BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 (pm) on a school night.

I am a student and I have many bills to pay. To afford transportation, shelter, food, books, school, and etcetera, I would have to keep my full-time job. However, my classes go late into the day and end around 5'oclock. If I want to work enough it becomes absolutely necessary for me to work past 10:00 PM. Contentions: 1. Students ought to be responsible enough to procure a job that best fits their circumstances. Disallowing students the opportunity to work past 10:00 is not a protection of freedom, but a hindrance of. If a student is unable to work out a sensible schedule with his/her employer the student has all the right and freedom in the world to pack-up and find a job elsewhere. 2. Many people have longstanding, well-paying jobs before they decide to become students. Legislating against their ability to work past 10:00 PM may endanger their employability or prevent them from continuing in their studies. Consider all the mothers and fathers, even grandmas and grandpas who go back to school. If such a wanton criminalization is not in the best interests of the student, who benefits? Responses: A. Equal Opportunity to all Balderdash. Do students have the opportunity, if needed, to work past 10:00 PM? If not, then arguing on the grounds of equality is self-refuting. B. Less Suicides If we mandated all students wear straight-jackets when they are alone, we could virtually eliminate suicide among the student population – does that mean we should? Among other things, Japanese student suicide rates have more to do with school itself then it does with things outside it. (1) C. Concentration on what is important will be achieved. A mother back in school – what is more important, her B.A. or providing for her children What about the people who find it more difficult to save for college because there is now a ridiculous ban barring them from working late? 1. http://search.japantimes.co.jp...
It ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 (pm) on a school night.

My least favorite place in the existence of all lively hood without a doubt is the scum that is Kmart... You see, this is where I work on a weekly basis, and I HATE IT! There are several reasons for this, and one of those reasons is their clever system of scheduling. For example, next Tuesday I work from 6:00 p.m. - 12:15 a.m. This would be the week of semester tests by the way. Speaking of which, I work from 7:00 p.m. - 12:15 a.m. the night before semester tests. I think that this is ridiculous, that the night before one of the most important school days of the year and I am required to stay up way too late or lose my job. Therefore, I propose that we ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 p.m. on school nights. By doing this, we will: A) Give equal opportunity to everyone. -You see, most of my friends don't have jobs. They will be able to get plenty of sleep that night and therefore gain an advantage over me. But by voting pro, you recognize equal opportunity for all. B) Push students to the point of suicide less often. -Do we really want suicide rates like Japan?!?! The reason so many students kill themselves there is because of their amount of workload. But if we give students more time to do their homework AND prepare for tests, then fewer suicides will inevitably happen, and no child will be left behind in a way that doesn't tick everyone off. C) Concentration on what is important will be achieved. -SCHOOL COMES FIRST! This is not words that just exist, there is MEANING to them. You see, now that they have done this, I feel I have no choice but to quit Kmart, and will thus make it harder for me to save money for college. An all around bad deal for me. Because of this, I urge you to see the importance of school, and therefore vote PRO! Thanks and good luck to my opponent!
It ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 (pm) on a school night.

1. You grossly overestimate the need of student workers and misunderstand my central point. Unemployment rates are at a major high (1). Teenagers currently have the highest unemployment rates. Instituting the proposed law would only serve to increase the unemployment rates of teens (and perhaps subsequently increase employment rates of adults). Moreover, my point was that the law is unnecessary. If employers have a position that works past ten, they will not hire a student who is unwilling to do so (especially with the given law). It is more damaging to students then it is beneficial. Child labor laws are a proven factor in why many businesses will not hire teens. The proposed law may also discourage employers from hiring students all together. 2. That is an issue that should be worked out with parents and not employers. Neither parents nor employers can "force" anything. If a student possesses the power to say "I quit," then no such conundrum exists. Two week's notice is a courtesy and not a requirement. 3. Why not. All one needs to do is sign up for ONE cheap online class and therefore be a student and reap the given benefits. Moreover, a student is in no way limited to high school and no such distinctions were made in the resolution. B. Your source was not student specific. Student suicide rates are tied explicitly to scholastic factors. Nor did you give any evidence for such "HUGE" increasing factor. C. The point was that student mothers would be hindered when it comes to obtaining a job, because employers could become leery about employing students because of the proposed law. (1) http://articles.latimes.com... Thank you, IquireTruth
It ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 (pm) on a school night.

1. You will see that employers still need to have people that are students. Students are generally teenagers and as a study found, that 8 million teenagers are currently employed (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and that "Employers rely on teen workers to help their businesses." Therefore, the argument that employers will stop hiring them is not true because they can not afford to. Not to mention that most places that do hire them are not open past 10, and if they ARE, it is unlikely that these students are working that late. But if they are being scheduled that late, they ought to have the power to over the working establishment. http://parentingteens.suite101.com... 2. Sometimes it's out of the students hands of where he works. EG: 2 week notice wouldn't get me my sleep before semester tests. EG: Parents won't let the child quit or parent forces student to work at a specific place. EG: Job availability for more appropriate jobs non-existent (either small town or high population). 3. I don't see how there could actually be a great enough incentive for someone to go out and enroll in online classes (AT LEAST in a overwhelming force). Not to mention that this resolution is more to protect high school students. 1. AGAIN, may not have much power of where they work. Not to mention that 2 week notice is required so thus I don't have time to quit before my semester test grades are effected. B. But MY evidence showed that it has to do with stress levels. And scheduling people past 10 o' clock while they are going to school is a HUGE stress increasing factor. Going to school AND work creates a LOT of stress. C. Again, it is not a resolution to make employers have a requirement, it is eliminating the requirement of students working past 10. In other words, I can still choose to work past 10, but I do not want to be forced to work past 10 for the reasons stated in the first paragraph and because I don't want stress.
It ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 (pm) on a school night.

1. Mandating businesses to avoid scheduling student's after ten (those who are unwilling, that is) is needless legislation. Employers will avoid hiring those students who cannot fulfill the position adequately. Moreover, such legislation would be damaging because it would result in less job availability for students. This is why many employers do not hire employees who are still thoroughly restricted by child labor laws. (1) 2. It still stands that it ought to be the student's resposiblity to find a job that best fits his/her circumstances. An employer will not hire a person who cannot work past ten if that is a requirement of the position. Like said above, the law is unnecessary. 3. It is a highly manipulatable law. A person wanting a little extra sleep at night need only to enroll in some cheap online course and thus reap the bed-time benefits of a student. Responses: 1. "Now THEY get to decide when they work, not their employer… I am forced to be irresponsible on the CON side." Ridicules. Students already have plenty of freedom to choose when they work – it comes with the freedom of choosing WHERE to work. Also, the position to be irresponsible cannot be forced. If it is more responsible for you to quit your job and find employment elsewhere, so be it. But do not blame irresponsibility on your employer. South Dakota is an "at will" state. You are not bound by any contract. B. My source in Round 1 is student specific and finds fault with the schools – not work. C. Student mothers may find themselves hindered in obtaining and/or obtaining a job if such requirements are instituted. www.esf-globaleuronet.org/content/download/698/3121/file/puerta%20paper.pdf
It ought to be illegal to require students to work past 10:00 (pm) on a school night.

Thanks and good luck. .. CLARIFICATION 1) You can still work late on school nights. -If you look to the topic, you will see that it says they can't do it on school nights. In other words, on Friday and Saturday you can be required to work all you want. 2) You can over-come the requirement. -Again, the resolution says that you ought not be required to work. (Like I am at Kmart). So if you take the option to work that, you would still be able to do that. Point by point: 1. Students can now be even more responsible. Now THEY get to decide when they work, not their employer (unless it is before 10 of course). I am not allowed to be responsible the day before semester tests, I am required. Therefore, I am forced to be irresponsible on the CON side. Also, there is a 2 week notice requirement, so I can't simply pack up and leave (for at least 2 weeks). 2. Again, I contended that not requiring them does NOT restrict them from working past 10. I simply want the option to go into Kmart and say no thank you. .. I'm leaving at 10. (My points) A. If you vote Pro, you simply can't require students to work past 10 on school nights, but you can request them. B. It turns out that studies actually blame the high suicide rate to "workplace stress"… You will see that any time you are doing work (be it homework or stocking shelves), it is still work. Requiring work past 10 p. m. simply increases the work load. -. http://www.bio-medicine.org... C. I would say that BOTH of those things are important. Therefore, the request can still be put in to work that long. But requiring it only increases the stress. Not to mention that working past 10 is probably not good for your kids. This depends on the ages, but you need to be there to ensure they go to bed. But each situation is different so it would be ridiculous to require ONE thing. Give the choice to them.
God most likely does NOT exist (2nd Copy)

I simply do NOT hold the belief that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists until proportional evidence is presented. For instance, there is a box. We haven't opened the box yet. So we have no sufficient justification to prove the claim that it contains anything. REMEMBER: 1) Presentations 2) Rebuttals He definitely exists in the faith of individuals, though. Nonetheless, it is possible. It is just most unlikely. Also: 1) "Christians believe their God is omniscient and knows everything, including everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will."" 2) "They also believe their God is omnipotent, and can do anything. Problem is, if their God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery." I have derived these from my Atheist friend. He is no longer a Deist (Belief in a God who does not intervene).
Anakin Skywalker is likely the most powerful being to have ever existed (in the Star Wars Universe).

Wow. .. I was going to go for Abeloth and Luke and drop all of my other contentions this round in an attempt to develop those shells, but. .. I think Pro should've argued that voters should've evaluated based on potential power vice actual power, which might have affirmed the topic. I also considered running Darth Nihilus, which would've been a better choice that Odan-Urr, now that I think on it.
Anakin Skywalker is likely the most powerful being to have ever existed (in the Star Wars Universe).

Bsh1, I must say, reading your contentions has been great, and though I might be able to formulate an argument against contentions 1-4 of your argument, I must cede defeat to contention 5.In my own research, I have found that though, vader had potentiall limitless power, Luke Skywalker is literally the most powerful Jedi in all of the novels and movies according to George Lucas. And after reading your points on him, I can't say I disagree.Therefore, I urge that the voters give all points to the CON!
Anakin Skywalker is likely the most powerful being to have ever existed (in the Star Wars Universe).

My Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.Wookiepedia, and anything published/produced by lucas-arts will be considered fact in this debate.DefinitionsAnakin Skywalker - The character in the Star Wars universe known as "Anakin Skywalker" AKA Darth Vader.Powerful - For this debate, for something to be "powerful" it must be able to produce the "power" in the following methods:-Mechanical power-Power in the form of energy-Power in the form of manipulation/influenceI am very excited for this debate. Con may provide/amend any definitions as he sees fit (as long as they are not abusive).
Abortion is MURDER!

You have some good and free minded points, but you fail to see some very important things in your arguments. Unfortunately in this world everything is not all butterflies and good times, there are some rough points to life. Some people are unfortunate to be born in a poor household, where they might face various issues, for instance the point you make with the family not having the resources to take care of the baby. This problem is unfortunately something that is going to sustain until the end of humanity. It is not a valid reason for people not to have the baby that has been put onto their lives. When a person feels like the child is a burden, the person should not literally kill the baby. Even though the baby is not going to receive the best and rich life, that is how life works and the people involved just has to accept that. In Africa where there is extreme poverty, they still reproduce even though they will have a very rough time taking care of the baby, but they still do it and in a lot of cases that child grows up and lives on. That is how life works, it cannot all be a fairy tale. You also state that some women giving birth go on to have serious injuries or end up dying, and then again, that is just how life works, we as people do not have the right to be "god" and to decide which people has the right of a life. Of course there will always be some downsides to the right things in life, but that is how life is and we as a society just have to accept that life is not perfect and we are not god.
Abortion is MURDER!

The abortion debate has been ongoing for a very long time. There are many perspectives to the matter, but all in all it always opposes to 2 sides of the story, pro-abortion or anti-abortion. I will now state my perspective of the matter, hoping for a good debate opponent to accept the challenge. Basically, I see abortion as murder and to take another human being's life, whether it being a foetus or a living baby i still think it is the same principal, it is murder. And yes my dear opponent, i know that in some extreme cases such as rape, it is not always fitting for a person to have the baby, but in these extreme cases there is special case solutions. It is for instance possible to take prevention pills for the female after she has been raped or has had sex that might lead to a baby. So this is not an argument that is possible to make from your side. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions has been performed in the United States " an average of about 1.4 million abortions per year. At 2008 abortion rates, three in ten US women will have an abortion before age 45. That is a lot of lives STOLEN from the world , do you really not see it as morally extreme incorrect to take the opportunity of a life from a living person? Imagine if that baby would have become the most influential person that has ever lived. Of course that example is quite extreme, but the principal remains the same. To take the life of a foetus that had the potential to become something is and will always be extremely morally incorrect.
Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal

As it is clear from your very long and well thought out 2nd argument that you are obviously a disciple of Jack Kevorkian and his reasoning I'm going to approach this from a different direction if that's ok. I've already briefly addressed the problems with allowing a man to decide when another man/woman "should" be allowed to die but I'd like to examine that issue further. To do so makes the process completely arbitrary. Dr. Jack says no so you go to Dr. John. He says no, you go to Dr. Allen and so on until you get the answer you want. This is already practiced by "patients" who are drug addicts, what makes you think it wouldn't become widespread among the suicidal? I believe you said somewhere in that dissertation that Kevorkian turned down 5 for every 1 he accepted or some similar % anyhow. OK, so HE arbitrarily gets to decide who lives and who dies? You don't see the problem with this? As long as the decider has a doctorate it's O.K. with you? I literally know a man with a doctorate who is having trouble paying this months rent, should HE be allowed to decide? (dude wants to die, I need the money. Who loses?) If you think this wouldn't play into the situation at all you are quite naive. It seems that most of what you wrote was a glowing support of Jack Kevorkian and his "cause". Yet you fail to address standards and practices other than stating "if they are diagnosed as terminal". That's your be-all end-all standard, eh? Let me tell you a personal story. My father was diagnosed with a "terminal" illness at age 13. He was in constant pain and the Doctors were certain he had less than a year to live. Obviously, since I'm here to write this, that diagnosis was wrong. He did pass at age 58 after fathering and raising 3 children while living most of his life pain free. I tell this story only to illustrate but one of the problems with your fail safe reasons for allowing physician assisted suicide. You see, my father would have qualified under your vetting process when he was 13 years old.
Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal

There is one very simple problem with your position. The Hippocratic oath, by which all medicine in this country is practiced, strictly and definitively forbids it. In order to legalize physician assisted suicide you would literally have to re-write the basic code by which all physicians are bound. You argue that morality has no place in medicine, while the exact opposite is true. There is no medicine without morality, else all doctors would be little more than snake oil salesmen. Morality is required as a basic code of being a physician moreso than any other profession save for a preacher. Let's visit your theory for just a moment and assume it should be legal. On what basis or code should the doctor be bound by while making the determination of which patients to "help" in this manner? Should it be the Kevorkian method, that is whatever the physician himself believes? Should there be a set of guidelines on when it's acceptable and when it's not? Should it be required to get a second opinion from a consulting physician? How about from a psychologist? Do the ramifications of a suicide on family, particularly dependents, get taken into account? What about the clause in most life insurance policies that explicitly state they don't pay upon suicide? It's clear that some shysters masquerading as caring physicians would quickly take advantage of such a situation for the sake of profit rather than mercy. That is to say, if the first 5 docs say no, you don't qualify, the 6th one will say sure, but not until after the check clears. He'll likely have on staff equally immoral folk with necessary degrees to back him up. I am quite certain that Mr. Kevorkian eloquently stated his position on the matter and he obviously swayed you to his way of thinking, however when one looks at the situation through more than his very narrow viewpoint, it becomes quite obvious there are many obstacles that Jack doesn't adequately address on his lecture tour.
Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal

In light of Jack Kevorkian speaking at my school tonight, I offer up this debate to anyone who wishes to take it on. Bottom line, physician-assisted suicide should be legal. It is absurd that anyone or any group should have the authority to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own life with regard to this issue. I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce their morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease. The overly moralistic person is not feeling the pain. They will not be affected in any way whether the dying person takes their own life or if they needlessly prolong their suffering. Yet, they insist on using the government to enforce their morality on people they don't even know. A dying person, suffering from cancer or some other horrific illness that promises nothing but a slow, painful death, should be able to die on their own terms, with dignity. I eagerly await someone to accept my open challenge.