BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house would ban euthanasia

Every people in this universe must have known what euthanasia is. Basically euthanasia is an act of killing someone who is very sick or suffer under an incurable disease, such as lung cancer. I will send some arguments regarding why I want to defend this statement. Firstly, euthanasia is murder. Because euthanasia requires us to kill somebody who is in agony or old. Someone like our grandparents who are suffering under some bad circumstances. Let's take an example of a grandpa who is suffering under stroke disease and cannot even move his body. If we do euthanasia to this grandpa it means that we are commiting a crime. Because we don't know whether this grandpa wants to die or not. We still don't know whether he still wants to continue to live on his life. Then do you think this is what we should do toward the grandpa? I think the answer should be no. Second argument is that doing euthanasia toward someone is included as an abusement toward people's life to live. Even though if we are looking at someone who is already half-dead lying on their bed, not doing anything, except staring at the emptiness of their life, we should still try to cheer up this guy to work hard in his life so that he can get better by doing activities, though sometimes a disease is incurable. These are all my arguments and now i look forward to my opponent. Thank you
Abortion should be legal.

Then my assumption was wrong, and you simply insist on not changing their decision. By your reasoning, segregation laws and other types of race cases etc would not be overturned. But I'm pretty sure you'd not be advocating all that. it seems you're ignoring the principle of preserving life, which is explicitly in the Constitution, and at any rate could be implied just as much as but probably even more than the right to privacy. While you say you're not pushing for this because of your morality, I see no other reason than for you to think privacy should outweigh life with a presumption of death based on your own inclinations, (my guess is augmented by your rhetoric of laws and the woman's body stuff). If I'm wrong and you simply insist on not changing course, you have not explained why other cases can change, or admit you want to remain ever the same no matter what the Court decides.
Abortion should be legal.

I agree privacy should be implied into the constitution. All the amendments you cite imply it. I would also add, the conservatives like to go on and on about how soverign immunity, that states generally cannot be sued technically, is implied in teh constitution, because of the states rights stuff like the tenth amendment... so if that can be done, surely privacy can be implied too, to be fair. You cite Court authority, and following stare decisis or precedent, you would be correct that it's technically the law of the land. But, much like brown versus the board of education overturned segretation type laws, these current cases can be overturned as well. you are not resting your argument on a techincal basis that the cases cannot be overturned? so, i assume you think it's good policy that it be that way. i say it's a policy argument, because there's competing legal theories. one is privacy, the other is protecting human life. surely, you do not have the privacy to kill a person who is born? techincally, they are born, i admit, and not expressly included in the constitution, the unborn. but, are you being a technicalist such that the framers didn't intend to protect a baby five minutes before the baby is born? get real if that's the case. there's a burden you're putting on people to change the constitution, whatever the court decides. who should the burden be on? are you giong to be a technicalist and say the burden should be on the framers because they didn't clarify babies are included too? it seems natural they'd include the baby at later points at least. it's at least a reasonable person standarnd to read into it given that the baby is clearly a person later on. now, i suppose given that it's a policy argument, the states could decide like the first one or two semesters since it's arbitrary anyway. we can't avoid arbitrariness afterall, because the standards roe made are themselves arbitrary. this all simply illustrates are laws are man made, and the practical consequences of them bore full face when implmenting and interpreting them. so, policy is a sound way to proceed. anyway, ultimately, if you disagree, you're drawing an arbitrary line at the birth canal, just as much as i'm being arbitrary saying a point the baby is a person. if not anything else, the issue should be given to the states. the states have dealt with it up until the 1900s. some had abortion laws, others didn't. the tenth amendment relegates stuff not in the constitution to the states. i say, don't be a techinalist with the presumption for death.
Abortion should be legal.

The fetus is not a person, and I hold the life of the mother higher than that of the fetus. But my argument is not whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, because I agree that depends on your beliefs. However, I believe it should be legal because of the right of privacy in the constitution. The Supreme court case of Griswold v. Connecticut decided that there is an implied right to privacy in the constitution. The right to privacy is a penumbra. Amendments 1, 3,4, 5, 9, and 14 all imply a right to privacy. The 1st amendment guarantees privacy to have your own beliefs, the 3rd guarantees privacy in your own home, the 4th guarantees the privacy of your own person, the 5th guarantees the right to life and property, the 9th says that rights not given in the constitution are guaranteed to the people. The Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade established that a woman has a right to the privacy of her own body. The Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth guaranteed that this right to privacy extended to minors.
Abortion should be legal.

Ironically I am in another debate arguing abortion is a rational perspective early in the pregnancy dpending on your beliefs. Here I am going to qualify all you say still. If you believe it's not a baby early early on, then sure that's a rational view. But, I would still outlaw it. If you're for killing a baby five seconds before it gets out of the mother but not when it's out, what's the difference? will you admit you're willing to allow killing to suit the mother's not want of a bother? why can't someone go on and kill anyone who is a bother to them? they can't, because that infringes another's life. the mother chose to have sex, she has to pay the consequences. she didn't choose to get pregnant, but she assumed the risk. how do you say she doesn't assume the risk? if i caused a car accident, and the other person was suddenly attahed to my body until it could be surgically removed a few months later, any reasonable person would say the person who caused the crash has no right to termineate the other person. often i say it's reasonable to have differing beliefs, but here I do not believe it'd be reasonable to say otherwise. it's analogous fully to the baby, in my opinion, and not reasonable to say otherwise. with that said, you have an argument if you don't think it's a person. we'd probably quibble about when it's reasonable to say it is or isn't a person. but, you have a right to say when you think it is or is not just as much as I do. and you'd have a rational argument if it's based on the personness of the baby, up to a point of course. wihtout that argument, you have no basis to say abortion should be legal.
Abortion should be legal.

Many people agree that abortion should be legal under some circumstances (i.e. if the girl is raped). Others argue that abortion should be legal for minors, only if they are able to obtain consent from their parent or legal guardian. But does the government have the right to control what a girl does to her own body? Does the government have jurisdiction over any person's own body and what happens to it? I do not believe it does. By controlling the circumstances under which a woman can have an abortion the government is essentially controlling the rest of her life for her. The descion to get an abortion can effect her education, her chance to be employed, and even her relationship with other people in her life. I do not believe that a government body (especially one that is overwhelmingly masculine) has any right to decide a woman's life for her.
Geniocracy

Hello J The resolution. Resolved: Geniocracy is a good political system. Definitions so graciously provided by pro. Good: The benefits outweigh the harms. As I thought myself once, this seems like a fabulous idea, borderline utopia. However upon deeper reflection there are grave flaws with such a hypothetical system of government where the most intelligent rule. The crux of the issue itself doesn’t seem to be a practical one, such as how could we possibly determine who is most intelligent or what if a leader dies, rather it’s the whole concept of being ruled by the most intelligent. In summary my argument is as follows, any just or good political system, must be for the benefits of the ruled. That is to say it must at the very least make attempts to further the interests of the governed not the ruling party. Thus any just and good political system must be selfless, it must operate on a utilitarian principle, further the interests of the majority and not of the elite ruling party. In, conclusion for reasons I will elaborate on, such a political system is in direct opposition with one ruled by a highly intelligent elite ruling party. 1. Smarter people are more likely to be selfish and to further their own interests. 2. Geniocracy is a system in which the most intelligent of the intelligent would rule. 3. The ruling party in a geniocracy would ultimately further their own interests rather than the majority Conclusion. Such a system would eventually spell rebellion by the subjugated due to grave injustice. Hence not a good system. Evidence. Fear not voters I have evidence. 1. In a series of experiments led by the Yale psychologist David Rand, people’s actual choices fluctuated based on whether they had time to think. When they had less than 10 seconds to choose, more than 55% gave. But when they had more time to reflect, giving rates dropped, with fewer than 45% giving. This follows a pattern that Rand and colleagues call spontaneous giving and calculated greed. When our decisions are governed by emotion and instinct, we act generously. When we have time to rationally analyze the options. This seems to suggest that smarter people are the more likely they are to take rather than give. This makes sense. Our emotions and instinct we discover are often irrational when held up to the light of reason, thus we ( the nerds) tend to act on our reason rather than our primitive instinct and emotion. Sources. 1. http://www.nature.com...
Geniocracy

I had so much fun debating this idea when I first joined this site, so I thought that I would try this again. Resolved: Geniocracy is a good political system.The Burden of Proof is shared between pro and con, so both sides must prove that geniocracy is a good or a bad system.I set voter ELO to 2500, just so we have a good selection of voters.Definitions:Geniocracy: a framework of a system of government which advocates problem-solving, general intelligence, creative intelligence and ability to make decisions as criteria for governance. Those who are meet at least one of these criteria over a certain threshold are given more rights than someone else (ability to run for office, ability to vote on very serious matters, etc).Political System: A political system is a system of politics and government. It is usually compared to the legal system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems.Good: The benefits outweigh the harmsNote: this debate will be covering the theory of geniocracy, so technicalities such as "what happens in case the leader dies?" are irrelevant to the debate. Questions such as "what are the criteria for intelligence" are allowed since they directly relate to the resolution at hand.Round Structure:Round X: What pro will do | What con will doR1: Outline debate | Constructive caseR2: Constructive case | RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals | Defense to rebuttalsR4: Defense to rebuttals | Crystalization, tell why they are winningR5: Crystalization, tell why they are winning | WaiveRules:1. Being civil is necessary2. No kritiks/deconstructional semantics/trolling/forfeiture3. You are not allowed to take the position that the harms and the benefits are equal. As con, you have to prove that the harms outweigh the benefits.4. Follow round structure.Failure to follow these rules will result in a full seven-point forfeiture.**You are allowed to condense all sources into one link (preferably www.puush.me)**Please, if you have an issue with any definitions or would like to add any prior to round one, please tell me in the comments so I can edit this round. I opened this debate to the first person who wants to accept. Thank you to whoever my opponent becomes.(Remember, round one is for arguments.)
Geniocracy

Hello. Sry for ff was under the misapprehension I had more time. Let's get to it. The study I cited in round one, demonstrated that when ppl are given more time to contemplate and reflect they are more likely to further their own interests ( selfishness) rather than consider that of others. .. In the proposed system of gov, Geniocracy, since the leaders would be overly intelligent, they presumably contemplate and reflect more in a shorter period of time due to their increased intelligence, thus resulting in them considering and acting to further their own interests over that of others. Therefore this would more likely than not lead to an array of problematic issues for the people. In summary since the ruling class would be overly selfish they would further their own personal interests benefiting themselves and not the average citizen.
Geniocracy

By forfeiting, my opponent drops my rebuttals against his case, leaving it entirely in ruins. In this round, I will defend against my opponent's refutations and my opponent will waive, as previously said. Defense of Contention I.A. My opponent claims that the intelligent are more likely to take a bribe or to be selfish, although this was successfully refuted in previous rounds. Again, the study that he linked to in which he claims that the intelligent are more likely to act selfishly isn't only attributable to the intelligent class -- and even if it was, then this is a positive thing for society.I said in my arguments that if an election is not able to be boughten by the rich it will effectively benefit society. My opponent, however, makes a bare assertion without logical reasoning that this will lead to an increase in selfishness. I urge the gentle reader to seriously consider what my opponent is saying. He is saying that because money won't be a factor in elections, money will be a factor in elections.B. My opponent's refutations against reduced gridlock in congress is another bare assertion without any sorts of reasoning. In my argument, I proved that under a geniocratical system of government there would be reduced gridlock, which effectively benefits society as a whole. However, my opponent makes a wild claim that "the leaders in a Geniocracy would ... prevert [sic] the truth and distort it". This is completely unrelated to any of my arguments, as he is just trying to further his own arguments and not refute against any of mine.Defense of Contention II.My opponent *completely* drops all of my arguments about the upholding of representative democracy. He does not even attempt to refute against my arguments that I made. I automatically win these arguments due to a lack of refutation. Vote pro because of dual forfeiture and because my opponents arguments and refutations are in ruins. (Remember, con, to waive this round. Thanks!)
Geniocracy

I'll have to revise debate structure: there will be no crystalization, we will just leave it at defense of rebuttals and con will waive R5. Benefits for the ruled must be upheld. Yes, I totally agree with this type of thinking. The people that are ruled by the above class (be it democratic law, a king, representatives, artistoracy, whatever) must be able to have some kind of benefits that they wouldn't have if they did not live under this type of government but instead under anarchy. However, my opponent has a very black-and-white dichotomy that he presents to the reader: either the majority of the rule benefit or the elite (referencing the intelligent) class will. Are the interests of the 'elitist' class different than the average person? Well, they have the interest of keeping morality and ethics, the interest of valuing human life and valuing governmental legitimacy, which the average person does as well. The average person values all of these things and have an 'interest' in them. This said, the implementation of these core values may differ. The average person may say that in order to decrease global warming we have to completely ban all cars that exist at a moment's notice. But a more practical thinker (see: intelligent) may say that this is too drastic, and instead we need to go down the line of perhaps reducing car emissions, but not getting rid of cars as a whole. This is a much more thoughtful response and allows for what the majority wants to stop to at least be partially stopped (global warming). What I am trying to get at in the above example is that the values may be the same, the implementation of the ideas may differ from 'elitist' class to the majority. Personal interests. Con brings up an article saying that people, as a whole in this study, tend to make hasty decisions that benefit others in a moment's notice, while the average person if given more time will be less cooperative. However, he makes the hasty generalization that only intelligent people have this phenomenon, which was shown false in the study, because the study concluded that people, as a collective whole, experience spontaneous cooperativity. However, even if this was true (that only intelligent people are stingy), it has no actual basis for opposing geniocracy. Being able to make informed decisions that are not based upon emotion and impulse actually are able to help you out in the future more than impulsitivity. An example of this has been shown from a subreddit known as 'personalfinance', where they have the mantra of "do not make financial decisions while emotional or have to make them in a moment's notice". This is because we are more likely to make bad decisions (like selling the house for less money than it is worth) while emotional or are quick to make a decision. If intelligent leaders are the only people that make this kind of decision (less cooperativity), we should see it as a good thing, because they are less persuaded by emotion and impulsitivity than what is best for the people as a whole. Back to you, con.
Geniocracy

Hello :) My opponents opening case is easily refuted by looking at my opening case.Contention A.We know from my opening case that the leaders in in such a hypothetical political system would likely be unfathomably selfish and sly, although they perhaps may not present themselves to be as such.Thus it follows that the leaders in Geniocracy would certaintly figure out some means of obtaining vast amounts of power if not by money, then by other means due to their selfishness.This negates Contention A. Infact contention A adds to my case, since leaders of a Geniocracy would be more selfish they would likely figure out a way to amass more money in even more secrecy due to their intelligence. B. So what. The leaders in a Geniocracy would be incredibly selfish and thus would also prevert the truth and distort it. Infact since they are more intelligent than current leaders they would be BETTER at distorting the real truth for their means thus making it even more difficult for others to discern. ConclusionToo much of a good thing isn't a good thing. It's better to allow some idots and some half witted fools to be politicians.
American is a fascist nation

I'm fairly certain the United States of America is a fascist nation. This is only going by the definition of fascism, and its criteria. The US might not SEEM overtly fascist, but that doesn't mean sinister things aren't going on underneath. I've researched the definition of fascism on Encyclopedia Brittanica, and a study by Dr. Lawrence Britt. These both list some characteristics of fascist societies. These characteristics were found by studying fascist societies of the past and the present. A lot of these qualities are similar to aspects of American government and society. In particular, the right-wing parties of the United States A few are... -Opposition to communism -Hatred of men who are effeminate, homosexual, or "soft" -Obsession with youth, beauty, and fertility -Glorification of the military, nationalism, and patriotism -Large corporations and industries influencing public and private life -Imperialistic endeavors in other countries, meddling in international affairs -Idealizing "traditional values" -Using scapegoats, and viewing a certain people group as an enemy/threat to society And these are just a few of them. And they ALL apply to American society, or at least a few aspects of it.
American is a fascist nation

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited in the final round, it would appear that my points have gone uncontested in closing remarks. To wrap it all up, I feel as if, once again, I should state the definition of what fascism really is. Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot say it enough. The United States of America is not an autocratic nation headed by a dictatorship. Our government has put measures in place during its early years to ensure that this does not occur. Our economy and the way we speak are not limited by our government. We have not been given "false rights" as my opponent has boldly claimed. Finally, there is no forcible suppression of opposition in country. We are all entitled to our opinion, whatever it may be and our very economic structure encourages competition and opposition. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to account for all of the differences that America holds with fascism and it has been clearly stated by myself that America is, indeed, not a fascist nation. I urge you all to vote Con in this debate. Thank you.