BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modified LD - Resolved:Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

1. Liberty vs. liberty: though my opponent attempts to call this argument a wash at last, I will extend all of my responses in RD 4 which sought to validate my analysis on the concept of liberty as the only valid conceptualization of it in the round. Not only did I warrant the heck out of that argument, but I invalidated his definition legally and logically, since his provided "freedictionary. com" definition leads to a state of nature existence. Hence, you are going to prefer my analysis here. If you do, then compulsory immunizations are justified, as being able to immunize everyone in the population (excepting those with medical exemptions) from a given disease will achieve herd immunity, which will in turn maximize natural rights. 2. In reference to my opponent's RD 5 voter #2: both my evidence and I have readily stipulated that some very rare and minute health risks are involved in vaccinating human beings. It would be unrealistic not to. No institution or product in existence is without its flaws, but that doesn't give a valid reason to call those things categorically unjust. Hence, at the end of the day, I've still proven that the medical benefits far outweigh the costs of immunizations. 3. In reference to my opponent's crystallization: my opponent has, unfortunately, forwarded an entirely new argument in his final rebuttal stating that we already have enough people voluntarily vaccinating to create herd immunity. Though I'm not obligated to answer the argument, I would like to since I have the opportunity: *First of all, as my card stated, only 75% of US school children are being mandatorily vaccinated to enter the public school system. This piece of evidence is meant to prove that large, diverse populations aren't negatively affected (health-wise) by receiving a vaccine. Not every country in the world uses mandatory pediatric vaccination models. We wouldn't be having this debate if herd immunity were working on a worldwide level, as there would be no "public health concern" over pandemics. *Second of all, as Dr. Pazos states in my original case, some diseases require up to 95% of the total population to be immunized before herd immunity is successful. In the US, only 75% of children entering school are vaccinated against certain diseases. Even if those specific diseases only require a 75% immunization rate to protect a population, that only covers a few diseases and doesn't include adult populations who weren't vaccinated as children or who didn't keep up with necessary boosters. Hence, since I'm winning standards on both sides of the debate and case, I encourage readers to cast their vote in favor of compulsory immunization.
Modified LD - Resolved:Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

FINAL NEGATIVE REBUTTAL I wish to offer Dani a special thanks and please, no worries about using the available time. That's why it is there :o) INTRO:According to my opponent, and quite possibly a majority of the readers of this DDO topic, I have already lost. That would leave me with several options. I could start throwing spaghetti against the wall and hope some of it sticks. I could gracefully bow out. I could play the bench and take a knee to run out the clock. The competitive side of me wants to keep running plays regardless of the scoreboard. I remind myself that I am here to learn which will make both me and my team better in the long run. STANDARDS: 1. Since we have both presented legitimate definitions of liberty, it's safe to say that piece is a stalemate. 2. Further, the CON/NEG is willing to stipulate that immunizations are generally safe if the PRO/AFF is willing to stipulate that there have indeed been numerous instances of reaction to immunization, and in seldom circumstances, death. This woulkd effectly offset this piece. 3. Also, if we agree to eliminate all of the other machts nichts food fight items, we only have the one real question remaining. The question of whether it is justified to make vaccinations compulsory under law. CON/NEG CRYSTAL: With the large number of people who voluntarily receive immunizations, we can and do create an herd effect without making it mandatory. Aside from school requirements, it isn't mandatory now, and we have good results. Of course it could be better, which is why many physicians endorse and promote immunization. It is possible to achieve an even higher level of immunity without taking away yet another freedom. Thank you!
Harvey Beaks (Pro) vs The Amazing of Gumball (Con)

The Amazing World of Gumball has such creativity and it's so diverse like every character has a different personality and a little quirk about them. Harvey Beaks is just another Nickelodeon show that they think is funny but it's not. The last good Nickelodeon show was iCarly and they could never top that. Nickelodeon has only ever made one good cartoon and that was SpongeBob, but they should've stopped that show years ago. Nickelodeon tried to get views by using stupid trends but they end up using those trends late anyway. Or they use those trends in their show and they ruin them with the cheesiness and context of the trends. Cartoon Network goes out of their way to put diversity in their shows and their animation is off the chain. They have story lines that attract viewers and actual life lessons that kids can learn from. Although I must say that Harvey Beaks and The Amazing World of Gumball are similar in animation and Gumball and Harvey look very alike. It's the context of the two shows that differ so much. I must admit though that Gumball is not Cartoon Network's best show. If Harvey was compared to other Cartoon Network shows, Harvey would definitely not stand a chance.
Harvey Beaks (Pro) vs The Amazing of Gumball (Con)

Harvey Beaks was a great show that beats Gumball.Firstly,Harvey Beaks has great jokes,it has jokes that include dirtiness,humor,and always different.Jokes on Gumball?...Let's just say that anti-pants isn't a great choice for jokes.Second,the music on Harvey Beaks was like listening to the music on making fiends(because they use same music producers).It has songs with action,comedy,& drama.Gumball's music sounds like the producers doodled a little.finally,the characters.The characters on Harvey Beaks are great!They match up with the show,and have different personalities.When they made characters on Gumball,they just used objects and things that don't even match the show.Vote for Harvey Beaks,and don't follow a loser cat.
Having a girlfriend before 18 is worse than having one 18+

ur right they are not fully developed but then ur arguement should be they should be in relationships at like 23 because ur not fully developed until then so i just think its good to socialize with girls because you get experience and my friend that is younger then 18 is deeply in love with his gf because they naturally clicked so u would be insanely ignorant to say that people in high school dont ever get married
Having a girlfriend before 18 is worse than having one 18+

I have seen the past debates of my oponent and I claim that he is a troll. However I will make an argument and if his next argument is the same like the first one I will close the debate. I would like to point out that by relationships before 18 you don't learn any experience for your future life simpily because when you pass 18 you start slowly to leave the puberty and becoming a real mature man/woman. Having a girlfriend/boyfriend before 18 is just kissing, going out together and sometimes even sex. I don't think any of these is giving you any experience and sex on that age can be really dangerous. Since relationships on that age are not so long when she dumps you, you can fall into a depression.
On balance, public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States benefit th

In this round I'll be concluding my case. My opponent has failed entirely to defend his first or second contention. Con was unable to show that publicly funded stadiums do not benefit their local communities, which is required to win this debate. Pro relied on statistics that showed that a subsidy could cut jobs, but I showed that the economy recovers regardless because of the creation of new jobs and the income taxes from athletes. In Con's last contention he threw out the random number that only 72 of the 4000 jobs at the Cowboys stadium are full time. This is completely, utterly wrong. You'll notice there was no statistic or citation for that ridiculous number. Pro's first and second contentions no longer stand. In response to my opponent's third contention, I suggested that the Great Lakes Loons example was too small to translate to larger stadiums. Pro was unable to defend his contention, and simply stated this round that it would work, with no evidence to support that. Pro's third contention is also knocked down. Con has failed to knock down any of my contentions. This may be due to his fundamental lack of understanding of the eminent domain law. Despite my explanation in the second round, Con still fails to grasp this concept. I'll, once again, try to explain eminent domain. The government can take land without permission. The government does NOT need permission from the property owners to take land for public stadiums. The government must pay the former owners a "fair value," but that is not negotiable, and the owners cannot decline. Unfortunately, because my opponent did not understand this concept, he failed to effectively attack any of my points that private stadiums did not benefit their communities. To learn more about eminent domain, visit this link: http://www.columbia.edu.... My fourth contention, and as a result, all my other contentions, still stand. Finally, Con failed to prove what the resolution clearly states he must do to win. Con failed to show that publicly funded stadiums do not benefit their local communities. Con did not show any negative effects from public subsidies for stadiums. As I said in the last round, the wording of the resolution is clear. I could, theoretically, agree with Pro that my first, second, and third contentions held true for private stadiums, but private stadiums are irrelevant to this debate. Con must definitively prove that public stadiums do not benefit their local communities, which he failed to do. For these reasons, I strongly urge a Pro ballot. Thanks to my opponent, thanks to the voters.
501(c)3's should be allowed in politics if they disclose their political money

In response to my opponents first argument. I do agree with my opponent on what 501(c)3's designation is (i.e. is "purpose"). However using his same logic, if I was a trash truck driver and aiding the community with my services, should I in turn not be able to engage in politics? The idea is somewhat ridiculous and would cause an outcry in the community if it was actually happening. I would also like to point out that it is possible to have multiple purposes. For instance since I am a christian I have the purpose of obeying and glorifying God but I also have a second purpose, the obligation to study hard and do as well as my God given ability allows. Pretty much every group has more than one purpose. In fact every 501(c) group has the ability to speak in politics regardless of their purpose EXCEPT 501(c)3's! So why are we denying freedom of speech and press to one group based on their purpose? My response to my opponents second argument is organizations are made up of people. Which means that in the current system people in groups are having their freedom of speech silenced simply because they are speaking together! I have personally worked on two political campaigns one in Wisconsin for a general election in 2012 and one in Virginia for a special election it 2014 with a group called Generation Joshua. On these campaigns I noticed that groups have way, way more influence in politics than individuals. That is why we need all different types of groups in politics so we can know what everyone wants not just what political groups want. Charities do have a purpose in politics and that is to provide us with what the people, the normal regular people want. My opponent stated and I quote "organizations are entitled to the freedom of press" and I absolutely agree! However 501(c)3's can't even print things that are "unbiased" about politics. If they do they can potentially loose their tax exempt status. That sounds like a restriction on freedom of the press to me! I would like to remind everyone what be the advantages to allowing 501(c)3's in politics. We will have less discrimination, a truer representation of our political system, and ensuring that everyone has freedom of speech and press.
501(c)3's should be allowed in politics if they disclose their political money

Under the US Tax code section 501(c)(3), certain groups will be tax exempt. These organizations include: "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." & "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes." Given this designation, 501(c)(3) organizations must be meant for charitable and civic purposes, not political purposes. 501(c)3's are not started to engage in politics but to aid the community at large. There are other types of groups that can be formed to engage in politics, but 501(c)(3)s are not meant to engage in politics. Therefore 501(c)3's should not be allowed in politics. My second argument is that the 1st amendment applies to people, ie HUMAN BEINGS, not organizations. Organizations are entitled to the freedom of press, but all other freedoms apply to individuals.The supreme court may have ruled that corporations were people, but the fact remains they are not. Political parties, and PACs are groups of people organized for a common goal IN POLITICS. Charities are organized to help the community. Charities have no purpose in politics and therefore should not be allowed in politics. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
501(c)3's should be allowed in politics if they disclose their political money

I will be taking the side that 501(c)3's should be allowed in politics and am looking for an opponent to say that they shouldn't be involved. Please feel free to disprove any of my problems with the current system or advantages. 501(c)3's are nonprofit tax exempt groups that operate for charity. They currently can't be politically active. The founding fathers set up our country to be free and gave people the right to free speech in order to secure a free nation. However when the 1954 tax code revision was passed, 501(c) groups lost there right to be directly involved in politics. In 2010 The supreme court ruled in Citizens United vs. FEC that corporations have the right to freedom of speech in politics and granted it back to all 501(c)'s organizations except 501(c)3's. It is because this fundamental freedom is being breached that I stand firmly that 501(c)3's should be involved in politics. But because of all of the controversy of dark money and 501(c)4's, 501(c)3's should be required to disclose their political money if they choose to get involved. There are two main harmful problems with the way it is: First, we are discriminating between speakers. From the very beginning our country has stood for equal rights for all however we are only allowing 501(c)(3)"s to speak and print things that are unbiased. They are not allowed to speak in any way that would support someone, however other nonprofit tax-exempt groups including 501(c)(4) groups are why not 501(c)(3)"s? Second, the first amendment is being abridged. The foundational document of our nation is the Constitution which guarantees free speech to all (even groups according to the supreme court). But when we start denying the rights it give to groups and individuals we set our selfs on a slippery slop. Meaning that when freedom of speech is abridged for 501(c)3's how long will it be till individuals freedom to speak in politics is limited? What would we ultimately gain by letting 501(c)3's back into politics? Well we would get a a more balanced political system. When you exclude any group from being involved in politics you are shutting out their voices. We wind up with a fake sense of what our political system is like. When you allow these groups back in you get a truer representation of our political system. The second benefit we would get is less discrimination. By eliminating the barrier that keeps 501(c)3's out of politics we will be lessening the discrimination in our political system. And finally we would be restoring the first amendment back to it's original place and ensuring that all people and groups get the ability to have free speech in politics.
501(c)3's should be allowed in politics if they disclose their political money

My opponent did point out that some 501(c)3s cannot form a (c)4 organization, but this brings me back to the issue of purpose. If the group is organizing bingo games, they would have not purpose in politics. I would also like to point out that the trash truck driver can serve multiple purposes in society, but this is a flawed analogy, as the trash truck driver not a 501(c)3 organization, but an individual. This individual is a natural being, not a purely legal entity. This individual is allowed to vote, and is required to pay taxes and (at times) serve jury duty. A 501(c)3 is not an individual, and is not entitled to the same rights as a person. My opponent fails to account for this, despite his claims these groups are entitled to constitutional rights, does not account for this or the fact that constitutional rights belong to people. Therefore 501(c)3s are not entitled to constitutional rights.
501(c)3's should be allowed in politics if they disclose their political money

My opponent has clearly not understood what I have said, and so I would like to make 3 points in response. 1) Organizations such as Political Parties, Political Action Committees, and caucuses may be allowed to be involved in politics, as that is their purpose, but the purpose of a 501(c)3 is to serve the community, not to influence elections 501(c)3 groups are allowed to lobby for legislation if it is directly related to their cause. For example the American Cancer Society is a 501(c)3 organization has take part in lobbying to state legislature and congress on legislation concerning carcinogens, healthcare for cancer patients and other legislation having to do with cancer. If members of a 501(c)3 wish to influence elections, they may form a tax exempt 501(c)4 organization, Planned Parenthood is an excellent example of this, as they are a 501(c)3 organization that provides free reproductive health services, but they also have a 501(c)4 organization (Planned Parenthood Action Fund) that advocates for pro-choice candidates and causes. 2) Organizations may be made up of individual people, but the organization itself is not a person. The individuals have the right to express their political views, but the organization does not have the rights as a legal entity. Therefore my opponents argument that organizations are entitled to free speech is nullified. 3) Finally, my opponent said and I quote "501(c)3's can't even print things that are 'unbiased' about politics", while this may have been a typo, this statement is incorrect. 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from publishing documents that ARE NOT politically biased. This statement is also slightly misleading. To the average American, politically unbiased means not stating a political view point in anyway, however the IRS defines "politically unbiased" as "not endorsing a particular party, or candidate." 501(c)3 organizations may make statements that may seem political to the average person, but legally the statement does not violate IRS regulations. For example the Jewish National Fund, a 501(c)3 organization that plants trees in Israel, is a well know Zionist organization which has previously made statements supporting US aid to Israel, but they have not ever endorsed a politician or candidate for public office, because said candidate is a supporter of Israel or Zionism. http://www.irs.gov...
Apolo Ohno is the best men's short track racer

By short track racing, I presume he means Short track speed skating, the sport of Apolo Ohno. I am also going to presume Apolo Ohno is the following gentleman . http://en.wikipedia.org... I will now negate my opponents case. "Apolo Ohno has won seven medals in the Winter Olympics throughout his career" --> In his total career, Apolo has won 14 Gold Medals [1]. The skater Ayn Hyun-Soo has won 19 Gold medlas [2]. "He has shown that he has dedication and perseverance. " --> This is in no way relevant. Anyone can show dedication and perseverance to anything, but it doesn't make them the best at something because of it. To further negate the position Apolo Ohno is the best Short Track Speed Skate, Apolo Ohno holds no record record times for Short Track Speed Skate [3]. Ayn Hyun-Soo, however, holds 2 records, the 1500m and the 300m [3]. [1] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] = . http://en.wikipedia.org...:
Public Schools in the United States Should not Teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution

Resolved: Public schools in the United States should not teach intelligent design as an alternative alongside evolution.Definitions: Evolution“Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.”http://en.wikipedia.org... Intelligent Design“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” http://www.discovery.org... Rules and Such Things The burden of proof is shared. It is not enough for one side to merely present rebuttals to the other’s arguments. Both sides must develop a case of their own. The first round is for acceptance. Clarifications regarding the resolution, definitions, or any other preliminary matters should be brought up in the comments before accepting the debate. No abusive and/or semantically abusive arguments. Drops shall count as concessions. No new arguments in the final round. Thank you.