BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
100 Debate Challenge 13: This House would ban cosmetic surgery.

There was limited characters so I couldn't construct too much cases. I, however, did build three important arguments that I will reiterate:1. Freedom of choice People have rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as given by the constitution. [1] Therefore, people, knowing the risks of cosmetic surgery, and the resulting satisfaction, have fulfilled their rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness. Banning cosmetic surgery would deny people these two rights.2. Economic benefitsAgain, the government loosens up its debt a little bit by earning this much money; and the ban of cosmetic surgery would cause many cosmetic surgeons to lose their job, encouraging them to earn money through the bad quality black market.3. Bad alternatives. People are addicted to cosmetic surgeries. Some will inevitably look to worse alternatives, that may worsen the already-terrible-sounding statistics my opponent have already mentioned.My rebuttals, reworded in a better manner:-My research among 13,500 women, in contrast to my opponent's broken link about cancer and vague wording without real statistics, shows that cosmetic surgery does not cause cancer any more than not doing cosmetic surgery.And let me stress heavily on my opponent's arguments on cosmetic surgery supposedly having deadly affects on people especially on depression. But this isn't true, as this source [http://www.realself.com...] can justify, although indeed in some cases, cosmetic surgery can cause depression, this is only temporary. On the other hand, its successes are permanent, and it brings an overall "decrease on dependence of anti-depressants".[1] http://www.archives.gov...
100 Debate Challenge 13: This House would ban cosmetic surgery.

My opponent has not forwarded his own case an has pretty much just provided rebuttals. I'll pass on this round and provide counter rebuttals in the final round. My opponent should be granted more leniency than normal for new arguments in the final round, so long as he doesn't go over board. If my opponent also passes on this round, I request that he wait until the last possible convenient moment to do so.
100 Debate Challenge 13: This House would ban cosmetic surgery.

1. People have freedom of choicePeople doing cosmetic surgery know their risks. They know that they can get depression and all of that junk. They have the right to buy something to kill or damage themselves. Their lives are in their hands. People should be able to make their choices and do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm other people. And indeed, plastic surgery does make people happy, so that's a positive effect. AS my opponent's source [http://www.apa.org...] Says, "Studies have shown that people report increased satisfaction with the body part they had surgery on". As you can see there's at least some good effects of cosmetic surgery.My opponent's breast implant link is broken. 2. Cosmetic surgery gives the government and businesses money!As this source [http://work.chron.com...] can justify, the average surgeon earns about $360,000 dollars a year. In fact, there has been 14.6 million cosmetic surgeries in 2012 alone! [http://www.plasticsurgery.org...] This shows how important cosmetic surgery is. With cosmetic surgery banned, people will lose their jobs, businesses will go down, and the government will lose huge amounts of money.3. People will seek out worse alternativesAs similar to the ban of alcohol and smoking, there will probably be a black market if cosmetic surgery was banned. As [http://www.everydayhealth.com...] shows, people can actually become physically addicted to cosmetic surgeries! Therefore they will seek out a new source, and this new source will be even worse, since the real qualified doctors will mostly be too scared to break the law. People who get implants are 4 times more likely to commit suicide? Well, that'll probably be raised up to 5 times if we ban cosmetic surgery and encourage the black market to grow.Cancer link is broken.Nevertheless I will provide a counter....THIS STUDY [http://www.cancer.gov...] clearly tells us, unlike my opponent's vague wording, that among 13,500 women, "...there was no significant difference in breast cancer mortality between the implant and comparison group." Thus, it can only be concluded that my opponent's sources did not see the other side of the picture. People get the same amount of breast cancer regardless of whether get implants or not.In conclusion, yes, psychological help would be better than cosmetic surgery, but unfortunately, due to people's current mind sets, we cannot ban it yet. The worse we can do is to add taxes to prevent people from getting cosmetic surgery, or restrict surgery with government-looked hospitals, with the probable addition of hiring some psychologists to go into those hospitals to help counsel these ill people who need help. That would be the best counter-plan, instead of a ban.
100 Debate Challenge 13: This House would ban cosmetic surgery.

Judging by my opponent's pictures, I believe I know where he intends to take his arguments so let me take a brief moment to clear up any potential confusion that may come up, before it does. Cosmetic vs Plastic Cosmetic and Plastic surgery are 2 closely related but different fields. Cosmetic surgeons do elective procedures that focus on being more aesthetically appealing. They do boob jobs, nose jobs, liposuction, botox etc. What a plastic surgeon does is repair birth defects, or reconstruction surgery to make your face or other body parts look normal. http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org... Psychologically Damaging- Often times people seeking to get cosmetic surgery really just ned psychological help. They're unhappy with themselves and seeking to change. People getting breast implants are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than those who get plastic surgery. http://www.breastimplantinfo.org... In an analysis of 37 studies: "The researchers found that patients who are dissatisfied with surgery may request repeat procedures or experience depression and adjustment problems, social isolation, family problems, self-destructive behaviours and anger towards the surgeon and his or her staff'" http://www.apa.org... People don't really want larger boobs or a tummy tuck, what they want is to feel good about themselves and that's something a psychologist can help them with. Not Worth The Risk- "One study found that women who had breast implants for at least eight years were twice as likely to die from brain cancer, three times as likely to die from lung cancer or other respiratory diseases, and four times as likely to commit suicide, compared to other plastic surgery patients A second study found that women with breast implants for at least eight years were 21% more likely to be diagnosed with cancer compared to other women their age" http://www.breastimplantinfo.org... We're letting people who need psychological help go under the knife when it's completely unneccesary and quite frankly not worth the risk.
Diversity is NOT a strength

Well what u said sounds nice but its not reality. For example all the whites moved out of baltimore.. Blacks are killing white farmers in South africa .. When people can choose to have diversity or not too they choose not too . esp whites for good reasons. Blacks have much higher crime rates, much lower iq averages , etc... just to be frank. Your side of the argument is Humanitarism and mine is Ethnocentraism. WE should talk verbally sometime on skyupe or something
The cure for cancer has already been found.

You did not destroy my arguments. Because I did not have any. I frankly don't need to debate you because people just have to read your side of the argument to see how false this entire thing is. Firstly, yes of course there are lifestyle changes that can reduce your chance of acquiring cancer. Even though half of the people that get cancer get it genetically. (Inherently from their parents, so they can't do anything about it! Did you take that into consideration?) As well as being obese. Some people have the 'fat gene' and it is extremely hard to make that lifestyle change. They are inherently unhealthy. And genetically have higher risks of getting cancer. http://www.cancer.gov.... So this obviously isn't the cure for cancer! It's the cure for people that are able and willing to get outside and exercise! In summary, we all know that the cure for cancer does not exist and that my opponent is in fairyland. Many people genetically get cancer, skinny or fat. This is a fact. As provided by my above source. Thank you for debating and hopefully my peeps see the falsehood, ignorance, and stupidity in my opponents argument.
The cure for cancer has already been found.

"If there was a cure for cancer it would be put into action and acknowledged in the news by now. " thedebater99This is a fairly common argument. This is also called the personal incredulity fallacy. [12] Just because something seems ridiculous to you, doesn't mean it is wrong. The answer to your question statement is greed, sloth, gluttony, and ignorance. Greed impairs people's judgement. Doctors make a lot of money and have a lot of student debts to pay. Even though treatments by modern medicine are largely ineffective against chronic diseases doctors still press on. Sloth and gluttony because many people are lazy gluttons who would rather get chemotherapy and die of cancer than exercise and diet. Ignorance, because they don't bother to figure out which foods are healthy and which are not. Go ahead laugh, and die from chronic disease in ignorance. Thanks for reading. Sources12. . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
The cure for cancer has already been found.

Ok, we all know that this argument is extremely moronic. So please, If you agree with what I just said, vote for me. If there was a cure for cancer it would be put into action and acknowledged in the news by now. I won't even bother arguing. I love all of you and vote for me to win if you agree. This took me 4 hours to write so please. VOTE, Vote, and vote!
Randomness is a lack of Knowledge in both Spiritual and Physical world.

By not being able to have the knowledge of a great or a small deal of information is random. As information is knowledgeable, therefore by definition it would appear random, as you have no knowledge of the matter at hand. If being scared is a fright of sudden randomness, not being able to understand something. Like in my very personal case not understanding the spiritual world is frightening as well as random. Example: Water into wine by Jesus Christ. This will seem random because of your lack of knowledge on the matter at hand. By definition randomness is a lack of knowledge, so with that in mind is the spiritual world not be anymore random than the physical world? As I believe that sin like Satan who hides from a sinner to prevent you knowing your spiritual side. As I believe we are both physical and spiritual beings. Hell is the place where your spirit dies, Heaven is where you spirit lives. Sin leads to a physical life style. Therefore believing in the spiritual world would almost be impossible. And therefore you will remain skeptical of God, angels and spirits in general. If say a animal such as a cat chases the light from a torch on a wall, it remains skeptical (study from a distance) of the torch. As randomness can be implied to both the physical and the spiritual world. Like it would be physical to not understand the spiritual world, as spirits can act random to the physical world. On the other hand it would not be spiritual to understand the physical world. Example: To a spirit a brick wall seems random, as to the spirit can walk right through the brick wall. When to physical beings it is perfectly normal. Sin has grown normal to people who only believe only in the physical world. As through out the Bible Jesus tell you to "get to know" your spiritual side. "Do not price in treasure and riches in this life as it will be destroyed my moths and rust, but instead grow strong in your spirit so in heaven your treasures and riches with not be destroyed by moths and rust." As sin leads to physical attractions. Like Drinking, sex, murder, stealing etc...These things are impossible when you are a spirit. And a spirit will seem skeptical about these things. Earlier I wrote. "Therefore believing in the spiritual world would be impossible. And therefore you will remain skeptical of God, angels and spirits in general." The devil is hidden so that you would not know of God. But only has lead you into a trap of believing that only the physical world exists, therefore do what you wish.
Randomness is a lack of Knowledge in both Spiritual and Physical world.

As a child you believe in Santa Claus? Most children do. You enjoyed the fact that Santa was a cheerful man, who deserved to give gifts to your children. (If you are a parent you get no credit for Christmas when you have young children as Santa does all the work) You as a Child are born enjoying Christmas every year believe that Santa will come into your house (If Santa was to visit ever house in one night, He would have to spend a 1 millionth of a second at each house) Moving that fast is supernatural. Like the devil who hides, it would be impossible for the eye to see Santa as your eye can only see a maximum of a 20th of a second. So Santa is the devils way for bring in the children into the Physical world (mentioned in my other debate, "Randomness is a lack of knowledge in the Spiritual and Physical world") As a Child the Devil acts like the child is in control by doing nothing on Christmas and the devil (now known to me as Santa) has the burden of running about after presents. When you Grow older you become the devils slave as you do not believe in Santa and therefore the devil anymore. Making your life style converted by physical not spiritual beliefs. And now as a adult with money "You can not serve two masters, money and God." is more avaible, again more involved in the physical world. So now the burden is on you to run into shops buying gifts you are now the devils slave who has seemed to have disappeared as quickly as Santa did. The trap is hell and if you are still a sinner you will go there unless you trust in Jesus (spiritual) and confess you are a evil person in a physical world.
Karl Marx > Adam Smith

No problem sir, In that case, my one point (Sociologist) has already been won and awarded to Mr. Marx. Why Adam Smith is not so great: Number one Adam Smith didn't have a lot of connection or realization of the world. He lived in late 18th century Scotland and many factors that attribute to making a just economy haven't been exposed yet. Monopolies were not a 'thing' yet in his time, especially his area because the Monarch had full control over all even down to the extreme local level of production. Also the invisible hand is not real unless you assume that all the people are not ignorant. Also he didn't really grasp the whole idea of money = incentive = greed. Adam Smith assumed that all people would be united and caring to others in a pure capitalistic society. Which can never be the case because the real root is independent spirit and of course money and power as well. Adam reacted harshly to how the monarch ran things and took the answer into the wrong direction. People love looking back in their countries history when it was almost a pure free market economy. But no one would like to be living in those times as well. Also with the revolutionary part Adam Smith never inspired any nations to have violent or non-violent overthrows of government to implement a free market. Also he did not aspire America to be like that, Wealth of Nations came out the same day as the signing of independence from Britain. Why Karl Marx is better: The idea in the Communist Manifesto of Pure-Communism is a perfect idea on paper and can be perfect as well in large scale reality, yet the way to achieve these goals gives one or very men immense power and never really works out well. The issue though is His thinking and philosophy is way smarter than Smith's. He noticed class distinctions and serious abuse from the capitalists; which is very true even to this day. He also invented a system that can solve all those issues. You need a country with strong national identity to work, unlike when Smith he lived in a Kingdom composed of many different nationalities. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, American, etc. Karl was a much stronger influence because he aspired the Revolution of Russia and then eventually 70% of the worlds land mass was controlled by a control-economic system. Even though it is hard to have a pure communistic state but it is harder for pure capitalism because we are not angels and must have governments. Also humans are corrupt and will use capitalism for the capitalist's advantage. See ya next round!
Karl Marx > Adam Smith

I accept. This is my first debate. However, from the outset let me state we cannot compare Adam Smith and Karl Marx as sociologists since that designation does not fit Smith but it does for Marx. Therefore, I will grant that Karl Marx was a better sociologist on all counts only because Adam Smith was not one. Yet if my opponent wants to debate the merits of the two men as “political theorists or political thinkers” in broad terms that is more than far. From the proposition, I gather the crux of the argument and main contention between both sides will stem from each man’s accomplishments as economist. Anyway, as noted earlier this is my first debate, and I did not know whether the proposition was negotiable. If not, my argument will fail to address the sociologist claim given the term and its popularly in western literature is more of a nineteenth than eighteenth century usage. Anyway, go luck too my opponent. Hope I did not screw up on how this thing works.
Karl Marx > Adam Smith

Rebuttals and arguments taken from the way you like to debate two can that game. Argument 1: "...even pointed out its clear lack of fiduciary responsibility inherent to its structure. Smith says of the corporate form: "The directors of such companies, however, being the managers .."" Okay I hand it over, Smith realized you must have some hierarchy in a businesses such as McDonald's, or Casino's. Smith thought like a capitalist and sense he was successful in life he thought in a upper class manor. You must put this in context, his context and timing were a perfect storm creating a book on how to survive capitalism. He saw the future in how Manufacturing over Slave labor will come. Scotland and the UK ended slavery way before the USA. He was very self independent and a educated business man. 2. "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." Sounds like a British social Darwinist, harsh cruel independent anti-state against his own people. Or be like Hitler and decided to make the 'best race' the only race. Marx was a man of common dignity. Shown here: "Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." A sense of bond with your family, and then a bond with your neighbors and then with your country men and ultimately and always bond with God. 3. "...rarely do people read Smith"s single passage about the invisible hand,..." Every high school student in the state of Michigan and probably almost the rest of the US all of us Americans know and learn 1st day of simply Economics, Adam "Father of Economics" Smith Creator of the basis of free market an invisible hand. Marx realized when money is incentive, money equals root of all evil - Paul of Tarsus. Karl understood that money also equals greed and that makes massive about of poor people, very few rich people and the 'peoples government' can't do anything? No cruelty without representation. Don't tread on me, let me tread on you my state, my people, my god. *** SIDE NOTE *** We are debating the men, not what or how the systems work in reality, Stalin was evil and if pure capitalism exists it is called Somalia.
Religions in general makes more sense and are more moral than Atheism

You wrote "I cannot believe that you just said Atheism says says nothing on evolution, but then again, that is my interpretation on it. You state that Atheism has no moral values, but technically the society that follows it, has moral values." Ok what values does someone who doesn't collect baseball cards have? Or what about people who don't play water polo? Not doing something doesn't yield a value set. Atheists don't believe in a god...what does that have to do with having morals? And if you're to say that an atheistic society has morals, then it's not their stance on the issue "is there a god?" it's their stance on the issues of "what is moral and what is not?" You then wrote, "When you state that I didn't say whether or not the 10 commandments are moral, did you mean if they are right for a society to follow? Or that they are showing the definition of Moral?" Forget my previous question instead, explain to me how you think it is moral for people to be accused of thought crimes per the 10th commandment? You also said, "Why do I have to even demonstrate if they are true? Shouldn't you be worrying that since Atheism has no moral values, it is invalid?" I agree the debate topic is morality not truth so you don't need to demonstrate they are true. Atheism has no morals because atheism means not believing in a god. It says nothing about what is moral or not. This doesn't invalidate atheism it merely shows that belief in a god is unrelated to having a moral set. If we were arguing about amoralism instead of atheism then you could say that religions are more moral than amoralism. Again, atheism does not say anything about morals. I know you think all atheists are objective humanists who support evolution, but that is a prejudiced belief. Atheism answers only one question..."god or not?" Your burden of proof is to demonstrate this morality that you claim to be superior. So far you have misrepresented atheism as a moral set, copied and pasted the ten commandments, and claimed that atheism is invalid. Why is religion superior morally? I want to know how you arrive at that idea, not what other things say. Also with Exodus I meant you can read Exodus 20 and all of its parts, and Exodus 21 and all of its parts. The god of the bible is totally cool with slavery and provides rules for owning humans as possessions.
Religions in general makes more sense and are more moral than Atheism

Exodus 20:21 as far as I can see doesn't say anything about slavery plus you did not comment on Ephesians 6:5-9. I cannot believe that you just said Atheism says says nothing on evolution, but then again, that is my interpretation on it. You state that Atheism has no moral values, but technically the society that follows it, has moral values. When you state that I didn't say whether or not the 10 commandments are moral, did you mean if they are right for a society to follow? Or that they are showing the definition of Moral? Moral Definitions: : concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior : based on what you think is right and good : considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior It fits in that category, but I cannot say whether or not they are right or wrong. Because there is no full definition of what is right or wrong only the opinion of it. Why do I have to even demonstrate if they are true? Shouldn't you be worrying that since Atheism has no moral values, it is invalid?