BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Selective Services Act ought to be repealed.

Pros Case(A) The Selective Service System is FairThe selective service system is fair. Every single male US citizen between the ages of 18-25 must register. Unless you are unable to fight, or a conciencious objector, you have equal likelyhood as the next guy to be drafted. Wealth and affluency doesn't make you immune to the draft. Coming from a political family does not make you immune to the draft. Conscription applies equally to all.(B) The Selective Service System is Necessary for Defense There are many cases where the draft is simply absolutely necessary. I would agree that it has been used when it was not necessary, though, which was wrong. Specifically, the vietnam war. That was a war that the US didn't have to fight. When it comes to wars the the US must fight in, though, we have to be able to conscript our citizens in a fair way for the social good. If we believe that within the next year or so, some country will be launching total war against us, for the good of the people we must be able to muster an army. You might argue that people would willingly volunteer. This is true. Many, though, would not. Many would convince themselves, "I'd be willing to fight if I had to, but why do it when someone else is willing to?" The draft solves this problem.Like jury duty, military service in times of dire need is a civic duty.(C) The Selective Service System has been ruled as constitutional multiple times The draft has been tried in court multiple times. Every time, the supreme court rules it constitutional, for the very reasons I have stated above.
The Selective Services Act ought to be repealed.

RulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.DefinitionsThe Selective Services Act- AKA the draft, this is a system for conscription into the United States miliatry.For this debate, what is "Ought" is the option that yields the most net benefits.
the goverment sends prisoners with lighspeed spacecraft in habitable planet as pioneer mission .

Adequately equipped prisoners are more likely to survive. Prison is a rough place and many prisoners learn survival skills (http://madmax.lmtonline.com...) as well as are physically fit (http://boldanddetermined.com...). I believe the program should be elective for life sentencing and the bargain would be freedom of course. Prisoners are the most likely to be able to survive as they have not only one opportunity but two; first is their freedom and second is to be the groundbreaking new inhabitants. This is what happened with modern earth continent Australia which used to be a prison colony (http://australia.gov.au...) where they adapted, survived, and thrived. There is no reason to believe this will not repeat itself.
the goverment sends prisoners with lighspeed spacecraft in habitable planet as pioneer mission .

assuming that there is an habitable planet in space, i strongly believe that prisoner can't succed the mission as a pioneer. it is caused by some reasons. firtsly, the habitable planet is surely providing everything for human's life such as water, food, O2 and others, but they are not organized well. The pioneer will discover a new planet which have'nt been explored by human before them.it means that the planet is same like jungle in earth. if the prisoners need food they have to take it from trees, if they want to drink they have to drink the lake and if they need to sleep they have to sleep by hanging at trees. so, it will hardened them in doing their daily activity. or worse, they won't be able to survive with the wild jungle, and die. so the mission won't be succed at all. secondly, it run againt humanism. before they died at the planet, thay are turtored because they are made to be an experiment. it is better if they are being priisoned in the earth because firstly, they will their family at visiting time in jail. visited by faimili cause them to be renewed for keeping their spirit in life and cured of that bad habbit, such as terrorism, kidnapping, killing corruptin etc. but if goverment send them to the planet means we dont give give them second chance of their life. that action run againts humanity and one of human rights, rights to live. As a result i recommend to replace the role of prisoneers to animals. this animal should be closely fit the same of human . such as monkey, orang utan and others. because the animals are living in the jungle which is closely the same with the habitable planet, they can adapt in the planet, if they are hungry they could eat fruit in trees or drink from the river or sleep in tress which is the same of their daily activity. and human espeially modern kind of human such as us cannot compete the jungle activity. and other benefit of sending animal can make us know secret thing that existed in the planet such as poisoned cloud, monsters and others that can kill human fast besides the conditions of the planet in my first argument. so the mission will be more possiblle to be succed.
Running Sucks

My opponent has changed this debate. We are debating whether or not running is enjoyable. providing alternatives is not what this debate is about. I reject Masterdebatr's Framework and will provide my own.Framework: Running is un-enjoyablefor the ease of this debate, I would like to provide a definition. SUCKS: To move your move in a slurping manner over a shaftsucks: unenjoyable, not fun, dangerous, ineffective. 1. There arn’t THAT many hot people running. The article states that runs are “full of hot bodies in very little clothing”. Pffffft. First, that shouldn’t be your motivation. Second, people are hotter elsewhere and third, even if they are hot they are likely to be running AWAY from you. Lastly, you runners in Minnesota, how many “hot” runners did you see running January 26th? 2. Running is not physically safe, part I. Running is high-impact activity that is wearing down your joints and ligaments. You don’t get that cartilage back that you lose when you jog. Though if you don’t otherwise use your knees and ankles in your daily life this isn’t an issue. 3. Running is not physically safe, part II. Not to mention physical safety! Depending WHERE you run you may encounter uneven terrain, speeding cars, killer lions/bears/etc, right-wing militia members, invisible fences, and/or cast members of Jersey Shore just to name a few. Every year thousands of joggers are attacked by supernatural wildlife.4. Running is just plain boring. Ok, granted, this one is highly objective. But going jogging is boring. You need to spend SOOOO much time running to get any benefit. Grooooaaaaan! Work me out hard for 15 minutes and give me the rest of the time to watch a movie, play tennis, go to dinner, read, takeover a small country, pry off my eyelids with a butter-knife, BASICALLY anything but run. He's not tired. He just made it as far as he could before getting bored.5. Most importantly – and fundamentally – running is probably not leading to how you actually want to look. This is the real crux of the issue isn’t it? Yes, you exercise for health and other reasons, but you probably want to look better too. Everyone does. So now for the bad news for runners: running doesn't’t make you look good. In fact, quite the opposite. Take the best-in-class athletes in other sports, which ones do you want to end up looking like? These are people who train specific for that sport and end up built for that activity. In the photos below, which one(s) are closest to the way you would like to look?
Running Sucks

I as pro have the burden of proof! I will be proving the following resolution:Resolved: Running sucks. (Because my opponents resolution is not so awesome I will provide framework for this round! )Framework:The resolution in its own way is flawed. To make the resolution fair for both sides, I propose a counter plan/resolution. Instead of basing all of my arguments on saying that "running sucks", which is clearly not true because can be healthy and can be fit way to live, I will say that there is different alternatives to running that are more efficient and help to lose weight or stay fit faster and longer. peterthepoledancingPANDA has failed to present his own framework, so we must follow my better and easier framework for this round. With this all being said, I look forward to my opponents response!
Minimum Wage

I believe that work places need a certain amount of employees to function. It is the nature of business to try and minimize costs. Without mandated minimum wage the everyday people would flounder as a result of not being payed much at all. Of course without minimum wage they can afford more people but of those people, who could actually pay their bills? People that are better at their jobs will receive more money, whether or not minimum wage is there. Without it they could be working for $.25 an hour, while the corporate leaders make $1,000s a day. I would like to agree on one point, that the minimum wage should be decided annually for each specific place according to the amount of business and profit that business makes. If McDonald's makes $10,000 more then Burger King, for example the minimum wage should be higher for McDonald's then Burger King. I believe that when a business is opened they estimate how much money they will make vs how many employees and consult specialists and see what they think. Once they reach an agreement that business is required to pay each employee X amount for working there. My opponent argues that increase in minimum wage will lead to the defeat, but I would argue that it will motivate businesses to pay their employees what's fair considering the state of the economy and how few families make enough to actually live. Like I've said businesses tend to try and hoard as much money as possible. They need a certain amount of employees. Minimum wage motivates businesses to do what is fair and just for their employees. I hope I made a good round 1 argument and I await my opponent's response.
Minimum Wage

Artificially high wage rates lead to a misallocation of resources and market failure. More people will be encouraged to work, but fewer will be demanded by companies seeking to minimise costs. Such distortions lead to an uncompetitive inflexible market that does nothing to solve problems of skills mismatched. Once salaries are increased, companies will withdraw production from such markets and there will be no income at all. The case of Asia over the past fifty years shows that initially poorly paid jobs tend to increase in skills and wages over time without intervention. Imposing a minimum wage will make a country's products internationally uncompetitive and reduce inward investment. Imposing such standards upon the developing world would essentially be protectionism by the rich world. Minimum wages are blunt instruments that damage the most vulnerable. Small businesses cannot afford to pay such rates, whilst lower levels of pay for younger workers does not prevent discrimination against employing such individuals as the minimum is proportionately greater than the norm for older workers. A better alternative is a targeted system of tax credits which reduce the ‘poverty trap' by making work more lucrative than benefits, and which end the ‘unemployment trap' by topping up low pay with assistance to low income households yet still encourage a work ethic. Bottom line Raising the (minimum) is ineffective and stunts the growth of the country.
Keynsian economics is a legitamite economic plan.

The definition agreed to by both sides of the debate was that for Keynesian economics to be legitimate it must be a reasonable economic plan. It is clear that Keynesian economics easily meets this criteria. Keynesian economics is rooted in a study of historical economic trends and the application of basic logic on how to solve the problems observed in the past. This is a reasonable approach to formulating an economic theory. Keynesian economics has and can be used to explain economic trends, which lends credibility to its legitimacy. It is also one of the primary economic theories studied, used, and applied today. There certainly are arguments against Keynesian economics and it isn't universally accepted as the best economic plan, but that is true of every economic plan and does not make it illegitimate. This is the only case that con has made against the legitimacy of Keynesian economics and it clearly doesn't apply to the topic of the debate.
Keynsian economics is a legitamite economic plan.

I'll accept my opponent's definition of legitimate. I would like to make one key observation before I begin today. My opponent has not once in his post put forth a single defense of the actual theory of Keynesian economics. He has discussed the background and responses of the theory, all very circumstantial evidence. In a nutshell, Keynesian economics is a theory that deficit spending on a national scale can improve an economy. I will provide points to refute that theory. 1. The government is an entity just like an individual. Thus we can treat it the same. When a person incurs a large amount of debt they do so to accomplish or attain what they wish. This brings them short lived satisfaction seeing as how they then spend an obscene amount of time and money repaying that debt. The national government is the same. Over the past century we have been incurring an incredible amount of debt. While this deficit spending has brought us to a powerful point in the global arena, we now are suffering the consequences of our actions. The national debt is now higher than the amount of money that the government brings in each year (before spending it on US programs). Keynesian economics and its followers are responsible. This debt based economy looked good for 50 years and now it's crashing all around us. It will not help us escape the current financial crisis either. 2. All original arguments for Keynesian economics are false. The theory was invented by an economist of that name. He believed that his theory would put America out of the Great Depression. After 8 years of attempting to convince FDR of its legitimacy (before FDR was president), FDR finally gave in. Simultaneously WWII began. The war economy of WWII brought the US out of the depression and Keynesian economics took the glory. This is the origin of the false foundation of Keynesian economics. On this link... http://en.wikipedia.org... We can see some very specific arguments against Keynesian economics and I urge voters to look at them. The same article provides a very brief and insufficient rebuttal to these allegations further proving its illegitimacy as an economic theory. http://en.wikipedia.org... some other readings http://www.mises.org... http://mises.org...
Keynsian economics is a legitamite economic plan.

leï¿½gitï¿½iï¿½mate adj 3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem. The American Heritageï¿½ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition by way of http://dictionary.reference.com... The above definition of legitimate was selected because the debate topic implies Keynesian economics as a method or solution of solving economic issues. Clearly Keynesian economics is a legitimate economic plan for several reasons: 1.) Reasonable. Keynesian economics was based on a study of historical economic trends. (1) This is certainly a reasonable approach as historical evidence the primary sources of information for formulation and evaluation of economic theories. Given that Keynesian economic theory fit with historical evidence makes it a reasonable and therefore a legitimate economic theory. 2.) Acceptance. Since the publication of " The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", Keynesian economics has become one of a few dominant theories studied and taught in economics. If this was not a legitimate economic theory or was unreasonable, its study would have long been abandoned. Unreasonable theories do not become the dominant ideas studied and taught in academia. 3.) Influence. Keynesian economics was a major changing force for the study of economic theory. In fact, it has been stated that Keynesian economics has "more influence in a shorter time than any other book ever written on economics, including Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Marx's Das Kapital." (1) Simple being ranked in the likes of such key economic hallmarks demonstrated Keynesian economics legitimacy. 4.) Usability. It has served as a guiding force in economics since its inception. It was used by FDR and Richard Nixon was quoted as saying ""we are all Keynesians now" (2). Plans implemented in the largest economy in the world and stated by one of the most powerful leaders in the world inherently become legitimate, whether their actually effect is for better or worse. 5.) Keynesian ecomonics makes legitimate economic predictions. For example, Phillip's curves reinforce the Keynesian principle that: "changes in aggregate demand, whether anticipated or unanticipated, have their greatest short-run effect on real output and employment, not on prices." (3) Successful predictions and useful principles make a theory legitimate. For the above reasons I think it is clear that Keynesian economics is a legitimate economic plan. Please keep in mind we are not debating whether Keynesian economics is the best economic plan or even a good economic plan. The statement I am supporting only requires me to demonstrate it a legitimate economic plan. (1) http://www.time.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.econlib.org...
Copyright Derivative Works (AKA Fanfiction) Should Be Allowed To Be Sold Commercially

Hello, and thank you for an opportunity to debate with you. For this first round, I am only going to be presenting my introduction and initial arguments, and I won't be refuting any of yours until the second and third rounds, for the sake of fairness. I will also refrain from using any ad hominems or not safe for work statements. I am taking the side that derivative works off of other people's creations should not be commercially sold. Right off the bat, I'm going to clarify my stance is not that derivative works should not be made, it is that they should not be sold. I actually highly encourage the creation of such works, as they serve as great practice material, or just as fun projects that you make in your free time, but creating profits off of other people's creations is not something you realistically should be able to do. The reason for this is because you are essentially taking the potential months of someone else's creative thinking process and hard work, and making cash out of their idea. They deserve the right to be able to make the profits out of things they created. And I get that a huge amount of work can go into some of these fan creations, but if you would like to make a profit from being a creator, you need to expend the energy to make your own IP, instead of leeching the idea from someone else. Fanworks should just be labors of love, and nothing more. It's almost like creating a craft from Pinterest or Instructables. You work hard at it because it's something you want to make and accomplish, but you never expect to make money off of it, because it's someone else original idea. On the other hand, if this is an original craft, you can fully expect to sell it because it's an original work. Same goes for fanfiction; if you create something off of someone else's idea, you should never expect to sell it without their consent, but if you create or adapt an original story, you rightfully should expect to sell it. The final thing I want to mention in this round is the non-profit fanworks that currently exist. Since, at this point in time, it is unlawful to create profits off someone else's IP, none of the creators of large fanworks went in expecting to make money. If they did, why would any of these fanworks be created in the first place? Take a look at the opening screens to Super Smash Flash 2 or Mega Man Unlimited, or the headers to almost any fanfiction ever written. They all specifically state that they own nothing being created, and this is completely non-profit. Heck, they all probably don't even WANT to make any money off the works, out of respect for the original creators. There are many other points I am going to cover as I refute some of your points later on in the debate, but for the sake of time, I am going to cut off here. I look forward to a great debate with you.
Copyright Derivative Works (AKA Fanfiction) Should Be Allowed To Be Sold Commercially

This debate is about creating derivative works off of other people's IP(for simplicity sake, fan fiction), and how the creators of these works should be allowed to be compensated for their works. Currently the law is that a creator of IP can hold onto the rights of derivative works for the length of their natural life, all the way up to an extra 120 years on top of that. This is grossly unfair and limits greater works from being created, in the same way a monopoly would limit business growth and development. There is no more prime example of this, and a fair deal of irony, than when it comes to a company like Disney. Disney would not exist if not for fan fiction, the entire company was built on an adaptation of Snow White, that if it had not been produced would have caused bankruptcy. However now that they are the ones with desirable characters, they push hard to keep hold of characters like Mickey Mouse from ever being used by anyone not "approved" by Disney. And the approval process is both strict and expensive, making all but the most income rich business able to even have a shot. Meanwhile, there are plenty of amazing stories, artwork, fan games etc. That if they had a monetary incentive to polish them further or be able to do more works, it would make for some of the best entertainment we have seen. Instead we have a entertainment market that is very much like Intel right now, stale remakes and sneaky step arounds, like you cannot make your own version of Smash Brothers with the characters you want to see in it, but you can make Rivals of Aether with many of the same mechanics and even an anthro bird character(much like Falco in Smash) and that's perfectly ok? In conclusion, I am NOT saying that you should be able to remake a movie down to the last frame, or copy-paste someone else's game and sell it as your own, like many Chinese knock offs and the mobile game market has been plagued with. A copyright holder should be entitled to their own works, they should NOT however be entitled to others works with their characters. A release of derivative works of all IP to the public domain would ensure that not only are the best stories are told, but no one can hold onto IP like gold in Fort Knox and keep talented people from enjoying the wealth. Thank you.
Veganism

I agree with the fact provided by my opponent, but as far as the topic "Veganism" is concerned, its not about thinking merely about people's will but also about those of animal. if force is used to teach a child good manners, its not at all violence, nor does it hollow the nature of that child, however, it creates a better society and a better human being. We talk so much about humanity in the present world, however we forget to question ourselves. Be it through force or by love, people have to think about those poor animals; the latter one is although the better option, but, not the only.