotic and purposelessness state but has a purpose, unlike pessimism. That is how Extropianism compares. I will now only extend my argument on space exploration.
Extropianism: A Debate on its Validity.

Unlike the other philosophies my opponent mentioned, living forever is the ultimate goal for extropianism. I will focus my argument on why that is an unwise ultimate goal. It would certainly eradicate religion, as all religions depend on some kind of reward after death for following its creeds. Whether you think that the general population can act morally without religion, you certainly cannot deny that it provides an impetus for many, many people around the world to treat each other with kindness and respect. Additionally, as mortal beings, all of our decisions are made by weighing opportunity costs and picking the option that maximizes our expected marginal utility. This expected marginal utility is what gives value to our choices. If there is no opportunity cost, there is no reason to make one choice over another and thus no value in our choices. Our free will is all that we are guaranteed in life (at least the illusion of free will). The value in free will is in the value of making choices that maximize our expected utility. If there is no expiration date, there is no limit to our expected utility and thus no reason why I should choose one option versus another. This lack of options, I believe, would lead to disillusionment and the sense that "Nothing I do matters." Because nonexistence is better than a depressed and disillusioned one with no chance of escaping, I conclude that the goal of living forever is a misguided one.
Extropianism: A Debate on its Validity.

*This debate is on the validity of Extropianism as a philosophy and if it should be a philosophy practiced. *I take the position of Pro as I am for Extropianism and its validity.The defininition of Extropianism is this: "referred to as the philosophy of Extropy, is an evolving framework of values and standards for continuously improving the human condition. Extropianists believe that advances in science and technology will some day let people live indefinitely. An extropianist may wish to contribute to this goal, e.g. by doing research and development or volunteering to test new technology." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)*Also, Extropianism is, what others call, the exact opposite of Nihilism. This philosophy's views is based on humanity and the ever-so sought after feat of immortality. It, soon, will be possible to achieve that feat but there is still work being done on it. To further explain this philosophy is that it also is for new technology being invented and used to further humankind. For instance, space exploration and the warp drive is an invention that is probable but is becoming plausible. This invention will further humankind and will allow us to travel the cosmos in all of its glory and wonder.The philosophy is based on extreme optimism. Hope and faith in the task at hand is essential in Extropianism. Even though the goal in which you are trying to accomplished won't be completed within your lifetime; you still feel optimistic & enthusiastic and continue to do so. This the philosophy that applies to me as I have the same views. ALSO, how does this compare to philosophies such as nihilism, pessimism, absurdism or etc..?
Extropianism: A Debate on its Validity.

If humans were to live forever, I don"t see how they could preserve a loving relationship in the same sense that they do now. For example, one of the main reasons why a husband may say that every moment with his wife is "precious" is because he knows he will only have a finite amount of these moments. It"s human nature to get tired of the same thing over and over again. A great example of this is the high divorce rate in the United States (40 " 50% [1]). Given an infinite amount of time, I can"t imagine how a couple would keep that "spark" alive. My opponent states that without death humanity will have "more motivation to further humanity in humanitarian idealism," but I"m afraid I would need clarification as to what he means by "humanitarian idealism" and why this leads to more motivation to move humanity forward. He then states that death is a motivational factor, which I, of course, agree with, but then says it "brings madness and death as a result." I do not agree that death brings death; rather, death is death. Perhaps he means that one human"s death brings about the death of other humans, but I would need to see evidence for this claim to make sure he is not confusing correlation (more people die in natural disasters than in normal, everyday living, but this does not imply that one"s death directly ""brings about" the death of another because, obviously, there are many confounding factors) and causation. As to whether death induces madness, perhaps this is true. I will leave it to Aristotle on this one; however, as he states: "There is no great genius without a mixture of madness." Additionally, living forever seems as it would bring the worst kind of madness, that of boredom. How terribly boring it would be to keep on living with no fear of death? Why are extreme sports such as skydiving so exciting? It is because of its seemingly close encounter with death. Again, it"s not that the luxuries cannot be enjoyed when they are alive. It is that our enjoyment of them decreases as we repeatedly enjoy them (law of diminishing returns). Sure, space exploration can bring technological advances. But does this mean we should all devote our lives to its advancement? The relatively few who actually have the capability to make real advancements in scientific exploration only need so many test subjects. Just to reinforce, if a human devotes his life to furthering the lives of future humans, he must sacrifice his own ends. The old adage "You can"t have your cake and eat it too" applies perfectly to this. If I devote my life to something that I think I should be devoting it to, I limit pursuing that which I want to pursue if these two do not align, and thus I limit my freedom. [1] http://www.divorcepad.com...
Extropianism: A Debate on its Validity.

Something that is valuable to humanity is the love we have for our loved ones. When they die, we feel depressed. That depression affects us greatly. An example as to how this will improve humanity is purely simple. That example is this; we will be happier if we had those loved ones who had died; we wouldn't be so depressed as a result to their death. The motivation to move forward is simple as well. We would have more a motivation to further humanity in humanitarian idealism. We would be more like-minded in the strive for a good life. Death is not only a motivational factor but it also brings madness and death as a result. How? Look at history. Those luxuries can still be enjoyed if we were still alive and not dead. If you think otherwise; I am sorry but you lack logic in that respect. Hard work would still be done. Space exploration (like it did in the space race) would bring newer and better technology. For a list on those technologies that came from the space race (AKA Space Race Spin offs), go here: http://spaceracehistory.tripod.com... Also, space exploration would help us find another home if the earth produces a natural disaster such as a super-volcano erupting. That freedom can still be enjoyed by the one trying to advance humanity. Again, common sense and pure logic. I think you misunderstand. It never directly said one must give up his/her freedom for the greater good of future generations. If one really wanted to put meaning into life and into the universe; he or she can do so by helping humanity achieve greatness. That greatness would ensure happiness and efficiency for future generations. Once more, common sense and pure logic.*Note here please. Last round will be used for thanking eachother for the debate. NOTHING ELSE. WHY? I have finals and graduation. Thank you for understanding.
The Case of The Kneeling at the flag and Anthem

Kneeling down, as you said, is a sign of protest towards Trump. Yes, in my opinion, they are going about it wrong. But none-the-less, it is their way of protest. They are not deliberately trying to protest against soldiers who fight and die for them. They believe that by kneeling to the national anthem, it protests Trump. Like I said, I do believe it is disrespectful. The whole point of the anthem is to those who fought and died for us, our country and our freedom. I guess the wrong person accepted this debate. I apologize for the confusion, I do agree with you that it is disrespectful. I thought that when you stated it shouldn't be tolerated, that it shouldn't be allowed (as you can tell by my entire argument Round 1). But I thank you for this opportunity. Your arguments have helped straighten my view on this more than it already was. I will be forfeiting this argument because I believe you can find someone who actually takes the stance of it not being disrespectful. Sorry for wasting your time!
The Case of The Kneeling at the flag and Anthem

Thanks for accepting. I would like to start out by stating that when I said it should not be tolerated, what I meant was that NFL should start being more proactive against this very practice. Again, I believe they have the right to kneel. But the practice itself is disrespectful to those who fought and either died or lost their minds or limbs. I would also like to dispute that I did not say they had to stand for the anthem. They can link arms, they can stand without placing their hands over their hearts. I just don't think that it's okay to kneel at the anthem because you're trying to make a statement. There are many ways to make a statement without being disrespectful. I would also like to point out the fact that the NFL is very hypocritical when it comes to things like this. For example, they wouldn't allow for the Cowboy's to wear stickers showing solidarity to the Dallas police officers who were gunned down by a Black Lives Matter activists. They also wouldn't allow for players to wear cleats showing support to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. But yet, they would allow for players, like Colin Kaepernick (I think I spelled his name right), to wear socks that depict cops as pigs and would allow them to kneel at the anthem. It just shows that the NFL has no standards when it comes to respecting the nation. Yes, they have tossed out players who do stuff that go way to far as it pertains to this topic, but they should start being a little more strict on their policies for this stuff. So, I reiterate, the practice of kneeling, while constitutional, is not a good way to make a statement. Plus, I find it hard to believe that these guys want to protest the same nation that is allowing them to play football and receive millions of dollars in their contracts. It's like a homeless person on the street who does drugs and alcohol, yet says that America is unfair for not helping him.
The Case of The Kneeling at the flag and Anthem

Before I go further, I would just like to state that I, myself, do indeed stand for the flag. I am here to go against the idea that the NFL players should have to stand. "While I don't particularly like the president's choice of words regarding the situation, he was right in saying that there should be no tolerance for a complete disrespect of this nation and what it stands for. " This is the specific reason as to why I accepted this debate. Con states that there should "be no tolerance" for this act. I disagree. The reason our soldiers fought/fight for the USA is to allow the American citizens the freedom of choice and speech. Tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. So by "not tolerating", you would not allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of men kneeling on the field. With this, I say it would be disrespectful to not allow these men to kneel during the anthem. By denying them their right to kneel, you are taking away the very thing the soldiers fought for people to do: freedom. Yes, I agree that it is disrespectful. However, it is even more disrespectful when you take away that right when trying to say it's disrespectful to the soldiers. It's quite honestly hypocritical: taking away the right of others while saying it's because they are showing disrespect those of who fought for their rights. I look forward to Con's argument in Round 2.
The Case of The Kneeling at the flag and Anthem

While everyone has the right to protest and voice their opinion, there are ways we can do it w/o showing complete disregard for our patriotism. The NFL recently has been in the midst of a "scandal" in which the players and other staff were, in my opinion, disrespectful to the flag, the country, and those who fought for it. They did it because they wanted to protest President Trump's comments about them kneeling. While I don't particularly like the president's choice of words regarding the situation, he was right in saying that there should be no tolerance for a complete disrespect of this nation and what it stands for. And plus, this is coming from people who get paid millions of dollars to play this sport, and they want to repay America by spitting in it's face? I don't think so. But, I am willing to hear anyone else's arguments over this topic.