BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black Lives Matter is stupid.

Wow! My first opponent! Now to continue! "The cause itself is pure, it's a group of people black, or white raising awareness of how blacks are mistreated by police which is obvious, mistreated by the court system"How are Blacks mistreated by cops? Then again, it isn't race that is the factor in how the cops treat Black people,it is how they respond to requests by the officer. Now let's look at this: "What was disclosed was Darren Wilson, the officer involved, had acted in self-defense and had reason to fear for his life. Brown fought with Mr. Wilson and tried to take his gun." Why were the Black Lives Matter morons saying that Brown was innocent when clearly he wasn't? "Black Lives Matter perpetuates — both online and at their rallies. The group, and all of its umbrella organizations, has claimed that every 28 hours a black man is killed by a police officer."From the sources listed here, should prove how the group is incredibly stupid."The Washington Post’s fact-checker gave the claim four Pinocchios, saying the victims studied in the report were not all unarmed, and they were not all killed by the police. Ouch."Constantly lying, its stupid. "A Harvard study has also disproved Black Lives Matter’s notion that there’s racial bias in police shootings."Again, no such thing as "Black Lives Matter" it is clear. "The Black Lives Matter movement also purposely avoids black on black crime — it seems that black lives matter only if they’re killed by whites." "Blacks killing each other is irrelevant."Is that not something that they should be concerned about considering that they push "Black Lives Matter"? " You might see the negative videos because social media in itself focuses on the negative, this includes youtube."Stop lying. Provide a link to a video showing them in a peaceful protest.Source:https://www.washingtontimes.com...;
Black Lives Matter is stupid.

Taken from the wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org... "Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international activist movement, originating in the African-American community, that campaigns against violence and systemic racism towards black people. BLM regularly holds protests against police killings of black people and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system." This is, and was the original and still is the intent of BLM (Black Lives Matter). Just by the quote alone is enough to conclude this argument, but for entertainments sake, and for the viewers reading, we can discuss Black Lives Matter which obviously isn't "stupid". First off, it's important to know that nearly every single political group out there has bad apples (people) and just because there are some bad apples, there is far MORE good apples in this group, and protesting for a cause. The cause itself is pure, it's a group of people black, or white raising awareness of how blacks are mistreated by police which is obvious, mistreated by the court system compared to whites which again is obvious with blacks getting longer sentences. So to call this political group "stupid" is actually an insult when the intent is raising awareness and again just because there is bad people in the group, it doesn't make the group bad. There are plenty of good people in this group, and that's important to know. The tactics you see being protested regardless of how questionable they might be is still for a POSITIVE cause. Sure there might be looters in the group (bad apples) but they are in every group, and again there is a bigger majority of GOOD protesters regardless how you view them. There are many videos of positive protests online showing them protesting peacefully. You might see the negative videos because social media in itself focuses on the negative, this includes youtube. Blacks killing each other is irrelevant.
Same-sex Marriage vs Religion

I must say, I wasn't expecting you to go into such detail with references from the bible. A lot of people who are against gay marriage go into the very fine details of the bible to find extracts from lots of sections (so sorry but I'm not a devoted Christian, I've never read or looked at any other parts of the bible that didn't include stories from my religion education syllabus!) to make sure that they can find one little sentence that will back up their point of view. So we've established the point that Catholics are against same sex marriage because God forbids it. But doesn't God also forbid cheating on your spouse? And stealing from thy neighbour ? Why aren't Catholics condemning people who cheat on their husbands and wives ? We choose to ignore these simple, much more serious issues for the more relevant and controversial ones such as same sex marriage. But lets look at it from your view: socially, politically, economically. (I'm an Irish citizen so things may be different here than they are in other countries like the States and the UK. My arguments are from my country's perspective.) The only way I can describe my next point is by using an anecdote. My good friend's father is a homosexual. He lives with his partner in central Dublin. They have two cats and share an apartment together, but the apartment is under his name even though they both pay the mortgage on it. A couple months ago, the man became very ill. Cancer had attacked. Now a gay person is no different to everyone else. They have eyes, ears, toes, arms. Cancer hits them the exact same way. He died a couple weeks after he was diagnosed. The problem then came about that his next of kin was his spouse, John. Now as I told you, John had shared this apartment with the man and he had left him a sum of money in his will. BUT. Because there are no laws in Ireland allowing same sex marriage, the state did not recognise their relationship. After 10 years of being together, John was left with nothing. Gay people have no rights in the eyes of the law without marriage. They cannot do simple things like everyone else for example making a will. I do not think same-sex marriage hinders the law or the political status of Ireland. So how will same-sex marriage be a political issue? Because these people can now be treated equally to everyone, the politics of the world is going to go as the old Irish proverb says "bun os gcionn" ? The government isn't going to have a melt down if we pass same-sex marriage. The world won't end with same sex marriage. It baffles me how anyone thinks it could.
Same-sex Marriage vs Religion

In society today, numerous amount of people are for the "legalisation" of same sex marriage. Yet, as with every argument, there are the minority that oppose it. As a 17 year old who was brought up to "love your neighbour as you love yourself" in an all girls roman catholic school/ convent, I don't understand why people are so against same sex marriage on the basis of religion, especially Catholics. I have been researching into why people oppose gay marriage on the terms of religious beliefs and the majority of people have said that they don't want same- sex couples to be married purely because they believe that marriage is a ritual for child bearing. Essentially, you get married to someone you love because you are going to make a family. My argument against this isn't exactly an argument but more a question. What are your view on heterosexual couples who are allowed get married etc etc BUT they find out that a spouse isn't able to have a child. The woman could be unable to bear children, the man could be unable to impregnate the woman. If in this situation, which a number of married couples are, they are in my eyes, in the same position as a same- sex couple. Why are they allowed to get married and the same-sex couple aren't ??
For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned.

This debate is apart of the March Beginner's tournament, hosted by bsh1. Thank you bsh1 for all of you're time and effort that was put into organizing this. In this debate, will be argued "For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned." I being Pro, my opponent being Con. As Pro, I will be convincing you as to why U.S prisons should be banned. Definitions: Banned: To prohibit (an action) or forbid the use of (something), especially by official decree. Prison: A place for the confinement and punishment of persons convicted of crimes, especially felonies. The BoP is shared. Structure: Round 1 : Acceptance/Argument Round 2: Rebuttal's and Argument's Round 3: Rebuttal's and Argument's Round 4: Conclusion. I wish my opponent good luck! Source's : http://www.thefreedictionary.com... https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...
For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned.

P1: "I simply went around it, but focusing on one state and using that as an example. I used [sic] Airizona for example."This is exactly the issue. My studies reported cost savings within private prisons, relative to state prisons, through analysing a substantial sample. You reported a single instance where cost savings did not occur, but this does not successfully refute my contention that private prisons save the state money.P2: I apologise for misunderstanding your argument, I had thought 'freedom', in this context, was referring to luxuries and time afforded to prisoners. If freedom is just how easy it is to escape there still isn't any evidence that substantiates your contention that private prisons actually have more 'freedom'. Your source shows all prison escapes regardless of whether they were housed in a state or private prison.R1: I told you exactly why most of your sources are irrelevant - they refer to individual cases whilst we are analysing a trend/causal link for a policy debate. To support your contention, you should have cited the conclusions made from a comprehensive analysis regarding violence in state and private prisons.Conclusion: My first contention lies unrefuted and has been well-supported. My second contention has been largely ignored whilst Pro's claims have been weakly supported and not actually representive of real data. Pro has not very little to show that private prisons should be banned, whereas I have shown several instances, situations and qualities where private prisons are resolutely superior. Vote Con!Thanks for the debate Pro!
For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned.

Rebuttal: P1: Cost Savings Con says that "In my constructive case, I developed an well-founded argument that explained why and how private prisons save money. I initially referred to a simple lassiez-faire framework and cited a comprehensive analysis of the costs in private and state prisons. Pro essentially drops all this and refers only to an analysis of a single state" I didnt necasarrily deny nor ignore the "lassiez-faire " I simply went around it, but focusing on one state and using that as an example. I used Airizona for example. I created a whole case as to why Private Prisons are a waste of money, and why they are bad at handeling money. If you would like to read more here: http://www.thenation.com... Rebuttal: P2: Overcrowding Solution Then Con goes on to say that "Pro declares that prisoners have more freedom in private prisons, and this is bad. There is no evidence for this." When I'm pretty sure that I did give an example of as to how to much freedom causes troubble and why it's bad: In FY 2009-10, there were 150 completed escapes, 144 or 96.0% were recaptured as of July 1. Of the 144 who were recaptured, 86 or 64.2% were recaptured within 24 hours of their escape. Of the 150 completed escapes, 146 (97.3%) were from non-secure work release/contract centers; 3 (2.0%) were from a work camp/road prison, and 1 (0.7%) of the inmates who escaped was housed in prison but was on an outside work detail when he escaped. There were 5 attempted (and foiled) escapes from Florida correctional facilities during Fiscal Year 2009-10. To ensure public safety and maintain low number of escapes from inside prisons, the Department bolsters three factors: a zero tolerance policy for escapes; the implementation of a comprehensive security audit program; and replacing and upgrading perimeter barriers including fences, razor wire and installing electronic detection systems. http://www.dc.state.fl.us... So explain to me how this isn't bad? Rebuttal Violence, Abuse and DeathMost of Pro's argument is not relevant, as they refer to individual cases whilst we are analysing a trend/causal link. The remaining section refers to the Bureau analysis, which actually doesn't even mention this 49% figure, never mind comment on it's credibility. "Individual Cases"? Exactly, what was I suppose to do, make a story up about all the different cases. I had to focus on one at a time so people could understand each case. You are right, I did also refer to a link so if people wanted to read more about the case they could. Conclusion: Note that all Con wants to do is complain as to how or why my point's are "irrelevant" in his eyes, he never fully rebutts them and gives reasoning's as to why or how I am right or wrong, yet he basically judges the sentence, but dosen't tell me as to why it's irrelevant.
For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned.

Likewise. Sorry about this late reply, I'm currently in Switzerland and only briefly able to connect to the Internet.Although it's not a requirement to even use sources, if one wishes to construct coherent contentions you'll find it useful to format sources in a more organised way.Defense:P1: Cost SavingsIn my constructive case, I developed an well-founded argument that explained why and how private prisons save money. I initially referred to a simple lassiez-faire framework and cited a comprehensive analysis of the costs in private and state prisons. Pro essentially drops all this and refers only to an analysis of a single state. This is not representative of the other private prison systems in America. The situation in Arizona actually backs up my second argument: private prisons as an overcrowding solution. Arizona faced a serious overcrowding dilemma back in 2003, and this problem was resolved by building of a number of private prisons alongside state ones.[1] http://afsc.org...P2: Overcrowding SolutionIn Pro's source, the bureau concedes that most of these, aside from the Tennessee study contained: "serious methodlogical flaws that limit their ability to reach firm conclusions." That analysis didn't conclude anything of worth, given these flaws. She then goes on to argue that since only 8% of prisoners are housed in private prisons, they are not making an impact on the overcrowding issue. This does not make any sense: this means ~128,000 prisoners are not clogging up state prisons. Pro declares that prisoners have more freedom in private prisons, and this is bad. There is no evidence for this. But even adopting this premise we come to the same conclusion: the resolution is negated if I can construct a situation in which private prisons are useful, or better than state prisons, since the government is not forced into contracting private prisons, they may choose not to use them. For more minor offenses it is important to ensure sufficient freedoms to prisoners, or unhealthy resentment will occur, so a state might see fit to contract private prisons for minor offenses.RebuttalsViolence, Abuse and DeathMost of Pro's argument is not relevant, as they refer to individual cases whilst we are analysing a trend/causal link. The remaining section refers to the Bureau analysis, which actually doesn't even mention this 49% figure, never mind comment on it's credibility.ConclusionMost of Pro's argument has relied on the assumed premise of a false dichotomy (we either ban private prisons, or all prisons will be private and we will experience their disadvantages) I have referred to a number of instances where private prisons excel (costs, overcrowding, etc) and their is little reason private prisons should be banned. I'm not advocating an entirely privatised prison system, but a moderated mixture of state and private prisons in order to assist the problems within America's justice system.
The role of the U.S government in Developing Nations

My opponent has also brought up an interesting point. However, I disagree as of the fact that the purpose of providing financial aid to nations is so that they can develop and have the ability to run on their own. Currently, in Pakistan, their government is quite dependent on the U.S an other developed nations. They have become so accustomed to have funding provided by these developed nations. They have not been able develop on their own. The only way that these nations will be able to get back on their feet is that if they are given the funding they need to develop. However, let their public openly try to be independent in setting up a proper government. A widely known quote, "You can give a hungry man a fish or a fishing rod." As can be seen the money serves as fishing rod for developing nations to grow. An additionally to target the ideology of assuring that these nations are making proper use of the money; the U.S can intervene in situations where the money is being abused severely. Overall, with a balance between U.S involvement this could lead to a more developed society. Thank You For responding to my debate.
The role of the U.S government in Developing Nations

I will agree with my opponents statement that the current process of giving aid to forien developing nations is flawed but not in the way that he implys. I believe that when the US chooses to support a GOVERNMENT through aid that we have an obligation to see that that aid is used to fund things that are consistent with US goals. When the US provides HUMANITARIAN aid I believe that aid should go to the people the aid was intended for. If the money is being misused then the money should stop being sent. I think that anytime the US gives out money the US gov. has a responsibility to know that the money is going to the intended recipient and that the money is not being misused. Thanks for the debate.
The role of the U.S government in Developing Nations

Currently, the United States of America has a reputation of being considered a foreign power. However, the U.S is currently taking this level to a level beyond other nations to ascertain. For one, the U.S has openly acknowledged that even after the U.S leaves Afghanistan in 2014 they will continue to utilize their military base that is located there. Additionally, an Afghanistan Mujaheddin leader Ishmael Khan has stated that he would like his citizens to rise to the challenge that they should be able to run their own nation. The U.S along with other developed nations should respect the decisions of these developing nations by the use of financial aid. Through the idea of giving financial aid, the nations could set up their own proper governmental and military system. Additionally, the current system of the U.S and loans to the government of other nations is flawed. Currently, the U.S is paying for much of the Pakistani government through donations. Now, the U.S is demanding that the Pakistani government listen to the U.S when it comes into ideology of government. This is a violation of the moral obligation the U.S was obliged to follow by not giving these nations a chance to develop on their own. Overall, through development of a better system, we can help live in a world in which we are all developed and can live in a civilized manner. Thank You for your time.
The role of the U.S government in Developing Nations

The reason that the US gives money to developing nations governments is so that those governments gain power. The US doesn't really have any obligation to provide money, rather we chose to provide the money to organizations we believe will benefit and support us in the future. If we believe we have a moral obligation to give money to any government that claims to be "for the people" we would be required to fund certain terrorist groups; don't forget that the Taliban was a government too. I think its funny that you bring up the quote about the hungry man. Unfortunately you are looking at the issue the wrong way. The money that the US provides to these developing nations is not a proverbial fishing pole, it's the fish itself! When we provide unconditionalized aid to a developing nation we create a dependency that can cripple an economy. Yes, the money can be used to build infrastructure or things of that nature but often it is used to cover costs that should be weeded out of the budget. When we hand these developing nations fish, we only worsen the problem by teaching them that they don't need to learn fiscal responsibility because Uncle Sam will take care of it. Handing out aid might look good in the short term, but in the long term it often just causes more issues.
Law and Regulation will not fix the problems of Health Care

No problem, although your argument may have been poorly worded it still seems to be based on your assumption. In a subject, that has already been proven as fact, that would be fine but your argument that "Creating Laws and Regulations will not fix the current trends in Health" cannot be proven without putting the "Laws and Regulations" into effect. Therefore your argument is invalid. Places you used your assumption or your point of view as backup for your argument: "However I believe the true problem is an erosion in the average person's attitude and motivations." "I don't think so all health nutrition information is already listed all you have to do is read a box" "Still I think you might change a few peoples choices." "This change that needs to take place I feel can not happen on a global/countrywide scale through, regulation or law." "The fix to me is changing the culture around eating." "I believe and maintain that these issues will only be fixed in the next generations if their guardians show them the way." Let us look at a simple law such as speed limits. These where put into effect so the roads would be safer as people slow down and stay within the given limit. Although many people still choose not to follow this law, others do. This idea to make a speed law could only be proven to work or not to work by making it a law. As I have said many times throughout, your assumption may be correct but there is no way to prove it without using "Laws and Regulations". Show me factual evidence on how "Creating Laws and Regulations will not fix the current trends in Health." Thank You
Law and Regulation will not fix the problems of Health Care

Almost every problem that we have ever had in history can be "fixed" by change. Most haven't been because the need for money and the lack of interest from people. Now if you are specifically talking about the rise in obesity, perhaps if we took the right steps towards eating more healthy (maybe creating a law that no restaurant can sell a single food item that equals over 800cal. since the average person needs just 1,500-2,500cal. a day). If we continue to serve healthier foods in public school for our kids and stop cutting gym class. If health care plans paid for and required that you enter a gym at least once a week to get the service. The biggest problem with obesity is the way we live; it is almost as simple as calories in calories out. Sure there are restrictions such as genetics but if everyone else ate healthy and worked out a couple hours a week there would be no obesity. But again it will take some money; mostly it will take the participation from people to want this change. It could take 100's of years but it can happen.