BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
does god exist

I am absolutely LIVID at this accusation of plagiarism. Plagiarism checker finds plagiarism in everything -- according to the Plagiarism checker, Lannan's *own* argument has only 3% unique content. I would like Lannan to give me the source from which he thinks I plagiarized. I also ask voters to C/P my entire argument into Google, etc. and find me where I C/P'd from. I digress, and find this very bad conduct on Pro's part, accusing me of plagiarism while only having 3% unique content in his own arguments. As a sidenote, this is tejretics -- lannan, do you honestly think I need have plagiarized to refute your arguments?
Hilary Clinton vs Donald Trump

Well today is the day my friends that we commemorate, that Trump was the most viable candidate available through my judgement between Hilary Clinton's administration and that of Donald Trump. I would be honor to have Donald Trump as the president of the USA. However. I am not sure who Hilary is running against for her Presidential candidacy. SO perhaps democrats are actually a viable government. Donald Trump, is an American, and as such, his lack of presidency will not stop him form contributing to the actual positive beneficial characteristics of being America. It would only inhibit his ability to contribute to the full extend of his capability. Bureaucracy is a good thing. it prevents corruption. Being president removes the barriers of bureaucracy which make initiatives take a long time, get corrupted between points A and B, it gives power to people at varying intervals if - thus leaving clear blueprints as to whom screwed up. If Trump, with his mean demeanor forgoes the patronization of those individuals, as he clearly would, He can maximize his efficiency. - Not making rules. Playing by them without having to deal with the playground kids that don't take a seat when hit with the dodge ball. You can't let idiots push you around or take any authority as President. You represent the strong demeanor of USA's High moral standard, and omnipotent presence. That presence stands for our international and national security by maintaining control of the population and not giving the Liberties they are to juvenile to grapple with or even deserve. God damn highschool orgies make me wanna run for president of the KKK. I'm racist against assholess. I think they'd vote me in. Trump wins my vote as a Canadian bystander, not because of what I think it will do for Ameerica, but because of what I think Trump is capable of. I do not think America's future is predictable. I don't see he interior or exterior elements that effect it. But I not think Trump will be surrounded with pompous buffoons who will take the stern. hate for homos and prostitutes, lazy boyfriends and drug addicts, and people who disillusion the significance of debate/discussion by asserting importance on minutia which is meager {or someone else's delegated responsibility), making false accusations and using ignorance as the stance for defence {ie. "NAO! HOW!" = not a sufficient method of attaining the explanation. How'd you say, 'no' prior to indicating you had not capacity to make the remark.' [opposition prior to rational contemplation.]) or people who simply don't give a fawk. ~Vote Trump for President if you wanna see him dish it out. Of course. actually expect a greater performance from his Presidential election then the show he has presented, in order to verify if he demonstrates coherency (a desire to lead). - in which case the government set up a coo to elect Hilary intentionally. BASTARDS! XD U. S. A.! U. S. A.!
The current ESRB system is sufficient

Sorry for the forfeit my Internet went down. The ESRB is based on a subjective point system. They say, this game is really violent, M, this game is really violent and use inappropriate language, M, this game is violent, uses inappropriate language, and has sexual content, M. There points are not sufficient for keeping children away from inappropriate content. Most of the time a parent will read what one M game contains and assume that is what all M games contain. I believe they should review their current system and take more progressive steps into displaying the rating better instead of just a small box on in the corner of the box.
The current ESRB system is sufficient

I usually try to pick the opposite of what I think. It expands my horizons. The first reason why I believe the ESRB is not sufficient is, I have played that are rated M for language and gore while other games are rated M for gore, violence, language, sexual themes, and use of alcohol. The second one is way worse but is still group in the same class. The ESRB sees gore and hears some cursing so they call them an M, but don't think of placing a game with three times as many bad things. The ESRB should move to point system, where they place points limits on each of the categories and if a game passes that it is bumped up to the next one.
The current ESRB system is sufficient

I flip over a game, read the back, see its M and why. I do this a few times and see that a lot of games are the same as far as rating goes, and I am not apposed to my child playing a violent game. So I stop reading why all games are rated the way they are assuming it will be the same level of inappropriate content. And lets say its a game like God of War. It has a straight out sex scene. Now if I saw my kid playing that there is no way I would think that was the same rating as X-Men Origins: Wolverine or Call of Duty.
The current ESRB system is sufficient

Yes, but most people pick up a video game for the first time they look at the back to see what it's about and other valuable information and they see the rating ( E, T, M, etc.) Also, the esrb system only allows people 17+ to purchase the M rated game so if the child plays it they have a parent's permission as opposed to the child (17-) just buying it then hiding it from their parents.
Birth Control in Middle Schools

Of course information will be helpful, but I don't agree that "the number of youngsters that could be helped by this information will far outweigh the number being enticed by it" considering the fact that so much information is already available and children are still getting pregnant. I know a 13 yr. old with a three year old child. And plenty of 13 year-olds who have kids. I went to the same school as them and recieved the same information and I know how to use protection. They simply chose not to. It's not a matter of the information they recieve, it's their motivation to follow the advice the info gives. Obvioulsy the idea of kids, AIDS and other STDs don't scare them. I hate to sound pessimistic but it's a reality that won't change until the gov't oversteps their "interference boundries", which is something that no one wants. Therefore, we are pretty much stuck with underage parents. What we can change is the number of deaths and injuries caused by self-induced abortions. There are girls out there who get scared or don't have the money to pay for an abortion. So they resort to drinking bleach and sticking dirty wire hangers up into themselves in an attempt to kill the baby, at the cost hurting themselves. I don't agree with abortion, but for that fact, I think abortion should be free and confidential on the condition that the girl goes to counciling where they try to convince her to consider other options that don't include hurting anyone, including the unborn baby.
Birth Control in Middle Schools

Many students are starting to experiment with sex at an earlier and earlier age. Although it may be the responsibility for parents to educate and provide information about birth control to their children, there are a lot of parents that are failing to do so or failing to do this at an early enough age. Because of this phenomenon there is an increasing amount of pregnancies, abortions and STDs because of lack of information. Even though it is sometimes believed that introducing this information may actually entice youngsters to experiment earlier than they may on their own, I believe that pressure from their peers, television and music are much bigger influences that will provoke this behavior more than clear, concise information. Although this may be a catalyst for some children, I believe that the number of youngsters that could be helped by this information will far outweigh the number being enticed by it.
Santa Exists

The physical being of Santa itself does not exist on the physical plane, I admit to that. However, it is not out of the question that Santa exists as an IDEA. Many days children have tried to find "Santa" bringing them presents. Santa is commonly sold in stores. Santa is in malls, asking little kids what they want for Christmas. There is even a simulator to see that "Santa" is travelling the globe, giving out presents. The above examples either take on a physical form, or a digital form/idea. If Santa does not exists, then how can one feel excited about Santa bringing them gifts? How can one imagine of something that doesn't exist? Everything that has ever been though of, seen, or created, exists. It's simply some take on a physical form while others in the form of an idea. Awaiting refutation.
Barack Obama is a good president

Before we begin and Pro presents their case (as I'm assuming R1 is for acceptance and definitions) I would like to state one thing. Barack Obama is good at BEING the President. He's got the charisma, the swag, the confidence. He's a likable guy. He's really good at getting people to vote for him. All things necessary for being the President. All of this is very different than being a good President. To be a good President, I think one must adhere to their Oath of Office as declared by Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of the Constitution. "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" So, if we can... we must decide whether Barack Obama has faithfully executed the Office of President and has, to the best of his Ability, preserved, protected and defended the Constitution of the United States
Resolved: god Probably exists

This will be the second time I've debated adams on Gods existence only our positions are completely reversed this time around so this will be interesting.I do not accept pros definition of God. The fact that many humans would fit the criteria for God using this definition renders it useless. I think defining him just as a supernatural ruler of the universe who created the world would be more proper, but as I don't see any of us making a case of semantics, I do not foresee any future issues on the matter.I am playing devils advocate.Good luck to my opponent.
A government-run healthcare program would stimulate the advancement in medical technology.

Certainly, competition and private research facilities also produce advances in medical technology. However, because they are driven by the profit motive, you have to wonder - would they ever release a discovery which was essentially free? Suppose they discovered that boiling instruments killed all germs AND that sterilising them with an expensive antiseptic did they same thing? Which do you think the public would get told about? Just the one that makes them the most MONEY. Pasteur of course, told all surgeons to boil their instruments and wash their hands between patients. Pasteur was funded by the French government. Fleming was funded by the British government. Their unparalleled, world-changing discoveries in healthcare were the result of government money. These are examples of government run healthcare in which medical technology advanced. One last example... Just recently my older brother, Professor of Pediatric Research at Auckland Medical School (part of our national health care system) invented the "cooling cap", a device which dramatically reduces/prevents brain damage in children suffering oxygen deprivation in difficult births. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... Cheers, Derek
A government-run healthcare program would stimulate the advancement in medical technology.

I did not misspeak on the cold war. The major advances in nuclear technology occurred during the cold war. Fusion came from the cold war after the atomic fission technology was leaked to the public. http://www.globalsecurity.org... You are correct that people do have the inner incentive to save lives. Let's not get this mistaken. Pasteur did not work for the government. He was working as for the University, which allowed him to research and was not controlled in a national healthcare industry. His discoveries were not spawned from companies or any government bureaucracy's encouragement. The other cases are similar. "There are hundreds of government-funded universities and research institutes around the world. Do you honestly believe that they produce nothing???" Government-funded education facilities are not government-run health facilities. Government-funded research facilities are not usually created by the government. I'm sure my opponent will give examples after hours of digging on the internet, but there are more research facilities that are ran from the pharmaceutical companies than the government. At the executive level, rather than the research level, more money is invested in research when there is competition than when there is no cororate need for innovation. This is similar for what would be agovernment-ran health company, however, there would be no competition. There'd be no need for innovation in the executive bureaucrat's mind, when the bureaucrat has to meet a budget. Funding would be minimal, and future Pasteurs would be out of a job. Unable to come up with the money themselves, there would be no research. The power of choice is what allows competition to produce much investment form the most points of view, producing medical advancement faster than goverment. In order for you to win the debate, you must show that "a government-run healthcare program WOULD stimulate the advancement in medical technology".
A government-run healthcare program would stimulate the advancement in medical technology.

Some corrections: 1) The atomic bomb was invented during WWII - Hot war, not Cold (via government funding by the way). 2) Apple did not release iPods to compete with Microsoft (who had no such thing at the time). 3) Many things have been invented without the pressure of competition (see below). You need to show that: "A government-run healthcare program would NOT stimulate the advancement in medical technology." Absolutely no advancements. And yet I can provide examples of government-based medical advancements. For example: The huge discoveries of Louis Pasteur - immunology, vaccinations and Pasteurisation while at ï¿½cole Normale Supï¿½rieure in Paris. http://en.wikipedia.org... Penicillin, perhaps the greatest medical advance of the 20th century was first isolated by Alexander Fleming while working as Professor of Bacteriology for St Marys Hospital (a teaching hospital in London) http://en.wikipedia.org... There are hundreds of government-funded universities and research institutes around the world. Do you honestly believe that they produce nothing??? Certainly, money is an incentive, but it's not the only incentive. Otherwise Medecins Sans Frontieres and the Red Cross would not exist. When Willem Johan Kolff invented the World's first artificial kidney during WWII, he did it to save patients, not to make money. You now have to prove that the above examples did not occur. Good luck.
A government-run healthcare program would stimulate the advancement in medical technology.

One of the few times in the history of the United States where the government ever caused innovation was in the Cold War, when nuclear innovation was booming. The atomic bomb was develped by the government, and the Hydrogen bomb came afterwards. Innovation comes much quicker when there is competition. Breakthroughs in medicine and technology require much money and much research. In an effort ot compete with Miocrosoft, Apple released iPods and The Mac. These were new advancements in entertainment that increased the quality of life. To compete with other car companies when gas prices began to soar, fuel economy was almost doubled through competition in eight years. The hybrids and many other ideas including ethanol-powered, solar-powered, and hydrogen-powered cars were brought to the table and made practical. So it is competition that creates innovation. However, a government-run bureaucracy would not have innovation. Nationalizing the healthcare industry would not only kill millions of jobs, but also many people. The cure to cancer would not be developed in the United States. The cure to diabetes would never emerge. AIDS will never have a vaccine. The future will be no different than it is now. On the contrary, competition, inspired by the human need for money in order to survive and prosper, will create these cures and vaccines. Corporate greed will be used to save lives. The company that produces these cures will make a fortune and drive out other companies and so make even more money. They know this, and they are working and investing they're profits to accomplish this. So, even though national healthcare seems like a good idea, and people have to pay through the wazoo, the government monopoly is not the answer. The alternative is to have a healthcare savings in a bank or to have quality health insurence. The more people taht seek this quality insurence, the more insurence companies will try to have a higher quality of insurence.
Kids should not be able to have cell phones in school

Rebuttals To your first statement: If everyone who needed to call someone used the office phone, would that not cause a lot of hassle? It is more convenient for both students and faculty for the students to call from their cell phone. You don't always have a calculator on hand, but most phones have one programmed onto the phone. I have a link to a study in the comments. (500 characters, really?) In conclusion it is more convenient for both students and faculty for cell phones to be allowed.
Kids should not be able to have cell phones in school

Rebuttals Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world and not all teachers have cell phones and/or will not let the kids use them. one teacher in the school should have a phone. if not one teacher has phone then the office has a phone. Some subjects (i.e. Math) you cannot look up answers to your homework but you have a calculator right. and what scientific studies say violent games do not calm people down. it is school were you are supposed to learn, they are learning how kill someone.
Kids should not be able to have cell phones in school

RebuttalsResponsible teachers should have phonesUnfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world and not all teachers have cell phones and/or will not let the kids use them.How do the teachers now that you are not looking for answers for your homework?Some subjects (i.e. Math) you cannot look up answers to your homework, and violent video games have been shown to calm players down.The kids would not even be on task. If the teacher is allowing kids to play on their phones, you can't be off task.
Kids should not be able to have cell phones in school

The children should not have to call home because responsible teachers should have phones that the kids can use. If the teacher allows it then you can play on your cell phone but how do the teachers now that you are not looking for answers for your homework and playing a violent video game. Or texting with one of there fellow classmates. and it is so easy to hide what game you are playing and half of the kids would not even be on task.
Legalization of Prostitution

Since this is a one round argument I will state the facts and how prostitution should not be legalized. Definitions: Prostitution: "the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment." Legalization: "to make legal." ---------------------------------------- Prostitution is an issue that is very dangerous to our society. My opponent has made the case that benefits in helping the economy which it doesn't. Since I am low on time let me make my case fast. According to WomensLaw.Org says "Prostituted women are often victims of intimate partner violence by pimps and customers, often called "johns." The methods of control that pimps and johns use are similar to the methods used by abusers. Some examples include: physical violence; sexual assault; economic abuse or manipulation; isolation; verbal abuse; threats and intimidation; and minimization and denial of physical violence." Prostitution would only harm our women. Causing sexual diseases to spread. Also being pregnant as a cause of sex would result in killings of many unborn babies which would NOT help our economy. Prostitutes would mostly have to abort their babies in order to keep their job going. So this would not be an economic benefit to our society. In other words this is immoral. Sex is a very sacred and should not be a very "fun" and "pay me to do it" kind of thing. It is a moment of dedication to each other. Promoting prostitution as a legal law would only hurt our next generation. Saying that reckless sex is "ok" to children and teens. My opponent has also stated that it is one of the "oldest" careers and that makes it ok? No, this is flawed in so many ways. Just because something was old doesn't justify it. I guess being a slave owner is perfectly fine since it was old, right? No. A lot of evil and vile things have happened in our history where we have changed because of the abuse and harm to others. Another major factor to this is STDs (sexual transmitted disease). This is caused by sexual contact when someone can give you bacteria, viruses or even parasites. For more info on this serious matter go to: http://www.cdc.gov... Lastly, Prostitution is not a victim-less crime. That women is being attacked and abused with sexual contact that can be caused. This would only harm our economic system, leave a bad mark for our next generation and hurt and harm our women of society. Is this what we really want? No. Voter, take into consideration the consequences this will cause if legalized. For all these reasons, I ask for an con ballet. Sources(s): http://www.womenslaw.org...
Legalization of Prostitution

What the United States Government does not realize about prostitution is that there are many benefits that could take place in the event that it is legalized. First, stopping the arrest of sex workers would free up more police resources. Second, prostitution is one of the oldest careers in the world, and isn't going away any time soon. Finally, if prostitution is legalized, the government could tax it which is good for the economy. Victimless crimes, specifically prostitution, should be made legal throughout the United States.