BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's time for English-Americans to assert their ethnic identity

Ladies and Gentlemen, today on Side Opposition I stand for the empowerment of English Americans, I stand for the voice of the minority being heard, and I stand for a true and equal America through recognition and celebration of ethnic English background. Asserting their Ethnic Identity through the ways prescribed by Pro, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the worst possible way of achieving what side Opposition stands for. If anyone here is familiar with Special Interest Groups they will understand my concern. Forming an organization like pro has suggested, with but one purpose of ethnic empowerment has worked in the past as seen with the Civil Rights movement, but cannot work today for two reasons. An ethnic special interest group is doomed for failure. No grassroot organization can have any sort of influence on a society such as America, they can hold their meetings all they want but they will not be able to compete with enourmous Corporations and other powerful organizations like The National Italian American Association. If they decide to form a representative body to lobby the Government for a change in policy that supports English American ideals, they will first have to overcome every other Special Interest Group. This is impossible as many Corporations have a stranglehold on Congress with their tactical Special Interest Groups-if a pro English SIG wants to force the government to ban corporate ads from mocking English Americans, they will have to fight the proffesional Corprate Lobbyists who have Billions of Dollars to stop actions like the one I just described. Then there is the issue that a representative body of English Americans will not be succsessful in out lobbying all the other representative bodies of Racial Minorities. The Italian-Americans and Nigerian-Americans own the scene when it comes to changing gov policy to support their ethinic groups, and both are immensley powerfull groups. And English-Amercian Representative body will have sour luck trying to get their method out if they adopt said methods. So what do we do then? Simple, they should follow the example of Latvian Americans and take direct action in Policy Change. That means the English-American community ought to pool its money together, open a posh private school, and nurture their children to become the future Senetors and Presidents. Problem solved. I beg, to Oppose
It's time for English-Americans to assert their ethnic identity

There are lots of Americans that self-identify themselves of belonging to a particular ethnic group, and they have established national associations to represent their interests. These include: The Cuban-American National Foundation (1); The Polish-American Association (2); National Italian-American Forum (3); The Irish-American Society (4); The Norwegian-American Foundation (5) and The German-American Heritage Foundation (6). I could go on, but you get the idea. However, so oppressed are English-Americans in the United States that they have not yet been emboldened enough to establish their own representative body. I say, enough is enough: it's time English-Americans made a stand against persecution and prejudice - they should be proud of their heritage and culture - and have the courage to establish an English-American society to promote their ethnic identity in the United States. Thank you. (1) http://www.canf.org... (2) http://www.polish.org... (3) http://www.niaf.org... (4) http://www.irishamericansoc.com... (5) http://noram.norway.com... (6) http://gahmusa.org...
Artificial fertility treatments should be banned

My opponent's argument is that with all the farmable land in the world, why not farm it? The very reason for that is due to the geopolitical problems that he agreed existed. You simply cannot force people to go somewhere, spend a hard life farming surrounded by people who may or may not reject you socially for arbitrary reasons and honestly expect them to be happy. My opponent spoke about China and it's state regulated birth control, what my opponent did not speak of was the fact that China now looks like Japan has done for what? 20 years? Japan has simply dealt with the problem that China is now facing, as a result of overpopulation, some Japanese urban homes are similar in design to apartments or flats here in England, but they're simply smaller and more functional. Admittedly there isn't much room for luxury, but it doesn't infringe upon the right to make the wife start walking funny either. Below you will find a link to a series of photographs of a house developed by Japanese Architects who had room to play with, and they simply used the room vertically rather than horizontally, their entire architectural perspective has changed from wanting to be more vertical than more horizontal because lord knows you can always just make something taller. India's approach to their overpopulation seems to be to ignore it, though having said that, India is a rapidly developing country so I sincerely doubt it's main concern is it's people in these rough economic times. China's is to infringe upon a few basic human rights and hope the problem goes away. Globally speaking, each country is dealing with the problem of overpopulation in their own way. So how can my opponent claim that there is a global overpopulation problem? Japanese architects do their thing: http://www.trendir.com...
Artificial fertility treatments should be banned

It is true that most people are concentrated into certain countries for geo-political reasons but it doesn't follow that there are large tracts of land in places like Africa that could be used to cultivate crops. Indeed, Africa is commonly associated with famine and desertification and there are very few opportunities to cultivate unutilised land in order to feed the world. The fact is, the situation is desperate and desperate measures are required to cope. That's why in China, where 84% of the land is unsuitable for agriculture, couples are only allowed to have one child and artificial fertility treatments are not permitted. (1,2) I agree that artificial fertility treatments are not the main driver of world population growth but it is significant and the suffering it causes to innocent children in the third world is real. For this reason I reaffirm that artificial fertility treatments should be banned. Thank you. (1) . http://www.fco.gov.uk... (2) . http://english.gov.cn...
Artificial fertility treatments should be banned

Artificial fertility treatments are blasphemous and an abomination in the eyes of G-d and those so-called "doctors" who perform evil deeds using so-called "advances in medical science" will be struck down and cast into the pits of Hell to burn for all eternity. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! Actually, that's not really my argument - I just thought I'd put that in at the beginning in the hope that some devout Christians might vote for me without reading the rest of the debate! No, my real objection to artificial fertility treatments is based on the global sustainability of the human race. Only a generation ago, infertile couples wanting children would have had to either adopt or split up and find fertile partners to start families with. These days, however, selfish, thoughtless infertile couples in the West are using artificial fertility treatments to bring yet more children into this chronically overcrowded world, thus adding to the suffering of hundreds of millions of malnourished kids in undeveloped countries by depriving them of their fair share of the world's finite food resources. Given that the planet cannot sustain the population as it is, we must conclude that, in the interests of the sustainability of the human race on a global basis, artificial fertility treatments should be banned. Thank you. Source: http://datafinder.worldbank.org...
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

1. Pro opens by stating because he believes that universal life is a right -- as do I -- that allowing 3/4 of of the awful people to die would be immoral. Again, I'll remind you that Pro stated very specifically that since we don't know enough about life and death, that death has nothing to do with morality. Nevertheless, you'll see that Pro's own continuously cited value of Utilitarianism actually supports my argument. Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. If there was a society where 3/4 of the people were awful, harmful, dangerous, unmerciful, etc. then I posit the option that would have the most overall utility (happiness, pleasure, etc.) would be my proposed option of letting the 1/4 live. Thus Pro has failed to successfully apply his value in this debate; this point goes to me. 2. Pro counters my supposition that certain vaccines can be harmful by saying that it's rare. Well, I agree that in most cases it's probably rare; however, because it's rare doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Those that it does happen to or can happen to have rights that must be protected. Pro is saying that because it's rare, his value of utility applies, but the reality is that we don't know whether or not every vaccine or immunization will rarely be harmful, this his value fails. Moreover, my interpretation of the value (keeping the select good few alive) also supports my point. 3. Next Pro writes, "When you are a member of society it is the governments job to protect that right (life)." I disagree. I think it is the government's job to protect your right to do with your own person - property - as you please, so long as it does not directly infringe upon another's right. So, while people choosing not to get the vaccine may increase the chances of those who are unvaccinated, I'd say that it's the responsibility of the people to make sure they seek the vaccine if they want it, and if they can't get it because of an allergy, then they are responsible for taking other precautions for themselves. You can't infringe upon the rights of a majority for the very extreme few who might be allergic, as Pro himself pointed out. 4. You'll notice that I said, "Even though the immunization might help the majority, you should take into consideration that the vaccination has a probability chance of backfiring on the individual." Pro responded, "This chance has no real scientific evidence, it is all speculation and guesses." Actually, I provided a cited source in the previous round - evidence- noting that yes, sometimes immunizations may hurt an individual. Pro's point is negated. 5. Finally, Pro continues to say that I have not touched upon the fact that his point about the government and economy cannot be limited to a capitalistic society. True, but this resolution is universal, meaning it would have to be applicable in all societies - including capitalistic ones. Because this point and resolution fails in a capitalistic society, then it fails universally.
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

This is the LD topic and I would like to do an LD style debate. Before I begin I would like to offer the following definitions. According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary justify is to prove or show to be just, right or reasonable. Just is to be in conformity with what is morally upright or good. According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary compulsory is to be required; mandatory. Public health, according to medterms.com, is medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. Also according to Random House Unabridged Dictionary concern is to relate to; be connected with. My value is morality. Morality is to be in good or right conduct. The resolution is asking whether compulsory immunizations are justifiable which as stated in the definitions mean are they moral. Thus morality should be the value for this round. My criterion is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that the morality of an action is determined by how it affects utility. So if an action maximizes happiness/utility then it is morale. This achieves morality because with immunizations we are saving more lives thus creating more utility and thus it is morale. Contention 1) John Mill's harm principle states that "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." When members of society go unimmunized it is dangerous for society as a whole. They are potential hosts for disease and allow the disease to be spread. When more lives are saved there is more happiness which is utilitarianism and in turn achieves morality. Contention 2) Immunizations are affective in eradicating disease. According to the CDC after the small pox immunization was given out it eliminated 100% of the disease, diphtheria by 99.99%, measles by 99.98%, polio by 100%, and tetanus by 98%. Also vaccinations provide direct and indirect protection because if one person slips through the cracks herd immunity protects that person. So immunizations are affective in getting rid of disease. With compulsory immunizations it would allow herd immunity benefiting society. Contention 3) Immunizations protect society from the negative impacts on the economy caused by disease. "It has long been recognized that a malarious community is an impoverished community." That is from T.H. Weller, a Novel winner, in his book, "The Economic Burden of Malaria.: Another expert on this is James Klieenstein from Iowa State University, and he talks about how disease causes loss of revenue with its increased death. It also puts a burden on the health care system to treat all of those infected which must in some way be payed, most likely through taxes. With compulsory immunizations all of this can be avoided thus maximizing utility and achieving morality.
Life

"Why does individuality not exist with all non-living things as well?" The argument you posed is not pertaining to non-living things but of 'Life' and of 'Living Organisms'; and if there is uniqueness of these two terms. "Individuality doesn't separate living from nonliving"? Sorry, I don't get what you mean by that. The physical aspects of the rock are only familiarized as a part of differentiation pertaining to every living thing in that living things have the same variables in physique; your argument doesn't mention inanimate or nonliving things. I feel that you're digressing from your main point. Isn't it obvious that I'm not here to debate about how pointless the "lives" of rocks are but of living things; bad analogies. Life- the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to Environment through changes originating internally. I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between Life and Environment in ecology, Environment means the air, water, minerals, organisms, and all other external factors surrounding and Affecting a Given Organism at any time. Its general definition - the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu. "As for life being pointless, there is no evidence, on your part, to prove it so; to claim it so would be assumptive. You could say that despite of the uniqueness that is undeniable for every living creature on earth, life itself is not intriguing; but to claim it as pointless, again, is assumptive." Once again, you have slightly missed the point of my argument. Pardon me if I failed to clearly express it. I said the "concept of life" is pointless. By that, I mean that we aren't really helped by dividing everything into "living" and "non-living", and I think this boundary is artificial. I don't intend to argue anything to do with the "purpose" of our existence." Actually, things that are "alive" have several things distinguishing them from things that are not; significantly, them being characterized as ALIVE. Do you want me to tell you, in my mere opinion, of how things, that are alive, are different things the non-living environment? Scientifically, it's pretty easy. Please explain your Individualistic and Special perception of this Concept of Life, please. The whole point of discerning things from living and nonliving is that they are in fact either Living or Nonliving, period. The boundary is not artificial. I'm glad that you don't assume our purpose for living, even though you have stated life as pointless already. It's not a theory that life is intrinsically and inherently different than nonliving matter, it is a scientific fact. Logically, even this concept of life that you base your argument from is special.
Life

I appreciate your response. "Special, by its definition, is applicable to all living things whereby individuality also exists." Why does individuality not exist with all non-living things as well? We can say that everything is unique in a way, "individuality" doesn't separate living from non-living. A rock can have individuality in virtue of its shape and composition, for example. "Life and environment are two totally different things; inherently different by their definitions." How so? I challenge you to draw the line between the "living" and the "environment". Take a cell, for example. You can say that everything outside of the cell membrane is the environment, but is that really the case? What if it's part of a larger organism? What about the composition of the cytoplasm, isn't that a non-living factor that affects the development and behavior of the cell? It's hard, if not impossible, to draw the line between environment and life. "While our environment plays a major role in affecting how our lives will be, it in no way shares relevance to how special each of our lives are inevitably." You seem to have slightly missed the point of my argument. I'm not saying your life is not unique or "special", I'm saying that life itself, those things that we call "alive" have nothing that inherently distinguish them from the "non-living" environment. "As for life being pointless, there is no evidence, on your part, to prove it so; to claim it so would be assumptive. You could say that despite of the uniqueness that is undeniable for every living creature on earth, life itself is not intriguing; but to claim it as pointless, again, is assumptive." Once again, you have slightly missed the point of my argument. Pardon me if I failed to clearly express it. I said the "concept of life" is pointless. By that, I mean that we aren't really helped by dividing everything into "living" and "non-living", and I think this boundary is artificial. I don't intend to argue anything to do with the "purpose" of our existence. Thus far, I don't see anything that is inherent to life that makes it intrinsically different from all other matter. What is special about life? I don't think anything is, and I curiously await your response.
Life

Special, by its definition, is applicable to all living things whereby individuality also exists. I agree with you that life is a complex system of interacting matter but this "system" is not conclusively determined in that all moments throughout human life, which define individuality, should be considered ordinary. Life and environment are two totally different things; inherently different by their definitions. While our environment plays a major role in affecting how our lives will be, it in no way shares relevance to how special each of our lives are inevitably. As for life being pointless, there is no evidence, on your part, to prove it so; to claim it so would be assumptive. You could say that despite of the uniqueness that is undeniable for every living creature on earth, life itself is not intriguing; but to claim it as pointless, again, is assumptive.
Life

I'd like to argue that there is nothing "special", nothing inherently unique about life and living organisms. It's just a highly complex system of interacting matter. My opponent will be arguing that there is something special about life that makes it inherently different from the environment around it. I'll probably go as far as arguing that the concept of "life" is flawed and pointless. Any questions or definitions will be discussed in comments. I'm sorry if the question/issue doesn't make sense, feel free to ask in comments.
Judeo-Christian is a contradiction in terms

This is my first one of these, and I've no idea how to do this, so if I mess anything up I apologize. But this phrase has been bugging me for a while, so I thought I'd give it a talk-about. Judeo-Christian has been an adjective often appearing before "morality" or "philosophy" in the media recently, often when dealing with matters of political stands on public morality. I say to the masses and the world and..this website, that such a term is somewhat silly, and as annoying to Jews as "Christo-Islamic" would be to Christians and Moslems. Judaism stems from a radically different philosophical basis than Christianity. The viewpoints on sin, for example, are in many ways much more complex and unrelated to both inner urgings, public viewpoints, and indeed objective moral standards. Jewish viewpoints on G-d, the nature of mankind, and the difference between the church (temple) and the state. For the sake of accuracy, we should stop using Judeo-Christian as an adjective. Judging from the lack of Jews using it, we should all probably stick to Christian.
A Trump Presidency

Perhaps if this was a debate about Hillary's past, not the one that it actually is, then your "arguments" may be considered legitimate. But alas, it is not. No, this is about Trump and his policies, and ONLY Trump; not anyone else, as explicitly stated at the beginning. You have only made irrelevant statements and used a child's logic to defend your blatant misinterpretation of the rules, therefore, you have made no permissible arguments. I regret have wasted my time on someone who cannot defend their candidate, such as you.
A Trump Presidency

It was difficult, but I did read your argument. What I'm saying is that the entire thing was about Hillary and this isn't supposed to be at all about any other candidate. I understand that Trump getting into office would mean Hillary doesn't, but this is supposed to be about what his presidency would look like, not Hillary's. And you didn't even show what Hillary's presidency would look like, only why she's such an awful person. If you're going to break the rules, at least do it right.
A Trump Presidency

I will argue that Donald Trump is not fit to be President. His policies will be detrimental to the economy and the country as a whole, he himself does not possess the right character for office, and he lacks the ability to articulate himself, which is crucial for the President to have. This will be purely about Trump and will not include Hillary Clinton, or any other candidate. The first round will be acceptance, the second will be opening statements, and all further rounds will be rebuttals and extensions of points. No plagiarism, no forfeits, no trolling. Provide sources when appropriate.