BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

1. I have not cited any sources at this juncture 2. In the ocean the primary concerns deal with interruption of the natural food chain, and the fishing industry. On land, we are dealing primarily with soil and drinking water contamination, and to a lesser extent, the natural food chain. While devastating to the coastal areas, people can live without fish. Yet people affected by the land spill would have to move to a place with no contamination or have water shipped in. 3. I concur that Exxon Valdez & the BP spill were devastating. Yet, how many millions of barrels of oil have been produced and consumed without accidents? Quite a lot. 4. Devastating yes, but it's hard to say whether they were more devastating. To a cattle rancher the oceanic spills may not really matter. To a member of a fishing crew, the loss would be catastrophic, and vice versa. 5. At this point, yes, we are hopelessly dependent upon oil. Oil is refined and made into a variety of products such as heating oil, gasoline, jet fuel, lubricants, diesel, and even household items such as trash bags and vaseline. I will ask my crossfire questions based upon my opponent's next position. Thanks.
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

In the last round, my opponent has posted both his first speech and rebuttals to my points. This doesn't really follow the format. I don't know what Lincoln Douglas debate format looks like, but in Public Forum, you are supposed to say only your first speech when you first speak. The rebuttals are reserved for the second speech. Since this round is a crossfire, I will post a list of questions that my opponent will answer the next time he posts his arguments. 1. Where are your sources? They are not listed and therefore cannot be viewed by the public. 2. Is there more than one way to measure ecological damage? Please explain. 3. Sure, oil spills are the exception, not the norm. But how devastating are these exceptions? Exxon Valdez and the recent BP blowout sure did a lot of damage. 4. The last 2 oil spills I mentioned were both marine oil spills. Everyone knows about these. Very few know about oil spills on land. Isn't it correct assume that marine oil spills are more devastating than land spills? 5. Oil is used only as a fuel for vehicles. Some countries in South America have an alternative fuel that comes from a crop. Are Americans hopelessly dependent on oil?
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

Opponents C-1: It is not accurate to say that one oceanic ecological disaster is worse than a landbased ecological disaster because the damage is measured in different terms. Granted, we would rather that there be no oil spills of any type. To say that one is more devastating depends upon the measuring stick that is used, and to whom the effects are valued. Opponent's C-2: To some extent, I concur. There are additional challenges and difficulties incurred by oceanic oil retrieval. Humans cannot breath underwater for the necessary periods of time without special and often cumbersome equipment. Further, equipment needed to work in saltwater is likely to need additional care or precaution that isn't necessary in a waterless environment. However, I extend my first arguement that suppressing a spill can be equally daunting on land. Oil seeping into the ground can cause tons of earth removal before all drinking water and crops are cleared to consume. MY POSITIONS: C-1: Oil rig accidents are the exception, not the norm Millions of barrels of oil have been safely produced and used by consumers. There is very little fuss when things are running smoothly. From the inception of offshore drilling, there are comparatively fewer accidents in days of operation versus days of accidents. C-2: Americans are dependent upon oil From gasoline to heating oil to other petroleum based products, Americans are hopelessly mired in dependence upon this fossil fuel. Are we trying hard and working diligently to develop alternative sources? Sure, but until we do, we will continue to need oil. Oil is available in Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Oil can be purchased from foreign countries as we well know. Another source to meet this dependence is to be more self sufficient, and retrieve oil from under the ocean. It is there, it is available, and we have the technology to retrieve it. Summary: I have demonstrated that offshore oil drilling IS in the best interest of the United States. Not only is it practical, it is necessary. As my opponent only cited 2 contentions, I will resond accordingly, and reserve the right to post an additional contention in a latter round. Thank you!
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

This debate is to be in public forum format. Round 2 will be speech 1. Round 3 will be crossfire 1. Round 4 will be speech 2. Round 5 will be crossfire 2. If my opponent has any questions, he/she may ask in Round 1. Pro wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be true than false. Con wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be false than true.
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

For crossfire 2, I will ask my opponent the following questions: 1. Explain how allowing 9/11 to happen was any different than allowing the BP blowout to happen. 2. Explain why America can't switch from petroleum to ethanol and/or another alternative. There are alternative fuels and plastic making products. 3. On the Deep Water Horizon rig, all 3 blowout preventers failed. If a couple malfunctioned, that can be explained, but all 3 failed. There are apparently major flaws in the blowout preventers. How do we know this doesn't apply to all rigs? With this disaster occurring, how can anyone say that America has adequate equipment and technology to drill offshore? 4. All rigs have been inspected before. All rigs have emergency procedures to prevent ecological disasters. What good would reinspecting all the rigs do? What good would putting in the same emergency procedures again do? Does repetition prevent an ecological disaster? 5. You have listed 3 things that offshore drilling provides America. Can't these 3 things be provided by something else as well? Doesn't the Afghanistan War provide jobs? Doesn't drilling on land or in shallow water also reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Doesn't clean energy (like solar and wind) help fill a crucial need? 6. In my last question, I listed 3 alternatives that also provide what offshore drilling provides. I wonder why people oppose the Afghanistan War. I wonder why oil companies don't drill on land or in shallow water. I wonder why not everyone converts to clean energy. Since my opponent gets the last word in this debate, I will answer his questions in the comments section.
Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

I concur that ocean spills are not easily contained, that was never in question. Comparing 9/11 to an oil spill is a poor example. 9/11 was done intentionally and with planning. Oil spills are generally accidents or the result of equipment failure. I never stated that we had no alternatives to oil, I implied that at present, oil is the primary source of fuel and lubricants in America. Now, I think that we have chased enough rabbits down multiple tangents, what say we try to get back to the resolution? Facts: 1) America uses millions of barrels of oil. 2) America presently does not produce enough to meet the need. 3) America presently does not have enough alternative energy to replace oil. 4) America purchases millions of barrels of oil at a high price. 5) America has the equipment and technology to drill offshore. The 6 month moratorium is a good idea in the interest of safety. I concur that wells should be inspected, and emergency procedures should be in place to prevent an ecological disaster. With the above in mind, as well as my opponent's arguments, there remains a need or in terms of economics, a demand. There is oil available, thus, a supply. If we have oil, which we do, it makes sense to retrieve it, and use it. Doing so: 1. creates jobs 2. reduces our dependence upon foreign oil 3. helps fill a crucial need Therefore: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling IS in the best interest of the United States. Thanks
Is the investing in North Korea right or wrong

Con has taken a rather strange position here. Either con is against asking the question "is investing in North Korea right or wrong? " or Con believes that investing in North Korea is neither right or wrong. For the first position, I argue that avoiding the question is like sticking your head in the sand. We should be open to discussing this issue. Tensions between North and South Korea have been ongoing for a long time. It's time these type of questions are discussed openly, especially in light of Obama reaching out to Cuba. The koreans could follow suite and make the world a better place to live. For the second position, that investing in North Korea is neither right or wrong, this is illogical. If it is right, or correct, for this investment to take place, then it cannot be wrong. If it is wrong, or incorrect, than it cannot be right.
Is the investing in North Korea right or wrong

Have you ever heard about the cases of Egyptian Orascom Telecom(OTMT), Chinese XIANG GROUP? These companies had invested enormous money in North Korea, but has failed take out its profit share from North Korea. Orascom Telecom holded 75% of shares of 'Korea Link' a North Korean telecommunication service provider. Orascom Telecom started 3G Mobile communication business in North Korea. The business was very profitable for Korea Link but North Korea set new regulations. For this reason, Orascom Telecom has failed to take out its profit share of Korea Link's earnings from the country and currently an amount of more than 400million dollars is held back in North Korea. Even the chinese company, one of top 500 companies, XIANG GROUP Inc., a magnestic-processing company, has invested 40million dollars in an North Korean iron company, but lost all of its invested money and expelled from the country due to one-sided termination of contract by North Korean government. North Korea has weak infrastructure, companies and workers in North Korea have little knowledge on capitalistic way of trade and North Korean government treat private companies unfairly demanding improper brides, etc. and terminate the contract with companies whenever they want to. Is the investing in North Korea right or wrong?
Cosmetic Surgery Should Be Banned

I completely understand your reasons for being against it in terms of I think we shouldn't place such an importance on outward appearance. But it comes down to personal choice. If you don't agree with cosmetic surgery then don't get it its as simple as that. As for the risk of the doctor being unaccredited that is already illegal its only legal to go to an accredited proffesionel. And I know people go to the bad ones anyway but banning all cosmetic surgery would help that. It upsets me when people are uncomfortable in their own skin I feel bad that they do. But if they want to change themselves what right do me or you or the law have to say no?
Cosmetic Surgery Should Be Banned

Have you noticed that an increasing number of celebrities are having cosmetic surgery? It is because they want a better image to present to the public. But should all of us join in? The cosmetic surgery trend misleads people into thinking that looks are most important. They might copy their idols' looks so they can feel good about themselves and be accepted by the public. This would be bad for society. More importantly, cosmetic surgery involves risks. Some doctors might not even have a licence. If the effect is not what you expected, you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Once your face is changed, it's changed. I think cosmetic surgery should be banned as soon as possible, before anyone gets hurt. Many patients undergo plastic surgery only because they need it. For example, people who have facial injuries or were born deformed may require surgery to fit in with society. More importantly, we are already free to change our appearance in whatever ways we like. We dye our hair, grow beards, pierce our bodies and get tattoos.
Cosmetic Surgery Should Be Banned

First of all that anecdote I do not believe makes a case for banning cosmetic surgery because people looking similar because of it does not mean that it needs to be banned. You can ban something because you don't like some body's physical appearance. Second, I actually agree with you about the sorry state of cosmetic surgery's regulation. The rules need to be less lax and surgeons need to be certified for these sorts of procedures. But it is possible to make these regulatory changes without banning cosmetic surgery all together. Also banning cosmetic surgery wouldn't improve womens' body images. Cosmetic surgery is a symptom of a larger problem not the cause. We need to teach girls from a young age to not be ashamed of their bodies by teaching body acceptance in school and promoting it in media across all age demographics. But on the other hand if we do all that and someone still wants to get cosmetic surgery we can't force them to live uncomfortably in their own skin. And I think that shaming people who have gotten surgery just makes the problem worse. Controlling people's bodies is not how we promote body acceptance. And I think that while women are the majority of patients, you make the false assumption that men do not get cosmetic surgery.
Cosmetic Surgery Should Be Banned

Everything you said about the high rates of surgery in South Korea, ect. and about it often having negative emotional consequences and occasional bad physical consequences is absolutely true and accurate. However, people have access to all the information about cosmetic surgery that they want and it is within their grasp to be aware of the consequences. Now I actually support banning cosmetic surgery for anyone under the age of 18, but once you are a legal adult you should be aloud to make your own decisions about your own body. And also, their are not as many emotional ramifications in South Korea because cosmetic surgery is so common and normal, not that I'm advocating for it being that common. I disagree with banning it because it restricts your freedom over your own body and negative consequences do not impact anyone else. I understand your concerns about how beauty obsessed our society is and I agree, however I believe the better route to take is to launch public awareness campaigns and education campaigns to try and change attitudes about our ridiculously high standards of beauty and changing how people and beauty is portrayed in the media. If someone wants to get a nose job or a breast augmentation in the meantime, what's the big deal? Their adults and they should be able to do it.
New Hampshire is better than your state.

Let's go! I live in California, and it is a helluva lot better than New Hampshire!You failed to give a definition of "better." I will conclude it means more products produced, size, population, and incomeYou also failed to give a definition of state. I will conclude it means a state in the U.S only, not a Canadian State or a state of being or mind. I will also assume that it ONLY means state, not the quality of the people living in it.Why California has more products produced than New HampshireOnly Texas passes California in products produced [1]. We produce grapes for wine, dairy for things such as milk and yogurt, and simply too much agriculture to count. New Hampshire does not produce much. The only export it beats California in is dairy [2]. In fact, New Hampshire ranks 48th in exports. California ranks second.Verdict: Pretty clear advantage to CaliforniaSizeThis is no secret. California beats out New Hampshire in size easily. California is a nice 163,696 [3] square miles of land. New Hampshire only covers a measly 9,350 square miles [4]. California ranks third in size, only to Alaska and Texas [5]. New Hampshire is 45th.Verdict: Indisputable advantage to CaliforniaPopulationMuch like size, California gives New Hampshire a whipping in population. California has 37,000,000 people [6], which ranks 1st in all 50 states. New Hampshire ranks down with New Jersey and Delaware at 42nd, with 1,300,000 people. It also beats them at Population/SQ mile. California has 226 people per square mile. New Hampshire has just 144 people per square mile.Verdict: Indisputable advantage to CaliforniaIncomeThis is the only topic that New Hampshire has an advantage in. The income of a normal Californian is $43,000, and New Hampshire is $44,000 [7]. But we have the 9th most richest guy in all of U.S.A [8]. That says a ton for how successful you can get in California.Verdict: Small advantage for New HampshireYour turn!Here are my sources:[1] http://www.stuffaboutstates.com...[2] http://www.agclassroom.org...[3] https://www.google.com...[4] https://www.google.com...[5] http://www.netstate.com...[6] http://www.ipl.org...[7] http://www.infoplease.com...[8] http://www.forbes.com...
this house would mandotory seatbelts on school buses

Federal safety standards require school buses to be painted school bus yellow and equipped with specific warning and safety devices"[1] Now to My opponents Arguments 1. Safety Argument Buses were built for the transportation and safety of children. There are already laws put in place as too what buses have on them to protect the children inside. In fact every year the National Highway Traffic Safety organization releases a strict set of guidelines that bus drivers must follow (Or face severe consequences) [2] Now to My Arguments against Seatbelts 1. Bus Transportation is the safest way to school And excerpt from "Edmunds" (A popular vehicle site) "In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found an additional 815 fatalities related to school transportation per year. But here's the difference: 75 percent of those school children were traveling in passenger cars, not school buses, and just over half of those were teenagers driving themselves to school. Another 22 percent of the 815 fatalities occurred during walking and bicycling. Only 2 percent were school bus-related — referring to children who were hit by buses. "[3] This shows that all other forms of transportation are flawed and that there are more deaths with seatbelts (Cars) than without them. 2. It is extremely expensive to install seatbelts on current buses In the united states alone, there are around 450,000 school buses. It would cost 10,000 USD to install seatbelts on current buses. Include installation that would equal up to 5 BILLION dollars, and the United States does not have that kind of money right now. [3] 3. More Seatbelts would mean lesser seats. Many cramped districts must put three or two to a seat on a school bus. With Seatbelts these districts would have problem's transporting many kids and would have to buy more buses. Or the district could take away buses from many people and have children take more dangerous routes like cars. Sources 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.nhtsa.gov... 3. . http://www.edmunds.com...
this house would mandotory seatbelts on school buses

Hello first of all I would like my opponent to take this debate seriously if we do this debate maybe in the future we will be able to save children's life from death or injury wont that make you feel so happy these few words are part of my 1st argument all about safety wont you wanda be safe getting home or going to school oh if ou dont care about your safety but your parents care about you before they care about their own self im always saying care dont you now the meaning of care or safety that mean be cautious not just leave him saying he's always safe even today he'll be safe hey wait a min dont you no that we dont even no if something bad is coming or something good so always stay safe.
A Libertarian Socialist society would be more free than an Anarcho Capitalist society.

Everything looks to be in order. Freedom is obviously a broad concept and I do not believe it can be easily defined, although the definition you provided seems as adequate as any. I think burden of proof should be shared equally, as we are both essentially defending a theoretical social model. While there have been crude examples of both libertarian socialist societies and anarcho-capitalist societies the concepts remain, for the most part, simply that. I'll save my arguments for future rounds as per your instructions.
A Libertarian Socialist society would be more free than an Anarcho Capitalist society.

Both city council and police forces are components of the state. Neither is the state, in and of themselves, but they combine with other elements to constitute it. Likewise with the Congress and the CIA. Your suggestion that we do away with police is bizarre. We need police. What we don't need is police with selective immunity who are free to aggress against innocents and suffer no consequences for these attacks. What you need, in short, is a system of competing police forces that enforce only crimes which have a victim and only at the behest of that victim or their family. Of course citizens should be able to act as police if they wish - as police would have no power that any ordinary citizen does not have - but certainly we need professional police, to investigate crime and attempt to secure restitution for the victim of these acts. When you put the state in charge of every aspect of society, tyranny is the inevitable result. The only freedom that matters, the only freedom that really exists, is economic freedom. When the state can take from me my income, my livelihood, my property - essentially, my life - then I am completely at the whim of some bureaucrat and that power will certainly be lorded over me, as people are apt to do. Perhaps you relish letting some body of men have total domination over you but that is not my wish. I want only freedom, the ability to own property and to contract voluntarily with others, to be able to trade with others. That's all. Monopoly means single seller. That is clearly what we have today - a single "seller" of police services. But what I am proposing is to have a free market in policing. Many sellers. A competitive market in policing. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? By not granting absolute dominion over society, by having competing police and by strictly limiting police powers to nothing in excess of ordinary citizens, that is how we will watch the watchers. Unlike in the modern system and your world, there is no state to pay for each prisoner, so it is unlikely that particular abuse would occur as there is no guaranteed stream of income for each prisoner. Now what is the record of communist nations on locking people up? The slave state in Soviet Russia had a lot of people thrown in gulags so don't talk to me about a social system which will see too many people incarcerated. And by eliminating all victimless crimes we will greatly reduce the number of people who are punished by the legal system. My opponent wants to go in the other direction and criminalize vast amounts of non criminal action (i.e. every aspect of voluntary interaction on the market place)! As if we didn't have too many laws and too many "criminals" created by the state so that it can crack down on them and justify it's monstrous existence already. I agree with you that claiming working for an employer is anything like being owned and savagely abused by another is stupid, insensitive and outrageous so it only perplexes me why you and your ilk continue to do it constantly.