BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mexicans Should be Sent to Prison

Well yes. Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society. Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, but it's not. Just read on. No, I am not being racist. It's true. How would you like to be assaulted by black people or a gang. You said that you are not a black person. Non-black people are vulnerable targets to black people. Since no people want to be assaulted by black people, but we cannot totally segregate the world based on race or skin color, the best way to combat black violence is to limit each neighborhood to one black family. If we throw remaining black families in prison, we are also combating overpopulation so they won't be crowding up the Earth. Now I want to here a convincing argument from you.
Mexicans Should be Sent to Prison

Okay. Mexicans should be sent to prison, because just like blacks, they are violent and they bring drugs to places, especially America. Mexicans often have many kids, like 6 to 10. With that many kids, there's more violence, more overpopulation and global warming, and a great chance of the world having another evil Hitler or Nero. Thus if all Mexicans are sent to prison, there will be no such violence or environmental problems on Earth, or at least not in the United States.
Anthony Elonis Should be found in Violation of the 1st Amendment

Your Resolution"Anthony Elonis Should be found in Violation of the 1st Amendment"DefinitionsI am going to provide one more definition, which I trust you will agree with.Violation: the act of doing something that is not allowed by a law or rule [1]ArgumentsUnless Anthony Elonis is a member of congress, and created a law violating the constitution, it is impossable to find him in violation of the 1st Amendment.Back to you Pro.
Anthony Elonis Should be found in Violation of the 1st Amendment

I hope this will be a productive and civil exchange. I will not be making arguments during this round, I will simply be defining two key words and showing the First Ammendment. The First Ammedment-"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " [1]Definitions-I trust you will find no objection with the following definitions. abridge verb : to shorten (a book, a play, etc. ) by leaving out some parts : to lessen the strength or effect of (something, such as a right) [2]speech noun : the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words [3] Back to you Pro. [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...; [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Anthony Elonis Should be found in Violation of the 1st Amendment

In the recent supreme court case Elonis v. United States Elonis is claiming that his first amendment rights were violated because he was sentenced to 44 months for threatening an FBI agent and his wife on facebook as well as threatening to shoot up an elementary school. Here is the link to the case brief if you are interested in general or in debating me over this resolution: http://www.newyorker.com... I will stand on the position that Anthony's speech should not be protected by the legal system. Negative will stand and argue that Anthony Elonis should definitely be protected under the first amendment. Either Neg can make opening arguments when they accept the round, or I can after acceptance, you decide. We should follow normal debate rules and keep the round civil. Any Challengers?
Anthony Elonis Should be found in Violation of the 1st Amendment

ConclutionDuring the course of this debate, I have proven that Anthony Elonis did not violate the 1st Amendment. Obviously, to be violating the 1st Amendment would we to break the rules set out within it. Elonis did not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If he would have, Pro would have one. However, he has not, and therefore, I urge you to vote Con. Thank you.
Anthony Elonis Should be found in Violation of the 1st Amendment

My opponent makes an invalid claim that in order to find Elonis in violation of the 1st amendment he must be a member of congress. He has appealed his case where he was convicted of threatening a federal agent and his wife. The supreme court ruling has not been declared so, we are debating whether or not it should be in favor of the previous ruling (in violation of the first), or whether the law should use subjective intent and over rule the previous verdict (this ruling would indicate he is Not in violation of the first and therefore his sentence previously was wrong). The negative opponent has failed to create any arguments against my case and if he intends not to then he forfeits the round and looses automatically, pease extend all of my arguments, they still apply to this speech and any other that will be made during the remainder of this session. Back to you Neg...
Airbrushing/photoshop should be made illegal in the media

And since there is no format what so ever I shall have the freedom to chose my own format. Thus begging my opening argument : Photoshop is not to blame for these social influences placed on young children and adults. Instead of blaming and pointing the finger at photoshop how about the modeling magazines showing super thin models in a skimpy dress to be plastered on the front of a magazine? Or how about the fast-food industries with its addicting foods which are fating up our people. I work on a yearbook staff at my high school and I need photoshop to make cut-outs, lower the opactiticy, etc. It is a very benfical tool and it should not be cut out since some teenagers and young adults use to altar their bodies. This begs the question were does personally resboinsbillty lies and courpret resposnibillity?
Airbrushing/photoshop should be made illegal in the media

I believe that photoshopping or airbrushing should be made illegal in the media as it gives young children the wrong idea about what they should look like. Since this has been around there has been an increase in children having anorexia and belimia. The way they use this tool is absurd as they take a natural person and edit all of the things that they didn't like this,then makes young children and even adults believe that they are not beautiful and then they try to change their appearance to look like their role models. I feel that this is really affecting the society that we live in and gives young women mainly an unrealistic way of thinking about what they should look like
Airbrushing/photoshop should be made illegal in the media

You are prepared to state that, "it shows young women of today an unrealistic expectation which they have to look up." never before have I went into photoshop and it tells me that a picture has to look a certain way. It is the fault of the modeling agencies, not photshop. Yes that both guys and girls are bombarded with images on how they should look but this is to due to the modeling and the advertisement companies. For an example lets say a medicine company makes a drug that is ineffective or harmful to the public would the people we angry at the machines who made the drug or the company itself. And lets say that photoshop is made illegal, these companies will still use super thin models or some buff dude. Why should photoshop made accountable and while the culpable people walk away?
Airbrushing/photoshop should be made illegal in the media

Although It can be used for certain things which can be come helpful I think that it shows young women of today an unrealistic expectation which they have to look up. Instead of having size 0 models why not have plus size women model the outfits which they see should only be worn by skinny people. If they didn't use photoshop then the anorexia would not of had a dramatic increase
Minors should be required to get parental approval before getting an abortion.

The just of my argument is that in the case of requesting a legally possible abortion, a competent and informed person's decision-making right should not be taken away. And this means that they dont have to get other people involved and get their permission. I also need to say that physicians DEFINITELY encourage the minor to talk things over with their parents or people they trust (their social support group). However the minor may have good reasons for not wanting the parents involved. Lets consider some cases that a minor might not want to get permission from her parents. -1) abusive parents that will do harm to her if they find out -2) the minor is a runaway and has been away from her parent's for a long duration (they consider each other strangers) -3) the minor has made a simple mistake and does not want things between her and her parent's to change (looking at her differently and adjusting their relationship with their daughter) -4) minor has bad relations with her parents
Minors should be required to get parental approval before getting an abortion.

thanks opponent I dont believe abortion is essential to the health of a pregnant minor I do believe abortion is essential to the health of a pregnant minor if it is deemed necessary by a physician (in the case where the patient will face severe complications if the pregnancy is not aborted) I do agree with my opponent that there are risks associated with abortion (such as the ones outlined by my opponent) (I am certain physicians balance the benefits and costs before suggesting abortion, thus when medical abortion is suggested it is to the benefit of the patient) I dont agree with my opponent that parents know when an abortion is necessary, more than doctors do the question of family morals is a different issue. a parent shouldnt be forcing their morals on a competent/capable minor whose actions/wishes are in contrary to the parent's morals. my opponent claims that judges (the law) should not over ride a parent's decision in regards to a child's health my opponent claims that parents' decision should be absolute. sample case: -M is the mother of daughter D. D has an easily treatable brain cancer that is soon fatal without treatment. The mother does not agree with physicians that D needs to undergo medical treatment. M believes that her parenthood has complete control over her daughter D, and she knows whats best for her She might think cancer is a natural event and they shouldnt interfere with nature, they should toughen up and ride it out. This is what they morally believe. She likes to sing and dance the cancer away by singing to her daughter and treat by rubbing tea on the daughter's head. Doctors are suggesting medical treatment. Outcome-1: if the daughter HAS NO competence in regards to her condition/future and accepting the medical treatment, then the parents are abusing their daughter by not accepting the medical treatment and jeopardizing their daughter's life. Since the daughter can not comprehend her situation, and the parent's decision is not in the best interest of the daughter. Outcome-2: if the daughter HAS competence in regards to her condition/future and accepting the medical treatment, and decides to ACCEPT, then the parents should not override their competent daughter's decision. Outcome-3: if the daughter HAS competence in regards to her condition/future and accepting the medical treatment, and decides to DENY, then a competent person has made an informed decision. You cant force a competent patient to undergo treatment. ============================== The way I see it, my opponent has issues with the concept of a 'competent minor'. I am arguing that minors are evaluated by their physician before big decisions, in regards to the decision making capacity, competence, and understanding of their options/decisions/choices. If they are deemed mature/competent with reasonable understanding of their actions, then they are looked at similar to an autonomous person with valid choices. Being an autonomous person gives them the same right in regards to patient-physician confidentiality.
Minors should be required to get parental approval before getting an abortion.

I would like to start by rebutting my opponent's claims. My opponent claims that "Physicians assess the maturity of minors requesting an abortion. The process is normal in every physician-patient encounter and involves the physician assessing the patient's "capacity, and decision making potential. " However, this is only true in some situations. No law at the state or national level require that doctor's make such assessments. And these moral standards are often not followed by organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood grants abortions willy-nilly to any teenage girl who walks into one of their clinics (even if she was impregnated by a much older man) without assessing their mental capability. And even if children are "capable" of making this decision, that doesn't mean that the parents should be silenced. Parents should always have to approve the decisions of their children, because that's what they are: children. "If the physician determines that the patient has the capacity to make a decision then the physician may respect the patient's decision over that of the parents (because the patient is the patient, the physician is responsible to the patient first). " That may be true, but shouldn't the patient (if she is a minor) respect her parent's decisions? I believe that all parents know what is in the best interest of their children, no matter what the circumstances. I do understand that abortion can be life-threatening: which is exactly why children should not be left to tend to it. Instead, parents (who are more experienced in such affairs) shall make a decision that they think will most benefit their daughter. "The physicians also recognize patient-physician confidentiality clauses. (in U. S. A these vary from state-to-state regarding abortion for minors). Thus for a patient who has decision making capacity regarding abortion, it may not be required for the physician to inform the parents, yet alone get their permission. " Just because the law states that doesn't make the law correct. And children, in my opinion, (and I am a child) cannot represent themselves adequately when it comes to such mature matters like abortion. Children are children; they are naive, ignorant, and a lot of the time do not know their best interests. Because of this parents should be involved in every step of the children receiving an abortion.
Minors should be required to get parental approval before getting an abortion.

Minor-Someone under the age of 18 I believe that minors should be required to get permission from their parents to receive an abortion. I believe this because minors are children, children are under the supervision of their parents. Children are not capable of making any decisions for themselves without the input of their parents. Abortion is no different. Parents have a right to know what is going on in the lives of their children. Since a minor is still being cared for by the parent; then parents have to right to either grant or not grant an abortion without input from their daughter.
should students be allowed to listen to music during class

Haha it worked I got you where I want you. First if all students should bot be able to listen to music in class because it can distract them from their work and if they are doing it in class they could use it to cheat by recording the notes and playing them. They also won't be able to here instructions by the teacher if they are listening to music. Rebuttals "Most kids won't to listen to music in class to help them block out noise" When students listen to music in class it is usually a distraction to other students. I have witnessed first hand students music being too loud and distracting students or tapping on desks and making it difficult to concentrate. If the music us pound enough to block out outside noise then it is loud enough to distract students around them. "Kids with ADHD/ADD say it helps them concentrate." I have ADHD and it distracts me more then it helps me. If a child with a learning disability tells me they need to do something to help them then I will allow that. Their is no reason a majority if students needs to listen to music unless they all have ADHD and all say it helps them concentrate. "Many students have family problems that keep them up at night and music will help them stay awake during the day." If a student has trouble stating awake you can go to the office and have a nap. Again if they do request to listen to music for a specific purpose then they can ask. The majority of students that do not have sleeping disorders don't need music to help them from falling asleep. I can't scroll down to see your other rebuttals because I'm on an iPhone so sorry I can't add more.
Goku can beat Superman (Come at me)

General Zod Doomsday Joker Green Lanterns Green Arrow Shazam Lex Luthor Entire Universes This still doesnt cover up anything He has been pumbled by lex many times, rekt by green lantern, and he barely survived doomsday 'Superman can continuously throw these kinds of attacks. Goku would tire eventually, as would superman' Superman cant fight FTL, id like to see proof, he throws punches he doesnt fight ftl, like I said he is going to hold back '. They would fight for days as they are so powerful that this kind of epic battle would take place over days. Goku has to eat heaps over the day, whereas superman doesn't and I highly doubt that superman would give Goku time to eat food.' Again how is this battle going to last for days, many people goku has fought that are stronger than superman yet the battles never lasted for days, quit trying to predict everything based on what you saw. 'Intelligence= winning. Intelligence is as much a part of fighting as brute strength and powers are. Batman wins fights because he is so smart at his use of finding and exploiting weaknesses, that is why he beat superman. Because superman didn't actually want to kill a fellow hero as well as the fact that foul play was in use. (Kryptonite arrow, watch Batman Returns Part 2.)' You say this as if goku is a mere idiot, yes he is one, but not when it comes to combat https://www.google.com... Goku using his brain to escape Tiens solar flare 'Superman can slow down fights not physically but with his altered perception of time. So it would basically be 10x slower for superman whilst he is thinking in real time. So he can see absolutely everything coming. Including ka-me-ka-me-kaa or teleportation.' Hmp, never seen him do that when he fought lex, darksied, or lord zod Teleportation is going to throw him off since he doesn't know gokus powers, not all of gokus powers is projectiles like superman 'Yes the heat rays wouldn't kill Goku but im sure they would piss him off. And little things like that win the fight overall' Proof of someone being instantly killed with heat rays, superman wouldnt even use this if he knows it kills, he doesnt kill at all 'Super-saiyan, dont even start me on that. Superman once survived a super-nova whilst he was in it. That is the kind of power that destroys multiple solar systems.' Surviving something doesnt mean crap, ur acting like goku wouldnt dense superman, yet people like spiderman, and alfred rekt superman and it wasnt PIS because blood came out. Lift Strength =/= Power http://www.expertboxing.com... Travel speed is irrelevant if superman isnt ramming into anyone
Goku can beat Superman (Come at me)

First of all. Superman and parallel universe supermen have killed many many people, a list of the few. General Zod Doomsday Joker Green Lanterns Green Arrow Shazam Lex Luthor Entire Universes Just to name a few people across the multiverse he has killed. Secondly. Whilst Goku can dodge ftl attacks and beams, it was when he was at his peak physically and with chi. Superman can continuously throw these kinds of attacks. Goku would tire eventually, as would superman. They would fight for days as they are so powerful that this kind of epic battle would take place over days. Goku has to eat heaps over the day, whereas superman doesn't and I highly doubt that superman would give Goku time to eat food. Intelligence= winning. Intelligence is as much a part of fighting as brute strength and powers are. Batman wins fights because he is so smart at his use of finding and exploiting weaknesses, that is why he beat superman. Because superman didn't actually want to kill a fellow hero as well as the fact that foul play was in use. (Kryptonite arrow, watch Batman Returns Part 2.) Superman can slow down fights not physically but with his altered perception of time. So it would basically be 10x slower for superman whilst he is thinking in real time. So he can see absolutely everything coming. Including ka-me-ka-me-kaa or teleportation. Yes the heat rays wouldn't kill Goku but im sure they would piss him off. And little things like that win the fight overall Super-saiyan, dont even start me on that. Superman once survived a super-nova whilst he was in it. That is the kind of power that destroys multiple solar systems. Goku is powerful Superman is more powerful