BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.

Observation: This debate is about what a government ought to do as in “if” it should, or “if” it should not protect citizens from themselves. This debate is not about how the government ought to go about accomplishing that, that is to say the question of this debate is not “how. ” Such a debate over “how” would be important to have after concluding “if. ” Consequently, any and all arguments and contentions involving “how” are not on point and should be dismissed. My case here is remarkably simple (P = Premise, C = Conclusion) P1: Government’s ought to protect citizens from harm. P2: Citizens can and do harm themselves C: Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves As you can see, if I can affirm P1 and P2 the conclusion follows logically. Thus to fill my burden, in this debate, I must affirm P1 and P2. Con’s burden is to demonstrate one or both of these premises untrue. With that, I will now proceed to fill my burden and defend both premises. P1: The U. S. Government ought to protect citizens from harm To understand what the government ought to do it is important to understand the role of government. The question of what role a government is to fill in society has been argued and debated over centuries. Perhaps, the most well-known and accessible description of the proper role of Government is found in the supreme Law of the United States, the Constitution. Here is a sample of those values and goals included by the authors as to that purpose; “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare…. ” (. http://www.archives.gov...) It is reasonable to assume these goals and purposes ought to be the goals and purposes of all governments. Such governments could only accomplish these goals and realize their purpose if citizens are protected from harm. Moreover, there can be no justice, tranquility, general welfare etc. if citizens are subject to harm that the government could reasonably prevent. That is to say Governments ought to protect their citizens from harm. P2: Citizens can and do harm themselves. This premise is basically a truism. Examples of citizens harming themselves include; smoking, drinking, driving without seatbelts, suicide, etc. C: Government's ought to protect citizens from themselves To negate con must demonstrate either premise 1 or 2 false. Furthermore, as P1 and P2 are affirmed that Governments ought to protect citizens from harm and, that citizens can and do harm themselves, it follows logically that Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves. Restated another way; It is evident that people are subject to harm, including self-induced. The purpose of Governments includes protecting citizens from harm. As the Governments protect citizens from themselves, Governments prevent harm. By doing so Governments are able to “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare” etc. As the impact shown here is the function and purpose of government, it can consequently be concluded that Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.
Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.

4 rounds/72hrs/6000 characters/Select Voting Round 1: acceptanceRound 2: Opening arguementsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing statements (No New Arguements)No Kritiks(Just in case Zaradi happened upon this debate.)Government: “the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed:” (1) Ought: “used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like:” (2) Protect: “to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.” (3) Citizens: “an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises.” (4) By "themselves" I mean the citizens, not the Government. Please comment if interested.(1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) http://dictionary.reference.com... (4) http://dictionary.reference.com...
If according to evolution, all currently existing species were involved, then it's automatically at

Okay, to wrap up the debate:-Pro has provided false information and claimed that it supports his claim. Yet his claim has not been revealed. -He has not shown why his evidence supports his claim. And I have shown why regardless of what his claim be, microevolution is not innacurate. -Pro's second rule in round one says that he must argue in favor of his resolution, yet he did not argue anything at all. He specifically said that if his rules are broken, it will result in a 7-point forfeiture.-Because he's broken his rule, I deserve 7 points from voters.
If according to evolution, all currently existing species were involved, then it's automatically at

This is why microevolution cannot be disproved regardless of what Pro had to say about Mayflies, and I will provide an example.The reason why microevolution cannot be disproved is because we have seen it happen with our own eyes. While macroevolution remains unproven, the process of microevolution has been witnessed with our own eyes and I will provide with the example of Ensatina Salamanders of California[1].The picture below is of the Ensatina Salamanders of California. I have doctored the picture slightly so that it can be a bit more understandable. The picture shows how the population starts off as a single species (orange) at the top, but as the population of salamanders move down California, they are separated by the California Valley. The more isolated they become, the more different their appearances become. In the middle of the Valley, there is a river that connects both sides of the valley, so that the isolated salamanders can meet again. In this area, they are still able to reproduce and form hybrids (purple). However, after the river they are isolated again, until they re-meet at the very end of the Valley, but there they are not able to reproduce, meaning they are now two different species (red and pink). Because we have seen this event occur with our own eyes, it is automatically proven and cannot be disproved regardless of what Pro says unless Pro is claiming that scientists have problems with their sight.Note that while this proves microevlution, this does not prove the theory of Evolution as a whole and in ways contradicts the theory of Evolution. If any viewers would like to know more about this, feel free to PM me. Sources:1. http://www.pnas.org...;
If according to evolution, all currently existing species were involved, then it's automatically at

I accept.Thank you Pro for instigating such a debate. Being an AP Biology student, I'm sure my knowlege can be of use in this debate._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________When Pro uses the term "evolution," it is implied and I am assuming that Pro is referring to both macroevolution and microevolution. I myself do not believe macroevolution to be an accurate theory.Therefore, I will be arguing that microevolution is an accurate and plausible theory.macroevolution (noun): Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a kind, over geologic time resulting in theformation of new taxonomic groups.http://www.biology-online.org...microevolution (noun): Evolution involving small-scale changes, i.e. within the kind, occurring over a short period of time that results in the formation of new species.http://www.biology-online.org..._________________________________________________________________________________First of all, I would like to begin by pointing out that Pro has either been misinformed or clearly misread his sources concerning the Mayflies.Pro said that Mayflies are single-cellular organisms. This is obviously not true! According the source Pro provided, Mayflies are insects. And all insects are multicellular. If you look at the link provided by Pro, which I will provide underneath, you will see that Mayflies are in the kingdom Animalia, meaning they are animals. And if you refer to the link I provided below that link, you will see at the first sentence that all animals are multicellular. It is absurd to say that an insect is composed of only one cell.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...Pro claimed that Mayflies only live up to 24 hours.This is not true. Adult Mayflies only lives up to 24 hours, but depending on the species, it takes Mayfly nymphs (babies) 2 weeks to even 2 years before they emerge from the water to enter their subimago stage or become adults, where they will die after 24 hours. It is understandable that you left this part out because it was not on the Wikipedia page you provided. Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.http://insects.about.com...; ____________________________________________________________________________________I will give Pro the chance to correct himself and attempt to elaborate as to why Mayflies disprove of the theory of evolution. In the next round, I will be explaining why microevolution is a valid theory, regardless of what Pro says about Mayflies.
If according to evolution, all currently existing species were involved, then it's automatically at

Rules1. No plagiarism. In other words, don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.2. I will argue in favor of the resolution that if according to evolution, ALL currently existing species were involved in it, then evolution would automatically be at least innacurate.Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.PresentationMayfly lifetimeA'ight. As we have discovered, mayflies (Which are considered single-cellular organisms (Which, according to evolution, is what we originally were (Or at least some of us))) only live up to 24 hours[1]. No matter the health of the insect, the fact remains the same; Once 24 hours pass from when they were produced, they'll die and overtime, rot (Can be by decomposers decomposing them. Otherwise, it'll simply deteriorate because of the lacklust of needed materials to maintain current health status).Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... (I received my information from this)
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at one time

1.I agree with your definition of romantic love. 2.I disagree with this statement. The heart and the mind are not autonomous things that aren"t capable of knowing any better. People have consciences that tell them when they"re doing something wrong. 3.Some people who lose their loved one don"t get over them and may spend the rest of their lives without another significant other because they cannot love another person like they had loved their spouse. Others move on from their previous relationship to the point where they find someone new and fall in love again. 4.I agree with your definition of polyamory. 5.If someone is really romantically in love then they already have all the qualities they would need in a relationship. There would be no reason to find someone with other qualities the other may lack because the current relationship should already have them. 6.There are many rules that say one cannot be in love with more than one person at the same time. The terms cheating, affairs, and bigamy prove that. 7.People repress those feelings because it is wrong to go outside of the current relationship to find love when all the qualities one would need should be in the current relationship they are already in. 8.In a monogamous relationship each partner is attracted to the other because they possess the qualities that they need in a relationship. To go outside of that to find someone else would make it seem the current partner isn"t good enough for that person so they would feel the need to find someone "better" 9.Polyamorous relationships and even polygamist marriages come under fire frequently for the unfairness between the multiple husbands or wives that are a part of it. For one, bigamy, is against the law. Morally, no one person can unconditionally love multiple people with the same equality and passion. Many of the multiple spouses or partners are either just used for sex or are not really cared for to the point of calling it love. 10.Thus, it is impossible for someone to be romantically in love with multiple people at one time. Non-controversial: Premises 1 and 4 are definitions that I've agreed with. Controversial: Premise 3 is also a possible scenario, premise 6 is your statement that I've disagreed with, and premises 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 are all my own opinions.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at one time

1.Romantic love is defined as a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person. 2.The heart and the mind don"t know any limits, so far as to say when you fall in love with someone they don"t know that that is all they are allowed to have. 3.When a spouse dies, what normally happens is the surviving spouse moves on and finds love again, not necessarily moving on from their departed love. 4.Polyamory is defined as the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time. 5.In a relationship one partner might not have all the qualities one might want so they could be part of a polyamorous relationship and find those qualities in someone else in another relationship. 6.There is no official "rule" that says one cannot be in love with more than one person at the same time. 7.Many people with repress secondary or "more" feelings of being in love because society says it is abnormal, causing them to be stuck in a relationship where, while they may love that person very much, they don"t feel as fulfilled as they would like. 8.In conclusion, it is possible for someone to be romantically in love with multiple people at one time. Non-controversial: Premises 1 and 4 are definitions, they are non-controversial. Premise 6 is just a statement. Controversial: Premises 3 and 5 are scenarios that represent part of what could possibly happen but might not represent the entire majority. Premises 2 and 7 are my opinions on the matter.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at one time

1.I"ve agreed with your definition of romantic love. 2.I still disagree with this, for the feelings of two people in a relationship should be exclusive to that relationship. Any feelings outside it are unnecessary and probably only physical attraction to another person. 3.A loved one"s death is not carelessly pushed back to someone"s mind. It is progressively coped with over time and at a certain point, because that love is no longer what it used to be, frees the person to be able to love again with someone new. 4.I"ve agree with your definition of polyamory. 5.It is very self-centered because it may not be ending the relationship with that partner but to that partner who may only be interested in a monogamous relationship, having to see their partner go out of that relationship to find what they apparently cannot give is very hurtful to the one who might have thought their partner was all they needed. 6.If someone is unhappy in their current relationship because they feel their partner lacks something they believe they need, then maybe they are not with the right person for them and should end it for good. The conclusion of that will make both of them unhappy because they may really love each other but ending it will free them to find the person they each will really care for. 7.Thus, it is impossible for someone to be romantically in love with multiple people at one time.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at one time

1.Romantic love is defined as a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person. 2.The heart and the mind don"t know any limits or restrictions to feelings, and cannot simply be talked out of how they feel for another person whether for a current relationship or for another person outside it. 3.When a spouse dies, it is not something that is carelessly pushed to that back of one"s mind to gather cobwebs. That person stays with them and it is because of the love that survives within them that that person is capable of loving again. 4.Polyamory is defined as the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time. 5.In a monogamous relationship, one"s partner might not have all the qualities one would want in a relationship. It is not self-centered because they are not ending the current relationship with their partner but finding another person to fill in the holes that are missing in the current one. 6.Repressing one"s feelings of wanting more out of their relationship because of an unwritten rule that people are only allowed to love one other person at a time will leave them unhappy in their current relationship which in turn will cause their partner to be unhappy. 7.In conclusion, it is possible for someone to be romantically in love with multiple people at one time.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at one time

1.It"s not repressing if the person also knows that it"s not right. Ruining a perfectly good relationship with someone because of feelings that may or may not even come out to anything more than lust would haunt them more in the long run. The partner would eventually end the relationship if they are not in to your solution of polyamory and after a time with a new partner one realizes that there"s nothing there besides a physical attraction, they"ll regret ending their previous relationship. 2.Losing a partner is devastating, just as losing any other loved one be it a close friend or a family member but just because that person is not here anymore does not mean life has to be put on hold for that person indefinitely. 3.After a time, be it a year or more and possibly even less than that for some people, life is easier to live without the constant reminder their loved one is gone. Not thinking about them takes away the pain and as I"ve said numerous times, the love - as it once was - fades. They become a fond memory for that person and that leaves them with an open heart to find someone new. 4.Something we"ve agreed on is that no, no one in this world has every quality someone could want in a significant other. But what you don"t understand is that for someone to feel fulfilled in their relationship, it"s not necessary. 5. You say that one can just have as many people as it takes to have all these qualities spread out between them but how can they properly love them all in the long run? Yes all relationships are different as you"ve stated but what about the partner you suggested may lack in the looks department or not have that sense of humor? Say they"ve found someone who does have that quality that"s apparently absolutely necessary and when that person goes to them for solely those reasons, the relationship with that person eventually becomes stale as there"s apparently nothing else from that partner the person likes, and the other partner feels inadequate because they are not capable of pleasing their partner in every aspect.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at one time

1.Having to control oneself is just another way of repressing how someone really feels. And feelings are not something that can simply be talked out of. 2.If someone denies how they truly feel for long enough, it will only come back to haunt them twice as bad in the long run. 3.Countless years of love and emotion cannot simply fade after a time, and coping is not synonymous with forgetting. 4.For someone who didn"t choose to end the relationship, having their partner forcibly taken away from them is a traumatic thing that never goes away. It stays within them for the rest of their life, whether they meet someone new or not. And if they do meet someone new, it does not erase their entire life before that. 5.It"s not greedy to want to be fulfilled and happy in a relationship if everyone is on board with the same thing. What"s greedy and self-centered is ending a relationship with someone who is loved and cared for but isn"t entirely perfect, for someone else who also isn"t entirely perfect. The cycle would just go on and on because there never will be that one person who has every single quality and the only outcome would be multiple broken hearts for everyone involved.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at one time

1.People may not have complete control over their brain but it is very possible to talk oneself out of something. The brain can even make someone perceive something that is impossible, such as hallucinations, so why wouldn"t it be possible for someone to control themselves to be in love with only one person? 2.As time goes on, those strong, intense, passionate feelings fade. While someone may dearly miss the person who is gone, eventually they learn to cope with the loss and move on. Days and maybe even weeks go by without thinking of that person eventually. 3.Is that really still romantic love? One may care deeply for that person but it is no longer even close to what they once experienced when their loved one was here. Especially if they"ve moved on to another person where they can experience that intense passion anew. 4.It"s not that that particular person has every quality someone could possibly come up with for their ideal perfection of love. That is not being realistic. Being realistic takes what"s really important to a person and finding someone who fits what matters most. Whatever doesn"t fit one either decides that it doesn"t matter, or they learn to fall in love with it. 5.Wanting every quality someone could want and not settling for anything less is greedy and unrealistic, not to mention self-centered.
It is possible to romantically love multiple people at one time

2.People are not in control of their emotions. Their actions yes, which they can do to physically prevent them from committing any type of multiple relations, but they cannot stop themselves from feeling the intense feelings inside them. 3.This is not true. When someone loses a loved one they will always be in the grieving stage. Yes, it gets easier as time goes on but the pain will always be within them. There is no "getting over it" as you say. Most people are actually still in love with their deceased lovers and always will be. They are forced to live with their feelings and there is nothing that can be done about it. They learn to cope and even bury them deep inside so they may continue to live their lives and even eventually find someone new " while still keeping their strong, intense passionate love for the one they have lost. 5.Any intelligent human being knows that nobody is perfect. One learns to overlook certain flaws within somebody to make the relationship work. That also includes things that may be missing. Possibly some physical aspects are lacking or there is not shared interests between the two. No one ideally has every quality one would like to have in a relationship but whereas the current partner might have some, it is possible to meet another who has the qualities the other lacks and there is the solution that is polyamory. 6.Those rules have nothing to do with how someone feels. As said in my previous statement, people are repressed by those terms created by what society feels is correct which proves nothing. 7.Repeating what was said in premise 5, no one person can possibly have all the qualities someone could want. 8.A polyamory relationship isn"t about finding somebody "better." There is no "not good enough." It"s about being happy in one"s relationship and if that relationship consists of multiple people to be happy, that is how it is. And in those relationships no singular connection is going to be exactly the same as another because what"s important in the singular connections will be different between them. There is no unfairness because there is no equality and that is not a bad thing.