BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I write better trippy poems than you, fool!

I write better poems than you bird! I wrote this one 100% This one was all me! Sitting on your bed, you start to think, life? hate it. friends? what friends? look at your wrist, Parents? hate me. Enemys? too many. you lay the blade upon your wrist a fountain of blood appears Darkenss. Silence. Coldness. Breathless. Death.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

1) the value and VC arguments 2) Contention 1 arguments 3) Contention 3 arguments 4) Contention 4 arguments OVERVIEW: My opponent still has given not only an original drop in my opponents attacks. He also has yet to prove why my oppenent IS CORRECT. If I am the only one who offers such a platform for debate. That means my opponent cannot demonstrate which value is strongest AS THEIR IS ONLY A VALUE OFFERED. He also accepts all of my stances The resolution states when the government HAS FAILED TO ENFORCE the LAW! Not just one particular law, but law in general. The concept of law in general cannot be eliminated simply so that my opponents SOMEONE can do its supposed job. Their is a massive HOLE left behind. 1) Inaction does nothing. Literally which is better. Leaving the hole means everything and everyone who commits the crime and all the consequences there of are left behind. 2)"Where vigilante committees are acting rationally to enforce the will of the people, there will not be sufficient public support to enforce any laws against them, so there won't be an effective competing vigilante committee that will then seek to punish the first. "~~ You! They are acting RATIONALLY. The whole point is we cause a cycle. Where we have one vigilante we get more. The more there are the less RADICAL they become. Universality starts to appear and a government A LEGITIMATE ONE may someday come from this newly formed commitee. FOLLOWING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE NOT THE RANDOM THOGUHTS OF A FAILING GOVERNMENT. 3) Look to my overview I DO prove this. You aren't providing a justice or a correction, you're providing an injustice and a compensation. 4) I HAVE proven it. That was the hole purpose of my last contention.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

I've labeled the arguments to further clarification.... 1) the value and VC arguments 2) Contention 1 arguments 3) Contention 3 arguments 4) Contention 4 arguments First off, before i go into the contentions and previous arguments, I'd like to clarify the actual resolution. The resolution does not speak of the complete dissolution of government, but that the government fails to enforce a law. What you are trying to do, is skew what the resolution means and say that the entire government is gone so then there must be SOMEONE to enforce SOMETHING. WRONG, what the resolution is actually trying to bring forth is that the government has failed to enforce one law, so should any random citizen be allowed to enact their bias form of justice, and the answer is NO. It's not that the entire society is in anarchy so should we try to stop criminals, but more like, a petty thief or someone that a hot head citizen things is guilty of murder, gets off, so then should someone step in and do something about it. 1) Like I said before, you're speaking of complete dissolution of government, which is not the case. Little justice, is better than an injustice provided by affirmative side. Even if the negative supported inaction, it wouldn't be worse than the injustice provided by the affirmative side. 2)"Where vigilante committees are acting rationally to enforce the will of the people, there will not be sufficient public support to enforce any laws against them, so there won't be an effective competing vigilante committee that will then seek to punish the first."~~ You! Now, the problem wit hthis sentance is the first half of it. The problem with vigilante actions isn't that it is rational, but that it's radical! Affirming the resolution allows for ANYONE to be a "crime solver." It isn't illegal because it is helpful towards making a productive society and because it's good for the people, but because of quite the opposite. 3) Resolution doesn't state that there is no government, show me where it says that. It simply states that the government failed to support a law (which meas they are trying, so then let them finish until they correct) You aren't providing a justice or a correction, you're providing an injustice and a compensation. 4) It's very pointless for you to say it is THE BEST way, because it it were, would it be a resolution pointed out by administrators that we are debating right now? Plus, your job isn't to state why it is the best, it's to prove it!
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

1) value/vc arguments 2)c1 3)c3 4)c4 1) Exactly, vigilantism IS the only thing left. That is the entire concept of the "hole" left by the government. Because there is no government fulfilling its duty, there must be SOMEONE to allocate the justice. In the case of the resolution, that someone is the vigilante. The vigilante then does as the government should and gives the just allocation of what is deserved. Both reward (for the victim) and Punishment for the criminal. Look to my first contention and my other three contentions as well. The whole concept is of just reward and punishment. I understand that he does not need to hold a particular stance. I am merely indicating that since he DOES NOT offer one he accepts one. And as such it is the accepted stance and Value and Criterion for the round. Thus Justice and Proportional allocation are the value and criterion for the round. 2) The idea of "radical" does not define that they are not at once the will of the people. AT some point they may replace the government in its entire, however for the mean time they will serve as its replacement 3) The government is not present once again in "government has failed to enforce the law" The concept that THE LAW not A law, or SOME laws, indicates it is the reference to the ENTIRE ideal of universal law. the over arching LAW. ALL LAWS in general are not being enforced. Someone must enforce them 4) Someone speculates it? Well, in a way that is all WE are doing in this round is speculating. We must speculate as we are using a non existent zone of perfection so too speak. A world that does not exist. Also I do have someone. I use multiple pieces of evidence to prove and assert my point of view. As of yet, my opponent has not given any but denials of my evidence and platforms. As a result there is no other vote but for the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

1) value/vc arguments 2)c1 3)c3 4)c4 1) The resolution is obviously not talking about the absence of the enforcement of law in general. If there was an absence of enfoorcement of law in general then the only thing left would be vigilantism. There wouldn't be any other form of anything left! There is nothing to argue if that's the case! What the resolution is more likely saying is, like i said before, what happens when a petty thief or another criminal gets away scott free with a crime; Do we enact our own form of bias judgement upon him, or do we let him get away with the crime. To think that the resolution is talking about anarchy (nothing being enforced at all) is an attempt for my opponent to skew the debate towards his side as an easy way out, but no, I will not let you. As far as me not having a value, I don't need one. My job as the negative isn't to establish a plan as they do in policy debate. My job is to point out the flaws in the resolution and in your case as to why the resolution can't be true (to negate the resolution). It's not necessary for me to have one. Vigilante-a person who ignores due process of law and enacts their own form of justice outside of the law in response to a perception of insufficient response 2) You state the more vigilantes there are, the less radical they become. First off, by saying this, you concede that they would initially be radical. Secondly, the only part that's true of this sentance is what I just pointed out (the fact that they are radical). The more there are, the more different judgements and opinions there will be! What you're attempting here is to make so many that they become uniform. You can't say they will establish a code or some kind of law, because if they do, they cease to be Vigilantes (they no longer would be working outside of the law). So therefore, the more there are, the more opinions you will recieve, the more radical the whole idea becomes, and if they establish a code or law between them; the more there are the less likely they'll stay vigilantes (as they'll recognize that people can't just walk around enacting anything upon anyone, and there should be a universal code that everyone should go by.) 3) No need to look through your overview, obviously I did and didn't find it. Just put into quotation marks the part that says the government isn't present. 4) Once again no you have not. You don't prove it, you site someone speculating it. If it was proven, it wouldn't have so many logical fallacies within it.
Larztheloser Should be "Knighted" With the Official Title "Beast Slayer"

1. The Beast Slayer TheoryThis is going to be my only argument throughout the whole debate, so if it's taken down, I lose. Sounds easy, eh? Well this argument woun't be easy to take down.P1: If one is worthy of the title "Beast Slayer", then one should be knighted with the official title "Beast Slayer" P2: Larz is worthy of the title "Beast Slayer"C: larztheloser should be knighted with the official title "Beast Slayer" DEFENSE OF p1: There is no reason to not give a title to someone who deserves it. This is reasonably easy to do, since the layout of user profiles and the DDO webpage is so complex, it should be easy to simply add "Beast Slayer" below larz's username.DEFENSE OF P2: Larztheloser has "slain" many worthy beasts.He is the only guy to ever defeat Whiteflame. [1]He is the only guy to ever defeat ClassicRobert. [2]These two guys are "beasts"--dangerous animals, since humans are considered to be in the kingdom of Animalia, [8] and they are so dangerous, both only losing once thank to our Beast Slayer, and one having over 3,000 elo, the other having over 4,400 elo, both impressive feats. [6][7]He's one of the only four guys to ever defeat Raisor [3]. Keep in mind that Raisor is one of the most respected debaters on the website, even Mikal agrees. (The image belongs to thett3) To demonstrate larz's awesomeness and beast-slaying even further, he was one of the only 10 people to ever defeat TUF, the Official DDO's 2cd-tournament's champion--TUF! [4]--to show that TUF is the champion [5]--to show he's been slain.Thus, I have proven my point and fulfilled my BoP. Based on the definition, it is not an insult to such grand members and such any arguments that it is immoral to insult Whiteflame, ClassicRobert, or any other "Beast" slain is actually a compliment, since we show fear and admiration by putting the label dangerous or large upon these users.Onto you, con.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://www.debate.org...[5] http://www.debate.org...[6] http://www.debate.org...[7] http://www.debate.org...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Larztheloser Should be "Knighted" With the Official Title "Beast Slayer"

Round one is for acceptance only. Most of the Burden of Proof is rested on me. Larztheloser: http://www.debate.org...Knighted: honorably given, possibly have the title right under his name. Using some kind of simple html-code.Beast: an animal, especially a large or dangerous four-footed one. From https://www.google.com....No semantics arguments.
Smallpox should be eradicated

Hi I will be taking the side of Con for this debate. I believe the con side can be summarized as: "The risk that these strains of smallpox present is less of a threat than there would be if we destroyed them." The only thing I believe Pro has to provide to win this argument is proof that keeping a strain in those labs is more dangerous than the possibility of smallpox reemerging. I look forward to the response.
The user named "CiRrO" is really a Sith.

Um...ok. I guess it is my burden to prove myself not a Sith. "1. He is dark. Not emo dark. He is always in the midst of conflict; manipulating it to either increase his own pleasure or increase his own power/gain. 2. His eyes are dark blue, with black circles under them. 3. He loves Darth Revan. 4. He has this odd ability to make people do what he wants, and believe what he wants." --> I argue that all these means nothing, even though they may be true. Sith: a group of fictional characters in the Star Wars universe. They are mainly seen as the antagonists of the franchise. Characterized by their single-minded lust for power and disdain for sentient life, they are an alliance of warrior priests who use the dark side of the Force and serve as counterparts to the Jedi Knights. Arguments: --> Sith are fictional. Fictional is unreal/nonexistent. If I was a Sith that means I don't exist. This is false since I am here, in the flesh and currently typing this. --> I don't disdain sentient life. I believe that it is necessary to expand my future empire. ^^ --> I am not a warrior priest. --> i am only good at the art of manipulation, not the force in general. Which I may remind you is unreal. >.> You can now infer that from the definition of Sith, I am not one. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
The user named "CiRrO" is really a Sith.

I know CiRrO personally, but he doesn't know who I am yet. I intend to prove that he is really a Sith. Reasons: 1. He is dark. Not emo dark. He is always in the midst of conflict; manipulating it to either increase his own pleasure or increase his own power/gain. 2. His eyes are dark blue, with black circles under them. 3. He loves Darth Revan. 4. He has this odd ability to make people do what he wants, and believe what he wants. That's why he is a Sith.
Making Beauty Pageants Illegal

My opponent does, in fact, agree with parents having the right to bring up their child however they see fit, and continued on to say to the extent that children are too young to make decisions therefore pageants should not be allowed. I have to disagree. Parents make up countless decisions of their child's life. Dance and cheer leading are very similar to beauty pageants, as dance is a part of beauty pageants. However, dance and cheer leading are not covered by the media. Thus, the media is to blame for the growing controversy over beauty pageants. Secondly, I do agree the show Toddlers and Tiaras does show does sexualize young girls. However, again, we have to remember my media argument in the previous round. We can not let a small group of children and parents ruin the experience for everyone else. For example, in a talent show, there might be a poor act. That does not ruin the entire show, though. The same is for beauty pageants. In fact, everything in the word. There are people who do poor things, and people who dress their children poorly, but we can not prohibit pageants for everyone. I do not believe that beauty pageants are actually sexualizing girls for adults to judge, and that should be the reason why we prohibit them. Cheer leading has judges. Dance has judges. They put on a show. Thirdly, I disagree that scholarships are given just on looks. Beauty pageants have been transformed into a sport that judges more than external beauty. They judge talent and even ask the girls questions that they must answer properly. The truth is the world does revolve around looks. As much as we want this to be a under the surface world, what is on the surface is also a thriving business as well. Being a model is a job. You said that less girls are pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. You implied this was a bad thing. However, that is a complete personal opinion on the basis of those fields are more important. It is also your opinion that less pretty girls feel worthless. We need to take in consideration if beauty pageants are causing this, or other factors like magazines or television shows, and not necessarily beauty pageants. My opponent is making the assumption that beauty pageants are the underlying cause of eating disorders, which is not true. In fact, without a statistic that it is only from beauty pageants, I can only disregard that argument, which anyway, would be impossibly of getting without other factors. The argument my opponent presented was correlating with beauty pageants, but in no way causation. In conclusion, beauty pageants can not be blamed on the focus of the media who only reports the worse stories. In fact, one of the only statistics my opponent presented were from a reality TV show, 'Toddlers and Tiaras'. Taking this into great consideration, we need to also look at the reasoning. Modeling is a job. Beauty pageants support scholarships, something a child might of not had the opportunity to get otherwise. My opponent is assuming that without beauty pageants, kids would get more educated and work harder in schools, which is an assumption and not true.
Making Beauty Pageants Illegal

I agree that parents have the right to bring up their child however they see fit. However I do not believe it is their choice whether their child enters a beauty pageant. Entry into pageants should be the child's choice not the parents, however the children are too young to make this decision therefore pageants should not be allowed. These pageants sexulise young girls. They promote sexual stereotypes which transform girls in to sexual objects. Have you noticed the growing number of young girls wearing extreme amounts of makeup and heavily padded bras. This is because society (pageants) have given the impression that this is how girls should look. A 2007 report by the American Psychological Association found that the hypersexualization of young girls is strongly connected with eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression. It also leads to fewer girls pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.http://edition.cnn.com... Scholarships should not be awarded because somebody is pretty it should be given because they are hard working. Beauty is natural, you are born with it so why should you get an expensive scholarship because of it. What about the less pretty girls they are given the impression they are worthless and they don't get the opportunity to enter a contest based simply on beauty and sexual appeal. Beauty pageant give an impression to young girls that beauty is much more important than it actually is. Life is not about looks.
Making Beauty Pageants Illegal

My apologies- I had family issues I had to attend to. I am negating the reasons to prohibit beauty pageants for 3 key reasons. Participating in beauty pageants is a right of a parent to decide, and at a young age can give contestants recognition that may lead to future scholarships a contestant may of otherwise not been able to receive. Beauty pageants receive a negative reputation because of the media. First of all, a parent has the right to parent their kid as long as it is not endangering the child. The federal government has no right to tell parents how to parent their children. This falls under the right to privacy. As long as there is no child endangerment, then this cannot be banned on the basic principles of liberty. A ban would not succeed. Hilary Levey Freedman, a research associate at Harvard Kennedy school, states, "Historically and legally, our system defers to parents to make the right decision for their child. We see the family as a more private entity." Parents make decisions for their children everyday, from what school they attend to what activities they do. From a bad reputation, beauty pageants have been scrutinized, when they are no different from other activities like dance. Beauty pageants are beneficial, leading to scholarships and recognition. [1] This gets contestants prepared for future achievements. Second, beauty pageants can give contestants recognition and scholarships that may have not been available before, Banning beauty pageants in the early stages will not be beneficial for these children, nor prepare them. There are many opportunities for children that participate in pageants. Despite what my opponent thinks, that it is all about what is on the surface, is in fact, false. In fact, there are a variety of factors that contribute to what beauty pageants are judged for and who gets scholarships. [2] It is really promoting education, specifically to girls. In addition, beauty pageants are misinterpreted by the public. Producer, Mike Fleiss, states 20- 80 percent of all reality shows are edited to show negativity. [3] Beauty pageants get negative feedback because of the manipulation of media and popular television shows, like the well known 'Toddlers and Tiaras'. He states that these shows are edited in an hour with all negative scenes possible, some even staged. Shows and the media are really misinforming people of what really occurs. Beauty pageants are beneficial and show be available for any parent to decide if their child is fit to compete or not. 1) http://www.collegescholarships.org... 2) http://radaronline.com... 3) http://www.sodahead.com...
Making Beauty Pageants Illegal

Beauty pageants have become a controversial issue. A beauty pageant will be defined as competition determining most beautiful woman: a competition for women in which a panel of judges decides who is the most beautiful of all the candidates. This topic would be making beauty pageants illegal for any citizen 18 and under. It is important to keep in mind there are talent competitions in the beauty pageants as well. Beauty pageants have been criticized for exploiting young girls. Beauty pageants lead a path to college that the girl originally would not be subject to. While offering a way to help confidence and self worth, beauty pageants can lead to scholarships a girl might of never had the chance to get. This is the basic, simple plot of the arguments that could take place. My opponents argument will have a brief open statement as well. Thank you.