BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mandatory Blue grass and Polka only music in prison.

According to data collected from The Bureau of Justice Statistics. The repeat offenders remains above the 50%. A repeat offender for clarification purposes is an individual who have been convicted of a crime; served his sentence been release and within a period of time has been accused and convicted of a crime. My proposal is that making life in Prison's as uncomfortable as possible. Will leave a sour and unpleasant experience on criminals. That once they're released into the general population many of them will rethink committing future crimes. Playing Polka and Blue grass music will certainly contribute in decreasing by as much as 15% for the first 3 to 5 years. Consider this example. 400, 000 hardcore criminals released on fiscal year 2017 ; 15% of 400, 000 is 60, 000. 60 thousand reformed individuals by means of Polka Polka Polka and YEEEEHHHHAAAAWWWW! . For convicts who are from the Appalachian region an are avid Polka and Bluegrass enthusiasts. Will build different prisons and they'll be exposed to music by the Village people and Frank Sinatra top ten hit sang by Alfalfa from the Little Rascals.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

CON POINT 1: He is just saying why would vigilantes act without any money. Well again why the government pay the vigilante to do their job and make them look bad. And they would not want money because they are members of a society and they want what is best. And it does not matter whether they "prefer" it or not. CON POINT 2: Ok, he says there is more justice without vigilantes. Since he doesne't say how we can enforce the law without vigilantes they are the best alternative. And the government is people that are put in position so there is no differnce. Against my police exzample he says there needs to be some quthority but that is contradicting himslef when he says the vigilantes should not be the authority figure. CON POINT 3: It doesent matter what the government thinks at this point because they did not uphold their part of the social contract. Reasons to vote AFF - My opponent is not even rebutting my arguments just stating his so I must win the round because my arguments stand. - My opponent does not attack my case so extend it. - I show how vigilantes prevent crimes. Thank you
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

There are already counter plans in place, limited as they are. And once someone is past the counter plans, I say not even then should vigilante's should uphold the law It never said I should provide a counter plan myself point 1- how would the vigilante's carry out actions without being paid? if someone wants you to do something, payment is needed. Even if vigilante's were supposed to be free, they would prefer to be paid then do it all for nothing point 2- I'm not saying because of one vigilant we should get rid of the rest, I am saying the chances of. There are too many people in authoritative positions, and vigilante's create another chance to disturb the peace more than help it. I see more humanity then 'by the book' vigilante's. As for police men, I believe due to the police force is already around it should keep going, there is still need for authority. But I believe there should be a new police system, unsure how myself. But I would like a way for the police to be less corrupt. point 3- The government interests are always relevant. Depending on the government means the depending on the law, even when broke. Government officials should be the ones who act after a failure to enforce the law. point 4- this is turning into point 2 point 5- revoked new point 5- as stated on the Brazil case. Would the vigilante's be any use in trying to stop the Brazilian case? with the government in turmoil wouldn't a vigilante be pointlessly risking his life to try and uphold the law. Also, American law is changed or broken even now. There aren't any complaints about them..much
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Okay my opponent states that the law should be upheld but not through a vigilante, but how else are we going to uphold the law other than a vigilante when the government has failed to enforce the law. My opponent provides no counterplan so we must look to the only example provided in this debate which would be vigilantism. CON POINT 1: Why do we have to set aside money, vigilantes are normally a group and why would the government supply money to the vigilante? This point makes no sense since the government is NOT supplying anything for the vigilante CON POINT 2: Ok, my opponent is basically saying that the vigilantes break laws. But again look to my Steinhem card. If they break it that is the first step toward changing it. And my opponent is saying if there is only one bad vigilante we should get rid of vigilantes as a whole. The police for example, I am sure that there are corrupt policmen so should we get rid of them too, my opponent advocates the situation of the resolution. My opponent says that we should not have just a group of people that make the laws, well what do you think the government is. It is a group of people that make the laws. So the vigilante is just like the government CON POINT 3: The government interest does not matter because they have failed to uphold the law thus they have dissolved their side of the social contract, so the people need to express their autonomy in order to uphold the law CON POINT 4: Ok, my opponent says all this stuff about a perfect world but I never said anthing about this so dont even look to this point. And if there are bad vigilantes we shouldn't get rid of them, look to my police example on top CON POINT 5: Again my opponent did not read my argument where I state that they protect the moral law. Vote AFF because vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

I'm sorry, you seem to have the wrong end of my stick. I would agree with you IF there was such thing as a perfect world...but there is not. The law should be upheld, but not by vigilante's I base my words on the fact of there should be no vigilante's AND there is a reason there aren't any, with the closest thing to a vigilante being a private eye. Point 1 was covering the fact that there is no time or money that can be set aside for vigilantism, not on the lawful facts. If there was time and money, the government would take matters into their own?n hands instantly. point 2: are you saying two wrongs make a right, you should fight fire with fire? To brake more laws for the sake of one should hardly be justified. Some cases, where the law has been defiled too much, should have laws broken, but I don't see two wrongs making a right. Are you saying that there should be a secluded group of people who have extra powers when called on. Are you saying someone is able to be able to bend and brake rules just to catch someone else no matter the consequence? The actions that could be used by a vigilante, that could land him in jail himself, should be rectifying one law? 3. Are you also thinking of the government interest. Maybe the government fails to enforce the law due to it would bring less harassment instead of if they did? and again, depending on the law broken, my point for number 3 was can u even forget some of the laws, including moral, to fix one law. point 4. In a perfect world, someone put in a position of power would use that power for what he was meant to do. The selection of vigilante's may create people who personally choose to go beyond the law, like police men, governors etc. To give more people chances of power and corruption. What is wrong with the system at the moment. point 5.. I never got around to asking you what failed laws have the government enforced? and also the ones that have not been enforced, how would vigilante's make them any better?
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Ok, since my opponent has aggreed that vigilantes are justified when the government has failed to enforce the law I must win the round. But I will contest his points: CON 1st POINT: The law that we are dealing with is the moral law The moral law or the natural law is an unwritten law that is the foundation for almost all of the constitutions of the American-European countries and much of their criminal and civil law. The moral law sets the minimum standard of conduct necessary for the maintenance and stability of a just society. The moral law protects these values: freedom, the right to a fair trial, justice and punishment for criminals, the ability to work, and the freedom of speech and religion. When a government is unable to enforce its significant criminal and civil laws, it tarnishes the legitimacy of the government, which, in turn, may destabilize confidence in the government. An example was slavery in the United States. The United States Constitution, as framed by the founders, permitted slavery. This was a compromise among the states. However, the decision to find that certain people would be slaves based solely on the color of their skin violated the moral or natural law, because slavery by its definition deprives a person of the ability to obtain life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consequently, opponents of slavery, vigilantes, worked to get around the laws relating to slavery, because they were fundamentally immoral. A just society can not be based upon immoral laws. The moral law, which has been built on thousands of years of common sense, philosophy, and principles incorporated in the great western religions, Christianity and Judaism, provides a check against the failure of government to protect basic human justice. Vigilantes protect this moral law. Since this law is very important we need a vigilante when the government has failed. CON 2nd POINT: Look to my SBB Steinhem card. Even if the vigilante breaks the law his actions are still justified because if the law is corrupt that is the first step toward breaking it. Secondly, the actions are just justified not just. So it is the best alternative and it is permissable. It does not have to comply with the meaning of justice. CON 3rd POINT: As I show you they failed to enforce the moral law, (look to what it protects up top). CON 4th POINT: This is completelty false. I show you through my definition that vigilantes are established members of a community so they know exactly what is going on. Reasons to vote AFF: - My opponent agreed that vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law - Vigilantes are members of a community so they want what is best. - My opponent does not contest my case so we must look to my value contentions cards and definitions Thank you, vote AFF because I preserve the moral law through vigilantes expressing their automic power. I also offer good luck to Negative/con
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

You have many valid points. But if the world were that perfect, and vigilantes kept to the rules, there would be no problem. I agree that vigilantes would be great for when the government has failed to enforce the law. But 1) What is the law taking care of, is the incident that has had the government intervene something major or minor. If it is something such as a mugging, the court might fail to uphold the law due to no mugger in the case. This petty crime would have more money and time put into it then what's wanted in the outcome to claim the mugger. And vigilantes mainly take the law into their own hands for a cash sum out of it. The time and money for put aside for the vigilantly would be too much for something too small. 2) There is the problem with how far the vigilante. In a perfect world a vigilante would use light force to get ends meet, and try and take humane actions to get a job done.... In a perfect world there would be no crime... A problem with vigilant is how far he can take a matter. And even though it rarely happens where a vigilante uses excessive force to make ends meet, but newspapers take something rare and turn it into something big... 3) There maybe reasons why the government has not enforced the law. And it maybe because of other laws that prevent a case being solved. A vigilante might brake a law to again make ends meet, and that just makes the government look bad. The government during all this time is trying to enforce the law, not make the government or the laws look bad. Laws against other laws are there for confusing reasons. 4) Last point for now. vigilante's are putting themselves at risk. Police members and government official teams have put themselves through training and know what laws there are in situations. Vigilante's usually are composed of people who have had no back ground into the field their going into and little knowledge on what they are and aren't aloud to do in situations.
People should always be honest with others regardless of what the outcome

I'd just like to start by saying I appreciate my opponent has a sense of humor. It seems as though there are too many people in the world today who take things much too seriously. However, I do believe in the resolution so I will continue to debate my opponent. Now one of the most striking things I noticed about my opponent's rebuttal was that he only provided one piece of evidence and it wasn't even reliable since it was a hypothetical situation. While what the Nazis did actually did happen, it can't be considered empirical evidence since there is no proof this situation occurred. Furthermore, my opponent seems to relate the Nazis to that of a neighbor who comes by your house asking for a cup of sugar. The Nazis were never so empathetic that they would kindly ask if any Jews happened to be in your home. In a rushed situation they would either evacuate all citizens outside and form groups to storm the houses or they would simply leave the area alone. Therefore my opponent provides a hypothetical situation that isn't even historically accurate. Next, girls lying to protect themselves from the awkwardness of confrontation is exactly one of the points of why this debate was started. If girls (or boys) couldn't have confrontation or interaction with either because they didn't want to be honest then neither I, you, or my opponent would be involved in this debate today. So I believe that's something my opponent should keep in mind. I do also thank my opponent for being able to sympathize and relate to me. I appreciate it. However, we may actually have a more involved debate if my opponent can provide real-world examples of moral dilemmas so that I could evaluate them and prove that the truth is always the best way. When examples of truth always being the best option even show up in pop culture like I provided examples of, then it should be obvious that the truth will always have its day and that day will be the best day. I now hand the debate back over to Con
People should always be honest with others regardless of what the outcome

I hope I can have some fun with this one haha I'd first like to start my argument with a story. Once upon a time there was a silly little high school student who had a silly little crush on a girl who just so happened to be an upperclassman. This boy was introduced to her through a good friend who he had always assumed he could trust. At first, the boy and girl were friends and realized just how much they had in common, and obviously the boy was very happy. A few weeks later the boy decides maybe there could be something greater out of this, and he proceeds to go on his very first date with this girl. Of course, the boy has an amazing time. New Year's Eve comes around a day later and the boy is invited by her to attend a little party. The boy says no on account of him watching his brothers and grandparents that night while his parents are out. As uncanny as it seems, the boy starts to get the feeling that this girl has a boyfriend, so he asks the friend that introduced him. No reply. He asks the girl. No reply. A week later his friend finally comes to grips and tells the boy the truth. She'd had a boyfriend since the start of Summer. Unsurprisingly, the boy was devastated. I understand that many people feel that real love can't be felt by teenagers or young people but it can. There's absolutely no doubt in mind. So, as you probably would've guessed, that boy was me. I struggled with this realization for weeks, communicating with her and still trying to push forward. The worst part about it all though was that nobody felt like they could be honest. That was the part that really hit home. I feel as a person I would've been able to transition through this so much easier if I had at least had one person who felt like they could tell me the truth. While this personal story is only part of the reason I felt as though this debate should exist, it still concludes that point that honesty will always triumph and the truth will always have its day. I understand the general consensus is that sometimes the truth has a cost, but living in honesty is always better than living in a lie. Sometimes honesty can hurt, but this pain is what makes people reform for the better and change their lives. Lies and acts of false flattery do not accomplish this. In fact, they make the world a darker and more desolate place. Other examples of when lies dominated over honesty and brought pain and corruption include the tobacco industry denying the health risks of smoking, the Watergate scandal, Chernobyl, and the pedophile priests in the Catholic church. You could even pull from fictional tales in pop culture such as the plot of 'The Dark Knight Rises' and the novel '1984. ' Lies and trickery will never make this world be a better place, and if you say that they do, then you yourself are lying.
Schools should have uniforms for students.

First I will go over the meaning of the resolution Observation 1 meaning of the resolution: Since the resolution says should, it means I must prove should uniforms be considered due to some benifits. Now since the resolution says "schools should have uniforms for students" and not "it should be required for schools to have uniforms for students" it means this is an option, kind of like school lettermen's it could just be something to show off. Observation 2: opponents rules Since my opponent says no sources can be used in this debate then overall vote for sources should just be tie. So yeah I will be backing up the following points next round. 1. School uniforms would be optional 2. School uniforms would keep boys from looking at girls in a rather naughty way and help schools enforce clothing requirements 3. Since school uniforms have some benefits no reason not to have them available to those who want them.
That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

My opponent uses his final round to raise the following extra contentions:1. Such a being vs God2. Differences in interpretation of perfection3. God=undefined is self-contradicting4. "Having something" is a form of attributing1. Such a being vs GodWhile my learned opponent correctly cites the Descartes argument, he fails to attack the case as a whole, which applies to God. Since he also acknowledges that in round one, he is in fact using the letter of the law and semantic reasoning to avoid having to actually engage with the Descartes argument. The Descartes argument will always be a case for God's existence because only God is such a being. That God is such an object was accepted by me, my opponent, and Descartes himself. Therefore there is no problem here other than in the expression.2. Differences in interpretation of perfectionAstute readers will note that options one and two are really the same worded in two different ways. There is no exclusive element to either. What makes the third exclusive is that it imposes a limitation on perfect power to those things that have the nature of perfection. Trouble is, of course, that "the nature of perfection" is an arbritary construct that cannot be objectively defined, and so the third option is in fact totally meaningless. Therefore there is really only one option under three different names.3. God=undefined is self-contradictingThe question is whether a reference to an entity not having a definition is in fact a definition. Well, obviously, yes. However, it is not a definition of that entity. It is a definition of that definition. The only paradox arises when one tries to translate the abstract concept of a definition to the thing it is defining - which, of course, is both illogical and absurd.4. "Having something" is a form of attributingOK, my opponent expands on this a bit, yet this is the causal link it all rests upon if you read it closely. Just because something has something does not mean that thing is an attribute. Remember my fur example? Saying God has perfection is akin to saying that cat has furriness. No, rather one says that cat has fur (the attribute). Furriness is how much fur one has proportionally to one's surface area. One possesses a level of furriness, but that is not the same as saying one has furriness. Therefore when one makes a claim about having/possessing something, it doesn't necessarily mean that this is an attribute. Great. And now to summarize the debate. My opponent has listed 12 unique objections in this debate. You can read them, and all of my comebacks, above. Ultimately what it comes down to is whether he has done enough to show a clear falsehood in the Descartes argument. After waltzing around with a plethora of different ideas from different scholars, I don't think he is any closer to undermining the Descartes than when he began. By the end he is resorting to mostly semantic counter-arguments and attempts to re-hash old ideas. I think I have dealt with all of my opponent's objections reasonably enough.