BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
mexico drug promblem

Ill assume the forfeit was due to the fact that 30 min wasn't sufficient for you to notice. If you want to try this again, message me continue Capitalism means that anyone can make money in any way that they want. The production of narcotics is one method by which poor farmers are capable of creating a revenue that they can support their family on. Since there are tariffs on exporting typical products, the profit for goods that would otherwise be produced is insignificant and the farmer would be incapable of supporting his family. The growth of narcotics gives enough money for the farmer to support their family. Other governments should allow a market for the imported goods rather than subsidizing their own product. 750 char make it hard
mexico drug promblem

I accept that there is a drug problem in mexico. (a large quantity of problems within mexico are directly related to the production of illegal narcotics) I will argue that this is not only Mexico's fault and so not only Mexico's job to fix. With the neighbor USA above it, it has become the hub of activity for the production of material that is wanted and needed by the USA economy. Since drugs are a commodity that is wanted in the USA economy, Mexico has become a source for this material. If USA, and other large countries could the market for the drugs, the drug problem would solve from that end. Since this is much harder, many countries attempt to condone the production of narcotics. Everyone should take part in stopping production.
me grammar suck

To conclude we still have little reason to accept pros word which is solely based on trust. Pro has not given suffecient reason as to why we should believe him, thus faild to meet his BOP. The evidence is conclusive. In other debates pro has good grammar. In this debate he has bad grammar. There are no good reasons to believe his grammar has agresively decreased in a matter of minutes, due to a brain disorder. There is not even any evidence such a brain problem exists, let alone that pro has it.
me grammar suck

My opponent has so far failed to meet his BoP. His arguments are based solely on trust. Should we trust my opponents word that his grammar somehow magically lessened drastically in a matter of minutes? Or do we accept the obvious fact that pro is using horrible grammar for the sole reason that this debate is about his grammar. So far he has been very unconvincing, thus I contend that we have very little reason to accept pros word based on trust rather than my logical arguments.
me grammar suck

To win this debate I have to demonstrate that pros grammar does not suck. If we look at his other debates we will find that he has fine grammar. http://www.debate.org... In this debate pro uses commas, capitalization and periods. His grammar does not suck. Now my case is very believable. It is obvious pro has purposfully had bad grammar in this debate. Just look at the title. We cannot go by this debate on whether pro has good grammar.
Gun Rights

Apologies. I wish you had left a comment first. I like myself a long debate, but I guess we can make do with three rounds.For now, we will follow my opponent's alternate debate structure. I wish him good luck in these next few rounds.C1 - Will and IntentLogically speaking, if one truly had the intention of using a weapon, or more specifically a firearm, and the will to do so, against him or her self or someone else, then he or she will. It takes very strong feelings to push a man to such ambition, and so in the case that stricter gun control laws are put in place, though it may not be as easy, he or she will still find a way to get his or her hands on one. Ever heard of a black market?C2 - Self-defense and Feeling of SafetyCommon sense tells us that gun handling is an extremely efficient method of self-defense, considering its range and how easy it is to recover from a mistake, which in this case would be missing your shot. Handling melee weapons on the other hand, which would be our only alternative, may require strategy, and would definitely require a lot of courage, for it is a more brutal way of killing, which can throw us off in the heat of the moment.Also, most people feel safer with a gun/guns in their homes, knowing that if a crime, most likely a felony, were to take place inside, they are much more likely to come out alive.[1][2][3]I am very busy at the moment, so this is all I can write for now. I apologize in advance.I eagerly await my opponent's response.Sources[1] http://crimeresearch.org...[2] http://www.gallup.com...[3] http://concealednation.org...
Gun Rights

Gun rights - the right to possess a firearm/firearmsRules1. Follow debate structure to keep things fair.2. Minor trolling is acceptable, as long as all the requirements are satisfied.Debate StructureR1 - Rules and Regulations/AcceptanceR2 - Opening ArgumentsR3 - RebuttalsR4 - RebuttalsR5 - ConclusionsIf you have any doubts, feel free to leave a comment in the comment section, but once you accept, no changes will be made.
The public should have a say in what is taught at schools

To round my rebuttal into one point I will say this. The teachers may not know it but what is taught is truly a racist effect. I do in fact have proof. On page 5 of my grade 7 geography and social studies textbook it states this "As a democratic country our country should help those con tries of which are not democratic such as Brazil, China and Israel." This started an uproar of hatred and insults brought towards me since I am in fact Brazilian. What was worse is that it was a lie. Brazil is in fact a democratic nation. You also stated that schools done on the Internet are not chosen by parents. Many people I know got into Internet schools since their parents could control what was taught! The point of Internet schools is teaching things that are student appropriate such as things that don't discriminate a persons culture, religion, contry ect. By stating that we are dumber than both teachers and governmental leaders is in fact heckling and in a formal debate you would lose points for that. Also humiliation is a cruel and unusual punishment of which has been stated by the government of Canada. "cruel and unusual punishment is A phrase describing punishment, wether needed or not, that is set towards someone causing them humiliation or physical pain" is the definition of it in my glossary of my textbook (Social studies works 7 enriched.) thus proving my earlier point that in fact humiliation is a part of cruel and unusual punishment. It is also evident that you misunderstood my point. I never said that it was the schools flat but that it was the curriculums fault. That was what caused her obsessed pain and aggravation. I do not have anything against teachers and do realize that they are not to blame but the educational system is to blame. And students do partake in offensive speaking during class wether it is noticed or not. Teachers also take no action against criticism or racism. If they had my friend may still be with me. With these rebuttals and points restated I state that this resolution must and will stand.
The public should have a say in what is taught at schools

Actually racism has been taught and accepted at my school and I have been personally critisized to to my country. I have in fact been allowed due to this notion to remove myself from all classes that may aggravate this sentiment. "There is no logical way in which the public may decide" That is not true. There is a possibility of online schools, of which are already used in this day and age, in which the child may be taught according to what is accepted by parents or guardians wether they are republicans or democrats. "The public is not as intelligent as the government or teachers" Are you in fact stating that for not being in the position of a governmental leader or a teacher we are in fact dumber than other those who are and that we are not able to make such choices for ourselves? By stating that you are in fact saying that both you and I are dumber than these people. We are all people with the same brain capacity and the same capability of choice. By not allowing the public to have it's say we are then violating two freedoms The right to security both physical and verbal may be threatened due to the comments that may be made after being taught something such as what is being currently taught in the grade 7 and 8 curriculums. It also violates the right not to be thrust upon cruel or unusual punishment which include humiliation that is also caused by such curriculum. By not allowing a say in such curriculum you are also causing depression in the child who is being bullied for this which is taught in schools. A child may feel as if they are bad if their country is shown in such a manner. This has happened personally and to friends and peers. One of my peers committed suicide due to the stress caused by having to live with all the cruel insulting comments given off by other students on the topic of her country. With these points I state that this resolution must and will stand.
The public should have a say in what is taught at schools

Thanks, Isap8, for starting this debate. I am on the Opposition, stating that the public should not have a say in what is taught at schools. I accept all definitions the Proposition has presented. Refutations 1. "Children may be insulted for ethnic background by peers if anything should be misunderstood. A country such as Africa may be "labeled" for being poor thus causing others to find that a child from such ethnic background is in fact poor." Since when did schools ever teach kids to be racist? I don't recall learning that as I grew up. And actually, schools teach against what the Proposition has argued [1]. And regardless, even if they did, how would having the public decide on what they should learn make it any better? 2. "A child may feel insulted by the current curriculum. The current curriculum acts as if all other countries excluding than the US, Canada and Europe are 3rd world countries." When was this racism ever observed in schools? There has been no evidence presented so far into this debate and as a result, this point should be ignored. "If we are to live in peace we should defend other countries rather than tell the new generation that these countries are in fact poor and bringing the world down as I have understood it." We're not in any wars, if I recall. That certainly means the current system works. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that some countries and poor and their economies are unstable. Since when was the world "brought down" by teaching that countries are poor, may I ask? Arguments 1. There is no possible, logical way to even set up a system where the public can decide on what to vote. How are you going to achieve such a goal? For example, many of our communities are mixed with Republicans and Democrats. Maybe the conservatives want their children to learn conservative views and the liberals want their kids to learn liberal views. What are you going to do then? Will you take a vote and go with the majority? Then the conservative kid will have to learn democratic values, or vice-versa. Our current system, where teachers and the government decide what is taught in schools, displays PRO's and CON's with both views/systems. It's perfectly fine and it works. 2. The general public is not as intelligent as government officials or teachers. Why should we have the public, composed of high school graduates and drop-outs, be allowed to make decisions if they're more ignorant than the government or teachers? Obviously, you've got to be intelligent to get that position in government or to become a teacher, but not necessarily to be have a kid and be part of the public. For this reason, the public should not have a say in what is taught at a school. I await the response. 1. http://www.a-to-z-of-manners-and-etiquette.com...
The public should have a say in what is taught at schools

I the government state that the public should have a say in what is taught at school. I define public as parents of school age children and define school as social studies classes and classes involving mention of ethnic background and/ country of origin Children may be insulted for ethnic background by peers if anything should be misunderstood. A country such as Africa may be "labeled" for being poor thus causing others to find that a child from such ethnic background is in fact poor. A child may feel insulted by the current curriculum. The current curriculum acts as if all other countries excluding than the US, Canada and Europe are 3rd world countries. I myself have been insulted by such curriculum due to the disrespect it has brought to my people. If we are to live in peace we should defend other countries rather than tell the new generation that these countries are in fact poor and bringing the world down as I have understood it.
Foundationalism is a sound theory of epistemic justification

In order to clarify the debate for any readers, I would like to break down the definitions into a more understandable format.I offer the following definitions:1. Epistemic: Relating to knowledge and to the degree of its validation.2. Non-inferential knowledge: Knowledge gained without the use of inference. (Referred to throughout the debate as “justified belief.”)3. Foundationalism: A theory in epistemology that holds that beliefs are justified (known) based on basic beliefs.4. Basic beliefs: Beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs, and more derivative beliefs are based on those more basic beliefs.With this being said I accept the debate: “Resolved, Foundationalism is a sound theory of epistemic justification.” Please state your case.
The God of the Holy Bible endorses slavery today

Thank you for the challenge, this should be a good one.Now, I'm not much of a Christian. I don't go to church, I swear, I smoke, I would be a sinner in the eyes of the Bible. I'm saying this because I don't want the readers to geth the notion that I'm coming at this with a fundementally bias perspective.My adversary says that the challenger must prove that his premises are false. While I can't say the Bible didn't endorse slavery. I can however say that the meaning of the word slavery has changed with time.My opponent bases the definition on slavery on the Merriam-Webster Dictionarie's definition. If this definition of slavery is proved to be incorrect, then contention one is incorrect. The modern meaning of slavery is very different from what it used to mean. I know when I think of slavery, I think of American ships carrying kidnapped Africans to be sold into forced labor, where they were abused and underfed, and overworked. However, this is not the slavery of old, infact the Bible says in Exodus 21:16 ""He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Yes, the God of the Bible does outline laws pertaining to "slaves". HOWEVER, we must remember that these laws were to protect these individuals. Now a big question is, how did these individuals become slaves? Well, unlike modern day slavery, people were not forced into slavery due to their ethnicity, nationality, ect. Slavery was voulentary. Someone would offer themselves as another's slave when they needed protection, or couldn't pay their debts, feed their families, ect. Their "owners" (employers would be a better word) would in exchange for their service or marriage, provide for the slave and his/her children. Slaves weren't seen as the lowest of social classes, they could infact gain social status. Slavery had the potential to be honorable. So lets sum up what it meant to be a slave at this time. It was voulentary, respectable, and compensation would be a meal (a real meal, not the sorry excuse for a portion modern slaves receive), a bed to sleep in, and a possibly a man to marry for the "slaves" daughters. In fact, I think the word servant, would be better suited. Servant:a person who performs duties for others, esp. a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant. It isn't just I who sees Servant as a MUCH more accurate way of defining slavery in biblical days. Bibles are being adjusted to accomadate that this change in the English langauge.My opponents second contention is correct, however the English language does change. Thus, slavery is not the correct term, as servant has a more accurate definition, thus, my opponents first contention is incorrect.Thank you.
The God of the Holy Bible endorses slavery today

Premise 1: The God of the Holy Bible states that it is permissible to own slaves. (Leviticus 25:44-46) Premise 2: The God of the Holy Bible never changes. (Malachi 3:6) Conclusion: Therefore it is still permissible by the God of the Holy Bible to own slaves today. Leviticus 25:44-46 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have"you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [l]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another. (NASB) This passage proves my first premise that God endorses slavery. I will define slave according to a standard dictionary and a Hebrew Lexicon. Definition of SLAVE 1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence http://www.merriam-webster.com... #5650. עֶבֶד ebed (713d); from 5647; slave, servant:" NASB - attendants(1), bondage(2), male(24), male servant(7), male servants(5), male slaves(1), officers(1), official(2), Servant(6), servant(332), servant's(4), servant*(1), servants(353), servants'(2), servants*(12), slave(25), slave's(1), slave*(4), slavery(11), slaves(19), slaves*(8). "Brown-Driver-Briggs (Old Testament Hebrew-English Lexicon) With understanding the context of these passages we see that God permits, allows, and instructs His people in buying, selling and owning slaves. Premise Two: The God of the Holy Bible never changes. We read in Malachi 3:6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (NASB) There are other passages that teach that God is unchanging, but I will only use one here. To change means: " to make different in some particular". http://www.merriam-webster.com... Conclusion: God still permits slavery today. The point of the conclusion is to show that the God of the Bible is not ethical, certainly not by today's standards, although people like Jefferson Davis who was a Christian during the civil war era said:"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." ~Davis http://www.csapartisan.com... People like Davis understood my conclusion. Thankfully we as a people knew better than God and stopped this terrible act of owning other human beings. My opponent is required to prove that my premises are false. My opponent either needs to prove that God was against slavery or that God does indeed change.
Plants ought to have the right to vote

My opponent's arguments hinged on the fallacy that if something ought to do something, then it can do that thing. As Moti Mizrahi says, this is not true [1]: "Ought does not imply can ... ought does not presuppose can ... ought does not conversationally implicate can" Because all of my opponent's arguments hinged on this, they can be negated based on both the definitions agreed to and because of what Mr. Mizrahi writes in his paper. This round is short simply because of how the nature of my opponent's arugment was structured and actually argued; if there was a morality basis for negating then I would have put much more thought into refutations. [1]. http://www.academia.edu...
Plants ought to have the right to vote

ARGUMENTSPlants do not have consciousness, and they do not have the potential to do so in the present or the near future. They can't physically vote anyways, so giving them the right to wouldn't accomplish anything. It would be like giving woman the right to shave her testicles. Therefore, giving plants rights would simply be a waste of public resources. Think about it. Every time a country passes a law, the government of that country spends time and tax dollars to pass it. Why does this have to happen if it doesn't need to? This is especially a problem in countries in debt. America , for example, had a budget deficit of 483 billion dollars in 2014[1]! Besides, it's not like plants will revolt if we don't let them vote. Also, even if plants could vote, which they can't, how would we get them all to the ballots? Are you saying that bigger plants such as trees should be discriminated against, while all of the smaller plants should get to vote? Shame! Now, the trees could be given the ballots individually, but this would be impractical as there are more than 60 trees per person.In conclusion, what this resolution would accomplish is pointless, a waste of time and money, impractical and discriminatory.SOURCEShttps://www.whitehouse.gov...http://www.npr.org...
Plants ought to have the right to vote

Resolved: Plants ought to have the right to vote. This resolution should focus on the United States.The Burden of Proof is split evenly.Definitions:plants - the group of organisms in the kingdom Plantaeright - legal guaranteevote - a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice.ought - have a moral obligation to Rules: 1. Follow structure2. You accept to the round structure and resolution, terms, etc. as provided in R1. These cannot be changed.3. No deconstruction semantics. plagiarism, trolling or forfeiture.Round structure:Round 1. Acceptace ("I accept" will do)Round 2. Constructive argumentsRound 3. RebuttalsRound 4. Defense
universal brotherhood or patriotism

Thanks for the topic Pro. I'll be arguing that patriotism is over-all more valuable to society than universial brotherhood. I'll be using historical facts as most of my evidence, but if my Opponent asks for a link I will provide one. =My Argument=C1. Pride in country leads to competition between states, allowing for societal advancement.Think of the space program. Think of how much it has brought us, in terms of convienence (cell phones, GPS, ect.), military intelligence, and human achievement and knowledge. Now think back to the begining, why did such a program begin? The answer lies mostly in the competition between the Soviet Union and the United States. If the people running these countries were not patriotic, and did not want to defend and preserve their country, if they were willing to just back down and let the other win these achievements would likely never happen, or if they did they would happen much slower. Even the internet we are both using now comes from advancements brought about by the cold war.[1]. Without pride in country, many of the technological advancements we currently have would not have existed. C2. Universial brotherhood is impossible.Save for a few sociopaths, none of us would ever kill a fellow countryman, let alone a brother! To believe that all people could recognize and love eachother as equals is wishful thinking at it's worst. Indeed, violence is a part of human nature[2], so to assume that there would be no wars if there was no pride in country is false. Look at the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of people do not support them (AKA are not patriotic when it comes to that aspect) yet they still happened,, and in the case of Afghanistan are still happening. Vote Con!Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.sirc.org...