BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned- Speed debate

Obviously, tobacco is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. People should still have a right to do what they want to themselves. We've given them several warnings. Now, it's up to them to see if they help or harm themselves.One problem that arises from a total and complete smoking ban is this:HOW COULD WE ENFORCE IT?There's really no way we could. It would just be a continuation of the failed war on drugs. Finally, if people want to smoke, they deserve the consequences.
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned- Speed debate

"I used two clearly placed sources."Actually, my opponent is technically correct. Though no links were provided, he was still right about that part. Again, 2 problems mainly here: No enforcement capability (second War on Drugs) Removal of personal freedom & choice Need I say more?Why was the War on Drugs, which this could easily become, bad? Just Google it. I barely have enough characters left, anyway.Good & fun quick debate- these should happen more often.
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned- Speed debate

I used two clearly placed sorces.The most affected by secondhand smoking are those that cannot leave, the children. Smokers have families, and their families can die to their addiction.To target the dealers the first step is to make the sale illegal, with stiff penalties of being charged with assualt for every sale. Making it harder to find is the first step to keeping people out of it. Many law abiding store owners will be quick to take it off shelf.
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned- Speed debate

????What? That whole thing seemed suspiciously copy pasted; and almost irrelevant. Regardless, you provided no sources. Also, you ignored my points. Public smoking bans are good. But total? No. It can't & won't be enforced.BTW, guns have little relevance here.Stop the dealers?How?"Smoking is bad, but karma will do it's thing."
its ok to be homofobic

"Resolve: I believe that Homophobia is wrong because it is a form of discrimination and hatred. most places of business and schools have put in to policy that discrimination on someone because of Gender,Skin Colour,and Sexual Orientation. so why should society put up with such hatred?" Why should they put up with hatred? Because they have the right to believe what they want to believe as you conceded in previous debates. It is okay to dislike someone because if who they are--but let me make myself clear, it is NOT OKAY TO ACT UPON THEIR HATRED.
its ok to be homofobic

Disclaimer: I am gay and am not homophobic in any way!==Opening Case==My opponent seems to contradict himself, in this debate [1] he states "it is not right to keep somebody from what they believe." I fully accept this pretense that my opponent agrees withl. Therefore, it is okay to be homophobic. My opponent appears to have contradicted himself. It is wrong to keep someone from what they believe. If homophobia is what they believe, then they should have the right to believe that. People believe in homophobia. Therefore, they deserve the right to believe that. Let me make myself loud and clear, if someone dislikes someone because they are gay, so be it. However, it is wrong to act upon their hatred (i.e., discrimination).Thank you. Vote PRO! [1] http://www.debate.org...;
Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

This should be a good debate. It's another classic debate of public safety or public freedom... Just for fun, I want to make this a LD debate (since I got it from the NFL possible topics for 07-08), so if you accept this debate, please provide a Value and a Criterion. Thanks, and with that, I will begin my opening case... -Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. I. Value- Public Welfare In this debate, you will see the greatest value as being public welfare. There's no doubt that people who are suffering are due their safety. People who are abusing their patent deserved to have it violated until they can get it under control. Until then, it is justified for the government to protect their people. II. Criterion- Prudence Prudence is defined as basically as doing what is wise... being smart. The side that is prudent within this debate is Pro as they care for the welfare of their people instead of just a patent. Certainly in advocating prudent governments, that their violations will not be permanent, eventually I would say that a government will allow the patent to continue as normal, but when the government has a health concern, the government MUST be prudent in achieving Public Welfare by getting the people what they need. III. Patents are not as important as Public Health. My final argument is my most important, when people have health issues, you can't let something like a government patent get in the way. If you would to put the people that own the patent in the shoes of the person with the public health concern, they would inevitably help them self, the only thing you do by voting Pro is give that same courtesy to the general public, and therefore prudently support the public welfare, so please vote pro. Thank You and good luck to the challenger!
Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

I have two simple goals for this round. 1. Provide simple rebuttal to PRO's major points 2. Convince the readers of the benefits of CON's Value and Criterion PRO begins the round with a definition of "Justified" and an extremely valid example of its use. However, he fails to show the side of justified that condones the poor stealing from the rich. What Robin Hood did in the Middle Ages was justified in its own right, but still illegal. I would like to remind the voters that all actions are justified in the mind of the accused. Second, in what way is the patent holder (either an individual or corporation) ensured to receive full compensation from the government? I realize that PRO is no longer able to reply, but I leave that question up to the voters to decide. The process of suing the government involves jumping through hoop after hoop, trying to outsmart the men and women who authored the system so that the loopholes exist in their own favor. The only possible outcome I see from violating a patent with the promise of retribution coming in the months following its use by the government is one in which the legal owner of the idea is screwed over because they don't have the time or resources in a legal battle with the law. Values- If neither value is superior than the other, the benefit of one over the other lies in the result down the road. While at the present, any number (as 18 million refers to a number who acquired, rather than inherited, their disease) to one seems to make the choice obvious; the government should side with the majority. I however, would like to ask where/when the sacrifice of the minorities' liberties stops. Maybe today one man looses his liberties for the masses, but tomorrow how many will fare the same? The government, from that point on, can use the case of [patent holder] vs. [outraged masses] as criteria for deciding future cases (in and out of the medical field) where the minority is being asked to relinquish rights to the government in favor of the majority. What does America represent then? Criterion- Simply put, a prudent government is a limited government. How can any size governmental body determine what is right for all 300 million of us? Why should we let them choose for us? 435 men sit on top of Capitol Hill and decide for the rest of us if the bill on the floor is "justified" but do we get a say, no, except to choose the lesser of two evils to represent us. More people are satisfied with their own decisions than those of the government, regardless of if they support the administration or not. A prudent government knows that their people want freedom, real freedom, not an illusion, and respect that by limiting their own powers. Thus, by establishing a limited government that respects the natural rights of its citizens, the natural relationships between people do what a government violation of policy never can, please all parties. Thank you Johnicle for what has been a great debate!
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

I'm having a little trouble picking apart where you think we should draw the line. You seem to imply one, or some of the following: 1. Any not human organism not useful or appealing does not have a right to life (you seem maybe not to actually believe this one?) 2. Anything which can't think has no right to life. 3. Anything which hasn't been born has no right to life. Is one of these or some combination of them your position? Or how would you prefer to word it? And if possible, whatever your position ends up being, how did you determine it was true?
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

Abortion and animal rights are different in my view. Animals are not a life that we can decide for because we have shown as a whole, we can't be trusted with a responsible that big. The extinction rate is 24 animals a day and it only continues to grow. We have decided that those animals that aren't cute, fuzzy, or tasty are not valuable to live and we continue to destroy their habitat. A fetus is not the same as a mature human because it can't think and therefore it doesn't have a future since it hasn't been born.
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

Some might call this a debate about whether abortion is moral or not. I've titled it so as to indicate what I think is the key issue at play. Unborn humans are alive, yes, but we don't think ending all kinds of life is murder, like killing animals (if you're cool with that) or killing less cute animals like mosquitos (if you're vegan or something). And clearly some think it's okay to kill even certain kinds of human living things, trivial (like living human skin cells) and nontrivial (like fertilized eggs and fetuses). So, where do we draw the line? When do we start granting rights like we do to mature humans, and why there? I don't know a good answer, so if you want to present one, I'll ask you to explain how we can tell that the answer is the right one.
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

A newborn child is aware that it is alive. Maybe it doesn't say, "hey, what a great time to be alive," but their brain is working to keep them alive. Rights isn't something you can add to the laws because it's such a huge controversy that we as humans can't agree on. But I say it clear so there is no confusion, fetus don't have rights. Rights are granted to the living not to the almost living. To be considered living, you have to think and and be born. You can't have one without the other so there isn't an either or option. Also I'm not looking at how advance but thinking in general. "And clearly some think it's okay to kill even certain kinds of human living things, trivial (like living human skin cells) and nontrivial (like fertilized eggs and fetuses)." It's alright to abort a fetus because it's not something I can say no. It's the decision of the mother. If she would like to become a mother, fine with me. But if she doesn't, then alright. That is giving the right to someone who is born and understands they are alive.
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

Okay, so now you've stated: "The understanding that you know that you are alive makes you have rights." Is this supposed to replace the rule you said before? That something must be "born and thinking" to have rights? Since it's the last round, I'll run with what you said most recently, but I'm worried that we still haven't nailed down precisely what rule you think we should apply. Because you say that animals don't apply because "they can't help each other or change something if they are going extinct." Which would mean the real rule is "That understanding that you know that you are alive AND can help other members of your species or change something if you're going extinct gives you rights" or something like that. :/ Honestly, I'm not confident at all that's what you mean, but it IS the last round... Now, if that's the rule, then it seems to me that you'll have a devil of a time granting infant children rights. Their thinking is not nearly as advanced as that of say, adult chimpanzees, or even cows. Babes have no understanding of their existence, no self-awareness, so that means they don't have rights? Which would mean you can kill born children up to the age of, who knows exactly, maybe three or four? Until they become self-aware? Or if we want to add that bit about being able to help other members of the species until they provide more benefit to their species than they provide costs? That could be until age six or seven at the earliest, or NEVER, depending on the person ;) The alternative is to say that whatever degree of thinking an infant human does IS enough to have rights, and that it doesn't MATTER if the child can help its species survive right now. But if that's the case, then cows and chimps and lots of animals have THAT degree of thinking going on. And they're much more capable of helping their species survive. So we should grant the same rights to any animal more intelligent than an infant human, and it should be counted as murder to kill one. Further still! If that degree of thinking in an infant is sufficient for it to have rights, then we have issues with late abortions, too. The infant didn't learn to think any better in the space before and after the moment of birth. If it has rights the moment it's born because of its thinking, then it surely must have had those rights right before it's born, also because of its thinking. And for some time back in the pregnancy, until we get far enough back that the thinking is significantly less developed. Well, at any rate, the rules you've suggested don't seem consistent with each other. As for the bit about the mother's rights, I've never contested anything about it. It was never the issue of the debate. I was never arguing for any particular policy. Maybe it'll turn out that unborn humans have rights, but the policy will be to abort them anyway, for the sake of the mother. Doesn't matter, the point of the debate is to determine where to grant rights, nothing else.
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

Animals do not apply to the rule because they can't help each other or change something if they are going extinct. Animals do not apply to the rule I'm talking about. The rule I'm stating to determine if something has rights or not is correct because like I said before, there is no use of defending something that doesn't "realize" it's alive. The understanding that you know that you are alive makes you have rights. This doesn't have to be an official law because something we all socially recognized. That means there isn't going to be judgement if someone gets an abortion or if someone pulls the plug on their relative, no one will protest or go a rant on how wrong it is. You speak of rights but you're forgetting the rights of the mother who is choosing if she wants to bring a child to the world who she can't support or if she deciding it's better it ends there. You're also forgetting the right of a rape victim who will be forced to carry a child of a man who had disregards of her rights. Are you willing to sacrifice the rights of human being who are living, who have a future, for cells that don't know they're alive?
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

"anything that can't think or hasn't been born doesn't have rights" (even though you say "anything," you don't seem to be using this rule for animals. I'll get to that below) And then you clarify what you mean by "can't think:" " Someone in a coma doesn't have any rights since they aren't thinking" So, minds which used to think, but "aren't thinking" IN THE PRESENT MOMENT have no rights. I won't hold you to that since I'm pretty sure you'll want to make a clarification. As it stands, this would allow you to kill people in their sleep, yah? Plus you could put people into comas and then kill them without violating any right to life, since they have none. Do you think putting someone into a coma should be considered murder? "I'm using thinking as the process your brain does to insure your survival once you are born" So, why is the actual moment of birth important? The actual shape and substance of the mind do not change in the period directly before and after birth, yet you're saying that it's at this moment that it should be granted rights. Suppose there was a developed, intelligent, self-aware mind like yours (not like a human baby's) that didn't want to die. And suppose this mind is in a body that hasn't been born. Are you really okay with killing it just based on whether it's been born or not? Doesn't the actual nature of the mind matter? And you don't seem to be applying this "has to be born and be thinking" rule to animals. You're suggesting we decide whether or not they die based on something about whether we eat them or not, or they're wild or not, or would live well in our society or something. I'm not clear what rule you're using, actually, but it doesn't seem to be as simple as "be born and thinking." If it was, we'd be talking about which animals think and so on, not any of that other stuff you mentioned. We're running out of rounds, so I'll get just a tiny bit ahead of myself and ask you something. Say you respond, with a clear rule for determining what has rights to live and what doesn't. Great. Now we have the WHAT of the rule. But if you are willing, I will ask you to please add WHY. WHY is that rule correct? You must have concluded that the rule is correct by some process. WHY did that process produce a correct rule, instead of an incorrect one?
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

I'm using thinking as the process your brain does to insure your survival once you are born. By right, I mean the ability to make decisions of any sort by themselves without being influenced. What I mean when I said we don't have the right to decide anything for animals is that we shouldn't be able to kill, take as pets, or influence their habitat in any why. When I say animals, I mean more of the wild and domesticated(ie dogs, cat, and bird) but not animals we eat(ie cows, chicken, and fish). I do realize that cutting out animals in some of our diets isn't the best but there are animals who wouldn't live well under our rules. Things that qualify to having rights have to be born and think. Someone in a coma doesn't have any rights since they aren't thinking so that right would be handed to the person who the coma person had trust in.
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

If you don't mind, I'll respond just to the parts about where to start granting rights. I didn't mean for this to be about anything else, like what effects abortions have on the mother or on society at large. Okay, so "anything that can't think or hasn't been born doesn't have rights." Do you mean it must lack BOTH of these characteristics, or just lack EITHER characteristic to have no rights? For example, if something is born, but can't think, does it have rights? Or if something can think, but hasn't been born, does it have rights? In what sense are you using "think" in this case? The kind of thinking that only mature humans, not animals can do? The kind of thinking that a newborn baby can do? The kind of thinking that someone in a coma can do? Something else? And to address a separate issue, what do you mean we don't have the "right" to decide "anything" for animals? Do you mean we have the ability but are morally obligated not to use it? That we are incapable? Something else? What do you mean by "right?"
What kind of life has a right to life? (abortion, animal rights, etc)

I believe that we don't have the right to decide anything for animals but I do believe that anything that can't think or hasn't been born doesn't have rights. There is no point in fighting for something that doesn't realize it's alive. Also, there is no point of forcing a woman to keep a baby she does not want because she might even abuse the child for the resentment she has from her decisions. Adoption may be an option but the stats are that the majority of children wait three or more years. They also move three or more times to different foster homes. This isn't healthy for children because it creates an instability in their lives.
Animal Rights

*This debate is closed. Please leave a message in the comments to apply.*IntroductionThis debate is about the ethical requirement of animal rights in society. Members of any Elo can apply to accept via. the comments. While I have closed this debate, there may be some way for members to accept it; hence, I request members not to accept it directly and instead post their application in the comments section. Else, it will result in complete debate forfeiture by my opponent.ResolutionJustice Requires the Recognition of Animal RightsDefinitionsJustice - fair behavior or treatment; giving each their dueRequire - to demand as essential or fundamentalAnimal - a non-human sentient species of the kingdom Animalia that is able to feel painRight - a moral entitlement that acts as one's dueRules1. No forfeiture.2. Burden of Proof is shared. 3. No critiques of the topic [eg. moral skepticism, moral nihilism, ethical non-existent arguments, et cetera]. 4. Con accepts all definitions and waives their right to provide any definitions whatsoever.5. Appropriate conduct must be maintained: no trolling, insulting, profanity, or any inappropriate behavior. Format24h, 4 rounds, max. 10,000 characters/roundRound 1Pro - rules, definitionsCon - opening argumentsRound 2Pro - opening argumentsCon - rebuttals Round 3Pro - defense, rebuttalsCon - defense, rebuttals, conclusionRound 4Pro - defense, rebuttals, conclusionCon - waives this roundNotes1. It is not Pro's burden to show animals are due equal rights to humans, nor even most rights accorded to humans. Pro must show that animal rights, i.e. those rights applicable to animals [wherein one animal's rights are accorded to equal consideration as one human's rights], are required by justice.2. As stated above, animal rights are different from human rights; this debate is regarding those rights applicable to animals.3. Any objection to the rules, definitions, format, or notes must be mentioned in the comments section and *not* in the debate itself.4. In the context of this debate, all humans have rights unless forfeited through immoral actions such as murder. CreditsThe basic idea for this debate was inspired by http://www.debate.org...;Thanks to bsh1 and 16kadams for the idea that inspired the topic.
The US should legalise Affirmative Action

This is a direct challenge to Vane01.Full ResolutionThe US should legalize Affirmative Action in universitiesTerms1. Affirmative Action: an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.Structure1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance2. Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Defense5. Conclusion/ Why I won this debateWe cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round.Rules1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits2. No trolling3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it. 4. Cite sources in "Sources Category5. No new arguments in final and beginning round6. 2500 is min. of voting.7. Select winner, 5 rounds, 10k8. BoP is shared in this debate9. Not following rules is an automatic loss I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate!