BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals should be freed from zoos

Con has forfeited so I will allow him to extend his argument in this round. CONCLUSION It is our moral imperative as guardians of this planet to protect everything on it. This may be misinterpreted and people may think that I am saying that people are superior but at the moment we are the only animals that are making an effort to try and protect other animals on a large scale. If we stop now then who will be their to help them and car for them when they are alone and in need. If you propose that we release all animals from zoos can you honestly say that it would be better for the animals (and targeting individual zoos doesn't cover all animals in all zoos). VOTE CON!!!!!
Gays are mentally sick people

ArgumentsI. Being gay is not a mental illnessFirst and foremost, it needs to be understood by both Pro and the audience that being Gay is not a mental illness. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States. [1] Its latest edition is the DSM-5, which serves as the authoritative guide to diagnosing mental disorders. Within this manual you find any and every known mental disorder recognized by health professionals in the United States and globally. However, homosexuality is not among them. [3]What is interesting to note is that this wasn't always the case. In fact, in 1952, the APA listed homosexuality in the DSM as a sociopathic personality disturbance. [2] This wasn't very long-lasting though. Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. [2] The draft of the DSM-V does not contain any mention of any disorder associated with same-sex desires. The Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders category has been converted to Gender Dysphoria, and refers only to individuals in distress over a perceived mismatch between their sex and their expressed gender. [3]As anyone can clearly see, the most respected and utilized mental disorder manual known to us shows that gays are not mentally sick people. In closing, The resolution now stands negated. I would also like to point out that Pro has the Burden of Proof to affirm the resolution, and so far has done nothing to uphold that burden. I now return the floor to Pro. Thank you. Sources[1] . http://www.psychiatry.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.academia.edu...
Gays are mentally sick people

In this debate, Pro has the burden of proof in showing that "Gays are mentally sick people". So far, Pro has forfeited a round and has now only provided two words "blah blah". At this point, it's clear that Pro has done nothing to uphold his burden. I'll extend the opportunity, once more, for Pro to begin with his real arguments. Regardless, I will be introducing my own arguments in the next round so that Pro will at-least have one chance at providing rebuttals. I thank the audience for their patience, and look forward to any and all arguments Pro might present.
Cannabis Legalization

Should a plant that has been placed on this earth be illegal? This is the Ethics question that many face with the issue of cannabis legalization. I will represent the pro side of this argument and review it through three main points. My first point is concerning economics. With a cannabis tax, this would provide funds to either the federal or state government. My second point concerns health. Evidence provided by ukcia.org, Cannabis provides less harmful effects to people over the age of 21 than smoking, and it is also even more healthy then cigarettes for pregnant women. My third and final point is that cannabis is not addictive. Of the few chemicals in cannabis, none are addictive, what would make cannabis addictive is a mixture of illicit substances, such as cocaine. I have used the following definitions: Cannabis: A plant that belongs to the scientific class Cannabis, including Marijuana. Addictive: causing or characterized by addiction; "addictive drugs"; "addictive behavior" (princeton.edu) In my case I have reviewed the true reasoning as to why legalization is in the United States' best interest.
Cannabis Legalization

For my final rebuttal I will go over attacks on my case, go over my opponents case, and move onto some key voting issues in this round. My opponent states I used in his mind "unreliable sources" and even though he says this, he fails to mention why it is wrong, why my point of smoking or using cannabis may lead to serious illnesses. I will end this point by saying him not even addressing my tag line of my first contention surely must mean he cannot defend himself or refute the point. My opponent simply goes over my first sub-point with a question, "If tobacco is legal, then why can't cannabis?" I will answer this by going over previous evidence. From the Harvard University it says cannabis, or any variety of cannabis is FIVE TIMES WORSE THAN SMOKING ONE CIGGARETTE. That is why cannabis is not legal, it is a much more harmful substance. My opponent than states my sub-point B is pointless to attack which is very incorrect. We are debating cannabis legalization, this is a reason why cannabis has not been legalized. It is immoral to many other countries, harming many people who already have been harmed from the United States in the past. My opponent states about his first point that cannabis is non-addictive from multiple medical studies, but which ones? These could be from some bodies backyard that say they are a doctor. They name no specific study saying that cannabis is non-addictive while I have proved from Harvard University that it is an addictive drug. My opponent states about his second point from The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs, Series 2, (c) 1998 " It is quite clear from survey data that most people do not become physically dependent on marijuana. The majority use it as others use alcohol - to relax occasionally and to indulge a festive mood. How can a mild intoxicant, taken less than once a day by most users, be seen as a public threat?" To start off on my attack I would like to point out a publishing date, 1998. It is now 2010, twelve years ago this encyclopedia was published. This information can very well be out of date and incorrect. With all of the new medical studies around the world now anybody could have found out it is an addictive drug, such as Harvard University. Cannabis is an addictive drug. Sources: thegooddrug.com Lancent studies (Harvard University) drugwatch.org newcannabisclub.net drugs.homeoffice.gov plants.usda.gov clinicaltrials.gov Thank you for this debate opportunity and thank you for visiting this debate.
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Thanks for the debate Lee Summary of the Debate: Pro resolves that “Welfare should be abolished. ” She defined welfare as follows; "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need. " I noted that pro had the burden of prove, which she never contested. I also noted the broad scope that burden entailed. “The definition that Pro has provided for welfare is not just limited to government welfare. It is also not limited to financial. Essentially Pro is claiming that aid of any kind provided from anyone to anyone in any type of need should be abolished. ” In this debate pro presented arguments against “government welfare. ” This is only one type of welfare. In her conclusion she says that “If you read the definition, you would read that welfare, being provided by the "government". This is what this whole debate is about. Welfare being provided by the government. ” This is not so, I demonstrated this in my opening arguments and rebuttals to which pro never contested until the concluding round. The definition of welfare she provided is not just limited to government welfare. Essentially the broad definition of welfare pro provided makes abolishing it untenable. It also shows that while welfare is especially associated with government welfare it is not exclusively so. Thus Pro fails to meet this burden of proof. Parents providing food and shelter to their children would fit under the title of “welfare” as prove defined it. So would charity. Thus here plans to replace government welfare are still welfare. This debate is a no brainer.
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

The last round of this debate didn't call for rebuttal's. But there is one thing I need to clarify, that Con didn't seem to understand. I would just like to clarify myself, one more time. The definition is as follows; Welfare: "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need. " Con says that "Parents provide “welfare” to their children via food, clothing, shelter etc. Pro wants to “abolish” or “destroy” completely this welfare simply because it is taken advantage of" If you read the definition, you would read that welfare, being provided by the "government". This is what this whole debate is about. Welfare being provided by the government. There is a distinct difference between welfare, and the well-being of a human. Conclusion I have successfully proved and shown that Welfare, including checks and food stamps, given by the government and tax-payers, have been taken advantage of over multiple occasions. I have came up with a beneficial resolution to this problem. Let charities become more involved to help these needy families. Organizations such as S. N. A. P as mentioned in my previous round. This organization no only provides food for families, but they also help teach the families, including children how to make good food decisions that will benefit them later on in life. Con actually didn't actually come up with any argrument like he said in the final round. He never game me, or the readers any reason as to *why* welfare *shouldn't* be abolished. He also never rebutted my food stamp, and fraud argument which was one of the main arguments in this debate. Instead, it seems as if he had twisted my words to make them seem like something totally different. As Pro, I have provided an argument that goes against welfare, how its a problem and how we ca resolve it.
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

A. Clarifying the issue:The definition that Pro has provided for welfare is not just limited to government welfare. It is also not limited to financial. Essentially Pro is claiming that aid of any kind provided from anyone to anyone in any type of need should be abolished. Burden of proof is on pro to affirm the resolve that “Welfare should be abolished.”B. Case 1. Abolishing welfare as defined is untenable.There is no feasible way to stop all people everywhere from provided all kinds of help to others. To even attempt to accomplish resolve would be to sacrifice Principles most societies accept. People should be free to offer welfare to whomever, however, and whenever they so desire. Freedom would have to be restricted. Property would have to be done away with. Welfare as defined in round one includes someone providing food, shelter, encouragement, and money. It sounds almost as if the resolution is suggesting we “abolish” families. Such an action is untenable.C. Rebuttals:1. “Welfare gets taken advantage of”Pro claims that “It’s quite obvious that women continue to have children to receive welfare checks.”I’ll be honest this claim surprised me. While there may be some women out there somewhere that has had children in hopes of receiving welfare it is ludicrous to claim that the sole reason women have children is to receive welfare. Even the studied pro cited is not as bold only claiming that “There would also likely be fewer children born into poverty.” The studied suggests that the desired result is likely, this is hardly convincing. Also it is important to note that this studied suggests that we “replace welfare with private charity.” This is important because as Welfare was defined in round 1 would be inclusive of “private charity.” Thus this source is opposed to the resolution.Pro presents a solution to government welfare… “Instead of providing food stamps, charities could help out tremendously.” Essentially this “resolution” pro presents is to replace government welfare with a different type of welfare. This resolution is in conflict with the resolution at the beginning of the debate which implies that all welfare (all types) be abolished.2. “It is less efficient than private charity”This argument like the last is an argument for a different type of welfare rather than support to abolish welfare. Concluding rebuttal:Most of Pro’s arguments support welfare, just not one type. Government welfare is not the only kind of welfare. When pro concludes her round two saying “These people are actually willing and happy to help those in need,” She is endorsing the concept of welfare. Thus there is no support for the resolution.Pro has resolved that Welfare should be abolished. Such a feat is untenable. Her arguments support welfare as defined. "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government (though not exclusively), to people in need." The resolution is negated.
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Resolved: Welfare Should Be Abolished. This debate will go to Kasmic. I am very honored and pleasured to debate him! Definitions: Abolished: "To destroy completely." Welfare: "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need." R1. Acceptance R2. Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con R3. Argument/Rebuttal's R4. Conclusion Sources: https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com... https://search.yahoo.com...
This house proposes that the BBC is wrong to censor the UK Chart show

BBC's choice to not show the entire song "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" was completely justified. The song, of course, is alluding to the death of the recently fallen Margaret Thatcher. The BBC's action can in no way be called censorship, because the song in its entirety is readily available on the web, and no information was withheld. My opponent makes the assumption that the BBC's actions indicate some hidden affinity held for Thatcher. The song is in bad-taste, as it's celebrating the death of someone who has recently died. The BBC does not earn the title of "Thatcher lover" for refusing to stoop to the low level of tribal celebration. The song would be offensive if it referred to anyone, a political figure or otherwise. Next my opponent goes on to, in effect, claim two wrongs equals a right as a reason that a song with offensive implications should be shown in its entirety. The BBC is in no way refusing to present both viewpoints on this issue by not playing the entire song. How is it necessary to play the entire song to outline the issue? My opponent has no idea what 'free speech' means. It is not a violation of free speech to refuse to do something! A violation of free speech can only occur if one is forcibly silenced. From poll data, it is clear a greater percentage of the British Public have a positive view of Thatcher than have a negative view : http://www.guardian.co.uk... I fail to see how it was 'wrong' for the BBC to not air possibly offensive material. Is it more important to not offend a great number, or appease some death-cheerers? I think it's clear.
This house proposes that the BBC is wrong to censor the UK Chart show

Ladies, gentleman, this house believes that recent censorship of the UK music charts by the BBC is a completely and utterly unacceptable.I speak, of course, about the ever popular 'Ding Dong! (The Witch Is Dead)' which has made a reappearance in the charts following the recent passing of Baroness Thatcher.http://www.youtube.com...By choosing to play only a select clip of the song, accompanied by a small news-like segment explaining the reappearance of it, the BBC has in effect done the one thing it had tried to avoid - it has shown both political bias and insensitivity to death.First off, bias. The BBC continually try to avoid showing any form of political bias, it's public. Of course, we all know the amount of propagandic dribble all broadcasting agencies spread is all but intolerable, however, in the case of ones own government, and a matter which is not of any particular importance - they have no right to affect the media involved in any form. That is what they have done. In recognising the political and social implications of the song, and acting on them away which impedes the method in which the song would generally be presented shows (maybe indirect, but still there) political bias.Now, insensitivity to death. They're trying to be sensitive towards those mourning her death. I say to you, what of the miners, protesters, general labourers, servicemen, the entire working class? Where is the consideration for them? Not only is this move obstructing their freedom of speech through political variation, but it's a complete scandal in regard to those lives that were damaged, that continue to be affected today, to those lives that were lost. Where is the consideration? They claim to be showing an objective standpoint, respecting both sides, nay! That is not the case!Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad, however, recent representations of her in the news have been so 'fictional' and misinformed that would leave even Joseph Goebbels astonished. The modern youth in the past week, who may not know of Thatcher (another disgrace) and will now hold her on the same plane as Jesus thanks to the BBC, a supposedly transparent and honourable news service. Well, I'm sure the whole Saville debacle proved that to be false.Finally, it impedes free speech. The charts are generated from statistics, statistics generated by the consensus of will of the general public. The BBC is intervening in this, they are removing a part of that freedom. They have no right. Even Thatcher herself fought for freedom, of speech and being, take Berlin, take the downfall of Communism, take her gender, she affected those more than anyone, she would not have stood for this, just as we shouldn't. The BBC should not only do a U-Turn, something the government will certainly be able to help with, but they should apologizes for this desecration of the rights of each British Citizen.I rest my case, and look forward to the response.Source('s):1) http://www.bbc.co.uk... - Referenced throughout.
Swearing is a bad thing to do

Because swearing is offensive, we should not do it. It would make us a hypocrite if we then say we live in love because you are thinking negatively if you swear. Con admits that swearing is overused. That means I have proved my point because, as I said in the previous round: "Because my opponent said/admitted that swearing is basically self-destructive (ruins relationships, worsens personatlity and over-all attitude) if overused, I will attempt to prove that ALL swearing is overused: therefore a bad thing to do." I will say that it is sometimes the easiest and most efficient way to express strong negative emotions, but this does not change the fact that it is offensive and harmful 99% of the time. I still argue that it is not a good thing to do in any way. My opponent did not refute my videos or my arguments, and did not exactly create an argument himself. Conclusion: swearing is a bad thing to do on any occasion. Thank you.
Swearing is a bad thing to do

Many if your points I do not disagree with. Swearing which is offensive or devalues others is indeed a bad thing. Although, in your definitions you defined swearing as "Swearing in public is any language that is offensive--profane or not.". Now, when I hear the word "Swearing", I think of "cussing" and many of the "4-Lettered words". I think that if children are taught an understanding of swear words at a young enough age, they can learn to use them properly. I don't disagree that swear words are overused, they definitely are in today's society, but I do not see the harm in using them to express strong negative emotions, when everyone around you understands that you are not trying to hurt or attack any of them.
Swearing is a bad thing to do

Resolution: swearing is a bad thing to do. So-called bad words: -bring out your inner negativity -can affect/hurt others -can affect/hurt yourself -is a waste of time (for everyone) -is a waste of breath -brings a bad connotation to your name -turns your personality in a bad direction -changes your attitude in a bad way -generally sounds bad, unless you sing it -may ruin relationships -is bad for kids to hear -trains your brain to be impatient and vent anger wherever, whenever -etc. Whoever opposes must step right up and accept this challenge! First round can be acceptance or not, Con may choose. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
Fortnite sucks

So while I myself do not enjoy Fortnite as much as other games I have to correct you when you say it is a terrible game. Your opinion of the game is a subjective opinion while the number of people who get the game and the money they gain from the people who buy the in-game cosmetics are an objective fact and according to those things Fortnite is pretty successful. For these reasons Fortnite is not necessarily a terrible game.
Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.

My last opponent never posted the debate, so this is really my first debate. I commend you actually sending the debate! :) OK, so I will bring up my case first, and then I will answer what my opponent brought up in his speech. I negate the resolution that Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. I don't feel a need to put definitions, since my opponent set them out clearly. I. Surveillance cameras take out the idea of public areas. The whole idea of a private area is to be watched, and for rules to be set. Private areas have rules and regulations, so thats what makes it private. However, if cameras are put in these public area, it becomes private. This is because that whole idea of being watched is added in. Because of this, cameras should not be increased in areas. 2. Surveillance cameras can be expensive. These cameras will cost thousands of dollars. And if these are put in public areas like parks, then it will have to come from the community budget. This will cause communities to lose money, and possibly raise taxes, which makes the community less popular. 3. Surveillance cameras don't prevent the crimes, or stop the criminals. A camera can't stop a criminal in his/her tracks. All it can do is make the authorities in the area aware something is happening, and alert them to help. Becuase of this, surveillance cameras won't prevent the many crimes that can happen. If a criminal is running out of a store, and someone sees it on camera, now what? The criminal is gone. While if a guard was there, the criminal could be tazed, or stopped. 4. Thus, I submit this plan(Counterplan) Security Guards in public areas should be substantially increased. a) Security guards can protect, and still keep areas public. A guard can help protect, by, of course, stopping the criminal. However, they also fall under my definition of a public area. They don't have to watch people every second of every day, they can be near entrances, and exits, and stop the crimes. With guards, public areas are still public b)Guards are not as expensive as cameras 2 cameras can be thousands of dollars, while 2 guards can be about $20 an hour, or so. c)Guards prevent, AND stop the crimes. Not only can guards convince people to do the right thing, but they can also prevent the people who choose to do the wrong things from continuing so. Now, on to my opponents case 1) My opponent gives a clear definition of public, and surveillance, but doesn't solve for saftey. He states that: "the whole point of making more surveillance cameras is to keep us even safer from those who could potentially hurt us. " However, they don't stop the crimes. Cross apply my number 3. 2)My opponent also brings up the 3 S's. However, I solve for the 3 S's better. Saftey is safer with guards, security is better with guards, and stability can be maintained with guards. Cameras make aware, but don't protect. 3. ) Also, What is my opponents definition of substantial? It means that some cameras have been put into place now, but how many?