BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debating has more negative aspects than positive ones

As the negative side of this debate, I am here to prove that debating does not have more negative sides than positive ones. Before I move on to my points, I would like to rebutt some of the arguments put forward by the opposition. To begin with, the opposition has stated that debate teaches the wrong way to argue. I believe this to be quite incorrect, as debate teaches a formal, polite way to argue. While some people yell and scream whilst arguing, debate teaches to be polite and calm. This is clearly a positive side to debate. In addition to this, has the opposition considered that argumentative people participate in debate? In general, naturally argumentative people are attracted to the idea of debate, and therefore, debate does not make them argumentative and challenging. The opposition has also stated that debate causes people to be narrow-minded: however, I shall prove that it does not in the rest of my argument. Debate teaches you to be more open minded. In a series of debates, the participant often has a single resolution, for which they must make an argument both for and against the motion. The participant may have a preference for a side in this debate, yet they must present arguments for both sides. In this way, debate makes one open minded. In impromptu debate, this is also true. One would be assigned the affirmative or negative side, and then the resolution would be revealed. Again, the participant may favor the other side of the argument, and arguing on the opposing side will allow them to be more open-minded. For example, if a person has to debate the resolution "parents should be allowed to implant GPS trackers in their children", the participant may actually strongly believe that parents should be allowed to implant the GPS trackers. But they may be assigned to debate on the opposite side, therefore forcing them to think of reasons against their opinion and causing them to become more open minded.
Debating has more negative aspects than positive ones

Debating has more negative sides than positive ones. I would like to point out that while not ineffective, debate teaches the wrong ways to argue. Ive not only been taught how to debate for a period of time but also observed many people and how they have changed after joining Debate. People have become more argumentative, contentious, and less open to accepting abstract theories after debating. When a topic or subject matter playfully comes up, they immediately accept it as a form of challenge and take it seriously. Debate also enables one to turn cynical and obstinate. Instead of being more open-minded to controversial issues, debate makes one have a narrow-minded view on sensitive topics that are merely regarded as foolish dreams or hopes. Due to its aggressive nature, its purpose now seems to be intimidation rather than mutual agreement. As ironic as this seems, I would like to point out that debate therefore has a more negative side than the positive.
Debating has more negative aspects than positive ones

Does the opposition truly believe that extemporaneous speeches in class are that much different from an impromptu debate? An impromptu debate consists of an impromptu speech, so they would be almost identical. And by participating in these impromptu speeches, these individuals do learn to be brief and speak quickly, and these are clearly benefits of debate. If people are terrified of the "impromptu" part of debate, shouldn't they try to overcome their fear? Isn't that what life is about: overcoming your fears and trying new things? Nobody is expecting a first-time debator to be amazing, and surely debate is daunting, but it is also enjoyable. By overcoming their fear, these people can gradually improve in debate, and enjoy the rest of the benefits it brings. The opposition has stated examples of people defending a topic that was harmful to them. But shouldn't these people experience what others feel like? By doing this, they are attempting to understand other people's attitudes towards them. I am not saying it is good for a homosexual person to argue that homosexuals are bad, but if they do, isn't it just experience and understanding other people's attitudes? While I know that the meek and shy don't have to change themselves through debate, I have never stated that they must do it through debate. I am merely expressing that debate can be a good way for them to do so. Debate is an enjoyable thing. Once you get used to it, there is a rush and a thrill to debating, being able to convince others that one is right. And isn't that a wonderful feeling? To sum up all the benefits of debate so far: one, debate makes people more open-minded as it forces them to think on both sides of the resolution; two, debate teaches one how to argue politely and calmly; three, debate teaches one to work with a time limit; four, debate can help an individual gain confidence in themselves; five, debate teaches one to think quickly. These are all clear reasons why debate does not have more negative sides than positive sides; six, debate helps people overcome their fears; seven, debate promotes understanding; and eight, debate is enjoyable.
Debating has more negative aspects than positive ones

There are many other ways in which a person can learn to be brief and think quickly, such as extemporaneous speeches in class. Many people have admitted the ‘impromptu’ part of debate was what had terrified them the most, which only evoked feelings of apprehension and pressure. Instead of them learning to think quickly, they immediately lost their train of thought and faced public humiliation due to not only the given time limit but having the need to attack and defend themselves at the same time. Therefore, instead of teaching them to ‘think quickly’, people only lose their focus and concentration. You say that debate enables people to become more open-minded because it allows them to argue outside of their beliefs. Might I mention that debate has various almost to the point of cruel topics that are being used currently? Because of this so called openness, Ive seen Muslims having to defend why muslims should be terrorized and sent to prison. It degrades them. Ive seen gays having to defend why homosexuality is a sin. In the end, instead of learning open-mindedness debate has only hurt them and caused even more conflicts.Also, the opposition side implies that the meek and shy must change themselves to become stronger and more open, but I would like to point out that why they don’t have to especially through debate. There are diverse people in this world and if there is the outgoing there are also the introspective ones who noticeably have their own charms and points of strength to being that way. I believe not all introverts must become extroverts to better express themselves. They have their own reasons and if they prefer to keep to themselves, I say let them. After joining this sport, there has been changes to how a person speaks and acts, meaning what he/she has learned in debate inevitably carried on to their real lives. Many of my friends who joined debate find themselves being overly and unnecessarily emotional when being in fights that do not require so much ‘passion’. Of course, they apologize immediately afterwards, but the damage has already been done. Debate may have its positive sides, but the side-effects are more negative than what its real purpose seems to be.
Necrophilia should be legal

Con's entire argument in Round 2 was centered around the idea that corpses cannot consent to have sex, despite the fact that I expressly explained in Round 1 how, under the system I described, someone could consent to a necrophiliac having sex with their corpse. If someone is legally allowed to consent to their body being used for scientific research post-mortem, there is no reason why they shouldn't have the right to consent to their body being used for sexual purposes. Under the system I described, this consent would be documented, and as specific as the individual wants it to be, therefore there is no issue with consent.
Necrophilia should be legal

I will provide links and legal technicalities in next round as required.At this point, Pro has completely lost and I don't want to build-up a case that they can attack any sooner than I need to.Pro concedes that this is not about dead animals or sex with them, he/she interestingly insists on pressing the matter that it's about legal sex with a human being... This the crux of the flaw in Pro's case.The thing that makes sex with a human legal is consent... Dead bodies not only are considered less-able to consent... They cannot in any feasible way even be argued to have more than 0.00% consent.In other words, Pro specifically says that the dead body we are having sex with is to be considered different to just any dead body and treated uniquely as it's a dead human body... Pro thus has defeated their own case since the sole thing that makes human adults legal to have sex with is their ability to consent which dead bodies can never do.
Necrophilia should be legal

Con said: 'The dead human body is always public property or the property of a funeral parlor...' This is not the case. The legal property and possession rights for a corpse are as follows: 'In the ordinary use of the term, a property right does not exist in a corpse. For the purpose of burial, however, the corpse of a human being is considered to be property or quasi-property, the rights to which are held by the surviving spouse or next of kin. This right cannot be conveyed and does not exist while the decedent is living. Following burial, the body is considered part of the ground in which it is placed.' (1) That being the case, I don't need to prove that funeral homes would like to allow necrophilic acts to be enacted upon the corpses in their care, or that such a desire is enough to change a law, because funeral homes have no legal rights to decide what does or doesn't happen to said corpses. As for the fact that the spouse or closest relative has burial rights, that fact can easily be changed in the case of the deceased having designated that their body is to be donated to science, so it should be considered perfectly reasonable for someone to leave their body to necrophilia in this manner. Therefore there are no issues with property rights. Con proceeded to make an argument related to extending the legalization of necrophilia to include necrophilic bestiality. This was entirely irrelevant, as that is a different issue entirely, and the legalization of those acts would be referred to as the legalization of necrozoophilia or zoonecrophilia (I've seen both terms used, and I can't seem to find any authoritative source for which is correct). As this debate is about whether or not necrophilia should be legal, it can be reasonably assumed that 'dead human sex' is the topic that I claimed should be legal, and necrophilic bestiality should not be included, or brought up at all in this discussion. 1. "corpse." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008. The Gale Group 17 Apr. 2018 https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Necrophilia should be legal

The dead human body is always public property or the property of a funeral parlor that would never allow this vile act and has never ever shown intention to do so as far as I know. Even if they have you then need to prove that their urge is enough to change a law.If you extend it to animals, bestiality is illegal and the STD transfer risk is HUGE well... Actually it's less than human to human interaction to be fair becasue the same virus is unlikley to infect two but since bestiality is illegal and having sex with a dead animal is basically legal if you live in a bestiality-allowed region of Earth... The resolutiong 'should be legal' can in no way at all be interpreted to mean this and Pro's entire R1 implies dead human sex only.
Necrophilia should be legal

I've done a couple of debates like this before, but it's been several months since the last one, so I thought I'd try it again.I strongly believe that necrophilia ought to be legal. I will admit, I am a necrophiliac, so I am somewhat biased regarding this subject. I've heard the arguments against the legalization of necrophilia, and I've heard the proposed solutions to the problems. I'm going to expound upon what I believe to be the ideal system in which to practice necrophilia.To begin with, allow people the option to leave their body to necrophilia. Once someone has decided to leave their body to necrophilia, they receive a form to fill out, further specifying what they’re okay with concerning their body’s exact usage (for example, some people might be perfectly fine with having someone make love to their body, but not with having someone mutilate it). Then, when the person dies, their body is sent to a facility where it’s checked for diseases that could potentially be transferred to the living and properly cared for. The body is then put into an online database (kind of like online dating for necrophiliacs), including the information from the form that the deceased filled out, the results of the tests to check for diseases (which means that it’s informed consent for the necrophiliacs) and a current photograph (because we want to know how long our prospective lovers have been dead, regardless of whether we like them fresh or not so fresh). When a necrophiliac finds a body that suits their needs and preferences, it’s transported to them. Once they’re done with it, the body is returned to the facility (assuming it’s in any shape to be reused), checked for diseases again, and put back into storage so that it can be reused. Thus, this system would eliminate the issues of consent (the person consented to precisely what is happening to their body) and sanitation (the bodies are kept in a sanitary environment, and the necrophiliac is informed of the risks before beginning their endeavor), the two biggest real arguments against necrophilia.
Ban islam

Actually, if you knew anything about the Quran, it"s very peaceful. Also, a very small percentage of Muslims support ISIS, because ISIS is a radical interpretation of the Quran that most Muslim"s don"t believe. In fact, in Indonesia, some Muslim"s have set up schools to convert ISIS terroroists to less radical and violent ways. Also, they have to right to believe what they want to believe just like we have the right to believe what we want to believe. The majority of the Muslim"s do not want to take over the world, because that contradicts the REAL Quran and not the radical interpretation of ISIS. Also, as someone who has actually read parts of the real Quran, there is nothing that supports more violence than the New Testament. Also, what right do you have to say that the majority of Muslim"s are ignorant to their own beliefs? Are you Muslim?
Ban islam

free them from islam, there is death penalty for leaving it. muslims are forced terrorists, the reason why they dont all go full muslim in our socities is because They have to abide by our laws and they need money, which is a higher power than allah.. and actually money is the same as allah, but thats besides the point any sure chance they get to take over the world.. they will oh you are talking about Islamic state, are you the quran is very clear, and it represents the entire religion.. isis isnt doing anything that contradicts the quran, and many musims are ignorant of what the quran actually says this is not about isis.. its about islam, isis is a good example for what will happen if muslims get into power.. also the reason we see so many muslims hording up on grenades and ak 47 even in countries they dont belong in, as if they wouldnt hord those weapon for some purpose
Ban islam

First of all, free all Muslims from what? Second of all, not all Muslims are warmongering villains. If they were, since there are 1.6 billion of them, they already would"ve taken over the world. There was a survey taken of 11 predominantly Muslim countries, that showed that Pakistan was the only country that didn"t know if they supported ISIS or not, the rest overwhelminglybeing against them. ISIS are Islamic radicals, and just like Christian radicals, they shouldn"t represent the entire religion. Also, you have to understand that the majority of Muslim"s hated 911. In fact, my Muslim grandfather, was in the Twin Towers when it was bombed. I myself am not Muslim, but I and statistics can tell you many Muslim"s mourned after 911. 911 was not the fault of Islam, it was the fault of one small unpopular radical group, and to blame the entire religion for that groups acrions is just wrong.
There is no "self"

Okay... it seems the con argument proposed is that because I can observe my thoughts, I exist. My argument: your perception of yourself exists only in your perception. There is nothing objective about that perception. All of the thoughts you think compose a self that only exists by your conviction that it exists, yours and mine. This is unlike a couch, as someone argued in the comment section. You think my argument is "The couch I am sitting on is not a couch because I can only use the resource of my mind to understand it as such," but no, that is not my argument. There is a couch indeed. The couch exists. People exist. I exist. It's just that my perceptions don't. The couch is not a perception, the couch is a reality because it exists independent of whether I observe it or not. The self, however, to restate, only exists in my conviction of it. The self- not the person, which does exist. I argue that "I think, therefore I am" is misleading. Rather, it is, "I am, and I also think that I am." Your existence is self evident: the fact that you exist needs no proof. Whether or not you THINK you exist, you exist. If you said, "I don't think I am, and therefore I am not," you would be wrong. Your thoughts do not confirm your existence, neither do they confirm the truth. Even if you didn't know that you existed, you'd exist. The truth is that which is permanent. You are right to say that when you die, your ego dies. That's exactly why it is not a truth. If your thoughts are impermanent and your "self" or "ego" is only existing based on its perception of itself, does it really exist? The energy that is produced by thoughts, the brainwaves as you stated, is real, however. But how we associate ourselves with those thoughts and whether or not we believe them is where these thoughts are put on trial. The ego evaluates thought. But take away that which evaluates the thought and what you have is emptiness. You're left only with the very nature of your being, thoughts without opinion. Thought is not emptiness. Thought with association is emptiness. Thoughts can be of the truth. The thought that "I exist" is true. This is not because I "believe" it, but just because it's true. I don't have to think anything of it. Any thought that the ego creates a relationship to is not real. But thought is real in itself. My final proposition: What are we when we are that which does not observe itself? My answer: Egoless.
There is no "self"

You can't see my thoughts.. I can't see yours.. But when they are written down we can. I can't see cold air, but its real. My brainwaves can be scanned. If I'm brain dead my ego is gone, there will be no brainwaves. But when my ego is evaluating itself, brainwaves can be detected.My perception of myself is mine, its opinion. There is self. As I speak to myself in my mind energy is coursing through my brain.. Its real.
There is no "self"

Your belief may or may not affirm something that is true, for example the fact that you have fingers. However, your "belief" or observation that you have fingers does not make it true. It was true before you observed the fact. Your belief is insignificant in determining something that is true because the truth is self-evident and was there before you observed it. And again by self I mean ego, not our physical bodies; those are real. We are made of physical matter that is a real substance. However, nothing can be contributed to a given object or person by perception. So you sitting in a room is actually just part of one united "existence" that all things inside and outside of it partake in, again independent of your observation. If you shocked me with energy, that which is me would be shocked. I think your understanding of self differed from mine. You may wish to argue on the point that our beliefs are insignificant. Because what is your life if your beliefs about yourself are nothing?
There is no "self"

"The self, or the ego, or everything we believe about ourselves and every way in which we see ourselves, is not a reality. It is not a substance of truth. Truth I define as that which exists beyond our perception of it." I believe I have fingers.. I actually believe I'm using them to type right now. I believe I'm white, and this can be proven true by more than just the obvious color of my skin, but by tracing my lineage. If the self is not real, and I'm the only person in a room, is the room empty? I believe I control my actions and contain energy. If I spin a wheel hooked up to a machine that captures energy, is that energy not real? If I shocked you with that electricity, would that be reality? How can my perception of you getting shocked off energy I created (directed through food I ate) possibly not be real?
There is no "self"

The self, or the ego, or everything we believe about ourselves and every way in which we see ourselves, is not a reality. It is not a substance of truth. Truth I define as that which exists beyond our perception of it. Example: I do not have to see a tree for it to exist; it exists without my perception of it, the tree's existence does not depend on my observation of it. Likewise, everything you believe about yourself does not and cannot exist as an objective "truth" Others believe that life is a fabrication, an imagined world, that reality does not exist, that the substance of life is within the story, the mind, that which man creates for himself. Or you may want to argue over the necessary existence of the ego or self. Can go in a number of directions.
Should school be voluntary

You could be right, why should a child/teenager go to school when his project is to work in a circus, a math lesson never teached anybody how to train an elephant! Seriously, school is one of the rare things that can lower the inequalities. If it wasn't obligatory, young people from low social class with a fragile familal structure would be the first to give it up, because they would need to work and would be less supported by their parents. They could then regret it their whole life.
Should school be voluntary

School should be voluntary because forcing a student to learn will not benefit the student. It won't help the student at all. It will only help if the student has a true and strong desire to learn and gain knowledge to influence their own future. Students are supposed to choose their own future. They need to know they are responsible for their own actions no matter what. they will have more free time and will have more time to spend with their family...etc. School should therefore be voluntary.)
The United States Federal Government should increase Foreign Aid to Russia

I eagerly await the rest of this debate. Let's jump in to your sole argument. 1. This plan only provides 1 billion dollars. That is 0.00007 of our national debt. Barely significant. 2. Congress' first priority is keeping America safe. Advantage 3 is that of "national security". That means that this plan is keeping with Congress' first priority. 3. IMPORTANT-- This plan adds not a single penny of spending to the status quo (in other words your position). In the status quo, this 1 billion is being spent on ethanol subsidies which actually cause inflation. But with this plan, this money is being diverted to a way better cause. Think of it: would you rather be spending tax on something that causes inflation or something that increases our national security and saves thousands of lives? Clearly my position is beneficial in comparison to the status quo.