BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Well, I wanted to go Con on this because there's a whole load of fun arguments there, but I guess going Pro is closer to what I actually believe, so...My arguments, then, are as follows:1. Why the heck not?What is a dead person going to do with their organs? Seriously now. And we can get into a big stupid argument about "what is just" and so on, but when it comes down to it, there are perfectly good organs lying around, people suffering for the lack of good organs, and, well ... "just" is eliminating pointless suffering. And we can make that the debate, if you like--that society ought consider "just" as such--but, given that this is actually a serious debate, pertaining to actual, serious matters, I think that would be a bit silly, no?2. "Just" should imply "Not Retarded"Indeed, we can turn this into a religious debate, too. My opponent might worry that should he be Assumed as the Virgin Mary was (The Assumption of the Virgin Mary--"Assumed"? I don't know), that he might be left walking around heaven with his guts hanging out, or something stupid like that. But this, in all honesty, is retarded (and maybe I mean "retarded" in the sense of like, you know, how religion hindered science or whatever--no losing a conduct point here please :,). Or maybe my opponent is something of a Tarzan and wants to leave his organs to the animals after he dies, for consumption. Well, in that case, I think this is okay, and that we should invite animals into the fold of society, and, well... why can't the organ procurement refer to animals eating the organs? I'm sorry, all decency and sense is pointing towards organ donation being only decent and sensible thing here. The alleviation of suffering trumps unfounded religious views in a "just" society--I will argue this. 3. Uh... Egyptians... No, not Egyptians... Uhm... Children might die!Self-explanatory.4. A "Just Society" should concern itself with the overall well-being of its people I know this is the first one again, but seriously... where are you going with this if not making some religious, or ridiculously individualist, argument? And it's going to be a non-starter. If we are to suppose a "Just Society", then that society must be fair, good, etc.--the existence of "justness" is affirmed by the resolution in itself; the argument comes to that of which it is composed. And then there is pretty much zero merit to dead people keeping their organs in terms of good, unless you want to go down the road of fairness and crazy individualism and a person's right to deprive all but his own family so his family might do better, or something super-f*cking-crazy like that... Ayn Rand was insane. She was. And anyone who believes they will need their organs after they have died, is also insane. 5. Something dumb about government following the last point... Go away. The resolution is affirmed.
Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

R1: Acceptance, Aff's constructive R2: Neg's Constructive + Rebuttal, Aff's rebuttal R3:Neg's rebuttal, Aff's rebuttal + voting issues, R4: Neg's brief rebuttal + voting issues, NO AFF ARGUMENT IN THIS ROUND, simply say, "My part of this round was agreed to be left blank without any arguments." THANK YOU AND PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE ACCEPTING.
Intercourse with a non-contaminated persons while infected with A.I.D.S. should be criminalized.

I would like to start by defiing AIDS. AIDs - A dealy desease with cure that is passed threw chemical exchanges with infected people or things. My opponent says that it is basically 'assault with a deadly weapon', but this is simply untrue. In the act of rape it could be seen as this, but in most cases the sexual act is voluntary. I will be assuming that my opponent is talking about in the U. S. A. My contentions will explain why intercourse between infected people and uninfected people should not be criminalized. C1: When each person in the U. S. is born they are given multiple rights. Among these rights are the rights to private property, which includes their on bodies as private property. If this a fact, then anyone should be able to have sexual relations with anyone just as long as it is voluntary and with a member of the opposite gender. So, if a uninfected person wants to have sex with a infected person and take that chance, then the government should not intervene in the personal lives of the common people. C2: If people do want to take that chance, there is also condoms to keep AIDs from spreading to the uninfected person. If people practice safe sex then further contamination of a 'clean' person is decreaded dramatically. In concluson, sexual intercourse between infected and uniffected people should not be criminalized since everyone under the U. S. Constitution has the right to self-ownership, and things such as condoms decrease the risk of further spreading of the deadly desease.
Intercourse with a non-contaminated persons while infected with A.I.D.S. should be criminalized.

~~~Rebuttal~~~My opponent says that people shouldn't make their own descisions without the majority of the people's concent. This is clearly unconstitutional. In cases such as Abortion and Drug legaliztion this is necessary, because the actions of the people involuntarily affect other people. It is not suicide if there is no gauruntee that the person would become inffected, especial if a condom is used. Infected children that are the result of the deed are not the children of the rest of the populace, therefore they have no say in thos case. I stated in my second contention that it decreased the chance of infection. We can not quarantine these people, because it would mean denying them their basic rights. Also, unlike the pandemics of the past AIDs is not spread through the air. It is spread through intercourse, which is a voluntary act. If the uninfected people get inffected it is by their own choice. In conclusion, my opponent never successfully refuted my arguments, she only stated different arguments. The people of America have the right to self-ownership, and therefore have the right to have voluntary intercourse with anyone they want (except minors). Condoms don't guarrantee that it would be safe, but it increases the safety level.
Intercourse with a non-contaminated persons while infected with A.I.D.S. should be criminalized.

The idea that we should remain autonomous in all decisions no matter what the costs I think is obviously wrong. The fact is, suicide is illegal in this country and what you effectively do while have intercourse with someone that is infected is just that. The freedom to make your own decisions regarding your own life or possibly the lives of your infected children should be left up to the majority of the populace the same way abortion or animal-human relations should be. The use of condoms isn't a guarantee that you will not be infected or not. The fact is we should quarantine the infected persons the same way we would any other pandemic outbreak for the safety of everyone.
There Law in the US ensures that the currenly unemployed may never again be employed.

This debate asserts that US law, specifically Title 15 USC, prevents the unemployed from getting employment. The relevant portion of the applicable Statute concerns Investigative Consumer Reports. Title 15 USC goes by the colloquial “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”. The term "investigative consumer report" means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumer's credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer. (FDIC §603(e)) Every employer was given the authority to attach employment, promotions, etc. to the results of an ICR. There are requirements purportedly to protect the individual, not the least of which is you are under no obligation, legally, to sign the required form granting the employer permission. The ICR as used prevents any long term unemployed from getting a job because, as currently used, outside agencies gather the information based on criteria provided by the employers and failure to provide your information to the third party results in one not being permitted to even get an application. The methods in place for the “consumers” protection all involve remedies at Law. The burden is on the consumer to establish, in the preponderance, that the consumers failure to waive his rights is the reason he was not employed and/or promoted. If, however, he waives his rights, he may, and usually does, not have any remedy at Law. Ergo, the Law has created an unemployed class of those who do not use credit cards, support privacy, and choose to retain all Creator given inalienable Rights. (Declaration of Independence)
Drugs and Their Economic Effect On AMERICAN Society

I would like to start by saying they destroy our society. Do you believe me? Take this example of two very legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. They can both kill you, they both have neurological effects, and they lower self esteem. Almost all drugs do these things, and a common argument is how if alcohol and tobacco are legal, than the other drugs should be to. I don't see it this way, and I use a common analogy to understand the situation. Is your cup half full or half empty? Is to many drugs hurting society and people, or is it not fair they are excluded due to a bias? You have to see the other side in order to fully understand your own side. My arguments are that they kill people, lower self esteem, and destroy society functionality. If anyone can just get any drug, than we would all be hippies lying in the street eventually. Most people blame the addicts, but I see that they are exploited by drug companies. This is a short round because you only gave me 1000 characters though.
Drugs and Their Economic Effect On AMERICAN Society

As most of you know, this topic has become favorable among many as a debate topic, but has been debated in a way that ignores every single logical standpoint, bias becoming the driving force for the argument. I am neutral in this, as I know in the beginning of legalization of all substances that are naturally occurring most people will abuse them. As time passes they will get bored and it will lose the novelty it holds, as does every trend in this country. I also have had my share of... experiences, so I can sort of tell how things play out. What are your opinions, and make sure to keep it relevant to America as much as possible. Mentioning other countries is allowed. As long as the argument is not along the lines of "theyre doing it and its cool, our forefathers were cokeheads," etc. Explain your views. Also do not begin by saying you like drugs as well, because.... That's just a really horrible way to start a debate. Shock factor isn't needed among mature, able-minded people. Thx
should canada reinforce thier jails

I accept. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that Canada needs to spend more money on reinforcing jails. My opponent presented an argument, so I will assume first round isn't just for acceptance, so I will begin with opening arguments.Safety and CostIt would be a much better option to spend money on properly reinforcing the law, instead of making sure that criminals are kept safe. As my opponent said, there were 2 murderers that escaped in 1 year. Now, if we take into account the total number of homicides in Canada in 2013, which were 505, it would be better in spending to prevent the crimes from taking place in the first place. http://www.cbc.ca...For cost, the average cost of keeping 1 person in prison for 1 year is around $31,000, in 2010. Compare that to the average university tuition fee in Canada, $7,437. It costs around 4 times as much to keep 1 person in prison for a year than it does to go to university. It would be ridiculous to increase that amount, when it's already so high, that 4 students could pay off compulsory university fees with that money for 1 year.http://www.cbc.ca...http://www.thecrimereport.org...
The dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan was the right thing to do.

The choice for the US Government to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unjustified. This is one of the biggest atrocities the world has ever seen. The war may have been ended early, but not at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I will save more main points. Think im wrong? Give it a shot! http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
The dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan was the right thing to do.

Nice points made Pro Firsty, The Cold War part was not about the Soviets developing weapons of mass destruction on the account that they saw America had them, it was the fact that America used them. Prior to the war, other countries knew about the United States and that they were an industrialized monster that was growing, but with the US's isolationist policy, they weren't seen as the super power they really are until they basically had the guts to drop those bombs. This opened up the eyes of those nations, including the Soviets. Opened them wider then they were before. The Soviets wanted the position of world super power after coming out as major victors of World War II, and saw the US as another victor that was most importantly, a threat. That is my "side" regarding the Cold War result of the bombings. I strongly believe the Cold War would have been much less extreme if we never had tested our power. Next point, The Japanese Imperial Army did do terrible war crimes to a number of Asian countries, especially China, but that still shouldn't excuse our decision. The great, amazing, perfect America should have been the bigger person. Those deaths and war crimes also didn't effect the US directly anyways. Also the Japanese had almost no chance to defeat The Allies completely. They may have been able to start a geurilla war in the country itself for years because of the determination like you stated, but the US with infinite funds was closing from the south, and the USSR from the north, and what would have been the British from the east, Japan would have fallen. Lastly, Operation Downfall was a military operation for which one military fought against another. That's war. If the bombs weren't dropped, a huge amount of SOLDIERS would have died, but that is their job, risk, and that is why they are fighting. Casualties would have happened on both sides, but the majority would be military lives and not the innocent. Yes many Japanese citizens commited suicide but that was their choice. Us dropping the bombs was making that choice for them. Some wouldn't have chosen suicide, but we dismisses that theory by killing 200,000 NOT COUNTING the 100,000 from the Bombing of Tokyo. All innocent civies. The main point I am trying to mold is should we save the innocent at the hand of soldiers dying which is how war is fought, or kill the innocent to keep those soldiers who would die for their country anyways. http://japanfocus.org... MAP: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(strategy)#/media/File:Second_world_war_asia_1943-1945_map_de.png
The dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan was the right thing to do.

Little new at this I will improve. Dropping the nukes on Japan was the wrong choice, because of the actual devastation and the events that followed after for atleast 50 years. The United States played God deciding what innocent people should die for the "greater good". Not only were 200,000+ killed, but two cities that have been around for longer than the US has been a country, were whiped off the earth. In addition, you could count the even more people effected by the radiation. You could even blame the bombings for starting the Cold War, because America showed their dominance by killing the innocent, impressing and intimidating the Russians. It was a decision that had consiquences. http://www.history.com...
the riches rule over the law

my opponent has clearly talked about 'white collar' crimes which in my view are the sources of violent crimes. The rich with their power of money start to change the established norms and laws and ultimately distort and deform the shape of legal laws as well. And there comes two laws in society, one for the poor the other for the rich. The act of theft by the rich is legalized because a rich needs not to steal from a liquor store when he himself can buy the whole store with his black money. On the other hand a poor would engage himself in violent activities in his desperation because the law is favoring the rich.
the riches rule over the law

My opponent has said quite a bit about the rich having greater legal advantages than the poor, but he hasn't actually shown this to be so. The thing we have to keep in mind is that the majority of "rich" crimes are non-violent crimes, known as "white collar" crimes [1]. We could argue over whether or not white collar crimes are actually any less bad than violent crimes, but regardless we live in a society that views violent crimes as worse than crimes used to evade taxes or something along those lines, and this view applies to everyone. If rich people started robbing liquor stores, they too would be in maximum security prisons rather than getting off easy. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
the riches rule over the law

There have always been a different law for 'haves' and 'have not'. Rich as being the 'haves' and the poor as being the 'have not'. This discrimination leads to a society in which the poor are severely punished for their low riches and the rich enjoy the custody of law in their hands. The poor are thrown into jails for a minor crime. On the other hand the rich are not punished even for the biggest crime. In that way a rule of jungle is observed in the country where only the fittest (the rich) can survive. This sorry state of affairs prevail in every department of the society. The poor are marginalized by the rich forces and every rule and law is established for the privilege of the rich class. The 'haves' determine the fate of the have not.
My god is better than your god

My god is also George Carlin. Pro is correct that he had brilliant ideas and always told the truth. In fact everything Pro has said is true and we agree that George Carlin is an all around better god than any religion's god!The problem is, Pros god is not better than my god.Why is this you may ask?Simple, our gods are completely equal, because we have the exact same god. So how can Pro's god be better than mine if they are in fact the same? THe answer is, Pro's god can't be better.
My god is better than your god

My god is George Carlin. He had brilliant ideas and he always told the truth. He told us how the world was, and I feel obligated, since he changed my beliefs forever, to fulfill what he wish he had seen on earth. George Carlin was bright, smart, and he wrote his ideas down and sent them to us. He was so kind and so funny. He also does fit a description of a dogma. Someone that is worshiped. If only he still interacted with things on earth. But, I will let him live on through the world. He is the one that gave us a lot. I worship who he is, and he is better than any Abrahamic god. For starters, he can seen, and he could be heard and recorded. No Abrahamic god has ever been recorded and he has never interacted with earth in such a way that can be documented. George Carlin has. George Carlin is bigger and better than any other god in the history of mankind.
My god is better than your god

I submit to Pro, that their god is not better than my god. This is because my god is a better, kinder, cooler, all around better god than any religion's god. My god does not send people to burn and choke, forever and ever but he punishes fairly. In my eyes he is a god and no other god can hold a candle to him! I believe that the one I worship is the god that is the best. In fact, Pro believes this too, because Pro worships MY GOD!!!
My god is better than your god

My god is a better, kinder, cooler, all around better god than any religion's god. He does not send people to burn and choke, forever and ever but he punishes fairly. In my eyes he is a god and no other god can hold a candle to him This is not a troll debate. I believe that the one I worship is the god that is the best. If anyone disagrees, please accept. If you do not have a god, then this debate will be changed to my god is not worthy of worship. Do not try to disprove my god's existence.
cats rather than dogs

Thank you for posting. One of the greatest thing about dogs is the fact that their are different breeds. Each breed does not only act a certain way whether different or the same with other breeds, but they also have their own unique appearance. i understand that cats also have unique appearances, but these differences between breeds are not as drastic as that of a dog. If you look at a poodle and a pit bull, you can clearly see the differences, in behavior, appearance and intelligence. These dramatic differences allows for one to choose a dog that matches their personality. In agree that there are differences between species when it comes to cats, but we can all agree that these differences are not as drastic as that of dogs. Most cats act alike despite the fact that they look different. http://www.iams.com... Another great factor would be that dogs make great companions. Dogs are very very friendly towards there owner and since they share the same personality, seem to understand what mood their owners might be in. They are understanding and unlike cats, are very social animals. They possess the qualities that seem to lift the spirits of everyone around them. They are incredibly loyal unlike cats who seem to be more independent, rely on their owners for companionship. this relationship in time develops from a "owner/ pet" relationship to something much more, something we can all relate to as love, friendship and support. http://juliesimba.com... Great factor number three, they are great protectors. A dog could serve as your security. This is a trait that animals like cat lack. A dogs bark could be heard for miles unlike a cats meow. A dog would sacrifice its life just to save its owner (another trait a cat lacks). A dog senses are superb and could sense and warn its owner when danger approaches. For any human been looking for a great companion, protector, loyal and honest animal, a dog is the best option.
cats rather than dogs

Wow this was a great debate now lets stop talking about cats and dogs and talk about how we both did in the debate I noticed that you did not say any thing that directly makes cats less likable, but just what they don't have you shoved some of my points aside for others (I did my best to address all you're points) But you did write more and probably had better spelling please vote for cats or dogs ONLY on what you read in this debate!!! thank you