BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: A just government should provide health care to its citizens.

This debate follows National Forensics League LD format. If you are not familiar with it, do not accept this debate!Voting guideleines will be presented at the bottom. I will try to keep this under 2,000 characters so I can fit my speech in. Formatting will be similar to time, but 1 minute = 1,000 characters. Debaters will be expected to copy+paste speeches into MS Word and provide a word count at the bottom of the speech in order to verify to the judges that the speeches are legal.Character Limits by Speech:R1: Terms of debate AcceptanceR2: AC (aff. constructive) : 6,000 charactersCross-examination in comments given by negative, questioning aff. Character limit is 1,500 for both the asker and the answerer. This will be done in Q then A then Q then A format until asker hits limit. NC/NR (neg. constructive/neg. rebuttal) : 7,000 characters.Cross-ex in comments by aff, questioning neg. R3: 1AR (first aff rebuttal) : 4,000 characters. 2NR (2 neg rebuttal) : 6,000 characters.R4: 2AR (second aff rebuttal) : 3,000 characters. Congratulations----------------------------------------------Voting Guidelines:Conduct will be tied, unless one debater goes over their character limit. If this is the case, that debater shall not be given the conduct points. If both debaters go over the limit, the one that did not go over as much shall be given the conduct points. This is determined by number of characters over the limit, not the number of speeches that went over.Spelling and Grammar shall be given to whoever does a better job in the cross-examination. If one voter is found guilty of breeching the principles of debate theory, the S&G points shall be given to the other voter, regardless of performance during cross-examination.Arguments shall be given to whichever side won the debate.Sources shall be given to whichever side presents better sources.----------------------------------------------This debate is currently not acceptable. Comment here or PM me in order to let me know you are serious about this. This is a series of debates that I am going to be starting in order to further my skills in this form of debate before competing next year. Thank you.
Vigilante justice is ethically defensible.

Legally, no, vigilantism cannot be justified since you are blatantly breaking the law. However, ethically, it could be defensible. Vigilantism is merely the act of pure human emotion: revenge. We all want it don't we? Doesn't the person that harmed you or your loved ones deserve what he dealt to you and more? He should pay for his wrong doing. However, sometimes justice is not carried out (in the eyes of the victim at least). Now, a primal urge is building in the victim. Something must be done; it is instinctual to follow the Hammurabi's eye for an eye philosophy. Can you condemn the father that kills his daughter's murderer? He simply needed to satisfy the thirst found in all of us. The rage that comes when you are wronged and are not delivered adequate justice. Can't you agree that our justice system has its flaws just like any other system? Sometimes, the criminal slips through law's grasp. If the wicked aren't met with the justice of the courts, shouldn't the victims see to it personally that they suffer cold retribution? The law cannot always satisfy vengeance. When it comes down to it, what a vigilante seeks is an act of righteous passion, be it a crime or not. His intentions are good, but they method in which he exploits them are illegal. But should it be illegal to kill the person that raped you, our knock out the person who beat up your brother? You weren't the offender in the situation. Shouldn't you be able to get him back? The vigilante delivers what the law should do but failed to do. What is wrong with that if it were to be done anyway?
Angels and Airwaves is a better band than +44

So me and HostileBelief have been chatting in a PM together, both discussing one of our favorite bands, Blink-182 and their musical talent. We decided it would be fun to do a debate oriented around them, and their bands.This debate specifically centers around their side projects from blink-182, during their few hiatuses throughout the years. Introduction and Backgroundhttp://www.youtube.com...Blink-182 made their first side project in 2001/2002, where they made an album for a band called Box Car Racer, which focused a little more on mainstream punk. They only completed one successful Album with BCR, and it got fairly popular, with hits like "I feel so" (video 1). They had made this project to play some of their stuff that wasn't blink friendly, but continued Blink-182. http://www.allmusic.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...During the Course of Blink 182's fame, they made several other popular side projects as well.http://www.youtube.com... +44 was Blink-182's next big project in 2005, this time started by Mark Hoppus as the lead vocals and bass guitar, and Travis Barker back on the Electronic drums. The band also included Craig Fairbaugh from the transplants, and the lead guitarist Shane Gallagher from The Nervous Return. Female vocalist Carol Heller was later added in the group to make this more of a trendy pop rock flavored band. http://en.wikipedia.org...(band)http://www.youtube.com...Blink 182's Latest Album made, was Angels and Airwaves, has so far been their most successful project so far, lasting from 2007 to their latest album in 2011. Even still, they have plans for a new album to begin in 2014. Angels and Airwaves features members: Tom DeLonge, David Kennedy, Matt Wachter, IIan Rubin. This band features a different style of music than the normal punk rock driven styles from previous ventures, and focuses more on dramatic musical effects, and great meaningful lyrics. http://en.wikipedia.org... This will be a 2 round debate, with Round 1 being an acceptance round. I will start off my arguments in Round 2, as will my opponent. Good luck!
Angels and Airwaves is a better band than +44

Hello Everyone and Welcome to the "Angels and Airwaves is a better band than 44" debate. To start off, I would like to thank my opponent for offering the oppertunity to debate with him even if it is only for two rounds including only one time to put arguments on the table. I do wish that my opponent had the time to respond to my arguments. Just as TUF explained, we were at a PM talking about Blink-182 and while Blink-182 may or may not be in my top 10 favorite bands, They are certainly up there and one of my "Personal Favorites". I would also liked to mention along in this debate that I would like to see the pandora site which TUF had provided, but due to licencing constraints because I'm from Canada, I can't see the site and therefore, can't respond to them. Before I respond to any of my opponents arguments, I would like to clarify some things not to be D!@# but because I feel they are worth warrented. Box Car Racer was not a side project of blink-182 but rather just a side project with Tom Delounge and Travis Barker. For some reason, this pissed off Mark and you know the rest. The band went on hiatus and went separate ways with Tom working on Angeels and Airwaves and Mark and Travis working on +44. I would also like to clarify specifically that Angels and Airwaves are a Space Rock band where as +44 is a pop punk band.The argument about Angels and Airwaves is a better band than +44 because it's more mature is meaningless. Why does it have to be? This is art not who's the most adult. Since were on the topic, while +44 does feature some songs that are inmature like "Cliff Diving".for the most part, the majority of their songs deal with intense issues such as depression, break-ups and suicide. If anything, +44 might be more mature than Angels and Airwaves. TUF argument was that Angels and Airwaves is hitting a broader audience and makes them more superiour than +44 but I would like to argue that by trying to go to a broader audience, it becomes and bland and mediocore. I believe that ether contradicts himself later on by saying they are creative or TUF was being very Ambigous with his phrasing. The reason why +44 avoids being bland and mediocore is because not only were they one of the pop punk bands that did not sound like new found glory, but also different lyrical content then most of the other bands. Granted, Tom and his new fellow band mates at the time were making a risk to sound different but when I listen to Angels and Airwaves with albums like "We Don't Need to Whisper" and "I-Empire", I feel like I'm listening to a U2 album so I don't see it as revolutionary or superemely better than +44. +44 features a different mechanic into the songwriting by having catching hooks in the song while being gut renchingly depressing. Songs that demostrate this perfectly are "No It Isn't" and "Chapter 13". +44 uses electronic sythnizers and acoustics bits more than AVA giving the listener more to digest instead of Angels and Airwaves sounding like "Where the Streets Have No Name".
How about republican & democrats send their kids and relatives overseas to fight wars

I assume my opponent meant Republicans and Democrats in Congress, so my arguments will be made based off that assumption. Nevertheless, I stand in firm negation for the following three reasons. 1. Many congressmen are veterans. 2. This proposal is unfair to the children of the congressmen. 3. This exempts certain lawmakers' children. Back to my first point, many congressmen are veterans. In 2013, slightly over twenty percent of congressmen were veterans. [1] Twenty percent is an extremely high number, especially when compared with the national average, which is under one percent. [2] I assume my opponent is making this assertion that the children of these congressmen should go to war so the congressmen have a personal stake, and that they have fully weighed the possible consequences. Yet they know the consequences, as one fifth of them were in the military themselves. Moving to my second point, the proposal is unfair to the children. This should be a quite glaring problem with Pro's idea. We are forcing these children into the armed services, more than likely against their will, because of the mother or father's occupation. We are essentially violating the 8th Amendment, by inflicting unusual punishment (in that we will be forcing them to war against their will) for something that A) isn't a crime and B) wasn't even their doing. These sons and daughters don't get to choose their parent's job, so it's completely immoral to deprive them of their free will for no particular reason. Finally, my third contention, this plan exempts certain lawmakers' children. Two members of the Senate are independent of the Democrats and Republicans. [3] This means their children would be exempt from the policy. If we were to initiate this awful plan, at least initiate it with consistency. [1] . http://www.pewresearch.org... [2] . http://www.npr.org... [3] . http://clerk.house.gov...
Cinema-an antisocial activity

The one reason suffice to can call it an antisocial activity is its complete dependence on black activity for its activity. This fact is not brought out by the protagonists and even media talks highly of great acting by the actors and their effort to portray a role and ignore the fact that cinema people sweat it out to earn their huge money in crores which is nothing but black money. Let us realize that common man's life is seriously affected by the parallel economy run by the cinema industry. Spending such vast sums for a recreational activity when vast sections of humanity go without Roti, Kapada and makan is noing but an antisocial activity. It is time that the greatness of cinema is debunked at every opportunity so that the colossal waste of money in cinema is avoided.
Cinema-an antisocial activity

I occasionally find myself sitting in a movie theater or more realistically, sitting in my living room streaming a pirated copy of a movie on my generic brand big screen TV with the dead pixel in the lower left corner, enjoying the movie to some extent until I reach a point at which I bring myself out of the fantasy to appreciate the movie itself. I'll praise the actor for an especially good performance. I'll be touched by the message I realize halfway into the film and my mind will wander into my own life. Sometimes I'll walk away from the film feeling inspired. Other times I'll find it absurd, or I'll disagree with the message, or even think its a total waste of my time. I don't know what Pro means by "anti-social", we didn't establish any parameters, so I'll leave it up to the readers to decide whether I do a good job putting my own point forward in disagreement based on my opponent's vague terminology. The movie industry is one of the most "social" industries out there. It literally thrives with the ebbs and flow of society. When you sit down in a theater, you'll hate a movie that seems to be too far out of line with what is socially acceptable, or you'll feel bored out of your mind with something that is TOO socially acceptable. The people who write these stories to captivate their audiences and pass on a message often do so by walking a tightrope between those two. Does it flourish on the gullibility of the youth? Perhaps. But why would that be anti-social? Despite the fact that they are young, they are still members of our society and as individuals they contribute to the social norm of the whole. Does it take them to an artificial world? Of course it does. It's storytelling. Does it affect people's minds? Of course it does. It's a form of art, of communication. My opponent is right about all these things but none of these points seem to indicate that the movie industry is somehow AGAINST society. In fact, I would argue that the movie industry is more REFLECTIVE of society. I posit that if my opponent sees an evil in there, it's only because the camera is depicting a society that has evil in it. The fact remains that a business survives because it fills a demand, and people choose to be exposed to it. I just finished watching Rogue One. I'm going to watch Moana with the wife sometime this week. I have a lot of difficulty defining either of those activities as "anti-social" in whatever context my opponent seems to be alluding to. Perhaps we should watch a movie together?
Psychiatry(pro) versus your career field of choice(con)

I used those wordings interchangeably because I'm using them to basically mean the same thing. I don't know how else I can be more clear. Perhaps you should comment on the debate to try to clarify what I mean. I don't know how else I can be more clear as of right now. Just ask a specific question then.I am using the common definitions of better and superior. However way you can argue that one is better than the other, that is valid.The claim I made that there is a greater need for prescribers indicates that psychiatry is the better career to go into because it solves a problem. Again, I'm just using generic definitions of better and superior. If there is any way to prove one is better than the other, then it is a valid argument. As for the psychology today article, I know that is what it said, I was focusing on what I stated in my previous round though. Yes, there is a need for both therapy and medication, where some people only need therapy, and others may only need medication because some may not have a chemical imballance. But remember, psychiatrists can do therapy as well if need be. Again, if you need more clarification, please state it in the comments. We should try to use the debate rounds for debate and not clarification.
Psychiatry(pro) versus your career field of choice(con)

First off i want you to define your terms of what you mean by 'better' and 'superior'. your initial argument stated: "I will be arguing that psychiatry should be preferred to your career field of choice. " then you restated your argument to say: " I will, however, still argue that psychiatry is better than clinical psychology. these are two different statements implying two different claims. you have also claimed that there is a need for prescriber (psychiatrists) over non-prescribers (psychologists). that is also another claim that is different from your original claim. i want to point out that the 6th reference you presented to me, the one from psychology today, if you read the whole article, throws a lot of hast at psychiatry as a helpful treatment option. the article stated in many cases that the majority of those seeking treatment are over medicated and are not actually obtaining any real relief. unless and individual has an actual biological chemical imbalance there is no need for a medication that will start to alter those chemicals and potentially create more of a problem that was not there in the first place. re-read the psychology today article.
Psychiatry(pro) versus your career field of choice(con)

My position: I will be arguing that psychiatry should be preferred to your career field of choice. Opponent's position: My opponent will argue that some other career field is preferrable to psychiatry. Rules:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for argument. This is because I am not using round 1 for argument, so my opponent should waive at least one round.3) The first round used for argument should not have rebuttals to your opponent's main arguments. In other words, if you're second to post your main argument, don't rebut what your opponent has said.4) The last round for debate should only be used as rebuttal and/or conclusion. Definitions:Common definitions for terms will be used.
The United States should use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons.

The United States should not use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons. I'll now refute your points... 1. Protection of Citizens. - The motto of the American Revolution was "Give me liberty or give me death," not "Give me life, and take away my liberty." This social contract theorized by John Locke is completely against American's citizens best interest. When people begin to give up their rights in order to be protected by the government we will have a huge problem. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - This does not in anyway follow the social contract you speak of. This only says it is the governments job to make sure that all of it's citizens maintain their unalienable rights, guarantee'd by our creator. It in NO way says, give up your rights so that the government can protect you. Therefore, using this totally contridicts your argument. It says that when the government begin's to become oppresive and take away rights, that it is the peoples responsibility to either change the government, or overthrow it. 2. Why hard power is effective. "If we kill the man who is using nuclear weapons, than nuclear weapons will not be used." - Well, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, is in fact, the United States. According to this sta - The United States can not afford to use hard power. If we wanted to use hard power we'd have to go to war with Iran, and North Korea while still funding our war in Iraq. It's just the solid truth, we can't afford to fight wars all over the globe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - It is only natural for Iran, and North Korea to want to become nuclear armed. They are near countries who are nuclear armed, and therfore they want it for protection and diplomacy. India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear technology. - Why should the U.S. fear these smaller countries who want to become nuclear armed when there are much bigger, stronger countries who already have nuclear technology? Britain, China, Russia... "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." - JFK.
The United States should use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons.

The United States should be allowed the use of hard power to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons because: protection of citizens Why it's effective protection of global reputation hard power: the use of military force or threats soft power: the use of peace talks gaining nuclear weapons: the accusation of weapons, not enriched uranium 1. Protection of Citizens Philosopher John Locke is famous for his ideas of a social contract. He believed that citizens will give up rights and the government has to protect them. This social contract can not be broken. When it is, the government dissolves because it loses it's power. (Theoretically) The United States government follows the social contract: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Declaration of Independence As you can see, this follows the social contract. So the United States has an obligation to it's people to protect them from threats. Thus, the US is obligated to do anything in it's power to stop imminent threats. Why? Because the US does not have to protect other citizens of other countries, because they don't fall inside the social contract. So the US MUST do anything in it's power to protect it's people, even if it hurts others. 2. Why hard power is effective Joseph Stalin said, "No man, no problem". This makes sense. Kill the oppressor and the oppressed are free. If we kill the man who is using nuclear weapons, than nuclear weapons will not be used. We could also utilize threats. Obviously soft power is not working. Kim Jong il completely disregarded soft power in his quest for nuclear power. Where as if an invasion or threat of invasion was posed, Kim Jong il would not have been able to gain nuclear power. History tells us so, and our logic tells us so. If we force the man to stop, it stops. If the man dies, it stops. 3. Protection of Global Reputation During the cold war, the only thing that saved the lives of 250 million Americans was deterrence. The USSR did not want to attack us for fear that we would attack back. What would have happened if we did not tell the USSR ambassador to the UN that we would use force unless the soviets withdrew their arms from Cuba? They would have continued. We can use hard power, or threats, to deter attacks against America. When do not negotiate with terrorists. Why? Because of leaders KNOW we have to set a precedent! We will not allow terrorists to attack us. You may not agree with the War in Iraq, but no other terrorist attacks have been made in America because we F***** them over! England fell to many attacks because they did not respond with force. We must continues the precedent that we will not allow nuclear weapons! We must support this statement with force. Or else it fall weak, we will set a precedent similar to England, and we will be attacked