BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One's mind and one's brain are not identical

In this round, I will show why all of his arguments fail. Symmetrical Spheres My opponent has made a magnificently huge error here. He has confused two completely different principles: (i) The Indiscernibility of Identicals (ii) The Identity of Indiscernibles If you look at the link I posted in the first round (the one he also referenced in attempt to undermine my argument), you will notice that the argument from symmetrical spheres only tries undermines the The Identity of Indiscernibles, not The Indiscernibility of Identicals. Since my argument only assumes that The Indiscernibility of Identicals (not The Identity of Indiscernibles); my opponent's objection is easily dodged. Secret Identity The secret identity argument doesn't seem to work because Clark Kent and Superman are not exactly the same. This makes the "secret identity" argument a non-starter. Clark Kent for example doesn't wear a suit and cape, but Superman does. These are two facts which make them different. Clark Kent also has different types of thoughts than Superman. Because the argument from secret identity presupposes they are exactly identical to derive the contradiction; it fails. Either way, if the argument only works for relational properties. My argument presumes modal properties, which are monadic properties. This completely dodges the argument according to my opponent's own wikipedia source: "A response may be that the argument in the Meditations on First Philosophy isn't that Descartes cannot doubt the existence of his mind, but rather that it is beyond doubt, such that no being with understanding could doubt it. This much stronger claim doesn't resort to relational properties, but rather presents monadic properties, as the foundation for the use of Leibniz's law. One could expound an infinite list of relational properties that may appear to undermine Leibniz's law (i. e. , Lois Lane loves Clark Kent, but not Superman. etc. ) but nonetheless any approach focused on monadic properties will always produce accurate results in support of Descartes' claim. "[1] Conclusion The argument from symmetrical spheres at best undermines The Identity of Indiscernibles, not the The Indiscernibility of Identicals. Since my argument only assumes the latter, we can call this a sniper's miss on my opponent's behalf. The second argument is based on an unjustified first premise; Clark Kent and Superman are identical. Not only that, at best the argument works with regards to relational properties. The properties I assume are modal properties. Therefore, the second argument fails just as bad as the first. Since all of Con's objections fail; the resolution has been affirmed. Source [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Obamacare, rather than being Socialist, is a huge Private-Sector giveaway

I believe that I have already refuted most of the points that my opponent brought up in his opening statement. I will recap that the statement that "Obamacare's most drastic provision is one that relies on the idea of every citizen being required to have insurance" is an opinion not a fact. People may have different opinions on what is the most drastic provision of Obamacare. While is is true that Obamacare does not offer a socialized plan, it does create health insurance exchange pools that are overseen by the government. While it may be true that the result of the law will eventually be an influx of cash into the insurance industry, it is possible that in the long run, the cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions and paying government fees will outweigh the benefit of having more customers, and even if it does not, I still argue that a program that takes away so much autonomy from private business is socialist leaning, and certainly not a private sector giveaway. I hope my opponent will respond.
Obamacare, rather than being Socialist, is a huge Private-Sector giveaway

First, I would like to clarify my position. I agree with my opponent that Obamacare is unnecessarily vilified. I do not consider Obamacare to be inherently socialist, but I do believe that it is a step towards socialism. More importantly, I disagree with my opponent's assertion that it is a private sector giveaway. Thank you. On to the debate. Socialism has been defined for this debate as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, or capital, land, etc. , in the community as a whole. " The fundamental purpose of insurance companies is the distribution of capital, and therefore, they can reasonably be considered "the means of distribution of capital". Obamacare contains provisions that create new fees for drug manufacturers and health insurance companies. It also gives tax incentives to small businesses that buy their employees health insurance. It prohibits health insurance companies from declining coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and also requires them to allow anyone under 26 years old to stay on their parent's health care plans. . http://news.stanford.edu... These provisions give the government some control over health insurance companies. The government was unhappy about health insurance companies refusing care to people with pre-existing conditions and not allowing 25 year olds to stay on their parents" health care plan, so it passed a law requiring insurance companies to change those practices. That is control. Thus, the government has exerted more control over health insurance companies through Obamacare, and therefore, Obamacare is a step towards socialism. It is not completely socialist, because it does not make health insurance providers OWNED by the government, but it is a step toward socialism nonetheless. Also, the tax credits that are given to businesses that provide their employees health insurance are not insignificant to a small business (interestingly enough, the only kind of business eligible for such credits). This will undoubtedly affect the business policy of many small businesses, an example of government control of the production of capital, which is socialist by the definition established for this debate. Lastly, because Obamacare creates new fees for the private sector (mentioned above) and exerts considerable government control over the private sector, I do not believe that it should be classified as a huge private-sector giveaway. Thank you.
Obamacare, rather than being Socialist, is a huge Private-Sector giveaway

Frustrated with the frequency I hear the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act framed as a slide towards socialism, I mean to argue in this debate that this could not be further from the truth. Structure: 1st Round: Opening Arguments 2nd Round: Rebuttals 3rd Round: Conclusion Definitions: Socialism: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Pro's Opening Argument: Obamacare's most drastic provision is one that relies on the idea of every citizen being required to have insurance, whether this insurance is provided through services such as Medicare or Medicaid or is acquired on the private market. Rather than offering a socialized plan, or making existing socialized plans more accessible, all the new law does is (vaguely) penalize people for not having insurance and offer a subsidy for people who are both too rich to be on state assistance yet too poor to easily afford care on the private market. The end result of this is a greater influx of cash into the insurance industry who would not otherwise have these customers. By shifting the burden of care to the private sector in greater amounts, the end result is a gigantic boon to those providing finance for care. Any law in which the net result is more money being shoved into the hands of large private businesses can hardly be classified as "socialist."
In today's world, Kindness is good.

It seems the contender has run away. Come on I want to debate more. Kindness is a way of life. All the "Rishis" of Indian ethnicity said that kindness is the ultimate way to humanity. Chanakya quoted: शान्तितुल्यं तपो नास्ति न सन्तोषात्परं सुखम् । न तृष्णायाः परो व्यधिर्न च धर्मो दयापरः ॥ This means that there is no penance better than peace, no happiness better than satisfaction, there is no disease worse than greed, and no better dharma than kindness. Such were the knowledge-tankers of India who like me supported kindness be it any era.
In today's world, Kindness is good.

I had already told you what you have to do in the previous argument. Never mind if you did not observe. This explores your stupidity and vulgarity. I don't mind if you don't believe in god. Its your problem. Please don't keep writing off any ignorant things which comes to your mind. Kindness is something which cannot be ignored. You cannot answer the question up to the mark. Only writing anything useless will not help you win this debate. You took the question in wrong light. Just for votes don't keep writing anything which you don't know about. Learn to admit your mistakes. Still learning from a 9th class student! :P We are debating to get a result for the topic and not for revealing your vulgarity. Move the debate into a sensible direction or else get ready to lose as you will be penalized by intelligent voters. Voters are smart nowadays. Take into consideration whatever you write before posting.
In today's world, Kindness is good.

It is good to believe in god but what if i don't believe in god. Their are many who don't believe in god and i think i was born because of my parents not because of god. But I dont know how you born. And if you believe their is god than why are we worrying by the corruption, terrorism, unemployment. GOD will handle it. And bro one more thing, god lives in heaven because they also hate earth :P you are talking only on the INDIA level, think it on a broad worldwide level, you will understand. Grow up man..... bhagwan bache nh paida krte, hm insaan hi krege :D
In today's world, Kindness is good.

I request you not to take the debate in a wrong direction. Please consider the topic once more. To support my statement that kindness is good even in today's world, I would like to take up case of a policeman and a thief. As you stand against the topic, it is understood that you would say that no kindness should be shown in this case. But what if the policeman by showing kindness may soften the criminal's heart and turn him into a good man. This is what CBSE wants to instill in students as far as I guess, by including " The Bishop's Candlesticks" like chapters in the curriculum. Now I would ask you a question which I want to be answered in your next argument. A serious question indeed. Think twice before you answer. Since, you are against the topic, you say that kindness is not good. Then, is it incorrect that God showed kindness on you and sent you to this world? As you say kindness is not good, then it must be incorrect that God showed kindness on you and sent you to this world. LOL. I want a satisfactory reply.
In today's world, Kindness is good.

The topic states that kindness holds good even in today's world. The time period we live in is known as "Kaliyug" and this has been stated beforehand that the people of this period would ought to be more selfish, self-centered than people of earlier times. However, kindness is a virtue which is required to be omnipresent in all eras. Mark Twain quoted,"Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see." We MUST NOT forget that we as humans should retain this virtue through all ages. If all people turned vice, then our coming generations would have nothing to be virtuous for. Today, students study kindness in their Moral Science book. Maybe our coming generation would study it in their History books. Kindness has been a virtue which has not altered. Kindness is a virtue which has been the same through all eras, only the way of showing it has changed. Hence, we as human beings should not forget that we reached here because we were kind. We should not forget our humanity. Our values, be it any day, any month, any year, any decade, any century or even any era till humans exist!
In today's world, Kindness is good.

Hello pushpesh, we are developing and upgrading ourself not for only competition but as well as because we cannot survive in the life race, if we don't change according to the time. We are not loosing any moral values but the method of presentation of the values has changed now. We are adopting the westernisation that doesnot mean that we are loosing our moral values. When the evolution of the life happens everyone was naked, then slowly time changes and people started wearing leaves and then some more time changes and people started to wear clothes, and if you talk about we are loosing the moral values then just tell me our correct moral values as our ancestors we in full dresses and our grand ancestors were naked. I never get who is true and which moral values should i follow.
Jan/Feb LD topic

NEG/AFF V: My opponent gives the value of morality but yet fails to define it. All he says is that Morality is "as the practice of moral duties" this still leaves us with the question, what is moral? Morality gives us no real weighing mechanism. We must instead work towards peace, as it is the pinnacle of human values. VC: National Sovereignty is an inadequate criterion for evaluating morality. If we say that upholding national sovereignty equals morality, then the actions of the Nazi's within their borders would be Moral. Genocide would be moral. so there is no link. Sovereignty is inadequate as a criterion in general as it should not guide our actions, but rather a respect for humanity should guide our actions. The people don't exist for the government, the government exists for the people. Contention 1: While I do agree that national identity is important, there is no evidence that submitting to an International Court would destroy our national Identity. The American Identity is as diverse as that of any country, it is founded upon the principles of internationalism, no court would violate our identity. Take the U.N for example, right now we have a national identity, but yet we are part of the U.N. no court would violate anything more than the U.N does. The U.N does not violate anything. All of these impacts my opponent gives will not happen. the conditions exist in the Status Quo yet we see no impacts. Contention 2: My opponent makes a mistake in saying that the ICC is unchecked. If you read the Rome statute of the ICC you will find that the ICC is checked heavily by the U.N security council. The United States, being a Member of the security council, then has a sufficient check on the court. Furthermore the court officials are elected by the member states so the U.S would have further power over who the prosecutor is who the judges are etc.... Infact it creates a Harmony of checks in which the court checks the state and the state checks the court, much like the U.S system. Abuse is not called making an accusation. If I sue you for bumping into my car am I abusing you? Or if a suspected criminal is tried and found innocent, is that abusing him? In other words what my opponent calls abuse is infact the function of a court. If they make accusations most likely they will be turned down. In the chance that a U.S official is actually convicted then we will have to see that, like if a Criminal is convicted, justice was found. Not Abuse. Contention 3: Lets look a little for closely at this claim of no deterrence value my opponent makes. he says deterrence is "highly unlikely" however in my case I gave a solid example of the deterrence effect of such a court. So infact the "ICC Proponents" DO have evidence "supporting their deterrence theories." AFF My opponent made no attacks on my case at all so it stands in its entirety.
Should the Pledge of Allegiance be said in school

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part. in this debate. As far as I am concerned, there is no "American religion". If you are referring to Christianity, that is certainly not an American religion. It was started in the middle east and then migrated to Europe. Christian Europeans then settled in the American continent. The "under god" part does apply to all religions. A religious man is always theist, while a theist man is not always religious. The definition of religion: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." You said it does not apply to all cultures, but as far as I am concerned culture and religion are usually separate. While some cultures have religions, a person from a predominantly Christian culture could be Muslim or Hindu. The pledge of allegiance is important for a child in America to memorize. While it isn't apart of other cultures, it is apart of OUR culture. The American culture. If you don't agree with "under god" then don't say it.
It's time to outlaw push-up bras

As it happens, I've been to the US quite a few times and am a huge admirer of American TV, especially documentaries like the one my opponent linked to in his rebuttal which is called "Manswers". Watching this I realised how far ahead of the rest of the world America is in terms of mammary research. If you didn't see the programme, it showed how scientists subjected female volunteers' breasts to rigorous testing in order to evaluate their performance under everyday pub conditions. The scientists were so thorough with in their investigations that they even tested the ladies' ability to run while carrying drinks in their cleavages. I suppose they must have considered the possibility that a woman with no hands and a very thirsty boyfriend might be required to spend her evenings running to and from the bar with drinks for him? Very foresighted of them, I would say. This series of tests eventually enabled the scientists to establish which girls' baps made the grade and girls' didn't, which is all very well and good, but it doesn't help us. Even if you made taking these tests compulsory for all girls over the age of 18, it wouldn't stop those who failed from going into the pubs wearing push-up bras in order to deceive gullible men into believing they had nice pert breasts and thus obtain free drinks under false pretences. No, the only answer is to ban push-up bras altogether, even though that might mean my opponent's opportunities to leer at women's cleavages are reduced. Thank you.
It's time to outlaw push-up bras

To start off, I want to state my pity for my opponent as his sad incident as he wasn't privileged to live in the US, where they play spike TV. Pushup bras clearly make boobs look better, which I say is much better than looking at saggy boobs all day. Pushup bras turn all boobs into good ones. Personally I like staring at all sorts of boobs boosted by pushup bras and fantasizing all day. My opponent seeks to limit he amount of people I can fantasize about. There is a way to tell if a woman has saggy boobs, and it isn't to eliminate pushup bras so we can look at saggy boobs all days. The answer lies with MANswers, answers for men. . http://www.spike.com... I suggest my opponent seek ahead to 16:25 and learn a valuable lesson which will make his nights perfect, 100% of the time.
It's time to outlaw push-up bras

Here's a story. It may seem irrelevant to begin with but please bear with me. Last weekend I decided to hold a pre-Christmas cocktail party for a few friends so I went to a discount liquor store to stock up on cheap booze. I bought a two-litre bottle of pre-mixed piï¿½a colada, a two-litre bottle of pre-mixed bloody Mary and a crate of asti spumante sparkling wine – all for less than ï¿½10. "What a bargain!" I thought. The party, however, was not an unmitigated success - nobody touched their drinks. Wondering why this was, I went back into the kitchen to check the labels on the bottles. On closer examination of the label of the first bottle I discovered that it actually read: "Mary's Bloody Cocktail - the finest methylated spirit enhanced with extracts from used sanitary towels". "Aha!" I thought and checked the next bottle and it had "Penile Colada" written on it with "a subtle blend of paint thinner and semen" printed underneath. Finally, reading the label on the crate of what I thought was Italian sparkling wine, I was shocked to learn that I had actually been serving my guests "Asti Spewmante. A combination of vomit and saliva, fortified with turpentine spirit". So, in view of these revelations, the whole party then adjourned to the pub. This is where the relevance of the story becomes apparent because that's where I met a group of girls and the one that I focussed on was the one that was wearing a tight, low-cut top that hinted at a modestly proportioned, yet seemingly perfectly-formed pair of breasts underneath. "Phoaar! Don't mind if I do!" I thought to myself and I duly deployed my best chat-up lines in order to entice her back to my place. So, to cut to the inevitable bedroom scene, she proceeded to undress and when she undid the clasp of her push-up bra I thought to myself "Smashing! I've been looking forward to this for hours." However, you can imagine my disappointment as, instead of the pert and shapely knockers I had been expecting, as her push-up bra fell to the ground her breasts just went ‘flop'! "What a swizz!" I thought to myself, and although I managed to disguise my disappointment, frankly speaking, deep down I felt short-changed. Now I blame myself for the sub-standard booze that I wasted my money on earlier that day – that was my fault for not examining the packaging closely enough. But I can't blame myself for being misguided about the nature of the girl's jubblies – after all, I was seriously misled by her push-up bra and to have made a close examination of her breasts in the pub would have been discourteous to say the least and very possibly illegal as well. In the final analysis, by wearing a push-up bra that girl was culpable of false advertising – if I had known what sort of fun-bags she really had, I would gone for one of her more generously-breasted pals instead. So, in an effort to prevent similar mistakes being made in the future, I affirm that push-up bras should be outlawed forthwith. Thank you.
It's time to outlaw push-up bras

"This series of tests eventually enabled the scientists to establish which girls' baps made the grade and girls' didn't, which is all very well and good, but it doesn't help us. Even if you made taking these tests compulsory for all girls over the age of 18, it wouldn't stop those who failed from going into the pubs wearing push-up bras in order to deceive gullible men into believing they had nice pert breasts and thus obtain free drinks under false pretences. " It completely helps all guys at the bar. As when you make the girl come to you, it should be very easy to see whether the girls bewbs make the grade. As stated in the documentary, if a girls baps bounce above a 45 degree angle then you are guaranteed perky boobs that don't hang low. (seek to 16:30) So lure them over as if you are giving them a free drink, if they don't bounce act like you were talking to the girl behind them. Men and some women of the audience, my opponent is seeking to destroy your pleasure. Thousands of perky D cups will be transformed overnight into sagging monstrosities by my opponents resolution. There are clear ways to recognize the difference as proven by my evidence. Boobs will be sagging. Fantasies all over the world will be destroyed. My opponent seeks to reveal the ugly truth. But do we want this if we can detect the pleasant lies? Imagine that no white lies were told. No makeup was worn. Fantasies were destroyed. Hope was gone. This is the bleak world in which my opponent is attempting to bring about. Vote for love, vote for fantasy, vote for justice, vote for perky boobs. Most of all vote for perky boobs.