BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humanity's tendency towards commodification of things ought to be resisted.

***Bsh1 Unique Topics Tournament**** Outline: PRO will argue that commodification ought to be resisited, CON that it should not be resisted. R1: Definitions, rules & acceptance No forfeits No kritiks/ semantics All sources within body of debate Shared BoP Definition: Commodification is the transformation of goods, services, ideas and not least people into commodities or objects of trade. R2 Contentions R3 Rebuttal/additional arguments R4 Defense/rebuttals R5 Summary/Conclusions
Scientology is the worst popular religion in existence.

1) The US government is not the end all of what is and isn't a religion. In fact, for the very reason that the first amendment keeps them neutral on the issue they should be the last place to go to determine what is and isn't a religion. The tax exempt status of churches, in general, is a complete farce. Scientology does have tax exempt status as a religious organization, however, this is due to a massive illegal operation on their part. http://www.cs.cmu.edu... "Scientology's lawyers hired private investigators to dig into the private lives of IRS officials and to conduct surveillance operations to uncover potential vulnerabilities, according to interviews and documents. One investigator said he had interviewed tenants in buildings owned by three IRS officials, looking for housing code violations. He also said he had taken documents from an IRS conference and sent them to church officials and created a phony news bureau in Washington to gather information on church critics. The church also financed an organization of IRS whistle-blowers that attacked the agency publicly." Scientology had something in the range of 200 suits against the IRS and personnel. Many believe that the impromptu meeting between the leader of Scientology and the head of the IRS to drop the suits (which probably would have cost a lot to deal with) in exchange for tax exempt status was the pivotal reason they have tax exempt status today; not because they are a religion. So we see, not only is the government a bad arbiter. Their decision on the issue had more to do with not wanting to be constantly attacked by Scientologists than it did with the merits. 2. Just having a bevy of B actors doesn't make a religion popular. Scientology treats the actors differently than the standard minions, so in a fairly technical sense, the famous people have a different religion where everybody treats them like deities as they lure in others. The actors are exposed more gingerly to the activities, beliefs, programs, and treated far better. >>"the premise I'm trying to prove here is that they 1. Are not a religion. and 2.The people who get lured into it destroy their lives." I concede the first point, which contradicts the topic and clearly concedes the argument. The second point is a little more nuanced. Most people leave within a year after one or two sessions and thousands more don't actually have their lives destroyed and live happily as Scientologists. Certainly they have managed to kill people like Lisa McPherson, but how are you judging the impact? Christianity has lead to the death of millions. Islam has lead to a fair number of deaths as well. Catholic priests get juggled about by the Church when they get a bit too touchy with the kids (ruining thousands of lives in the process). You need to establish that they are a religion, they are popular, and not simple "bad", but the "worst".* * I concede that they exist so "existence" is not required.
Scientology is the worst popular religion in existence.

1.Ask the United States government. They have tax exempt status as a religious institution. That's as official as you can get. 2.IT may not have numbers, but the ranks are made of famous people, and rich people. Money is power in our society. Granted they are falling, but the premise I'm trying to prove here is that they 1. Are not a religion. and 2.The people who get lured into it destroy their lives.
Scientology is the worst popular religion in existence.

Scientology is not the worst popular religion in existence. This is for two very critical reasons. 1) Scientology is not a religion. "3.They are not a religion. They are a corporation." You concede this point and thus the debate. 2) Scientology is not popular. Despite the claims of Scientology that they are the fastest growing religion and have millions of adherents they have ~50,000 members and have been in decline for two and a half decades. Due to these problems Scientology does not qualify as a popular religion and therefore cannot be the worst in the set of popular religions.
Scientology is the worst popular religion in existence.

The CoS is slowly being eliminated by Anonymous, but no one seems to take notice on the news too much. So I wanted to take this chance to debate someone about it. My claims. 1.They exploit people, making them work for 70$ a week. 2.They steal peoples money to advance them in the church. 3.They are not a religion. They are a corporation. A religion revolves around belief, they revolve around money. 4.They sue anyone who disagrees with them. Which is against the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech is a RIGHT in this country. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violation of nature

con posits other theories as possibles explanations. i even acknowledged that other scenarios are possible. the reason why we shouldn't view them as superior explanations, is because we have no empirical evidence for them, but merely theoretical. empirical evidence alone, it looks like thermodynaimcs is violated, and it looks like there was something that was an uncaused cause. again, refer to first post to see why i prefer the supernatural explanation over the natural in that regard. con argues that the God model is infereior cause we don't know how non matter interacts with matter. that is beside the point though. if supernatural things do in fact exist, we won't be able to explain them with sceintific reasoning. the point is that it appears supernatural things have occurred, that violations of nature more specifically have occurred. con also argues how does something come from nothing, as if ithat diminishes the God model. the God model in fact answers it though, cause without that model, we'd be squarely faced with the prospect of something coming from nothing. that is the most strightforward observation we have when we look at the big bang etc. we have to infer into it for it to make better sense. again, why God instead of natural explanation refer back to first post. i'm not sure which model poses the fewest questions. but the God model makes it more consistent with what we see and what we know. it looks supernatural, it looks like violations of reality, so that's what we call it. perhaps with the approach con takes, the model with the fewest questions is that something can come from nothing. the only question we have is how is that possible? to make it make sense, we have to add more layers, whether that's the God model, or the competing other models. again, see first post for why i argue the God model, the supernatural explanation.
School safety

Con has conceded the third round as well. I am pro for school safety, and it's an error he made when making this debate and accidentally choosing con (which he should have been pro). Anyhow, I feel regardless, he probably would have conceded if he were on the pro side anyway. To defend school safety and make some actual convincing arguments, I just want to say, it's a fact that schools do need more security given the recent events that has happened in the last 20 years or so, especially the last 10. Security would of course provide a much safer environment to children, and maybe even make them more comfortable, therefore focusing on their education without the worry of someone coming in with a gun. That's just one argument I got, but you could list off dozens.
School safety

Hi. .. I'm pro, and today I will be arguing for school safety due to recent events that have occurred in the last several years. Con must demonstrate, and build a framework as to why schools don't need tighter security. This is a knock out victory in the favor of pro as con (who is against) has said himself that schools need tighter security, and there needs to be something done to prevent more massacre's like the Sandyhook from happening. Con has been in favor of what I have said already , therefore admits defeat.
School safety

There has been many tragic events that have taken place in the school area. For example, the sandy hook massacre. When that happened, the school system said that they would try to make the schools more safer. However, there hasn't been any new rules or adjustments. I was in a school office the other day , and someone rang the doorbell trying to come outside, and the secretary just let them in without asking them any further questions. which really concerned me because they wouldn't know if that person carried any guns or weapons that could hurt the educational environment and the pupils in it. MORE NEEDS TO BE DOEN TO PROTECT CHILDREN
RESOLVED: Holy Communion should be received only by people of Catholic faith

Communion should only be received by people of Catholic Faith because it is their religion and they had to receive their first Communion unlike others who have not received it and want to come into THEIR church and receive something that they are not prepared for. When in the Catholic faith you must take classes on the importance of the communion, and because they have took those classes, they know when the can and cannot receive their communion. For example if during the week that person commits a mortal sin, they cannot go up and accept communion until the following week. If you feel that you want to accept Communion you should begin taking classes so that you can receive your first communion. Some churches feel that they do not have to accept communion on a daily/weekly, but on a yearly or monthly basis. Accepting the sacrament of communion is accepting the body of Christ, and accepting communion out of turn is wrong. If you feel that accepting communion is very important to join a catholic church. you should not want to accept things that you know do not belong to you, but you feel that you should have.
RESOLVED: Holy Communion should be received only by people of Catholic faith

I stand in negation to the resolution, "RESOLVED: Holy Communion should be received only by people of Catholic faith." I shall start by clarifying with definitions: Holy Communion- The sacrament of the Eucharist received by a congregation. http://dictionary.reference.com... should- must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency) http://dictionary.reference.com... The rest of the resolution, (be received only by people of Catholic faith), simply means that only Catholics (excluding Protestants and any other denomination of Christians or other religions) should receive Holy Communion. In my religion class in school several weeks ago, we took a quiz on how well we know the Catholic faith. It is a Catholic school, but as can be read by my profile, I am a Methodist. So, as my peers and I were taking this quiz, we came upon this question (this comes directly from the quiz, I will put the source below): 5. Holy Communion may be taken by a. Anyone at all, so long as his conscience tells him it is the right thing to do. b. Any Christian who wishes to manifest the unity which Christ willed for his Church. c. Catholics in the state of grace, but not by Protestants even if they are in the state of grace. d. Catholics who have committed mortal sins and are sorry for them, even if they have not confessed them yet in confession. e. None of the above. The answer to this question provided by the website was: c. Correct. Since Protestants do not believe as Catholics do regarding the Real Presence, they may not take Communion, even if they are in the state of grace. The very act of taking Communion is a visible sign that you believe exactly as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the Real Presence, and Protestants don't. The source for the question and answer is: http://www.catholic.com... When my peers and I saw this answer, I was enraged. Because the rest of them were Catholic, they did not realize why I was mad. I engaged in a heated debate with them about this question. Their main contention was simply "Catholics are the only ones who deserve it: they have the right beliefs in God." They had no real justification, and it truly angered me. They acted pompous and arrogant, as if God had only chosen Catholics to accept this privilege. I firmly believe that Catholics are not the only ones who should receive Holy Communion. As a true Catholic knows, Jesus was the founder of the Catholic faith, but would Jesus want to discriminate others from accepting Holy Communion? I have more faith and belief in Jesus than half of the Catholics in my class, so why should I, a non-Catholic, be turned from receiving Holy Communion? This was a bit of an introductory, I wait for my opponent's response.
RESOLVED: Holy Communion should be received only by people of Catholic faith

My opponent has forfeited the previous round, so all of my arguments stand. My opponent has also failed to show WHY only Catholics should receive Holy Communion. She has not provided any proof or evidence that shows WHY Holy Communion should only be designated for Catholics. There is not any biblical or substantial evidence to show that gives Catholics a superior position in accepting Holy Communion over other religions or denominations. I heavily urge a CON vote. My opponent has failed to make a standing argument. Thank you.
The government should implement a special "junk food" tax

I don't have much material to rebut but I'll just make my case brief. My opponent's case: A special "junk food tax" is meant to promote healthy eating and fund food stamp programs for the poor. (1) a tax on any product forces higher prices on the consumer. Any increase in the price of a product leads to less people buying it. So while Pro figures that a tax will provide a good stream of revenue to other programs, it'll actually decrease the stream of revenue because less people will buy the product. The price elasticity of demand measures whether a 1% increase in price leads to a greater than 1% decrease in demand for it. If it exceeds a 1% loss in demand, total revenue will fall and they'd have been better off not increasing the price at all. Fast food consumers are extremely sensitive to increases in price. They have a dollar menu at practically every fast food establishment. Cheap food is a hallmark of the unhealthy food industry. The whole target market for this industry would be alienated with the introduction of a new tax. Total revenue would fall substantially. This would have greater effects throughout the economy as local communities start slowing down due to sluggish food industry sales. (2) high calorie food isn't inherently harmful. Many body builders routinely eat in excess of 4,000 calories per day. The idea of a tax on all high calorie or "unhealthy" food is making a misguided assumption. (3) people would greatly disagree on what is considered "unhealthy food." (4) the food stamp program badly needs reform. Billions of tax dollars are wasted in fraudulent food stamp benefits.
The government should implement a special "junk food" tax

Thanks pro, this should be interesting.As stated in round 1, I'm not assuming any burden of proof in this debate. This lies squarely on the shoulders of my opponent.How high is the tax?Is it at the federal, state, or county level? Is it optional? I'll let my opponent elaborate more in the next round. I'm solely taking apart his plan since I'm not assuming any burden of proof.
The government should implement a special "junk food" tax

I will be arguing that a special tax, to be implemented only on foods deemed to be harmful to the health of an individual, would be beneficial for society. I accept the burden of proof in this debate. I propose that the junk food tax (JFT from this point on) will have several effects, namely giving citizens more incentive to choose healthy food more often, create more revenue for local independent farmers, decrease the amount of government spending on healthcare, and create tax money for other areas of need. To give my opponent something to work with, I'll give a hypothetical outline for such a tax. The JFT is a sales tax which is applied to all candy, soft drinks, any food with trans fats, and any foods deemed, by the decision of the local governmental food regulatory agency, to have unhealthy amounts of added fats and sugars. Most processed food should be taxed. Exempt from the tax includes raw meat, produce, dairy products, and most bread products. All restaurant food will be subject to the tax, however the restaurant/fast food chain may appeal the tax on certain foods. I imagine most salads and other healthy dining options would be exempted with very little fuss. Now, the obvious flaw in the JFT is that it is unfair to the poor, who depend on cheap, low quality foods to survive. To remedy this flaw, part of the JFT revenue must be put into a program to ensure everyone can afford to eat. Be it food stamps, subsidies, school breakfast programs, or government funded shelters giving out meals, the JFT will not prevent anyone from being able to afford to put food on the table. I have outlined the parameters of the tax, I turn it over to my opponent for his opening statements. After my rebuttal, I will go more in depth as to just how this tax will be beneficial.
Legalize all drugs

P1: Well as a country we have to have at least SOME morals. It's not all about the money, we have to take the people into consideration as well. There are countless anti-drug associations such as D.A.R.E. that teach young people about the harmful effects of drugs. Legalizing all drugs would show these young people that our country is full of hypocrites who only care about taking our money rather than keeping us safe. Is paying off our debt really worth the lives of the millions of Americans who will lose their lives from a drug overdose? Fast food does relate to legalizing drugs because it is a perfect example of how big corporations feed us garbage that is extremely harmful to our bodies. Fast Food is responsible for obesity in America, and the legalization of all drugs will be responsible for a nationwide drug problem. How can the government control where people do drugs? Drug addicts will do anything to get their fix, and when they're high they won't be able to work, drive, or care for a child. But they're going to do it regardless and the government can't do anything to stop it. P2: There are security guards in retail stores, but people still continue to steal anyway. The same will happen in drug dispensaries. Like I said, an addict would do anything to get their fix. There would be an attempted robbery on a very frequent basis due to all the addicts who can't afford the drugs. The people who use the heroin definitely would not want to have someone supervising them the whole time they're high, so they would find some way around that restriction and do it in secret, which would increase the risk of an overdose. Rehabilitation centers would just be harming the economy then because they'd be putting a stop to the people who give the drug stores business. P3: This would take a lot of time and work for the Doctors. They should work on finding a cure for cancer, not finding a way to make heroin less harmful. P4: That doesn't make it any better. Sure the people make the choice to smoke, but the government shouldn't manufacture something that can kill people. C: Legalizing drugs will be harmful for society.
Legalize all drugs

p1: If we listened to everyone who had some moral righteousness then as a country we would not get very far, yes some people are against it and some people are for it but regardless in the end things that people don"t want to see will eventually happen. It"s just the way it is with money and jobs on the line any extra money that this country can produce will be a significant change for the better. America is $16,738,158,460,368.00 in debt as of 2013 that"s an estimated 17 trillion dollars in debt that doesn't seem to be getting any better. The U.S debt surges 328 billion dollars a day alone so how can marijuana sales not make some difference in a country that is already poor. America advertising fast food has nothing to do with legalizing drugs. It"s not the government"s fault that 50 million Americans are served daily by fast food restaurants People can control their actions; just because something is available to you doesn't mean you as a person have to be involved with it. Drug cartels will be stopped that is protecting citizens. People will NOT be drugged out on the streets, or at work, or driving, and especially not during the custody of a child. P2: If people are robbing the stores that sell the drugs then who is losing their jobs? Because this would boost security measures create more room within law enforcement, medical jobs, and sales associate opportunities for people who are not qualified to be working in a high stakes field and who can only survive off of minimum wage. The people who want to take heroin, etc would only be able to so with medical care available that"s the restrictions that I"m implying. The drugs that cause immediate threats these people would have to be monitored and supervised during their high.Underage children will NOT be sold too.The government will not be responsible but the people themselves. Rehabilitation facilities already exist and they increase if all drugs became legal the people have a choice to stop and if a person goes too far than a judge can always admit them into a program just as they do today without the drugs being legal. p3: With the ability to put time into studying the drugs and counteracting the harmful components within them is still a possibility. As of now Doctors don"t try to breakdown the harmful chemicals but if drugs were legal then new studies will begin. Drugs only elevate the chemicals that are already inside the human body if doctors can learn to control the chemical reactions then maybe these drugs can become less harmful. I never said people with life threatening diseases and people who use drugs were the same I clearly said that drug users and non drug users die every day the only difference is drug users die by choice because they fed into their addiction. p4: Cigarette companies put warning signs and list ingredients but 43.8 million people still smoke knowing that they can die. C: The legalization of all drugs will ultimately be better for the economy and the people.