BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Impromtu Debate

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, please consider accepting my challenge to an impromptu debate. Here's how it works: You accept one of the following debate topics: 1 - The United States should sell Texas back to France 2 - Tax evasion is as morally repugnant as stealing from a charity box 3 - The fat should pay more for their plane tickets than normal people Then you set three of your own for me to choose from. We will use Round 2 to debate either for or against our chosen topic (it will be our own choice) and the winner will be the one who is adjudged to have given the better argument. Thank you. Rounds - 2 (R1 to propose / accept; R2 to argue) Time to Argue - 24 hours Max Characters - 3,000 Voting period - 3 days
Gun Rights

There is something very weird with Debate. Org system. I've tried Rich Text and Text-only editors, Copying&pasting my text within the limits and even stripped off all formatting, I can't properly submit my argument after Review>Submit, The "Time Remaining" resets and submission no effect. No error. Here is the text of the argument in HTML: https://pastebin. Com/sSg3pHZU Copy and paste the raw data into an HTML editor like this here in the left: https://html5-editor. Net/ If you need assistance, Please let me know in the Comments and I'll help you to able to read my argument. I apologise for the inconvenience caused. I am already trying to reach Debate. Org for many technical issues.
Gun Rights

There are many points that are invalid in your argument. First of all mass shootings is not an identifiable fact is it over 10 homicides, Or over 2? The FBI does not use mass shootings as an identifiable fact. You are correct however that the US has the highest gun homicide rate. However what you do not mention is the violent crime rate. Did you know the US has a far lower violent crime rate than any of the countries you speak of with blanket gun bans? Switzerland the country you criticized with having a lot of gun violence, Has the lowest violent crime rate in Europe, While Great Britain, The country you praised, Has the highest violent crime rate in Europe. The conclusion is more guns is less crime. Even the United States has a lower violent crime rate than Great Britain. Your statement that the government need not be feared any more is oblivious to history. There are countless examples of a government going tyrannical and we will never find common ground on that issue. You said that the government spies on its citizens, I agree they should stop. The point is we should ensure the government plays a smaller role in our life than it does. The former point addresses my reservations with a national gun registry, The government should never be trusted. Finally I can tell you are ignorant to how guns work. Automatic weapons have already been banned and only semi-automatics are in the market. Semi-automatics means when the trigger is pulled once, One bullet comes out. Every gun in the market is a semi-automatic. Finally you say you are for gun rights, Let me ask you something, Handguns are used in the majority of murders in the country. Should we ban those? If not do you not care for the kids in Chicago as much as the kids in Parkland? If you say we should ban those, I have explained why a blanket gun ban would never work.
Democracy is the best form of government.

Webster's Dictionary defines democracy as:"government by the people; especially: rule of the majority."Whereas a Republic is defined as:"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."Since I said in Round 1 that I support a Constitutional Republic, the existence of a Constitution which specifies the the structure of the government, the powers thereof, and the rights of the people. That said, I will argue that Representative Democracy, with a Constitution that specifies the powers of the government and the procedures thereof, is superior to absolute direct democracy. Let me demonstrate the difference- a perfect example of true democracy is the lynch mob- under this system, if someone is accused of a crime, the mob says lynch him so they lynch him. Under a Constitutional Republic, however, you have to bring him to court, and give him a trial with a jury of his peers- you have to prove he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, he has a right to know his accuser, and to legal representation, and if, after all that, the judge says to lynch him, and the jury says to lynch him, and you go through all the appeals and what not, then you can lynch him. My opponent claims that democracy 'ensures that the basic human rights are granted to each citizen of the country. People have the right to express their opinions about any topic out loud, without being censored by the government. Democracy promotes debates and group discussions which are crucial for the exponential growth of a nation,' but democracy merely means majority rule- it doesn't ensure basic human rights or freedom of expression, a Constitution and specified government powers and procedures may, but majority rule cannot. Canada has democratic rule, yet people are being thrown in jail for not accepting transgender nonsense because they do not have a First Amendment like we do. Finally, my opponent claims that 'My opponent might state that mob rule is possible in such a government. Yet, the electoral college protects us from a situation like this,' but the electoral college is a Republican system, not a democratic one. If we had a true democracy, the President would be elected by a national popular vote.
Democracy is the best form of government.

Democracy is the best form of government. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. In this round, I will simply be stating the pros of Democracy: Democracy represents the people. Democracy ensures that the basic human rights are granted to each citizen of the country. People have the right to express their opinions about any topic out loud, without being censored by the government. Democracy promotes debates and group discussions which are crucial for the exponential growth of a nation. In a democracy each and every citizen have the power to decide who runs the country. By granting the power to the people, democracy ensures equal participation to everyone in the government of the country. Democracy helps in making the citizens responsible and aware. A democracy does not discriminate anyone. A democratic system of government ensures equal political, social and economic rights to everyone. In a democracy no laws can be passed without the consent of the majority. Any law passed must conform to the broad guidelines of the constitution, and if a law does not meet this requirement, it can be challenged in a court of law and repealed. Ensures complete transparency in decision making and prevents any unjust law from being passed. In a democracy, elected government cannot stay in power for as long as they want because they are bound by the constitution wherein they have to end their terms in office. Democracy promotes social peace and harmony. The freedom of speech granted by democracy, brings with it the various platforms that promote wise utilization of the spoken word. Debates and group discussions are organized for people to voice out their opinion and share their ideas. Exposes the citizens to different perspectives and they understand each other better and together they contribute to the overall development of the country. My opponent might state that mob rule is possible in such a government. Yet, the electoral college protects us from a situation like this. Source(s):http://thefederalist.com... https://www.quora.com... https://listontap.com...
Resolved: Public Nudity should be legal

R1: The study wasn't on public nudity I realise that. However, I do not see how this detracts from my case. The point of the study was to show that nudity does not negatively affect those around you. I can't think of any valid reasons for why the results would be bound to the home and the home alone. This is like saying that by bringing a dog outside from your home, you are changing the dog. This might be true if the dog has a rare skin condition, but in the majority of cases the dog doesn't. R2: Nudity can emotionally harm someone You cannot justify a ban by using the averse effects of said ban. Example: People pirate a game (Get offended by nudity for irrational reasons). Invasive DRM is added to future games to prevent piracy (Public nudity gets banned). Pirates pirate the game because of said DRM (People hate nudity because of the effects the ban had on the perception of nudity). I have shown that there is no rational reason to shun nudity. Therefor, there is no reason to be offended by nudity without being irrational. Before you say that they are still offended, I could say that you saying that offends me because it came to me in a dream. Should you be banned from saying that? R3: Your arguments about Taboo and sexuality are irrelevant See above. If a ban is based on irrationality, it should be lifted. R4: The clothing industry will die My opponent overlooks a few vital points here. First of all, nudity would only be legal in public. This means that businesses still have the option of having a clothes-only area. This could be because of issues such as atmosphere and sanitation. This means that people would still have to buy at least a few outfits for when they want to go out to one of these businesses. Secondly, the clothing industry would still make money during Winter. It would be extremely silly to assume that no one would wear clothes in the colder times of year. I understand that this could potentially slightly harm the industry, but the market will fix itself in time.
Resolved: Public Nudity should be legal

P1: Nudity does not harm anyone Simply being nude does not harm anyone. In fact, studies done on the matter {1} showed that social nudity can increase self-confidence and esteem. If we go by the Non-Aggression Principle, nudity should not be banned. P2: Taboo Clothes were first worn for their functionality - keeping warm. They were not worn purely to avoid being nude. After hundreds of generations of clothing being the norm, taboo started to form around being nude. Through the years, people started becoming against nudity because of things like religion and irrational superstition. The Asch conformity experiments {2} show that, if something is heavily agreed upon withing a group, it is more likely that others will not try to contest it. The bandwagon effect can explain why nudity is taboo. Additionally, it has been shown that parents heavily influence a child's future beliefs {3}. P3: Nudity is not inherently sexual The naked human form is not sexual until it is made to be. Due to over-dramatization of nudity and most portrayals of nudity as purely sexual in the media and such, the mind gets overly sensitive. However, when you see someone nude on a daily basis doing normal activities such as cooking, your mind gets used to it. When you get in the shower, do you feel like you are doing something sexual? Probably not, as you realize that you are just washing yourself. This is the key - learning how intentions affect perceptions. I will now pass this over to Pro and I am looking forward to his arguments. {1}http://o2binsxm.com... {2}http://en.wikipedia.org... {3}http://www.michigan.gov...
The Draft

Sir, you are confusing Conscription which is a legal form of assembling an army with Military Slavery. The latter is true compulsion wherein people are genuinely forced to fight. Conscription is completely different. Conscription is the last line of defence for freedom. I understand what your saying. Why are our brave men and women travelling half way across the world in the name of defence? I'll tell you why: If we don't fight those who seek to destroy us over there, they'll fight us over here and that is a simple as it gets. More lives would be lost if we were fighting Al Qaida in the streets of Britain or on the roads of America. "The point is, war, more often than not, is immoral." Let's look at who we are at war with at the moment: ISIL: Seeks to convert all non-Muslims to Islam. Those who don't get beheaded, blow up and shot. That sounds very immoral to me. The truth is yes, more often than not, war is immoral but equally it is not. There are always two sides to a fight. In the Second World War it was Evil Vs. Good. In the Cold War, Capitalism Vs. Communism, In the Iraq war it was Democracy Vs. Despotism. If every country were immoral then your statement would be true but it is incomplete. The complete statement? The point is, war, more often than not is immoral. Thankfully the morally good go to war to change that. "They are somehow helping other people kill people" The following is an exert from the diary of a conscientious objector: "While at the arsenal, I volunteered for duty in the first aid post, which led to me taking a first aid course with the local St John Ambulance Brigade." This wasn't a one off many CO's worked in medicine: "Ron decided to volunteer at the hospital, so joined me on the nightly vigil in the Casualty Department. I had already seen a few gruesome sights amongst the casualties who had been brought in. When the first ones arrived when Ron was there he was a bit apprehensive and tended to keep in the background. On one occasion he asked me if he could see one of the men who was injured, so I lifted the blanket covering the casualty and showed him the deep wound which had removed a portion of the man"s chest. He went a bit green, but as time went on, he too became used to dealing with such injuries." As you can see. Not every soldiers job is to kill and not ever CO's job is to allow the soldier to kill. "So, what about Vietnam?" I can't speak for your elected government, neither do I have much knowledge about the Vietnam but I can say this I've mentioned two instances in which a force of evil with nothing but the sole goal of the extermination of a particular group be it non-Aryans or non-Muslims challenged the world and the moral people, the brave men and women responded. The risks were weighed the outcomes contemplated and the act of conscription was enabled. Had it not been enabled. The deaths of those brave men and women would have been far outweighed by the deaths.
The Draft

The point is, war, more often than not, is immoral. Forcing people to fight in a war is immoral. Suppose they are not actually killing people. They are somehow helping other people kill people. And many times, the people on the other side don't want to fight either. When you are drafted, you are forced into becoming the expendable tool of someone more powerful than you, an their political agenda. Also, I will say that World War II should not be allowed for you to use. The Battle of Britain happened within British airspace, and therefor within the home country. "The truth of the matter is, in instances were your freedom, your safety, your very way of life are under threat you can and will be expected to stand up for the aforementioned luxuries. Of course, standing up doesn't always mean picking up a gun. War isn't just men killing each other." So, what about Vietnam? I talked specifically about Vietnam, and got almost no response. That was the last time the draft was used in my country. No Americans had their freedom, or safety, or way of lives threatened, and yet we went to war, and used the draft too.
The Draft

You said we were were not allowed to use an invasion scenario, I merely mentioned the threat of one which is and has been omnipresent throughout all of national history. You also have a strange view that every single person in the military kills and is killed. There are plenty of occupations within the modern military that do not involve the holding of a weapon such as catering, cleaning, surveillance, logistics etc. The fact of the matter is: being a member of the armed forces does not equate to being a soldier, or dyeing. "CO status isn't available equally to all of us. Poor people, blacks, Hispanics, and anyone who doesn't belong to a Christian peace church has a much harder time getting CO status than educated, wealthy, white Christian pacifists" The very article of declaration of human rights which I mentioned earlier states that:"Everyone has the right..." The truth of the matter is, in instances were your freedom, your safety, your very way of life are under threat you can and will be expected to stand up for the aforementioned luxuries. Of course, standing up doesn't always mean picking up a gun. War isn't just men killing each other.
The Draft

You say the draft is immoral. There have been two instances where conscription has been enacted in my country, the United Kingdom. Britain introduced conscription for the first time in 1916 (halfway through World War I) and abolished it in 1920, and reintroduced it again in 1939 on the outbreak of World War II. It remained in force until 1960. I'll admit that yes, both times, many people died but I ask the honourable gentlemen one question: How many men, women, children, babies, Hebrews, disabled people and homosexual people would have died if Hitler was simply allowed to goosestep into my nation? "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke PC, Statesman. "a cause they may not even believe in" Say, have you ever heard of a little thing called Conscientious Objection? Why, I'll explain it to you: There's a little group called the United Nations General Assembly, it's basically a large collection of nations in which they meet and set rules for each other, for the greater good. They wrote a little rulebook called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and section 18 of that rulebook states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." I can tell you know that this extends to the rejection of military service. If such a Conscription were enacted both you and I are perfectly allowed, without fear of persecution, to object. A lot of people did during the Second World War both in your nation and mine, these people were put to work in other jobs related to the military. "'replenishing' the military is because the people in the military are dying" Now sir, you and I both know that that is not what conscription is. Conscription is the compulsory but objectionable enlistment of every fit and able person into or around the military. I refer you to my earlier point: "How many men, women, children, babies, Hebrews, disabled people and homosexual people would have died if Hitler was simply allowed to goosestep into my nation?"
The Draft

The Draft is one of the most immoral practices used by our nations. Essentially, the draft is taking away someone's family member to fight, and possibly die, in a cause they may not even believe in. You may say it is patriotic, but why force people to be patriotic? Wouldn't the real patriots be the ones who volunteered to fight? Also, the very concept of "replenishing" the military is because the people in the military are dying. The Draft is just flat out wrong.
Marijuana should be legalized

There have never been any recorded deaths related to marijuana. While smoking anything can cause cancer, the marijuana itself is not inherently worse for you than any other herb. You would face the risk of cancer if you were to smoke lavender. Since smoking has been shown to be harmful, there are other ways of consuming cannabis, for example in baked goods, vaporizers etc. These methods have absolutely no harmful effects. When legalizing something such as this, it would be necessary to put forth the same restrictions as we do alchohol and tobacco rendering minors unable to purchase it. It doesn't make sense that we spend billions of dollars a year in sending these non violent drug users to jail. What an individual decides to do with their health should not be up to the government to decide. As a consenting adult, one should have the right to put what they want into their bodies.
Global Warming is killing us

Let it be known that the affirmation side in this debate failed to refute any of my eight critical points that I made during the first round of the debate: But anyway, my opponent brings up data claiming the fact that the Earth is currently warmer than it was a BILLION years ago. Considering that in the last billion years, multicellular life began, multicellular life left the seas and came upon land, the dinosaurs lived and died, and we net through two ice ages, using that range for data does not get any point whatsoever across. Humans have adapted and lived through about 500 centuries of varying climates and animals surrounding us. Global warming and cooling has occurred at periodic levels throughout the history of planet Earth. We adapted then, and this was far before the massive technological achievement that mankind has attained in recent history. When nature tries to hit us, we hit back harder. My opponent also fails to provide any evidence of climate change affecting the ownership and operation of modern business and how exactly the warming of the globe will affect these corporate institutions. The opponent also cites an increase of tsunamis due to warming temperatures, but this is simply impossible, considering that a tsunami is formed by a geological event and not one of climatical origins. I urge a negative vote in this debate.
Global Warming is killing us

The climate change that is happening from the past decades and the effects that grow rapidly in the present are quite alarming to many people. People need to commence their action upon this disaster on earth as it will affect ourselves more dangerously in the following years to come in the sense of losing family members, dealing with the sudden failure or loss in business and economics, and also to face the radical changes in the weather patterns around the world. The failure in proceeding the plans on dealing with the climate change complication would not only make ourselves living in a consistent misfortune of disaster but also would make the world a worse place for many beautiful creatures in the future decades that will approach. This is not the end of the world, yet we had brought ourselves to the edge of death in a highly disrespectful manner. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) studies and researches found that ice cores are able to provide the scientists with multiple informations regarding the climate change. The drilling of the ice and the analyzation from the dust and air bubbles contained in the atmospheric gases provide the scientists the temperature record in which will be graphed for future studies and response. This evidence proves how our climate changes and how the temperature on earth is getting warmer compared to billion years ago.