BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form.

Yeah, I really wasn't prepared for this debate. My bad. I did read your argument, but I don't have a college level education, so I didn't understand many of your examples. However, I did my best to create an argument, even though this is the case. However, here's where you're wrong. 1. I didn't keep asking to be in the debate. I asked once, and you rejected me, but later accepted. 2. My argument, though not as good as yours, was not a troll argument. I DID legitimately try to create a good argument, even though I was tired and, although this is my own fault, unprepared. Also, I've noticed that you feel the need to be superior to me. "What the bloody hell are you talking about?" "If you understood evolution..." "Your arguments had nothing to do with my arguments, it is like playing chess with a pidgeon." (RIP spelling) Good sir, I see that you're very educated, and you even went to medical school. Maybe you did this to make up for the fact that you got picked on in high school? Oh bloody hell, there's no need for that now is there. We're all friends here! Come on, chap! Let's drink some tea together. Oh wait, is tea not good enough for you? Jackass.
It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form.

Thanks for the response Pro. I will proceed with my arguments. We did not choose to exist. While this argument does not disprove free will, it does mean that the beginning of reality was something we did not create. Though this may sound irrelevant at first, a closer look will prove that is anything but. Every organism that existed before animals evolved does not have a consciousness, and everything that it did was predetermined by its genetics. Almost nobody thinks that any creature that existed before animals has free will. Some will argue that some animals have free will, and others do not, but this is impossible because all animals (except for sponges) are conscious. Jellyfish even have a consciousness, but they obviously don't have free will, so the argument that free will=consciousness is invalid. Humans emerged by pure chance, and nobody determined the evolution of humans unless there was a higher power involved (there must be no higher power if my position is correct, which I will get to later). If we did not choose our existence, than what do we supposedly determine? All of our decisions are based off of genetics, or our environment. Unless Pro can prove that this is not the case, all of his other arguments are invalid. Now, if there is no higher power that exists, this IS the case.
the laws in place currently about prostitution are just widely accepted Prejudice

Seeing as I live in a state in the US that still allows legal prostitution I guess I will take up this argument. I can't really argue the fact that there are many ways to prevent pregnancy, but I can go on to say Pregnancy isn't the only problem with Prostitution or open-sex. Sexually transmitted diseases, or STD's for short, are very common in prostitution, ESPECIALLY the illegal. Condoms aren't 100% effective agianst STD's. Also, prostitution influences, not directly but indirectly, cheating in relationships, because you pay to have sex with a total stranger, no taking them out to dinner or dates, just right then and there. You based your argument on Pregnancy, but pregnancy is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to prostitution, otherwise it would be legal. Now one last factor that applies is the ethics of it, I live in a town of Miners, Ranchers, Gamblers, and drug-addicts, so ethics don't apply much. However (and this is a true story) when you're future president (this was when Obama was running 4 years ago) comes to town and it hits the news, it's kindof embarassing to have your town known as "The town of mining, gambling, and legal prostitution." It just make's this town feel dirty, but that's just me, and ethics is just a matter of choice in this.
the laws in place currently about prostitution are just widely accepted Prejudice

In today's society where we advocate acceptance so long as it wont cause any harm to others isn't it bizarre that we still have such a negative outlook on prostitutes what do prostitutes do that is so harmful to others that they should suffer not only the misery of public opinion but also various laws that have been written with the target of keeping them out of sight (I am speaking from the UK here). the only possible conclusion I can draw is that it is a old prejudice that has yet to be dealt with I mean condoms where only invented in the 1920 and people had bigger problems at that time so I think that the opinion of prostitutes comes from far back on history in the Victorian era where women where expected to be dutiful wives rather than objects of sexual fascination and such they where told to dress modestly and to obey there husbands wishes. now I don't agree with this but you can see the reason when there's no way to be sure if you will get pregnant after you have had sex you don't want your woman sleeping around in case you end up with somebody Else's kid. but that is no longer the case there are a number of ways to stop yourself getting pregnant so isn't this whole sexual promiscuity thing a little obsolete? no doubt factors like religion and supposed morals have kept this issue alive well passed is expiry date. many people would argue that people in an open relationship or one where one of the partners sees other people is wrong as it show the couple don't care for each other which I think is completely wrong. there once was a speaker from ancient Athens named Euripides known for his speech's on women and he said "in Athens we have three kinds of women wives for procreation (for child rearing) concubines for companionship (for love) and Hetaira for enjoyment (for sex). I don't see why this philosophy cant be applied to both sexes after all a relationship is give and take so why do we all have this standard relationship plan in our head it makes no sense to me
Plastic Surgery Should Be Banned For Everyone Except...

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Pro believes that plastic surgery should be banned unless it is to correct a severe deformity, because: - He doesn't believe it looks good - Plastic surgery can leave scarring - It tricks other people into believing falsehoods about your natural body - Plastic surgery is not natural in evolution - You can change your bodies naturally First, whether or not Pro believes plastic surgery looks good is irrelevant. Many people believe that it does look good. Second, people who choose to undergo surgery accept the risks including scarring. We have no obligation to present our "natural" look to others. After all people wear makeup, jewelry, nail polish and other things to alter their appearance. People also get tattoos which is not "natural" but acceptable. And finally on Pro's points, sometimes the kind of look we want cannot be achieved naturally. I will be arguing that plastic surgery should NOT be banned for the following reasons: 1. Our bodies belong to us - not the government. Nobody has the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. If people can tattoo, pierce or use their bodies for other things, one should be able to alter their own body in any way they would like to. Just because something is not natural does not mean it's bad, and it's nobody else's concern or right to dictate how the individual treats their own person. We have the right to bodily autonomy. 2. Plastic surgery often improves people's appearance. Good looking people have an easier time in society. They are the preferred mates [1] and job candidates [2]. 3. Researchers from Ruhr University and the University of Basel examined the psychological effects of plastic surgery on nearly 550 patients. They found that it does in fact improve confidence and self-esteem [3] which has positive effects on one's mentality and the way they interact with others. 4. Just because something is dangerous or has risks does not mean it ought to be banned. There are already laws that protect against risky cosmetic surgeries and which protect vulnerable consumers [4]. 5. Plastic surgery can have health benefits even when it's cosmetic. For example people who break their nose don't need nose jobs for health reasons, but choose to have them for cosmetic purposes. However the surgery often winds up improving their health simultaneously [5]. The same is true for people who have surgery for weight loss [6]. Pro says that you can lose weight naturally and that's true -- but the surgery can encourage better living and jump start the process of a healthier lifestyle. For some people it can save their life [7]. [1] http://readebook.club... [2] https://scienceblog.com... [3] http://www.nydailynews.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] http://www.nuffieldhealth.com... [6] http://www.einstein.edu... [7] http://www.kwwl.com...
Plastic Surgery Should Be Banned For Everyone Except...

If you were in a serious accident, car crash, mauled by a bear, burn victim etc. then it's clearly fine to be permitted a little plastic surgery to clean things up. Or if you have some serious disfigurement like one breast significantly smaller than the other, or are missing a large portion of your buttock, it should be permittable too. But in any other situation it should be BANNED. I have NEVER seen a case where plastic surgery has ever looked "good". Plastic surgery leaves permanent scars and makes the poor people who receive this treatment disfigured and mangled for life. I'm against all forms of this horrid activity, but I'd like to point out breast, and butt implants specifically. These two operations ALWAYS turn out looking horrendous. If you get breast or butt implants you will look unnatural and disgusting. You will also cause confusion when wearing cloths and attract potential mates who would have never been interested without the perceived "enhancements". This doesn't even work anyways, when that person you tricked into being interested in you because of your breast or butt implants finally sees what you really look like naked, it will create a very awkward situation. They will not want to be with you, or touch you, not even once. Large breasts and butts are an evolutionary sign of strength and power. If you have large natural breasts it means you will produce a voluminous amount of milk after a pregnancy for the offspring to feed on. This extra milk will make the infant grow into a strong baby. A good, well formed butt also promotes a more safe environment for a baby to develop in as well. Do not try to screw with evolution ladies! You by getting plastic surgery are just messing with natural selection! And it won't even work because anyone with any high quality genes won't mate with you anyway. Stop the freak show people! What the hell is going on here? Earth is not some carnival side show! And let me tell you about this ethics and morals behind this atrocity too. Say you have a pile of extra money sitting in the bank just getting stale, so you decide to go blow it on a nose job? Sick, selfish. You could donate that money to starving children or help homeless people figure out how to help themselves. You promote the idea that vanity and appearance matter more than helping other people with real problems. If a person want's to look better and feel better they need to exercise and diet, THAT SIMPLE. If you're offended, great. I'm sick of people sugar coating and dancing around real world problems like there no big deal. Not everything is a big deal, but this IS. PLASTIC SURGERY IS HUMAN MUTILATION! HOLY HELL!! VOTE NOW!!! BAN PLASTIC SURGERY FOR VAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ACTUALLY REQUIRE IT, AS OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE UNFIT TO MAKE THESE KINDS OF DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES!
Public Schools should not have to wear school uniforms

1) I don't for one moment think it will eliminate bullying in schools. What I said was that non school uniform was a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR to bullying so by having school uniform you may reduce this. 2) School uniforms can be costly but: a) If schools take the appropriate steps they can find the cheapest solution to school uniform. you can get polo shirts at primark; ï¿½3 for 2! b) The school nearest mine pays for the kids uniforms and does so easily... There are much more costly things than uniforms in a school environment. I only have one uniform I just wash it tuesday nights thursday nights and on saturdays... 3) There are loads of other ways to express yourself such as your hairstyle, your jewellery, your shoes, your makeup (for girls), the way you shave (for boys). And there's always non school uniform day's! 4) My polo is white but my school jumper is black and my trousers are black. I don't know any schools with white uniforms they are usually dark coloured for this very reason! In conclusion: School uniforms are bad for the pupil and the family of the pupil for many different reasons. Students can express themselves in other ways! Thanks and good luck.
Public Schools should not have to wear school uniforms

Thank you for excepting this argument. 1) I do not believe it will eliminate bullying in schools. If a bully cannot pick on you for your clothing, they all most likely, find a way to make fun of you for something else. The bully will most likely find it as a challenge. The bully feels very powerful when they bully. Therefore, they will not stop. 2) School uniforms can be very costly whether or not the school or parents are paying for them. If the school is purchasing, the way the economy is they cannot afford to pay for the uniforms. One uniform is not being purchased for one student. Multiple uniforms would have to be purchased for one student. Some schools have had to cut extracurricular activities so they will not have enough money to buy uniforms. If the parents are buying, they are buying an outfit that they cannot wear on weekends or in the summer. They still have to buy clothes for them to wear on those days. 3) Wearing uniforms takes away the freedom of choice. Being in school you don't have a lot of freedom as it is so why take that away as well? 4) Uniforms can create problems. They can be hard to clean because they ate usually white. Wearing a uniform, the schools will have specific requirements how they are supposed to look. Sources: www.enbrodidered-uniforms.com Www.topics-mag.com
Public Schools should not have to wear school uniforms

I accept the challenge. Firstly I would like to say that I think a lot of schools take uniform waaayyyy to seriously. But personally I think that there should be school uniform but you should be allowed to wear whatever shoes you want (within reason) and have your hair, makeup, jewellery and bags as you want. The reasons for this are as follows. 1a) Bullying and peer pressure can often be the result of non school uniform. Where school uniform is not present; a child is somewhat forced to choose what to wear and could be targeted because of it. Also it makes peer pressure more prominent. Some kids could be forced to wear something they don't want to wear just because it's 'cool'. 1b)If a family is poor then they won't be able to afford as nice clothes so they may be targeted because of the amount of money they have. 1ci) Similar to point 1b, parents or children may end up feeling forced to spend money that could be used better elswhere on 'cool' clothes so their kids don't get picked on. 1cii) Hand me downs are a perfect example of a pro for school uniform. If it stays the same, parents with more than one child can give younger children the older children's old clothes saving money. This might not be able to happen with other clothes because the younger child may have different style choices for example. 2) Experts believe that children who wearschooluniforms do better academically. This is due to a myriad of reasons, including not wasting time in the morning getting ready, lack of distractions, and a more formal studying environment. 3) It prepares children for later life when they may need to wear a certain uniform/type of clothing in the workplace. 4) It is an important safety thing for school trips, outings and even problems at the school. It helps prevent children getting lost on school trips and if there was say a fire at a school building which was connected to other buildings for other things (Workplaces etc) then outside in amongst the panic school children would be easily identifiable. 5) With no school uniform it would be miles harder for staff as they would have to spend a lot more time enforcing the uniform policy to ensure it was appropriate clothing (eg not too revealing, no unacceptable symbolism like the swastika etc) and it would be much harder to enforce and much easier for children to overstep the line and claim they can't be punished because the rules weren't clear. Thank you, and I look forward to your arguments and rebuttals. Sources [1] http://www.buzzle.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust

We have established a number of points and counterpoints. What the matter boils down is this: 1) Are Palestinians free or in bondage? Answer: They are free. 2) Is/was the Israeli Foundation unjust? Answer: No, Israelis were given a green light by the United Nations, and endorsed by the international community. 3) Is the Israeli Occupation unjust? Answer: No. While some of the people may have been overly zealous and callous, the vast majority either paid for their land, or merely relocated by the authority and permission of the international community. It would be wrong to tag the Jews in their entirety. Granted there are a few bad apples in every society, but to label all of them as such would be unjust. While we all empathize with the plights and inconveniences that the Palestinians must have endured, the relocating Jews in majority complied with existing international policy. Had a majority of the relocating Jews acted outside of the law, that would have indeed been unjust. However, the vast majority followed the policies, this action of obedience clearly fits as being "just".
Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust

We're almost at a stalemate, not dissimilar to Israel & Palestine. The Palestinians think that the Jews have no right to the land making their presence unjust. The Jews think they do have a right to the making their presence just. In both their eyes, they both believe that they are valid and just. While my opponent feels I haven't disproved the resolution, he hasn't proven it. Our personal opinions and preferences are irrelevant.
Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust

Settlement in the West Bank is part of the Occupation aspect. I understand they feel this is their land. That appears to be the problem with your latest response. It seems to assume I do not understand the settlers believe this. I will address it regardless. "While some may see it as unjust, they see it as land that was either bought, gifted, or won in war. They would see it as just because it became their property. Therefore they could extend that thought to say they were occupying and building on land they felt was truly theirs. Conversely, they could wonder why people are condemning them for living on land they truly think is theirs. They would question why this condemnation is just." This condemnation is just since they do not have a right to it. The land was bought from conquerors, gifted by conquerors, or won by conquerors. None of that is just. I know some may not understand, although most probably do, but just disagree. I know they believe the land is truly theirs. Many people believe that, and it does not make their belief valid. I do not care if my statement was offensive. I am an atheist, and do not believe in God, hence there can be no divine dictates of who gets what. I would view it, now as ever, to be merely an excuse, albeit of the most powerful kind, for if God has supposedly said it, who are we mere mortals to argue? I know the Jews believe this. So do the Muslims. They are both equally false justifications. Other justifications such as who possessed this land, dispossessed the other etc. are my criteria to determine who should have it. To say that the Holocaust isn't necessary in the topic at hand seems naive, particularly since it is the main reason Israel was even founded by the United Nations, and is the chief excuse for it too. You have aptly stated the duty of Pro and Con. I do not think that u have so far disproved my argument in any way. That said I do appreciate your good attitude. I hope mine has been equal. In no way have you come off as terse. I hope that my attitudes is not either. I look forward to your latest response.
Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust

I will return the favor. This has been interesting as well as challenging. I concede that the land was neither originally claimed, nor occupied by the children of Israel. Construction in the West Bank wasn't part of the original argument. A majority of the world to include elements of the Israeli government have objected to construction in the West Bank. In the eyes of some, they are merely building on what they think is their land. While some may see it as unjust, they see it as land that was either bought, gifted, or won in war. They would see it as just because it became their property. Therefore they could extend that thought to say they were occupying and building on land they felt was truly theirs. Conversely, they could wonder why people are condemning them for living on land they truly think is theirs. They would question why this condemnation is just. My opponent made a statement that Jews would find offensive. In essence he stated that God cannot dictate who gets what. To a Jew, God is the supreme being. They would see it as God being omnipotent, and therefore having the capacity to make all decisions. While that does not fly in modern academia much less a debate, to a Jew it is paramount. My opponent has mentioned the Holocaust several times. While it may have some indirect bering, it really isn't necessary in the topic at hand. In summary, it the duty of the Pro to validate the resolution. It is the duty of the Con to show it to be invalid in some way. I have and will continue to unabashedly pick at both the resolution and my opponent's case. While I have picked at my opponent's case, I have not intentionally picked on my opponent. Unfortunately, coming across as terse is occasionally part of the beast of debate. Allow me to summarize some other points.