BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
smokers should be allowed to die

The debate is not about smokers getting murdered but about how if they made the wrong decision and did not attempt to make it right before it was too late then it should be their concern not ours. i am not proactively killing them but saying that it should not be a burden on the community if they chose to inflict this fate upon themselves. The type of problems that smokers inflict on themselves does not come from hereditary or by mere chance. In present times, it is clear what the consequences of smoking are. Adults are capable of making informed decisions about their actions hence the laws about the legal age limit to smoke. Why so much effort and resources should be spent on curing these people who have opted to smoke despite the warnings? Although many parents quit smoking for their children, many more continue smoking and endangering the health of their children and people around them. If we do not help them, they will pay the ultimate price for their choice to smoke and one less smoker is one less person forcing the people around them to smoke passively. By not providing health care for smokers we can also save a lot of money and resources from advertising. If we withdraw all forms of aid for the prevention of smoking, we can allow the smokers to smoke themselves to death and to save taxpayers money which is currently used to show the consequences of smoking on television, billboards, cigarette packets, buses, bus stops and many more places. By being harsh to the smokers of this generation we can send a clear message to the next generation about how if one choses to smoke, the government or health care facility won't be there for them and that they will have to pay the price for what they've done.
smokers should be allowed to die

If smokers to set fire to leaves and breathe in smoke, then it is their choice. There are many people who have an operation because of their addiction, continue smoking, have another operation and get reffered to a rehabilitation centre, don't put the effort in and the cycle continues. Is it fair that a person who has made a bad choice and has not tried to remedy the bad choice gets to use up tax payers' money to pay for operations that they can't afford? You may argue that they wouldn't have thought the problems of smoking would have affected them but if they did not fore see that soon enough then it is not because of their ignorance that money and doctors' time should be wasted on them. If they make the decision to take poor care of their health, then it should be their loss not ours. Hense instead of doctors and nurses going out of their way to help these people, they should be allowed to die.
The Puerto Rican Day parade "Seinfeld" episode was banned for being "anti-white"

I won't waste too much time with this. My opponent has simply made such a weak and pathetic case, that it has no ground to stand on and is completely irrelevant to the topic. I'll take my time to spell it out more, but honestly I should be able to forfeit every round and win this. The PuertoRican day parade episode was pulled because some people viewed it as disrespectful or hateful to Puerto Ricans. In the episode Kramer starts stomping on a Puerto Rican flag that was burning, and at one point there was some rioting at some point and Kramer exclaims that "It's like this everyday, in Puerto Rico". http://www.nytimes.com... Race is mainly a social construct, so anybody identifying with Puerto Rican and viewed as Puerto Rican, is Puerto Rican for all intents and purposes. It makes no difference where you trace their origins to, and I won't even dignify my opponent's argument by even investigating it. I could use the same ridiculous arguments to argue that all men and women are African, as that is where the human race came from. It's irrelevant and beside the point, and it fails to identify race as a social construct. Let's just assume that you do find that Puerto Ricans are white, it's still a ridiculous argument to make. It's like if my opponent. Said all Nazis were ignorant and then I called it an anti white statement. It wouldn't be an anti white statement, it is merely and anti nazi statement, the fact that all or most Nazis are whit is irrelevant and beside the point, the criticism of a subset of a race, isn't criticism of the race. Voters, award me the win, because my opponent has made irrelevant arguments. I'd also remind the voters that they are allowed to refrain from awarding conduct points if they find my opponent's arguments offensive. I don't need to be docked for the missed round
The Puerto Rican Day parade "Seinfeld" episode was banned for being "anti-white"

The show was banned in the United States for perceived racism against Puerto Ricans. Likely as a result of some white yuppies caving to the ridiculous outrage of a few humorless Hispanics. The Hispanic countries that air Seinfeld, don't even ban the show, but all that is beside the point. Good luck proving a show pulled from the air for being offensive to Puerto Ricans, was pulled for being anti-white. Actually it's quite easy to explain. Let me ask my wonderful audience: who are the Visigothic people? They are the Germanic conquerers of Spain that conquered Spain falling the Germanic kingdoms' (Ostrogoths, Vandals, Goths), thus giving the Spanish people a variety of surnames we know -- Guzman, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Ramirez, Sanchez, Velasquez, Vasquez, Cruz, Lopez, etc. The majority of people who protested the Puerto Rican Day episode (and Puerto Rico is definitely the whitest of all countries in Latin America, after Argentina) were predominantly of those surnames. I should note that given the tone of the episode, it is set up more like a lynching than anything else, typical of white lynch mobs in 20th century America. Never once, do any of the protesters complain of racism. In fact, a good amount of the ones who want to literally have Kramer lynched look much whiter than he does. http://www.youtube.com... Also, remember, "Hispanic," unlike other historically oppressed groups, like the Italians, Germans, Greeks, Arabs, Palestinians, English, Irish, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Native Americans, "Hispanic" is not always a minority. Many of the Hispanics, especially in countries like Puerto Rico (and it shows that mostly those with non-Visigothic surnames move to America because they receive unfair racist treatment in their own country -- hence why so many Puerto Ricans in America tend to be Garcias, Riveras, Adrieannas), are of Germanic/Israeli ancestry. I should note that it wasn't even a Spanish man but someone of obvious British ancestry (Scottish) who tried to get this episode banned ahead of time (Manuel Mirabal). http://www.nytimes.com... https://www.houseofnames.com... (according to here Mirabal is a Saxon surname that survived the Norman settlement of 1066).
The Puerto Rican Day parade "Seinfeld" episode was banned for being "anti-white"

The show was banned in the United States for perceived racism against Puerto Ricans. Likely as a result of some white yuppies caving to the ridiculous outrage of a few humorless Hispanics. The Hispanic countries that air Seinfeld, don't even ban the show, but all that is beside the point. Good luck proving a show pulled from the air for being offensive to Puerto Ricans, was pulled for being anti-white.
The Puerto Rican Day parade "Seinfeld" episode was banned for being "anti-white"

My opponent spends a lot of time attempting to prove Puerto Ricans are white. This is not even relevant to the debate. The debate is about whether the episode of Seinfeld was banned for being anti-white. My opponent has argued about whatever ethnicity the people raising a fuss over that Seinfeld episode were, and ignores what the episode got banned for. All Nazis are white, but if I condemn Nazis I'm not being anti-white, I'm being anti nazi. Just like the show was banned for being offensive to Purti Ricans, regardless of the ethnicity of people residing in the region. My opponent has the burden of proof here, and has refused to debate the resolution, instead focusing on a red herring. My opponent is also trying to extend the debate into the comment section right now, forfeiting any right he has to conduct points. Either the conduct points are off setting, or I win the conduct points.
The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime

The belief that imposing stricter gun laws will reduce violent crime is an erroneous belief. If a person is going to commit a violent crime with a gun, how does it make sense to think that stricter gun laws will prevent them from doing so? Does anyone really believe that a hypothetical murderer becomes compelled to murder someone in cold blood, but then stops him or her self because it may be illegal to have a gun at the time? This was the first news headline I read when I logged on to Yahoo this evening (2/14/08): "DEKALB, Ill. - A man dressed in black opened fire with a shotgun and two handguns from the stage of a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday, killing five students and injuring 16 others before committing suicide, authorities said." Illinois is a state which already has strict gun laws, but that obviously didn't protect these people from getting gunned down. After this incident and the one at Virginia Tech, I reaffirm my position that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that gun laws should be relaxed so law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves in situations such as these. If the government were to take our guns away, or continue to impose stricter gun laws, it will only impede our ability to protect ourselves. The closer the U.S. comes to having full gun control, the closer we approach a time in which the only people with guns are cops and criminals. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it's not working for drugs, and it won't work for guns.
Debate.org should add higher post character options

I believe debate. org should allow 9k, 10k, 11k, 12k, 13k, and 14k post character amounts. Rules will be like policy. Advantages to having more flexibility and increased character amounts: 1. Greater competition This is simple. Because more writing is allowed, those who like to write a lot can write more. This creates greater competition. 2. More points. It allows for more points to be packed into each debate. This is good because it (1) increases competition even more and (2) Increases education because there is more brainstorming and you learn about even more points against your position. 3. Less clarification required Sometimes when there are many points in a round and you're scrambling to get your post in (and deleting blocks of text to do so), your points become unclear. This means: (1) you have to clarify to your opponent in the next round (2) If you don't clarify, your voters and opponent will be confused. It makes for more of those debates where your opponent misinterprets your arguments and hits down their own version of your arguments, then you have to go back and show them that they got it wrong. This also increases education because less time is spent clarifying, and more time is spent actually debating. Another impact of this is more accurate voting. If you have more characters to actually explain yourself, you ensure the voters don't completely miss what you meant by that point. What is good about this is that it increases flexibility and it's up to the instigator to set the character limit high or not. Thank you, and I eagerly await Con's response.
Conjoined Twins and the Penal System

Seeing as Pro forfeited last round, but does intend on coming back next round, I'll keep this round brief so as to not over-load him for his R4 post. To re-cap my last round argument; we cannot imprison Harold (the guilty twin) if it means imprisoning Stephen (the innocent twin) because by doing so, we admit that it is morally permissible to knowingly imprison an innocent just to ensure we imprison a guilty party. Doing such a thing is widely considered to be absolutely out of the question, whether it be by the U.S. constitution, the Magna Carta, or Blackstone's Formulation (It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer) [1]. The later of the three being especially influential in our legal systems "This variation was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century.It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century." [2]The Americans bumped up this formulation 10 fold, as seen by the most quoted version of this formulation given by Benjamin Franklin "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." [3].The core of my opponent's argument in his opening round was that we ought to lock up both of them for the safety of society. This method ensures society's safety, but also involves nullifying Stephen's right to due process, and so it is both illegal and immoral in Western democracies, and therefore not a viable option. As such, we must set them both free -- however this doesn't mean we have to put society at risk. The twins can be placed under police surveillance and Harold can be subject to routine check-ups with a psychologist to ensure he doesn't go on any more murderous rampages. Granted, this method does slightly Stephen, but it inconveniences him less than having an unchecked murderer fused to his hip, so it's the most rational option to take.In conclusion, imprisoning Stephen would be unethical, illegal, and unnecessary. The Western notion of justice hinges upon the idea that the government can't knowingly imprison an innocent to accomplish its goals. Furthermore, society's safety can be secured without needlessly breaking these laws. As such, the resolution is negated.Vote Con 1.http://tinyurl.com...2.http://tinyurl.com...3.http://quotationsbook.com...
Conjoined Twins and the Penal System

So one day I was just sitting at my desk, masturbating, when I realized that there is no legal precedent for incarcerating conjoined twins when one of them (but not the other) has committed a crime. Consider the following: Harold and Stephen are conjoined twins. They are in a public park, when Harold pulls out a gun and shoots five people, despite Stephens efforts to stop him. The conjoined twins are arrested; Harold tells authorities he simply hates people and wishes to harm as many individuals as he can. Stephen is horrified by Harolds' dark nature, but is, unfortunately, physically attached to him. Harold is now a killer, and he expresses his intent to murder innocents again. The resolution is the following: This House would incarcerate Harold and Stephen I support this resolution, I will argue that a legal individual should have their rights sacrificed in order to assure that Harold is put behind bars. Con will argue that a legal individuals' rights cannot be compromised despite this drastic situation.
The US is Skrewed

Better proof of America being screwed, would be if you would have cited that awful and unlettered opening statement as exemplary of America's education system and deteriorating intellect, but I joyously digress. Barack Obama did not cancel prayer day, first off. He did not celebrate it, but Bush was the first president to actually do so. http://www.washingtontimes.com... That a real blow to your argument, isn't it? "you can look at Rome once was Christian , but fell to immorality- they crashed and burned." No. Rome worshiped the the Roman Gods (hence their name) and as most historians believe, when Christianity came into play, Roman support for the state was lost to faith in God. This weakened Rome's ability to work cohesively, and in combination with Germanic tribes, Rome fell. when they fell, they were Christian. When they rose, they were Polytheistic. "The Us is heading for the same fate, with Barak Husain Obama in office we may as whell let the 4 year old kids." Here's a link for hooked on phonics, buy it: http://www.amazon.com... "Look at the vast seperation of church and state, they can't talk about God in public school, they even bring in gay preachers to talk in school." Look sir, I think you need a little less God at school, and a little more grammar. If you are an exemplary Christian, a lack of separation between Church and state is THE LAST THING WE NEED. And the entire concept of separation is from Jefferson's (you know that really old guy, he wrote like a famous paper or something...) letter to a theologian in Rhode Island, in 1802. So this whole thing isn't all that new. And a gay preacher? Wouldn't he, as a preacher, BE talking about god? trust me, this sort of weird and illogical argumentation is a greater threat than the President not celebrating an arbitrary holday established in 1952. The U.S. isn't 'skrewed'.
The US is Skrewed

Look, Today, the national day of prayer was canceled. And if you haven't noticed this once great country is drifting further and further away from God. ANd we are reaching about 300 yrs as a country and you can look at Rome once was Christian , but fell to immorality- they crashed and burned. The Us is heading for the same fate, with Barak Husain Obama in office we may as whell let the 4 year old kids. Look at the vast seperation of church and state, they can't talk about God in public school, they even bring in gay preachers to talk in school. We are doomed, skrewed how ever you want to put it it most likely is true
Ice cubes may cool your drink, but when they are dry, they can be painful to your tongue

All you basically just did my friend is give me the definition of an ice cube, which we all know. Its seems that you have absolutely no idea what dry ice is bonnie boy. dry ice is completely frozen ice, that is frozen enough that there is no moisture on it until it begins to melt. Right when you take an ice cube out of the freezer and put it right on your tongue, it will stick, and it will almost always be painful to take it off i would like you to go to http://www.youtube.com... for it shows someone's tongue get stuck to a frozen hammer, which is the equivalent of why happens when your tongue gets stuck to an ice cube "A Christmas Story" is a well known Christmas movie, most of us know it, and have seen it. If you have seen it, think back to the part where the kid got dared to stick his tongue to a frozen pole, and when he did it, his tongue got stuck. This is a prime example of ice being painful. and your comment about Ice Cube the rapper was unnecessary and childish
Ice cubes may cool your drink, but when they are dry, they can be painful to your tongue

my opponent gives an argument which i happen to run across of. I will dominate my opponent. ice cubes cool there drink, but the don't get dry inside the water. do you mean specifically ice cubes out of water, or in water? if you mean out of water, they are not dry, because they are water, frozen, so it will be wet. if you mean in water, they are also not dry since they are in water. the definition of ice cube is 1. Ice cubes are a small, roughly cube-shaped piece of ice, conventionally used to cool beverages. Ice cubes are often preferred over crushed ice because they melt more slowly; they are standard in mixed drinks that call for ice, in which case the drink is said to be "on the rocks. ... OR 2. a small cube of artificial ice; used for cooling drinks OR 3. Ice Cube (born O'Shea Jackson on June 15, 1969) is an American rapper, actor and film director. Regarded as one of the greatest hip hop artists, he began his career as a founding member of the famously controversial rap group N.W.A., and later launched a successful solo career in music and ... If you mean ice cube the rapper, well then you have another thing coming. crushed ice is also not dry. since water is a liquid (H20)then it will keep its liquid form until heated, and evaporated so that it would be frozen to a point in which it can not be defrosted.(held in the north pole, or a cold place below freezing temperatures.)then it would be dry. but i do not see the point in which it would hurt your tongue. i will have to try that and see if it really works. viewers, this one wasn't a very difficult argument/debate, but he will have no evidence of dry ice cubes, and them hurting your tongue.
Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities

RebutallsPro says, "Joe says that I need to show that races doesn't cause IQ differences, but that is totally not true. I only need to show that race doesn't cause significant IQ differences."This is a sementic defense because showing that races don't cause significant iq differences, still falls under the notion that races don't cause iq differences. My opponent says that FBI "stuff" are not really a person's ability. Exactly what kind of "stuff" does my opponent address in my argument? I don't know. If Pro could clarify this in the next round I would appreciate it. I also believe my opponent got confused whenever I was talking about the gang groups. It isn't true that race still nullifies out evently through all the races. Since there are more minority gangs than their are with white gangs, this information refutes this claim. My opponent says that race doesn't matter if they are robbing a bank unless they are butt naked. Race can still be taken as a significant factor because if they were really robbing the bank butt naked then it could obvious cause problems for the whiter person. This and the other argument about robbers buying things like black clothes and black masks can still conceal the person identiy. Race would still be effictive then because you don't know what the majority of the criminals/ robbers will be like.
Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities

Joe says that I need to show that races doesn't cause IQ differences, but that is totally not true. I only need to show that race doesn't cause significant IQ differences. Joe forgot to say anything about the fact that 85% of genetic difference is not race related, and that a person's race is only attributed to about 8% of genetic differences. Various studies have shown that there is no genetic tie to IQ differences, but others have shown that genes count to as much as 50% of IQ differences. So if race is only 8% of genetic difference, then race only accounts for 4% of IQ difference, at most, though probably less. If race is 4% and other factors are 96%, than race totally is not a significant factor. (1)(2)(3) So moving on to Joe's case, the FBI stuff is not really a person's ability, and since the same argument can apply to any racial hate group, be they white supremacists, MS-13, black panthers, or any other group, so the race thing really nullifies out evenly through all races. As for robbing a bank, I don't see how that makes any at all, unless they are robbing the bank butt naked. I'm pretty sure that most robbers buy things like black clothes and black masks so that they can hide better. (1) http://www.scribd.com... (2) http://www.udel.edu... (3) Flynn, James. Where have all the liberals gone? Race, Class, and Ideals in America