BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
State governments are a much greater threat to American rights than the national government

Over the years, American citizens have had rights, such as the due process clause and the right to free expression, infringed upon by various governmental bodies, namely the states. Long, drawn court battles have been fought against state governments in order to secure rights that have already been promised to U.S. citizens, such as in Mapp vs. Ohio (protection from unreasonable search and seizure), Skinner vs. Oklahoma (protection from "compulsory sterilization"), and Near vs. Minnesota (protection from prior restraint on a newspaper). The National government, on the other hand, has many less offenses to the rights of Americans as a whole, even coming to be an aid to the public through the use of welfare (a practice that has been, many a time, attempted to be stopped by states), Social Security (another program out of the same administration that would put power into the hands of the national government to help people) and many other programs meant to aid citizens that were attacked by many state governments as socialism. To any who wish to challenge this, I have but one rule. Under no circumstances is the court case Korematsu vs. U.S. to be mentioned. Consider it a challenge to yourself, as I thought that the easiest counterpoint would be too easy.
Tragedy in one's life ought to be taken into consideration when sentencing criminals

Everyone experiences tragedy at least once in their lives. Some experience more than others for one reason or another. I'm going to leave mental illness to the side for a moment and then I will touch the subject after this. It's very difficult to find one person who has not experiences tragedy at least once in their life, whether it's because they lost a dear one, they have economic troubles, they endure physical or mental abuse, etc. I'm making this point because if everyone has endured tragedy then are you saying that everyone who has committed a crime should be spared or should have a lesser punishment because of it? The thing is, that tragedy does not impair one's ability to reason because it's a daily life occurrence. It may cause stress and it may cause suffering, but it does not cause cognitive impairment, unless they experiences events that leave psychological trauma. People choose to commit a crime, and their past should not give them a pass to a lesser punishment than deserved. Now about mental illness, there is something called legal insanity. This is when a defendant pleads "not guilty" by reason of insanity, they assert what they call an "affirmative defense", which is when they admit to committing a criminal act, but they are looking to be excused of their behavior because of mental illness. If they are adjudged to being insane during the time they committed the crime they are neither legally or morally guilty. For this to happen they have to be analyzed and examined by an expert in mental illness or insanity in order to determine whether he was in a mentally unstable condition during the time he/she committed the crime. So there is no need to debate for the mentally ill, because they already have the option to plead not-guilty because of their mental state. For psychopaths and sociopaths, a lot of them are in mental institutes, although a lot of them are also in prisons. The thing is, psychopaths and sociopaths do have the ability to choose if they commit a crime or if they don't. Although they is a large misuse of the word psychopath along the medical community for years, a psychopath is recognised as a category of the antisocial personality disorder. They are characterised by lack of empathy or feelings for other, selfishness, lack of guilt, superficial charm and manipulation. These people do have a mental illness or a set of behaviors that sets them apart, but there is no mention of them not having the ability to make a rational decision, they do, they just prefer not to make them because it does not benefit them. For example, not all psychopaths commit crimes, some just are politicians or people in places of great power and authority in which they can hurt people without committing a crime. The difference between these non-criminal psychopaths and criminal psychopaths is that one chooses to satisfy his needs without violating the law and the other one choose to break the law. So in reality psychopaths have the ability to choose whether they commit a crime or they don't, and most should not have a lesser sentence than deserved.
Tragedy in one's life ought to be taken into consideration when sentencing criminals

Tragedy in one's life does influence our ability to reason and make sound decisions. For example, soldiers returning from overseas may suffer PTSD, when they're exposed to loud noises like fireworks or other like experiences it may trigger a response that's not based in their own reason, it's based in a mental disorder that spurned from a tragic event like war. In the case of the soldier with PTSD, after being exposed to these triggers they may respond violently. This violent response could sometimes be criminal if it involves the destruction of property, disturbing the peace, etc. Should we simply throw this person in prison? Of course not, what would be more beneficial to himself and society would be to consider this tragedy, and create perhaps a therapy plan or something other than sending someone into a cinder block cell where the disease will only get worse. I understand the aforementioned case isn't the norm for all cases, and there will be other cases as seen many times today where those who have sufferd tragedy in the form of various mental illnesses don't get special treatment and are still punished for their violent crimes. I am not saying that all of those who have suffered some tragedy should get away with their crimes. Crimes deserved to be punished. But in the case of the soldier or those who are extremely dangerous like pyschopaths or sociopaths, we must consider tragedy and look at other options rather than prison. To ensure society's safety we must use tragedy as a factor in punishment.
Tragedy in one's life ought to be taken into consideration when sentencing criminals

The world is filled with tragic lives, people who have suffered great pains and injustice. Do they all commit crimes? People have the chance and freedom to decide whether they commit a crime or they don't. Whether the person who committed the crime lived a happy or tragic life does not change the fact that they made the decision to break the law. Decision can be define as, "a: the process of deciding. b: a determination arrived at after consideration."
Eminem vs Lil Wayne

The buren of proof will primarily be on Pro to prove that Eminem is a better rapper than Lil Wayne. Con's burden will be to deconstruct Pro's case. Eminem and Lil Wayne are obviously prominent American rap artists.Deconstruction of the Pro case (That Eminem doesn't use the N-word)This point is pretty self-explanatory. Pro argues that Eminem doesn't use the N-word (nigger) and is thus a better rapper than Lil Wayne who does use the N-word in his music. There are two major problems with this point. The first having to do with Eminem's use of other arguably more profane terminology in his music and the other having to do with Pro's standard as a whole applied to other rap artists.-Pro believes that not using a certain profane word counts in Eminem's favor. If this is supposed to mean that he is a "cleaner" rapper than Wayne (and even so it doesn't become clear that that makes him a better rapper), then the point clearly falls flat. Consider the following lyrics from the song Fack:Okay, I'm done, I already came twice You ain't gonna make me cum I'm all outta gas, not so fast Uh, your finger just went in my *ss Ow, that hurts, take it out now Oh, wait a minute ow, put it back in, in, in, in This don't mean I'm gay, I don't like men I like boobs, boobs, boobs Now see that gerbil, grab that tube Shove it up my butt Let that little rascal nibble on my *sshole Uh, yeah, right there, right there, ah, I'm comin' ah yeah[1]Clearly just because Eminem fails to use a single profane word doesn't mean he's somehow a clean or proper rapper. And if this song doesn't prove my point I refer my opponent to such songs as 3am (where Eminem raps as a psychopathic serial killer) or Guilty Consciene (in which Eminem advises various people to do abhorrent things).-My second point will draw on the perhaps unintended consequences of Pro's standard of critique of rap artists. For instance, Pro's standard would hold a rapper who doesn't us the N-word to be better than one who does. So we should expect the best rappers to be ones who don't use the N-word correct? No. Artists ranging from Tupac to Nororious to Mos Def to Scarface to Ice Cube all make (or made) extensive use of the N-word in their music. But obviously Pro wouldn't argue that Eminem is better then all these artists just for his not using a single word. Therefore the N-word standard is flawed.The rest of Pro's case is too confusing to understand much less refute. So with Pro's case refuted I'll turn it over back to him for his defense.===Sources===[1] http://www.metrolyrics.com...
Eminem vs Lil Wayne

word on the streeet is Eminem is not better then Lil Wayne but i can prove u wrong see lil wayne alway say the N word but Eminem hasent used the word in his life.Yes he talk bout his mom alot its she lied to him about hi his dad she said that he dad dose more drugs then she dose thats a load of she depened on some man she meet at bingo she even had sex with him for money thats all i got say bout eminem mom
Socialism is a better political system than Capitalism

By Capitalism I am using the system of government currently used by most governments. My definition of Socialism is the ideals that companies and industry should be taken into public ownership and governed as such. By Socialist alternatives I define as an alternative to current situations that fall into line with Socialist ideals. By accepting the debate you agree to my terms. Capitalism causes nothing but war,poverty,crime and famine. Surely this proves that Capitalism has failed,this means that we should try a different system of government. Socialism is an alternative that many fear. But fear comes from lack of understanding and no apparent proof of success. Sweden is a Socialist success story.
In public school students should be able to be searched for without probable.

You are in favor of searches without probable cause for public school students. I am against this argument. In the United States we have the Bill of Rights. In that Bill of Rights we have a 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." [1] "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -- Benjamin Franklin [2] I have some questions for you: If you had a 14 year old daughter, (Lets say sister or cousin in your case as you are 17) would it be acceptable in your mind for the school resource officer to pat her down at the school any time they felt like it? Would you feel comfortable with this strange government worker putting his hands all over her young body any time he felt like it? How about a cavity search? I know you may want to give up some freedom to feel a little safer, but I assure you it is only security theater. [3] This will not make school's any safer. Many students will be caught having dreaded nail clippers! or mouth wash! or aspirin! *gasps* oh the humanity! What you propose is "Guilty until proven innocent", and that is not how a society should be run. The "guilty" people who are actually caught using your methods will likely have a small bag of marijuana that they are experimenting with. Otherwise good kids could wind up with much of their future flushed down the drain because they smoked a little weed in high school. What you propose would be a part of the war on drugs. The prisons are already over packed with drug offenses. [4] Source: [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://franklinpapers.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
2011 November-December LD

I will begin by clarifying a few points, setting some groundwork, and finally presenting my arguments. So to answer my opponent's questions, no we will not ask questions as a function for the debate itself. However by all means feel free to ask me a question either in your "speeches" or in the comments section. I'm sure my arguments will inevitably be scattered-brained, I've only just begun to really think about this topic. So all of this said I will get into the bulk of my arguments. = Arguments = 1. It is good to assist others in need- Do not get me wrong, by standing in negation of this topic I do not think that it is bad to help those in need. Nor do is there a good reason, on par, not to help others in need of assistance when the opportunity and means present them-self. 2. There is a societal obligation to assist people in need- In order for a society for function properly, it's members absolutely must be willing to assist and help one another. If this is not done, then the infrastructure of the society will crumble bringing it's members back into the original stte of nature. 3. Morality is not a universal concept- a. Or similarly put, morality is subjective. For each and every person there will be a different sense of morality. This is true even among people of similar lifestyles and beliefs. The mental process that determines the moral from the immoral is a personal one, thus each person cannot hold the same sense of morality. b. Even if another person where to completely understand the moral code of another, it is not their moral code and they are not bound to it. 4. The obligation to assist others is not a moral one- The greatest end we must always strive for, is that of societal welfare. Any action we commit must be made to be in the best interest of the society. At the point that it is not, it is detrimental to the society and contradicts with the societal obligation each person has (as established in point two). Since morality is subjective, a person's moral code to assist others in need could cause great harm to their society. A few example include, but are not limited to: + The Nazi's moral obligation to their country to exterminate the Jewish people. + The KKK's moral obligation to their white kindred to exterminate the Black scum. + Al Quieda's moral obligation to their God to kill infidels.
2011 November-December LD

+ Although this is the current LD topic, this debate will not take place in an LD format. + All arguments should be written to be as clear and concise as possible. + Arguments do not have to include data. However if data is not included, then clear philosophical warrants should be made. I will be arguing that individuals do not have a moral obligation to assist others in need. My opponent will be arguing that Individuals do have a moral obligation to assist people in need. The Voting period will be two weeks. There will be three rounds of debate, and one round of acceptance. There will be 72 hours to argue during each round. There will a character limit of 8,000.
America is NOT obese.

As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the "obesity problem" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.
America is NOT obese.

I agree that childhood obesity is rising, but that is the parents' problem. Not everybody else's. If the parent thinks the child is too overweight, then they can do something, not concern the rest of America with it. And most of the time, with the negative emotions, it's because if they're feeling depressed, or stressed, or sad, or anything else negative, they'll just sit on their lazy a$$es and stare at the TV all day, thinking "Oh, whoa is me. I'm getting fat because I'm depressed." You know what, no, they're not getting fat because they're depressed. They're getting fat because they're LAZY.
America is NOT obese.

True, to say "America is obese" is a generalization, but the best way to judge a country's obesity rate is by comparison. The U.S. in 1800 was very wealthy, but in today's world their standard of living would be lower than most developed nations. Like wealth, obesity rates are considered high or low in a relative way. There is no absolute threshold for what would make a country "obese", but it is evident that something is causing the U.S. to pull ahead of the competition when it comes to obesity in first-world nations.While I will not argue about policy implications, since that is not the topic of debate, I will reject the notion that obesity in America does not affect the whole country. Obesity cost $190 billion in health care expenses in 2005 [1] and could reach $344 billion by 2018 [2]. This means higher health insurance premiums for many non-obese Americans.Another concern regarding America's obesity rate is how it affects children. Childhood obesity is clearly on the rise: It is arguable that obesity is a choice for many adults, but lack of concern for a child's health can cause them many problems that the child was likely not aware would result from obesity. This includes negative health affects, as well as the potential for bullying and poor self-esteem. Obesity does indeed correlate with self-reported emotional issus: And to pass these on to the next generation willingly would be irresponsible.America is an obese nation and it is worth addressing.Sources:1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...2) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
America is NOT obese.

“I walk down the street every day, and through my school every day, and I hardly see any overweight people at all.” This is an example of the 'unrepresentative sample' fallacy [1]. You are using a small segment of the country and drawing a conclusion about the whole population from your findings. This is problematic because (the United States of) America is a very heterogeneous country in many facets. It is: A wealthy country, although it contains many poor areas (such as Detroit and Cleveland). A murderous country, while containing many areas with low murder rates (such as Hawaii, Iowa, and New Hampshire). A racially diverse country, while containing many racially homogeneous areas (such as Maine and North Dakota). Any resident of these counterexamples could make a similar claim to yours about their own area of residence and draw a conclusion about the population of the U.S. that is very false. The United States has a demonstrably high obesity rate [2]: Thus, it is accurate to say that the United States is an obese nation. Sources: 1) http://onegoodmove.org... 2) upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Obesity_country_comparison_-_path.svg
If a deceased person's wealth can be inherited, then so should their debts.

Here's a story. It's sad but true. Having been banned from driving for five years, a very good friend of mine celebrated the recent return of his licence by purchasing a 1963 Series III Bentley Continental Drophead Coupe finished in midnight blue with coachwork by Mulliner Park Ward, fitted out with magnolia Connolly hide and inlaid walnut appliquï¿½s. On the day it was delivered, he proudly drove off in the direction of the pub intending to show the car off to his mates but he had only gone a couple of blocks when disaster struck. Suddenly, and completely without warning, a middle-aged woman decided to cross the road right in front of him. She came out between two parked cars so there was absolutely no way he could avoid her and she subsequently hit the car square on. As a result of this collision, the woman went over the top of the car, causing a large rip in the colour-coded mohair soft-top roof in the process. Worse still, her wheelchair seriously damaged the Bentley's lovingly-polished, hand-crafted, chromium-plated radiator grill. Since the police agreed that my friend was totally blameless he sensibly employed a decent firm of lawyers to take legal action against the woman in order to recover the costs he had incurred as a result of the incident and the court duly found in his favour. However, before the woman had discharged her substantial financial liability to my friend she died from the injuries she sustained in the accident, tragically leaving my friend to pay the repair bills and legal costs. Now, this woman wasn't without means and she left her son, the sole beneficiary of her will, her entire estate which included both cash and property. Naturally, my friend approached her son in order to remind him of his mother's debt to him but, regretfully, he was unable to appeal to the man's sense of propriety and no payment was forthcoming. On taking further legal advice it transpired that the woman's son was under no obligation to settle my friend's claim and, indeed, no firm of lawyers or even a debt collection agency agreed to pursue his case. As a result, my friend is now left contemplating sending some hired muscle round to visit the woman's son in order to emphasise his moral duties with regard to the matter, but surely it shouldn't be the case that he has to go to yet further expense in order to recover the money he is owed? Surely he should be afforded the protection of the law? After all, he has suffered a considerable financial loss through no fault of his own. You see, I told you it was a sad story. Unfortunately, though, this type of tale it is far from unique and, as the law stands, many people have to write off debts when their creditors die, even though the beneficiaries of their estates inherit the financial resources to pay the deceased parties' dues. http://www.tfgi.com... Therefore, I hereby affirm that if a deceased person's wealth can be inherited, then so should their debts. Thank you.