BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Discrimination should be stopped immediately

Rebuttals: It is true that it can be used as a motivation but people nowadays are so sensitive, so if you try discriminating them , they might react in the most stupid way. Ex. A mother disciminates her child being lazy , this child may overreact and try to suicide because the child may think that his/her mother does not like him/her anymore. Sometimes the people you discriminate may think that you are trying to be more superior than them leading to trouble or let's say that you just discriminated a mental person and since these people think differently they may think that you are pranking them or etc. Let me now start with arguements, "Before you judge someone else, look at yourself " Whenever we discriminate, we just say the words that we want to say without even thinking if it was the right thing to say. Trust me I'm one of these people, just a few days ago I didn't use the right words and it lead me to trouble. That is why we have to be careful with what we say . Discrimination nowaday is very popular and very strong. Wherever I go , I could hear someone discriminating about this certain people and etc. A person is not being born as a sexist or a racist, it is all a choice/decision that sometime in our life we have to do. God created us to love each other not to discriminate, so then why are still discriminating? I regret to say that even some of the childrens these days tend to discriminate,but where do they learn to discriminate in their adolescent years? They actually learn discriminating by hearing the words that come out from their parents' mouth thus learning how to discriminate. Because they know that their parents are always correct they tend to think that discriminating is also good.
Public Forum Modified: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

I am for having to make those shoots a "Must" because I think, that if you do not have it as a "Must" then people wont take is seriously and actually do and make those shoots. Then everyone will get sick and nobody will do anything about it really. Then the government will have to join in and make people make those shoots. So you can save us all time and make it a "Must" in the first place.
Public Forum Modified: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

Rules: If you are just going to forfeit please do not accept. I would rather lose a good game than gain a hollow victory by forfeit. Present your own definitions in Round 2. Skip round 1 by placing a single alphanumeric character. **Crossfire/observations can be built into rounds 2, 3, & 4. Round 2 equals AFF/NEG speaker 1/2 position Round 3 equals AFF/NEG speaker 3/4 position Round 4 crystalize Good luck and thank you for competing.
Public Forum Modified: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

My opponent has clearly had other priorities to attend. I will accept his forfeit in this round and as well as in this deate. Thanks to all who waited patiently to judge. While I am the CON/NEG I realizie that ROF/AFF has one final opportunity to throw something together, Remember friends, it if you cant make it fkow and worth somones while, it just isn't as fun. Vote CON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Health care/education is NOT a right

Accepted. To begin with, I reject Pro's argument that "In order for something to be a right, everyone must be able to exercise the "right" at the exact same time." There are many constitutionally protected rights that cannot be exercised by everyone at the same time. With respect to rights specifically enumerated in the constitution, the right to a trial by jury, or to be represented by an attorney, or against self-incrimination, only operate when you are accused of a crime. The right to bear arms does not apply to felons. Even our most fundamental rights - like the rights to freedom of speech or religion - cannot truly be exercised by everybody at the same time; these rights are meaningless to, for instance, very small children and infants who do not have the capacity to even understand them. The courts of the United States have recognized other rights and liberties that are protected under the constitutional requirement that no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law -- rights like the right to marry, or to send your children to religious school. Those rights only apply to adults and parents, respectively. Because I don't have children, I cannot right now exercise the right to send my children to religious school - but it's still a protected right. Pro's criteria for rejecting a right to health care or education therefore does not withstand even a brief examination. So what are "rights"? Rights stem from "recognition of the inherent dignity ... of all members of the human family." Our understanding of rights can - and has - evolved over time to include "freedom from fear and want" as part of what humanity aspires to achieve for all people. Accordingly, both access to adequate medical care and universal access to education have been recognized as inalienable human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] [1] http://www.un.org...
Health care/education is NOT a right

Lets look at the "rights" con listed. A "right" to a trial by jury or a "right" to an attorney. This falls flat when we understand that a right can only be a "right" if it does not violate the "right" of another human. The use of force is carried out to make people sit as a jury, who would otherwise spend their time doing what ever else they wish to do. It is irrelevant if a group of people say "this is now a right! !". If it violates the right of another human, it cannot be a "right". The "right" to an attorney falls flat as well. Public attorneys are paid with taxes. By definition, public attorneys are paid with stolen money as theft is when something (money) is taken from someone without their consent. Therefore, a "right" is not a "right" simply because a police officer or judge says "you have a right to an attorney". It violates the "rights" of other people. Con goes on to say the right to bear arms does not apply to felons. Well in many states this so called "right" written by man fails people on a daily basis. In New York state, a judge can be as arbitrary (which is why man cannot create a right) as he/she wants. If a person has too many parking tickets, the judge can declare the person cannot have a handgun. This is besides the fact that a handgun is a firearm, yet in New York, one must apply for a permit. See a small group of people who claim the "right" to rule over 300,000,000 other people cannot create "rights" simply because they arbitrarily choose when to uphold or toss out those "rights". The "right" to marry for example was tossed out for gays for a long time. Now the small group of people who rule say, "ok we guess you can have these rights too". Rights are not given to people by courts, police, politicians etc. This notion that people have a right to education implies that someone is forced to educate. Otherwise they are violating the "right" of the person wanting to be educated. Rights are not given. They just are. Man can recognize these "rights" or not. That is irrelevant. I do not argue that people should have a good education. I do not argue that people should have good health care. However, to say these are "rights" would imply someone must give the education or health care, which is an irrational thought to have. People have the right to educate themselves. People have the right to provide their own health care, but that is not what this debate is about. It is about people saying other people should be forced to pay or actually do the educating because a small group of rulers declare its their "right"
Gun Control is Unconstitutional

I will be debating that gun control is unconstitutional. Gun control - any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens. Most commonly the guns in question are personal firearms, typically handguns and long guns. While this is the traditional definition I would like to focus on the "limit possession" and "use of guns or other firearms by private citizens" since the other parts of this definition bleed over into interstate trade and other facets of commerce. Unconstitutional - not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution constitution - the constitution of the United States of AmericaThis debate is not about whether or not gun control is good for crime etc but strictly whether or not it is Constitutional to implement gun control.
Gun Control is Unconstitutional

P1) The Second Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [1]The Second Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed - to encroach or trespass [2] bear - to hold up; support [4]So this clearly states that the right of the people should not be encroached upon, the right of the people to hold up or support arms. If a person has a right to bear arms, they therefore have the right to bear as many arms as they deem fit. The Constitution does not read 'the right to bear a safe amount of arms' or 'a neccissary amount of arms'. It just says the right to bear arms, and this right cannot be infringed upon. Gun control usually moves to set up permits, limits on guns, age etc and if any of these things prevent a person from owning a gun then it is infringing upon their right to bear arms and is therefore unconstitutional. P2)The Supreme CourtA] The Supreme Court has struck down many instances of gun control. Presser v Illinois * Upholds citizens right to bear arms and participate in state and personal militia activities. Columbia v Heller * People have the right to bear arms outside of a connection to a militia. McDonald v Chicago * Said the Second Amendment applies to both state and local government as it does to the federal government. [3] These cases continuously hold up the people's right to bear arms. And in cases such as McDonald v Chicago said that controlling gun ownership is unconstitutional because it infringes upon that person's right to do bear arms. ConclusionThe Constitution clearly states that we have a right to bear arms and that any infringement upon this right is unconstitutional. Gun control infringes upon the people's right to bear arms. Therefore gun control is unconstitutional. [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://dictionary.reference.com...
poetry troll debate: trolling trolls is bad because the trolls will troll you and troll more

I am upset i didn't get to troll But fine no votes... Only on the polls. Pro could've spoken to me before but fine. I'll just leave him with a ":P" smile. My opponent has asked for this debate to be neglected. So people please ignore it as I also would have forfeited. I thought it was a random, interesting topic, But hey whatever we can do it another day. Again, please no votes from the readers. As I just have nothing to do, that is why I am rambling on and typing. REMEMBER : DO NNOOOTTT VOTE Or I will be forced to sink all your ships and cannon your boats.
If you accept its ok to eat a chicken you must also accept some cases of cannibalism are ok

There is the argument that human meat is bad for you but that does not mean cannibalism is not ok. Just because coke is bad for you it does not mean those who consume it are morally wrong. Furthermore, many animals have parasites but I assume you don't think its wrong to eat them. So as you can give no proper argument will you accept that if one eats animals they have to also accept that cannibalism is not always wrong?
If you accept its ok to eat a chicken you must also accept some cases of cannibalism are ok

My argument is as follows. 1. One accepts its ok to eat chickens (or any other animal for that matter) 2. There is no morally relevant differences between chickens and anencephalic humans. 3. Therefore, its ok to eat anencephalic humans 1. Anencephalics are humans as they posses human DNA 2. Eating a being of human DNA whilst being a human is cannibalism 3. Therefore, eating anencephalics is cannibalism. If its ok to eat anencephalics and doing so would be cannibalism then you admit that some cases of cannibalism are permissible.
Andy Pandy

My argument is that Mr. Pandy hides behind a family friendly facade, but he thrives off of drama while accusing me of doing the same thing (I do sometimes). I counted about 20 attack debates about me alone that he has done nothing about. He threatened to ban me for complaining on Twitter. If this is Christianity, forget about it. I am feeling bigoted towards conservative Christians, especially the Republicans. Walk the walk, Mr. Pandy, if you see this, or please step aside.
The government should cut significantly spending on welfare

Welfare is all inclusive, it is not a mix of segregated programs, therefore all social programs are included, that is welfare. The government is spending well over $800 billion dollars on just welfare, which includes nutrition, health and medical efforts, and support for needy families, it would be difficult to surmise that any of these would not be included in welfare. Again, most businesses pay accountants tens of thousands of dollars to avoid paying appropriate taxes, and a good majority of companies outsource labor positions in that taxes may be minimized, the best reference of course would be Apple, look at what that company is making in revenues annually yet a majority of the work lies in other countries, wonder how much that company avoids in tax payments? I absolutely disagree that deregulation was not a significant part of businesses running amuck and thus a recession began, when our government gave reins to big businesses and did not regulate what transpired within those businesses, the employees of those businesses were not protected, they were doomed. I do agree that the housing market collapsed for precisely the reason that you state, however the housing market has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. I do not understand how you can state in one sentence, "a lot of rich people pay low taxes because of the tax breaks and the low capital gains tax," and then state that rich people pay too much in taxes. I am confused. However, I offer you this, "rich" people often become greedy people and decide that to have Joe Blow mopping the floor is an expense that they can live without, therefore Joe Blow becomes a victim of the welfare lines and/or unemployment lines and the rest is history. As I stated before, if the entire budget for salaries on The Hill were scrutinized there is not one doubt that a tremendous burden would be lifted off of the national debt. I see no valid reason why any former President should be paid a salary until he passes, it makes absolutely no sense. As we debate there are at least four former Presidents still breathing and I see absolutely no reason to constitute over one million dollars annually being spent on them. I see absolutely no reason why any member of The Hill should receive any "extra" funding over a prescribed salary but if you'll take a look at the Secret Service (especially their salaries) you'd see where cuts could be justified. You and I don't walk around with a bulk of body guards surrounding us and we pay taxes too. The spending on The Hill is exorbitant and absolutely out of control. When a man pays $200 for a hair cut, a typical everyday hair cut, the world has gone crazy. The national debt is well over sixteen trillion and climbing, cuts could be afforded in a great many places across the board, but knocking on the door of welfare is a shame. Obama did in fact change the program, he did not gut it as some believe, but made it easier for those less fortunate than us to eat, that is all. I reciprocate, it was a great pleasure debating with you, finally a smart young person, imagine that.
The government should cut significantly spending on welfare

When I stated how much money the government is spending on welfare, I did not include the amount of money spent on other social programs. The government is spending over $400 billion on just welfare. The only social program we're debating about is welfare. In regards to taxes on businesses, The high taxes on businesses made it less affordable for businesses to keep all their employees or pay them a good salary. If there were low taxes on businesses before the recession then businesses would have not laid off a lot employees. Bush should have cut taxes on businesses when the economy was heading towards a recession. In regards to regulations on businesses. the deregulation of businesses did not cause the recession. The housing market collapse was the main part of the recession. The housing market collapsed because the government forced the banks to lend loans to people who didn't have a lot of money and does people couldn't afford to pay the loans back. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Click on this link to read all about what the government did to cause the housing market collapse. In regards to taxes on the rich, a lot of rich people pay low taxes because of the tax breaks and the low capital gains tax. The rich people that own a business get tax breaks and the ones that make investments pay a 15% capital gains tax. The ones that pay high taxes spend less than the ones that pay low taxes. Like I said, The higher taxes are the less money people will spend. The reason why the economy is not good even with a lot of rich people paying low taxes is because of the excessive taxation and regulations on businesses. Although rich people are doing fine, businesses are not doing fine. In regards to government spending, the government should cut spending on the white house but that is not enough balance the budget. They need to cut spending by a lot to balance the budget especially if they are going cut taxes. They are going have to cut spending on things like entitlement programs because of the massive debt. Right now the nation is $16.3 trillion in debt. The budget deficit is currently $1.3 trillion. If they don't balance the budget then the deficit will continue getting larger and larger. They should balance the budget by significantly cutting spending without raising taxes. One of the Entitlement programs the government should definitely cut spending on is Welfare because they are currently too much money on it. It was a pleasure debating with you. You have one last chance to make strong arguments. Good Luck.
The government should cut significantly spending on welfare

The arguments you just stated are wrong. Let me rebut each argument you just made one by one. You just stated that welfare is not the reason the nation is in a lot of debt. Well you're wrong. The government is spending over $400 billion on welfare. The amount of money being spent on welfare is part of the budget deficit. The larger the budget deficit is the more the debt is going to grow. So the amount of money being spent on welfare is part of the reason why the national debt is so high. You said welfare is not free money, that's also wrong. The people who are on welfare get money because they are poor not because they work hard. Giving money to people just to help them out is giving free money. Welfare is free government handouts to people. In regards to people getting dependent on welfare, People do get dependent on welfare because a lot of people on it either don't have a job or don't work a lot because they are already making money. In regards to the government making it easier for people to get a job, The government is definitely capable of doing that because they are capable of fixing the economy. If they fix the economy then it will be easier for people to get a job. Like I said cutting taxes and regulations on businesses will result in businesses having more money and hiring more employees. If a business makes more money then why wouldn't they hire more employees. In order for them to expand they have to hire more employees. You said that Unemployment benefits is not something everyone is entitled to. Well you're right about that but I never said that everyone is entitled to unemployment benefits. I said that unemployment benefits should be for people who are looking for a job. In regards to student loans from the government, The government should gives more loans to poor people who cannot afford to go to college and once they get out of college they should be required to pay back their loans when they get a descent paying job. I never said that it was hard for people to get a student loan or to obtain an education. You stated that some rich people get their wealth from their parents, Well that's true but the rich people that are self made lose a lot of the money they worked hard for in order for the government to fund welfare. In the argument about rich people you were being contradictory. First you said that a small percentage of rich people get their wealth from their parents, then you stated that a large percentage of self made millionaires inherited their wealth from their parents. Well then how are they self made millionaires if they inherited someone else's wealth? that doesn't make sense. Finally, you stated that welfare is short term. Well that is also wrong because there are a lot of people who have been on welfare for a long time. If people are on it for a long time than it's long term welfare, not short term. Welfare should be short term only. Once the person is educated enough to get a descent paying job and finds a job, that person should be off welfare.