BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Seatbelt and helmet laws should be abolished.

The purpose of laws should be to protect people from other people not protect people from themselves. Protecting people from themselves is a pointless limit on freedom. I agree that society needs certain limits and regulations which is why I support traffic laws such as running red lights or driving at night without headlights on. Those laws protect drivers from each other. I'm not disputing the fact that not wearing a seat belt or helmet is dangerous. I'm disputing the idea that lawmakers should protect citizens from themselves. Obesity is one of the leading causes of heart disease, diabetes, and general unhealthiness. Does that mean that the government should regulate people's calorie intake?
Seatbelt and helmet laws should be abolished.

I am glad you made it, but this foolishness will be debunked Attacking my opponents overview (i guess! ) The purpose of any laws is to protect their citizens. My opponent stated that people should have the right to take as many chances as thye want. But to what extend. So they can take the chance of dropping a nucluer bomb, starting a world war 3. The truth is there needs to be limits and regulations in order to have a society. Secondly what if the person is crazy or mentaly retarded. You are letting them use their own discretion in real life situations. It is like letting a viscous dog go and say, "do what you want", we need to put a leash so to speak on the citizens. Thirdly, my opponents last sentence states, "do what is best for you". Me and my opponent can both agree that it is safer to wear a seatbelt and a helmet. So the person does not know what is best for him. And wearing the seatbelt is not a right, but it is the smart thing to do in order to guarntee saftey Contention 1: The point of laws is to protect their citizens We need to make the seatbelt law because it is protecting the citizens thus the government is fuffiling their job or duty. If they did not Contention 2: Wearing helmets are safer 1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries had a brain injury. Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury. . http://www.bhsi.org... These facts prove that many accidents occur to the head, with a helmet. Imagine how much more injury and DEATH there would be if they did not wear helmets Contention 3: Kerry Doughtery stated that seatbelts save lives. . http://hamptonroads.com... Page 20 of Virginia's drivers manual states Wearing a seatbelt can double your chance of survival during a crash. Secondly, your children will get a negative influence by seeing that you do not wear a seatbelt, as I said wearing a seatbelt doubles your chances of survival, well dont you want what is best for your children? If you do you will wear a seatbelt. Example:At 2:30 a. m. on June 27, a 21-year-old woman crashed and died on Elbow Road in Virginia Beach. She was not wearing a seat belt. Her death is tragic. Yet we all know there isn't a 21-year-old in America who hasn't been told thousands of times to wear a seat belt. Surely she knew about Virginia's seat-belt law, too. Why she wasn't wearing hers is a mystery. It's easy to blame government when bad things happen. It's tougher to acknowledge that when drivers get into their cars, they make choices. Bad choices - such as not buckling up - can have disastrous results. Reasons to vote neg: -Wearing your seatbelt greatly increases your chance of survival during a crash -Most bikers die because of head injury WHILE WEARING A HELMET imagine what would hapen without one -The government's job is to protect their citizens Thank you, vote neg because wearing your seatbelt and helmet increases the number of lives
Seatbelt and helmet laws should be abolished.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best when he said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." People should be allowed to take as many chances as they want with their health and safety. People should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on somebody else's rights or liberties. Therefore, people should have the right to not wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet because the only person it puts in danger is the person making the decision. Just because people aren't forced to wear seatbelts or helmets doesn't mean that you can't wear a seatbelt or helmet. Just do what's best for you and let others make up their own mind.
Seatbelt and helmet laws should be abolished.

Freedom of choice does not mean that people can do what they want as long as it isn't unhealthy or dangerous. Freedom of choice means that people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on somebody else's rights or liberties. Most people don't seem upset about lawmakers forcing them to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets because the government tells them it's for "your own good". Freedom will cease to exist all together if people continue to swallow this justification. Should the government outlaw Big Macs for "your own good"? Should the police send officers into your home and force you to exercise for "your own good"? I urge voters to remember that your health/safety doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to you.
Seatbelt and helmet laws should be abolished.

Just because people aren't forced to wear seat belts and helmets doesn't mean that you can't wear a seat belt or a helmet. If the risks that go along with not using a seat belt or helmet concerns you then wear your seatbelt when you're in a car and wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle. Just let other people make up their own minds. My opponent believes that people should be forced to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets because "For freedom of choice: The government has to do what is best for the citizens even when their views conflict" Freedom wouldn't exist if the government operated like that. Smoking has been known to cause heart attacks, strokes, emphysema, and cancer. Should the government "do what is best for the citizens" and outlaw cigarettes? Alcohol is bad for the heart, kidneys, and liver. Does the government have to do what is best for the citizens and outlaw alcohol?
Anarcho-Capitalism (Pro) versus Georgism (Con)

To mirror the length of my opponent's opening statement, I wil try tol stay concise (but no promises). While anarcho-capitalism may be easier to understand, in no way does that make it the better ideology. First, because my opponent has given no framework, I will provide Contactualism as a means of judgement. Contractualism finds that under the Social Contact created by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the state that provides best for its people is the best. Georgism allows for better prosperity for the people by guaranteeing resources and thus survival, which ties in to the Social Contact. In addition, Georgism allows for government protection of its people, which guarantees their safety and thus again links in to the Social Contract. I urge my judges to consider actual benefit to the people of a nation more important than its simplicity causing a lack thereof.
Anarcho-Capitalism (Pro) versus Georgism (Con)

Definitions"Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualistanarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.""Georgism, also called geoism and single tax (archaic), is an economic philosophy holding that, while people should own the value they produce themselves, economic value derived from land (including natural resources and natural opportunities) should belong equally to all members of society."RoundsRound one is acceptance onlyRound two is opening statementRound three is argumentsRound four is counter argumentsRound five is conclusionCite your referencesReferenceshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control

You do realize that in a closing argument you cannot bring any new evidence into the debate only summing up what you have said. Just something to keep in mind in future debates. Because now if I make a response to your "new" evidences you might have a counter argument. So if you plan to do things like this, I recommend you make these longer rounds. So, going along with debate rules, I will not bring new evidences but only sum up my debate and give a quick conclusion. In conclusion fellow voter. I recommend you favor cons side today for these reasons. I have clearly shown to you that when guns are increased into society, that it actually made crime drop 89%! The problem with Pro's argument is that he hasn't displayed any examples of strict gun laws helping society. Only stating the murders with guns and fire arms and the costs. I have stated that when reducing gun shops in our local cities and towns will take away local family owned stores, making our economy drop and only make it difficult for others when they need to feed their family. Leaving only a few shops to remain. What pro has failed to explain is how this would be fair to the gun shop owners who run businesses and the ones who will keep their business. He has not explained to us the new plan, only stating what he thinks will work with no back up to it, or how he wishes to fix this problem. Fellow voters, I have stated the facts, shown you cities and towns that have used increased guns into homes and dropping crime and I have shown you solutions. For all these reasons I ask that you have a con ballet. Thank you.
Gun Control

Criminals stealing guns isn't a problem. By reducing the amount of gun access, it will be much harder for criminals to find a gun, and if they do find one, they quickly be noticed and reported to the authorities. As for the gun shop issue, I've never said to completely eliminate gun shops. We only said to REDUCE. REDUCE means to diminish, and gun shops will be around. Only there should be a tiny bit less than the amount that currently exist, and those that exist, will be much more stricter than right now. You said that people have to obtain a permit to even buy a gun, let alone get permission to use it, but there is no checking of criminal background. You also said that criminals will get access to guns in their own way, but that is a different issue. We are talking about gun Violence, and crimes, and very few guns that are stolen are actually used for crime. According to PBS, only 10 to 15% of stolen guns are actually used in crime. That means that the rest are legal guns bought from one of the 124,000 retailers of guns in our country. I would also like to state, that new, modern issues, like drug crimes, bring new utilization in guns, making guns more dangerous than when our founding fathers wrote the constitution. Think about the cost of gun violence in our country. each gun death costs about $6 million in total cost, and injuries cost about $583,000. We need a reduction in gun violence in our country, and the only logical way, is by reducing access to guns. Thank you. Sources of all info that I presented- http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.deseretnews.com...
Gun Control

Now lets begin. See here, you posted 67.5% homicides done with guns. Says where? You never sited your source. Also, how do you think taking away guns will help? It will simply disarm the law-abiding citizens. News-flash, criminals won't follow the law. If we make guns illegal, do you think that will stop the criminals from getting a gun? Totally absurd to say. Did you notice that meth is illegal almost nation-wide of the united states? Yet people still get meth through meth labs and you know guns can easily be made. Our founding fathers weren't blind to this. They under In Kennesaw, Georgia they made it a legal requirement for everyone to own a gun. Guess what happened? Crime dropped 89% compared to the 10% state-wide. What does this show? Well it shows us how if Criminals know that if people have guns they won't attack them, because their life is at risk. No this is not a very small town at all. After they enforced this law, "the city's population in 1998 was recorded at 14,493 - a sharp increase over the 8,936 residents recorded in the 1990 census. " "What we need, is better background on those that buy guns, as well as reduce gun shops in our country. With it, we can reduce the unnecessary violence that plagues our country. " "A quick review of Michigan gun laws shows that law abiding citizens wishing to own a gun for self-protection are strongly regulated and actively discouraged. First, they have to take and pass the Michigan Basic Pistol Safety questionnaire. Then they have to apply for the Ten Day Handgun Purchase Permit to buy the gun and make sure they find and buy the gun of their choice within 10 days, otherwise they have start the process all over again. When they make their purchase, they have to fill out a Michigan Pistol Sales Record form and make sure the pistol has a valid firearm Safety Inspection Certificate. " - mic. com We already have really strict gun policies and we have to take long tests to get our carry permits. Guess what, criminals. If they want to get a gun, they can simply steal one/black market one then they can shoot up whatever place they wish. They won't bother wanting a carry permit if they are criminals. We would simply be putting more restrictions on the LAW-ABIDING citizens. Also you say we need to reduce gun shops. How will this help? Criminals are going to get their guns either way. Like I have been saying over and over. Criminals are simply what they are. People who break the law. We would simply be hurting our society if we enforced these restrictions and going against what our founding fathers planned for us. Also, if we take away gun shops we would be hurting our economy. People with families own gun shops, if we take away gun shops we would be taking away their rights to run their free business. Do you really wish to hurt our business owners, just to make them more vulnerable and lose their one job to put bread and food on the table? In conclusion. Stricter gun laws won't help our society, but only harm. Because criminals are law-breakers. Period. [Sources] [1] . http://rense.com... [2]. http://mic.com...
Gun Control

Good Morning to whoever is reading. So, I'm Pro, and I know that gun control is needed in our country. The United States have the highest homicide with guns rate, with 67.5% of homicides done with guns. It also has the highest gun ownership. And the only reason the U.S. has a huge access for guns is due to the business industry that is making money. This industry is the reason why gun laws aren't stricter. Think about what gun control can do for us. In 2011, 8583 persons used guns to murder people. That's moore than 2/3 of all U.S. Murders. What we need, is better background on those that buy guns, as well as reduce gun shops in our country. With it, we can reduce the unecessary violence that plagues our country. Thank you.
The resolution is "IT" is a good thing

This has come to be very interesting. But it seems as though the my opponent is on the right track, but got on the wrong train. I'm going to urge the readers to vote con for 3 reasons. 1) I provided a "verbose complication" to arrive at an *understanding* of "IT". My opponent provided a "concise explanation" to *define* "IT" in his favor. This is actually 2 reasons in 1. 2) My opponent attempts to call me out for an ad hominem, which he clearly doesn't understand the mechanics of. I did not attack my opponent in any way to attempt to detract from the credibility of his arguments; it was simply too clear to see that his round 2 was a waste of time and he did NOT take adequate time to refute my arguments. 3) In my opponent's defense of "IT", he claims that, because something can have certain properties, and nothing has no properties, "IT" must be something because "IT" has certain properties. But he is sadly mistaken; the properties of nothing are explicitly commented on in the first round. Again, my opponent has not even addressed them, even vaguely. Rather, he conveniently ignored them for 2 full 8,000-allowed-character rounds of debate. It seems we have reached the end of the debate. It was fun, and I urge a vote for the CON side of the debate. Thank you.
The resolution is "IT" is a good thing

Con is clearly wrong by stating "IT" is nothing. Con says "Pro proceeds to claim that, quote, "but "IT" Is something,". He has violated rule #2 by providing a clear and concise description of the term, IT. " This is no more precise than your claim that "IT" is nothing. Con says "that IT is truly nothing" Is their a difference being something being nothing and something being truly nothing ? It's a shame that Con has had to resort to such rhetoric. Saying that "IT" is nothing, is a contradiction, cause only something can have certain properties. If "IT" has the property of nothing, then it would be something, thus refuting that "IT" is nothing. Is their any good reason to believe that "IT" is a bad thing, I don't think so. Surely in absence of any evidence to the contrary we should give "IT" the benefit of innocence. Innocence is a good thing, If "IT" is innocent, then "IT" must be good. How can something guilty be good ? "IT" is good.
The resolution is "IT" is a good thing

=== CONTENT === 1. Refutation of Pro arguments ---> o Contradictions in Pro's case ---> o General refutations 2. Disambiguation of the round ============= 1. Refutation of Pro arguments ---> Contradictions Pro claims that I contradict the purpose of the round by defining IT to be nothing. He is wrong; I vaguely discussed what it is and made it convoluted to the point where it really is nothing. Then, Pro proceeds to claim that, quote, "but "IT" Is something,". He has violated rule #2 by providing a clear and concise description of the term, IT. Meanwhile, I will maintain my position, that IT is truly nothing. This will be reiterated in the disambiguation. ---> General refutations 1) Pro provides no reasoning behind "IT" NOT being nothing. 2) Pro doesn't explain why "IT" is something. 3) Pro makes the same argument from his first round, only modified. He says that "IT" isn't bad and has a good nature, so IT must be a good thing. There is no warrant for this argument. 2. Disambiguation of the round What we are left with is a concept of what "IT" is; it flows through the round because Pro never refuted it. Therefore, with the vague understanding that we do have, we arrive at the rational conclusion that "IT" is nothing. Why? For the following reasons: NOTHING is more powerful than God AND as weak as a baby giraffe. NOTHING is something every wealthy man wants AND something every poor man has. NOTHING explodes upon contact AND implodes upon isolation. NOTHING cures despair AND destroys happiness. NOTHING promotes existence AND aides the end of existence. NOTHING is larger than the universe AND smaller than a small jar. NOTHING is at the end of everything AND the beginning of everything. With that, we look back to my rational in round one. I'll repost it here. *QUOTE* "IT" is nothing. I ask, what is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. The nothing described above. But personally, I would rather have a few bread crumbs than nothing. So, if a few bread crumbs are better than nothing, and a few bread crumbs BARELY meets the standards of "a good thing", "IT" (or nothing) must not be a bad thing. Anything less than the value of 0 good coming out of bread crumbs is negative, and a negative value is a bad thing. The resolution is negated. *END QUOTE* Thus, the resolution is negated. I urge a con vote; thank you.
The resolution is "IT" is a good thing

I accept the 3 rules provided. As regards the third rule, my opponent says no links will be allowed. Links are formatted HTML texts that, when clicked on in a web browser, lead one two a new window or tab. So, I will provide an alternative if I need to take the readers to a different website. For the second rule, no "definitions" of IT are allowed. I define a definition to be a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol. This definition can be found on the Princeton "wordnetweb" under "definition"; it is also the first result found when googling "define definition". Thus, seeing as a definition is a CONCISE EXPLANATION of the meaning of a word, I will do my best to avoid that. I will actually do my best to provide the opposite. An antonym to "concise" is "verbose"; an antonym to "explanation" is "complication". So, I'm going to provide an extremely wordy and vague distortion of IT. === What is "IT"? - the riddle === IT is unlike anything I've ever seen. IT is beyond imagination. IT is more powerful than God, but IT is as weak as a baby giraffe. IT is something that every wealthy man wants, but IT is also something that every poor man has. IT is something that explodes if it touches anything; IT implodes if nothing touches it. IT is the cure to all despair, and IT is the destroyer of all happiness. IT helps every living thing exist, and IT aides every living thing end its existence. IT is larger than the universe, but IT is smaller than a jar of zebra hair five inches high, with a three inch radius. IT is at the end of everything because IT is what makes things begin. So, the question is, what is "IT"? `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - ` `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - `~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + = - ` "IT" is nothing. I ask, what is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. The nothing described above. But personally, I would rather have a few bread crumbs than nothing. So, if a few bread crumbs are better than nothing, and a few bread crumbs BARELY meets the standards of "a good thing", "IT" (or nothing) must not be a bad thing. Anything less than the value of 0 good coming out of bread crumbs is negative, and a negative value is a bad thing. The resolution is negated.
batman is better than sailor venus

My opponent seems to be under the impression that seeing one episode out of approximately 200 (Source 1) makes him fully educated on this complex character. I would like to point out that while you won't see me parading up and down the street in a "Batman's Biggest Fan" t-shirt, I have at least seen more than one of his episodes and a great deal more of Sailor V's episodes. Therefor, I urge you to vote for me, since I have a better understanding of this debate. Attack: C3: Quite honestly, it has to be understood that sometimes a fourteen year old girl will think with her feelings. This just makes Sailor Venus more relate able. Magic aside, she is a very realistic character. One that people can relate to. C4: Since Sailor V is saving the universe in 2 dimensions with her friends, they do not serve as distractions. They in fact keep her on task. So my opponents point is void. C5: Once again I am forced to point out that Sailor V is as popular on her own turf as Batman is on his. So I need to once again point out that this is not a relevant point. C6: Since my opponent has never seen more than one episode of the cartoon, he cannot adequately say that these cats are "incompetent". They are quite intelligent, once again proving my opponent doesn't really have the grounds to argue against my side of the debate. You must know the enemy. (1). http://www.usagi.org... I urge you to vote Con on this debate seeing as I know the topic best. Thank you very much!