BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students should be allowed to wear clothing with any political message they please.

You can't change your definition halfway into the debate. The topic is LITERALLY the title of this debate, "Students should be allowed to wear clothing with any political message they please." You said the first round was for people to state their claim and I keep telling you, your argument IS NOT topical to your definition. Any political message can be shown at schools. You can't say there will be rules because that's my counterplan. I clearly stated it in the beginning so halfway through the debate you can't just say there's limitations to student's statements. I'm sorry but everyone can clearly see your claim. Your vulgar attire argument is pretty weak. If you were allowed to, you said you would offer a separate set of rules for attire, yet you fail to show them. And even if you did, it would have to be at the beginning of the debate which you obviously didn't do. Attire should have a positive message. Someone should be able to wear a gay rights t shirt because it's not targeting anyone negatively. If someone wears a "I don't stand with gays" t shirt, LGBTQ students would feel unsafe. You can't have a message that offends students. That's not a reputation a school wants to have. A school that doesn't welcome all students. You agree. If someone wears attire attacking a person, it's bullying. If you don't stand with gays, you're targeting a gay student. Sure you should express your opinion. But you have to be careful with what you show. Positive messages should be shown and not messages that harm the mental safety of others. You also failed to address my counterplan, so I think we can agree that you like it since you want to put limitations on attire. But I already said that was my counterplan and you already had an initial plan that you didn't continue.
Students should be allowed to wear clothing with any political message they please.

Again, my argument is NOT to allow students to wear ANY clothing they like. Please don't try to dictate to me what my argument is.I did not drop the vulgar argument as you say. I stated that vulgar clothing should not be permissible. There is a seperate set of rules that don't allow for vulgar attire to be exposed to minors, and my argument is not to allow students to overstep that. What is closer to what I am arguing for is like the 9 year old who wore a Trump hat, or the students who protested the Vietnam War with their black armbands.If students are allowed to wear a "gay rights" shirt then someone should be able to wear a "I don't stand with gays" shirt. There was a case where some students wore shirts with the words "white power". I absolutely do not support what they say but they had every right to do so, and the teachers should not have instructed them to remove their shirts.If a student wears attire specifically aiming to attack a person, that is bullying. That does not fall under the title "political message". A political message is something you believe in and want others to see.Please excuse this late response.
Students should be allowed to wear clothing with any political message they please.

I was countering your argument, I was explaining that in the future I"m dropping this argument because even though you explained that theory, the school may not like to show any form of politics at the school for people at that age. A lot of schools like to keep politics out. My examples aren"t hypothetical. I provided expedience unlike your example, that actually needed evidence more than mine did. I announced at the beginning of the debate: "there should be limitations to which political messages are expressed on school grounds." From what I see you were fine with that. "Students should be allowed to wear any political message they please." Thats your claim and that makes my inappropriate clothing argument, topical. Technically, you"re allowing students to wear ANY political message and it doesn"t just have to be text. It could be a dead baby to represent abortion and it could be a nude lady to represent feminism. Therefore your claim does let children wear such clothing. Limitations represent things like messages that don"t target other people. Things like, "end racism" and "gay rights" are considered appropriate. But things that would make another student feel unsafe is unacceptable. Keep in mind my opponent dropped one of my most important arguments: vulgar clothing And if for some reason the last paragraph was your refute against mine, you"re basically saying that you"ll let people express their opinion, even if it makes student"s feel unsafe in the school. You're telling kids not to care what others think and fight for what you. Believe in. Yes, fight for what you believe in but that doesn"t mean you should hurt others in the process. If you looked at my evidence from the recent round you"d understand why then.
The Death Penalty Should Be Implemented In Every Society

An actual change of opinion? That's something that doesn't happen too often. Anyway, to tie up some loose ends and summarize:1) DeterrenceAll studies that show deterrence are flawed. How can they all be wrong? Well the first thing to note is the sample size. There are so few executions per year and to draw from such a tiny sample size causes a lot of variations and outliers which would skew the data. Not to mention, some of the studies did not take other factors like unemployment into account. Secondly, and most importantly as can be seen with the Emory example, the professors are very careful with their data and usually show both sides as well as any limitations it might have. The media on the other hand blows it out of proportion, misrepresents the data and says sensationalist things like "15 innocent lives saved per execution" which is usually not what the professors intended. Overall, I have proved that the Death Penalty does not deter and the studies are actually inconclusive. 2) CostLegal proceedings are an integral part of the costs so the Death Penalty is actually more expensive. 3) Human RightsJust because modern human rights haven't existed for thousands of years does not by itself mean that they are not correct. Pro makes an extraordinary claim that "lack of human rights" is the correct thing, so he has the extraordinary burden to prove it. Lethal Injection causes great suffering for the inmate, they just can't express it because they are paralyzed. It also has the potential for screw-up since amateurs not medical professionals administer it.4) Innocent LivesThere have been hundreds of cases of DNA evidence clearing people. Our justice system is not perfect. The problem is that only rich people will have lawyers who are good enough to extend their appeals, find DNA evidence and clear their name. The poorer people will be executed. The irreversibility of the Death Penalty distinguishes it from all other forms of punishment as the mistakes made by the justice system cannot be corrected, or at least they have a limited time to correct it as opposed to unlimited time for Life Without Parole. The Death Penalty should not be implemented in any society. I was really anticipating Pro's response to my argument but that's okay. LordKnukle, it was awesome debating with you, and I hope we debate again.
The Death Penalty Should Be Implemented In Every Society

Thanks Knuckle. I have 2 contentions to make. Most of my case involves rebutting my opponent's points which I am going to do next round, due to the way the debate is structured. (and also because I am running out of time)C1) Human Rights ViolationA) Methods of execution are flawed. I will only consider lethal injection as it is widely considered to be the most humane method of execution. Lethal injection causes paralysis and can be considered as cruel and unusual punishment. I will expand on this in the next round as I have limited time right now.B) Since 1990, an average of three countries each year have abolished the death penalty, and today over two-thirds of the world's nations have ended capital punishment in law or practice [7]. This shows that we are moving away from barbaric medieval practices like the Death Penalty. Pro for some reason argues that "lack of human rights" are more important than human rights. It makes no sense. The fact that human rights are a new concept shows that as a society, we are becoming more civilized. C2) Innocent people are executedA) There have been 273 post-concivtion exonerations total in the United States and 206 since 2000. 17 of the 273 people exonerated specifically through DNA served time on death row [5]. And overall the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to date. B) Many that are executed could be innocent. There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved [1]. C) A common argument for Pro DP is that it saves innocent lives. But how many does it really save? The alternative to the DP is life without parole. So, the DP only saves the lives of innocents who would have been killed if a murderer escaped from a Maximum security prison, and managed to murder again. Prison escapes are rare and are declining [4][6].Sources[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.bop.gov...[5] http://www.innocenceproject.org...[6] http://abcnews.go.com...[7] http://www.amnestyusa.org...
The Death Penalty Should Be Implemented In Every Society

PRO argues for the death penalty.CON argues against the death penalty.Death Penalty: "The punishment of execution, administered to someone convicted of a capital crime."http://goo.gl...I wish both of us the best of luck.Round 1: Acceptance (no arguments)Round 2: Main Case (no rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and ConclusionBreaking these rules will automatically result in loss of conduct.No arguing semantics about the resolution or definitions.No trolls or anybody with over 50 debates please.
Death Penalty

I don't have much time for formalities/rules. That being said, no semantics, the BOP is shared, and the debate is closed until I find someone who accepts it. Let me know in the comments. Imagine this situation. A man is walking home from work, and he happens to have a gun. 5 minutes away from his home in a secluded part of his town, he is approached by two armed criminals. Unbeknownst to him, they followed him from his workplace. They say that they are going to take his money and then kill him. The man shoots the two criminals in their heads, and calls the police. I want whoever is reading this to ask themselves whether the man was justified in his action. If you do, then ask yourself if all lives have the same value. If you answer yes to both questions, your views are inconsistent. We do not need killers in our society. They are a danger, and do not deserve to live if they are not willing to let others live.
The Federal Reserve:

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 of the Constitution states:"Congress shal have the power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."The power to coin money is granted to congress under the Constitution, not to the Federal Reserve- neither is congress ever gven the power to transfer any of its powers to another entity of government, let alone a private corporation under the Tenth Amendment, which states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."The Constitution never gives the Federal Government the power to create a Central Bank, this power is additionally prohibited to the States according to Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution, which states:"No State shall... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."Therefore, a Central Bank of any kind, whether Federal or State, is completely unconstitutional.
The Federal Reserve:

Woodrow Wilson passed a bill making the Federal Reserve Constitutional? Was this a constitutional amendment- because a regular bill can't do that, you need to introduce it as a constituitional amendment, and get a 2/3rd majority in both the House and the Senate, none of which were done.Abolishing the Federal Reserve would create uncertainty, but so did abolishiong slavery- which was abolished over night, and though there was panic in the short term, most people would agree that this was the best decision.
The Federal Reserve:

THE FEDERAL RESERVE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 of the Constitution states:"Congress shal have the power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."The power to coin money is granted to congress under the Constitution, not to the Federal Reserve- neither is congress ever gven the power to transfer any of its powers to another entity of government, let alone a private corporation under the Tenth Amendment, which states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."The Constitution never gives the Federal Government the power to create a Central Bank, this power is additionally prohibited to the States according to Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution, which states:"No State shall... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."Therefore, a Central Bank of any kind, whether Federal or State, is completely unconstitutional.
Dogs are better than cats

Dogs are better than cats. Dogs can help the disable for example. They do this through helping the hearing or vision impaired by alerting them of potential danger. They also can help notify others of the service dog"s owner"s health like seizures and low blood sugar. Service Dogs also help people with psychiatric problems, coping dogs. Dogs are pack animals, you are part of their pack and they will protect you with their life. They can alert you of any disasters, fires, intruders, storms, etc. Dogs will protect your house.
Legality of Marijuana

People will always continue to abuse narcotics, prescription drugs and alcohol no matter what laws are placed against them. Although, Mariuana can cause some of the same effects as some of these drugs mentioned above, and people consider it safe? It delays reaction time and can make your whole personality change. Under the influence of weed, it can cause the same consequences. You can severely hurt yourself and others while using marijuana. If you were to get behind the wheel of a car under the influence of marijuana, your reaction time is effected and you could easily get into an accident.
Legality of Marijuana

Marijuana will not be legalized in our state for many reasons. These are also reasons why it has not been legalized over the years. The first reason is the fact that marijuana is a gateway drug. In most cases, weed has been linked to much more heavy narcotics, such as heroin or cocaine. As marijuana itself may not be very dangerous, it does lead to much harder drugs. When addicts often tell their story, almost all begin with marijuana. According to Time magazine, a person who smokes pot is 104 times more likely to try cocaine than someone who has never smoked before.
Legality of Marijuana

But unlike many other drugs and alcohol substances, marijuana cannot be regulated and is very difficult to tax. Therefore, the amount of money it would bring into the government is unsure. And like many other illegal drugs, it seems as though many users like the rush it gives them to use something or do something that is against the law. Once it would be legalized would it still have the same outcome? Personally, I do not believe it would bring in a large sum for the government.
Star Wars Battlefront II (2017) is better than Star Wars: Battlefront (2015)

I can neither are better compared to their superior 2005 and counterpart. But I must disagree with you, The 2015 version was much closer in relation to the 2005 version, Not precise but surely much more than the 2017 version. Both have micro-transactions and loot boxes which I find to be completely pathetic considering that the 2005 version had none of those and gameplay was a freedom and a right, Not just a privilege or something pay to win. However, The 2015 version costs much less compared to its 2017 counterpart and the gameplay campaign was pretty great in comparison to its bland counterpart in the 2017 campaign.
should self learning robots be created

well well in the suicide case of robot the owner said that he would never buy a robot again what does that really mean? it means that the robot created a fear among the humans if such robots are used at wide range wont it be harmful 1) supposing you are not home and your robot catches fire then what who is responsible like in above case 2)As more computers, machines, and robots become self learning, more applications for the technology will become available. This technology has the potential to do some great things can you please tell me what is the great thing if all this will be done by robots then why there will be need of humans to think so no need of scientist as you suggests 3)robots can be very dangerous in surgery following link supports my argument http://online.wsj.com... 4) i strongly believe robots can cause unemployment by reading the following article http://www.businessinsider.in... 5)suppose a drone is made to kill a terrorist by recognizing its certain features and that drone finds it in a crowded place what will it do think of other people around or execute its order, it is highly dangerous to make such robots in human life and i think they should not be allowed to be made as self intelligent
should self learning robots be created

Robot suicide,For those of you that don't know, my opponent is referring to a Roomba (cleaning robot). I honestly doubt the thing turned itself on. Even it did the, owners are probably only using that as an excuse for their own negligence. They left a hot pot on a stove and left the Roomba on the counter. The owners forgot to turn it off or there was a malfunction. The thing set their apartment on fire when it drove itself onto the hot plate that was left on.http://m.huffpost.com...Benefits of self learning robots,Recommender systems,Recommender systems are self learning AI that is being used to make a lot of our entertainment experiences better. Netflix, You Tube, Pandora and many other companies centered around entertainment use self learning software for our convenience. http://content.time.com... Information retrieval, Search engines, libraries and many other things use self learning software to make data retrieval easier and more convenient. http://nlp.stanford.edu... Brain computer interface, Brain computer interface helps people with prosthetics control them and it's also something that helps Stephen Hawking be able to communicate. http://www.dukemedicine.org... Summary of benefits, As more computers, machines, and robots become self learning, more applications for the technoly will become available. This technology has the potential to do some great things. The risk, By developing AI we could run the risk of developing a super AI that would find humans no longer necessary and eliminate us. For more information on unfriendly super AIs click on my source. http://intelligence.org... Cloud computing, Robots if they gain sentience are most likely going to do it through cloud computing (internet or network) with a central intelligence controlling them all. An example of this can be seen in the movie I-robot. This is the most likely scenario I can think of for a self learning robot to be a danger for society. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Now that I've shown a glimpse o how self learning software can be useful inside and outside of robots and have discussed the most likely risk, let me go on to explain why such a risk is unlikely to develop. Why computers won't gain sentience, 1. Just because a singularity (the level bots need to reach to be dangerous) is conceivable doesn't mean its probable. http://spectrum.ieee.org... 2. Before the technology becomes available to achieve a singularity, most jobs will be automated and the negative economic impact will destroy incentives to create more intelligent machines. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. The rate of technological process is slowing and may prevent is from ever creating a singularity. http://accelerating.org... 4. There are several people working to make sure the seed AI for the super AI is friendly in nature. http://sifter.org... To win this debate my opponent needs to put up a strong argument showing that a super AI is likely (or at least an AI that can rival a smarter then average human), and that there is a reasonable chance of that super AI being a danger to mankind. I anxiously await my opponents arguments.
should self learning robots be created

thank you for replying i started this debate because we humans are trying to create robots and humanoids that can imitae humans imitate thier emotions and learn from humans now when robots will learn from humans and perfect all thier mistakes who would control them they will have control on themselves their was a case when a robot in a country comitted self suicide as it was maybe kind of tired as report sugests of doing the same work. secondly when robots can think by themselves then why will the scientist take the effort to think they will leave it on them all the work will be assigned to robots because of thier efficiency and make humans lazy
should self learning robots be created

Thank you con for hosting this debate. Since con has only given a brief explanation of what he is going to argue I will do the same. Self learning robots would likely be of immense usefulness to mankind. They could focus on learning tedious things humans aren't interested in. This would leave humans to more important and interesting intellectual pursuits. Self learning robots will likely never become whats known as a super AI. An artificial intelligence which would make Einstein look stupid. If robots/computers can get to that level of intelligence there is likely nothing we can do short of destroying all the technological progress we've made to stop this trend. The best bet would be to brace ourselves for this inevitable emergence of a super AI and do whatever we can to ensure that it is a friendly AI. I anxiously await for the elaborated version of my opponents arguments.
should self learning robots be created

well with the topic that i have raised here i think it will be one of the hot topics to be debated in coming years as our life is fast depending on these robots and i think by self learning of robots i mean more like the artificial intelligence of these machines once they adapt by themselves to human like behaviour and start to correct their mistakes on their own then humans might lose their control on them and they will start to act by themselves and humans will have to fight for their survival