BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras

As my opponent stated, today"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be "fair". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered "legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of "right" and "justice" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of "justice". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their "unjust" (according to you) punishment.
Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras

In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal." A "fair" punishment according to whose opinion? Governments? Societies? Punishment will be fair only according to their interpretation of "fair", which can be unfair according to person being punished. It is you who completely missed my point, which was that concept of "fairness" is subjective, meaning different people can have different understanding of "fair". Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of "fairness" unto other people. That was my point. "The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public." Which is, again, your subjective opinion. Each person can have his own subjective opinion regarding what helps public. Just because you believe that genocide does not help public, does not mean that Hitler or average Nazi had same belief. Again, relativity and subjectivity. "It was a very obvious detriment." Again, personal opinion. Someone who believes Jews to be cancer of this world would have different opinion. "That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror." My point exactly. Not all people share same morals. Some believe right/fair thing to be X, others believe Y.This is exactly why those soldiers fought- because they did not share same morals, values and understanding of "rightness" as nazis did. So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is "right" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself. Now to your next arguments. "this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States" Again, your personal opinion. You base this claim upon your own, personal values, which are just that- YOUR values. Dont try to pull them off as anything more than mere opinion. "The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras" No, I will not. I will point out that you are making claims in accordance to your own values and morals, which are subjective. Things which you and your society believe to be "right", "moral" and "fair" can be considered "wrong" "immoral" and "wrong" by someone else, and you really have no evidence to prove your set of morals to be objectively superior. What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.
Belief in the afterlife is beneficial.

Another unfortunate forfeit. I advise my opponent to be ready for the debate he is accepting, otherwise do not accept. It wastes quite a bit of time and is rather annoying. I conclude that, through atheists getting along fine without it, the afterlife is un-necessary. And through 9-11, various kamikazes and a large deal of other harmful events; it can play a large part in being dangerous.
Belief in the afterlife is beneficial.

You seem to be proposing that without an afterlife to look forward too, or not in the case of eternal hell, that we would have no "moral checks". Which is basically saying that without the bible no one would be reprimanded for a bad deed and would do as they please. It would be thoroughly depressing if you got your morals from the bible, because if you were good only because the bible told you to be good; you aren't really being good at all. You're just not killing your neighbour because you fear eternal suffering. Furthermore; the concept of hell / afterlife has been around for much less than humans have been on this earth. Wouldn't we have been killing each-other without end? In fact, the bible and the concept of an afterlife has often caused or help cause horrific events including 9/11, the crusades and the holocaust. Furthermore, we are animals, so why do animals not behave in a malicious way? Because there must be order and mutual respect among each-other in order to survive. If we or any other species were to all murder each-other, extinction would be very likely. The argument "What would we be capable of without the bible's morals?" is depressing and simply false. The need for an afterlife by the religious is often viewed as an escape from the fear of death. But 16.3% (Third most popular "religious" group of the world), of the population (athiests) apparently do not accept the idea of the afterlife (including me of course). Would you think that they are all cowering in fear of a certain impending death that awaits them? I would say no, there is no need for an afterlife and we would be unnecessary and also often damaging. Furthermore, after your death; you are granted an everlasting heaven? In which you have an infinite amount of time to accomplish everything? In which case you would at some point do so. At that point you would have a similar result to oblivion: an infinite amount of time and nothing to do.
Belief in the afterlife is beneficial.

i do apologize for the forfeited round, i had other obligations that overshadowed the recollection of this debates time frame. now then, first off i would like to recognize that i agree there are many bad things in the belief in an afterlife. many differing interpretations give way to much controversy in the world today. however then only thing i could find more troubling than the fallout of differing opinions in afterlife/religious views, is the instability that would occur with the lack of an afterlife/religious idea/following/belief. when people put there whole heart in the bible (ill just use your presented afterlife example), they believe that certain things are sin, and sin is wrong. they also tend to disassociate themselves with people who do not follow the same beliefs. this results in broken homes, rejected friends, and (the worst possible example that i could think has ever resulted from a religious/afterlife fallout) the crusades. now the crusades are absolutely horrible, but having absolutely no presence of afterlife repercussions is a far more disturbing idea. now, not only do you have men capable of terrible deeds, but you have men capable of terrible deeds without any moral checks and balance system. it would be a completely accepted idea that no repercussions would be given to you for any of your bad deeds towards others. there would never be a man who contemplated for months on weather or not he should kill his cheating wife, and her lover after he and she left him with nothing, there would only be a man who had everything taken from him and did the logical thing and took revenge. since there is no greater power morality complex, many situations would end in one party just saying they had a good run and offed, or took care of whatever or whoever just ruined their life, and quickly ended their own as to not suffer worldly repercussions. as for the mark twain quote. if an afterlife believer had no fear of death, then they themselves would also have no fear of life. this would suggest that lack of fear in death would also represent a life lived to the fullest, but yet you found a problem with the suggested result (no fear of death) of the quotes definition of a man who lived his life fully, and yet "why not live your life to the fullest" was your question posed towards the problem of not having fear of death. i fail to comprehend the intended supporting impact of the final paragraph in your round 2 post.
Belief in the afterlife is beneficial.

The concept of an afterlife opposed to oblivion has been around since ancient Egypt at least. The need for an afterlife in my opinion is non-beneficial and often dangerous. Today's afterlife is often either Heaven or Hell, depending on what you did during your life on earth. So, a lot of people instead of living for the life they have now, would rather follow the rules of the bible and live for the next life. For example, people who follow the bible by the letter by fear of going to hell will often kick out their own child just because he is homosexual,. Then comes the problem of not worrying that you will die because there is another life awaiting you. Why not live your life to the fullest and do as much as you can until you die? Of course, people are afraid of death and would rather think of something waiting for them instead of complete oblivion. But I quote Mark Twain in saying: "The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time."
Athens vs. Sparta

Athens was a much better society. They had a level of democracy unprecedented at that time in all of the world. Their contributions in science, medicine, architecture, philosophy, and politics still leave a visible mark on western society today. In Athenian society, there were slaves, they were not even comparable in their quantity or in the level of brutality shown to them as that of the Spartans. Basically, the difference between Athens and Sparta is like the difference between the Pre-Civil War USA and North Korea. The Spartan society was one of brutality. Spartans had horribly mistreated slaves called Helots. Helots were abused, humiliated and even slaughtered.According to the historian Myron-They assign to the Helots every shameful task leading to disgrace. For they ordained that each one of them must wear a dogskin cap and wrap himself in skins and receive a stipulated number of beatings every year regardless of any wrongdoing, so that they would never forget they were slaves. Moreover, if any exceeded the vigour proper to a slave's condition, they made death the penalty; and they allotted a punishment to those controlling them if they failed.Ancient Athens, more than any other society (except for arguably Rome, which was itself influenced heavily by Athens) has shaped western society. From Athens, we derive democracy, the cornerstone of our society and what gives our governments their legitimacy. Fact is, Athens wasn't perfect, but it was infinitely better than Sparta. Spartan society was so highly militaristic that is all they are known for today. However, Athens was the world's center for progress, philosophy, art, and learning.
ballet is harder than football

Pro has the burden to show that objectively, ballet is harder than football (which football Pro is referring to its never really stated, they refer to a "touchdown" which suggests American football, but then randomly mention "soccer.") Regardless, it needs to be determined how one can objectively define "hardness," yet no one really can. For example, a football player would most likely have a harder time doing ballet than football. Yet, a ballet dancer would most likely have a harder time doing football than ballet. This more or less makes Pro's argument meaningless and I've effectively negated the resolution (therefore winning). Unless Pro establishes an objective measurement of "hard" and proves that ballet is harder than football, no matter what they say, they've lost the debate.
ballet is harder than football

to most people ballet is seen as easier than football, in reality that's not true. ballet is harder because it is a sport and an art form whereas football is just a sport. Ballet dancers train for hours upon hours for weeks and every practice is almost to the scale of training for Olympic athletes. I'm not trying to prove that football's easy, it is definitely not easy but most people already know that. When people think of ballet they think of a little girl wearing a pink tutu and twirling around, effortlessly. What they don't see are the hours of rehearsal that girl has put into her performance, the blisters on her feet from practice, they don't see the multiple injuries that she has to put out of the way to make herself look graceful. They don't see the tired look on the dancers face that she needs to hide in order to put on a good show, but most of all you don't see the passion and dedication that the dancer needs in order to strive. The sole purpose of a football player is to steal the ball and run with the ball to get a touch down and get a crap ton of money. The football player doesn't have to be beautiful, graceful, or flexible while doing that. When someone says ballet is easier than soccer, they clearly haven't tried it.
ballet is harder than football

On average it is much more difficult to become a professional ballet dancer than a professional football player. To become a professional ballerina you have to have the right body type not just meaning you have to be pretty and skinny it means you have to be beautiful, have hyper extended legs, muscle tone everywhere, flexible Achilles tendon, super high arches, short torso, long legs , a small head and so much more. Only 98% of dancers have the "perfect dancers body" so that already means you have a 98% chance of not making it. On top of that, there are many fewer jobs in the ballet industry than the football industry so you have to be the best of the best to even get into the core de ballet at a dance company.(the core de ballet are the group of dancers that don't get recognition, it is stage 1 in a ballet company and very hard to get past that stage because there are so many other dancers that could be better than you as well) In football you don't need to be graceful or pretty or even skinny. You need to have a little bit of flab to protect yourself from people smashing into you and getting flab is much easier than becoming skinny. This debate is important because even though dancers work harder and becoming a dancer is very rare they still get less money than a football player. The average football player NFL football player makes 1.9 MILLION a year while the average ballerina makes $25,000 a year. Being called a principle dancer is super rare but they still make less that $25,000 a year. http://work.chron.com... http://www.businessinsider.com... (football players are definitely not paid badly.)
Killzone vs Gears of war

I'm for the killlzoen side I have arguments ready to be tested . Debate rule . 1 . Both factions are at full power . 2 . Both factions Team even if enemy's must work as on for there teams survival . 3 . Both factions get all resources there side has . 4 . War can be in one of 3 places planet , space or Helgan . Thank u and hope we have a good debate .
Anything Is Possible

I. ExtensionMy opponent is not attempting to falsify my argument at this point. If he choses do so, then so be it. He says he is having trouble trying to prove this wrong, which makes sense considering the theory was built around the idea of doubt, not falsification.He did however request me to ask him a question, or give him a scenario that he can use to prove/disprove my theory. I honestly have no idea what question would be appropriate. It seems counter-intuitive to ask a question about my theory to another person. I may be able to provide a a scenario though.It is considered, according to current evidence and logic, that a dead person cannot be revived into a living person. Now, there is the possibility that there is a universal law that allows dead people to be revived. We have not recorded a long dead person suddenly coming back to life, therefore we consider it impossible. It may happen tomorrow, due to a law that humans have yet to account for.
Anything Is Possible

Okay. I am almost running out of ways to prove this wrong. So I am gonna try this approach. I asked you a question last round, and I don't know what to try to prove or un-prove at this point, so I ask, may you please ask me a question or give me a scenario to try to prove or un-prove. Thank you :) (if you don't want to that is okay, you don't need to) (also I am sorry if I came on to strong, or was mean about that, please forgive if I was??) Thank you :)
Anything Is Possible

I. RebuttalMy opponent posed a question last round, as to whether or not I can prove my theory. But before I get into that I want to fix some misconceptions Con had with my argument. I'm not saying that since things that can fly have atoms and so do pigs therefore pigs can fly. I'm saying that pigs might be able to fly due to some universal law we don't know. Next, he asked how this could happen. To be honest, I have no idea. That is however, irrelevant. I only have to demonstrate possibility, not explain the process in which the event could take place.Now, he goes on to ask me how I can prove this, or whether he can disprove it. The fact is I don't need to prove it. The whole point of the argument is that no event can be proven, only supported with evidence. What I provided with my argument was a theory, and as long as the theory has the smallest amount of evidence attatched to it, then the possibility is there.Said evidence is essentially the explanation itself. There could be unsensible universal laws, I don't have to prove there are, since the resolution is based on possibility, not likeliness.II. Closing With that, I pass it back to Con for further refutations. Hopefully I've clarified enough.
Anything Is Possible

*clears throat* Very good. You basically almost convinced me. But as the con, and some things I believe, I will try no to believe you. But I must throw out that I believe God made the universal laws, and there might be some that man have not discovered or can sense. So this will be hard for me to dis-prove. But what do you mean by "any thing is possible" ??????? Did you mean that since some things can fly, and have atoms, mean that pigs have a chance at flying, or at least a 0.000000001% because they have atoms?? If so, I must say I don't know if I can dis-prove, or just have enough information on this subject. But maybe I can. How would this pig fly?? Or for something different, how would the sun make clone of its self by another star coming out of the sun. According to what I understand about your theory this could be possible. But how???? Also like you said there might some things we don't understand. So I don't know if I can prove this wrong. But I also don't know if you can prove your theory right. But I also don't know if I can prove mine either. But you might have a greater chance then me at wining. So I end this with a question (i hope I am not mean about this, im sorry if I was/am) Question: How can you theory be proven?? can it???
Anything Is Possible

hmmmmm. Well, this is interesting. I believe that Christ can gave you the power to help you get through any circumstance. ( Philippians 4:13 ) But I think you are saying that any event is possible. per say flying pigs?? And that I don't think is possible. I might find it believable that a weird creature pig hybrid born with wings is possible. But making a pig fly by will are it happening by chance are not that good. I don't think a piece of paper can turn into a Hamburger that starts riots and wars and such. I will end my turn right now. I am sorry if I am not clear enough. Thank you Your turn.
Anything Is Possible

I. Final ExtensionIt seems that Con is inserting his own personal religious beliefs into his argument instead of countering my argument, so it still stands.God is not scientifically supported and should therefore not be considered support for an argument.My opponent not believing my argument is irrelevant. I believe it works, but that doesn't support my case for it.Other than that, my theory goes unrefuted by Con. He has failed to negate my BoP by falsifying the theory and therefore I have fulfilled my BoP.Good debate Con!(On a side note, while I understand that voters may have their own refutations to my theory, please vote on the debate between me and grass. If you feel as if you can hard counter this argument, please message me or challenge me, don't explain it in your RFD as reason for voting against me. If you have reason contained within this debate, then by all means bring it up.)
Anything Is Possible

hmmmmmmmm. Well I for one Believe that Jesus came back from the dead. And you might say that he has powers that humans have not really studied or understand. So I might have to believe you about the powers humans don't understand. But I don't believe that anything weird could happen. (i believe that God can do any thing with his power, so this kinda gives you all the right to win.) But the universe by itself, no extra power from God, just some other law we have not discovered yet, I don't think it could do anything like bring a person back from the dead. I think you could bring the cells back to life maybe, and maybe all the parts of the body, but the person that once liked in the body and used it is lost. (in a body that's been once dead.) If anything like breaking the laws of reality, I would assume that some evil mad scientist made a extra-planetary machine that opens the layers of the cosmos. Other then that or God, I would not believe it could happen. So yes, maybe their is a good chance the laws of the universe will be broken (witch I believe it will *Revelation* ) but not by itself or by accident.