BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Democracy and MMEs are Superior to Minarchy and LFEs.

Well, healthcare arguments aside, as they have been given maybe a little too much attention throughout this debate, I do have a few final points I would like to make. I stand by my arguments, and by my standing on these issues. I think that humans have the ability to reach their own potential, and I believe that this is the only way that true progress will ever be surpassed, and innovation be achieved. While this system has flaws, as every other system inevitably does, I still believe that its advantages outweigh any flaws it may posses. I'll leave you with a few quotes: "In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other." -- Voltaire "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." -- Winston Churchill "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." -- Ayn Rand "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" -- Thomas Jefferson Thank you.
One Direction should be banned from Asia

I can't believe you took this seriously. But sure. One Direction : They do things they shouldn't.Smoking and alcohol is terrible no matter what. Any smoking can ruin your voice. I think they are talented, just their lyrics are so bad sometimes. They are rude to other celebrities which isn't okay. They seem full of themselves. Also, they don't write their own songs. What real band/group wouldn't? And last but not least, their fans threaten you if you say anything they dont like. A lotta fans only ever talk about their looks but they need some meat.. I honestly don't wanna be told to kill myself because of what I do and don't like. ( Source : Hollybug ) One Direction : The only reason Directioners listen to them is because they look good. And then they respond saying that they listen to their faces and what not. So why do Directioners make fun of Freddie Mercury? He's a million times better than them and I listen to him for his music. Also, their songs are stupid and cater to teenage girls. Their songs sound the same. They don't care if it means something, just as long as it sounds catchy. Their songs have 0 creativity and they rip off other artists. Their fame came to them way easily whereas there are better artists who are not yet famous, but they are working hard to get fame. One Direction : Virtually every One Direction song says "I love you, let's kiss! You're so pretty!", and they are filled with unnecessary "ooohs" and "yeahs". Their songs consist of the same simple chord progressions, and they make millions just because they bat their eyelashes at empty-headed girls with money to burn. Every one of their songs has the same theme, and they are completely incapable of creating anything original or memorable, and they have only managed to last so long because of their looks. ( Source : March-of-the-black-queen ) Only known for looks Their music is cheesy, their lyrics are awful, but oh look! They're pretty. All their songs are dreary ballads, but teenage girls just love to look at them. They are all "hot" and whatnot, which makes them famous. Who would want to listen to their "music"? If they were ugly and made that music, no one would like them. ( Source : 1D Haters ) Smoking and Drinking is bad for you, no matter what we're talking about. Do you want fans to do the same thing they do? No. What we should do is listen to our local songs. Promote Local Mentality. Listening to One Direction will make you adopt Colonial Mentality. You will rather listen to them than your own songs. Like, really? I would listen to OPM ( Original Pilipino Music ) than any foreign music ( e.g. KPOP, JPOP & American ) We should encourage our own people to listen to our Own Music I still wonder why you took this seriously tho.
One Direction should be banned from Asia

Hello everyone! I would like to open an argument about One Direction. This boy band should be banned from Asia because it's leading our future leaders in spoiled little brats. This boy band is making girls ( and some boys ) go crazy. They lead to money loss ( Come on, just admit it. ). We should promote songs from our own countries. For my supposed opponent, I would like to hear your opinion and your counter! Wish us both good luck and no insulting please :)
Abortion

I think abortion should be legal without a doubt, It's the mother's choice to abort the foetus they are carrying ; you might argue why doesn't the father of the child have a choice in the decision too? Men are not the one that has carry the child throughout the 9 months of pregnancy and give birth to it. It is unfair in a way but women have a bigger responsibility until the child's birth where responsibility is spilt equally between each parent. To make abortion completely illegal except for the circumstance that it could pose a threat on the mother's health is foolish. For example If a woman was raped and found to be pregnant with the rapist's child, would you have the nerve to tell her that she would have to carry that foetus throughout the whole pregnancy?. I doubt most women would want to be reminded of their assault through their innocent child.
Should schools be year around

Judging from your "so bye" in round 2, I assume you have given up the debate in defeat. I hope this is not the case and will continue debating as if you had merely been away. Upon further research, I see that many year-round schools have more frequent breaks throughout the year. Instead of the 3 month summer, and then Fall/Christmas/Spring break, year-round schools have roughly two months and then a half month off. There's more time during the year instead of one big clump of nothingness.
Should schools be year around

Kids would not be any more tired than they are in the middle of the school year. The shortened school day would actually alleviate stress on a regular basis, AND would provide time for an after school job year-round. In response to your tax scenario: If a student is helping their parents with taxes, their base income amount would be 9,500 dollars. I highly doubt that you can make that type of money in a 3 month summer job. So what sources to you have to prove your arguments?
Should schools be year around

How do u know ? Kids would be tired because you would have to go to school every single day and high schoolers would have problems trying to get a job in the summer because they will only have a few breaks and they will not be able to help their parents with there taxs and high schoolers will not be able to get money save up for collage or buy a house and a car for there kids so school should not be year around and so when kids have to go to school and they will not be tired or stressed. so bye.
Should schools be year around

Greetings and good luck! I have accept the challenge because I believe that the year-round model of school could be beneficial to the learning process. Year-round school means shorter school days, which would give students more free time during the day to have fun. Instead of 3 months of summer, you can have an extra 2-3 everyday to spend time however you want to. So the question now becomes: "Why would students be more tired in year-round school than they are in 9-months-per-year-school?"
Should schools be year around

Should should not be year around because students would be to tired. Students would sleep in class and not get the education that they need. Students would not get the exersize that they need. Students will be to tired to go outside and play. Students would be to tired to go and visit there family that lives down the road or they will not want to get up and just sit down and sleep all day. Students would not want to get up in the morning and get ready for school and they will just sleep all day.
Foster Care Reform

Very well. According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System report posted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are currently 104,236 children waiting to be adopted within the foster care system. Of those waiting to be adopted, those waiting to be adopted by their biological parents due to losing their parental rights number at 61,361. The actual number of adopted children number at 50,516, far below the 104,236 waiting to be adopted. These statistics show that while adoption may be better, there simply is not enough people wanting to adopt to make this plausible. The most recent statistics of the number of children in foster care number at 400,540, with 252,320 children that entered the system in the most recent fiscal year. Sure, there are 245,260 kids that left the system as well, but the fact is that most of those kids aged out of the system altogether. I would like to correct a statistic I have made in round one by saying that the percentage of past foster care children in jail is not in the 75-80% range, but rather in the 25% range in accordance to ABC news, which has been holding steady since the report came out. In that same report, it is estimated that 30% of today's homeless Americans also came from the foster system. This has happened because in more cases than not they aged out of the system, and once they age out they get little to no government support and minimal family base. In the cases where these percentages did not age out of the system, but rather found a family, past experiences in the system will push them to do things that most people would not. As is the case, a reformed system would introduce better quality parents into the system and give social workers more specialized training for the types of kids with Autism, ADD, and OCD. This would in turn keep a good number of future foster children out of prison and have better family bases in which to start a life instead of becoming homeless. http://www.acf.hhs.gov... http://abcnews.go.com...
Foster Care Reform

Why, I am glad you asked. Within the past 10 years, the total prison makeup of the united states included a grand total of 75-80% of the prison population being originally from the foster care system. In interviews with other foster parents and a case worker within the system, the average percentage of foster parents that they believe abuse their foster kids (including physical, emotional, sexual, etc.) is 41%, which makes for almost half of foster parents in the country. Foster care reform in today's age would weed out the abusive parents, and help raise a new generation of foster children to become contributing members of society rather than spend their lives behind bars.
The New Zealand Constituion is legally valid.

For one reason or another my opponent has failed to post a rebuttal to my arguments, so I will therefore post my conclusion. New Zealand gained her independence in 1920, when it signed the Treaty of Versailles and joined the league of nations. As a condition of joining the League of Nations, the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852 an Act of the British Parliament ceased to have any lawful effect on New Zealand. Since this time, no referendums have been held to uphold the old, or ratify a new constitution. New Zealand has failed at every step to provide a lawful constitution. In conclusion, I believe I have shown above that the New Zealand Government has no lawful authority in New Zealand and I yield the balance of my time.
The New Zealand Constituion is legally valid.

Looking for someone willing to argue that the New Zealand Constitution is indeed legally valid in regards to the letter of law. The New Zealand Constitution will be defined as: New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 72) - Passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1947 New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 The Statute of Westminster Bill of Rights All sections of Law type shall be permitted (International Law, Contract Law or what ever you feel helps your argument.
Transgender people should be banned from using public bathrooms

Hello, Round One will be acceptance only. Round two will be opening statements. Round Three will contain the debate. Round Four will have the ending statements and conclusion. Rules: 1. The opponent must rebut the others points or they will be considered to have conceded the point. 2. Maximum of 4,000 characters per post. 3. No personal attacks or name-calling 4. Facts must be sourced to a reliable source. Thank you.
Transgender people should be banned from using public bathrooms

.. Is perfectly valid. "Yes, there are gender neutral bathrooms, but they aren't in great supply" By the same token one could argue that yes, there are transgendered people, but they too aren't in great supply. Where might one be that they would need access to a public bathroom in any case? Only in places where lots of people go. In busy places there is always a gender neutral bathroom available somewhere, such as a toilet for the disabled. Giving transgendered people access to regular public bathrooms isn't really much of an issue. They can use neutral bathrooms. Why should transgendered people have full equality in this instance? It is not equality, but rather, it is inequality. You are favouring transgendered people. A female bathroom is for females, a male bathroom is for males. There is still a provision for gender neutral bathrooms in the form of disabled access bathrooms or stand alone gender neutral bathrooms. There is simply no need to legislate that transgendered persons be allowed to encroach upon the privacy of a different gender in so public a manner. I feel my opponent, whilst attempting to uphold a noble sense of fairness to all, has restricted his vision to the point of a narrow bias towards transgendered people. His attempts at being fair have led to the opposite standpoint - being UNfair and in favour of the transgendered. One must consider the existing users of these places since they were purpose built for their use and their use alone.
Transgender people should be banned from using public bathrooms

"Since gender neutral bathrooms already exist, what [is] the need to change things to allow transgendered access to gender specific bathrooms. " Yes, there are gender neutral bathrooms, but they aren't in great supply. If that were the case them we'd have to include them at nearly every public restroom to allow full rights for transgendered people to use the bathroom. That would just be a hassle and money waster. ". .. It would make a genuine female uncomfortable. .. " If the only harm to the person is at it makes it a little awkward to be in the same bathroom, then it's not really too bad. Gender specific bathrooms are more widely available and accessible than gender neutral bathrooms, so it would just be more of a challenge to make them everywhere where there is a public restroom to give transgendered people full equality. Thank you.
Transgender people should be banned from using public bathrooms

I am not fussed so much as to how you would like to structure your argument - it is the food inside the wrapper that is to be had at, the packaging is merely packaging - to be torn open and discarded for the nutrition inside. If they were able to use the bathroom of the gender they change to, it wouldn't cause any harm. I refute this. It perhaps wouldn't cause any harm to the transgendered person themselves, but one must consider the other users. I would most definitely challenge your assertion that in most cases one cannot tell a transgendered person. I have come across a few in my lifetime and their original gender is obvious to say the least. If it would make a genuine female uncomfortable, then there is reason to exclude. We have to understand that a transgendered person is NOT a woman. They are fundamentally male. They have just taken on the appearance and certain characteristics of a female through surgery. Why should a non female be allowed to use a bathroom dedicated to only females? Should a civilian who dresses like a policeman, impersonates a policeman, but who isn't a policeman be given unrestricted access to police records and resources? No. Why? Because they aren't a genuine policeman. Should a football fan who wasn't talented enough to make it be given access to the players dressing room just because he wears their jersey and plays football in his own time? No. Why? Because he isn't a real footballer and doesn't play for that team - he just supports it. Much the same as the transgendered person. The transgendered person may see themselves fit to use that bathroom, but the people for whom that bathroom was built - real females - may not be of such like mind. Is it really such an ask to stipulate that they use gender neutral bathrooms since they are the epitome of gender neutrality? I think it is fair. Since gender neutral bathrooms already exist, what need to change things to allow transgendered access to gender specific bathrooms. And who in the transgender world would be given access? What about a pre op transgender? Would they be allowed to use them? Again, you would have to have a genitalia verification check at every public female bathroom, which is simply incredulous.
Transgender people should be banned from using public bathrooms

Thank you for your great opening statement. I forgot to post a notice that I wouldn't be able to do enter my opening statement in round two, but I will do so now. Because this is an opening statement I will not directly address anything written in my opponents opening statement. I will not have a closing statement as a result of this, but I see it as more of a penalty for me unless my opponent wishes something different, in which case I am willing to compromise. I am new at this, so my first debate will probably go poorly, but please don't go easy on me. Opening Statement: I believe transgendered people should be able to use public bathrooms. Almost all people who undergo gender change surgery, also have an equivalent sexual orientation. If they were able to use the bathroom of the gender the change to, it wouldn't cause any harm. In most cases, one cannot even tell that someone has undergone a gender change operation. A homosexual male is permitted to use male bathrooms in public. A homosexual women is permitted to using female restrooms in public. A transgendered person would not be any different than a homosexual using the bathroom of their gender. I want to stress that being transgender and being homosexual are not the same thing. People who change their gender often consir themselves the gender they change to, so shouldn't they be able to use the bathroom the see themselves fit to use?
Transgender people should be banned from using public bathrooms

I believe that so long as we have public bathrooms that are gender specific, Transgendered people should not be allowed to use them. By far and away the most common form of transgender is male to female. What is gender in any case? Is it purely biological? The answer to that is no. A man is a man. And a man is a man for a' that. Just like putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it pretty, nor does lobbing off genitalia and injecting hormones make a man a woman. Maleness is in the genes. It is more than biological, naturally. It is chemical, it is spiritual. It is the transgendered persons natural state. I believe that transgendered persons should not be allowed to use public bathrooms because it is, in effect, deceptive. Perhaps my opponent will argue that since they see themselves as women, and since they now possess a cobbled together vagina, that they should be classed as such. The transgendered person however is NOT a woman, and unfortunately never will be. They have created their own artificial gender - Transgender. They still possess an Adam's apple. They still possess other immutable male qualities too. Although they may see themselves as women, the rest of the world and, most importantly, those who they will be allowed to share that most private of places, the bathroom, with, wont see them as such. They are a distinct new artificial breed, neither one nor the other, therefore they should only be allowed to use single person public bathrooms. Perhaps one would argue that society should strive to be more inclusive in this regard. But becoming transgendered is a choice of the person. We should not put others at a discomfort for the sake of their own feelings of acceptedness. Their choice, their consequences. Perhaps one might argue that they do no harm by being in the bathroom of the gender they aspire to be. Is it OK for a homosexual to be given carte Blanche to use the bathrooms of the opposite sex? If it diminishes the rampant buggery that occurs between homosexuals in their own gendered public bathrooms, perhaps that would be a side benefit, though not a strong enough reason to allow it. Why not? They pose no sexual threat. Still, their presence is unwarranted and should not be warranted either. Sexual perverts and rapists could masquerade as homosexuals for an opportunistic assault. And the same applies to transgendered people. The difference between transsexuals and transgendered is not so telling. The proof of the pudding is in the undies. In order to allow transgendered persons to have access to the opposite sexed bathrooms, their actual genitalia would have to be verified at every visit as a security measure. This would only be wholly humiliating for the transgendered person, but would be highly impractical and impossible to police.