BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
unauthorized occupation of privately unused land is never justified.

just an important point to note,illegally occupying someone's land does not take away their right to ownership, we should also have it in mind that no right is absolute.moreover we should look at the reasons that make people illegally occupy other people's land,According to the PIE act of 1998,poverty and unemployment,past policies that prevented people from obtaining housing in the urban areas,the perception of unfair housing allocation,shortage of legally obtainable housing alternatives to mentions the list are some of the reason that results to the unauthorized occupation of privately owned unused land,hence i justify the illegal occupation if its for the benefit of the public.Adding on, the reason why most African countries e.g Zimbabwe, south Africa to mention a few conducted land reform programs was to settle down the unfair land allocation that was set by the colonialist and in my opinion the was was a splendid idea as it did good for the better public than greedy individuals. According to section 26 of the constitution that forms part in the socio-economic rights contained in the bill of rights, it states that everyone has a right to adequate housing ,subsection 3 goes on to mention that no one may be evicted from their homes or have their homes abolished without a court order made after considering all relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary eviction.
unauthorized occupation of privately unused land is never justified.

The Right of ownership is a basic right in most legal systems. It is a core foundation of any civil relationship. Almost all civil relationships are built around ownership and possession. The whole idea of ownership rights is to regulate people's relationships toward each other in terms of objets and possessions and to regulate the owner's use of the possesson. If you allow squatters on privately owned land you are essetially depriving the owner of his/ her right to ownership. Should the owner not be asked if he/ she would allow the squatters? Is it not the owner's choice what is to be done with their property?
unauthorized occupation of privately unused land is never justified.

Section 36(1)(e) of the constitution states that human rights can only be limited when there are no other, less restrictive, means to achieve a certain purpose. Section 26(2) of the constitution creates the following obligation with regards to housing: "The state must take reasonable legislative and other means, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right." This obligation is only put on the state. There is no obligation on any private citizen to provide housing to the homeless. It is strictly an obligation of the state. The state cannot allow squatters to occupy privately owned land even if it is unused. It can however supply the homeless with land by buying out any owner of unused land. This provision is provided for in section 25(2)(b) of the constitution where it states that the property owner is: "Subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court." As shown, there is a way to supply people with access to housing without taking other people"s rights away.
unauthorized occupation of privately unused land is never justified.

Since we are both South African law students I feel the need to bring transformative constitutionalism (TC) into the mix. TC is all about changing society into a better society through the application of the values in the constitution. To achieve this the constitution needs to be adhered to, to start with. I want to point out that "unauthorised occupation" is unlawfull. Thus it is against the constitution. How can we achieve a better society through constitutional values if we are allowing unlawfull acts? What then is the point of a legal system? For now its minor issues. Now we say "Its not that bad. It's not like the're using the land. Why not let other people, people who need it, use it?" Legalising unlawfull occupation is the first step. Pretty soon it's "just" theft and "just" corruption and "just" plagiarism, not to mention more grievious crimes like assualt and rape. If we can justify one crime, what's stopping us from justifying others?
Words have no meaning

My opponent is correct that the resolution is not "Words have no intrinsic meaning". Biased Voting is Not Allowed Here on debate.org, there are rules that are to be followed when voting on a debate. One of these rules includes the topic of "Voting based on personal bias" [1]. "You are supposed to evaluate the debate from the perspective of an unbiased third party who has no opinion about the topic and has no prior knowledge about the subject matter of the debate." [1] If a person evaluates this debate using their prior knowledge that words have meaning, then that person is not qualified to vote on this debate since they would be voting based on their personal perspective that is biased against the resolution. Interpreting meaning from words in this debate would be an example of using one"s prior knowledge that words have meaning to evaluate this debate. Therefore any person who wishes to vote on this debate can"t use the assumption that words have meaning to evaluate meaning from words in this debate. Additionally, interpreting meaning from the words in this debate"s resolution would mean that person is biased against the resolution from the start of evaluating this debate and is therefore not allowed to vote, and since you can"t vote without understanding the resolution, no one is capable of casting a valid vote on this debate whether or not they understand the meaning of the words in the resolution of this debate. Why you should not cast invalid votes Votes that do not adhere to voting standards will be removed by vote moderators. Additionally, if too many of one"s votes get removed, that person will eventually lose voting privileges. Also casting invalid votes wastes the vote moderators" time. So it would be better if people didn"t intentionally cast invalid votes on any debate, including this one. Conclusion The content of this debate is meaningless since no one will be able to cast a valid vote in response to the content of this debate. This argument was just a courtesy to those who mistakenly assumed that they could use their prior opinion that words have meaning to vote on this debate so that I can save them the trouble of having their vote removed. Sources [1] http://www.debate.org...
Words have no meaning

Note, the resolution we have is that "Words have no meaning". This is not "Words have no intrinsic meaning", but that words themselves have no meaning. The only evidence I need to support my side of the argument is that you can understand the point I am making through the words I am using. Even looking at the discussion Pro and I had in the comments shows that Pro sees meaning in words. These meanings are not intrinsic to the combination of letters or sounds, but that is besides the point for the resolution.
Humans are the smartest, stupid animals, imaginable.

I got the point.However I believe that humans are the dumbest and all other animals are more intelligent. I also believe we are definitely not the smartest animals.Bees have several guys f**king one female to generate generation after generation, we have a complex series of PMS'ing b*tches and their arrogant bf's all trying to somehow get along enough to feel as if they are the love of their life.How stupid of us to evolve this.
Population is too high!

Earth does have 7 billion people, but I'm sure we can manage. I'll start with my rebuttal against my opponent. "Too many stupid people, more abortions need to happened. " Abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. Pro hasn't identified any sources suggesting we have "too many" people. " The world can't keep up with the amount of pollution we're doing. " Actually, the most polluted country (that I know of at least) is China. . https://en.wikipedia.org... I'm pretty sure America and Australia aren't at that point yet, thankfully for us. I'm sure America can manage a long time. "We don't have enough jobs for these people. " Proof is not present. I went to Google, but all I saw was employment websites (Vacant Jobs), and the world running out of resources (Is the world running out of vacant jobs? ). I don't think we're at that point until hundreds of years from now. "Crime is going to go up. " Proof is not present. How are you so sure that people will become thieves, murderers, hackers, or rapers? Sure like 1/80 of people may be a criminal, but that doesn't really count as "crime going up", since it's not significant. "Teenage pregnancy is out of control too! " I have heard of this being an issue, and found a source. But what does this have to do with overpopulation? Sure a 15 year old girl could get pregnant, but her body isn't ready to handle the birth. She could die from the birth. That would be 1 (baby) - 1 (teen mother dies) = 0 net increase of population. This doesn't affect much. Now that my opponent's case has been refuted, I need to fulfill my own Burden of Proof. Point 1: We're actually declining in population. We're not dealing with overpopulation. Underpopulation is what humanity's facing. . http://www.realclearpolicy.com...Go to the halfway point of the site. "The United States is the only large industrialized country with a birthrate above the replacement level (2.1 children per woman). Populations in the rest of the developed world, from Europe to Japan, are shrinking. The same thing is happening in the Middle East. "Muslim countries with a high literacy rate -- Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia -- have already fallen below replacement fertility," Goldman says. " Europe, Japan, Turkey, Algeria, and more areas of the world (US is fine) are declining in population. Sadly, Pro only chose 1 round, which is a terrible idea unless you're very confident your only argument stands. If someone was to accept a 1 round debate, like me accepting this one, you have to be lucky to have your argument survive. 3 rounds is the recommended minumum, so you can refute your opponent's argument and counter his rebuttals. In this debate, however, you weren't so lucky.
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

morality=not doing the wrong thing, so doing the right thing, to contrast with there being a wrong thing to do in order for me to do the right thinghow could i do the right thing if there is no wrong thing for me to do?morality is like math, guided by objective so absolute even thou subjectivethe only way to define right and wrong is by using logic, seeing a log, i know i shouldnt try to run straight through itis granny in the wheelchair evil because she couldnt get her cat out the burning apartment so it burned alive, or do you feel sry for granny for losing her cat in such a terrible accident?
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

Exactly. Morality is our subjective view of right and wrong. But actions are judged by societal values. Ie ethics. We only know our own intentions therefore can judge only our own actions. Human action is motivated by pleasure. Not by morality. And yes. Atheism and theism are beliefs and illogical. Only agnosticism is logical. But religion is not based on logic. It's a choice. The only true choice humans have. Every other choice we make is predetermined and based on facts. Choosing to believe God exists, or doesn't exist, is the only free will we have.
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

morality is logicali agree that we dont really need more population, or something.. but the logical path is reflected by the consequences of an actionso if you dont have a choice it clearly has nothing to do with your oppinion..past is memory of now, logic is now, past is logicalatheist=disBeliefi accept i dont know=non beliefhow does the atheist know god is impossible.. clearly you have just defined atheism as a belief.. everything is, atheism is only as illogical as theism, as they are both possible
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

How do you know this? A drop of battery acid added to a child's meal every day may make them immune to illness. Your statement is based on assumption and assumption is the root of all evil. Homosexual = no children, fact Earth is overpopulated, fact No children = good, logical. Nobody is saying that in all societies there are levels of ethical behaviour we all consider bad. But when it comes to morality we do not get to choose. Whether something is good or bad is determined by our past and can not be altered. We can only learn to control our actions. Not alter our thoughts. Ps, agnostic = don't know Atheist = don't believe. Agnostic = God is possible Atheist = God is impossible Everything is possible, therefore Atheism is illogical.
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

it is wrong to feed a kid battery acid to keep it healthy.. has nothing to do with oppinion.. gummi bears will heal your cancer miss... trust me i am a professional doctor in hereevil=illogical=Wronggay=illogical, ex. no kidsso if you have no choice when it comes to morality.. clearly you are not the arbiter of it.. do you decide that 1+1 is 3?morality is knowledge, belief is immoralitypoison=unhealthy...to you.. feeding kids battery acid at birth to keep them healthy is moral, because the moon is made of cheese..
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

Yes. Feeding a kid is wrong in most people's opinion. Both morally and ethically. But is being homosexual wrong morally and ethically? In some countries and in some religions it is considered a sin. But that is a ethical standpoint. Individually our views may differ. Their are even homosexuals who consider it a sin to be homosexual. That is because their subconscious minds control their moral values and their conscious mind controls their ethical values. Ethical values can change, but moral values are a fundamental part of who we are. We have no choice in the matter. As for feeding a kid battery acid, although ethically every society agrees its wrong, only 99% of humanity believe it's morally wrong. A sociopath does not consider other people when it comes to morality. Only their own desires matter and if a sociopath decides that he is better off by feeding a child battery acid, they don't see anything morally wrong with doing it. Even if they know its socially unethical.
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

morality is right, logic is the measurement of resonable, right is resonable. logicalso to you, legally binding people to kill infants at birth or they will go to jail is morality to youyes you see things and learn from it, so you can do the right thing, this is using logic to determine what is right or to learnmorality is right, not wrong, evil is wrongeverything that exist has an opposite for it to existbelief=immoraltruth is logical, there are only the same logical options for everyone.. it isnt logical to feed your kid battery acid anywhere on the planet as a standard..
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

Morals have nothing to do with logic. That is ethics, and there is a big difference. Ethics are the rules set by authoritive figures such as parents, teachers, priests, governments, etc. They reside in our conscious minds and we automatically assume the rules of a particular society, country, region or religion that we belong to. Morals are a set of values and behaviours we learn through our experiences as children by watching adults. For example, a girl who's mother drinks and smokes believes this is how a woman should behave. Society my say its inappropriate, but in her subconscious the girl sees nothing wrong with it. As you can see, morals are not a matter of choice but a result of past experiences. Ethics are also not a matter of choice unless you are the one who makes the rules. In that case your morals apply. Conflict arises when moral and ethical values oppose each other and our choice is determined by which would make us happiest. Not by right or wrong.
R1 of RR Debate Tourney: USM vs MiG

I accept Un Stupendous Man's debate challenge and would like to welcome sort of relaxation in writing and creating another world for readers.I would also like to note that there is no true set theme yet, as neither indicated in the beginning of the debate; hopefully, the wake of the debate itself will witness an evolution of the theme as it widens. While I am certainly not necessarily a professional writer who has welcomed the important notions of writing or have held onto it as some sort of art, I will do my best to invest some sort of life in my work with the flourish of a writer.I should also thank USM for intiating this debate and will expect a good experience with him...and his stories.
R1 of RR Debate Tourney: USM vs MiG

This is a story debate. Both sides, PRO and CON, are to build a story together. The debater who's rounds are more interesting, better written, and overall more superior wins the debate. S/G and conduct are to be given out as usual; sources will not be given out. Arguments go to the person who wrote the better story. Plot, prose and characterization are all going to be important. If there are any questions, please leave them in the comments. This a part of the Round-Robin Debate Tournament hosted by MiG and I. This will follow all the rules and regulations enforced by the tourney. Here is how the voters will weigh which side won, as written by MiG:"1. Conduct is only reserved for members who choose not to either adhere to the rules imposed by the debater, forfeits, trolls and harangues his opponent, and so forth. Note that this story tournament may include twists or not, depending on the whims of the debaters.2. Spelling and grammar should only be rewarded to another opponent if one side displays noticeably poor spelling and grammar (in other words a conspicuous difference).3. Arguments-There is a subjective nature as to who made the better arguments, but both debaters AND voters should beware that this is essentially where one decides on who did the better job in crafting the story--in creating a literary world, imbuing his characters with basic or complicated humanity, geared the story forward, and even entertained the audience. (Note that the latter is contingent on the type of the debate; voters should list whatever factors that colored their perceptions of the debate sides of the stories).4. Sources-This is where one actually decides on who exhibited the better craftsmanship and writing skills--in other words--the best prose, wording, command of the language and flourish. This skill is not all to be confused with storytelling; surely a member can tell good stories but that does not at all correlate with his writing skills or the maturity of such a skill.
Radical Islamic terror exists.

Guess what, BROTHER? I am from India. But I am a truthful Indian nevertheless. My views may be harsh, But they are the truth. Radical Islamic terror has scarred this whole world and is singlehandedly responsible for almost 90% of terror attacks. Christianity doesn't contain radical elements and does not propagate non-Christians as infidels or "Kaafirs". Give me an example where someone said "Praise Jesus" and then blew people off. Islam has certain radical teachings which need a reformation to stop radical Islamic terror. We must call things by their right names.
Rap or poetic competition

I guess its time for me to end this at last. No need to worry I'll make this real fast. No more need to say anything its already brash. My opponent had no chance but I had a blast. Sleep time Con nightmares of me in your past. No more oppurtunities your conducts been trash. Im light years ahead, no way for you to outlast. Your attacked by the man with a knife and a mask. Dont fight the feeling if your feeling the force at last. Kick my feet up and take a break and afterwards bask. Ahh, ohh, I know my flow is as bright as a blinding flash. Voting Pro is a must my opponent shouldnt have any cast. Thanks again and until next time keep getting cash.
Rap or poetic competition

So, here we go again, wind blows on haters, as round 3 begins. Protect your chin, as Con mentions, being rude is my intention. It sure isn't, I'm having fun with my mission, round 2 was a lynchin'. Pile up Con's lyrics & I will bench them. Somedude's a victim, soon to beheaded by the henchmen. I sent Con a huge pile of snow, and so, when he had his go, it blowed. He came up short, just a tad low, had no idea my snow was so cold. Thats why he barrowed words from my flow, mine are dough, his are broke. It's ok though, Con's gotta gloat, even if he's smoked, 'never give' up is his motto. Con better make that dough off that rapping for dummies video. His raps are delicious? Man thats tough, He just mite not fill those britches. They would be better used by feeding them to fishes, man he wishes. Con's rap style already has stitches, its battered and brusied, and he itches. Con's rap sounds like snitches, when I jump, he flinches, I swing, he winces. Its high time I just clinch this, when it rains it pours and this flow drenches. My career is dead, that's just in your head. I'm sending lead to your head but you ran & fled. Shot you in the leg and you fell and bled. Just calm down and listen to what I said. I'm, purebred, well read,will leave you dead. My lyrics are like warheads that imbed your brain. You've been blown to Spain, shot legs and a cain. I told you this was my terrian. You plot in vain. C'mon lets go, Ah Gusto! It's time to end this show. Whoa! You are under control! Your raps are jokes, nothing but smoke. It makes me wanta choke. Settle down before you go gung-ho. Your just shallow, causing bellow's in people's souls. You have no high level flow, I know, so come with mo'. Next round is your chance, so, you better lock & load. Thanks for the competition no matter how this battle go's. Goodluck, no typo, Back over to Con and his sideshow.
Rap or poetic competition

You make fun of me, say I am not a g. I think you forgot my middle name is MC. Listen up homies, this be your boy Somedude This idiot here is just stupid and rude. Look at me man, I've been here before. I've dealed with rappers, weirdos and whores. You think your'e better because you say your'e a Home G. Your rhymes are not the only things you spit out, homey. I'm a music man, my raps are delicious, You just one of them wannabe b**ches. I'm so good, I should make tutorial videos. Youre as good as rhyming, as AVGN at Grand Theft Auto. I'm gonna keep this short, because I know you have trouble. Your'e pathetic rap's size may be double. But it doesn't matter, because I am better. I already won, your career can't get any deader.