BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should free public Wi-Fi offered in cities

As for format, I will be offering my own case and then respond to my opponents' arguments (unless I can clearly cross-apply points). Contention 1: Cost A) Cost My opponent ignores the high cost for public wi-fi. If in-home wifi costs ~$30. We can see that this means to apply this to an entire city would cost quite a bit of money. B) No revenue There will be no revenue gained from this expenditure. My opponent cites that the city would make money based off of ads but this has a few problems: i. The state cannot endorse a private product ii. Ads only produce revenue for a website (e. g. AT&T doesn't make money when you surf the web) iii. Internet providers earn revenue from providing the service, hiring contractors to install wi-fi costs the city Contention 2: Wi-fi is a private service A) Damage to business My opponent claims that in their world there will be a public and private system working in unison. This means the public option will either be too bad to be worth the cost to the public, or if the speed and connection is good then the private industry will be slaughtered. B) Tax The government has no obligation to ensure convenience. This means our citizens would be being used as a means to an end. The government has to respect our right to property. Contention 3: Little effect Pro claims that the benefits will be numerous (constantly connected to the internet). The problem here is that we already are. Over half of our population already uses smartphones (3g/4g would probably be faster than a minimum strength city wi-fi service, see C2A). Now to respond to my opponent's claims. Claim: Schoolwork ideas Response: Few Children have this problem today. Children in elementary schools don't use laptops or tablets. When this is the case, it is almost always at some private schools, in this case the wi-fi is provided by the school. Most children don't have too much time on their hands in which they'd have their laptop on them, the only scenario that comes to mind is when a child is waiting for a bus or parent to pick them up. First, they're unlikely to have the laptop on them. Second, socializing is good for development. As for teens, most teens have smartphones, not to mention it can be healthy not to obsess over homework at every given second. Claim: More small business Response: Simply false. A) City wi-fi would be poor in speed (see C2A), a small business needs decent wi-fi B) The cost of wi-fi is actually pretty cheap when you're talking business terms. The cost per month of wi-fi would be only a few hours of minimum wage labor. Claim: Earning revenue Response: See my C1 So, in conclusion, city wi-fi would cost a lot of money (which is unjust to take) for little to no effect.
Silent Lunches are the worst thing to happen.

I request that people give conduct to the pro for being a good sport despite my shenanigans. 1) Teens will respond negatively to ANY kind of punishment used, not just silent lunchesWell we both actually agree that no matter what kind of a punishment is used, teenagers will always become rebellious and act out because of it.2) Silent Lunches give bad energy to students who use lunch to unwindSo apparently there was only 1 fight that happened, and it cant necessarily be 100% caused by silent lunches. (My guess is that someone said something about the other persons mother's weight and it escalated from there)As for the communication argument (Students use lunch to socialize) Kids only ever talk about gossip in high school and the Pro responded by saying that he doesnt have anyone elses phone numbers and thus cant communicate with them. While Im sure he is telling the truth, just because he cant text anyone doesnt mean that nobody else in school cant text each other either. Hell whenever Im in class kids just texted each other when class was about to start or end. .. . There are other ways to communicate and even though lunch is the primary means of communicating, it still isnt the only one. 3) Silent lunches cause more troubleI think the Pro's argument here is that students burn off energy during lunch that they then wouldnt burn off anywhere else, but there are activities in school that allow people to burn off energy besides lunch including PE classes or any kind of club. .. .4) Hard to calm down teenagersThe negative energy argument comes up here again but not all negative energy is caused just by not being able to socialize. Teenagers could act negative because they bombed a test and they know it, because they forgot to turn in homework, because they accidentally spilled something all over themselves, or because that fat b*tch Mandy kissed Jacob even though he is clearly going out with Emily and Jacob is acting like he did nothing wrong but what dumba** mother f*cker would cheat on his own girlfriend and act like nothing happened? ?Point is, teenagers get negative energy from a LOT of stuff, not just from school lunches. ==========================================================================I hope I have argued that silent lunches are not the worst form of punishment for students to be subjected to compared to making them shower at Penn Sate.
Silent Lunches are the worst thing to happen.

Give you credit, you are GREAT debater. Here is what I will rebuttal them: A.1 Most of my friends are not demons, they are kind and participated in NJHS. A.2 Cannot disagree B.1 The one fight was a rebellious act because of the silent lunches to prove that the students hated it B.2 Most of the people that I see during school are not in my classes and/or are not in the community and/or do not have their phone numbers for that I can communicate with them. I cannot communicate with them other than lunch. C.1 Not nessecarely. You can be optimistic and say "Hey, at least it wasn't as bad as this." C.2 In one story I read (forgot what it was called), if energy is used more, it will cause less bad energy to be put upon another person. D.1 Energy is usually conserved in the classroom based upon to be used on lunch. Lunch, as I mentioned in B.2, is one of the few times of the day where students can talk. D.2 Not nessecarely, if you are in a bad mood swing, nothing can calm you down D.3 Again, not nessecarely, if the parent and kid are in a good mood, it makes the parent not suffer (ex. winning a game, vacation, ect.)
Silent Lunches are the worst thing to happen.

I may have misstated the title. The argument is that Silent Lunches are the worst idea for punishments in schools. I have a high suggestion of this because I used to be in a series of silent lunches. Here is what I found out about it from my own experience: A. Silent lunches turn students on the rebellious side. Some of my friends are starting to turn rebellious because of the constant silent lunches. B. Silent lunches conserve bad energy. Lunch is one of the few times that students can freely talk to each other. Since we were on silent lunches, our energy turned extremely and was conned toward the teachers. It even once turned so bad to physical fighting. C. Silent Lunches cause more trouble. with the stuff that I mentioned in B, silent lunch behaviors also include rebelling for rights to talk , teachers that students don't have other than for clubs suffer through the bad energy explosion. D. Finally, it causes parents to work harder on calming the children. Most parents work on normal jobs and need to conserve energy. A bad energy crisis may cause parents to suffer more. Now it is your turn.
Silent Lunches are the worst thing to happen.

I will argue that Silent lunches arent the worst thing to happen Examples: World War 1 World War 2 The Holocaust Slavery Forced Female Circumcision Global Warming Pollution of the planet Hitler Stalin M. Night Shyalaman Pol Pot Osama Bin Laden 9/11 Pineapples Cancer Aids Herpes Starvation And the worst one of all of them......... WOMENS RIGHTS!!!!!!!
Abortion

1: "We are finished with this after my opponents last argument."I'll take that as a concession. 2: The development of a fetusAlthough a fetus does have some form of a brain as it developes, it is not self aware, and has very little thought until after birth. An animal's brain can 'prcess thoughts' to, but thats not enough to grant them all the right to life. It's not util the 32 week that a fetus could even really be said to think, becuase thats when repid nueral development occurs.[1] [2] Your second bit, describing abortion as 'killing a boy/girl' is simply emotional appeal, in reality, having a gender does nothing to add or subtract from the morality of abortion.3: The rabbit argument Sure, perhaps a person with the mind of a rabbit has emotions. Even perhaps apersonality, although I would think this would require the ability to interact with others. The problem is, if this applies to the person, then it applies to a rabbit to. Just becuase an animal is capable of feelings, which it surely is, does not mean it is unacceptable to kill it. And no, I do not consider a persons ability to contribute to society the determining factor in their worth. I alrealy said it is their ability to reason that I consider the determiningfactor. Emotions are important, but without the ability to apply reason tothem, they are worthless.4: The value of a baby What I meant was that you have the burden of proof, so that if I show that even just 1st trimester abortions are acceptable, then I win, although most of my arguments stand for abortion in general. Now, onto you demonstration as to why a baby has value, your argument is thouroughly flawed. The fact that a baby might be valuable to society doesn't show anything. Yes, everyone was a baby once. Just like everyone was once a sperm and an egg. would you suggest that every single wasted sperm is the equivilent of murder, bucause it is a failure to create a person? You can't give a fetus value just becuase it will eventually become a person. You also said that babies are neccessary to keep the human race going. but it's not as if every single person is going to get an abortion. That's unreasonable. It also suggests that we are morally obligated to have as much sex as possible to keep humanity alive, which doesn't seem right.About your thing at the end, I would like to simply point out that hitler to was once a fetus. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.leaderu.com...
Abortion

I will now try to rebuttal them to the best of my ability. 1: "It is considered to be a double homicide. " I am pretty sure we are finished with this after my opponents last argument. I ask that they no longer mention this. Thank you. 2: "You said when I was concieved, I would not be human? " Maybe so. You have to understand, that I was still me, while my body was developing, so was my mind. So technically, my brain was working, and though just barely, my brain started processing thoughts from the very beginning that it was able to. Also, even though I was a fetus, without an official identity, I would probably be recognized as a boy or a girl. This debate is about abortion in general, so this does include third trimester abortion. So killing me in this stage would be considered "Killing a boy". 3:"Your (my) rabbit point" What exactly is wrong with killing them? Even though their IQ is one caparable of an animal. It still has feelings, and a personality. He or she would still morally count as person. Are you suggesting that we should judge one's value as a person due to their ability to contribute to anything? You said that it is the mind, well. Like I said, the brain, even if the person is handicapped, still harbors a personality. So therefore, it would be morally wrong. 4: "My (his) rebuttal against his (my) closing point" Sorry for the misconception, this debate covers abortion in general. Furthermore, I can show that a baby has value in the same value an adult has. I would like to point out something. 1. Think of someone, anyone you look up to. 2. They were a baby once. 3. I rest my case. If the baby has no value, what is the point of keeping any baby? To keep the human race going of course. Without babies, or fetuses for that matter, the human population would cease to continue naturally. The above instructions, by the way, suggest without the baby, or the fetus, that person wouldn't exist, so any value they had would be non existent. 5: Do not use the 'Having the baby will ruin my life' argument" A right? Like I said, how would it ruin her life? I am not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I would like an explanation. I said that even if they could not support keeping a baby, there is nothing stopping them from putting the baby up for adoption. New point You don't have to argue with this but it is something I pondered. What if there was a fetus that would have grown up to cure cancer, or AIDS, but was aborted? This is not an argument, but I'm anxious to see what other people think about this. Since we are talking about value and all. This is my argument for round 3. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
Abortion

Yeah, school can make these things hard. either way, you still had two days I think, so. s'ight.1: "It is considered to be a double homicide." Alright, killing a fetus does count as homicide, but only in 27 states, a minority. And even those have separate punishments for the killing of a fetus as apposed to the killing of an adult. Either way, a fetus is definitely not legally equal in all respects to an adult. [1][2]Of course the news articles called it a double homicide. 2: "You said when I was concieved, I would not be human?"No, I agreed that at conception you are a human. I said you are not a person, as in an individual with an identity and sentience. And my point still stands that because a fetus is not a person, and because it is not a member of the human community, the standard moral framework for murder just doesn't stand.3: "Your (my) rabbit point"Well, I wouldn't say that your average mentally handicapped person is as stupid as a rabbit. And although I don't want to get into this debate, I suppose I was asking for it. If you you had a person who was mentally handicapped to the point of being comparable to a rabbit, what exactly makes it wrong to kill them? Why does their human DNA automatically give them value? I maintain that it is the mind of the victim that determines the morality, not the body.4: "My (his) rebuttal against his (my) closing point"First off, I stated that I was arguing for the most part in defense of 1st and 2nd trimester abortions. An early fetus is different from a baby in that it has an undeveloped nervous system and likely no real brain. It doesn't even the potential to use rational thought. A baby may not, but it has the immediate potential. But there is something differentiating a baby from a 3rd trimester fetus. A 3rd trimester fetus is not learning, a baby is. Perhaps a baby isn't quite making memories, but it's experiences still contribute to it's personality. A fetus does no such thing. Finally, I'll ask the same question I did before. What gives a baby inherent value? I'm not advocating infanticide or anything, but your argument is worthless if you can't show a newborn baby has value in the same way an adult does.5: Do not use the 'Having the baby will ruin my life' argument"Actually, I agree. But I still advocate the women's right to decide a baby will ruin her life. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.ncsl.org...
Abortion

Sorry for the late response, I'm only 17, so school kind of gets in the way, Anywho, I will now refute my opponents points. 1. "If you were to kill someone who was pregnant,you would be charged...with a double homicide." It is infact considered to be a double homicide. For example, the homicide of Laci Peterson, was considered a double homicide, due to the fact that her unborn baby died with her. http://www.nndb.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... I rest my case. 2 and 3: First of all, you said that When I was concepted, I would not be a human? You are wrong. Years ago when I was a baby, I was still me, just in a different form. You stated yourself, that life begins at conception. Secondly, I am somewhat disgusted by your rabbit point. That is like saying someone with a mental disability isn't a human because their mind is different? No, that is still wrong. My rebuttal against his closing point: A baby has no memories, so killing it is morally ok? Nor, when first born does it have any rational thought. A baby, in its very first days, has no sense of self. Lastly, do not use the "Having the baby will ruin my life, I'm not ready to be a mother" Sorry for over reacting, but that really pisses me off. Sorry for the profanity, but is abortion the only way not to be a parent? Is adoption illegal or something now? After birth, there is no problem with putting a baby up for adoption. So that takes out the rape excuse as well. I once again apologize for my above profanity, and I look forward to my opponents points.
Abortion

I will write my refutations numbered according to your arguments.1: "If you were to kill someone who was pregnant, you would be charged ... with a double homicide."As a matter of fact if a women is killed during pregnancy it is not considered a double homicide. Although many states have laws that create a harsher punishment for the murder of a pregnant women the fact that it is not considered a double homicide anywhere actually lends evidence to the fact that legally, a fetus is worth less then an adult. [1]2: "The unborn entity... is a full fledged member of the human community." (I will assume that the 1-4 following 2 are sub-points of point 2.) The fetus is definitely not a full fledged member of the human community at the moment of conception. Even a child is not a full fledged member of the human community, as he is under the care of his parents and not yet a productive part of society. And to suggest that a zygote, without a nervous system or semblance to a human whatsoever is a full fledged member of society is ridiculous. It is less alive then an animal.3: "Life begins at conception, therefore abortion is wrong." I agree, the life cycle of a human begins at conception. But I disagree with your definition of murder. From a moral, if not legal, standpoint, murder is not the killing of a biologically human creature. If you where to kill a human with the mind of a rabbit, would it be the same as killing a person? Of course not, it would be the same morally as killing a rabbit. Therefore, I would define murder as 'to completely destroy the mind of an individual.' This only can be brought about by physically killing a person. I would agree with you that abortion is killing, but so is eating meat. The question is, is it murder.Closing point: Note I am arguing specifically in defense of 1st and 2nd trimester abortion, becuase your opening arguments where against all forms of abortion. A fetus, without any memories, mental development, or even the capability for rational thought is not a person. Yes, it is a human, but that is not enough to make it inherently wrong to kill it. It has no identity or sense of self. To potentially ruin an unprepared mothers life in order to save something that is incapable of even desiring salvation is simply morally imbalanced. Consider an animal. It is much less intelligent then a human. It is incapable of rational thought. In a way, abortion is morally equivalent to killing an animal. But even an animal has an established 'presence' in the world, with memories and experience. So one might argue that abortion is even less immoral than killing an animal. Simply proving it is human is just not enough. [1] http://www.ncsl.org...
Abortion

Hi. Today I have decided that I would debate on the topic of Abortion. I personally believe that Abortion is wrong and immoral. Anyone who would like to accept this debate may. Arguments 1. I would like to begin by pointing this out. First off, abortion is legal, in someplaces even if the fetus is considered grown enough to be a baby. However, if you were to kill someone who was pregnant, you would be charged not only for the murder of the woman but also her baby. Or a double homicide. This suggests that legally, a unborn fetus qualifies as a human. Then why is abortion legal? 2. Abortion is morally wrong, I will prove this by explaining how a fetus, qualifies as a human 1. The unborn entity, from the moment of concept, is a full-fledged member of the human community 2. It is morally wrong to kill any member of that community 3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community 4. Therefore, every successful abortion is morally wrong 3. Scientists have concluded that infact life begins at conception. I am going to ASSUME that this is true for my next statement. If it were true that life begins at conception, then if you were to have an abortion it would legally be murder, Murder: The unlawful killing of someone Killing: To deprive of life : cause the death of So in this case, assuming the Pro agrees with my definitions, abortion is killing. Which causes me to believe that abortion is wrong. Why? Due to the fact that you are "Depriving of life". I look forward for someone to accept this and respond to my arguments.
Abortion

1: Murder of a pregnant womanWell I proved that in a majority of states that killing a pregnant women is not considered double homicide, according to the links. You proved that there are certain cases where it is considered a double homicide. But my point was that fetuses must be considered separate from adults, legally, because of the fact that only in certain states is it considered a double homicide, and those states have a separate set of laws dictating punishment from regular murder.2: The development of a fetusYou can't just state "animals are here for us to consume" as if it where a fact. And you said "put here", suggesting creationism. This isn't supposed to be a religious debate, but you can't just invoke god's will and say that I can't use some argument. You also said that because murder is the unlawful killing of a person, and a boy or girl is a person, then killing a fetus with gender is murder. But the problem is, the definition says unlawful killing. If abortion isn't illegal, then by definition it isn't murder. Not only that, but simply defining something as murder doesn't automatically make it immoral. Trying to prove something is immoral just by calling it murder is emotional appeal. 3: The rabbit argumentAgain, this argument relies on the assumption that animals where 'created' for the purpose of consumption. And I don't think that a baby is worthless just because it can't reason. I just don't think it has nearly the inherent value an adult has, because it has established no memories and has no real thoughts, therefore destroying it would be destroying much less then in the killing of an adult. It also seems you failed to refute my argument at all, all you have done is pose a question. 4: The value of a babyYou said that "everyone was once a baby, therefore babies have value." But my point was that everyone was once a sperm and egg, and that just because they have the potential to become a person doesn't give them the same value as a person.