BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should make a trans-continental monorail for human transportation

By trans-continental, it is meant that the monorail will extend from one side to the other, from sea to sea, that encompasses the entire nation. http://en.wikipedia.org...By monorail, it is a railroad, essentially. http://en.wikipedia.org...Please if you disagree with these definitions, comment or PM me about it. Otherwise, if you start posting, it is assumed that you agree.
Do you agree with Caitlyn Jenner's desicion

Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is his/her own person. He/she has nothing to do with you or you with them. The decision they make is a personal one and they are entitled to do things to their own body as they wish, just as you might feel like getting a tattoo or piercing one day. No one should reject you for that the same way you shouldn't reject Jenner.
Private entities ought to be able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, etc.

Before I begin my argument, I just want to say good luck, and may whoever spins the best win. I have two serious issues with what you want to do, and I think these are solid, immovable points. 1. Regardless of the arena, be it counting votes, hiring practices, or societal taboos and laws, there is no excuse for discrimination based on race, skin color, religion or sex because there is no reason to assume that any of those factors will have any effect on the prospective member/employee's ability to fulfill that which is asked of them. There is no fairness in a hiring/ membership system that is allowed to make decisions based solely on appearances. I am a Catholic, and as such under your system I could be removed from consideration from a job at an abortion clinic based SOLELY on the fact that I'm Catholic. I could be PERFECT for the job in question, know everything there is to know, have all the skills necessary, and it wouldn't be relevant. Experience and education would become secondary factors to skin color and race. That is not a world that you should be interested in being a part of. 2. By your definition, private entities are possessed of some form of privacy. This is wrong on every level of constitutionality. Firstly, and I don't plan on going too in-depth on this, there is no defined right to privacy in the Constitution of the United States of America. And if citizens are not given some form of privacy, then it is a logical progression that neither do the entities in question. But, we will move forward (if you so agree) with the assumption that privacy FOR CITIZENS is real. In which case, I intend to prove that not only are entities not citizens and therefore are not imbued with rights under the Constitution, but that your plan would in fact be detrimental to the societal fabric and moral foundation of the United States of America.
Private entities ought to be able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, etc.

Private entities ought to be able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin without hassle from government or law enforcement. I am not interested in a semantics debate. If any confusion regarding the resolution exists please ask about it in the comments section and I will clarify. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In recent times and times past people have taken private entities to court over various forms of discrimination. In many cases the defendants were required to pay out large sums of money to the alleged victims. Nikolai Grushevski filed a gender-discrimination lawsuit after Hooters denied him a job as a server at the chain restaurant. [1] In 1997 a similar case resulted in Hooters paying out a $3.75 million settlement to reconcile the matter. [2] If a private company on private property can not be run how the owner sees fit, so long as doing so does not deny anyone else of their privacy or property, then the whole concept of privacy is moot. In order to harm someone one has to deny them something that belonged to them in the fist place. A job in a company they have no stake in never belonged to them, and they could just as easily take their resume elsewhere. I'll stop here for now since this a 4 round debate. I wish my opponent luck. [1] - http://www.industryfinest.com... [2] - http://www.freerepublic.com...
Private entities ought to be able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, etc.

I agree we should drop the privacy portion of this argument. Firstly, to deal with the idea that "business is out to make money and therefore is allowed to do whatever they please". Americans decided a LOOOOOOONG time ago that was a BAD IDEA, which is why we outlawed things like pyramid schemes and created anti-trust legislation - business will do ANYTHING to make more money, including things that are not acceptable to society or borderline inhumane. But society decided we didn't want to allow that, and so we used THE GOVERNMENT to change it. We created LAWS to stop it. And so the government stepped in and said "No, you are not allowed to do business that way." Also, your hiring story holds almost no water. Those people that you mentioned, the older white women, are not going to change just because someone new works somewhere they go regularly. Most people will give the new guy a chance, so even though you attack me for having no faith in society it is in fact you who relies on the basest negativity of society to make your point. I'm from an extremely metropolitan area, and I can say with a fair amount of certainty that as long as the new guy does his job, men won't care what he looks like unless they are EXTREMELY racist. Women won't care as long as he acts well and is respectful. I think most of the businesses you mentioned would agree that good manners and a respectful, cheerful demeanor would go farther to keep customers happy then a guy who shares their skin color. We've already seen recently how bad the economy can get without government action, and we've seen in the education just how effective "societal pressure" can be in terms of changing discriminatory thinking. When the Supreme Court ordered the schools of the nation to integrate, it took FEDERAL TROOPS to force it to happen. Those people you are talking about are the same people who cheered when the governor of Arkansas used his National Guard troops to keep the Little Rock 9 out of school. You yourself admitted that if we follow your lead, intelligence, merit, and education will become secondary to appearances in some cases, but then completely avoid saying where it WOULDN'T be secondary. "The outcomes are also unfair, in the same sense as they are for intelligence. An interference with the market's valuation of physical appearance is justified only if the benefits from the redistribution of resources from more attractive to less attractive people are greater than the losses in overall product..." WHAT? Are you REALLY saying that if we have a choice between giving money to pretty people and giving money to ugly people, we should give it to pretty people because there is no benefit to giving it to ugly people? What kind of society do you want to live in? How can you possibly justify taking money away from ugly people JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS ATTRACTIVE?!
Swap Tobacco with Marijuana

Thank you for replying. I would like to begin in pointing out that my opponent completely changed the entire debate. I accepted this debate on terms that i would be debating against the replacement of tobacco with Marijuana, if my opponents intentions were to place taxes on consumers, then he should have further elaborated on it during the introduction round. The fact that my opponent has changed the entire topic as well as the content of this debate in the middle of the round( round 2), should be looked upon when casting your point for conduct. (thank you) Argument. My opponent have provided no sensible for me to work with, so i will start by stating my point of view then moving on to attack the little information he provided to back up his claims. Contention one: prohibition Not to sound ignorant, but my opponent seems to believe that just because a certain price or prohibition was or rather is imposed on something would result in its sudden extinction. The fact is that if we place high taxes on these goods to the point were many would lack the financial capability of acquiring the goods, these people would look for an alternative way to acquire it not because they want to break the law but because they are sick (addiction). we see this in every day life were people are constantly forced to buy certain goods not because they want the product but because they crave or rather are addicted to the substance. My opponent needs to understand that there are illegal ways to acquire legal substances. Contention two: Marijuana I agree that the cost of prohibition on marijuana is rather high; however the plan that my opponent proposed is simply not the best answer. Putting restrictions on certain places will require the United States constant economic supervision. The United States government would have to spend huge amounts of money just to regulate the production of this product and distribution of this product. Until we find a better method in which this product could be regulated, then there is no point in reforming the current prohibition. In conclusion, My opponents idea of legalization and regulation is highly flawed as it presents no economic or social benefits.
Swap Tobacco with Marijuana

First thing: Clarifying what I mean by "swapping". When I said "banning", I most definitely did not mean a prohibition style ban on tobacco. The economical and political effects of such an act would be disastrous, and it would end in failure. What I meant is piling political pressure (higher taxes, banning smoking in places like playgrounds and theme parks, etc.) on smokers and tobacco companies so it would practically disappear from American society. From personal experience, my uncle finally agreed with the family it was time to quit when Washington (state) decided to raise cigarette taxes. Speaking of prohibitions, like the one of alcohol in the 1920s, it ended in failure. Likewise, the prohibition of Marijuana is... failing. And it is costing a lot. -cost of active law enforcement -cost of prosecution (and defense!) of accused offenders -cost of incarceration of convicted offenders -hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue that would be generated if drugs were legal and taxed -cost of foster care and social services for children of incarcerated offenders Taken from the Marijuana legalization Organization website "the price of keeping Marijuana illegal" page. http://www.mjlegal.org... And all that money is coming from YOUR pocket, a.k.a. US tax dollars. If Marijuana was legal, all that extra spending cash could be put to health care, education, and other things.
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

As a brief road map I will first cover his attacks on me then give voters. Ok to start with that round was just supposed to be just my rebuttal. Also, this is my style of debate, Texas debate, so to say I'm not debating right is wrong. The reason I said that my value and criterion are linked was to show the voters how my value and criterion better link to my case. Again with my observations, they were to give voters a clearer understanding of what is happening. Everything I put in my rebuttal is a rebuttal, remember this is Texas debate so our styles my vary. My arguement was not plagurized. A sentence was and that was a councidence. Vaccines do save millions of lives and more could be saved if people were to take compulsory immunizations. The black death thing had nothing to do with your contention two, but it did tie to your contention one, and made it fall. The pharmacies will recieve pay still regardless, with the govenment forcing these immunizations, I'm sure they will pay for them. With the government paying them they would probably make better vaccines because they will be payed for sure, unlike if the unreliable citizen were to pay them. He said this in contention three "It's not just those who have previously refused vaccination that have their rights violated. Everybody loses their rights. I might have gotten all vaccinations in the past. That doesn't mean that I'll do so in the future, or that I don't deserve the right to refuse immunization. Affirming means the government violates the rights of all of the population, not a select few." How so? It would be the people that don't get these vaccines that get thier right's violated, but like I said to exercise your rights, when it takes away some one elses is wrong. I was refering to his quote and again this can't possibly help his case because he doesn't explain how it can. Also, the government won't be managing life, just one thing, something small at that, don't they control everything else anyways like laws, what you can do where and so on? Your arguement makes no since, so should be voided. I didn't deny volentary vaccination because it should be alvailable, until compulsory vaccination is neccasary. To vote Con is to completely elminate any chance of my idea of compulsory vaccination. The benifit of compulsion that voluntary vaccination does not serve is that what ever epidemic is at bay, everyone will becime safe, but if they have the option and they dont get vaccinated then they are giving disease a window of oppurtunity to stay active. He's arguements of less effective vaccines and biopower are obserd. We already have the government making all aspects of our lives under their control, so why not something important? So, I have clearly shown how the v and c uphold my side better and how compulsory has more benifit than harm. It would be ridiculous for anyone to vote Con since his arguements are obsolete. I thank him for this debate, but you must vote Pro to save more lives and let the government have all options. Thank you for voting pro!
The acceptance of homosexuality in society

Summary of my arguments. In the past there have been groups of people who have been discriminated against for a variety of reasons. My opponents belief that homosexuals should be treated with a societal indifference (and therefore treated differently in society's eyes) is entirely based on a minority scientific belief that homosexuals are "irrational" and therefore not worthy of being treated with respect and dignity. In the face of most of the medical community's consensus (that homosexuality is a healthy and viable alternative to heterosexuality) he has taken one voice as fact and forsaken all other evidence that proves to the contrary. He cannot justify his twisted beliefs and therefore veers dangerously towards blind bigotry. My argument is not based on the hows and whys homosexuals exist. I do not believe it matters if it is a personal choice, biological imperative, psychological dysfunction or any other option. These debates over homosexuality almost always come down to this point and it is a waste of time. The true question is should we embrace homosexual people in our society and treat them truly as equals? My answer is emphatically, yes. Why do I believe this? Because societal discrimination leads to suffering within the targeted minority and this rarely benefits society. The view that homosexuals are broken individuals (who suffer from a medical condition) is a dangerous belief that has lead to people attempting to lead lives that they do not want. We have all heard of stories about the fifty year old man that decides he is gay and abandons his wife family but do you think that would have happened if he was in an environment where it was ok to be gay? This is why I believe embracing homosexuals as equals is essential to our society because to not would hurt homosexuals and all of us. Plus it is a fundamental human right morally as written in the American constitution and the EU Treaty on the subject of sexual orientation discrimination.
The acceptance of homosexuality in society

Your deciphering of the thesis was indeed a presumptuous one. The thesis was the acceptance of homosexuality in society, and so, analytically, the converse would be the non acceptance of homosexuality is society. Do note, the non acceptance does by no means imply the rejection or disapproval, it only implies the notion of simply not accepting and nothing else. Throughout your whole entire argument, you seem to preach the same point which instates "how not accepting a person into society is automatically excluding them". I really cannot take you seriously when you attempt to ground your entire argument atop of a principle that is simply not correct. This is not a matter of opinion as you may later try to proclaim. This is basically turning society into a system of immediate reflex from one polar axis to the antipode. You're seriously striving to use this as an argument and needless to say it is quite laughable. I'm not deliberately trying to insult you, my friend, but such a piss poor venture of false principle is not even worth my time. Regardless, I will continue procedurally and demonstrate how utterly wrong you are. Okay first things first, Pro opts for picking and choosing statements rather than legitimately arguing against my full points. Do consider this evasion when voting. Another statement I must make before we will get into the full of the argument is this one of mine will be suffused by links containing evidences and extrapolations, so be sure to read through all of those as the logic I will be presenting here will be supported by them. If Pro decides to circumvent a reciprocal elaboration of my evidences, do take note of this elusion and again, consider it when voting. Contention 1: http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Contention 2: http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Contention 3: http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Contention 4: http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Contention 5: http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Contention 6: http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Conclusion: So, how does it feel? Coming onto this site for the first time and being mercilessly raped... it has been an effortless duty for myself to rebuke each and every single one of your propositions(not just your premises, but your propositions), doesn't that say something about this argument? You can attempt to try and exhaust through your current contentions but I don't see much hope in them.. as your faithful opponent I do suggest you seek new contentions or else you might just be sealing your own fate. I was really hoping for at least somewhat of a challenge here, evidently I've been in receipt of nothing but gigantic straw man(a fusty one, for that matter. Next time you argue on a topic, make sure your views and contentions aren't severely dated/naï¿½ve(nothing personal, it's not you that I am confronting, it's your critically flawed sense of logicality)). One does stultify from lack of genuinely onerous competition, and as for your response; sock it to me. I suppose I am obligated to round off the debate with you despite the voided opposition that your penuriously weak zephyr of hot air, er... argument*, presents.
The acceptance of homosexuality in society

Thank you for inviting me into this debate. This is my first so please let me know if my debate decorum is inappropriate. I am looking forward to a good exchange of ideas so we can both see the other side of the coin. Your opening statement is a little vague and I don't know how to argue it. I could list all my counter arguments for what I could guess would be your views but that would be counter-intuitive. Why not list your reasons why you feel homosexuals should never be accepted in mainstream society!
Smart men prefer to marry/date smart women than dumb women.

I'll put this to bed now because I'm tired of beating this dead horse. The topic is "Smart men prefer to marry/date smart women than dumb women." You can't provide any factual evidence to support this claim. Smart men prefer whoever they want. Some are going to be "smart" and others will choose those not so smart. There is no " smart guy " aptitude test for women. They choose who they want. Whoever captures their heart. Intelligence is for some, but not all. Smart women are great, and yay for independent women. Don't make it sound as though for a man to be truely intelligent he must seek successful, smart, independent women. If you want males to seek intelligent women start doing speaches at high schools, and college functions. I think there are far more pressing matters for us to be concerned with at this stage of the game. Its been fun, but the novelty of this debate has worn off.
Smart men prefer to marry/date smart women than dumb women.

I understand that many men prefer looks to brian, but I didn't say that the smart women aren't pretty or dumb women are pretty. What a man fears is that the woman aims to his wallet! Would you be afraid of someone marrying you for your money? A smart/intelligent woman has financial flexibility ,therefore, more men might be attracted to the idea that she is less likely to be gunning for his wallet. Would you like to marry dumb women that have no hobbies, no friends, no good jobs? Women with no hobbies = Women who have plenty of time to nag you Women with no friends = Women who have plenty of time to nag you Women with no good job = Women have plenty of time to nag you An intelligent career women couldn't be able to nag you like the dumb ones, she would understand your business and see where you come from. She knows to separate business with personal life, she would be less likely to take it personal if you did spend more time in your work, coz she could be doing the same thing. Today marriage is a choice, not an obligation. For a woman, a solid educational background and a good salary means she can be more selective; Instead of marrying a man for financial security or out of fear of being a spinster @ 30, women may now choose to marry for compatibility, love, or companionship. For men, successful women represent an equal partner with whom to share life, not a constant drain on their hand-earned money. Thank you for debating with me, you are certainly an intelligent man and I am hoping to debate with you again in the future. =)
Smart men prefer to marry/date smart women than dumb women.

The argument was that smart men prefer smart women. That assertion is claiming that to be a smart man you must prefer smart women. You cannot win a debate on that premise. I can find millions of men who are academically smart who prefer looks to brains. I understand your point and as a generalization I feel that what you have said SHOULD be true. Unfortunately for you and I alike that isn't how it works in society. We can simply use television as a way of applying your theory. We watch what we are attracted to. Whether it be C-SPAN, ESPN, the Food Channel, CNN, FOX, MTV, whatever. We watch what interests us. How would you guess a program highlighting a successful woman's career and life would compete against cinemax's sexually charged programming? The successful story of the intelligent woman's life should be what is watched, but men will overall flock to the dumbed down soft-core porn instead of watching that. I know the example is a bit vague in its application, but again many men will accept intellectual downgrades to looks. I agree that its unfortunate, and a bit egotistical, however it happens. I agree that its a tragedy that society has come to that, but it has. There is no way you could apply your argument to all smart men. It would fail 6 out of 10 men I would bet.