BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wearing clothing in public areas should be optional

1. a. Indeed, a nude person in society can cause distress and discomfort to others... But it is a personal decision that has no direct impact on others' well-being. I may feel uncomfortable when people are wearing clothes--or if someone has a big moldy stain on his shirt. But they have a right to choose, and my discomfort is not a reason for their rights to be taken away. b. I think that other victimless crimes, such as prostitution and drug possession/usage, should not be considered crimes, also. Vandalism tends to not be victimless, and not all white collar crimes are victimless; this is, however, tangential to the primary matter of dispute. The opponent's argument is not effective, since I agree that these other victimless crimes should also be legalized. 2. By legally requiring clothes to be worn, the government REQUIRES citizens to consume from a certain business industry (in this case, clothing industry.) This strong leaning in the government's position requires that clothing be purchased in order for people to stay in public territory. Essentially, the government is forcing people to spend money on what the government wants them to spend money on. One could argue, "But wait, can't people just be nude in the privacy of their own home?" Sure, but in that case, they would be required to have their own private property (e.g., a home) in order to avoid the obligation of purchasing clothes. This is simply another level to the issue of the government's dominance of what people buy. People supposedly have a right to purchase what they want with their money, after government taxes are deducted. Nonetheless, the government forces people to purchase specific items, with the consequence of breaking the law if one chooses not to. 3. Individual rights are more emphasized over the preferences of society. Society views racism as distasteful--or better yet, despicable--but hate speeches and KKK protests are protected by the freedom of speech (in the United States.) [1] It is one's right to not purchase and use items according to the government's interest. One should have the right to be nude in public, since the well-being of others is not directly affected. Everyone, under their clothes, is naked, and there is nothing taboo about nudism in itself; it is the body in its natural state, and it is present in art throughout many museums because of its beauty. Many, many children go to art museums and see these depictions, and adverse effects to their well-being have yet to be proven.Before the opponent pushes this argument further, he must logically first establish that there is a definite negative on the public's well-being to begin with.---The resolution has been affirmed. Vote Pro.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wearing clothing in public areas should be optional

1. Indecent exposure is a victimless crime. No one is harmed by the act of not wearing clothing. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to not allow public nudity. 2. When the government enforces the wearing of attire in public, it is displaying a vested interest in the clothing industry. A law that mandates the possession of any item sold by private industry should not be allowed, since private businesses should function independently from the government. Buying clothing should be based on preference, not based on obligations to the government. 3. Primitive people from bygone eras had only worn clothing (fur and skins) when there was cold weather. Due to a shift in views on what is "proper," this is no longer allowed. However, I argue that the "properness" and morality of nudism is arbitrary and should be up to the discretion of the individual.
Political Advertising Does More Harm Than Good

My opponent surprisingly has denied her plagiarism. This is an easy issue for the voters to settle. Don't take my word for it, dear voter, find out for yourself. Here's an easy way to figure out who's telling the truth. Read her paragraph beginning with the words"Once upon a time, " THEN compare those words with the link I provided to fir the Stanford link: http://pcl.stanford.edu... Then ask yourself, "Where is the quotation marks? Where is the reference to the website?" It's not there. That's plagiarism. Then do the same thing with her paragraph that begins with "From time to time there are public calls for a truce in the invective." Compare that to the CNN website I linked: http://www.cnn.com... Ask yourself the same questions. Where are the quotation marks? Where is the reference to CNN? It's not there. And that's plagiarism. BRAND NEW PLAGIARISM In an impressive act of hubris, my opponent then doubles down on her tendency to plagiarize. In her very first "new" point, she begins with the words "In politics, there's no rules and few referees". This seem rather similar to a piece written by James Leach of US News and World Report. But again don't take my word for it, read the second paragraph in the article found here: http://www.usnews.com... Quotation marks? None found. The same can be said for everything else she copied and pasted without quotation marks. Plagiarism 101. As my opponent hasn't offered any of her own arguments, she STILL hasn't given me anything to refute. Hopefully this will change in the third and final round.
Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

Jury nullification is an unjust governmental indulgence. Our laws are by no means perfect, there are exceptions to every rule, but jury nullification is a kind of voluntary legal ignorance that blatantly overlooks thorough investigation, by coming to quick, and extreme conclusions. A jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding. When has anyone ever truly agreed on what was moral or not? For example: A group of men are charged with vandalizing a grocery store. It was owned by immigrants, and there is strong suspicion that the crime was motivated by the ethnic unrest that has been infecting the community. Although there is compelling evidence linking the defendants to the vandalism, they have the good fortune of being tried by a jury that shares their dislike of immigrants. Jury deliberations are brief, and the defendants walk away free. This principle cannot be just when it allows for so much bias in the courtroom, and has in many cases let criminals walk free. One is either guilty of innocent. There is no in-between. Not letting the justice system do its job is not a check on government. It is an unjust, and dangerously easy way out.
Rap battle tourney (NDECD1441 vs yomama12)

But once I burn, I arise twice as strong like a Phoenix Oh, I stepped in something on my way out, grab the Kleenex Let's see what I stepped in, oh, wouldn't ya believe it It's your sh@tty @ss rhymes, who the f@ck could've seen it? You may be demonic, but look who's got the silver cross and knife Cut your @ss apart like a piece of bread, rye or white Call me the Exorcist, have the lord by my side May the Power of Christ compel you to get the f@ck out of sight Your rhymes are typical Because once I go analytical I can see that they go nowhere Round and round like an elliptical Your lack of trying is pitiful Your beat Is just as despicable Your lead is about to flatline Because your rhymes condition is critical Even the lords power couldn't save me The rhymes I spit are so crazy When you see them, you'll run and flail Like the inflatable tube man, wacky and wavy The girls love me, call me Patrick Swayze At this point, might as well call ya Tom Brady Because I'm flying over ya like a football That even you can't even stop to deflate me Just face it, I'm better than you to the core At this point in the game this battles just a bore kick your @ss from New York to the Californian Golden Shore If you think this is bad, just wait for what I got in store Because by then I'll have already with you mopped the floor At this point for you trying to win is only a chore I wrote a sad tune for your defeat, here's the score For call me Edgar Allen Poe, for your chances of winning are Nevermore.
Rap battle tourney (NDECD1441 vs yomama12)

Oh my, I sure am scaredJust kidding you got a spark but I have dark dreadA shadow so powerful even the stars fledA snap of the finger then you are a clap deadYomama's mama raised the wrong rapperFed him the wrong milk and stuck the wrong snapperBut don't worry this will be solved way afterYou beat my @$$? I'm howling with laughterThe only world where you are best is a world you are alone inYou may cut but I'm capable of burning the whole skinI can't be bought you can never match or catch my flow spinAnd in this tourney I'ma buy, get and earn the whole winBecause I am indeed a demon, a demon destroyingAs if soldiers and tanks, my bars deployingIf this war was over, you won't be the victorDespite what you say, because the game just got stricterHow could you stoop so low to fight a mere "peasent"?Unless you are another, the info is a free presentSurprising ain't it, bars conflictingOf the birth of yomama is a crime worth convictingSo let's end this battle, and in the final roundThis ain't a match where the rivals roundYou are far below me, not worth a soundYou don't realize it, buried in the ground...
Rap battle tourney (NDECD1441 vs yomama12)

Yea that's right, I've stepped up to the ring And may god have mercy on me for the hellfire I'm about to sling Now that I've seen the weak @ss verses that you bring Why don't you step back, and let me show ya why I'm the king My rhymes are dirty, toxic waste You think your the god, and if that's the case Then I'm gonna love to see your face When I beat your @ss all over the place Because I'm the best MC That you ever did meet I grind motherf!ckers like you every day up like minced meat Your a cancer to the rap game, an STD Your flying high if you think you can beat me, think your on ecstasy You think your the knight, your more like the peasant And this fight is gonna seem unpleasant I'll hunt you down and eat you alive like a goddamn pheasant And I'd love to see you try to spit bars from up in heaven Or rather Hell Because I think what I see is a demon within that shell But it doesn't matter, because I already showed you that either way you've fell Now I'd rap more But this game is a bore I've already proven that I'm the clear victor in this war.
Rap battle tourney (NDECD1441 vs yomama12)

yomama12 walking up to the stage Your mama the victim of my rage You see me over here, slaughtering as I rap Cue the intense music time to destroy this piece of crap Sending you a challenge and you have the guts to fight You are going for suicide fighting the night You are merely a fraction of my incredible might If enough of me is wrong then left and wrong is right You are not worth my presence get outta my sight The darkness in my heart, my hand the light You may as well be the dragon, I'll be the knight And the princess is the victory of the tourney tonight You can hunt a lion, shoot down an eagle But you can never catch me as I kill, that's legal Even if I can't beat you I know for sure our, bars equal So it's either I win or tie this movie, stars evil But notice that this rap didn't take any effort I could easily leave you without an oasis in the desert So in the upcoming rounds, tread carefully I'm only sparing you for the tourney, thankfully.
Rslvd: It is Moraly Permisable to Kill one Innocent Person to Save the Lives of More Innocent People

First thank you for debating with me and i'm looking foward to it... Second i am a new debator and i guess i should have clarifed that i wanted to LD debate so now i am kinda free running this... Usually you would have used that rounf you just id to attack my case AND present your own. But its okay...Ill try and retaliate. On to my rebuttal. To begin you stated that there is know society in an entity. Only individuals with free will and rights. This is invalid because first, society is what gives these people their rights. If there was no society then their would be know rights. Everyone could do what ever they wanted to anyone else. No one would "own" anything. Land would be amuck and everyone could technically steal and hurt as they please mearly because nobody would be able to tell them that this is wrong. It is imposible to say that there is no society yet still free individuals. You cant be free if there is nothing to be free from. Withought society and rules and rights you would be easily contradicting yourself. More and more innocent people would die for no reason.. Secondly you stated why not kill the killer. Im not trying to use this against you because you might have not known but you have to look at the resolution exactly. there is no other option... either you are for or against killing the innocent to save more innocent... Next, you are saying it is wrong to kill the innocent, but arnt you letting more innocent die, this is the same as killling their rights are being violated. You cannot say that one innocent person is more valuable then any other. so lets put this into mathematical terms. Each person is the same value. Each person equals one. Say the group in question of being saved is 10 people. The innocent dying to save them is one peorson. 10 people equals 10 points one person equals one. So if you dont kill this one person you only end with 1 point. If yu kill this one person to save the lives of 10 people you end with 10 points. Hence 10 points is more valuable then 1. It is better to save 10 people then 1. It gives more back to the society thus being moral. To defend myself against your WW attacks i can only say that it doesnt matter how or why the WW started. It is that it did and many people would die from it... All my example stated was that this action saved many more people from an attack. You stated that you agree with life being important. You said that no innocnt diserves to die. If thats what even YOU said then how can you say it is fine for MORE innocent people to die. This is worng. You are contradicting yourself. Once again thanks for debating with me i am looking foward to your reply.
Rslvd: It is Moraly Permisable to Kill one Innocent Person to Save the Lives of More Innocent People

This is an old debate but I was still interested in what someone would say about it and I also am always interested in "society" debates. We can take the stance that morality is a relative term, which you have obviously taken, or we could take the stance that morality is constant and always the same in all situations. I won't be stubborn and just say that morality is constant and that killing humans is always wrong. But then we have to deal with rights and human rights, these being unalienable. You talked about Jeremy Bentham a lot and to begin with, I am not a socialist and opposed to all socialist ideologies and methodologies. What you are proposing is socialism and collectivism. Some call it utilitarianism. This Machiavellian insight is what kept kings in power in monarchies and theocracies and kept socialist leaders killing people for the good of "society." There is no such thing as society as an entity. There are only individuals, with free will, making decisions all the time. Once we begin to look at society as a thing, we get this idea that we must protect it and help it foster growth. But then we assume that the people making these decisions know what the best thing to do for society is. Once 1 innocent person is killed, there is nothing to stop these planners from deciding that another innocent person needs to be killed in order to "protect" society. I wholeheartedly agree that life is very important. And since I agree with this, no innocent person deserves to be killed. If people have free will, then there is no guarantee that they will make the same decisions twice or that they will continue to make bad decisions. I agree that there are ramifications that need to be made to people when they inflict harm on other people's personal property. The free market allows people to make decisions that make themselves better off and no one worse off. Only when there is a true free market and private property rights are upheld. So if someone harms someone, then the responsibility of the offender is to merely pay back the victim. Innocent people have no debt to society, just as you and I don't. People are most happy when they are free. If they are indebted to society and always trying to do what is in the benefit of the general welfare, they will fail. There is no one that has enough knowledge to make decisions for society. Individuals make trillions of decisions every second and to propose that someone knows what is best for the most people is absurd. It is impossible. Your examples from the World Wars don't hold too much water. World War II was started because of socialism and you are proposing socialism as the solution. If there is a guarantee that people will be killed if we do not kill the one innocent person, then why don't we kill the killers? That seems to make a lot more sense than killing innocent people. And if there is only a threat, then the person has not committed the crime yet. That means they have the free will to not carry out the crime.
Rslvd: It is Moraly Permisable to Kill one Innocent Person to Save the Lives of More Innocent People

Sorry about last round. Time got away from me. But to suggest that I agree with you because I forfeited a round doesn't make sense. It makes sense to say that I may disagree with you only to a certain point and not totally because I didn't prioritize my time for debating. But even that is still not correct. I went home for fall break and for some reason our internet was down. Alas, I am now back online and debating. Sorry about the anecdote, but now on to societal discussions. You are totally off center in your stance that the individual's rights are derived from society as a whole. This means that as society changes, so do our rights, no matter how much we disagree with them. This is true democracy and the squelching of the few by the many. It works fine, until you or I become part of the few and our rights aren't important for the good of society. We are in no way indebted to society. We make our own way and we choose what way that is. Our rights are given to us when we become human. (Not to get into the abortion issues) These rights are derived through God some people believe. But you don't have to believe in God in order to believe in these rights. All people feel that they are entitled to them at some point in their lives, unless they have been so brainwashed by the government. These rights to life and property are innate. They are part of who we are as humans and nothing else in the world shares these rights. Society does not bestow them. We are not under other people's will or dominion. We are free to be and do what we want, as long as this does not impose on the rights of others. I cannot choose to kill an innocent person. It isn't a choice. That person has a right to live and we are taking that right away and saying that we know best and we are more divine than them. We are the deciders of who lives and dies. There is no justification in killing innocent life. The fault of other innocent people dying is not my fault, unless I am the killer. If you are going to blame me for killing those people because I didn't kill another innocent person, then we all have to be blamed. We all deserve the punishment because we didn't kill that innocent person. And no longer is the killer to blame for the killing, but the rest of society. There is no justice in this. And again, I am not saying that it is better for more innocent people to die. That is a terrible thing. I am merely saying that it is bad for any innocent person to die. There is no equation that can justify the killing of innocent people. We are not made for sacrifice. We are meant to produce and make ourselves better off. In this process we are trading with others for things that we need and in this process we are able to make others better off too. That is what a free society offers. Not this barbaric idea that we owe ourselves to society and this is the god that we have to worship. Thanks for debating.
Rslvd: It is Moraly Permisable to Kill one Innocent Person to Save the Lives of More Innocent People

I guess i dont have much to say. My oppenent forfeited the round with out valid reasons that he should have presented. This is dropped and he cannot bring it back up. Next my opponent has not defended his case any more. This means he is agreeing with my attacks on him and his case thus, maybe even intentionally, agreeing with my entire point of view. This means that there is no other alternative then to vote for me. He has dropped all his charges against me. He has pretty much forfieted the entire debate.
Socialism should be implemented into today's United States Government.

All those countries you listed that are socialist, are not socialist countries. Not Canada. Not Denmark. Not Finland. Not Sweden. Not any of them, except MAYBE China. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... https://www.quora.com... https://blog.genoppinstitute.org... Real socialist countries are countries like Venezuela, and the U.S.S.R. How did that turn out for them? Venezuela: http://www.businessinsider.com... U.S.S.R.: That would be a whole entire history lesson. It can't even summed up nearly on how terrible it was. Since Venezuela is the only true socialist country alive right now, that's the one we will be comparing to. You mentioned one of the advantages is that there is no discrimination, and it's just not true. No matter where you are, you will always have some sort of discrimination. But maybe less in socialism? No. In Venezuela there is literally only 2 classes, and it's super divided. The super rich, and the dirt poor. Discrimination is a big problem. Sources: https://www.hrw.org... https://www.voanews.com... You also mention how everybody has equal access to health care. Look at Venezuela https://en.wikipedia.org... You mention poverty would be eliminated, but that just isn't true. You can't avoid poverty no matter what. You just can't. Also let's look at Venezuela. Nope! My sources are the sources above "Everyone works at what they are best at and what they enjoy. If society needs jobs to be done that no one wants, It offers higher compensation to make it worthwhile." - You No. That's just a rule of life in generally. Not socialism. "Natural resources are preserved, again for the good of the whole." Where did this one come from? This has nothing to do with socialism Really socialism just screws the country over. Also, *PUT YOUR SOURCES FOR EVERYTHING YOU SAID IN ROUND 1 AND EVERYTHING YOU'RE GOING TO SAY FROM ROUND 2 ON*
In Light of Modern Science, God Is More Likely to Exist

PRO has not addressed my response to his arguments, and therefore, my points stand. I have shown that PRO misunderstands modern scientific principles and uses that poor understanding to support his cosmological argument. While I am happy that PRO set up this debate, as I very much enjoyed it, I am disappointed that PRO did not see it through. If anyone has thoughts on my points, I would love to hear them.