BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist pt.2

Because of full forfeit from my previous opponent, I have decided to make a second attempt at this debate. I have made it impossible to accept, so if you're interested then leave a comment saying such. Introduction:This debate will be centered around the idea that 'anarcho'-capitalism can't seriously call itself an anarchist movement. For the main purpose that:1) Anarchism is (and will be in this debate) defined as: opposition to authority and hierarchy.2) Capitalism is centered around hierarchy.3) Meaning, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.4) Thus, 'anarcho'-capitalism (or capitalism without a state, as they define it) is not anarchist. The burden of proof for this debate will be shared.
Vocational Training in High School

I am sorry once again fellow debaters and readers that I was unable to give a lengthy response in my last debate. Now to debate.. Rebuttals/Summaries: "I can go back and forth indefinitely about budget cuts, but given that my opponent has not elaborated I will not." - I have elaborated on the topic and given reason to why I think it is a considerable factor against your premise. Which is noted in round two and so forth. "#1- vocational programs are unaffected by the hypothetical budget cuts my opponent mentions (hypothetical because he has not cited one example of tax cuts affecting vocational programs, and how they will affect them)," - My apologies, but no need for the aggressiveness, here are just a few links with information on the budget cut (to irradiate the idea ) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com... - http://www.examiner.com... - http://blogs.newsobserver.com... Given that Budget cuts are no longer hypothetical (which was a little irrational to deem so in the first place) and given that regional support would vary , it would be a good idea for 'now' to suggest that vocational programs would be unfavorable due to accumulative 'IF-ness' on the economic situation. "My opponent says I have not negated his argument, and have only compensated for his argument." - solve my economic situation completely or disprove its existence and you would have negated, but you didn't. Vocational programs does not solve the budget cut crises, it merely compensates for it, given that budget cuts are the same even if vocational enhancement is implemented. "I hope that my opponent's final round presents something other than a hypothetical case unfounded by facts, or that at least he doesn't try to manipulate the readers into ignoring my arguments." - The Vietnam war happened, this would be considered a prerequisite of knowledge. If you didn't know about it, you should precariously look it up for yourself rather than taking my word for it, or rather than deeming it hypothetical and unfounded. Apply this to my 'so apparent' hypothetical budget cuts. And as for me manipulating, lets be honest, this is a debate. One in which I should try my best to be persuasive about my side, as so should you. NOT manipulation, BUT persuasion. So I beg to differ about your remarks, which are spurious and manipulative themselves. As for my other two contentions, I will concede my opponents rebuttals after his final attempt to disprove my contentions, which he has yet to do so. But I will leave this for the readers to figure considering it isn't that hard. As well as I expect my opponent to dismiss his personal remarks. Lets keep this one civil. Thank You ~Mastajake
Vocational Training in High School

I can go back and forth indefinitely about budget cuts, but given that my opponent has not elaborated I will not. Am I supposed to fill in the blanks on a subject I did not bring up? If I believe, supported by the sources I have cited and provided, that #1- vocational programs are unaffected by the hypothetical budget cuts my opponent mentions (hypothetical because he has not cited one example of tax cuts affecting vocational programs, and how they will affect them), #2- that vocational programs are a remedy to any "hypothetical" budget cuts, and #3- vocational programs are economically beneficial to schools, then it is up to my opponent to make this topic relevant to the argument. I think it is manipulative that he would keep pressing the issue as if I have neglected something he has made relevant. The fact of the matter is he has only mentioned budget cuts, but simply mentioning budget cuts does not make them a reality. My opponent must reference which budget cuts he is referring to, and how they negatively impact vocational programs. My sources suggest enhancements to vocational programs would be one of the results of budget cuts, or at least a solution that schools would look to in order to alleviate issues with traditional curricula. My opponent says I have not negated his argument, and have only compensated for his argument. Unfortunately he is limiting me to compensating for a hypothetical situation that he has not made clear to me. I cannot negate hypothetical budget cuts, I can only state how I feel vocational programs are unaffected, and how vocational programs can provide relief for schools affected by budget cuts. My opponent claims that I use the word "should" a lot. I have claimed vocational programs should be unaffected by budget cuts. I said "should" because I cannot make an affirmation regarding a hypothetical situation. I can only make a hypothetical judgment of the outcome "should" the situation arise. I am also presenting a policy recommendation. When you present a case for a policy recommendation, it is customary to present an evaluative- in this case, "should". This entire debate is about what "should" happen, and therefore attempting to prevent me from using the word, or suggesting that I am over using it is as unrealistic as suggesting that I shouldn't argue my case. I have presented many facts supporting my case, and sources supporting those facts. I understand my opponent does not have time to present his case, but he should not resort to attempting to manipulate the readers' understanding of what I am arguing. I hope that my opponent's final round presents something other than a hypothetical case unfounded by facts, or that at least he doesn't try to manipulate the readers into ignoring my arguments. Thank you.
Vocational Training in High School

Fellow debaters and readers I am sorry but I am not going to be able to give a lengthy explanation for this round because I have some other priority's that I must commit to right now. Once again I am very apologetic about my circumstance. But I do have a few short things to say about my opponents most recent rebuttals. He still has NOT negated my arguments, all he has done is COMPENSATED so far (i.e.)"Vocational programs should be unaffected by budget cuts, in that the interested fields should be supporting them.". He has used the word "should" a lot, which is only compensation and suggestion. My arguments are still firm for they still need to be negated with something other than an indefinite reason or compensation, against my arguments. Again sorry about my circumstances but I hope you have considered that I have left a little bit for my opponent to go off of, which includes my previous debate to be negated, without mere compensation and 'if-ness'. Ergo I await my opponents response ~Mastajake
Vocational Training in High School

Lets begin. .. Definitions: Vocational - of, pertaining to, or noting instruction or guidance in an occupation or profession chosen as a career or in the choice of a career Contentions: 1. budget Cuts As we know there have been many budget cuts around the U. S. forcing for schools to cut down on not only teachers but programs offered at high school as well. Given thus, making the decision to offer (yes, even offer) vocational programs at the high school level would have a negative affect on the economy of the school. More core classes in high school would have to make even more cuts on their necessary items to teach the class, which is already an issue that is being struggled with. This issue would only worsen if you take more from the schools budget to make these vocational programs. Thus rendering vocational programs a bad idea at this time; because of the economies effect on schools currently. 2. Alteration of The Position of The Schools My second point is, if what you suggest is implemented across the U. S. , certain high schools are going to have narrow options secluding the students of that high school to certain occupations that may only be regional. Thus sufficing seclusion of there job which isn't always beneficial considering personal perseverances outside of regional occupation. 3. High School Can Be Premature High school can be premature for children ranging from 14-18 to a make vocational decision. I feel that it would be better to make you vocational decision in college or trade school. Colleges and trade schools are already narrowed for the personnel applying that express an interest, as well as they provide range and professional expertise. Given that these college and trade schools are already out there, I feel vocational programs in high school would be a waste and a poor competitor to those of colleges and trade schools. Conclusion: Financially it would be a bad decision, as I exemplified via my first argument. Given the location, students probably wouldn't have many options and thus are left to seclusion, unless they choose otherwise, but besides the fact it is still a factor. Also high school can be premature for such decisions in which the student wouldn't know it and waste his education and risk the chance of getting into another school such as a college or trade. I feel my debate is reasonable and sufficient ergo I excitedly await my opponents rebuttals. Thank you ~ Mastajake
Vocational Training in High School

Let me define the positions, and I will await an opponent to present his/her arguments. I will be arguing Pro. As Pro I contend that High Schools should offer more alternatives in Vocational programs, and options that concentrate on in demand jobs, especially those listed in US News as the most promising careers. As Con you should be opposed to enhancing vocational programs in High School, or any changes that reflect our changing economy. I await my opponent's responses.
Vocational Training in High School

So, my opponent has forfeited his final round of debate and was not able to negate any of my contentions fully. I have provided reasonable, real facts, of why vocational enhancements and implementation would not be favorable. So if you could, vote accordingly (CON). 1. Budget Cuts 2. Alteration of the Positions of the School 3. High School Can Be Premature These are all valid reasons of why you should considerably vote con. As I have substantiated in prior debate these are formidable reasons as well. I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate and the readers for fallowing along as well. I feel my debate is justified and reasonable. ~Mastajake
Abortion

Con has conceded that abortion is not murder. Thank you. I win the debate.But I will still elaborate."Technically, women do not have to eat anymore with the baby then with without."Not true. It is common knowledge that appetite increases during pregnancy. This appetite increase is to feed the baby and otherwise would not have happened. The pregnancy forces the woman to spend extra money on food to feed the baby.http://www.whattoexpect.com..."Yet looking at this morally, I see it entirely inhumane to look at pregnancy (while abortion is illegal) as a type of forced enslavement."Morally, it can not be preferable to believe a fiction over a truth, especially when the truth is glaringly obvious with just a minute of research. Nothing in the definition of either forced or enslavement includes a requirement that the thing described be wrong or immoral in order to qualify as "forced enslavement". Hence, even if the "forced enslavement" involved in banning abortion was morally justified it would still be "forced enslavement". The immorality and the consequences of slavery are well known. It is on Pro to show why morally this special case of "forced enslavement" is justified."This fetus could become something- someone, yet you completely eliminate any possibility of that future human helping our society and environment."The fetus could just as easily become a human hurting society and the environment. History is full of examples of tyrants, serial killers, rapists, thieves, criminals, etc. Considering the women most likely to opt for abortion are ones who often feel they are not ready to raise a child, thrusting a child onto them is not wise and the child stands more of a chance of growing up to be a criminal if the mother is not ready to parent.Some science shows that abortion decreased the crime rate.http://chronicle.uchicago.edu...Besides that it would make as much sense to look at "sperm" or "unfertilized egg" and think of "what it could become" and based on Pro's logic that would make masturbation and menstruation murder."Pro considers human life to be trivial."Considering human life is more than just considering its continued existence, it also means considering quality of life. It can significantly reduce a woman's quality of life for her to face pregnancy if she is not ready. As with other activities forcing a woman to go through pregnancy against her will is harmful to quality of life."Abortion could potentially create population decrease over many years."The world is already overpopulated. Population decrease is unlikely. The most that might happen is a decrease in the rate of population increase, which would be positive because it would decrease overpopulation.
Abortion

Obviously Pro is very educated and/or interested in this topic as Pro has made some very interesting and crucial points.As for your first section about murder and it's legal definitions, you are entirely correct and I applaud the Pro.As for Pro's section about how the mother must endure pain is true except about the parasitic argument. Technically, women do not have to eat anymore with the baby then with without.What I found exceptionally interesting about Pro's argument was Pro talking about enslavement. Pro makes a very good point yet I look at his entire dilemma in an, obviously, more moral manner. To look at this enslavement section more legally, I can see Pro's point of view. Yet looking at this morally, I see it entirely inhumane to look at pregnancy (while abortion is illegal) as a type of forced enslavement. Now let me give one of my point of views on this. Pro is looking at fetuses as what they are when you perform abortion. But why not what they could become? This fetus could become something- someone, yet you completely eliminate any possibility of that future human helping our society and environment. Anyone who considers a fetus to be the source of a forced enslavement lacks humanity, kindness, and compassion. Ultimately, Pro considers human life to be trivial. Abortion could potentially create population decrease over many years. But, please, look at it morally. Think of PEOPLE, not the law.
Jesus Christ as shown in the bible is a bad person and dangerous to America Values

Jesus, as my opponent already stated, taught in the early years of the Common Era. His teachings have influenced thousands and created a new religion, which as of now, 76% of Americans state as their religion of choice. Jesus Christ is NOT dangerous to American values. Danger being defined as "The possibility of suffering harm or injury." My opponent also never stated what American values are, but I will bring some of them about with my rebuttal of my opponent's claims. I will now counter my opponents opening argument: First my opponent said "COMMUNIST ALERT !!!! COMMUNIST ALERT !!!! COMMUNIST ALERT !!!! Sorry Jesus "STALIN" Christ, but I suggest you take your evil satanic marxism and go back to Russia." He claims that Jesus is a communist because Jesus tells a wealthy man to give his stuff to the poor. But Jesus is just asking for charity, he is not telling the man to redistribute the wealth because we need a classless society. Charity is something that Americans see value in, according a survey done the United States ranked fifth in most charitable countries in the world. My opponent then talks about how Jesus is advocating taxes. My opponent claims that taxes are evil because it is stealing. It is not however; stealing is taking something and giving nothing back in return. The government uses taxes for stuff that the taxpayer can use, such as police and military. This is not stealing then since they both get something. It's an exchange. The majority of Americans (57%) also agree that basic standards of living should be provided such as "food, housing, medical care and old age protection" according to a survey done on political views. Something that can be given through the use of taxes. As a side note, the rich don't actually create jobs. Demand for certain products create jobs. When demand for something goes up, so do the need for supply and the need for workers. In there we see the need for more jobs. Rich people don't just willy-nilly create jobs out of thin air. My opponent calls out homeless people, calling them lazy bastards. Some homeless people though, suffer from a serious mental illness (20 to 25%). You wouldn't call a schizophrenic lazy would you? My opponent has not backed up any of his statements with reasoning. I have shown that Jesus is not dangerous to American values; in fact he promotes some of the ones the majority of Americans agree with. The majority of people follow his religion in America. My question is how could he be dangerous to American values if so many Americans follow him? -Sources http://www.americanprogress.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://silentrebellion.newsvine.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Jesus Christ as shown in the bible is a bad person and dangerous to America Values

My opponent says that we are fighting for AMERICAN VALUES in Iraq, but I ask the question: what are AMERICAN VALUES? Never once has my opponent said what American Values are. I meanwhile have shown you that the few biblical quotes Pro has pulled into this debate are not against American values but actually what many Americans believe. Jesus taught charity, albeit an extreme form, but nonetheless as I pointed out, America is the 5th most charitable nation in the entire world. Therefore because we give so much to those who are deserving it must be a value to Americans. Next I gave a logical defense of taxes, showing that it is not theft. My opponent seemed to not care, still stating that taxes are Socialistic. Which brings about another question: my opponent never explains why Socialism is bad. After numerous ramblings, including me being called a "cheese eating surrender monkey who should go back to France. " Side note, France actually has the third highest military spending in the world. . http://en.wikipedia.org.... While this does not necessarily translate into a good military, it more than likely does. Finally at the end, my opponent states that he has shown Jesus to be a biblical Trotsky, thus dangerous to American values. To put his premise into steps this is it. 1) Socialism is evil 2) Trotsky is a socialist 3) Jesus is a socialist 4) America is not a socialistic country 5) Therefore Jesus is dangerous to America -My opponent has proved NONE of this. His entire argument was nothing but a bunch of radical right-wing tea party type nonsensical rants. Given the fact that I have shown evidence and used reason in my debate.
Jesus Christ as shown in the bible is a bad person and dangerous to America Values

I thank Con for their response. I am not going to dignify Cons remark about American values being undefined. What are our troops fighting for in IRack ? AMERICAN VALUES. Con remarks that " But Jesus is just asking for charity, he is not telling the man to redistribute the wealth because we need a classless society" If only if this was true, trouble is Jesus didn't just teach "charity" he told the guy to sell everything he had. Con had to misrepresent Jesus of the bible here to make their argument work. Con says "My opponent then talks about how Jesus is advocating taxes" This is another mis representation, I didn't rebuke this Jesus "I hear he was born in Kenya" Christ for advocating taxes, I rebuked this little tax and spend democrat cause when asked about taxes he didn't give a clear rebuke of the evil of taxation. This is SOCIALISM people ! !! Con says "My opponent calls out homeless people, calling them lazy bastards. Some homeless people though, suffer from a serious mental illness (20 to 25%). You wouldn't call a schizophrenic lazy would you? " Typical bleeding heart liberal excuses, go back to France you cheese eating surrender monkey. My forefathers didn't fight in wars just to heart this nonsense, and by fighting in wars I mean getting an exemption from the military draft. Con says " The government uses taxes for stuff that the taxpayer can use, such as police and military. This is not stealing then since they both get something. It's an exchange. " I applaud Con for supporting taxation that goes to increasing government power, like the police and the CIA water boarding those nasty terrorists. My argument wasn't against that, it was against taxation being used in anyway to help poor people. Taxation + helping poor people = SOCIALISM. This is United States of America not the United Socialists of America, don't like it ? Europe is that way --------------------> Con says "My opponent has not backed up any of his statements with reasoning. I have shown that Jesus is not dangerous to American values; in fact he promotes some of the ones the majority of Americans agree with. The majority of people follow his religion in America. " Thank God Christianity has not much to do with the bible Jesus. .. .. .. .. . HALLELUJAH PRAISE THE LORD ! !! It may seem all hope is lost, but fear not, there are brave billionaires funding evangelicals everywhere, to get rid of this anti American Jesus with a Jesus that is more inline with American values. Never the less, I have shown the biblical Jesus to be a glorified Trotsky, thus is a danger to American Values.
The notion that: "There were no WMD's in Iraq", is false.

I apologize to "Who" for my rather short and unwarranted case. My mom needed me and it was an emergency. I hope my opponent understands. Ok, moving to the round. --> I agree to my opponents observation that it was weapons before we went in --> I also agree to his statement that weapons of mass destruction are weapons that causes widespread destruction. Nuclear, chemical, biological, and long ranged ballistic missiles are WMD's. (UN Definition) [Contentions] I. WMD's were discovered in Iraq Thousands of Chemical weapon caches were discovered in Iraq during the Iraqi Freedom campaign. The argument against this is that they weren't nuclear. however, according to my opponent he concedes that chemical weapons are in fact WMD's. My opponent will most likely ask for sources, so I will provide them. Since, I have proven that WMD's were found in Iraq, it is necessary to affirm. Before, I give sources, I will go over my opponents given burdens. 1. WMD's present during the invasion. I.e. Iraqi freedom campaign. 2. Nuclear or Chemical [Sources] 1. http://www.foxnews.com... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3. http://www.iraqwatch.org... Now, I have achieved my burden on the fact that: 1. They are chemical weapons. 2. They project started in the 1970's and was used against the Iranians during the conflict between Iraq and Iran. Furthermore, it fits the "time" burden, on the fact that we discovered them during the invasion. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. PS: I strongly apologize for the first round. Who is a very good debater, and I know he will understand my emergency predicament. So, I thank you "Who"