BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is a Fact

This debate is concerning the validity of evolution. I will be on the 'pro' side, meaning I support evolution being a fact. My opponent, whoever he or she may be, will be on the 'con' side, meaning they do not support evolution being a fact. I will now present some rules.1. Proper spelling and grammar must be utilized at all times. A few minor mistakes in various places are acceptable.2. All sources, if any are used, must be cited. Any citation format is accepted.3. Round 1 is for acceptance only. Round 2 is for main arguments, not for rebuttals. Rounds 3 and 4 are for rebuttals. A conclusion will be made in round 4. 4. Failure to follow these rules will result in a loss of the debate. I will now give some definitions:Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth/something known to exist or to have happenedNow that I have given definitions and rules, I believe it is time for the debate to commense. I look forward to the outcome of the debate.Sources[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Which is a better method?Death sentence or life sentence? (pro-death;con-life)

Depending on the crime,and obviously the death penalty or life imprisonment implies that a criminal has committed a crime so perverse that s/he deserves to be punished in such a harsh manner by society. Keyword deserves. One of these crimes is murder, if we permit a murderer to enjoy the rest of his natural life in prison, we allow him or her to enjoy the liberties and freedoms that he denied not only his victim but the victim's loved ones. It is a severe injustice that promotes crime as the criminal knows the worst he can get is life. The death penalty discourages such a mentality and brings caution to all ambitious criminals. Convicted Norwegian far-right mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik Who was given the gift of life imprisonment after murdering in cold blood hundreds of people is causing more pain to those families by appealing against his light sentence,this unrepentant criminal is essentially rubbing it in that all those he murdered deserved it. should the many suffer for the one? The one that took away fathers,mothers,sons,daughters,friends and brothers and sisters?What happens when others follow his example knowing that they will be given life and become heroes? Life imprisonment is more barbaric and inhumane than the death penalty (and also more expensive ) it is a constant reminder to the criminal that society will lock him away for the rest of his life, isn't solitary confinement for life worse than death ? Such a man has nothing to loose and is forced to live life in great despair and often having no remorse for his past deeds. The death penalty is a superior disciplinary tool, an incentive against barbaric and inhumane crime, and a just settlement especially for those who rob the dreams of there victims,who most often than not are probably innocent.
Which is a better method?Death sentence or life sentence? (pro-death;con-life)

The life sentence gives the prisoner and opportunity to be proved non guilty. By being put on death sentence a, completely innocent person can be executed. Even though it may cost a little more money, it still allows a more of an accurate tell of what the truth really is. Plus, the ways people are killed when put on death sentence are very fatal. Even if they did a crime to where most think they deserved it, it still is a bit excessive because you never know who could be lying and human memories are just a down right unreliable source for information.
Which is a better method?Death sentence or life sentence? (pro-death;con-life)

At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent, according to the first major study (guardian.com) it is unacceptable that an innocent life is lost unjustly. However, out of every 100 people sentenced to death, 96 are Guilty BASED on this study. Should the margin of error of 4% keep the streets loitered with 96% hardcore murderers and unrepentant killers? Obviously the greater good takes precedent as such the notion that an innocent man may be killed hence let all guilty men stay free is dangerous and contributes to the already over crowded prison system. No one is saying that killing the innocent is right but protecting the majority innocent takes precedent over all other considerations. Also death sentences have a period of years between judgement and execution, with the improvements in technology and I must admit with some luck an innocent man will walk easily. And I can not say it is fair but many times the compensation on account of innocence exceeds what the person may have earned outside prison (this is an assumption,it is possible it could be more) Your argument simply focuses on the rear possibility of innocence, you are essentially saying save 4 and keep 96 alive and sometimes able to continue soiling society with crime. The issue here is not justice or fair trails, it is whether death is a suitable punishment even with the risk that some innocent people pay the price. The system is flawed but it works and any attempt to justify replacing it with a toothless one shall certainly backfire and make a mockery of punishment. It is simply not valid a reason to say that innocent people MAY get killed, a good solution would be to place personal responsibility on district attornneys if misconduct is discovered, harsh but worth saving an innocent life. My colleague's argument does not account for the fact that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the four.
Which is a better method?Death sentence or life sentence? (pro-death;con-life)

I do see where your coming from, but you seem to completely look over the fact that a lot of people who are but to death sentence end up being innocent but they cant do anything at that point. Its hard to know who is innocent or guilty these days because there is way too much bias towards one side. Also, a lot of people just believe the first thing they hear which in most cases is the wrong standpoint. If nobody will speak with regarding strictly evidence, we cant exactly trust who is guilty or not. Also, people aren't getting truly fair trials in order to give the defendant a honest chance to have people hear their side. I know a fair trial is mandatory but in most cases, the trial in which is said to be fair, really isn't, and most people don't realize that. Whether the bias is coming from the judge, the jury or the general public, its inescapable. There is always some sort of bias in every situation, even some of the simplest situations. Therefor, it causes a lot of incorrect rulings. I can't deal with a person dying for something that they didn't even do.
An open internet has led to a more unstable and less free society

My position is that the current unbridled freedom and anonymity is not the societal good that so many seem to praise and blindly support. If society is unable to self-regulate online behavior the implications are significant. We have seen that over the past 25+ years. Again terrorism and riots are routinely facilitated through social media (i.e., an open internet). Bad actors routinely use the freedom of the open internet to disrupt, attack, and promulgate their hate filled ideologies. Since the early 1990's society has coarsened and self-indulgence has been left unchecked. Social mores shifted quickly due to lack of platform restraints rather than an organic shift. The open internet brought this about and furthers the dissolution of shared values, religious or secular. While pornography and bullying existed long before an open internet changed our world, it has negatively influenced culture and altered brain chemistry. Citizens vastly overestimate the ability to use the internet safely and to establish safeguards from destructive pathways. As for smart phones - they are a byproduct of a free, wired, and unregulated world. Without the internet there is a limited market for such a device. Again, when the tech in our world crashes look at how the addicts in our office/school/home react. Crickets. They don't know how to think or exist. This reality is evidence of the destabilizing nature of an open internet. Sure, the internet is here to stay, but my contention remains that an open internet is not truly the public good that it's presented to be.
An open internet has led to a more unstable and less free society

I will begin by outlining my arguments than launching some attacks on your points. For starters, if an open internet leads to a more unstable and less free society, then logically speaking, a "closed" (less free, more restricted/regulated) internet will lead to a more free stable and free society. This is false, as a "closed" (LESS FREE) internet cannot lead to a more free internet. Not only that, but the flip side argument, when applied to another point of yours, helps my side as well. Anonymity and privacy on the internet may bring in more cyberbullying, but it also brings in a great sense of security and great confidence to people who don't want to reveal their identity on the internet while expressing their opinions. Walking into a restaurant and seeing a lot of people on their phones doesn't have as much to do with the internet as it has to do with the addictive nature of cell phones. Cell phones themselves, with their bright lights, multiple apps, and easy usage are quite alluring. It is not really an internet issue. The internet is basically a large database, with everything at our fingertips. The openness of the internet does not have much to do with our adaptability as much as the internet itself does, but the title of the debate is on the openness of the internet. Even if the internet was not as open, it would still be a large database of all human knowledge. Nothing would change even if the power was down. To conclude, the freedom of the internet leads to the freedom of the people. Nothing can change that. While there is problems in society as my opponent as mentioned, these stem from the internet in general and not the openness of it. This is what I would like the voters to consider when voting in this debate. I await your next argument.
An open internet has led to a more unstable and less free society

While many positive outcomes have come from the proliferation of the internet, many unforeseen consequences have resulted and carry profound societal impact. 1. A more globally connected world has resulted in a more disconnected local experience. Brain chemistry has changed as a result of being wired 24/7. Don't believe me, walk into any restaurant and look around. Forks and cell phones, eye contact? Not likely. 2. Online anonymity has facilitated unprecedented levels of harassment, bullying, hate speech, and division in our culture. Do you need evidence? I didn't think so. 3. Apps that promote privacy and anonymity have fostered social upheaval (i.e., terrorism, rioting). 4. The ability to access anything online has hindered social awareness, critical thinking, and our adaptability to unpredictable conditions. This creates an unhealthy dependence on the god of our time, wifi. Look no further than what schools, colleges, or businesses do when the internet or power fails. Suddenly the emperor has no clothes (or many coherent thoughts). In summary, an open internet has introduced uncertainty and altered the trajectory of our common culture. This public good has and will likely continue to be used to restrict freedom, subvert privacy, personal rights, and will continue to harm our citizenry.
When Running a Seeded Tournament, the Best Players Should be Playing the Worst Players

Your first point of contention seems to be that Best v. Worst rewards good playing during the season. But, there are several questions that need to be asked. The first is, what is the point of the end of the season tournament? As far as I am aware, it is to determine which of the teams is the best. Can this be best done by handicapping some teams, and rewarding others, or by giving all as level a playing field as possible? The second is clearly best fulfilling of the purpose, and the fairest. The only differing factor is skill level. In a Best-Best scenario, the teams must put out effort throughout both the season and the tournament. They would not be given easy rounds during the beginning of the tournament. The primary thing I do not understand is why teams need to be rewarded at the beginning of the tournament. The fact that they did well in the season does not mean they should be given easier games during the tournament. I fail to see how that creates a fair playing field for the tournament either. Your second point, that it reduces incentive to do well in the season has is both irrelevant and wrong. First, because you accepted my points about fairness, in order to determine who wins the round, we are looking to which method is the most fair. This has nothing to do with fairness. But second, the primary incentive for players to do well comes not from an easier position in the end tournament, but the fact that how much money they make is related to how well they do. I will ignore your Splitting in Half argument, because it has no relevance to either my points, or your burden of proof. Finally, lets look at your scenario. You provide several examples of what is statistically likely to occur under every situation, but the concept that I really do not understand is the idea that some teams, which did better in the season, "deserve" to advance farther in the tournament. Look back to the definition of fairness. If a playing field is as level as can be, than no team deserves anything. They win it. So you are going to vote Con because the Con has shown that a Best-Worst system of seeding is not the fairest system, and because, contrary to my opponents claims, a Best-Best system promotes skill development and competitiveness throughout both regular season and tournament, rather than just the season. Vote Con. Thank you.
When Running a Seeded Tournament, the Best Players Should be Playing the Worst Players

Now, to establish several things. First, my opponent, by making an affirmative statement, has the burden of proof for this round. Second, because my opponents argument seems to be based around the idea of fairness, in order to determine whether or not "When Running A Seeded Tournament, the Best Players should be playing the Worst Players", we should see which methods are the most fair. Fairness is defined by the Princeton Wordnet as "free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules;" or "fairly: without favoring one party, in a fair evenhanded manner" By this definition, we see that the method of best hitting worst is actually the least fair method of seeding because it gives the top seeds an unfair advantage. If the method of 1st hits 2nd, 15th hits 16th, and so on is used, it in fact creates the most fairness because it insures that no more unfairness is created that that which is naturally there I. E which team is better. In a Best-Worst scenario, the top seed has a very unfair advantage because it is hitting a team which it knows to be much worse than it. In a Best-Best scenario, the top seed has only a slightly unfair advantage, because statistically, they are only slightly better than the second best team. The Best-Worst method favors the top seed more than their natural skill would account for. Under a best-best scenario, the top seed still has the best chances to win, because they are still the best team, but they must do so by beating teams that are nearer to their skill level, a fairer situation. I look forward to my opponents response. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
When Running a Seeded Tournament, the Best Players Should be Playing the Worst Players

In most sports, a tournament is held at the end of the season where the top 16, 32, or 64 teams are arranged into a tournament. These players are already ranked by their season games. My arguments is that to have the fairest tournament, the Best Plays Worst method should be used. Here's a list of the different methods: 1. Pairing In this method, the #1 team plays the #2 team, the #3 team plays the #4 team, etc. In the second round, the winners of the top two games play each other. The pattern continues in a bracket. 2. Split in Half In this method, if you have 16 teams, the top team plays the #9 team, the #2 team plays the #10 team, etc. Basically, for every round, you split the number of teams down the middle, then pair everyone up. 3. Best Plays Worst In this method, if you have 16 teams, team #1 plays team #16, team #2 plays team #15, etc. In the second round, the winner of 1vs.16 plays the winner of 8vs.9, etc. Basically, the best team always plays the worst team, the 2nd-best team always plays the 2nd-worst team, and so on. The basis for my argument is that in a Best Plays Worst format, the best team is rewarded for being #1. For example, in each methods, their opponents would be: Pairing: 2,3,5,9 Split in Half: 9,5,3,2 Best Plays Worst: 16,8,4,2 Number 1 should have the highest chance of winning, as that is what a tournament is designed to do, and it avoids corruption. I thank whoever agrees to be CON.
Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common

With this being the final round, I shall address my opponent's second round argument. ===Defense of Case===My opponent briefly touched on my case in R2, so I shall address it here. My opponent argues that Nationalism isn't the same as a national identity, but that's not true. Nationalism, as defined by Merrian-Webbster dictionary, a desire by a large group of people (such as people who share the same culture, history, language, etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of their own [1]. This is actually almost identical to the definition of National Identity that I have provided in R1. This means that not only are all of my arguments still stand, but the fact that I meet my BOP put forth by my opponent.===Opponent's Case===R1: StatelessnessMy opponent brings up how some people are stateless, hence, without a nation and it being impossible for them to have a national identity. This may be a case, but this argument can be considered atopical. The reason being is that the resolution is " Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common humanity." The underlined portion here implies that the person actually has a national identity since it implicates that there is a choice in the resolution. Thus, the argument here provided by my opponent should be thrown out of the debate due to the fact that it is outside of the resolution. R2: Dual CitizenshipHere my opponent runs into another atopical problem. The resolution implies, once again, that there is only one citizenship as it states "Their national identity." As you can see, indentity is singular, not plural showing that this argument here is atopical and should be thrown out of the debate. My opponent states that the person would feel less conflicted in selecting their common humanity over both Italy and the US. This may be true, but it doesn't mean that they should prioritize their humanity versus their, then, identities. Who's to say that she doesn't renounce her citizenship with Italy or the US in favor of the other?R3: RefugeesNations may be temporary, but so are their politics. Sure there are nations that are failed states and oppressive. NAZI Germany may have been an offensive and a place where Jews weren't proud to say they were German nor the Japanese-Americans in the internment camps. Yet, the geopolitics change and Germany is more tollerant and Japanese are treated a great deal of better. This may be a short term thing, but we have to see that in the long term, people are still associated with their nation. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
Resolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common

For more info you can click on this link. (. http://www.debate.org...)ResolutionResolved: If Forced To Choose, people ought to priotorize their national identity over their common humanity. Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Follow the structure of the debate properly11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's terms and definition; Con acceptsR2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalDefinitionsOught- used to say or suggest what should be done [1]Prioritize- to organize (things) so that the most important thing is done or dealt with first [2]National identity- A sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language: [3]Over- Higher in rank than: [4]Common Humanity- Belonging to or involving the whole of a community or the public at large: [5]Sources1. (. http://tinyurl.com...)2. (. http://tinyurl.com...)3. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (. http://tinyurl.com...)
The Articles of Confederation were salvageable

My opponent does bring up the fundamental difficulty with amending the articles and that is that they needed a unanimous vote. All the states though agreed that the articles weren’t working as well as they had planned and they were looking at every option to fix it, so if someone had brought a repeal to the unanimous requirement it would very likely have passed unanimously. It still shouldn’t be too easy though, 2/3rds like we have it now might be good. With that out of the way it does open it up for the states to vote on the other problems. The idea though behind it being unanimous to begin with is because each state was meant to be sovereign. Since each state was sovereign on its own it wouldn’t have made sense to have states force something onto the other states if they didn’t agree. One of the issues was how to deal with raids such as Shay’s rebellion, however those like Jefferson and the anti-federalists weren’t too worried about that because they saw it as an inevitable result of maintaining freedom. There is no reason however why the states couldn’t get together to stop a rebellion in a way that a centralized government couldn’t. After all where did the centralized governments resources come from if not from the states? They should have kept the restrictions on a large Federal Government. The states should be able to leave on their own as under the articles they were under no obligation to stay united and even after the Constitution was ratified this was still commonly assumed. Had Thomas Jefferson been at the convention rather than in France, he may very well have pushed to save the articles because he opposed a centralized federal Government. [1] Switzerland is probably the closest thing left to a true Confederacy left in the world and we could look at them for an example. They have a very weak centralized government with no permanent ruler and each state has rights of its own. The Constitution created a larger federal government though nothing in comparison to what we have today. The 10th Amendment did help the states to maintain much of their powers but it was clear that there now was a centralized government rather than simply an agreement of free states. [2] I look forward to my opponent’s arguments next round. 1 http://www.monticello.org... 2 http://www.garynorth.com...