BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wealthy foreigners should be allowed to keep slaves

Thanks for the debate. It is an interesting topic. I would like to begin by thanking my opponent. While understand the sentiment to espoused by the other side, and realize it is not a view held personality. However, even as a theoretical idea Con fundamentally rejects it. First, slavery is not only is anathema to democratic society and civilized society but on principle should not be sanctioned by any governments anywhere on earth, and in fact should be condemned categorically. Turning another person into a commodity not only demeans a person’s basic humanity but is a perversion of sacrifices, prolonged bloody wars fought to over centuries within individual countries and among nations for the explicit purpose of eradicating the practice of slavery. Slavery will present is not the pervasive ill it once was, and rightly so, it should remain in the dust bin of history rather than something to refashion, even to accommodate the accepted norms of individuals elsewhere in the world. Second, my opponent wants to construe domestic help with the institution and practice of slavery, which is misleading because it lures people into the believing to equating benign labor violations with the various and pernicious forms of modern slavery. Here is the difference overlooked by my opponent that provides a more realistic and rounded understanding of modern slavery. Below I have taken data from the international labour organization.[1] This information is recently compiled, roughly a week ago. Forced labour takes different forms, including debt bondage, trafficking and other forms of modern slavery. The victims are the most vulnerable – women and girls forced into prostitution, migrants trapped in debt bondage, and sweatshop or farm workers kept there by clearly illegal tactics and paid little or nothing. Facts and figures Almost 21 million people are victims of forced labour – 11.4 million women and girls and 9.5 million men and boys. Almost 19 million victims are exploited by private individuals or enterprises and over 2 million by the state or rebel groups. Of those exploited by individuals or enterprises, 4.5 million are victims of forced sexual exploitation. Forced labour in the private economy generates US$ 150 billion in illegal profits per year. Domestic work, agriculture, construction, manufacturing and entertainment are among the sectors most concerned. Migrant workers and indigenous people are particularly vulnerable to forced labour. _________________________________________________________________ Anyway, this is central to Con’s argument, so I will leave it there for now. Pro has a substantial burden of proof in overcoming basic obstacles of definition and reality. I look forward to another round. Thanks for the debate. [1] http://www.ilo.org...
Wealthy foreigners should be allowed to keep slaves

Let's say you decide to visit the chateau you own in the south of France. Naturally you will bring your butler, chauffeur, valet, chef and housemaids with you. Now let's say that after a couple of weeks there is a knock at the door and the butler announces the French police. It transpires that you are to be prosecuted because your domestic staff have been working in excess of the maximum of thirty-five hours per week permitted under French law, even though long hours is something they are perfectly accustomed to in your home country. Whilst I understand that, technically, you might be liable for prosecution in this case I believe that it would not be in the public interest for the French police to pursue such a prosecution and the French authorities should turn a blind eye to such trifling matters. Similarly, when when wealthy foreign nationals from one of the many countries where slavery is commonplace come to stay in Western countries, they should be able to bring their slaves with them without having to worry about the police knocking on the door of their penthouse in London, Paris, New York, or wherever. My view is that, provided that the slaves' owner does not bring them into the country for the sole purpose of trading them, I do not believe it is in the public interest to interfere in the private affairs of wealth-creating visitors from abroad by prosecuting them just because they happen to be possession of a few unpaid workers. Thank you. Source: http://www.globalslaveryindex.org...
The government has the Military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions. (ex. Cliven Bundy)

Ok, the prompt is: "The government has the military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions." The phrasing of this means Pro is arguing that the U.S. military is powerful enough to end a domestic rebellion. The prompt is in the present tense, meaning the U.S. military is strong enough right now in its current state. The U.S. military is not strong enough to suppress a nation-wide rebellion for three reasons. First, it simply doesn't have the manpower. The U.S. military has struggled, and arguably failed, to suppress insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 13 years. According to the CIA World Factbook, the population of Iraq is about 32,500,000 and the population of Afghanistan is about 32,000,000. Combined, this is a civilian population of about 65 million. The population of the U.S. is about 319,000,000. If the American military failed to defeat an insurgency among 65 million people, how could it possibly do so among 319 million? Second, the military would face widespread desertion. If asked to fight against their own home cities, families, and friends, many soldiers would refuse or desert. The American military is currently about 1.5 million people in size, and the vast majority of those 1.5 million are support troops, not combat troops. This number would undoubtedly shrink once the military was forced to turn on its own people. Third, the U.S. military would be completely outgunned in the scenario of a nation-wide rebellion. According to gunpolicy.org, there are approximately 300 million civilian-owned firearms in America. If a nation-wide rebellion happens, 300 million people with guns would easily destroy the military. Even if every one of the 1.5 million troops became combat troops, then each soldier would have to kill 150 armed people. These odds are impossible. True, civilians do not have the powerful weapons like jets, tanks, and artillery. But neither does the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or ISIS, and they still managed to fight effectively.
The government has the Military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions. (ex. Cliven Bundy)

Awesome, thanks for accepting! Id like to begin my argument by talking about about 2 overarching points, and the will be labeled as A and B. Point A: The government ought to have the power to end domestic armed conflict. I believe the American government should have this power to protect the overall American body- civilians. While of course it would be important to go through congress first to prevent corruption, the government has to be able to protect it's civilians. Point B: In the situation of Cliven Bundy, money was owed to the federal government. Therefor, the government had the right to take property as a form of payment. Because Bundy believed it was his right to revolt, he threatened to do so, however he had no right to do so. If in fact he had opened fire on the government, it would have been treasonous.
The government has the Military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions. (ex. Cliven Bundy)

My opponent has admitted that the prompt is to be taken at face value, so my round 2 argument is back in play. Pro did not offer any rebuttals to my round 2 argument, so we must assume they are accepted as valid. When taken at face value, the prompt does not specify arguing in favor of the military's constitutional or legal power to act against civil rebellions. Therefore, I assumed the discussion was about the military's physical ability to end a rebellion. When discussing general rebellion, the entire spectrum must be considered - from one single person to a massed, nation-wide revolt. The military can easily stop a small rebellion, but it does not have the power to physically stop a massed revolt. Offering an external article as an argument is a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority," so this argument is invalid. The article doesn't apply to this debate anyway, because it's one isolated example of a small rebellion. I admit the army could put down a small rebellion, but my opponent's position falls apart once we increase the rebellion's notional size. The only contemporary example Pro offered was the Cliven Bundy incident, which didn't involve any military forces so it has no application to this debate. I would encourage Pro to clarify their position better next time.
The government has the Military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions. (ex. Cliven Bundy)

"Ok, it sounds like you're trying to argue that the military SHOULD have the LEGAL power to end domestic conflicts/rebellions. If that's true then I would suggest you provide a better prompt next time." v. "The government has the Military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions. (ex. Cliven Bundy)" I feel this is as clear as possible, so I don't see the confusion. "Re-read the prompt. The word "should" or "legal" is not found anywhere. You simply said "the government has the military power to end domestic armed conflicts..." When this is read at face value, it means you're arguing that the military can physically end them." This is correct, and there is no need for me to reread the prompt. The government does have the power, the government just did not use it in the appropriate time. face value would be what I was going for, so I suppose, thanks? I will supply this short article to show how I am right in that the government had the power to stop this conflict. http://www.mountvernon.org... "Finally, no military forces were involved in the Cliven Bundy incident, so I'm not sure how that's a valid example. It was the Las Vegas police department and the Bureau of Land Management." I also understand, Now, its your turn to reread the prompt. There was no military action involved. All I'm stating is that the military has the power to act. Whether that confused you or not is not my fault. Thanks, I have finished
The government has the Military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions. (ex. Cliven Bundy)

Ok, it sounds like you're trying to argue that the military SHOULD have the LEGAL power to end domestic conflicts/rebellions. If that's true then I would suggest you provide a better prompt next time. Re-read the prompt. The word "should" or "legal" is not found anywhere. You simply said "the government has the military power to end domestic armed conflicts..." When this is read at face value, it means you're arguing that the military can physically end them. You also did not specify or define what you meant by "domestic armed conflict/rebellion." An example is not a definition. As such, I can assume that the entire spectrum of rebellion is in play - from Cliven Bundy all the way up to nation-wide revolt. If you include the word "rebellion" you must be prepared to argue for all kinds of rebellions. Finally, no military forces were involved in the Cliven Bundy incident, so I'm not sure how that's a valid example. It was the Las Vegas police department and the Bureau of Land Management. If you wish to discontinue the debate due to misunderstanding of the prompt, let's call it draw. Sorry for the confusion.
The government has the Military power to end domestic armed conflicts/rebellions. (ex. Cliven Bundy)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. If I wanted to talk about a nation wide rebellion, I would have said so. However, I'm not. For clarity, I provided an example, which you promptly ignored. Since you are arguing a different topic, your entire argument as of right now is invalid. Now, I will support my argument with three contingencies. Contingency A: If Cliven Bundy had risen up, and fought the government, they would have gone against the liberties that the rest of the nation had been protected under. The government's job (as listed in the constitution) is provide for the general welfare. Just because a few people in some place decided they needed to revolt, for a reason that makes no sense, they are basically asking the government for war. Contingency B: The government has already dealt with a situation similar to this. It was called the Whiskey rebellion, and it happened under the Articles of Confederation, the original doctrine of the USA. The constitution gave George Washington the power to stop these men from starting a full out war. Contingency C: Ignorance is not to be taken lightly. Believing you have a right to revolt over a situation that does not require a revolution is ignorant, and the simple solution is to leave. Or, in Cliven Bundy's case, just paid the money he knew he owed and move on. Thanks, and I now stand open for rebuttals.
This Debate is Entirely Binary.

Please extend my arguments. I wish my opponent could have replied this would have been interesting. RFD: CONDUCT: My opponent forfeited without notice, I have been somewhat cordial so this vote goes to CON SPELLING AND GRAMMAR: My opponent uses improper American English, both in his Binary and in the "Irrelevant" message. Therefor this vote ought to go to con. ARGUMENTS:he PRO made no cogent arguments merely assertions about a game, he failed to both give and uphold a proper resolution, and failed to refute any arguments, while CON has provided evidence why the PRO is incorrect. SOURCES:By numbers I provide more, but furthermore the PRO sets up an instance where the CON must do their "homework" and research the PRO's position, without any sources as a start. Thank you and I eagerly await a response.
This Debate is Entirely Binary.

Since this qualifies as allcaps, Con, please post something completely irrelevant before copypasting your response. As did I. But it isn't totally unrelated. 01001000011001010110110001101100011011110010000100100000010101000110100001101001011100110010000001101001011100110010000001101101011110010010000001100110011010010111001001110011011101000010000001100100011001010110001001100001011101000110010100100000011010000110010101110010011001010010000001101111011011100010000001000100010001000100111100101100001000000110000101101110011001000010000001001001001000000110100001101111011100000110010100100000010010010010011101101100011011000010000001101000011000010111011001100101001000000110000100100000011001110110111101101111011001000010000001110100011010010110110101100101001000000110100001100101011100100110010100101110001000000101001101101111001011000010000001001001001000000111010001101000011011110111010101100111011010000111010000100000010010010010011101100100001000000111001101110100011000010111001001110100001000000110111101100110011001100010000001110111011010010111010001101000001000000111001101101111011011010110010101110100011010000110100101101110011001110010000001101110011001010111011100101110001000000000110100001010000011010000101001010100011011110111000001101001011000110010000001100110011011110111001000100000011101000110100001101001011100110010000001000010011010010110111001100001011100100111100100100000010001000110010101100010011000010111010001100101001110100010000001010100011010000110010101110010011001010010000001101001011100110010000001101111011011100110110001111001001000000110111101101110011001010010000001110110011010010110010001100101011011110010000001100111011000010110110101100101001000000111010001101111001000000110011001100101011000010111010001110101011100100110010100100000011101010111001001101001011011100110010100100000011010010110111000100000011000010010000001101010011000010111001000101110001000000101010001101000011010010111001100100000011010010111001100100000010101000110010101100001011011010010000001000110011011110111001001110100011100100110010101110011011100110010000000110010001011100010000001000001011011100110010000100000011000010110110001110011011011110010110000100000011110010110111101110101001000000110000101110010011001010010000001100001011011100010000001000001011101010111001101110100011100100110000101101100011010010110000101101110001000000111010001101000011100100110111101110111011010010110111001100111001000000110100101110100001000000110000101110100001000000111000001100101011011110111000001101100011001010010111000001101000010100000110100001010010001110110111101101111011001000010000001101100011101010110001101101011001000000100001101101111011011100010000001100001011011100110010000100000011010000110000101110110011001010010000001100110011101010110111000100001
imabench should not have been banned

Got a bit caught up in baseball. I'll keep this very short because I just WANNA CRASH, BRO.The DDO Exodus is much more advertised and exatterated that it acutally is. YYW pointed out that only four of the members left for reasons related to the site, while others didn't leave or had other reasons for leaving [1]. None of them mentioned "imabench" in their goodbye threads, which suggests that your argument is false. His "funny things" break the TOS, as I have already pointed out. The Weekly Stupid was one of my examples. His popularity has sparked unneeded battles (such as imabench and Caploxion, imabench and STALIN, imabench and cooldudebro, etc.) His popularity has a negative influence on this site. If the debate is technically a tie but imabench wins, this suggests that he promotes votebombing and makes other members become biased due to his popularity.I also notice that my opponent has dropped my whole round 1 arguments. I await the rebuttals on that. If he drops that argument, he drops the debate, because the TOS states the rules that imabench broke and thus justified his ban. As for your round 1 arguments, "parodying" one's name can be considered a form of stalking or a fake account, which is also against the TOS. You also state that just because he's finished 400 debates and wins 80% of them, he shouldn't be banned? Why is that? I await my opponent's arguments and will provide much more structured arguments and rebuttals next round.[1] http://www.debate.org...
imabench should not have been banned

The exodus--http://www.debate.org.... Because imabench has left, many other members left as well, and some are preparing to leave. (One notable member being myself, on the pre-exodus) His conrtibutions--he has made so many funny things, one being the infamous "weekly stupid" his popularity --sometimes it's technically a tie, and imabench still wins because he's so stinkin' popular These are the main reasons why he should not have been banned. Good luck rebutting!
imabench should not have been banned

imabench should not have been banned. Sure, he/she's a massive troll, but nevertheless she/he is one of the greatest debaters on this site, with a gigantic 400 debates under his/her belt and winning over 80% of them. imabench has gained so much attention that people are parodying her/his name, one example being imarecliner. Do you accept the challenge, con?
imabench should not have been banned

My opponent has dropped my round 1 arguments, which proved that imabench should've been banned (according to the TOS.) Thus, my BoP is fufilled and his/hers is not. Imabench's bio states:"If you look at my Bio it mentions trolling 8 times and my debating skills only once, so that alone summarizes what kind of member I am. I do a lot of trollish debates meant for sh*ts and giggles and will happily do one that is sent to me as long as its less then 5 rounds." Thus, he is a great troller, not a great debater. He does not take them seriously. Just check his profile [1].[1] http://www.debate.org...
should girls should be allowed to play boys football

It is a biological fact men are stronger than women physically. On top of that men are also generally much taller. Girls can play football, but women have to play on a women's team. The girls on the team will almost never get to play because of their lacking physical attributes. The boys will be at a disadvantage because of the girls lack of physical strength and speed. Girls need to play on a girls team. Boys need to play on a boys team.
should girls should be allowed to play boys football

girls should be allowed because maybe we don't want to be thought of they only like hair and nails i don't like doing my hair or nails and i'm a girl i've heard boys say that girls just need to stick to being cheerleaders that where they belong i don't belong being a cheerleader i belong on the feld i hate when boys d that stick to do what these girls do n i'm not like them i'm different
Australian History is Fun

I think you got mixed up you were talking about Austrian im talking about Australian History. Australian History is A Country like Australia has been known worldwide for 200 years one of the worlds youngest countries if you will. Australian Pre-History are all about ficticous events and characters in a story called Dream time. More people would want to learn about the Victorian Era The Victorian Era heradeled new discoveries about science, building and the process of urbanisation was invented. The greatest empire on earth was made and the longest ruler of England reigned. The crystal palace, one of the most increatable festivals on Earth, was made during it. Women started wanting the vote and people started to care fot the poor. Australian History is not a very fun subject. The reason stating that is because most of the student body say that it is a topic with very little importance worldwide. The Australians are sort of like countries like Kazakhstan, they are very quiet and do not get involved in much with world ageda's and if so, playing a minor role. Australian-British history is a factual based history of 200 years it is significant in very few area's worldwide. These are the events which Australian History would be known as Interesting, Gallipoly, Kokoda Tracks, Attack at Sydney Harbour, Battle Of Britain, Gold rush, rats of Tobruk, building of the Sydeny habour bridge, building of Canberra, the expolation of Australia And the Blocked Advance (Capitals due to Names). In Australian History for the 1st 100 years it is based on the White Australia Policy, Colonisation and The Independent States all revolving about only Australian issues revolved around, racism and inequality but these are minor compared to the Jewish holocaust. I do state that Australia has had some interesting history like the incident of the massacre in Gallipoly. But their is very insignificant and little history for a new-born nation. Case Closed