BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking Ban in Private Establishments that serve alcohol

First of all, I'm just gonna say that the entire premise of which I base my opinion on has less to do with cigarette smoking itself and more to do with government legislation versus choices better left for the free market to decide. Please leave all tobacco industry arguments out of this. While I agree that common sense dictates: a smoke-filled bar is certainly less healthy than the fresh air of a mountaintop, you have to wonder how much thought some of these moral busybodies put into the subject before parading around their picket signs and their self-righteous indignation. "Ban Smoking!" They say. "Second Hand Smoke Kills!" First of all, the entities (both governmental and private alike) that determined the hazards of SHS based their research on studies that are dubious at best and downright fraudulant at worst and everyone seems to forget that politicians have a great deal of self interest in the subject (i.e. obtain votes and it's easy because smokers are just easy to pick on) and pharmaceutical cartels are profitting from the movement tremendously. Second, the ban is just absurd. It tramples over rights, rights clearly safeguarded by the constitution. You might say "Well, we have a right to not breathe in their smoke". You're absolutely right, which is why you also have the right to find yourself another bar where smoking isn't allowed. That's what's so unfair about it: non-smokers have always had plenty of choices (traditionally having the majority of the market)and now smokers have none. I'll present my other arguments and my solution later...your turn!
Smoking Ban in Private Establishments that serve alcohol

Unfortunately my opponent did not respond in her third round, so there's not much action. I will continue to dispute some of her arguments: 1. Legislators have no right to ban smoking in public areas, particularly in bars and restaurants... for the sake of children. Or, the simple fact that government agencies (such as the EPA) may bring forth evidence of some sort of health issue, and legislators discuss possible ways to remedy the situation. She concludes that eliminating the problem, or at least moving it elsewhere, is never a solution. 2. A person has the right to choose whether or not to eat at a restaurant if they allow smoking, as she states that there were many other bars and restaurants that are completely smoking free. She uses facts that are questionable, such as "non-smokers have always had plenty of choices [of smoke-free bars]," but in my limited experience of bars, mainly restaurants, there nearly always was always a smoking section. There were very few 100% smoke-free businesses [serving alcohol] in my opinion... although I do not live in Anchorage, Alaska, so I cannot personally attest to her facts about the city she lives in. 3. There is no evidence ("junk-science"), and that all studies are false, that Second Hand Smoking (Passive Smoking) actually affects anybody, and therefore the ban is senseless. It just came to me: haven't tobacco companies agreed that SHS, or Passive Smoking, is still harmful to the non-smoker? I'm looking to see if such a statement exists. 4. Restaurants/Bars have the option of buying 'smoke zappers.' That's the key word: option. In fact, especially in restaurants (where children will be given food) I don't remember these filters strategically placed in smoking section. 5. Smoking bans are political agendas created for gathering votes only (although the majority of the population IS non-smoking), and not for the protection of the general public. Again, I beg to disagree. 6. There has only been one set of findings that Second Hand Smoke is harmful. I allow you to browse through many MANY independent studies of Passive Smoking. 7. "Second, Tobacco companies couldn't pay off politicians even if they wanted to. First of all, how would that look on a politician running for office?" PLEASE! Bribery of political leaders is age old. Maybe I should use the world LOBBYISTS! I've run out of time. I will make my closing argument in the final, and 4th, round.
An infallible and "always correct" definition for morality cannot be developed.

From my understanding of your argument concerning evolutionary morality, you say that morality is any action which is helpful towards the survival of others in a group. Is this always true? Certainly it is within the realm of imagination to say that actions, such as murder, could sometimes help a group. However, for a definition of be acceptable it must be commonly agreed-upon. Otherwise, that definition would be considered correct to some but not others and thus not be "always correct". It can be reasonably implied that a majority of the world's population would not consider murder moral - yet, by this evolutionary definition, it could be considered such. Thus, this definition is flawed.As for culture, I believe you yourself stated that a definition for morality correct for everyone is not attainable. At least, that is what I interpreted your second paragraph as.As for your final definition of morality, there are some (obviously these people do not share the c ommon ideal, but they must be accounted for as they are human) who believe that harm is "good". Murderers, for example. There may be some who see nothing immoral in the loss of life. This definition of morality does not apply to them, and thus is not "all-encompassing" (for lack of a better word).
An infallible and "always correct" definition for morality cannot be developed.

Oxford English Dictionary: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. 1.1A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. The dictionary term provided is just jumping off point in vocabulary usage, not to be made as a central point of debate. I feel your point to this debate is to view the topic of defining morality from the philosophical point of view. This approach has been used and pondered at infinitum by philosophers even before Plato. But, the origins on morality and the judgments needed to define morality can be looked at in two modes. First, from an evolutionary stand point; did some form of morality develop for the purpose of propagating a gene that positively affected a family or community group? Second, as a byproduct of the first, morality further developed within a specific culture; which may or may not be relative to a different cultural group but, was pertinent to communal health and civic order. The infallibility of the definition of morality must be constrained within its context, from an evolutionary stand point, within a single familial or cultural group; or the establishment of a list of commonalities that exist across all cultures. To derive a global infallible definition outside these confines would only produce endless circular thinking; Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics and the like, were inconclusive in defining morality.
An infallible and "always correct" definition for morality cannot be developed.

This debate, as is stated by the prompt, will discuss the possibility of a definition of morality. I am arguing that such a definition cannot be determined. To win the debate, Con can either provide an infallible definition for morality or logically prove that such a thing COULD be determined in the world we live in today. This will be a soemwhat informal debate - Con will start, and each round after that will be refuting and adding arguments.
America's two major political parties are flawed in regards to political philosophy

Well thank you for making this debate very easy to, well debate. So we agree on definitions blah blah blah ok, in regards to you I)Apparent inconsistencies are good A)Reflect real inconsistencies People have real inconsistencies, yes, but the chances that the inconsistencies that the people have match that of the standard model is very unlikely. Most people do not lean towards stability or change (current model). most people lean towards oppressive government versus no government. I am pro gun control but also pro choice. i cannot align myself to the current system because i am half and half. I understand that is just me, but it goes down to basic principles. People should have a standard code. Example, they usually support less government interference. They are divided on what party to support and the party supports what the other party doesnt (kinda threw that in at the end) B)More complex process The points that Conser/Lib take into account are not good. One, morality is always inter subjective and should be excluded from politics. Hitler's morality was different than Gandhi's. Thus, a model excluding this is good Empirical data apparently has no basis in the current system because both parties skew it and run different ways. Why? *************As i said before, because these parties take stance against one another, not following a common principle to better the country************** This is a major point I am trying to prove. The data taken into account on the current model is used for political gain. II) Solution flawed A) Libertarian/Statist model does not work Not everyone would go as far as anarchy or totalitarianism. The point is, people would make sure their views do not to such an extreme, thus they balance themselves out. Today, no one has a problem with being a staunch liberal democrat or a radical right-winged republican. Sometimes it's encouraged. My model would stop these extreme from becoming popular B) I summarize your B point as the last few lines that I am replacing a simple system with another simple system. I never that a statist/libertarian model would be perfect. i simply said it would be better. -My burden for debate is to prove the current model is flawed. I don't NEED to provide a counter model. I just do. Yes this model would have flaws. It is simple. But it is simple AND it makes sense. The goal of my model is to better America, not to better one's self.
America's two major political parties are flawed in regards to political philosophy

I am going to cede most of what you wrote right of the bat. Otherwise, I believe this topic would be far too broad, and I think you got much of it right, anyway. First, I am going to say right off the bat that I agree that our current two party system is flawed. I also agree that the two majority parties, for the most part, do not represent the majority of people who designate themselves one or the other. However, I disagree that the apparent inconsistencies in the parties political stances are bad, and I also disagree with your solution. I). The apparent inconsistencies are good. A). The inconsistencies of the political parties reflect real inconsistencies among the American populace. B). The inconsistencies (among the populace) are a result of a considerably more complex process of thought than the Libertarian vs. Statist model. They take into account pragmatism, morality, empirical data, upbringing, personal experience, State vs Central government, which the Libertarian vs Statist model does not account for. II). Your solution is deeply flawed. A). The Libertarian vs Statist model does not work i). At a certain point Libertarianism becomes anarchy and Statism becomes Totalitarianism. Your model would have everyone supporting one or the other. As every politician is a balance of Liberal and Conservative ideas, so every politician is a balance of Libertarian and Statist ideas. B). A different two party system would not reflect the attitudes of the people any better than the current system i). Politics is simply too complex to boil it down to two sides ii). Nobody thinks along purely libertarian or purely statist lines. Basically, I think you're replacing one overly simplistic system with another overly simplistic system. You're correct that the current party system does not work well but you are off the walls wrong about why. I think that pretty much covers it.
America's two major political parties are flawed in regards to political philosophy

The two parties I describe are 1. Republicans 2. Democrats There are four MAIN political philosophies 1. Statist 2. Libertarian (Minimalist state) 3. Conservative 4. Liberal The bottom two are associated with Reps and Dems The problem exists with Conservative and Liberal I will first try to prove why Conservative and Liberal philosophies do not (or should not) exist in politics Then I will prove why Republicans and Democrats are not statist or libertarian Finally I will prove why this is bad 1. Conservative and Liberal does not exist in politics by Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary con-ser-va-tim: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability lib-er-al-ism: a political philosophy based on belief in So one focuses on stability, the other change. Our politicians always look for change when they disagree with an issue and look for stability when they do agree. Therefore, modern politics does not focus on change and stability but promoting personal ideas. There is nothing wrong with this, but we can see why politicians are always going to be both conservative and liberal. Thus, the two political parties can not be described as conservative or liberal 2.Republicans and Democrats are not statist or libertarian quick political philosophy lecture statist: government has more power, can protect people better, needs taxes, needs violation of rights libertarian: government has less power, people can protect against government, needs less taxes, needs protection of rights Two issue will prove why Republicans and Democrats are a mix of statist and libertarian. Gun control and abortion Republicans are libertarian when it comes to gun control. we have rights to defend ourselves and raise militias if the time comes. Democrats are statist when it comes to gun control. we do not have the right to own a gun, the government can protect us. Republican are statist when it comes to abortion. we do not have the right to abortion, government tells us no Democrats are libertarian when it comes to abortion. we do have the right to abortion, government stays away 3. This is bad As we can see, both political parties are divided by statist and libertarian inside themselves. Thus, there is fundamental political friction inside the parties. Furthermore, both parties have no clear cut stance on every issue, since both parties flip-flop. Thus, a full statist or full libertarian will not find happiness in any political party. Thus, no cooperation will be alive in side political parties. Thus, there is no underlaying principles of philosophy. Thus, the two political parties are just there to combat one another. Thus, they have no purpose in regards to politics. Two new political parties, one statist and one libertarian would make a better America. 1. We would understand the issues and who supports what 2. The parties, when wrong, will be predicted as wrong and not fight it -Currently, most issued are set like this. One party picks a side (good). Another party picks the opposite side (bad). SO all we have is debate for debate, not what's best
America's two major political parties are flawed in regards to political philosophy

"TO begin, you have yet to prove why our current system is not flawed. Therefore you agree. and if you agree, you support the primary part of my side." -Read the resolution again. The resolution states that the current system is flawed because of the political philosophy behind it. You go on to explain that it is flawed because it is divided up between liberal and conservative. I agree that the system is flawed, but for entirely different reasons than the one given in the resolution. "This means that there is no underlaying premise between the two parties. Thus, they have no real premise. Right there you admit that they are flawed and you agree with me" -Not true. I simply denied that the underlying premise that you stated is not the one they followed. Which means I very much disagree with you, because that underlying premise which I say is in your head is the foundation of all of your attacks. "most people believe in the same reasoning for most issues." -No they don't. You assume that people are entirely consistent and informed. You also assume that the reasoning can be dummied down to a level that simply is not realistic. """Not everyone would go as far as anarchy or totalitarianism." Obviously, which is why your two parties wouldn't work.' -You just quoted yourself there. In the final analysis, I believe you have failed to prove that the present system is flawed in the way you say it is, I still don't get the distinction between the Lib/Con and the Lib/Stat models (other than one is apparently more how people think, which is unproven) and I think you vastly oversimplify the complex nature of politics. You even failed to apply your model to the few examples I gave that I believe invalidate it. I'm tired and I have school tomorrow, but this was a good debate. Good luck to you.
America's two major political parties are flawed in regards to political philosophy

TO begin, you have yet to prove why our current system is not flawed. Therefore you agree. and if you agree, you support the primary part of my side. but beyond that, here is all you said "You yourself point out that nobody really follows this model." -This means that there is no underlaying premise between the two parties. Thus, they have no real premise. Right there you admit that they are flawed and you agree with me "But people don't have a standard code, and that's really the gist of my whole argument. In a pluralistic democracy you are never going to have a two party system that works." -People do not have a standard code that matches the current code. most people believe in the same reasoning for most issues. too much or too little governmental control. Yes, a 2 party system will always have quarks, but if i used a multi-party system, it would change the basis for this debate. I am arguing the the current bi-partisan govt. is flawed, not all are. """Not everyone would go as far as anarchy or totalitarianism." Obviously, which is why your two parties wouldn't work. "Today, no one has a problem with being a staunch liberal democrat or a radical right-winged republican." That's not true. Most people I know try to say that they are moderates."" -Ok this is the exchange we had earlier First line, I was saying, people would be discouraged from believing teh state should have 100% power or 0% of the power. Thus avoiding your problems. Well i guess the second part is just personal experience. To summarize the last few arguments You made the point that my model is not better i disprove that above You state I must prove an alternative i apologize, the standard debate (LD DEBATE) i follow does not require me to have a counter plan, but i still made one that i say is better. even though you still agree with the resolution
Politicians ungentlemanly exercising control over their concerned state.

I mistyped a word, it was the line "there are many people around the world doing so...." what do you mean by other people? The reason I am asking you to refine your argument into a more precise statement is because in your first round you provided no clear argumentative statement. So I have no idea what exactly you're trying to prove or disprove. The reason I am asking you to define these words and phrases is, yet again, to bring a more refined understanding of what you're working to accomplish in your explanation. To better understand exactly what you are referring to. 1. Provide a clear definitive argumentative statement. 2. Define the words and phrases that may have ambiguity to them. (Ambiguous words are words that are left open to interpretation). 3. Provide your reasons that support your statement All of those provided in the next round.
we didn't come from monkeys!!!

Maybe I shouldn't have accepted this debate as I agree that "we" didn't come from monkeys as I know my parents, but we all (homosapiens) share common ancestors with other primates (monkeys). We can see that we share 98.8% of our DNA with Chimps and Bonobo monkeys which are our closest species relatives. While that simple statement cannot be used to unequivocally state that we "came" from an ancestor that we share with primates it is the beginning of a long chain of evidence confirming the evolutionary process. Would you prefer to follow the genetic string of evidence? Geneticist have been able to map the history of human migration and evolution from Africa. Or would you prefer to trace the archaeological and physiological links such as why humans tend to have lower back problems due to the original spinal design types meant for using all four limbs? Or maybe our last 5 coccyx vertebrate that are the evolutionary remnant of our tail? Or possibly the fossil trail that also supports the genetic and physiological evidence? 1. http://www.amnh.org... 2. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Humans are vermin.

Hello, I hope we will have a good debate! I think that both sides should have to post proof, rather than simply refute the other side's proof. Just to clarify. Anyway, here is my first argument. I will admit that humans are capable of horrendous things, but just because often we do doesn't mean that we are vermin. Could vermin that have no good value experience the love, the joy, the friendship that humans do? I do not think so. While some humans are worthy of the term vermin, not all of us, and I would even go so far as to say most of us, are not. Take Mother Teresa as an example. Even if you aren't Christian, you cannot deny that she was a good person, she helped the poor and was very loving to all. Or J.K. Rowling, who made billions and donated large parts of it to charity. Or 20/20/20, which changes the entire LIVES of people by performing a cheap surgery in western terms of $300 on people in third world countries who could never afford it that restores the eyesight of the blind. These are only a few examples, and who do a specific kind of good, but I think that these people alone can prove that not all humans are vermin. If we were all vermin, then why would so many people want to take refugees into Canada? Or why would anyone care about the people who died in 9/11 or the recent bombing in Paris? Although some humans must be vermin to cause these things, the response of the majority saves the name of humanity in general from being vermin. And everyone is mean to someone or some animal at some point, but most decent people would feel bad at some point after doing so and seek redemption.
Pop music is hurting the American youth

Dear Red, I do not Believe Pop Music is Hurting American Youth. Firstly, Pop Music is Technically not a Genre of Music. It is Short for Popular. This Means that Pop music can be and Is any Music that is Popular. For Instance, if Classical Music was as Popular as, say, Thunder by Imagine Dragons. It could very well be Considered Pop. Pop music comes in Many Genres, each with a unique Psychological Effect. If Pop is Multiple Genres of Music and each have a Unique Effect, how can it Hurt America's Youth?