BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Loving is an art

As a brief road-map, I will first be refuting the attacks made on my contentions, and I will proceed to attack my opponent's arguments =Arguments= Pro- Contention 1: Justification of love- The fact that there are so many stages proves that it takes skill an practice. immature love will stay immature love forever if it is allowed to, only with skill (Which comes over time) and Practice can immature love become mature love Motherly Love- When I say motherly love is a given is assumed in the context that the love is there in the first place. Falling in love- This point is conceded Maintaining love through a difficulty- - For those who do not view their differences as a problem, there is no problem to reconcile - Of course they need each other because they love each other, which is why reconciliation of problem is so important. Ultimately my opponent never really makes a valid argument here at all. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- - My opponent is attacking my quote from Erich Fromm out of context; and at that they don't even attack the full quote. the symbiotic attachment isn't to another person, but to ego. Thus it isn't love. - Honestly my the warrant behind my opponent's argument that it isn't a hefty deed proves that loving is an art; as she says "If one practices and develops enough skill to love people, then it could be possible for them to love any person they encounter. " Con- Contention 1: - My opponent's warrant is comprised of broken logic. "they don't need them, but love them anyway so it's not an art"? Simply by making such a statement, you do not prove that love is not an art; all you prove is that motherly love is a more beautiful art. - My opponent claims that if love is simply given it is not an art, this is untrue as it is a correlation causation fallacy. The mother does not begin the process of loving when the child is born, but all throughout her life she is conditioned to love. She is groomed and give the necessary knowledge. Contention 2: - First in the case of the divorce, we must ask the question of whether there was any love in the first place. Many couples get married not out of love; but because they have a child on the way, because they feel they need to, for financial security, because one of them pressured the other into it. - Next we must realize that if a spouse simply "falls out of love" for no reason, it is was more likely than not immature love in the first place; thus not inclusive to this round.
Loving is an art

Rebuttal Contention 1: The Justification of Love: If there are different stages that must happen for mature love to take place as you say, then how does this require skill and practice? The roadmap is already laid out, all there is to do is follow it. It is a prescribed sequence of events. Motherly love is not necessarily a form of love that is simply given. If so, then why would there be mothers who harm their children? If it is a given that you love them, then your definition of mature love would also state that you would need them. Falling in Love- You've already stated that the art of it comes in later, so there isn't much for me to refute here. Maintaining Love Through a Difficulty- Reconciling problems in a relationship is not required for love to be an art; if it were, then what about people who do not view their differences as problems? They need each other because they love each other, not because "He doesn't cheat on me" or "She always cleans her room". In this case, it is immature love. The mature love is present, the maintenance of the relationship is the art. Contention 2: "if all prongs are met for mature love to take place, but the love is only directed towards one person; it is not truly love, but a symbiotic attachment" A symbiotic attachment would require the person you love to love you back, which is not necessarily the case, meaning love of only one person is not necessarily of a symbiotic nature. It is still the same love, only on a more limited scale. While it may be "a fairly hefty deed", that alone does not make it impossible, only improbable and difficult. If one practices and develops enough skill to love people, then it could be possible for them to love any person they encounter. Arguments Contention 1: Mothers- Mothers love their children, but they do not need them. They can put them up for adoption, if they choose. Yet they don't because they love them without first needing them, making their love mature love. If a mothers love is simply given (as you said in your segment about falling in love), then they do not have to work at it, making it not an art. Contention 2: In the case of a person who loved their husband/wife, but still ended the relationship in a divorce, the love can meet the definition of mature love without meeting the definition of an art. Let's say there is a man who loved his wife very much, and he did not love her because he needed her, he needed her because he loved her. He loved many other people, so his love could not be considered a symbiotic attachment. His wife decided she no longer loved him back and she wanted a divorce. He tried to maintain the relationship because he loved her, but it didn't work. Although his mature love for her is still present, it is no longer a skill he practices, and so no longer an art.
Resolved: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

"The legislative branch agreed and made it a law." In fact, when the Supreme Court said segregation of schools was unconstitutional black children and white children were permitted to go to school together. Thus changing a law and becoming judicial activists by my opponent's definition. Proving there can be good judicial activists, disproving my opponent's argument. In addition there is no reason for me to respond to the other points he has made seeing as I have already proved him wrong. I will not drop this point since it is my only argument.
Resolved: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

"Prior to the ruling African American students and White students could not go to school together. After the Supreme Court's ruling African American students and White students were permitted to go to school together. If this isn't changing a law it do not know what is." My Response: The legislative branch agreed and made it a law. The supreme court interpreted, then handed it over to Congress. Therefore, it is not judicial activism. Drop this point. ================================================================================= Extend all my contentions for the remaining round. It has gone unrefuted by my opponent. Thus, he agrees and stands. My contentions are my voting issues. I urge an affirmation.
Resolved: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

I will attack my opponents case then move to crystallize my own. "Here is an example of good judicial activism, Brown vs. Board of Education. By your definition a judicial activist is anyone who creates or amends legislation. So your saying when the Supreme Court said segregation was illegal, they were misguided. When they said African American school children could attend school with Whites they created a law that had not been previously enforced, therefore becoming judicial activists. I, however, say in this case judicial activism is a satisfactory idea because segregation goes against the constitutional idea that all men are created equal. Therefore judicial activism can be good barring it follows the constitution thus I see no problem with the president selecting a judicial activist for the United States Supreme Court." My Response: You can drop this whole argument. Why? Simple. Brown vs. Board of Education wasn't an act of judicial activism. The decision in this court case didn't: 1) create a new law, 2) or didn't amend a preexisting. It merely interpreted the clause: all men are created equal. Interpretation of a law doesn't fit the definition of judicial activism. Therefore, you can drop my opponent's argument. =============================================================================== Moving to my own case: Contention I: Judicial Activism violates the constitution. According to the constitution the duties of the three branches are as follows: A) Legislative: create or amend laws. B) Executive: Enforce the laws. C) Judicial: Interpret preexisting laws. Essentially, judicial activism gives the legislative power to the judicial branch. This violates the Separation of Powers article in the constitution. The judicial branch is over stepping its powers to include that of which is dictated by Congress. Thus, judicial activism violates the constitution. Contention II: Judicial Activism is a form of legal subjectivity. One major problem with judicial activism is that it is subjective, based on the current judge presiding. It does not stand for the will of the majority, and power to the people, and is based on the subjective view of a specific judge. Therefore, with multiple judges presiding, laws would contradict majority, and laws would be created without the consent of the governed. Judicial Activism is subjective based on one man, the judge. Contention III: Judicial Activism undermines the idea of a Democratic-Republic. Judicial Activism strips away the purpose of a government for, by and of the people. Essentially, judicial activism takes away the power given to them and to the elected officials of Congress. It makes our country into a dictatorship run by the court system. Congress was given the power to make, and amend laws, based on what the people want. Judicial Activism undermines this a lot. I stand ready for the next round. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Resolved: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

"Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court." "These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation" Here is an example of good judicial activism, Brown vs. Board of Education. By your definition a judicial activist is anyone who creates or amends legislation. So your saying when the Supreme Court said segregation was illegal, they were misguided. When they said African American school children could attend school with Whites they created a law that had not been previously enforced, therefore becoming judicial activists. I, however, say in this case judicial activism is a satisfactory idea because segregation goes against the constitutional idea that all men are created equal. Therefore judicial activism can be good barring it follows the constitution thus I see no problem with the president selecting a judicial activist for the United States Supreme Court.
Resolved: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court.

I affirm: Judicial Activists should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. [Definitions] Judicial activism: the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs. [Contentions] Contention I: Judicial Activism violates the constitution. Contention II: Judicial Activism is a form of legal subjectivity. Contention III: Judicial Activism undermines the idea of a Democratic-Republic. *In the following rounds these contentions will be explained full* Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Religion~ The Christian God is not real

I repect your point of veiw but i would like to point out that no matter what we do we will not fully be able to determine if god is real or not. as you can tell from my point on this arguement i am not a big christian person and do not plan on spending my day burried in the bible looking up verses. what i am saying is that the reasons that you are talking about are completly unrealistic. the bigh bang theory makes much more sence but there are also flaws. i cannot prove god dosnt exist i am just pointing out the flaws in the reasoning that the bible gives for god being real.
Religion~ The Christian God is not real

You have still not proved that God does not exist. In order for your resolution to be complete, you must do this. You have simply put out random questions about God, and failed to provide the verse references I have asked for. However, I will do as best I can to save this debate. You claim that WE cannot create something from nothing, you are correct. Of course, WE are not the Christian God. You are probably getting the idea of nothing before God from the book of Genesis. God made sure to tell people that there was nothing before Him. Now, you say that this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. I will now explain how God can be the first. The answers to your questions can be found in the first verse of the book of Genesis (first verse in the bible). It states: "In the BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth. " Here you can see that God was the beginning, God made time therefore there was no beginning before him. Two make it simpler for you to understand, here is an example. I raise my left hand at 12:30 PM, then my right hand at 12:31 PM. Since time does exist, you can see that before I raised my right hand I raised my left. There is no before and after if there is no time, therefore there was nothing before God. There are many other speculations about this, but this is the simplest. Either way, this part of your argument fails to prove that God does not exist. You ask why God does not simply give us signs to prove his existence. The reason is that he wants us to follow him because we want to, not because it is the 'logical' choice. If God showed up and said, "I AM HERE! FOLLOW ME OR YOU SHALL GO TO HELL" Then everyone would follow him because they have to. Jesus even told the demons to be quiet when they were talking about him being the Son of God. He wants us humans to have faith in him. This part of your argument also fails to disprove God's existence. Your last argument of it seeming like a bedtime story has nothing to do with your point. I could say the same thing about evolution! Once there was an organism who wanted to be a human. Then one day after waiting a long time, BAM, human! This does not prove that evolution is false. The reason the bible may seem like a bedtime story is that some parents like to tell their kids stories with morals in it. The Bible is full of them. And yet again this part of your argument fails to disprove God. I look forward to your response. Thank you. SOURCES: (1). . http://bible.cc...
Religion~ The Christian God is not real

To ask for a difinitive answer would be inpossible to give. if we could have positive answers we would know for sure that God exists or does not exist. But we cannot create anything from nothing nor thing without a brain mind or body. How can God exist then if we cannot create something from nothing out of nothing when there is only nothing and nobody to create? how did God come to be and if he is god why would he not have given signs of shown himself to us so that we would beleive and be beleivers and live by his rules and if there is god then why dosnt he fix some of the bead things if he is the merciful caring almighty god the bible makes him out to be why dosnt he help us out? The ten Comandments are: 1-you may not love anyone or anything more than you love god 2-you may not worship anything other than god 3-you may not swear 4-you should have a sabbath 5-honor your parents 6-you may not hate 7-keep thoughs and actions pure 8-You cannot steal 9-cannot lie 10-cannot want Do theese rules not look like osmething your parents would say to keep you out of trouble? it seems more like a bedtime story. " Remember Jhonny...... Or You will go to hell where all the bad boys and girls are. Sleep tight"
Religion~ The Christian God is not real

My opponent claims that the Christian God is not real because he was raised in church and was not convinced. This statement is very far from proving that God does not exist. For example, I could be raised from birth being told that the sky is blue and still do not believe it. This does not change the very fact that the sky is blue. I will not touch on the subjects of the "stories" you have listed until you give me verse reference. Please provide the references in round two, then I will be able to answer you better. I look forward to your response. Let me remind the audience that my opponent has not yet proven that God does not exist. Thank you.
Religion~ The Christian God is not real

Its easy to see that the Christian God it not real. while having gone to church my entire childhood I still remain unconvinced. They talk about everything to do with Jesus and his beginning and his end and his resurrection but where did their so called God come from? The Bible says he was always there in existence made by nothing meaning he has always been. they also say he has no human form not a body nor mind yet he thinks talks and creates. taking the morals that the Bible tries to put out there- Respect your parents, don't lie, don't murder, don't steal ectt.. it seems like a bedtime story a parent would have made up years upon years ago. a story that people were made to believe was true so they would act accordingly out of fear of eternal damning to the lake of fire. Can anyone convince me otherwise?
The Brown Berets are racist

Ok. So if your claim is not that the brown berets are all racist then it must be that in it's core it is racist. (I'm very temted to pull the SJW card and say "People of ethnicity can't be racist, NANANANA. I can't hear you." But I'm not that much of an idiot.) And that's a bit tricky because then we should have information on the stance of the organisation and even more information about the genuine thoughts of the organisations leaders. That my dear friend unfortunately is impossible, so we can't truly state anything about this organisation. What I would like you to do is clarify your question because if it's one of these two, you can't prove your statement which ultimately makes it false, because all truths require sufficient evidence which as of yet, you haven't been able to provide.
The Brown Berets are racist

First of all I'm not stating that ALL Brown Berets members are racist. I'm rather stating that the organization itself is racist. Yes most members of the Brown Berets are in it to fight against discrimination against Mexicans. But that is the equivalent of a Muslim joining ISIS just because he wants to fight against Islamophobia. But that will cause more fear of Islam than understanding of it because of what they do. The same goes for the Brown Berets. Just because you are fighting for you culture does not make you not racist. These people of "La Raza" and the Brown Berets are the reason of Trump winning, because of intolerance to people's belief and hostile attitude towards Trump supporters and white people in general. This ends my argument and I will know allow you to state your argument.
The Brown Berets are racist

"So I was reading down the challenges and I find this, oh YES a "quality" debate." No but really I'm accepting your challenge and I'm going to explain to you, why your opinion matters very little on this subject. So your claim is that ALL brown berets are racists. I mean where do I even start... Well I might start with saying that your claim most likely is wrong, because it's a stereotype and most, if not all stereotypes have some percentage of error. It's like saying "All feminists are fighting for equal rights.", or that, "All Nazi soldiers were supporters of the Nazi movement.", and oh boy how wrong you would be saying that. So in conclusion your statement is a stereotype, and even if there is some truth to it, you would be entirely wrong to claim that for all brown berets.
The Brown Berets are racist

Hey guys, I'm starting my first debate on here. The topic is are the Brown Berets racist? I am debating that they are due to the fact of their anti-white speeches and their affiliation with La Raza meaning "The Race" in Spanish. The motto for La Raza is "Por la Raza todo, Fuera de la Raza Nada". In translation this means "For the Race everything, outside the race nothing". Those outside the Race? Does that mean non-Mexicans (Asians, Native Americans, Blacks, whites and Pacific Islanders) will be excluded from society set up by La Raza? From the sounds of their motto it appears to be inevitable. So why would someone affiliate themselves with a motto like that? Because they are racist. In fact the Brown Berets are nothing more than the militant wing of La Raza which only aims on extreme Mexican nationalism and racism. There have been videos where Brown Berets shout to people that "You are to White to be here, go back to Germany". According to the Webster dictionary that is textbook racism without a doubt. This concludes my opening argument. I will respond to my opponents counter argument when they respond if anyone is willing to take the debate.
"An eye for an eye" is a fairer system than incarceration(Please, DO NOT vote w/o reading debate)

I agree that I should also prove my point, and shall do my best to do that. Now to my argument: 1. "My first argument is that the title of this debate is a fallacious statement in itself. "An eye for an eye" is a logical fallacy positing that "two wrongs make a right". This is essentially an ad hominem tu quoque argument that has no basis whatsoever. The Pro has given no arguments showing how "an eye for an eye" is just in any way." Everything has a set value(an eye has the same value as an eye from another person) that is why it is fairer than incarceration. 2. "Suppose a very wealthy person decides that it would be in his interest to take money from a poor man. One day, the wealthy man sees a homeless man on the street with a cup of change. He takes the cup of change and runs away from the homeless man. In an "eye for an eye" system, the wealthy man would have 67 cents taken from him, while the poor man loses money for food" I am assuming that 67 cents is all the poor person had, therefore it is 100%. That is what you should take from the rich person 100% of his money, that is fair. However if isn't 100% of his money, say 50%, that is what you should take from the rich man. 3. I never said that it was better or had a logically sound basis, only that it is fairer. please translate "ad hominem tu quoque", as I have never seen or heard that before.
"An eye for an eye" is a fairer system than incarceration(Please, DO NOT vote w/o reading debate)

Secondly, my opponent must prove me wrong, not the other way around. Thirdly, I would like to put down the rules I will be following, and ask that my opponent also follow them: 1. exclude politics. 2. treat this as a theoretical debate on the founding principle, excluding any past laws or punishment put forth by any government or religion. I will allow my opponent to go first since he/she has the burden of proof.