BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public Nudity Should be Legalized

CONTENTION 1: Nudity is a basic right It would be absurd to suggest that the government can tell us what we can and cannot do to our bodies. This includes being forced to cover our bodies with cloth. It is just as oppressive as many Middle Eastern countries forcing women to cover their heads, only to a smaller degree. Outlawing public nudity is an attack to our basic human rights. CONTENTION 2: Public nudity would decrease the rate of sexual violence If more people were nude in public, much of the "allure" of nudity would be diminished. People would stop seeing nudity as a sexual concept and start seeing it as part of everyday life. As strange as it seems, skimpy outfits are more likely to incite sexual violence than basic nudity, as such outfits draw attention to sexual body parts, while nudity does not. CONTENTION 3: Nudity is healthy and natural Clothes constrict blood flow and decrease our range of motion. Furthermore, being nude outdoors is beneficial because it allows our entire bodies to have exposure to the sun, increasing vitamin D production and circadian equilibrium, resulting in reduced stress and heightened mental activity. Humans evolved our relatively hairless state because it decreases the breeding ability of parasites, fungi, and bacteria. Clothes offer a perfect breeding ground for these pathogens. IN CONCLUSION: Public nudity is overall a highly beneficial state. It is healthy for mind, body, and society. Public nudity should be highly encouraged in society, but instead, it is criminalized, defying our most basic human rights.
The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society!

I believe that illegal or legal drug abuse can ruin society in three horrible ways. First, it gives people an easier shot at throwing their lives away by making it more tempting. Second, it also lowers self esteem in the people abused by the drug, and they can't stop taking it. And third, it gives the affected nation a bad picture in allowing people to be exploited for addictions and esteem weaknesses by snickering capitalist pigs who don't care about anything but profit alone. The first reason I gave was relating in how when you give some people an easier way to doom, than they are likely to take it. If people are allowed to simply "drug up" on cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, heroin, crack, and more, than they will be sucked into an addiction that will only hurt them. Most drug addicts become addicted from stress, insecurity, and especially peer pressure. When someone's friends smoke, than they will likely smoke because they want to fit in with their friends. Did you know that almost 70% of all smokers want to quit, but never do? http://www.drugfree.org....... This is because of the addiction, and the hate they receive from others. People don't want to help them, and they think it is their fault only. It is clearly not, and they need our help too. The adicts are often unable to quit easily, and this is created by the drugs giving them a false sense of security and relaxation. Weed may make you relax, but it gives you extreme headaches and can cause brain damage. This isn't something to be taken so lightly. And I won't even begin on the effects of tobacco, so you can just see how horrible it is in this trusty online article http://tobaccofreeca.com...... . It will give you several facts on cigarettes and how they are extremely harmful. These drugs are simply bad in all ways, and to think that it is allowed or accepted for some drugs to be used is just stupid. Why have more death, injury, and lowered esteem for some silly drug that is basically pointless. Try to name a way that they can HELP US. I bet you can't, because they simply don't. The exploit of the drug business, whether legal or not, is just immoral and wrong. The amounts of deaths and injuries every year in the U.S. are insane. And think about how all of this madness is for PROFIT! Some greedy pigs think that it is ok to endanger and kill millions of people for money. Would you kill millions of people every year and injure many more just for some extra cash. I know owning a business is cool and all, but that's just morbid. So don't suport drugs saying we have a right to hurt ourselves and especially let other careless idiots with no regard to safety or the environment profit. Don't think they can benefit, if all they really do is hurt. Sure you could say that people will have a right to take them, but that is basically saying to steal something because you won't get in trouble that day. But the consequences will whiplash and only fiends will benefit if they deserve to or not.
The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society!

I accept. I think that this debate is extremely one sided, but I will accept this debate anyway. First, I ask my judges to not bias me on their actual opinion, but on the form of the arguments, and who had better sources and whatnot. Also, my real opinion in real life differs from the opinion that I have taken in this debate. Forgive me if I seem heartless in the following speeches that I make, and please don't bias me on that either. I know that bias is inevitable, but try not to do it. Thanks for beginning the challenge. It's greatly appreciated.
The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society!

Otherwise you automatically forfeit the entire debate. To clarify, this debate covers drugs such as tobacco, consumed alcohol, heroin, cannabis, crack, and all of the other harmful drugs out their. I will state that their existence has a negative impact on society. DO NOT state that if we completely ban all of them that people will still find ways to take them, because this debate covers their existence and not illegalization of them.
Refugees deserve nothing

You raise many good points, however you're coming out of the gate very stereotypical. Then you attempted an insult (I'm assuming you meant commie) for no real reason. Honestly I'm about half and half on the refugees. I believe strict background checks should be in order for them to leave be able to enter any other country. I do not believe however that we should just let people be slaughtered because of there religion, we all know how that worked out for the Jews. I do not believe that we should put refugees in front of our veterans, or the homeless that we face as a country already. In all reality I think that their housing should be cargo bins furnished to fit a family and the meals they get should be three MRE's per person per day. If they want to buy more food they should be required to get a job and pay for it out of their own pocket.
George Washington is still alive

It was crucial in this debate for my opponent to understand that I was being figurative and not literal when I stated that George Washington spirit is still alive, but seeing as in round two he stated that his spirit is in heaven or hell only proves he was taking it literally ad thus put the final nail in his coffin, seeing as he then would have to prove the existence of heaven or hell, and he has not done so. Responses: "His spirit relies on God at Judgement day. Since George Washington was a Christian, he believes in God, so he believes in heaven or hell. So, his spirit is in heaven or hell. " This argument isn't valid, I believe in Santa Claus but still doesn't come to your house on the 24th of December. "Like what I said earlier: "it is flagrantly obvious that George Washington is not alive," so, George Washington isn't alive. So, he has agreed to some of my points. So he has agreed to some of my points, therefore, it is a voting issue. " If you closely read over my arguments you will see that any concessions I have made to my opponent were clearly for the sake that I would be able to debate this issue.
George Washington is still alive

His spirit relies on God at Judgement day. Since George Washington was a Christian, he believes in God, so he believes in heaven or hell. So, his spirit is in heaven or hell. http://www.christiananswers.net... http://www.brainyquote.com... Like what I said earlier: "it is flagrantly obvious that George Washington is not alive," so, George Washington isn't alive. So, he has agreed to some of my points. So he has agreed to some of my points, therefore, it is a voting issue. To my opponent, I prove it in less than one day to respond about the "spirit". Clarification: "So how is George Washington alive?" means that there is no way George Washington is alive today. Therefore after this, my opponent has agreed to some of my points, so it counts as a voting issue. Vote Con Special thanks to my opponent and to anyone who votes. Thank you.
George Washington is still alive

What my opponent has failed to understand he that he has shot himself in the foot via his opening statement, allow me to demonstrate he asked "So how is George Washington alive?" seeing has he states a mere two lines above this statement that George Washington died on December 14th 1799 one can only assume that "So how is George Washington alive?" means "how does he still live on after his death?", to which my answer was through their legacy. Now with this interpretation my opponent is burdened to prove that someone cannot exist beyond physical means because of the place they hold in the beliefs or memories of others. My opponent has stated in argument: "What? George Washington isn't alive in the hearts and minds of the American. His spirit is in heaven or hell, not with the life line of America." In order for this to be a valid argument my opponent now has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of heaven or hell, seeing as Christian leaders and theologists have been trying for thousands of years to prove the existence of heaven or hell I find it hard to imagine that my opponent will be able to prove it in the two days they have to respond. Thank you once again.
George Washington is still alive

Since it is flagrantly obvious that George Washington is not alive, seeing as he would be 210, I am going to take a more poetic approach to this one. My opponent asked: So how is George Washington alive? George Washington is alive in the hearts and minds of the American who serves and defends the principals that he believed and fought for: Freedom, Justice, Liberty and Democracy. You see the spirit of George Washington is renewed everyday by millions of Americans, It is alive in New Hope, California where a man enlists to lay down his life for the country he loves, Its alive in North Haven, Connecticut where a child stands up and states "I pledge allegiance to Flag of the United States of America", It is alive in Dixville, New Hampshire where the mother chooses to question the decisions of her elected representatives, Its alive in the shop-owner, the police officer, the librarian, the republican and the democrat, his spirit runs course with the life line of America, it is immortal. Thank You.
Rap and Hip-Hop Should Not be Considered "Music"

My opponent contends that rap music shows emotion through bass and interesting rhythms, however, failed to realize that not all "music" defined as "rap" encompasses bass and/or rhythms. "Freestyle rap" as seen in the song Roman's Revenge by Nicki Minaj and Eminem is classified as rap but has neither. Therefore, that point is invalid. My opponent contends that lyrical contend does not matter for music, however, failed to realize that lyrical content leads to censorship on radios and artists creating "clean versions" of songs. If lyrical content did not matter, nothing would be censored because that is nothing. Policy debaters tend to have a certain "rhythm" to their spreading which could arguably be a beat. My opponent failed to produce any legitimate arguments whereas I have proved that rap and hip-hop should not be considered music. Therefore,I strongly urge a pro ballot.
Rap and Hip-Hop Should Not be Considered "Music"

Hello, I would be interested in holding a debate on the value of rap and hip-hop, and whether they should be considered "music." If you accept the debate, you will be arguing that rap and hip-hop should not be considered music, and I will be arguing in favor of their musicality. As Pro, you would have the burden of proof, and the round structure would proceed as follows: ROUND 1: Con: Declaration of Intent, Definitions Pro: Agreement, Opening Argument ROUND 2: Con: Rebuttal, Opening Argument Pro: Rebuttal, Further Arguments ROUND 3: Con: Rebuttal, Further Arguments Pro: Rebuttal, Closing Argument ROUND 4: Con: Rebuttal, Closing Argument, Congratulations Pro: Congratulations As you can see, Pro would get three arguments, as would Con. During this debate, I wish to use the following definitions, though I am open to reasonable adjustments. Rap - Lyrics spoken or chanted to a beat. Hip-Hop - A style of music characterized by a repetitive beat and rapped verses. Often includes sampled sections of other songs. To avoid any semantic issues, I will agree that "rap" or "rap music" may be used in place of "hip-hop." Good Luck!
The word democracy has multiple definitions.

I accept, and stipulate the following: 1) The meaning of “definition” should be understood as follows: “the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc. , as found in formal dictionaries. ” Source: . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2) This is a debate topic that necessarily predisposes itself to semantic arguments, which judges should take into due consideration when judging.
The word democracy has multiple definitions.

This debate is open to anyone. N00b sniping is not a problem for me. I'll take on all comers.This is a serious debate. I was challenged on this resolution by a DDO member who shall remain nameless on a comments section of another debate.To quote: "I believe Democracy in fact does have a definition whether or not the Economist beleives it or not is their own decision. Words just don't change meaning because people want them to fit their definition. Example: Marriage, one man and one woman. This has never been contested until recent years."I challenged this person to a debate on the subject and he refused. I was greatly dissapointed.I wish to give the person another chance to debate me on the topic by posting it publicly, but will also take on anyone who also shares the same belief as I am firmly against it (and in favor of the resolution).I ask that DDO members not post comments that might help one side or the other until the debate is complete in order to keep this a fair debate. Other comments are welcome.Rules:5,000 character limit.First round is acceptance.Second round is arguments.Third round is counter-arguments and closing statement.The debate topic is: The word "democracy" has multiple definitions.BOP will be shared.Pro will argue that the word "democracy" has multiple definitions.Con will argue that the word "democracy" has only one definition.
Bystanders should not try to stop minors from stealing alcohol.

I also agree that the drinking age should be lowered. It's ridiculous that we are granted the right to jeopordize our lives and lungs through war and cigarettes but are denied the same opportunity with our liver. I know I kind of changed the resolution in the last part of my opener but I would like to actully still debate it also. As for what you want to "focus on entirely", allow me to clarify. I hold the position that it is generally acceptable and tolerable for minors to shoplift alcohol from grocery or conveniance stores. This is obviously not the case for the owners or employess of such establishments, but this is when the actual topic of this debate becomes relevant. I am speaking of bystanders and pedestrians in or around the stores. Let me offer the following scenario: It's Friday night in Detroit and two attractive females you're aquainted with want to hang out. They eventually want to start drinking, as is the impulse for hot, slutty girls on a Friday night. (Did I mention they were slutty?) All three of you are under legal drinking age and you just got mugged. (This is Detroit, remember). Your walking along the sidewalk, contemplating how to get some booze. The three of you eventually walk into a local grocery store, it is 11:30 with only one checkout lane open. There are few employees as the store will close shortly. The girls wander over to the alcohol isle and start pressuring you to take a bottle of grey goose. You are apprehensive at first but quickly stuff the bottle in your pants following mention of fellatio. -At this juncture, I say it is okay to put that bottle in your pants, walk out of that store, and get intoxicated with these two girls which will no doubt end in a sensational three-way. I add that no bystander has the right to try and stop you and ruin your chances to score. Do you disagree?
Bystanders should not try to stop minors from stealing alcohol.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I am in favor of lowering the drinking to 18, however, I will want to focus entirely on your idea that it should be OK to steal alcohol so long as you are a minor, and that nobody has the right to stop your theft. People have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property, allowing minors to 'steal alcohol' takes property rights away from owners of alcohol.
Bystanders should not try to stop minors from stealing alcohol.

Let me start off by saying that this has never happened to me personally. Don't get me wrong, I've stolen more than my share of liquor as a youth(best night: seven bottles, two 24 packs!). In all those instances, people either ignored myself and my friends or cheered us on. Recently, my friend recounted a story in which a "hero" tackled him to the ground while trying to get away with a 30-pack of MGD. We both agreed it was completely uncalled for. But anyway, this guy (an alleged body-builder) sat on him until the manager and security guard arrived. They felt so bad for the kid, for being tackled by a hulking maniac, that they released him with a slap on the wrist (this paricular Fry's is now off limits). Stores have security for a reason. Also, there is the police department. Civilians and bystanders have no right to act as law enforcement. But all this is beside the point I'm really trying to make (although not stated in the resolution)which is that it's okay for juveniles to steal alcohol. I'll stop there and expand on this as my rebuttal.
Wierdman's Tourney: It wasn't Goldilocks' fault when she entered the home of the three bears.

Lol, that was disappointing. This is my last post, meaning that I couldn't respond to PR's next argument, so I hope he ethically abides to not construct new premises to rebut my arguments as it would seem unfair. Nevertheless, thanks PR, you did a splendid attempt to refute my arguments. But we all know, from what I argued, that Goldilocks is a delinquent, and may she forever be imaginary. :)
Wierdman's Tourney: It wasn't Goldilocks' fault when she entered the home of the three bears.

I will argue that it was goldilocks fault for entering the home of the three bears. One is responsible for their actions The obvious must be brought up. .. .one is responsible for their actions. Now, goldilocks, being a wee lass, seems to be getting some sort of lenience for her actions, which is completely ridiculous. She was responsible for opening that door, nobody had a gun to her head. Let's take a minute to think about the story at hand. .. .. Goldilocks went up to a house, knocked, and when nobody answered, proceeded to go inside. She went in the house, therefore it's her fault. .. .. Now, I could just end the debate with that, but I will entertain more contentions in hopes to fully clarify this horrible tragedy bestowed upon these bears. Upon trespassing on private property, she then proceeded to destroy their chair and gobble up their porridge. Do we live in a world where bears (or people! ) can't leave their butter and oats sitting out in the comfort of their own homes? ! And they can't leave doors unlocked! ? These bears have been devastated by this little vagabond's actions, it is clear. She could have walked away from that house, she could have gone home. She most likely has a home too, for the picture my opponent brings up shows her well clothed and happy. Wandering children without homes are not groomed and happy. She acknowledges right from wrong Within the story, we can see that goldilocks can identify right from wrong. While she tasted the porridge, she knew that the cold porridge was wrong, and the warm, delectable porridge was right! Even if it only benefitted her, she still grasped at the concept of right and wrong. This leads you to believe that she can obviously see the error in her invading these poor bears' home. Rather then make the right decision, she deliberately makes the wrong decision. SHE MAKES THE WRONG DECISION. I can't iterate that enough. This "child" is cruel. Refer to the picture to understand the type of person we are dealing with. The link will take you there. . http://www.google.com... Terrifying, I know. Just the thought of someone like that walking around would make me want to sleep with a gun. Luckily, this is just a fairy tale, and will never come into fruition (hopefully). Little ol' goldilocks also sat in the wrong chairs, until she found the right one, and ditto for the beds. Like I have illustrated, she understands right from wrong, and therefore is not excused for invading and trespassing. I would like to finish up my case against the evil goldilocks with a thought for everyone. .. .. If I were to go down the street and open up an unlocked door, could I argue in court that the door was unlocked, so it was obviously ok? Could I also argue that since the porridge was sitting there, it was justifiable to eat it? It was not her home. Therefore, she should not have been in it. I thank you all for braving through this storm with me. May goldilocks forever remain imaginary.