BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feeding our children/family

Feeding our children and family! Is obesity the fault of the people who buys the food or the fault of the Government as argued on the Dr. Phil show episode "the fat debate"? I think it is the fault of the people who buy the food and feed their family with. We have choices in the grocery store and it is our responsibility what we cook for our family. I am guilty of feeding my family processed foods and cause their weight gain. I do not blame the government for putting these foods on the shelves of the grocery store as we have choices to what is put into our cart.
Bennis v. Michigan opened the door to Bills of Pain and Penalty in the USA

Thanks for the debate logicrules. I await your case proving that Bennis v. Michigan allows Bills of Attainder, which are bills classifying certain groups as criminals (without a trial). An example of a Bill of Attainder would be a considered English law during WWII that would have ordered the summary execution of all suspected Nazis living in England. I will assert that you have GROSSLY misinterpreted the Bennis Supreme Court decision. The case was as follows: Tina Bennis' husband had sex with a prostitute in their car. The State of Michigan, in an attempt to clean up bad neighborhoods, had passed a law stating that property used for crimes, such as prostitution, would be forfeit. The goal was to confiscate and clean up decrepit buildings and cars (used in crime) in bad neighborhoods. Under the Michigan statute, the Bennis' old Pontiac sedan was confiscated and sold for $600. The district court judge said he would have given Tina Bennis half of the car's sale value but there was nothing left, after accounting for the costs of selling it (listing it, advertising it, paying a broker, etc). [1] There is a long history of case law in asset forfeiture cases. There are two types of asset forfeiture: criminal and civil. Criminal asset forfeiture is when the State seizes your property because it was used in a crime, and they need it in order to provide evidence against the criminal at trial. [2] The innocent owner defense - that the owner is innocent of the crime - is clearly not a sufficient defense in these cases. If I loan my friend a gun and he shoots someone with it, I cannot demand my gun back from the police since they need it as evidence. Civil forfeitures deal with seizing property as punishment for some crime. The Supreme Court cited multiple precedents that the innocent owner defense did not apply in civil forfeitures either. [1] They did say that Tina Bennis may have had a claim to half the car's value (minus the cost of selling it), but that was irrelevant in this case since there was no money left after the sale; the Supreme Court did note that the district court judge DID have the discretion to award Ms. Bennis half the car's asset value. In legal jargon, this means that the Supreme Court "refused to establish a precedent" regarding whether innocent owners need to have their share of the property compensated, since that was not at issue in this case. There are many objections to Bennis v. Michigan, but no one argues that it allows Bills of Attainder. [3] Nowhere in the decision does it say that the state of Michigan may classify Ms. Bennis as a criminal. If her husband commits a crime, she may forfeit the property used in commission of that crime, but she's not classified as a criminal. I now turn the debate over to my esteemed opponent. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://www.fbi.gov... [3] http://www.nesl.edu...
Bennis v. Michigan opened the door to Bills of Pain and Penalty in the USA

In Bennis v. Michigan, (1996) 517 U.S. 1163 The United States supreme Court made it possible for any Municipality to create a class of persons Guilty untill Proved innocent. This was done in direct violation of Art. I sec. 9 of the US Constitution prohibitiing Bills of Attainder and ex post facto.Pro asserts that by and through the above Case it is now legal in the USA for any City, Stoate, or The Federal Goverment to classify a group of persons as crimminal without trial, and take from them liberty and/or property.Con shall hold that the above case does not permit the making of these groups.Proof shall be preponderance, as requiered by above cited case.Order of Sources1. US Suprememe Court Cases2. Federal COurt Cases4. State Supreme Couts5. Transcripts of Legislative Debates to establish intentDefinitions shall come from 1 above or Black's law Dictionary ONLY.
Bennis v. Michigan opened the door to Bills of Pain and Penalty in the USA

Thanks for the debate logicrules. Interesting (and desperate) final round tactic, but ultimately it fails. A Bill of Pain and Penalty is "a special act of a legislature which inflicts a punishment less than death upon persons supposed to be guilty . . . without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." [1] John Buvier Law Dictionary writes that: "bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties." [2] So Bills of Pain and Penalty are a type of Bill of Attainder. They are a subset. The only way they differ is that they cannot include death as a punishment. As anyone can now see, a requirement to buy car insurance is not a "Bill of Pain and Penalty." It does not assert that certain people are criminals, without trial. A bill that deprived all Japanese people of their homes during WWII, assuming they were all spies, THAT would be a Bill of Pain and Penalty. My opponent claims he "never argued that the innocent owner defense was the actual issue of this debate." The problem is that the Bennis decision was supposed to deal EXCLUSIVELY with the innocent owner defense, affirming 75 years of precedent that this defense was invalid. My opponent specified that this debate was about the Bennis decision. It's not MY fault that he's grossly misinterpreted the case. Here is a summary of the case: "Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture." Nowhere does the Bennis decision "allow the State to classify certain groups as GUILTY until proved innocent." Yet this is what my opponent claimed he would prove in round 1. The two key arguments here are that: 1) Ms. Bennis' husband was a criminal and engaged in criminal conduct in their car. Ms. Bennis did not contest this fact. In fact, in oral argument, she didn't even contest the state of Michigan's right to SELL the car, she merely wanted her half. 2) The district court, during the forfeiture proceeding, COULD HAVE given Ms. Bennis her stake in the car, but the car was cr@ppy and there was no money left after the sale. In fact, my opponent has pointed out time and time again that a Bill of Pain and Penalty requires forfeiture WITHOUT A TRIAL. The Supreme Court affirmed, time and time again, the need to hold a forfeiture proceeding, which is a TRIAL where the owners can petition on their behalf. Since no one claims Ms. Bennis, the petitioner, was guilty and since there WAS a trial (forfeiture proceeding), the resolution is negated on both grounds. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Bennis v. Michigan opened the door to Bills of Pain and Penalty in the USA

The innocent owner defense has ALWAYS been considered invalid, at least for the past 75 years. If this allows Bills of Attainder, then why haven't we ALREADY seen Bills of Attainder?Simple, see US v Brown. This is not about Bills of Attainder, it is about Bills of Pain and Penalty...which were incorporated into the article cited by Brown. Thus, you have not addressed the issue at hand, clearly stated in the debate perameters. As to why you have not seen Bills of Attainder, I have no way of knowing.Also, you may note, I never argued that innocent owner was the actual issue of this debate. Were Mrs. Bennis Lawyers not the best, probably. The issue though is what some may call the unintended concequence of justification of wrong action. Every time you say attainder you miss the mark, read the caption of the Debate.I take it you accept the doctrine of Stare Decisis. Thus, opinions claims notwithstanding, Bills of Pain and Penalty exist is every State in the Union. eg Requierment to BUY car insurance, failure to BUY, Guilt and fine w/o trial. There is a distinction between a Bill of Pain and Penalty and/or Attainder.You agree then, the Case permits Bills of Pain and Penalty and allows the creation as a matter of law, classifications of persons from whom property, and/or liberty may be taken without trial but merely because of their class. Thank You.
Clayton Kershaw should win the 2013 NL MVP Award.

May I begin by stating that Clayton Kershaw has amassed one of the most improbable seasons in baseball memory Since World War II, only five pitchers have had seasons of at least 204 innings pitched while holding an ERA of 1.72 or below. If Kershaw can continue his run of excellence over the next five weeks, he"ll join Dean Chance, Bob Gibson, Luis Tiant, Dwight Gooden and Greg Maddux atop the list of great pitching seasons of all time. Kershaw has already proving he is one of the best pitchers of all time and this caliber season is cementing his estimation. After striking out nine batters in a no-decision Tuesday night in Los Angeles, the Dodgers lefty boasts the following pitching line for the season: 28 GS, 204 IP, 197 SO, 0.88 WHIP, 5.9 H/9, 4.28 SO/BB, 1.72 ERA, 2.37 FIP, 2.91 xFIP, 207 ERA-plus. As you can see Clayton Kershaw prevents runs from scoring and stops the opposition from hitting. Therefore each time he goes to the mound his team has a heightened chance to win I will concede Paul Goldschimdt has aggregated quite the season as well but he has his flaws. Posting a WAR of only 5.9 he has not always given his team a chance to win although he had an MVP season last year he has been plagued by inconsistecy down the stretch of 2013 . "he has shown us a numerous amount of times that he can get his team out of a pickle and squeak out a win every day o the week." This statement is completely false. When the D-Backs are in a pickle it is Paul Goldschmidt who is the first to falter. Goldshmidt's weighted runs created (wRC) is 65. which doesn't even make him the most clutch FIRST BASEMAN in the NL. whereas Clayton Kershaw is a effective tool day in and day out.
Clayton Kershaw should win the 2013 NL MVP Award.

This argument is about whether not Clayton Kershaw should win the 2013 NL MVP award. I think Kershaw should win the award because he gave his team the best chance to win I think the Most Valuable player should be one who gives one team the best chance to win by preventing runs with a 1.89 ERA he can gives his team a fighting chance to win each start.
It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form

I will be arguing that, given the evidence, it is likely that humans have some form of free will. I will not be arguing for a mechanism of free will. I have no idea what the mechanism would be, but that is not crucial to my argument. As an analogy, doctors do not know why it is that Beta Blockers treat heart failure, but the evidence shows that they do work. There are proposed mechanisms, but no generally accepted model exists. It even seems highly counter intuitive since beta adrenergics act by stimulating the heart and can lower blood pressure, but still they are first line therapy for heart failure. In any event, in this debate Con is not required to demonstrate anything other than finding holes in my argument. The rounds are as follows: Round 1: Pro and Con accept Round 2: Pro presents his argument, Con posts a rebuttal or accepts the argument. Round 3: Pro defends his argument, Con posts a refutation of the defense or accepts the argument. Round 4: Final defense by Pro, Final rebuttal by Con. Rules: 1) Con must accept evolution by natural selection as true. 2) Con's rebuttal cannot include a complaint that I do not include a mechanism for free will, but if Con can prove that free will is physically impossible, that is allowed. 3) Con accepts all definitions given by Pro in round 1. Free will=Agents' choices are not predetermined. Given the same circumstances, it is possible for free agents to make different choices. Apply to the debate in the comments.
impossible to accept debates are for cherry picking cowards

Is merely being selective proof of arrogance or cowardice? Doesn't a person have the right to prefer one debater over another for personal reasons? According to Merriam-Webster, preference is "the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others". Also in M-W, arrogance is "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions". Therefore, preference only becomes arrogant when it is based on assumption. Also, aren't you being a little arrogant in generalizing selective debaters, with no evidence to back it up? The burden of proof is on you.
100 Debate challenge 18: This house would censor the internet

The word censor has a long history. It's not a synonym for "restrict information". When a government keeps information classified then illegally obtaining that information and then being refrained from or punished for publishing that information doesn't count as censorship. Censorship intends to control the morality of the public or to make subversive material very hard to get ahold of. My opponent is intentionally distorting the definition of censorship which should be considered a conduct violation and he should lose all conduct points. I should get source points since his sources aren't even relevant to the resolution. In my opinion I should get spelling and grammar due to my opponent's horrible grammar but I understand if voters only award me 6 points as opposed to 7. I have made my case for the side relevant to the resolution and those points weren't brought up by my opponent and count as dropped arguments. Thank you for voting Con and remember my opponent has to pass on the final round or forfeit all 7 points.
100 Debate challenge 18: This house would censor the internet

1. My opponent's definition is not much different than mine. It is worded differently and adds the quantifier "common good." This does not change my argument at all. 2. You are correct: people ought to practice good security. But, many people are deceived and, thus, provide their credit card information to criminal actors. This deception changes the legal and moral implications. Once the details are published for sale by these criminal actors, the government can censor them and ensure nobody can illicitly profit from the private information. 3. Restricting the media's ability to publish information that they possess through the legal process is, by definition, changing or suppressing speech or writing to promote the common good by the government. So, restricting the media's ability to publish information relating to government wartime strategy is censoring the media. It is also promoting the public good because once in war, efforts should be taken to maximize effectiveness. The same goes for copyrights and patents. 4. Correct. You cannot perfectly censor the internet. That does not mean the government should not try in certain areas. 5. Classification of documents necessitates the censorship of the contents of those documents from publication. If they are classified, they are non-publishable. In addition, certain documents, such as building plans and schematics, could not be protected through classification as they are not government documents (only government documents can be classified.) Yet, the government still has an interest in ensuring that the buildings are not exploited for weaknesses or used for other means because of the harm that would do to the buildings inhabitants. 6. My opponent's theory would still lead to a black market. If we have restricted materials, we have a black market for those restricted materials. Classifying materials restricts those materials. 7. Schematics of buildings should be unpublishable because of the harm which could come should weaknesses be exploited by those who mean to do others harm. 8. My opponent has yet to fulfill their burden of proof. They have not presented a case for why we should not censor the internet and seeing how it is the last round of arguments they do not have the ability to do so.
100 Debate challenge 18: This house would censor the internet

I didn't think round 1 was an argument, I'm sorry. For the purposes of this debate wil treat round 1 and 2 as if they qualify as arguments. My opponents logic isn't logically valid or sound and I'll get into that as much as possible. Another thing my opponent is doing is confusing what it means to censor stuff and to practice good security. If I publicly release my credit card information that is my right and it shouldn't be infringed on. However me keeping that information secret isn't me censoring it. It's just me practicing good security. The government and other people as well as organization, taking legal action to prevent the leakage of sensitive infomation doesn't fall into the realm of censorship. Neither would protecting copyrights. "Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good. " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Most of the arguments supporting P1 is jut no relevant to the debate. Children don't need the government to censor the internet, that is really a parental issue. We can't retrict the media's right to cover war. If there is classifed information the media shouldn't be reporting you can restrict their movement or access to said information. Most of the arguments my opponent is fowarding have to do with security not with censorsip. P3 is also unsupported by my opponent. Why is cesorship the only way to secure such information? It isn't restricting who has access to the information and keeping it classified is the soluton. Its also ineffective to censor the internet. Child porn is illegal, but people gain access to it every day. So is beastiality in most places, yet you can gain access to it quite easily (I just did). Attempts to censor the internet is ineffective so any atempt to do so is a waste of resources. Worse than a waste of resources it actually creates a black market for resricted material. This black market creates criminal elements that didn't exist before. It also creates an underground economy which goes completely untaxed. This creates a biger tax burden for law abiding citizens. Conclusion- Don't restrict freedom. Don't create black market for ensored materials. Don't ceate a 21st century version of pohibition.
100 Debate challenge 18: This house would censor the internet

Opponents instructions: "Pro starts in round 1 and passes in the final round." I did start in round 1 (evidence: Round 1, Pro). Since I have already formed an argument (under the heading "my overall framework"); my opponent's criticism has no relevance. My observations about the nature of the debate are completely relevant to the debate (by definition). Additionally, that which is not precluded by the rules is allowed. For reference, here is my argument: P1: There is information which ought to not be seen by the general public; P2: This information can be placed on the internet; P3: The only way to prevent people from seeing this information is to censor it preventing the information from ever reaching the public; C. The internet ought to be censored. Defense of each premise: P1: Class A: the government has an overwhelming interest in ensuring that it's documents detailing contingency plans and strategy during times of war is kept secret in order to protect the lives of it's populous (both civilian and military.) Thus, the class of information should not be seen by the public. Class B: it would be negative for society if there was public access to everybody's personal bank account numbers, credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc. Thus, the government has an interest in ensuring that only the individual can have access to these documents/numbers. So, there is an interest in ensuring the general public does not have access to/cannot see these numbers. Class C: intellectual property (IP) is protected under federal law to ensure the owner can earn monetary reward. It therefore should not be published by actors other than the person with the IP right and so the published result by a non-actor should not be able to be seen (by definition, diminishes the owners monetary reward.) Class D: Child pornography is illegal. The government has an interest in keeping it illegal. The government has an interest in enforcing it's laws. The government has an interest in ensuring that the general public cannot see child pornography. Class E: I will concede this class. Class F: Pornography is negative toward young children; the government has an interest in ensuring that young children are protected; the government has an interest in ensuring that young children cannot see pornography. Class G: allowing public access to engineering schematics of certain buildings has lead to harm; this harm is negative for society; the government has an interest in ensuring that people cannot see the engineering schematics of buildings. P2: I sincerely hope that my opponent will not argue these classes of information cannot be placed online (unless they want to dispute the existence of Debate.org and Youtube.) If they decide to go down that route, I will defend the premise. P3: A priori correct, extend. C: Conclusion follows from the premises. Burden of Proof: it is fulfilled for me. I have justified each justifiable premise.
100 Debate challenge 18: This house would censor the internet

Framework "2) The burden of proof is shared. My burden is to show that the internet can be censored; my opponent must show that the internet cannot be censored. This requires two competing frameworks. We are debating over two possible states of affairs or worlds. I present my ideal world, my opponent presents theirs." I believe that my opponent is using can and cannot where he should use should and should not. Pro was instructed to start arguments in round 1 and forfeit their final round. No big deal, we all make mistakes. I don't want an extra round than my opponent, seeing as how they are still obligated to pass on the final round. With that being said, I hand the floor to my opponent for what will ultimately be a 2 round debate.