BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
State education is indoctrination

I'm sorry that my opponent was unable to post his final argument and hope that everything is okay for him. The idea that state education is indoctrination is a common conspiracy that comes out every now and again. The problem with it is that there are just so many holes in the argument that just don't make sense, as shown by my previous questions. Does school try to teach us things that will make us do better in the work world? Yes, of course it does. Why would anyone want a school that doesn't prepare them for the real world? Does school try to brainwash us into being mindless puppets to the big evil business man? No.
France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was justified.

Everyone notice that Pro is only refer to what could go wrong in third world countries. He poses a good argument, but I don't think it should be nearly enough to simply watch them starve. And, there isn't only poverty far away from us in third world countries where cash crops could occur, but also all around us in our own community. There is no way that could happen in our modern day community. Food goes old, and is unsold so they simply throw it away. Instead, supermarkets could give that unsold food to the food bank, rather than letting it, and our community, rot. Please open your eyes and realize the selfish community we live in today. Vote Con! Don't sit back and let our very own starve on the streets at night! Whose with me?!
France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was justified.

"Think about this: If you lived in a third world country with little to nothing to eat in a day, and people started supplying you with much needed food, would you stop working? " Con If you ever gardened, you will realize just how hard it is to grow crops with no tools. Much of the soil your hands aren't strong enough to break. Clay soil for example. Tools are needed. Yet, tools have limited durability, and there is a cost to fix and replace broken tools. Not only that but there is the initial startup costs of buying tools. If supply goes up price comes down. If supply goes up too much, the price will fall so far that the price of repairing and replacing old tools will be greater than the price of selling the food to the market. The farmer will lose money in this scenario. Not out of laziness but out of need the farmer will begin planting cash crops which will be exported to 1st world countries. Cash crops like tobacco. This website illustrates how a sudden increase in supply with stagnant demand drives down prices. "Another reason was to try and slow down the wave of foreclosures that were entering the market and driving down prices." [7] Just as in the housing market a bunch of foreclosures can destroy the economy, by dramatically increasing supply, the same is true of the food market. If you watch King Corn you will see why limiting supply of food is good. [8] Just as in third world countries flooding the market with food can be disastrous, there is no reason this couldn't happen in first world countries. Instead, supply needs to be limited so that food prices remain high and therefore profitable. Supermarkets in France have found a clever way to limit supply. By spoiling food early as opposed to donating the food supermarkets keep food prices high and farmers in jobs. Worst case scenario is food banks become so saturated that the price of food is driven down and farmers go out of business. With farmers out of business France may face food shortages in the long run. In summary, on the surface its a good idea to force supermarkets to give to charity. Yet, delving deeper this bulge in supply could ruin the food market. Less farmers, means less food, and the very event France was trying to prevent may be caused, food shortages. Con contends that this excess supply of food will ruin the food market of France and cause more hunger than it prevents in the long term. Causing hunger is not justified. Therefore, France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was not justified because it will cause more hunger in the long run by ruining the food market by driving down prices with excess supply. Vote Con. Links 7. http://www.keepingcurrentmatters.com... 8. http://www.kingcorn.net...
France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was justified.

Con poses a good argument. But that shouldn't be enough to win. If you are deciding which side you should vote for, think about this. Sure it could potentially cause splash crops, I understand that, but is that really enough to make you decide that France's supermarkets should simply throw away unsold food, and not even try? And we don't even need to look that far away, we can look as close as the food bank. Many people donate to the food bank and that isn't throwing anything off balance. It is simply feeding those who struggle and would starve without it. Think about this: If you lived in a third world country with little to nothing to eat in a day, and people started supplying you with much needed food, would you stop working? Would you honestly sell that much needed food? No. You wouldn't. Even if Frnce couldn't/wouldn't give to third world countries, that would supply local food banks with plenty of food. I don't see how this can be bad in the very slightest, but I wish you the best of luck:) Links http://www.theguardian.com...
France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was justified.

"Approximately 1 in 9 people around the world don't have enough food in a day to lead a healthy lifestyle. " Pro While this statement may be true, providing evidence would make this claim stronger. The rest of Pro's statement is emotional but lacks evidence. Con contends that the wasted food will not make it to the hungry. Most of the people who die from starvation are in the third world. "The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished." [3]. France is a long ways away from the poorest countries. [4]. The problem with giving food to 3rd world countries is cash crops. Pro learned in school that if too much food is given to developing countries farmers instead grow cash crops. Now the country receiving free food is more depend than ever. Next, local warlord seize the food given by 1st world countries. These warlords then force the locals to vote for them. Therefore, the first world giving food to 3rd world countries is worse than useless because it creates more problems than it solves. "Somalia's economy, one of the poorest in the world, is an agricultural one based primarily on livestock and, to a lesser extent, on farming. Livestock accounts for about 40% of GDP and a large percentage of export earnings, mainly from Saudi Arabia; bananas are the main cash crop and account for nearly 50% of export earnings. [5]. " Cultivation of Tobacco In 1985 4.1 million hectares of land were under tobacco cultivation - 73% of this in developing countries. This is 0.3% of the world's arable land, compared with 0.7% for coffee, 2.3% for cotton and 16.3% for wheat. Malaysia has the most at 4.6%, Zimbabwe next at 3%. " [6]. As anyone can see cash crops make more money than food crops. This is why donating food to the third world fails. Even without the local warlords, donating lots of food drives down the cost of food by saturating the market with supply. This is basic economics, as supply rises while demand holds still, price goes down. Farmers can no longer afford to plant food crops and instead plant cash crops. Onto hunger in the 1st world. The same basic principle applies. By forcing supermarkets to donate their food to charity there is more supply. More supply drives down prices. Supermarkets become less profitable. Less profitability means less supermarkets. Finally forcing supermarkets to donate to charity limits their freedom. France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was not justified. This will only harm both the 1st and 3rd world. Vote Con. Links 3. http://www.wfp.org... 4. http://www.worldatlas.com... 5. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com... 6. http://www.nsma.org.au...
France's decision to force big supermarkets to give unsold food to charities was justified.

Approximately 1 in 9 people around the world don't have enough food in a day to lead a healthy lifestyle. Imagine if this was your life. You wake up in the morning, get up off the dirt in which you slept last night, and say a silent prayer that today won't be like yesterday, and that you will get at least one single meal. As stated in Nickelback's song, 'When we stand together': "We could feed a starving world with what we throw away". That is a very true statement, but it doesn't need to be. France is doing what it can to change that to "We feed the world with our unsold food". That is why I think... I know... That France made the right decision. I don't see why throwing food away is better than giving it to those in need.
Citizens ought to possess handguns.

You wouldn't happen to be a (former) high school debater, would you? I recognize much of your rhetoric and language. Anyway, on to your points: FIRST AND FOREMOST, just because making something illegal creates the risk of black market sale of said item, doesn't mean we ought to keep the item legal. Further, just because I argue against the resolution, doesn't mean I argue that we should make handguns illegal. You bring up the hammer argument, but it doesn't address anything I said. I'm talking about whether people should have guns, not whether guns themselves have any inherent impact. I know that whole "guns don't kill people, other people do" thing, and I agree with it. And it doesn't at all weaken my case. You also mention other types of guns. If guns are to be used as deterrents and/or just for self-defense, what reason is there to conceal them? And then, in response to my concern for child safety, you bring up lighters, saying they were originally intended to light. Guns, as I stated, are originally intended to kill. Not open cans, not power devices, not light a fire. To kill. So no, Ms. or Mr. Sarcasm, lighters should not be "illegalized," because first of all, there's no such word, and second, there's no reason to make them illegal. It is a non-sequitur. And what has this to do with anarchy or tyranny? The right to bear arms says nothing about concealed firearms, and it was written at a time when firearms were weak, inaccurate, unwieldy, and, in short, good for nothing but hoping to deter an enemy identified from a distance. What kind of enemy can be so identified? A soldier in a bright red uniform. So the next time the United States of America is invaded by brightly dressed soldiers, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Citizens ought to possess handguns.

Although I will admit that not everything is always used with its original intention, the purpose of citizens owning handguns is to protect them. As to harming society in general: Society is not hurt because individuals own handguns. Society is hurt by individuals. You cannot condemn the hammer because the wielder misuses it: in the same way, you cannot condemn a gun as "bad" because individuals choose to misuse it. You can't justify taking away a citizen's right to their own protection by saying that others will cause them harm with the same thing they use to protect themselves. Even if handguns were to be legalized, there are ways of getting around laws and regulations that people who intend to harm others will be able to access that regular citizens will not. Example: the black market. Another point: we're arguing handguns specifically. However, there are many other different types of guns. Even if handguns were to become illegal, people who seriously intend to cause damage to others have easy access to OTHER types of guns, such as rifles. All you'd need to do is walk into a hunting/sports store. So arguing that guns are empowering, thus citizens ought not carry HANDGUNS won't benefit society either way: illegalizing handguns for that reason would be pointless. Taking away a citizen's right to owning a handgun will not decrease the potential for crime - it will decrease the potential for defense against crime. Society will be harmed, not helped. You argue that children could potentially get into the guns, or even other people. That is a nonunique arguement. That reasoning could be applicable to any dangerous item in a house, and is not proper justification for the illegalization of a handgun. Lighters were originally intended to do just that: to light. However, they were used as a means of torture by gangs, and the potential for danger when using a lighter is high. However, they are sold over-the-counter. Say a child finds a lighter on a table and accidentally severely burns himself. Should lighters then be illegalized? I think there's another important point to bring up: When a government tells it's citizens that they have no right to carry arms, to protect themselves, and going against its own Constitution in doing so, what message does that send to the citizens? When a government does not adhere to its own laws then its citizens cannot be expected to do the same, which could potentially send us into a state of either anarchy or tyranny. From history we know that anarchy leads to violent revolution, and tyranny leads to death and governmental abuse, and as we're valuing societal welfare in this debate, we cannot take away that right to bear arms because the society will always be harmed.
Citizens ought to possess handguns.

What one ought to do, in this context, is what would best be protecting that individual without harming society. On to your points: You bring up the preventative measures in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who don't know how to use them. This says nothing of the risk of children coming across parents' guns. The point is that the person buying the gun is not always the exclusive user of it. Further, you contend that, applying my reason, all conceivable weapons are morally repugnant. Not so. If you will return to my original arguments, I qualify them by specifying that a gun is a lethal weapon, INTENDED to kill. And the fact that people own guns for self-defense doesn't at all weaken the argument that a gun is empowering, and statistically shown to raise people's willingness to enter risky situations where gun use would more likely be needed.
Citizens ought to possess handguns.

First of all, I have a question about the way you worded the resolution. The word "ought" means "to be under a moral obligation to do or be". So what the resolution says is that citizens are morally obligated to possess handguns. Did you mean it to be like "Citizens ought to be able to possess handguns" or was that intended? I was just wondering. As to the debate itself, you make the assumption that just because someone has a gun, they, or someone close to them, will abuse it. Just because someone owns a gun does not necessarily mean that they will be prompted to take greater risks than they otherwise would. There are regulations that are preventative of the harms that you talk about. People who buy firearms are required to have a clean criminal record, as well as take a course in firearm safety. And if someone is bent upon causing another person harm or death, they do not need a gun to do so. There are other ways of hurting or killing people than with a handgun. If we were to apply your reasoning, owning household items such as electrical cord, cooking knives, and baseball bats are morally repugnant because they could be potential weapons. Also, many people who own handguns do so only as a measure of self-defense, in case a situation would arise in which they would need to defend themselves or their family from attack. Is denying them that protection just?
Citizens ought to possess handguns.

It was difficult to choose a topic for this resolution, but out of the options, politics seemed best suited. Handguns increase risk-taking, thus decreasing safety and increasing the likelihood of someone getting hurt, be it the carrier, target, or anyone who comes across the gun. Despite advances in gun safety, there are still many deaths of innocent people, especially children, from hunting accidents and misfires (most commonly occurring when children discover the gun and play with it). The existence of handguns also introduces a weapon with which an individual can vent frustration in a possibly lethal manner. There are many other points to make, but they are easier to articulate as responses to "in favor" arguments.
Erik Karlsson is the Best Defenseman in the NHL

"P.K Subban led his team through the playoffs" What's that supposed to mean? Montreal didn't win the cup, they were knocked out of the playoffs so I don't see how Subban "Led them through the playoffs". As for the series between Ottawa and Montreal Karlsson was easily the best player on the ice and he led his team. Subban wasn't even the best player on his team, Price was. Anyways, talking about the playoffs is meaningless because neither won the cup. Back to my original points, Karlsson beats Subban in basically all stat categories, plus he has more Norris trophies. Subban is great, but Karlsson is the best. You also have given no evidence to support the idea of Subban being better.
Erik Karlsson is the Best Defenseman in the NHL

Seeing how you said Subban is the best D-man in the league, I will be comparing the stats between the two. P.K Subban is a great player, but he is not the best. Erik Karlsson is the best defenseman in the league. In terms of defensive stats, Erik Karlsson currently has more takeaways, blocked shots, less giveaways, and he logs more ice-time. As for offense, Karlsson is once again leading all defensemen in points. Subbans 46 points are impressive, however Karlssons 65 points are incredible for a blue-liner. Karlsson has also has two Norris trophies. Subban only has one, and won that trophy the year karlsson was injured. Subban is great, but karlsson is best.
It is likely that God exists

I saw you were interested in being challenged in a debate concerning atheism/theism, would you be willing to debate this? If so, I will be arguing that God, in a theistic sense, exists in actual reality. Definitions God: an omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent and wholly-good being. Omnipotence: The ability to do anything that is logically possible to do Omniscience: The ability to know anything that is logically possible to know Transcendent: Non-physical and eternal (outside space-time). Wholly-good being: Perfectly moral My burden of proof is that it is likely (as opposed to unlikely) that the God defined above exists. You would have to prove that it is sufficiently unlikely that God exists.
It is likely that God exists

Other than forgetting about replying to this debate (Due to circumstances), There is not a lot else I can say to this other than disputing you have said in the last argument. "I don't know why you would be frustrated, unless you WANT God to be disproved." - It's not that I don't WANT God to be disproved, its the fact that I WANT the proof to know the existence or not. but, not want it so much that it disrupts my life. I want people to think for themselves, which I know you might say you do but your morals and ethics to a certain amount do come from the bible. I agree Atheists can also be fickle with 'facts' but the the militant Atheists think for themselves. Whatever scientific discoveries will say, there will always be a comeback to say "But God done that", there will be no amount of proof or any proof that can definitely disprove god, because of the constant regress. I don't think common sense is a valid answer, because to me, its common sense that there isn't something looking over me and created us, it is no basic knowledge. But it is something to think about when the disagreement within a group varies massively. I just don't understand why the details in religion are disputed? Why should there be any difference? If it all originates in the same place then its just a thousand year old game of Chinese whispers. I just simple cannot understand only believing in ONE god, it just seems unfair, contradicting and hypocritical. It doesn't prove the existence of a single god because it is only based on a cleverly put argument. God has remained roughly the same? I'm sure he should be the same, thought of as the same and believed to be the same and will ever be. A logical argument, is not extraordinary evidence. You are using the same argument that has been arranged say that there are multiple answers within a statement that shows that its one answer. This is not proof. Reason comes in many shapes and form, reason does not determine whether something is to be true, false, right, wrong. " I would add that most of quantum mechanics has not been proved by experiment (nor can it be)" - You cannot know this. "You have the incorrect view that belief in God is only a way to 'fill the gaps' in scientific knowledge." - If I have the incorrect perception of god, what does that say about the other religious people? Does this make my point less valid because I say there is no god? It suggests that its clinging on to something that you hope to be true. I would like to end by saying that if there is anything I haven't responded to, it is because I have either forgot, or it was no worthy of a reply. The ontological argument is not a worthy point to refute.
A bad teacher can cause more harm than a bad parent.

I always say that Malcolm X learned his hateful ways from the KKK killing his father on a train track, not a teacher insulting him.A bad parent, or even lack of parent whatsoever, does way more harm. It's the job of a parent to teach kids morals and manner, not the teacher. Teachers can only teach kids the book smarts, not wisdom, which a parent or pastor is responsible to do. Lack of fathers have constantly shown violent and drug-dealing sons.https://www.google.com...;
THW ban boxing

My 'still worthy' opponent, it's not about that I'm afraid. Rule 9 already supports your losing. You have gone against the rules. No excuses please. It is not always a big deal, but when the rules tell you to follow the rules or you'll lose, IT IS A BIG DEAL THEN. Putting the sources between the arguments is not a big deal. Not following rules IS A BIG FREAKING DEAL. I too would like to ask the audience to extend my arguments, give us both points in that as per how much convincing arguments they are, but as CON says, please give me the conduct points as my opponent has : 1. Called me 'unworthy' because I called him worthy. 2. Didnt follow the rules. He too has not responded to my arguments. I extend my points. :( I think that calling me unworthy IS an abusive standard. Lastly, I think I'm allowed to be sensitive. Thats not against the rules. VOTE PRO. Adil Muhammad, Qatar
THW ban boxing

My unworthy opponent, it is a dear, dear shame that you are so afraid to address my arguments that you have decided to cancel the entire debate instead of just responding. Is it really that big a deal to not follow the structure exactly as written? I'm sorry for putting my sources in the round (BIG FREAKING DEAL) but if you are that worried about losing you are going to harp on rules, fine, my apologies. I would like to ask the audience to extend my arguments and only vote automatic conduct points against me. If they feel rule breaking (on accident) is worthy of a complete loss, so be it, but for the record I would like to extend my points since Pro has not responded to any of them. I didn't forfeit but spent a lot of time writing that round and didn't use any abusive standard. I'm sorry my opponent is very sensitive :-)