BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should use behavioral neuroscience techniques to assist law enforcement

Let me ask this question to the voters. Do you want the government micromanaging you so much that they have you wear wristbands that monitor your body. There will be cameras everywhere. Nothing you do will be private. I don't mean to be obscene, but if you have sex, the government will know about it. They are monitoring your heart rate constantly. Again, what happens to me if I refuse to wear a wristband? Also, a society without stress will not function. Stress-a state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from adverse or very demanding circumstances. Stress is not always a bad thing. Stress is you telling yourself that you need to get something done. There is a reason we get stressed. Anyone who knows much about "Behavioral Neuroscience" can tell you that. So what if I am mad? The NSA shows up at my house? What if I start talking. I start saying, "you know what, I don't like this wristband, and I don't like being watched all the time". Then what happens? Whenever I get stressed about the fact that the government is always looking over my shoulder, they show up at my door. I would like to say that Psyco-Pass is described as Dystopian. Here is dystopian defined: Dystopian- describes an imaginary society that is as dehumanizing and as unpleasant as possible. Pro wants to impose upon us a totalitarian dystopian police state, where the NSA watches our every move, and our very bodily functions are known by the state. People are sentenced to floggings for being stressed, and everyone must wear wristbands. If you do become stressed, you will be given drugs to calm you down. Pro's arguments contradict themselves- "I'm not advocating emotional control at all." "The goal of law and law enforcement will be to encourage a stress-free society." Stress is an emotional state. Anger, despair, sadness, and calm are all emotional states. You ARE advocating emotional control. It is scary. Not to mention this, which in it self is terrifying; "Criminals are either given the help they need, or summarily executed" Back to you Pro
We should use behavioral neuroscience techniques to assist law enforcement

I'm not advocating emotional control at all. Just monitoring of your stress levels, and the stress index should be set in such a way that normal, everyday stress won't cause it to go above 100. The NSA field agents should be trained in non-confrontive behavior if the person with the over 100 stress level is not actually committing a crime, but is merely upset or hurt. Only criminals and the mentally-ill will get the neuroleptics, not everyone. By monitoring stress levels, the NSA will also be able to immediately dispatch paramedics and firefighters to an area if the camera network shows an injury, sickness, or fire. Also, the NSA will target those with rising stress levels, not just those who merely blip above 100. And we will of course still have jury trials and all the other legal protections, it's just that there will be more evidence able to be considered by both the prosecution and the defense, since the NSA is the master of discovery. Also, prison is extraordinarily cruel. Caging someone with other criminals does not help them, and society does not benefit from their removal. By giving them mandatory psychoanalysis and haloperidol/lorazepam instead, they will be able to be appropriately rehabilitated while remaining in society. Crime is caused by either frustration or evil; frustration can be fixed, but evil is forever. By helping the criminal understand themselves, how they relate to their world, and why they do the things they do, they will be able to create positive ways of dealing with life's problems. PS: I actually got this idea from an anime called Psycho-Pass.
We should use behavioral neuroscience techniques to assist law enforcement

Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a concept used by some political scientists in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. Forcing everyone to wear wristbands. What an interesting idea. So, what happens if I don't want to wear an armband? Do I have a "Physician-supervised flogging"? What if I decide its none of your damn business how stressed I am. Am I carted off to a "Hospital" for "Intensive Treatment"? If you are reading this (And you are not my Opponent) you may find my opponent's position disturbing. I know I did. The government will not only monitor all of your activities, but it will also your stress level and personal emotions. I don't know if anyone has seen Equilibrium (Which is a Sci-Fi Dystopian Movie starring Christian Bale) but Pro's society bears uncanny resemblance to it. This a description of the society in Equilibrium for those of you who don't know. Be sure to look at Pro's first round to see the resemblance. "Equilibrium is set in 2072 in Libria, where a totalitarian government requires all citizens to take daily injections of "Prozium" to suppress emotion and encourage obedience. All emotionally stimulating material has been banned, and "Sense Offenders" "" those who fail to take their Prozium "" are put to death. Libria is governed by the Tetragrammaton Council, led by "Father", who is seen only on giant video screens throughout the city. At the pinnacle of Librian law enforcement are the Grammaton Clerics, who are trained in the martial art of gun kata. The Clerics frequently raid the "Nether" region outside the city to search for and destroy illegal materials "" art, literature, and music "" and execute the people hiding them" Even down to the calming drugs. This is from Pro's argument- "they can be released with whatever restitution a magistrate orders, plus a punishment ranging from a income-proportional fine, to house arrest, to physician-supervised flogging, plus a course of haloperidol and lorazepam." I think most people were fairly shaken by the development that the NSA was spying on our personal texts and uses of our own electronic devices. Apparently, Pro was not- "The NSA should be responsible for all policing and law enforcement, due to their superior investigative and surveillance capabilities." "cameras should be ubiquitous" Again, this is a society where the government, specifically, the all-powerful NSA police state, can and will watch your every move. So, will you conform? Will you wear the wristband? Will you submit to the police state? Or will you join me, in resisting this evil and invasive government before it is even in place? Back to you Pro.
We should use behavioral neuroscience techniques to assist law enforcement

If you want a world described by my opponent, feel free to vote for them, but if you want a world where you are free to do what you want, and you don't have the government looking over your shoulder all the time, vote for me. They want the NSA to be the police for God's sake! There will be cameras everywhere, and you will be a criminal for being stressed. Pro attempts to deny that, but earlier Pro said this-"The goal of law and law enforcement will be to encourage a stress-free society. "That means there will be laws against stress. I don't know about you, but do you want the government to know every move you make? If you still aren't convinced this would be a terrible society, just look at where it came from-A dystopian anime. Dystopia literally defined as the worst possible society.
We should use behavioral neuroscience techniques to assist law enforcement

I am well aware that stress is a normal part of neuropsychology. But there are two types of stress: eustress, and distress. Eustress is the stress resulting from trying to overcome a positive challenge. Distress is the stress resulting from trying to overcome a negative threat. And even continuous eustress can result in problems, because of General Adaptation Syndrome. Due to the ubiquitous cameras and data collection, the NSA will be able to determine whether you are undergoing eustress or distress, and will respond only if you are undergoing distress. The cameras will only be placed in public and commercial places, because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there . Being stressed in of itself is not illegal. Committing a crime is. The NSA will be able to use the data they collect to determine if reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists to dispatch a team. Flogging will only be done for violent crimes like assault, battery, murder, rape, emotional and physical abuse, etc. Only they will be required to take haloperidol and lorazepam, along with everything else. Non-violent criminals will simply get an income-proportional fine and relational psychoanalysis and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Summary execution will only be done as a last resort to protect the NSA officers' lives and those of the nearby public. The NSA will only respond to stress index spikes, and the wristbands will be calibrated so normal annoyance and frustration does not cause it's reading to go past 100.
belief=disbelief of knowledge

Intro: I have no BoP let me make that abundantly clear.Rebuttal:Knowledge is not the opposition of belief, contrary to what Pro claims. Merriam Webster defines knowledge as: information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education awareness of something : the state of being aware of something There are two broad categories which describe knowledge as defined by the first definition. A posteriori A priori/ A posteriori is knowledge gained through experience or observation. 'The sky is blue,' 'all men are mortal,' are both examplesA priori conversely is deduced knowledge:>'All men are mortal'>'Socrates is a man'>Socrates is a mortal.Therefore, Pro's belief on what knowledge is, is wrong.Negative Case: Belief is not the opposite of knowledge. They are two different things, but they are not incompatible in any way, shape or form. A scientist believes that blue pills are more effective than red pills at sending people to sleep, and thus he sets up a scientific investigation to confirm or refute the hypothesis. This shows how belief is required in order to create new knowledge.Conclusion: Belief and knowledge go together, not apart. Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
A potato is better than french fries

As no terms were defined, I will proceed to do so. Potato: a starchy plant tuber that is one of the most important food crops, cooked and eaten as a vegetable (derived from the Google definition). French Fries: batons of deep-fried potato [1]Better: of superior quality or excellence [2]The BOP in this debate is shared. It is my job in this debate to prove that French fries are better than a singular potato, while it is Pro's job to prove the opposite. Let's begin with my opponent's arguments. Pro's Case:Pro's case relies on the main point of versatility. "Because you can make a potato into so many things! Including French fries! "While this may be on the face true, it does not work as a sole reason to believe that potatoes are indeed better than French Fries. For instance, one can easily assert the following amending Pro's wording:"Because you can make a raw egg into so many things! Including scrambled eggs! "Why doesn't this work? Because, as most of our intuitions make a note of, the pure form of something isn't better than an alternative or cooked form of the same food. There needs to be more to a food rather than just it being versatile for us to consider it truly "better. " Furthermore, even if we accept Pro's reasoning, French Fries are still versatile foods, as they can be manipulated into numerous other creations [3] [4]. Essentially, Pro's case completely fails to uphold his BOP. My Case:Since Pro's arguments don't hold any water, I only need to present a few of my own arguments to uphold my BOP.1. As the LA Times reports, "The typical American consumes 117 pounds of potatoes each year, including 41 pounds in the form of previously frozen French fries, according to data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 'Fresh' spuds account for only 28% [~32 pounds] of the total, the USDA said" [5]. Through this fact, we can see that Americans clearly prefer French Fries over the traditional form of potatoes, indicating most Americans prefer French Fries in terms of tastes and/or convenience. 2. Using math, we can figure out which one, on balence, has more calories. An order of French Fries has 156 calories, and comes from using 1.5 potatoes [6] [7]. The equivalent amount of potatoes, with one potato being about 130 calories [8], works out to be 195 calories. While it may come across as counter intuitive, seeing as an order of French Fries has less calories than an equal number of potatoes, they can be considered better in regards to calorie count. Conclusion:I have entirely refuted Pro's case and upheld my own. Pro has failed to fulfil their BOP while I have succeeded. The resolution is negated. Vote Con. _______________________________________________________________________________________1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://dictionary.reference.com...3. . http://www.babble.com...4. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...5. . http://articles.latimes.com...6. . https://www.fatsecret.com...7. . http://www.howmuchisin.com...8. . http://ndb.nal.usda.gov...
The voting age should be lowered to 16

First of all, I find an apparent lack of definitions in your opening statement. Are you talking about the voting age in the United States, or some other country? Also, what kind of voting are you talking about, local, state, national? Also, what problem does changing the current voting age even solve? Personally, I'm just fine with the voting age where it is, thank you very much. Why fix what ain't broke? How do propose to go about doing this, how are you going to pass the laws necessary? Finally, why do you think that (even if it could be accomplished) it would necessarily have a good outcome? Younger teens tend to be less informed than older teens, and uninformed people is what lead to this crazy election. There's just no argument to even be had here. You didn't defend your resolution at all, and if you can't do that, what's the point?
is drug selling is legal or illegal

The world of drugs is among the most fascinating in that one never knows what or which drug will create problems for society. About 10% of pharmacies in the United Kingdom have discovered a new way to make money from the drugs they sell to patients"just sell it to patients in other parts of the world! Theoretically, some drugs are only supposed to be sold in the UK, but some pharmacies have uncovered a loophole which allows them to sell to anyone, including people in other nations. Actually, the law says certain drugs should only be sold in Great Britain. For example, a month"s supply of Ferma sells for about $110 in England, but some pharmacies are offering this product abroad for about $150. A woman in Hertfordshire was informed by her druggist that he had no Ferma, then said he could get a few tablets, but the women really could not tell her body to get along with a few rather than the amount required. Ah, the world of drugs and making money.
is drug selling is legal or illegal

Drug charges include drug possession, drug possession with intent to distribute, drug possession with intent to sell, drug transportation, drug manufacturing, or drug cultivation. If you or a loved one has been arrested on drug charges severe penalties may ensue. A criminal defense attorney from Terani Law Firm will be there to provide you with aggressive and effective representation from the moment we take on your case. Drug cases are increasing, and they are often difficult to defend for many other law firms. We know the laws surrounding these drug charges and will thoroughly review and analyze the case against you. Many times the police act illegally, operating without warrants and with disregard for your constitutional rights. If an illegal search and seizure was committed we will do everything possible to get your case thrown out of court. Law enforcement may commit entrapment or perform illegal surveillance which may be in violation of your right to privacy. If they made any legal errors we will exploit them for your benefit. Our drug defense attorneys fight aggressively to have any drug charge dismissed or reduced. We know many drug users are addicts and not criminals. Even those who sell drugs may be doing so to support an underlying addiction which needs treatment. Jails and prisons are overcrowded with those who have been convicted of violent crimes. Our criminal lawyers make the prosecution see that putting a non-violent drug offender in jail may lead to the release of someone who may be a danger to society. We always strive to ensure our clients never see the inside of a jail cell. If your charges cannot be dismissed, our criminal law firm will fight to get you a rehabilitation oriented sentence such as A.A. or N.A. meetings, probation or community service. Below are the drug cases we handle most often. Even if your particular charge isn't listed, we can help. You can trust us to spend all the time and effort necessary to defend your rights, because protecting your freedom is what we do.
is drug selling is legal or illegal

Illegal drugs are drugs which are controlled by the government and are illegal in certain situations (a person is not allowed to have them). A drug is any chemical designed to affect the human body. A psychoactive drug is a drug that affects the brain. Some controlled drugs are allowed if you have permission (called a "prescription") from a doctor. Other drugs are illegal - meaning you are never allowed to have them. Alcohol, caffeine (coffee), nicotine (tobacco), aspirin and acetaminophen/paracetamol (Tylenol) are all drugs.
Cancer can be transmitted by medicine.

Pro uses their last round as a red herring and attacks something almost irrelevant to the argument. The definitions I used are cited as definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary, which is a reliable source. Despite that being clearly shown in my Round 2 argument, Pro attacks those instead of my actual arguments. To lay the whole debate out real quick, Pro asserts in Round 1 that medicine can transmit cancer. I refute this statement in my Round 1 by showing how it's scientifically impossible for cancer to be transmitted through medicine. In Round 2 they bring up the point of X-rays, which is refuted in my Round 2 arguments. In Pro's final round, they attack the cited definitions I used to support my arguments and ignores the actual arguments, leaving them unrefuted. In conclusion, Pro's resolution is effectively negated and they have not uphold their burden of proof.
Cancer can be transmitted by medicine.

There are only 1,000 characters per round; I'll keep this brief.1) X-ray =/= A type of medicine. Pro is arguing that medicine can transmit cancer. By definition, medicine is, "a substance that is used in treating disease or relieving pain and that is usually in the form of a pill or a liquid". [1] X-rays do not fit this definition.2) Cause =/= Transmit. Let's assume that X-rays are a form of medicine. Even then, it cannot transmit cancer as it does not have cancer in the first place. It can slightly increase the chance of getting cancer, but cannot transmit it. By definition, transmit is "to send or convey from one person or place to another". [2] So to transmit something, the transmitter must have what is being transmitted for it to be considered a transmission.Pro's resolution remains negated because they have not proved that cancer can be transmitted through medicine.Vote Con.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Cancer can be transmitted by medicine.

Pro has only allowed an extremely limited amount of characters, so I'll get right to it. TransmissionTransmission of cancer through medicine is impossible as cancer is a disease that cannot be transmitted. [1] The only exception to this is that there is the possibility of an extremely rare case occurring wherein a cancer could be transmitted through transplanted organs or from mother to unborn child while the mother is pregnant. [1] Otherwise, cancer cannot be transmitted in any way. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------In conclusion, it is scientifically impossible for cancer to be transmitted through medicine. To uphold their resolution, Pro will have to provide evidence to support the assertion that it can be transmitted. As of now, Pro's resolution is effectively negated. Vote Con. [1] . http://www.cancer.org...
Islam should be banned in the United States on the basis of being a death cult, not a religion.

Hello solarman, I'm not a Muslim scholar, but I'll debate you on this nonetheless. For the sake of argumentation, I'll ignore the palpable extremes in your viewpoint; I really don't have much choice anyway. The knee-jerk reaction to your argument would be the Constitution, which states that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, whatever that religion may be, or even if someone lacks a religion. Another person commented on this below. However, it is an argument from authority, and as such constitutes a logical fallacy. It is tantamount to using the Bible in arguing that same-sex marriage should be proscribed. Bringing in the Constitution gives the descriptive version of events (how things are); you're talking about the normative, or how things should be, and the Constitution cannot address this latter concern. So this is not my argument, but I wanted to mention why it is not in case anyone scratched their heads. Arguing from authority is a common logical fallacy that people make. I have several reasons for why Muslims should not be banned from the United States; I will probably not list all of them here, but I'll highlight some of the eminent ones. First, a recurring mistake made on this issue, usually by right-wing ideologues, is ignoring the extent to which American Muslims have been integrated within our society. American Muslims are relatively affluent and generally have no sociopolitical or economic qualms, certainly not like the kind that we see in others nations such as Britain or France. This relative lack of anxiety on their part means that they are highly unlikely to pose a national security threat. They feel content about their position in society and they do not want to jeopardize it. The second reason follows almost directly from the first. A group of middle-class people that have been thoroughly assimilated is a huge boon to our economy; why would we want to ruin that? Think of all the businesses and communities that would suffer if you just removed millions of people, which is what your argument implies: if you ban Islam, many of its practitioners will not stay in the United States. It's kind of the same thing that happened in Spain in the Late Middle Ages; they banned Judaism and thousands of Jews left. The third reason elicits the humanitarian position. Would we feel well as a society having eliminated millions of fellow citizens from our own soil? What would happen to them? Such a move, solarman, does not appear congruent with our values as Americans and as human beings. My overriding concern in this debate is the treatment of Muslim peoples themselves, not necessarily of Islam the religion. I could not give a you-know-what about Islam, being an atheist and all. But I have no illusions that once people started attacking and banning Islam as a religion, the next step would be attacks on its adherents. We've been down this road before; I don't need to mention the multitudes of examples throughout history: you're well aware of them yourself.