BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The drink-driving (DUI) laws aren't broke so there's no need to fix them

The figures show that around one in ten casualties of traffic accidents involve the illegal consumption of alcohol (1) so, statistically, you are nine times more likely to be injured in a crash that is caused by a sober driver rather than a driver who is drunk. So while drunk drivers can blame their crashes on the fact that they were intoxicated, we should ask what excuse the others have for causing accidents. Well, recent research shows that eight in ten accidents are actually caused by motorists who eat while they are driving. (2) Therefore it is these people that the Government needs to crackdown on - but who are they and how can this be achieved? Well, they are obviously people who are either too lazy to get out of their cars to have a meal or are too gluttonous to wait until they get home to eat. So what sort of people are lazy and gluttonous? Well, we know that lack of exercise and eating too much causes people to put on weight so it is the obese and other fat people that must take responsibility for the majority of the crashes on our roads. Thus, obesity it is far from "irrelevant" to the argument, as my opponent claims. The next question is how does the Government address the problem of the fat eating and driving. Well, for obvious reasons drive-thru pubs are prohibited so it would seem sensible to make drive-thru restaurants illegal as well. Of course, that in itself would not solve the problem as obese drivers could bring food with them, just as alcoholic drivers can bring booze with them. That's why the punishment for eating and driving should be brought into line with drinking and driving: that is – for a first offence; a mandatory 1 year driving ban plus up to a ï¿½5,000 fine and six months imprisonment. Moving on, I do realise that other countries have even stricter laws than Britain in terms of permissible blood / alcohol levels. However, the penalties for drink-driving in these countries are usually much less severe. Furthermore, I accept my opponent's point that driving is a privilege rather than a right but, in reality, people who live in or visit rural areas where public transport is limited have no option but to drive and a tightening of the drink-driving laws will unfairly discriminate against them. In conclusion, drink-driving legislation is a balance of the welfare of the public on one hand and civil liberties on the other and I believe that these draconian new restrictions will do little to improve safety yet will have a huge negative impact on many people's lives. Thank you. (1) . http://www.statistics.gov.uk... (2) . http://www.nydailynews.com...
The drink-driving (DUI) laws aren't broke so there's no need to fix them

It's my first on this site so please forgive any protocol mistakes. When talking about whether DUI laws are broken or not it is first necessary to find out what the DUI laws are. British laws currently seem to allow for a 0.08% (80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood) alcohol level. As can be seen in a chart on the BBC website (1) drunk driving deaths have steadily decreased into a, more or less, plateau in the 90's and continuing into the 2000's. So it is obvious that anti-drunk driving directives have worked in the past. The question here is whether or not we can improve on existing laws. I don't think my opponent can disagree that a 0.05% blood alcohol level can cause unwanted effects. Research has shown that blood alcohol levels of as low as 0.02% cause unwanted effects such as a decrease in response time (2). Further studies have shown that these effects climb quite quickly when blood alcohol levels reach and exceed 0.05%. (3) Therefore if a blood alcohol level of 0.05% does indeed cause negative effects that lead to an impaired ability to drive it is prudent on society to restrict operation of motor vehicles to those who are not impaired. The operation of a vehicle is a privilege and not a right. When you take the wheel of a car your fellow drivers expect you to be in full control of your senses just as you probably want them to be in control of theirs. The fact that a hypothetical family may be inconvenienced is irrelevant. A mild inconvenience such as a prohibition that you cannot drink and drive cannot be compared to violent injury or death of the family members in question. Not to mention other families sharing the road with yours. Mentioning obesity is also irrelevant. Drinking and Driving is a criminal act. It is recognized as one of the leading criminal causes of death. Gorging yourself is not a criminal act and it hurts no one but yourself. Drinking and Driving hurts yourself but more importantly it hurts others as well. As soon as you introduce the possibility of hurting others you must be willing to decrease your recreational activities. It is unarguable that a 0.05% blood alcohol level causes impairment of the senses. A person who is not in 100% control of his mind should not be in operation of a machine that has the capability to harm innocents around him. Therefore society should restrict vehicle operation to those who are not impaired. Countries such as Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain (3) have imposed such reasonable limits and families there still enjoy their restaurant meals together without difficulty. 1) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... 2) . http://facts.randomhistory.com... 3) . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (PDF article on this page)
The drink-driving (DUI) laws aren't broke so there's no need to fix them

The British government is proposing to lower the drink-driving (DUI) limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg in order to prevent up to 65 deaths a year. (1) Now nobody would say that lives of 65 people are insignificant, but let's put this into context – every year a total of 460 people a year die as the result of drink-driving incidents while 30,000 people a year die as the result of being obese. (2) So, are the government planning any punitive measures to save the lives of grossly overweight people? For example, are they planning to force the obese to pay for two seats on planes, trains and buses? No, not that I've heard anyway. Or are they planning to oblige fast food restaurants to make their doorways narrower in order to stop the obese from getting in? I don't think so. Well perhaps they are planning to ban the sale of oversized clothes so that the obese have to go about wearing old sacks with holes cut in for the arms? Apparently not. However, under the proposed crackdown on drink-driving, decent law-abiding motorists who enjoy taking their families out to countryside pubs for Sunday lunch will be punished with a mandatory one-year driving ban plus up to 6 months imprisonment and a ï¿½5,000 ($7,600) fine if they wash down their meal down with a couple of glasses of wine. (3) Clearly, people who get totally off their faces on booze and then drive home should be punished but the new proposals will have a widespread and disproportionately harsh effect on responsible motorists who drink in moderation. In conclusion, I believe that the current drink-driving laws are sufficiently punitive and should not, therefore, be tampered with. Thank you. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... (3) http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk...
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constituti

Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens. Sorry, the full resolution would not fit on the resolution box.This is the way the debate will run.Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-ConstructiveRound 3-Pro will Cross-Ex Neg. and Neg. will answerRound 4-Neg. will Cross-Ex. Pro and Pro will answerRound 5- Final statement
Bashar al-Assad is the only true path for the Syrian people.

My first piece will be on stability for Syria and the middle east. The Baathist Party of Syria promotes a secular ideology free of any religious interference in life and in society. This means that Syria is one of the few Middle Eastern countries that do not force its women to wear burkas and undergo harsh treatment by their male counterparts for things like daring put on an ounce of makeup on. Syria, religiously, is very divided with Shiites and Sunnis are known to be very violent towards each other in other countries. But in Syria they were both living with alongside each other before the civil war started. There are also two other groups within Syria, the Alawites and the Christians whom are also a prominent group in Syria. With Assad and the Baathist party controlling Syria, they are able to promote secularism and allow each group to practice their religion freely within their privacy but not they are not allowed to force their own beliefs on the rest of society. With this secularism, the women unlike in other middle eastern countries, in Syria they have the same equal rights as their male counterparts. If Bashar al-Assad is able to hold on to the presidency and eliminate the rebels, Syria will continue to be stable and the countries around him will remain less violent with the threat of Sharia and Islamic jihadist to be very minimal.
Animal Rights

Animals are not on the same level as humans. We've been debating this issue for years and talk about the horrible abuse of animals and animal rights, but what is the real issue here. In your argument it seems as though you mainly defend the use of animals as a whole. To satisfy your cause we must all be vegetarians, even as far as vegans. Even if we were to find a better and healthier way to tend animals, we will still have to slaughter them and use the meat of animals for our own gain. Yes, we as humans may take the use of animals too far, but do we really want to give up on the control we have had for many years. That brings me to my first contention: A halting decrease of animal killings would lead to a population increase that would be way too much to handle. We as humans must understand that we are keeping the animals under control by using them for our benefit. We also help many species populate by using them as many species would go extinct. This would happen because of selective breeding that we use on animals. With breeding put in the animals own hands a stable balance that we had for years would cease to exist and everything would be out of control. My second contention: Animals do not have moral standards and giving them rights doesn't necessarily change anything. We hear about dog bites or mountain lion attacks all the time. Animals do not care about how they are treated. They are just trying to live there life, and when death comes, death comes. It is not necessary to give animal rights because animals can't really tell whats right from wrong. They can't tell their actions. We need to understand that we life on this planet as a whole amongst the animals and all creatures live for there personal gain. The lion kills to feed its young, we kill to feed ourselves. Both humans and animals live equally on this planet and what we do is totally moral for our own gain. This is why I believe that animal rights is a subject that isn't necessary. We kill and animals kill for our own gain and in the end it is a matter of life or death. *Note: Remember, this is a subject that i don't really care for. I am sort of for animal rights but in the end it really doesn't matter to me what happens. Sources: http://www.wnd.com... http://animalrights.about.com... http://www.pulpless.com...
Indian Immigration was a new form of slavery after the emancipation of the Africans in the Caribbean

Slavery played a crucial role in the expansion plans of all major countries. Slavery existed before our recorded history and is still in use in some countries today. The difference in indentured servants and slaves was that the indentured service would someday come to an end. The practice began in England and was used by the English court system to establish fortunes based on supplying labour to North America as well as other countries. The sentence of indenture for 10 to 20 years became a common punishment for even the most minor of crimes. This was because like many things today there was a potentially large turnover in profits. We should look into the many abuses of our fellow man that are going on worldwide and even in our home countries today. Look for a big turnover in cash and you will always find systemic abuse. India once controlled by the English like all things they controlled, became subject to all the evils practised by the English. England at least in my book was the epitome of corruption, sin, excess and cruelty as they reshaped the world for profit and became the greatest drug dealing empire of all time, making the Colombians look like boy scouts. They also murdered millions of people in India before they raped her to provide profits for the Queen as they did in all the countries they conquered that they themselves did not populate.
Indian Immigration was a new form of slavery after the emancipation of the Africans in the Caribbean

Indentureship is the period of being a servant bounded by a contract for another for a specific period. In this case the Indian indentures. Slavery however is defined as the state of being bounded in servitude as the property of an enslaved holder, therefore an enslaved person is a person who is legally owned, has no freedom of action or right to property and is forced to work for another against his will. These were the Africans. Both parties were recruited for the same reason, to work on the plantations as they were suitable labour forces. Slavery came about as a solution for high demands of labour mostly to work on sugar plantations in the British West Indies after the sugar revolution during the mid 1600's. Indentureship was also a solution for labour in the British West Indies but it came about as a result of the abolition of enslavement
Indian Immigration was a new form of slavery after the emancipation of the Africans in the Caribbean

My opponent has forfeited once again. This is the conclusion Many historians such as Hugh Tinker, Frank Birbalsingh, Brinsley Samaroo and Dr Kumar Mahabir believe that Indian Indentureship was in fact a new form of slavery. Hugh Tinker says, "Indentureship incorporated many of the repressive features of the slave system and induced in Indians, many of the responses of the African brothers in bondage." Frank Birbalsingh says, "Conditions under which Indentured Indian immigrants existed suggested that they were slaves in every other respect other than name. Indentured labourers on arrival in the colonies were housed in the same living space vacated by the freed slaves and performed their exact tasks," Historian Brinsley Samaroo stated "The British attitude to Indians was they were seen only as bodies" as labouring bodies. Hard hands and corny palms were the qualifications" just like it was with the Africans before them." . Dr Kumar Mahabir clearly states "indentureship was a new system of slavery and slavery without chains." In retrospect, although there many similarities between the enslavement of the Africans and Indian Indentureship I do not agree with these historians. I do not agree that Indian Immigration was a new form of slavery. I believe that they are not the same for the following reasons. According to Bridget Brereton, Emerita Professor of History at the UWI it was "Two harsh systems but not the same." The Indians had a choice in whether they wanted to come or not, they were paid for their labour and most importantly, they were free. The Africans did not have these choices or privileges which is why I believe that Indian Indentureship was not a new form of slavery Sources This is all the sources that was used: http://www.stabroeknews.com... http://www.newsday.co.tt... http://www.trinidadexpress.com... www.thefeedictionary.com http://books.google.tt... http://www.trinidadexpress.com... Claypole, William and John Robottom. Caribbean Story Book 1. Jamaica: Carlong Publishers Ltd. 2007 Dhookhan, Isaac. A Post-Emancipation History of the West Indies. Jamaica: Carlong Publishers Ltd. 2001 Dhookhan, Isaac. A Pre-Emancipation History of the West Indies. Jamaica: Carlong Publishers Ltd. 2008 Beckles, McD. Hilary and Verene A. Shepherd. Caribbean Slavery in the Atlantic World. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle, 2000
Indian Immigration was a new form of slavery after the emancipation of the Africans in the Caribbean

Since my opponent forfeited the last round, i have no rebuttals... Indian immigration was not a new form of enslavement because they WERE PAID FOR THEIR LABOUR AND THEY WERE FREE. Payment The Africans were exploited for their labour. They worked tediously on the plantations facing the merciless elements with no payments from their master. The Indians however were paid for their labour on the plantations in the Caribbean. This was clearly stated in their contracts which they signed. Although their payment was "pitiful" as my opponent states, it was still more than they got in India. This shows a vast difference as the Indians were rewarded for their labour whereas the Africans worked for no income. Free When the Africans were taken to work on the plantations, they were enslaved for life with the added bonus of enslaving their children. However, the Indians only had to work for a specified time and were paid for their labour. When that time was up they were free from plantation labour and could have returned home. Their children were not required to work on the plantations. The Indians were therefore free, unlike the enslaved Africans. As can be seen from the above, due to the Indians' payment and freedom, Indian Immigration was in fact not a new form of enslavement in the Caribbean.
Is it possible to lose on 16384? (http://annimon.github.io/16384/)

My argument is you can lose on 16384, not that you cannot get 16384 on 2048. I am sorry if I stated the argument wrong, but Con's side of the argument is supposed to be that you cannot get game over on 16384. I have included links to the games below to show you they are different. Please se my previous argument for why I think you can lose.16384http://annimon.github.io...2048http://gabrielecirulli.github.io...
A Resolution Against choosing the gender of their child

Seeing how the opponent has not been able to come up with a case of their own to provide the reasons as to why there should be a vote on the affirmation of the debate, I will just clearify my points and refute the little information the opponent has provided (If any). (1) The opponent talks about parents trying this naturally first, but many are not aware of how it should be done. That is why I suggest to also see a doctor to choose the gender of your child rather than going all high-tech. (2) Of coarse the choice in gender of the infant varies with the parents, but they don't always get what they want. That's why being able to choose the gender of you infant is a good thing. .. because that way the parents can have the "prefered" child (3) Talking about the more dominant gender.
A Resolution Against choosing the gender of their child

(1) The cultural reasons for many people that prefer trying to choose the gender would be as followed. The parents may try it naturally at first. After have the same gender baby more than once or twice they might try choosing their babies gender. Many people do help choose their babies gender with out even knowing. The change of eating habit what you eat, etc. My opponent has a point about the books on having natural birth. There are books and the internet just telling you the things you can do the get the child you want. So if doctors did not think it was safe they might tell you it is dangerous. They might have written a book on the matter. (2) The most desired gender in the family would be to be a boy for fathers, and for mothers most of the time it is girls. The parents usually have the names and what gender they want. Many parents want both a boy and a girl so they can do both play catch and go shopping. The other reasons would be so they can see both get married. For some fathers they want a girl so they can understand what a girls needs are. You have a slit better chance of having a girl. (3) The dominate gender in the US right now is women. I believe in China it would be more useful because if you have more boys then there are less women to have babies and they are over populating right now. I also agree with my opponent about the bring down the abortion. They will not need as many needs as they need now. Many people prefer a boy so they will keep their last name going, and also they are easier to raise and much cheaper than a girl would be.
A Resolution Against choosing the gender of their child

I will present my case and then refute what the opponent has to say about this debate in the third round.... I would also like to thank the opponent for debating with me...okay on to my case..... (1) Cultural reasons. Many believe that a life is not something that should be messed with, with all the new technology that we have now. That is why those that need/want a certain prefernce in their child can do it naturally. There are natural ways to get a greater chance of having a boy or girl. I won't go into detail with the ways as to how...but you can always talk to your doctor about those methods. If you're to shy or something to talk to your doctor about thise for whatever reason...you can also read books that contain this information. Laundrum B Shettles, MD PhD has written a book "How to choose the sex of your baby." This book explains the natural methods to choose the gender of your baby. (2) The desired gender in the family. Many dream about having a baby boy as their first born. As a dad, they might prefer that baby boy to play catch with, to show how to drive, to say "that's my boy" etc. Others may prefer a baby girl as the first born. A mom might prefer that baby girl to buy her those cute little outfits, see how she is playing with her dolls, and see her grow up to be a mature, strong women. Being able to have the opportuntiy to choose the gender of the child will give those that opportunity...that dream. (3) The need of the dominant gender. In China for example a bor is prefered. If we have the opportunity to choose the gender they will have a decrease in abortions, etc for those that have a girl. (This can tie in with their one child policy) Having a baby boy will allow those, like in China the opportunity to have less abortions. Also the girls in China will not be neglected or rejected Because of these three main reasons I urge a vote on the affirmation.
A Resolution Against choosing the gender of their child

Many people have been trying to choose there babies gender for years. There are a lot more women in the world then there are men. There are healthy and safe ways of getting the gender you want many more for a girl. People want a girl for many reasons. For fathers it would to be wanting to walk there daughter down the isle at her wedding. For mothers it would be so that she could pass her specialty and knowledge of the world. They also get to pass on their knowledge of boys/men. Women where counted in much of the cultural back grounds. Eve was part of Adam. Behind every man is a women.
A Resolution Against choosing the gender of their child

Imagine being about 22 years old. You're happily married with the love of your life (aww) Both of you have always dreamed of having a baby girl, but because of the 50/50 chances of not being able to know if it will actually be a girl or a boy...you decide to spend a good amount of money on the high tech of being able to choose to gender of your child. For the happy couple, this means they will have the chance to maybe have the baby girl they have always dreamt of. I have three main contentions as to why I stand in the strong negation of this resolution and why we should have the opportunity to choose the gender of our children. (1) For those cultural reasons (2) The desired gender in a family and (3) The need of the dominant gender