BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Campaign Ethics

It is time for change. For too many years now money has been taken from lobbyists to enhance campaign funds. This is wrong because in the end many candidates end up giving them special interest tax breaks. Special interests need to be eliminated and the public needs to know what is goin on behind the closed doors of the White House. We have been in the dark for too many years. It is time for us to know exactly what our money is being spent on and why. Until then we may never know the true reason of why the United States is it debt. Wasteful spending is out of control. It is time to change our ways and make way for a better tomorrow.
Campaign Ethics

My opponent claims that less of the campaign money should have been spent on campaigns, and it should have instead been spent on helping the ailing economic predicament of our great nation. I negate because 100% of campaign money should be spent on campaigns. Campaigns are not unethical in spending all the money they receive on their campaigns, as my opponent would have you believe. However, my opponent has brought up a very valid point. Perhaps too much money is spent on campaigns - perhaps this money sould be put to better use instead. I ask all of you to recognize where the problem lies here. The problem lies in the regulations in campaign finance - not in the fact that campaigns don't donate their money to better causes. If it is wasteful for campaigns to cost more than X, we should limit the amount of funding a campaign may receive to X. Allowing a campaign to receive more money than this is wasteful, so this regulation would be in the interest of a better economy. Rather than spend money on a campaign, potential campaign donors would put their money in banks or spend it financing something that is truly productive. A campaign has one goal, and one goal alone - to advertise its candidate better than other campaigns. To expect such an organization to not utilize all their funds for their purpose - that is nor realistic, nor is it a valid expectation. It is not unethical for a campaign to spend its money on campaigning - that is simply what a campaign does by definition. Let us place blame where it belongs - not on the campaigns, but on the regulations surrounding campaign finance. Or perhaps, taking a different perspective, the blame lies on the entities who donate these great sums of money to campaigns. Either way you slice it, as far as the question of spending is concerned, campaigns do not act unethically - contrary to what my opponent would have you believe.
gold standard

Okay, first of the nation state of Great Britain has not been around for 2000 years, two, you spelled Britain wrong, three if you knew basic history, the British Isles were under Roman control 2000 years ago. So your argument from R2 is irrelevant, also there is no nation state that currently exists that have consistently used the GS for 5000 years. Meaning, your idea of the GS being stable through means of time is as well... irrelevant. Furthermore, you state that printing more money will lead to a backlash, this is true, but I never said anything about printing more money and there's is something called the Federal Reserve, they regulate our inflation to best suit our economy. A scenario to where the US would end up like post WW1 Germany is highly speculative due to the fact that post WW1 Germany did not have a Federal Reserve controlling inflation rates. And although imports do lead to jobs being exported, a GS will do nothing to stop this, it will only add an economic ceiling something you failed to reply on. Again, my opponent failed to reply to the fact that a GS would lead to economic ceiling due to lack of gold to uphold the current US GDP. Meaning we would see a decrease in business activity leading to lower consumerism, which spirals into an economic bust... we do not want another Great Depression.
gold standard

Printing more money will not lead to prosperity, history has shown repetitively that "printing your way to prosperity winds you up with a barrow full of cash, to buy a loaf of bread", keeping reserves of gold and silver allows to issue money if necessary, no one will trust the communists, anyone who does it is better for us that they not use our currency, I would also like to state that imports take money out of the economy, and hence moves jobs to other countries, lowering imports will lead to more native industry, higher GPD, it is not feasible to go with fiat 1000 years from now, whereas gold has successfully upheld economies for well over 5000 years.
gold standard

First off, you forgot to reply to my argument that a gold standard will bring an economic ceiling. Two, the United States enjoys the benefits of upholding the World Reserve Currency (Dollar), if China were to take that role, we would be in some trouble. Why we would be in trouble you may ask? Since we obtained Reserve Currency status we were able to control the global market via every country using the dollar. How does this deal with the gold standard? If we were to abruptly change our currency to be backed by gold, other large nations might follow, meaning the dollar will not be the reserve currency. Plus we do not posses the most gold on the planet nor do we mine the most, that title goes to China. So unless you are pro China, stepping back to the GS will hurt more than it would help the US economy. Now you claim that less imports due to a gold standard would help the economy, I do not know if you have any basic idea in economics, but imports can be a good sign that an economy is strong, at least strong enough to support importing. Going back to the economic ceiling negative, there isn't enough gold for the United States, at least with our current economic size, meaning a GS will lead to a decrease in GDP. Unless of course we invest heavily into asteroid mining, get us some space gold, but until then, the gold standard shall remain abandoned. Again, sorry for the lackluster response, I am very busy and I regret accepting this debate. If only I looked if it were going to be a 24 hour round debate.
gold standard

I do not see how china reimbursing an unknown person for not known reasons has any relevance in our financial position, I would also like to state that our economy has not progressed since we abandoned the gold and silver standard, in fact it has regressed, the middle class disappeared due to inflation as a unbiased inflation calculator is inaccessible, so the minimum wage decreased from 25$ adapted to inflation to 8$ adapted to inflation, if you mean the amount of $ being hoarded by corporations in bank accounts (trickle down doesn"t work when the money is hoarded in a bank), or the size of the GAP, then yes our economy has progressed, the deficiency of gold is irrelevant, a tiny island called Brittan with no natural resources remained in the gold standard for 2000 years without slip ups, a place like America with massive gold mines in California, and massive silver mines in Nevada has no excuse, furthermore foreigners refusing to use our currency will result in less imports, less money leaking out of our economy, more economic growth.
gold standard

Now the Gold Standard has been abandoned for many good reasons, and my opponent believes that we should re-institute it into our financial system. Pro claims that a Gold Standard (GS) would eliminate inflation, allow for economic growth in the field of business, and halt the Federal Reserves economic monopolization. He also claims that a GS currency would be seen with higher legitimacy than with the current dollar backed currency. My opponent is correct in the fact that a Gold Standard will halt inflation which could allow for a higher valued currency, this I agree on. However, this comes with a cost. If we were to switch to gold backing our currency, this will not mean other nations will follow. The United States currently enjoys the benefits for having the world's reserve currency, and if were to suddenly relinquish that position in global dominance, China would be quick to reimburse. Not only that but the market would have to adjust to a higher valued dollar. Lets say the dollar today became 10 times more valuable, this might seem good on paper, but this would lead to a chain of events causing people to start hoarding money which can lead to poor business productivity, that leads to lay offs, this can go into a spiral finally ending in an economic bust. My opponent explains on how a GS would lead to little inflation (true) and how this would lead to economic growth. This is false, when a nation uses the Gold Standard, it effectively caps its economic growth to the amount of gold it can mine. Meaning that there isn't enough money to go around for everyone, moreover, a economic ceiling would be reached. For the United States this is bad news, one of the only reasons we have such high economic prosperity is because we abandoned the Gold Standard and its economic ceiling, if we were to regress, one can see a decline in GDP... not good. The Federal Reserve was stated to be for another debate, so I will leave it untouched in my arguments. Now the Pros claim that a gold backed dollar will be seen in higher light is completely untrue due to human nature. In our current society we do not posses and peoples that refuse to use currency, for it is not backed by gold, no such person can survive in modern society without complying with our financial methods. Also there is another huge flaw with the GS, you can easily override it by claiming gold is worth nothing to your society, and you'll much rather use some other form of currency backing. If this were to occur in our globalized economy it could be a catalyst for economic disaster. Sorry for short and lazy response, did not know it was a 24 hour round so I rushed myself.
Are vampires always evil? ("Con" if you do not think that they are always evil)

Before we start bashing them for what they have supposedly done to humans, think about what humans have done to them. Throughout the years, according to movies, legends, books and other stories, humans have used Holy water to burn vampires, as well as tricking them and/or somehow keeping them in the sun, locking them in coffins and allowing them to suffocate, staking them through the heart and otherwise torturing, maiming and killing them. Think about it this way. You are a vampire. You are of the type that have vampiric traits in your appearance, such as pale skin and red eyes. You cannot go into any public place without experiencing persecution and having everyone else there afraid of you. You want to make friends, or even just ask someone something, but you cannot get near anyone without them backing away, insulting you and trying to ward you off, even though you have no intention of harming them. They just think that, because you are a vampire, you want to kill them. All you want to do is just ask them something or befriend them, and/or mind your own business, but you cannot do this because are so feared and persecuted. Everyone thinks that you just want to drain their blood, but you don't.
Are vampires always evil? ("Con" if you do not think that they are always evil)

No, not necessarily. I am actually thinking of writing a story in which the main character is stranded in another world with a vampire. He tames her and befriends her, and he gives her some of his blood to prevent her from dying, but she does not kill him or even seriously injure him. Also, I did not say that vampires could give you the flu. I merely compared the weak feeling that may occur after one of their feedings to the flu. Also, it would probably only make them feel a bit sick for couple of days before they were okay again. Angel, one of the vampires from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", saved a child from being killed by another, demonic vampire. Would you really say that a creature who did such an act was truly evil?
Are vampires always evil? ("Con" if you do not think that they are always evil)

There are now loads of alternatives in which vampires can use to get the blood that they need to drink. Vampires can now drink fake blood, blood banks, animal blood* and even human blood that they will have collected or had collected from people, without killing them. Some vampires have even been known to heal any cut that they make after they have fed from the person. The person would probably then only get ill to the same extent as if they had the flu after that. They may even ask the person first before they feed and/or have a willing donor, if they are able to cope with their blood supply coming from just one person and not being very varied.
Are vampires always evil? ("Con" if you do not think that they are always evil)

Now, unless a vampire has thirst for blood, it's not a vampire, and trust me, the vampire would thirst, making it tempted to suck the blood of anyone near it. Now if something kills something, i don't consider it as good. But also a vampire is considered as an unholy creature, and it is hurt by the sun, which many believe represents kindness and happiness. If a cross hurts it, then it is clearly something more satanic. Making it highly evil as a creature. As long as it's a vampire, there is no good.
Are vampires always evil? ("Con" if you do not think that they are always evil)

Vampires are not always evil. In fact, they are portrayed as good in many different movies and stories. There are the "Twilight" movies, "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant", "Dark Shadows", "The Little Vampire", "The Vampire Diaries", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Underworld", to name just a few.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Sexualiy is a sense.

"Except that it doesn't. If you jab out my eyes, blow out my ears and cause widespread nerve damage, I have no way to find out if a person standing in front of me is a man or a women. But does that change my sexuality? No.Really, this is sight. You can't have 'two' senses in 'one'. I will throw down a bet that if my opponent can show evidence of blind people being attracted/turned on." I was not saying sexuality is reliant on other senses, my argument is that it is separate, and independant of other senses. As evidence for blind people being sexually turned on, I present this video:http://www.youtube.com..."Or, it manifests itself as sight"I'm not sure how this is relevant to my arguments, but sexuality does not manifest itself as sight. If I were to blind you, you could still be sexually active and have sexual feelings."Are you saying that if I blind myself right now, I'll become asexual? It's a nice analogy, but it's not proof. For this reason, this blows the argument out of the water."Not at all, I believe you completely misunderstood my argument. What I'm saying is similar to if I argued that hearing is a sense, and say deaf in that situation is comparable to blindness to the seeing sense. Again, I am not suggesting that sexuality is dependent on any sense.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Sexualiy is a sense.

To remind people. If I rebut Seventh' s arguments, I win.It fits the definitionSexuality is, or at least many agree, determined biologically [1]. Assuming this is true, the most likely case is that a group of cells respond to various sexual acts in different ways. While the cells could possibly not be sensory, there are several reasons to believe they are, which will be addressed in the next point. Except that it doesn't. If you jab out my eyes, blow out my ears and cause widespread nerve damage, I have no way to find out if a person standing in front of me is a man or a women. But does that change my sexuality? No.Really, this is sight. You can't have 'two' senses in 'one'. I will throw down a bet that if my opponent can show evidence of blind people being attracted/turned on. The question to ask: What is the PHYSICAL stimuli? Sexuality works similarly to other sensesYes.Or, it manifests itself as sight(Taste and touch don't make much sense at all and hearing or smell don't make sense in context. ...Making the safe assumption that sexuality is not a choice, we could compare bisexuality to "complete sight", attraction to one sex to "color blindness",Interesting. and asexuality to "blindness". Are you saying that if I blind myself right now, I'll become asexual? It's a nice analogy, but it's not proof. For this reason, this blows the argument out of the water. Further comparison can be made when looking at the senses of hunger and thirst. When people desire food and water, they feel hungry and thirsty, respectively. If they go too long without these sources, the mild annoyance turns into a physical pain. Something similar happens when someone desires sexual activity, and feel "horny". The similarities between sensory cells of widely known senses and sexual attraction show that sexuality is most likely a sense.I rebut this in my first tangent.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Sexualiy is a sense.

Before I start my arguments, I want it to be clear that we are talking about the actual senses, not the five Aristotle came up with. Now, onto the arguments.It fits the definitionSexuality is, or at least many agree, determined biologically [1]. Assuming this is true, the most likely case is that a group of cells respond to various sexual acts in different ways. While the cells could possibly not be sensory, there are several reasons to believe they are, which will be addressed in the next point.Sexuality works similarly to other sensesSenses and sensory cells both have many qualities shared with sexuality. For example, the sense that affects colors people can see is weaker or nonexistent within 5% of men, compared to .5% of women [2]. Sight overall, however, is almost equally common among men and women. According to a recent study [3], about 60% of women are attracted to women, while most of this group is also attracted to men. While it is unknown how many men are attracted to other men, estimates range from 10-20% [4]. Sexual attraction towards both genders, or bisexuality, is 3-6 times more likely in men than women. Making the safe assumption that sexuality is not a choice, we could compare bisexuality to "complete sight", attraction to one sex to "color blindness", and asexuality to "blindness". Further comparison can be made when looking at the senses of hunger and thirst. When people desire food and water, they feel hungry and thirsty, respectively. If they go too long without these sources, the mild annoyance turns into a physical pain. Something similar happens when someone desires sexual activity, and feel "horny". The similarities between sensory cells of widely known senses and sexual attraction show that sexuality is most likely a sense.1. http://www.slate.com...2. http://menshealth.about.com...3. http://www.yourtango.com...4. http://www.gallup.com...
Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Sexualiy is a sense.

As instigator, I am making the claim that sexuality is a sense, similar to sight, pressure, and hunger. I have full BoP. Definitions:Sense- any system that consists of a group of sensory cell types that respond to a specific physical phenomenon and that corresponds to a particular group of regions within the brain where the signals are received and interpreted. http://www.todayifoundout.com...Sexuality- the sexual habits and desires of a person. . http://www.learnersdictionary.com...First
Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Sexualiy is a sense.

Correct, sexuality is not caused or affected by the currently known senses. While you can be turned on by other senses, it is not required to desire sexual activity. The other senses help sometimes, but are not completely necessary. Therefore sexuality operates independently of the other senses, and is either a completely different sense, or something different altogether.And my question? No, it is not. If I were saying blindness, deafness, numbness, or other absences of senses caused asexuality, it would support the idea that sexuality is not a sense. Ok. But, since they don't affect it, we can determine that sexuality is completely separate from all currently known senses. So what you are saying is that there is a trigger. What is the trigger?I was using the comparison to show similarity with other senses. Hearing is to deafness as sight is to blindness. Sight is to blindness as sexuality is to asexuality. Neither of these sentences imply any cause or effect, but simply a comparison to show similarities. kfc The physical stimuli is a completely separate process in the brain, for a completely separate sense.Vague? I would disagree with the word 'stimuli' because what your saying isn't physical. It's a Neural process, which dont just happen. I also say that the 'process' is sexuality/thought/what-have-you.I urge a vote for NIGHTCATS, as Pro have hove proven his end of the bargin. He has not shown a phisical link needed to prve his case.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Sexualiy is a sense.

If I literally have no senses, there would be no way that your BOP can be confirmed. In other words, can I be turned on when I am blind and cannot feel? No, but you are still heterosexual/homosexual.Correct, sexuality is not caused or affected by the currently known senses. While you can be turned on by other senses, it is not required to desire sexual activity. The other senses help sometimes, but are not completely necessary. Therefore sexuality operates independently of the other senses, and is either a completely different sense, or something different altogether.Then your argument is a red herring.No, it is not. If I were saying blindness, deafness, numbness, or other absenses of senses caused asexuality, it would support the idea that sexuality is not a sense. But, since they don't affect it, we can determine that sexuality is completely separate from all currently known senses. I was using the comparison to show similarity with other senses. Hearing is to deafness as sight is to blindness. Sight is to blindness as sexuality is to asexuality. Neither of these sentences imply any cause or effect, but simply a comparison to show similarities. "looks" is not the answer either. Your own video shown that you are the same sexuality without sight. The same thing could be said with the other 4.Yes, looks is not the answer. If it was, sexuality would not be a sense, it would be a direct byproduct of the pre-existing sense, sight. It is also not directly related to any of the other currently known eight, which supports the idea it is a completely separate function from the other senses. The physical stimuli is a completely separate process in the brain, for a completely separate sense.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Sexualiy is a sense.

I was not saying sexuality is reliant on other senses, my argument is that it is separate, and independent of other senses. As evidence for blind people being sexually turned on, I present this video:Then what is the PHYSICAL trigger? If I literally have no senses, there would be no way that your BOP can be confirmed. In other words, can I be turned on when I am blind and cannot feel? No, but you are still heterosexual/homosexual.I'm not sure how this is relevant to my arguments, but sexuality does not manifest itself as sight. If I were to blind you, you could still be sexually active and have sexual feelings. Ok.Not at all, I believe you completely misunderstood my argument. What I'm saying is similar to if I argued that hearing is a sense, and say deaf in that situation is comparable to blindness to the seeing sense. Again, I am not suggesting that sexuality is dependent on any sense. Then your argument is a red herring. You dropped my question. I would like for to you answer it. Here it is:The question to ask: What is the PHYSICAL stimuli? "looks" is not the answer either. Your own video shown that you are the same sexuality without sight. The same thing could be said with the other 4. With that I urge voters to vote for NIGHTCATS, as Seventh has not defended the BoP.