BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free will is an illusion, ALL events are predetermined.

Your argument make's little to no sense. If you argue that the object of punish people is to disuade other's from doing it, then you have, in fact, just contradicted yourself. It is clear in the first post, that you are advocating hard determinism, and claiming that universal causality govern every aspect of our live's. It even state's this in the title of this debate. The thing is, how can you disuade someone from doing that they were pre-determined to do anyway? Your idea of justice is that everyone must have a choice, or you wouldn't believe punishment work's in this way. Therefore you believe in free will. Since your post's have been dreadfully short, I will keep my last one short aswel. Thank's for the debate, and may the best man win, but I suggest that you spend a bit more time on this topic and learn how to structure your answer's better. I admit, I'm not great at that myself, but on this website you get point's for grammar, structure etc. Good luck in this, and future debate's. It's nice to see someone of 15 actually interested in these thing's.
Free will is an illusion, ALL events are predetermined.

The goal of punishment is to prevent the wrongdoer from making their particular mistake again, as well as to make an example that will dissuade others from doing wrong. Both of these goals are still obtainable under determinism. For example even if the wrongdoer?s future actions are completely determined by the current state of the world it is still reasonable to assume that their future actions would be different in a world that includes them being punished versus a world that did not include their punishment.
Free will is an illusion, ALL events are predetermined.

Some events have simple explanations, like a ball falls to the ground becauseof the pull of gravity. Others are more complicated and may seem random TO US! Say you have a feeding schedule for an animal. You feed him at a specific time every day, only the specific time varies from day to day. you never feed him at a specific time two days in a row, and this schedule repeats itself every 10 days. To the animal the time of day when it gets fed will seem completely random. But it isnt random. The animal just isnt intelligent enough to figure out the system used to feed it. Even the things that seem to have no explanation have explanations, they are just too complicated for us to grasp. Somewhere, there are hidden or unseen variables that make things appear random. Hence the illusion of free will. I have never heard a valid example of an effect without a cause. Only examples of effects who SEEM to have no cause.
Pick your own topic

1.1) Except that illegal aliens get very few benefits and still pay taxes; resulting in them paying more in taxes than they get in benefits. Also the 45% myth is just republicans again being dishonest; saying 45% of Americans don't pay income taxes would be like saying only smokers pay cigarette taxes; Federal income taxes only make up half of federal revenue. People who don't pay income taxes still pay payroll taxes etc etc. The FAIR study as I've pointed out was flawed and inaccurate; they double counted, left out many taxes that illegal's pay and had a bunch of other flaws. I also posted 2 other studies that showed that illegal's create more economic benefits then the benefits they get. The FAIR study did equate the number of people who got to the ER as the same number of people defrauding the government. The FAIR study only counted payroll and sales taxes paid by half of illegal's why they left out have of working illegal's they did not say 1.2)Very few counterfeit goods or unsafe goods come through the border; and counterfeit goods do not harm American's they just provide them with name brand goods that are made by different manufactures . 1.3) There have been drug tunnels that end miles away from the border, meaning a fence won't deter drug tunnels because the tunnels don't end were the fence is. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Drone do not arrest criminals crossing the border but they can alert police to go arrest those; with a fence you still need police patrolling the fence to catch people climbing it. Drones cost 17 million apiece and a few dozen drones would be enough to monitor the border; I cannot say how effective they are but I believe they will be more effective due to being more mobile. My opponent links to a source of a rancher who has apprehended 12,000 illegal's crossing his land and say that this is evidence of massive crime due to illegal's; his example is like comparing apples and organs. You use immigration offense and say that illegal's crossing the border is comparable to murder and theft.
Smoking Ban

Please do not accept if you are the under the ELO of 3000. This debate is about the smoking ban in the world. 10k, 3 days, and select winner.Full ResolutionResolved: Smoking/ Tobacco should be banned in the whole world.Rules1. No trolling2. No forfeiting3. No accepting under 3000 ELO unless you are over 100 wins.4. If not follow rules, get an automatic loss.5. Over 2500 to vote. Structure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Rebuttals/ Arguments4. Rebuttals, Defending Case5. ConclusionDefinitionsAll of these definitions are from the Merriam-Webster.Smoking: the cloud of black, gray, or white gases and dust that is produced by burning something. (this is tobacco in this debate.)Ban: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done This is the end of the acceptance. Please accept if you are over 3000 ELO or over 100 wins.Thank you. I hope I have a good opponent.
Smoking Ban

FrameworkOkay, first of all, there was nothing about liberty. The only arguments were formation of cartels, criminal networks, economy, and corruption.Why Con is wrong, I am rightThere was nothing about liberty in this debate. When I checked through, it was not there. Clearly, it is not there, meaning that there is no reason I can rebut it. I did not drop corruption. Con still does not make a rebuttal to my third argument, which was the high cost, however, he is too late. Thus, you should vote Pro.There are other reasons why you have to vote for me. When Cons says smoking is not beneficial for your health is not upon the debate topic, it is because, the health problems are very serious, we need to ban smoking to reduce the deaths of cancer. This will do extreme benefit to the world.Con clearly drops my whole case of spending money. Also his case for my bad for health is weak also. He just asks a question, however gets easily rebutted, and not saying other stuff about that. He drops the case of spending money, and also smoking is bad for your health. Also, in round 3, Con drops my argument about pollution which was that smoking makes the air bad, making the environment worse. To stop this we need to ban smoking.Because there was no liberty in his arguments, there is no reason I can rebut that, however Con drops spending money and also pollution, giving me the win, however not my opponent.ConclusionBecause Con has dropped my 2 arguments, when I only dropped one, I win this debate because I filled the BOP. Thank you.
Smoking Ban

== Overview == Pro drops my whole case. Extend it. Don't allow Pro to address the arguments he dropped -- that is, corruption, criminal networks, and liberty (my strongest impact) -- as it would be a new argument. Debating convention dictates that there cannot be any new arguments in the final round, and judges shouldn't consider such arguments. Thus, any dropped arguments are dropped arguments. First, health. All Pro says is that smoking harms humans, and that it's the government's job to protect its citizens. But this is an is/ought fallacy. Smoking *is* legal, and the government knows it harms its citizens. A government doesn't need to protect citizens from themselves. Pro doesn't give us a compelling reason for the government to infringe upon a person's liberty to harm oneself. Extend the moral argument; if the government is to exist, smoking shouldn't be banned. This has impact here since the government shouldn't infringe on self-ownership. Instead, implement a sin tax, and significantly discourage smoking. Second, child labor. Then enforce the law. Send investigative forces and remove child labor from the tobacco industry entirely. The reason child labor is often present in tobacco farms is the lack of enforcement. [1] Third, preventable deaths. I did not drop this; I addressed this under "health." I quote myself from Rd. 2, "The only impact from this is raised as a separate point -- people die because of smoking. Weigh this against the people who would die from a smoking ban, due to tobacco cartels, et cetera. And even if people die because of smoking, the government isn't obligated to protect people who *consent* to die, or wish to die, since they own their own bodies, and ought to have complete bodily autonomy." Thus, this wasn't ever dropped. Further, "it is dropped . . . [hence] vote . . . Pro" is false, because a single dropped argument doesn't mean you vote Pro. Even though I didn't drop the argument, even if I *did,* it doesn't link at all to the resolution. "Smoking is unhealthy" does not entail "smoking should be banned." My *entire case* is dropped. Vote Con right there. Also vote Con because Pro's case is refuted, and because liberty outweighs all of Pro's arguments. 1. https://www.hrw.org...
Smoking Ban

Thank Tejretics for rebuttals. I accept his rebuttals, however I don't accept the structure. He said I dropped his rebuttals, however that was because that was 3rd round was not for that.Defending CaseOkay, this will be short because I have to go somewhere for my holiday. I will make the 5th round in depth instead. Sorry. Only have 20 minutes.1. Con says that smoking is not good for your health does not come in the resolution. However, it does. This is because smoking is bad, it can harm us humans, so we need to ban smoking to get fresh air, and get better health. This is not just because of the smokers, it is because of the environment. If this is bad for their health, the government must ban smoking. The government must protect these citizens because one of the government's jobs is to help the citizens. Some of these citizens are in danger. They need help of health from banning smoking.2. Okay, in most places it is banned, it is true. However some places they do this illegally. For an example India. They have children doing all the work at tobacco farms. There is no consequence. The tobacco workers do things illegally because they do not want to work in those places. This means that to decrease illegal things, smoking needs to be banned.3. Con does not rebut about the preventable deaths, which was my third argument, meaning one argument dropped.3. Preventable Deaths.Of every five deaths in the US, 1 is from smoking. This is because of the health issues of smoking. Without smoking, there will be less deaths. There will be more people alive. Smoking causes cancer. Many people die because of smoking. The two main issues are heart attacks and lung cancer. Smoking does this. This is why even though the citizens can't control this, the government should ban smoking to kill less people. California had said there was 36687 deaths because of smoking. There could be a lot of less deaths if we had banned smoking.ConclusionBecause Con did not rebut the third argument, it is dropped meaning to vote for Pro. Con does not rebut my third argument, and also Pro tells the reason why smoking is unhealthy relates to the resolution, saying that we need to ban smoking because it is unhealthy for all the citizens. We think that the Status Quo of smoking is wrong, and we need to stop it.Vote for Pro. Thank you. Sorry for not making it in depth. There is no time.
Bestiality should be illegal

"I feel very sorry (and stupid) for screwing this up." It's all good, I have a feeling this site's structure serves only to validate a sense of propriety that is in fact totally hollow in any case. "All sexual-relations/mariage should be legal between consenting adults. However, animals cannot consent, are not easily definable 'adults', and any pregnancy would be catastrophic." You realize that this implies that humanity is the only species that should exist? Since it would mean that humanity is the only species that should be allowed to reproduce. Could you please support this standard? Why should all legal sexual relations be between consenting adults? (where adult paradoxically means adult human and consent means consent with information only available to adult humans) "Even if animals can "consent", they can only consent like an 8-year-old can; they have no human sentience." And? "When do animals reach the age of reason?" They don't reach an age of reason, and neither do humans. The faculty is learned by humans (and possibly animals) and can be displayed by the very young. "At one point does a foal become a mare?" Ask a stallion... or a horse breeder. "Forcing an animal, who is incapable of comprehending the consequences of its actions, to go through organ damage, or even pregnancy, is animal abuse." 1. Force is not necessary. 2. Animals are incapable of comprehending all that humans can in any case. 3. Organ damage is unnecessary. 4. Pregnancy is extremely unlikely even with our closest cousins. 5. Why should animal abuse be illegal?
Bestiality should be illegal

I feel very sorry (and stupid) for screwing this up.____________________________________________All sexual-relations/mariage should be legal between consenting adults. However, animals cannot consent, are not easily definable "adults", and any pregnancy would be catastrophic.The above is the crux of my argument.ConsentEven if animals can "consent", they can only consent like an 8-year-old can; they have no human sentience.AdulthoodWhen do animals reach the age of reason? At one point does a foal become a mare?PregnancyNow, every human does not have to be responsible with their own pregnancy. An animal, however, cannot comprehend that they may damage their "systems" or even (in certain animals) have a genetically disabled... thing.Forcing an animal, who is incapable of comprehending the consequences of its actions, to go through organ damage, or even pregnancy, is animal abuse.
Bestiality should be illegal

Many people have complained about the restrictive nature of my previous arguments for the proper legality of bestiality. Said restrictions were necessary to make a positive case since in reality the default is that something should be legal and acceptable until proven otherwise.This debate is a chance for those who think they can make the case from scratch. No moral or legal standard is given, pro will have to present their own and support it.BoP is on Pro to show that bestiality should be illegal, this will certainly include giving the general reasons anything should be illegal, and supporting that rule/principle against all challenges I make. No need for other debates, no room to complain about unfair preconditions.First round is for Pros first argument, Pro types only "end" in his/her last round.I lied, I will include one set of restrictions, the definitions section: (D) Definitions (D.1) Bestiality – the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. (D.2) Zoophilia – the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans. (D.3) Rape – the forcing of sexual intercourse onto an organism capable of intelligent self-determination without their consent. NOTE consent as defined below. (D.4) Pain – the discomfort of an organism, established by some objective observation of behavior or biology. (D.5) Biological Damage – the objectively observable harm that that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of some organ or tissue in an organism. (D.6) Consent– and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... .
Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices

Ok: He responds to my A Priori with a bunch of stats and how the US ranked last. Ok, observation: this has nothing to do with anything, and the list he provides is misleading. Infant morality, etc. doesn't have to do with the quality of HealthCare. There are many factors that play in, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse. This effects all the given factors. My A Prior still stands because we are the leader in HealthCare. E.g. the Canadian Prseident came to the US for a triple bypass because its not provided there; its too expensive for their Universal Health Care System. He then brings up that he never proposed a implemented pay for doctors. Ok...then what is he trying to advocate? How can you stop doctor's from competing for price, if you don't make them all pay the same price. He does say however they should be priced on the quality of service. Ok, then this contradicts a statement in his opening argument; that only the rich get the good doctors, therefore we should make them not compete. If we price based on quality then the bad doctors would be less expensive while the good doctors are expensive. As i brought up before, the rich will always get the better doctors, no matter what, its a non-unique argument. My opponent has a lengthy argument, so ill attack it very quickly. Here is the breakdown: I say the quality of medicine comes foremost. If the medicine is bad, then the quality of service means nothing. There is no way to affirm resolution because my opponent's plan will decrease quality of medicine, and then lead to all the negatives I posted in my first argument. My Case: Extend my Value, Value Criterion, and all points, since he failed to attack them. This is an easy negation, ty.
Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices

Resolved: Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices. First off I will use an a priori (in an odd way) to first undermine a portion of your opening argument. A Priori: The US is the leading country in both the medicine itself AND the services of the doctor. So therefore since this is a proven truth your assertion about cheaper price is false. Rebuttal: My opponent fails to realize the implication of the resolve. By affirming the resolve, then America's great medical sector could fail. I doubt anyone would want that. Essentially by making one set price between all doctors, then there would be no incentive for better price, quality of service, etc. The biggest loser is the patient. He then says that all the good doctors would go to the wealthy. This would be worse by affirming the resolution because then illegal "medical" practices would be taking place and/or it would also mean that the wealthy would leave the country for foreign doctors, which would be cheaper. Link this to my A Priori in that my opponents supposed plan would only increase medical out-sourcing, therefore hurting our own economy in the process. The Wealthy will always win out since they got money. It's a no-unique argument on my opponents part. With or without this proposed plan, the wealthy would always get the doctors. *Also, I believe the debate community should also look at the products and not just the survive. My opponent makes it a service only resolve, however to look at the bigger picture and the bigger implication, the debate community should also look at products. Also, both service and products go hand-in-hand. Moving onto my contentions: Value: Justice Value Criterion: The Preservation of a Free Market System 1) Even in the medical sector competition spurs on cheaper price and better service. Ultimately the more competition there is the better for the patient it is (for the most part.) Once you take away the incentive to draw in patients then quality would go down because no one would go to that doctor. It is a balancing effect: If both the product/medicine and the services are not good then the patient would look for another doctor, meaning the doctor loses business. Competition is necessary so the patient wins out, which everyone wants. 2) This proposed resolve undermines a Free Market Society. The whole idea of how the US system works is competition between companies. That includes doctor's as well. To determine the affirmation or negation of the resolve, we must look at what the background of our system is and how it works. We are a free market system. Free Market systems help the buyer and the owner. Thats why are economy is so good. (Don't hold me to that in today's situation, that has to do with the housing situation.)We still beat China, Japan, and India in quality of service and products. However, this resolve undermines this, as I stated in my rebuttal.
Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices

In the American system, almost all forms of business compete with rivals, the medical sector is the exception. While competition generally leads to lower costs, it does not always lead to better services. Cheaper products, more often than not, indicate an inferior product. The product we are referring to in this particular debate is the labor and services of a doctor. I am taking the position that allowing doctors compete for the bid of insurance companies would hurt our medical system and reserve the best doctors for the wealthy, leaving the rest of the country with inferior forms of medicine.
Language barriers have a net positive effect on the video game industry

Language barriers are somewhat problematic. Having to hire translators and jigger with some of the code just provides some extra jobs. It's a bit of a hassle but it's like saying that gravity makes football a less entertaining sport. While it may be true, you can't really do anything about it. So for the most point your argument is moot. As for the claim itself, the language barriers are priceless. The above video overcomes everything in all the annoying problems encountered with producing games for different languages and places language barriers on the net positive side of the spectrum. http://www.youtube.com...