BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jackson's kids should be auctioned off to help pay his debts

Many thanks to thethickgreyline for taking on this debate and for correctly discerning that it is meant to be 'ridiculous'. But then, isn't that appropriate given Michael Jackson's life? Nevertheless, the welfare of his children is a serious concern and, in the light of this, I would like to address his points as follows: 1. I accept that buying humans is not morally permissible, but that is what Jackson in effect did when he paid enormous sums of money to unscrupulous doctors, sperm and egg donors and surrogate mothers to breed his kids for him. Consider this, if he was just an ordinary single man (suspected paedophile or not) the authorities would never let him obtain children in this manner - and neither would they allow him to adopt. He wanted free access to children (for whatever reason) and since he couldn't have them naturally his solution to the problem was to throw vast sums of money at it. Personally, I don't know how he got away with it. He shouldn't have done, but like so many other of his repugnant antics, he did. 2. It is true that in the United States it is illegal to trade in human beings but the Jackson kids have spent much of their young lives abroad. There is no reason why the executors of Jackson's estate couldn't persuade them to jump onto a private plane which would then fly them to somewhere like Somalia, where there is no functioning government and no law enforcement agencies and where people trafficking is rife. This type of location would make an ideal venue for the auction. https://www.cia.gov... 3. If my opponent's source is correct and Jackson's assets are greater than his liabilities then the auction will not be necessary and those kids will then have to either live with a woman that rented out her womb and who disowned them saying "I knowingly and voluntarily waive my right to contest Michael's paternity" and "They are not my children, I have no rights over them" or Jackson's elderly parents who have a history of violence against children. Not much of a choice is it? They may as well take their chances and go with the highest bidder in Mogadishu. http://news.sky.com... 4. I refer the voters to the response I made in the paragraph above last. 5. I agree that I wouldn't like to be auctioned as a child, unless of course my 'dad' liked to dangle me me out of upper storey windows and who invited other boys round for sleepovers, not for me to play with but him, and who wouldn't tell me who my mum was and who made me wear a mask when I went out and who was high on drugs half the time and who was always in and out of court accused of child molestation and who got us kicked out of our house because he couldn't pay the bills, in which case I think I'd put myself up for sale. In conclusion, the Jackson kids have suffered very disturbing and abusive childhoods, they deserve better now that the man that had them bred to satisfy his own nefarious desires has passed away. Thank you.
Jackson's kids should be auctioned off to help pay his debts

Thank you for bringing such a ridiculous debate to what is usually a serious site. I will use my first round to make a serious argument against the idiotic notion of selling children to satisfy debts and my second as my opponent wishes it. As a big joke. 1. Jackson's kids should not be auctioned off as they are human beings, not his property and cannot be a financial asset. 2. The legitimacy of whether he fathered his kids or not is not an issue as even if he didn't nobody can own, sell or buy a human being. 3. Jackson's assets are greater than his debts by an estimated $500,000,000 so selling his kids would be sick and pointless. 4. You cannot own a person. Slavery and the trade of human beings is illegal, morally wrong and I find the fact that you can even consider this, completely ridiculous. 5. Imaging if you were a child and I sold you to the highest bidder. Would you like that? No. Now that I have won this debate I will use my next round as a stupid joke round like my opponent wants.
Jackson's kids should be auctioned off to help pay his debts

Michael Jackson's recent demise was premature and unexpected. Indeed, he was due to embark upon a series of concerts at London's O2 Arena next week. At this this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers must be with those people who have suffered a tragic loss of money as a result of his untimely death. As you may know, Jackson passed away over $400 million in debt, so his assets will be auctioned off to the highest bidder in order to help discharge this vast financial liability. http://www.nytimes.com... Unbelievably though, nobody has yet suggested that the three pet children Jackson ordered to be specially bred for him should be included in the sale. These are 12-year-old Michael Joseph "Prince" Jackson Jr., 11-year-old Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and 7-year-old Prince Michael II Jackson. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Now, before you think that these children should be exempt from the sale, please consider the facts: nobody knows who his pet kid's biological parents are but Michael Jackson certainly wasn't their father and, furthermore, he never legally adopted them. Therefore, they are not his legitimate children, they are merely play things that he bought and paid for. http://www.tmz.com... http://www.tmz.com... It is morally imperative that the people that lent Jackson cash in good faith should get their money back and his pet children should be treated in the same manner as his other assets in order to minimise his creditors' losses. The inclusion of Jackson's pet children in the auction could attract wealthy bidders from around the world. Interested parties might include homosexuals who are ineligible to adopt, Arab sheiks looking for child camel jockeys and drug-addicted, middle-aged pop stars with severe mental health problems and kiddies' fairground rides in their back gardens who are in the market for young children to share their beds with. Now, while his pets might not fetch enough to cover all his debts, every penny helps and I therefore affirm that Jackson's kids should be put up for auction along with all his other possessions. Thank you.
This is a hate crime.

"In many countries (Britain, Canada, and so on), abusive speech is a crime, as it should be"In Canada though (the place the letter incident happened) hate speech laws focus on hate 'propaganda' and only applies to speech that is horrendously discriminatory against an entire group of people. .. .. It does not outlaw or criminalize people being doo-doo heads who sent not nice letters. .. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "Note that i speak of actual abuse, and not just plain rudeness. "Plain rudeness is EXACTLY what we're talking about here with this letter! The letter was rude but not actually abusive, therefore its not a hate crime since for the thousanth time, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
This is a hate crime.

I do apologize, but I disagree. Morally speaking, no one has the right to abuse. Perhaps I shall challenge you to a follow up debate on how morality can differ from legality, but that is beside the point. In many countries (Britain, Canada, and so on), abusive speech is a crime, as it should be. Note that i speak of actual abuse, and not just plain rudeness. Example: N*****rs should die: abuse. Eff you: rude, but not abuse.
BIRT that students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school

Sorry, but your argument and debate is intrinsically flawed, which is apparent in your attempt to clarify my confusion. These are your words: "You are arguing that the above resolution must stay, and state that students and parents SHOULD have the final say for the food sold to students in school." You're telling me to argue that students and parents SHOULD have the final say for the food sold to students in school. "...please argue FOR the SCHOOL..." Now, you're telling me to argue for the school. Now the opposing sides of this debate are the students/parents and the school. I can't argue for both sides at the same time.
BIRT that students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school

I'm still confused. You stated: "You are arguing that the above resolution must stay, and state that students and parents SHOULD have the final say for the food sold to students in school." Based on that statement, I'm going to assume you want me to argue for students and parents, but as a conclusion, you tell me to "argue FOR the SCHOOL". I do not understand what you want me to argue.
BIRT that students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school

Hello Alan. The purpose of this debate will be that the resolution "students and parents should have the final say for the food sold to students in school". You are arguing that the above resolution must stay, and state that students and parents SHOULD have the final say for the food sold to students in school. I on the other hand, is considering the school to decide the food students should be allowed to purchase. There is really no link for this debate, this is simply your opinion on the food in which the school sells. By your own experiences in school, please argue FOR the SCHOOL, as it is what your position currently is. I hope this clarifies your confusions!
BIRT that students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school

Hello! I understand what you're trying to argue, but what am I suppose to argue? Do students and parents really have the final say for the kind of food and beverages that are sold on campus? If so, please post a link for me to read about it, because it seems like a one sided argument at the moment. I don't think anyone but the schools themselves will argue that junk food should be sold on campus and usually their motives are for financial reasons. I hope you can clarify some of my confusions! Thanks!
BIRT that students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school

My name is Carter Huang, and today I'd like to state why Be it Resolved That students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school must fall. Students have been clearly eating more and more junk food over the past few years, and that is obviously an effect caused by influence from the parent council. The parent council as we all know has given the schools their opinions for further advancement to the school's features, activities, utilities, and actions. The students will have an influence to their mother's and father's, therefore posing a greater chance of junk food being bought. Of course most parent's are responsible, and will limit the what the student will eat in their everyday diet, but what I am focusing on is the irresponsible parents who pose an even greater threat the the student's health and well-being. As stated by www.stanford.edu/~dement/rhythmove.html, a disease called Rhythmic movement disorder has caused much frustration among many people, including adults and more importantly, children. This disease results in uncontrolled movement of large muscles such as the head and neck, which is a danger in many cases. While driving, teens the age of 14 that are driving (As stated by Alberta law) may suffer from this disease. This is a form of "OCD" and poses a threat to both the driver and other drivers. The disease is triggered by stress, which directly relates to the diet of the client which suffers this disease. The diet is mainly fat, oils, and sodium, which are all prominent in carbonated drinks, fast food burgers, fries, and other foods you thought were good. The problem with this lies directly in the clients decision, which is influenced by friends, family, and themselves. The schools that offer fast food, junk food, and other unhealthy foods, pose a health risk to all these students which are more than likely to become obese. Obesity is a very common disease in America, and the rate of which people are becoming obese is exponentially rising. This is due also to the person's diet, and lies in mainly kids from this generation as food is becoming more affordable and is becoming more and more tastier with the invention of artificial products. The school districts have a better understanding of these health risks as they teach it in their curriculum, and therefore allow students to have a safer future with the food they consume. The parents may not be as wise, and this is why I believe that Be it Resolved That students and parents should have the final say for food sold to students in school must fall!
Gun Control Laws Do More Harm Than Good

Ok so first of all op side has never posted the second round. I don't know whether this is on purpose or because she forgot about this debate. Nevertheless, I will continue on. Ok so once again, op side has never rebutted any of my points. Not the one about self-defense, violating the Second Amendment, how criminals won't follow gun control law and they would invade houses without the fear of getting attacked. Now I am going to say my counter-plan. If you're saying what could we do to prevent all of these mass shootings then I have an answer. First off, I read an article WSJ investigating the psychiatric motives behind these shooters. The main reason why these people go on these shootings is because of they want to get known and famous in the paper. They want their name to go down in history, and to be infamous. Whenever a potential killer reads about a shooter, it inspires them to go out and do it themselves, and join the 'cause'. The WSJ article talked about how to prevent these mass shootings. The article talked about how studies showed that all of these people have a sense of 'self-entitlement' and anger over not being recognized. The article said that to prevent these killings, newspapers and reporters should not even mention the name. That way, the motive for going and killing people would be stopped, and at the same time we would be reducing murder and the not violating the Second Amendment. Thank you for this debate. Source: http://online.wsj.com...
Gun Control Laws Do More Harm Than Good

Thanks for responding. Now let me say something first. When my opponent talked about me saying Obama, I just wanted to comment on how Obama is intent on getting stricter gun control laws. First of all, let me refresh you on the topic. I said that gun control laws do more harm than good. I know that people don't feel safe about violence in schools, and neither do I. But once again, I believe that gun control laws are not the answer to this. To answer this, I have a counter-plan. More on that in the next round. My opponent failed to rebut any of my points, like how it goes against the Constitution. Nor did he/she rebut the point that Connecticut had some the strictest gun control laws, yet that didn't work. Secondly, I am going to talk about 'self-defense'. This is relevant, and I am going to bring it up. My opponent talked about an outdated study talked about how 2.5 million guns were used for self defense(1). However, I found a recent study saying the same thing. 2.5 million people use their guns only for self defense. And of the 2.5 million using the gun to defend themselves, the majority of them use it only to scare them off(1). Less than 8% of the time does the citizen harm or kill the attacker. (1). Guns are a way to protect ourselves from murder and/or rape. Now on to my own point. As I said before, guns are used for self defense. Once again, a recent study stated that 2.5 million gun users have their gun only for self defense. The main problem with gun control - criminals don't listen. Law abiding citizens who follow the law will get rid of their means for self defense if it is against the law. But the point is, the whole reason why criminals are criminals is because they break the LAW. Banning guns won't help anything. Think about it - during the Prohibition, alcohol was banned. During this period though, the rate of consumption of alcohol increased ten fold. People started making alcohol in their own backyards, and tons of black markets popped up. Think about what would happen should guns be banned. My friend's uncle is a gun maker, and he told me that people can't get enough of guns because they are afraid guns are going to banned. Do you think that a criminal would be more likely to break into a house that the owner might be able to defend or go in with the knowledge that they are unarmed and have no weapons? A Harvard Study has actually found out that in countries such as Russia that completely banned guns, the murder rate is 20.54 when other countries that have no gun control laws like Finland the murder rate is 1.98 (2). Just imagine what would happen to the U.S's murder rate if we banned guns. Sources: http://www.law.harvard.edu... https://www.gunowners.org...
Gun Control Laws Do More Harm Than Good

Us citizens, cannot always do as we are asked. (Why are you focusing on Obama here? Obama is not the care taker of the gun). If you own a gun,of course, you should always put it in a safe place, it is your responsibility , but whoever said everyone listens. A survey ,(first link below), showed 31.1% say they don't feel safe with the fact that there is gun violence in schools. Now,don't even start with saying,"self defense". A recent study,(second link),proved that a 1995 study had fairly different results than the recent study. The 1995 study said over 2.5 million guns were used as self defense as the recent study said guns were used 0.00852% of the time for self defense. Sources: http://www.schoolimprovement.com... http://www.cnn.com...
Gun Control Laws Do More Harm Than Good

I will be on the pro side of this argument. If anyone accepts, here are three rules. First, the opposition and I are not allowed to rebut or bring in any mention of the comments, and secondly both of us will be kind and courteous. Lastly, each round a maximum of two points will be made. I prefer nice and long and thoughtful points to many but short points. Any amount of rebuttals can be made though. Today I will begin by talking about something that many people will probably be thinking of. The Newtown shooting was a horrible and tragic event that I am sure all mourn and grieve for. However, I find it disappointing and shameful how some politicians are using this event to push their own agendas. First of all, gun control would not have worked here for two reasons. First off, the gun was taken from his mother, and his mother had a perfect legal right to own that gun. Secondly, Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control laws today(1), yet they obviously didn't work. It would be one thing if gun control actually worked. But it doesn't. First off, the gun control laws go against the Constitution. When President Obama was sworn into office, he said, "I do solemnly swear that I faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. " (2). Unfortunately, it has been apparent that he has violated this Oath. The Second Amendment specifically states that every man has a right to bear arms. (3). Obama apparently doesn't care for this particular statement, and he has tried to get rid of our hard won freedom and rights. 94% of people in a poll on Baltimore said that they agreed to a group of gun right advocates suing about gun control laws that they say violate the Constitution (4). Sources: 1. . http://www.redstate.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.archives.gov... 4. . http://www.baltimoresun.com...
Euthanasia

Euthanasia, originating from the Greek word "euthanatos", literally means "an easy death" or "dignified death". From my Atheist point of view, I believe Euthanasia is a very complex topic as there are many different debates and views surrounding the delicate matter. These views mainly encompass Church teachings, Biblical teachings as well as other religious views. Due to the magnitude in abundance of variety of forms of Euthanasia, my opinion for each will be wavered as such. Firstly, from the Bible's Decalogue states clearly "Do not murder". This absolutist approach ensures to many people, mainly Christians, that because Euthanasia is essentially murdering, it is wrong. The Roman Catholic Church also teaches around the notion of the "Sanctity of Life". This is the teaching that life is sacred and a gift from God, and thus, should not be interfered with. Tampering with life i.e. Euthanasia could hold the idea of "playing God" which many do not appeal to. The Bible states "He knitted me in my mother's womb" and "Imago Deo (We are made in the image of God)" to help support the idea of the Sanctity of Life. Being a non-believer, the notion of the Sanctity of Life does not appeal to me and so I completely disregard it. Instead I base my views on what is known as the Quality of Life. For instance, in the situation of Voluntary Euthanasia, whereby it is the full decision of the ill person to die, I believe that it is completely acceptable. The Human Rights Declaration of Independence 1776 states that every human is entitled to "freedom, liberty and justice". Through this, I believe that humans should have the authority of choosing their own death due to their freedom and consequentially I dismiss the idea of "Playing God". For the case of Non Voluntary, I believe that this decision should be entirely based upon the notion of the "Quality of Life". For this case, many people are mainly in a vegetative state i.e. a coma, or full paralysis from the neck down and as a consequence are unable to communicate with the outside world. Seeing as the patient cannot communicate I believe it is up to the relatives to decide. To conclude I would agree that Non Voluntary Euthanasia should be allowed as the Quality of the patients Life is clearly very low. However I believe that Active Euthanasia should be allowed because I see humans should be able to decide when they want to die due to their free will, and this decision should be respected. Jesus' teaching of "love thy neighbour" has backed up this notion. The famous Christian Philosopher, Joseph Fletcher, devised the ethical theory, "Situation Ethics" which held the idea that any action was morally right provided the action promoted the most loving thing to the individual. To me, allowing people to be able to choose when they die, in the case of Euthanasia, is the most loving thing as ultimately, they have the full right over their life.