BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism equality has been achieved these are just women looking for handouts

Summary:The con has failed to provide evidence throughout the entire debate. They have presented analytics and offered no evidence that their claims are true. The pro has offered evidence for every point, using sources to back up their claims and disproving the cons claim. In terms of the modified resolution, the con has not actually disproven that women cannot serve in parts of the military. The pro has even proven that they want to take the actual SEAL test. The cons only arguements are their personal beliefs, something that is not valid against actual evidence. Therefore, the pro can see no other ballot than the affirmative case. As a note, why am I on the pro side? The resolution and 1AC say two very separate things.
examination is an essential part of education system

I assume you are arguing for standardized testing. I will rebut from that angle. If i am wrong feel free to correct me. My biggest issue with standardized testing is that it forces the teachers to teach to the test. I was the first generation to feel President Bush's No Child Left Behind Legislation. From 8th Grade to Senior year all of the Curriculum was set so that students would pass the Ohio Graduation Test. On the face of it this doesn't sound bad. You have to know X to graduate. The problem with this is the teachers and students to pass the test have to regurgitate memorized information. The test have a hard time with critical thinking. The ability to think outside of the box and analyze is more important in real life and in undergraduate work. It made it hard for teachers to make a good learning environment. It was an environment with a constant threat hanging over everyone's head. That is not to say that you should be able to graduate no matter what. I think the decision on where a child is should be determined his/her teacher who spends so much time with them not a bureaucratic test. Schooling is a STATE issue, the federal government has no business interfering. "A five-year University of Maryland study completed in 2007 found "the pressure teachers were feeling to 'teach to the test'" since NCLB was leading to "declines in teaching higher-order thinking, in the amount of time spent on complex assignments, and in the actual amount of high cognitive content in the curriculum." - http://standardizedtests.procon.org...
examination is an essential part of education system

examination is an essential part of education system because we get to know our understanding skills with our books and our co-ordination wwith our teachers so examination is main and we will enjoy while writing the examination because we read..... but some read at the last movement so this is what pulls them back from reading. we should enjoy reading i say that we should enjoy, understand and read our subjects and mainly do our home works properly and there are still many more points but i have mentioned some important points above....... and like this i end my arguement for 'FOR'.
The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage orga

First of all, thank you for excepting this debate. I was not saying either of what you stated, which precisely was "Either you are arguing that it is OK for the rich to take risks but not the poor, or you're arguing that the risks of donating are such that no one should donate" What i was saying was that if money talks, or in other words if people are doing it for money, then they will overlook the actual risks of the donation because they are not fully aware of the consequences. One of them being death. So if you were to state that this contention is invalid because of the quotes you stated earlier, then technically my contention still stands because you seemed to have misinterpreted what i was actually saying, therefore not actually arguing my case. Next, You state that i am right in a "perfect world" which is logical, but wouldn't anyone agree that the government should do the "right thing" no matter what world we are in? So if they do the right thing by not tempting people to do the wrong thing, then they should not give financial, or any kind of incentive to people that don't occasionally volunteer or even volunteer. I don't think you are from the US because u said Cheers! Haha so i can understand you not arguing my second contention but even as it is, that means that that contention still stands, along with my Contention 1 and 3. So therefor if you look at the moral and the political standpoint, i have won this debate. Thank You!
The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage orga

Hi, thanks for the debate! I plan on addressing only your first and last contention of your argument, as the legal jurisdiction of such a financial incentive is, in my opinion, incidental to the fundamental argument (however important it may be on a specific ballot or law). Generally, you argue that by giving financial incentives for organ donation you incentivize risk-taking behaviour (especially amongst the needy) and self-interest is not an optimal motivation for organ donation. I agree with you on the latter point, and disagree on the former, but neither point is sufficient to an argument against financially incentivizing organ donation. First, the risks: while there are risks to organ donation, they have nothing to do with financial incentivizing donation. These risks are faced equally by altruistic donors and incentivized donors. Either you are arguing that it is OK for the rich to take risks but not the poor, or you're arguing that the risks of donating are such that no one should donate (ie the risks to the donor outweigh the benefit to the receiver). Neither position is tenable. Including the motivation for donation (damn that's catchy) doesn't change the strength of your argument, as paying money for risk is a fundamental part of our world, whether it's car insurance, stock prices, or working in a coal mine. As for the real substance of your argument: that donating for money is "the wrong reason." You're absolutely right, in a perfect world, altruism would be a sufficient incentive for organ donors, and there would be no shortage of donors for waiting recipients. However, this is not a perfect world, and the fact that financial incentives work, where moral suasion has failed, is the fundamental flaw in your position. In short, incentivizing organ donation is not a pretty thing. However, the alternative 'moral highground' position of depending only on altruism reflects both naivete and a careless disregard for the thousands of people dying on organ waitlists. Cheers!
The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage orga

Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation. Contention 1:By giving incentive for organ donations, people tend to overlook the risks. Money does talk and maybe a bit too much. In a situation where someone needs the money, they might ignore the health risks that are involved. When desperate for money, people will do anything, even risk their life. If an incentive was not offered, then the donors would be more aware of what they were risking. Citizens should be fully aware of what they are doing; Money just fogs it up. Contention 2:This is not a Federal Issue. By permitting the use of financial incentives, the Federal government is basically saying that it has a say in organ donation, which is an issue of the state. The tenth Amendment, states have the say in all issues that the Constitution doesn't give to the Federal government, and Organ donation is not an issue given to the Federal government. Even though it is permitting, because it would be the first legislation on organ donation, the Federal government would be violating states rights on the issue of organ donation. Contention 3: All the wrong reasons. A person should be induced to become an organ donor because he believes in the cause, not because someone will pay him for it. Too many people are living below the poverty level in this country and might become a donor against their conscience or better judgment hoping to gain some financial relief. Basically it will be the impoverished and ignorant who will be signing up. Therefore i see no other ballot then that of the NEG!
The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage orga

Good rejoinder. Your first point, if I understand correctly, is that the poor will take the risk unknowingly simply for easy money. You do the poor no justice here; donors are made aware of the risks before donation. Yes, more poor people will donate, but not because they are unaware of the risks, they will donate because the risk is acceptable given the reward. To assume their ignorance of the risks involved (especially since they will be made fully aware of the risks by the medical authority) insults the poor. You are making the assumption here that because a donor is poor he or she is less able to understand the risks of an operation when told by a doctor. That simply isn't the case, the risks are the risks to the poor and rich alike. It's like arguing that only the working class work in coal mines because they don't understand the risks they take.... in fact they understand perfectly well, but the risk premium is sufficient to match that perceived risk. The poor won't be taking the risks more because they're less informed, they'll be taking the risks because they need the money. Again, a risk premium exists in all walks of life... from earthquake insurance to workers compensation. Paying people for taking risks happens on Wall Street, construction companies, mining companies, all insurance policies are based on this principle. Of course there may be people that somehow don't understand the risks when the doctor goes through it with them, but that has nothing to do with income. The 'idiot' factor exists for both altruistic donors and poor donors alike, and unless you're calling the poor stupid, there is no difference between the two... the real reason more poor people will donate is because, knowing the risks, they will choose to donate because for them the compensation is an acceptable risk premium. Your second point is excellent, and I think speaks to your principled character. Yes, in a perfect world you are correct, and no this is not a perfect world. However, making the argument that government should behave AS IF it were a perfect world if very noble, but also very ugly in how it works out. As I said above, thousands of people have life-threatening need of immediate transplants. The New York Times recently estimated that someone dies on an organ waitlist every 90 minutes... by the time we have finished this debate, over two dozen people will have died waiting for organs. Yes, you are right, in many ways we should act as if we live in a perfect world. However the simple fact is we don't live there, and sometimes acting like we do means making the world an uglier place than it has to be.
spreading the wealth

Going over my opponent's arguments. No, I have not read it, if possible could you link it up for me. Second, I would not mind giving up this extra money for the following reasons. First, you must realize that these people are part of the upper tax bracket, and currently pay 35% and this would be increased to 39%. http://www.suntimes.com... Next, you must realize that this tax money is used as I described in my first round. So, I would not mind that my money is being used to improve my community, and help such programs. However, we must realize that Obama is looking this from the government's point of view. But, the country is currently in a large debt, and like if it was a regular person they would do their best to get out of their debt. However, Obama is doing the best to remedy this situation, and this is one plausible solution. But, this has benefits for those paying those extra taxes. It does because they are suffering with this national debt and the poor state of our economy. They could be suffering through the inflation of the U.S. dollar, the decline of the stock market, housing market, and with the loss of jobs and productivity of the company. So, if this increase in taxes does help solve our economic profit, it will have a benefit on these people because it will remedy those problems. I await your response, and thank you for a great debate.
spreading the wealth

I think that spreading the wealth is "unamerican". People earn their money and work hard for it why punish them for doing well in life and making a good amount of money? You have a good point when you say that spreading the wealth has been in America since our foundations, but I was talking about president Obama's new tax plan. You said that "problem is that a government has to look out for its people. This means that in order to benefit the majority of the population, we must in fact rid this debt by increasing the taxes of the rich a reasonable amount." I want to ask you a few questions. One have you read Corey Miller's letter to president Obama? If you have not please read it. The next one that I would like to ask you is, would you think this way if you were one of the people that was making that money and I am not. ( please answer me honestly ) Now if you were these people and your money was being taken away from you that you had planned to use for something for your business or for your family and you no longer could because or this tax plan how would you feel? What benefits are you talking about for " all Americans"? I do under stand the just of what you are saying and I would like to ask you the same question.
spreading the wealth

Spreading the wealth has been in America for centuries and since our foundations. First, by the government having taxes that technically is spreading the wealth. It is because taxing is actually taking your money, and using it to fund public utilities and facilities. These would include roads, education, libraries, and any state owned facility. However, these facilities and utilities are open to everyone in the public, and they are taking advantage of the funding that they get. Therefore, taxing is technically spreading the wealth. However, the state and the country would not survive without taxes. There would be no funding for our roads, schools, libraries, ect. This would be a great detriment to society and would prevent our society to function as well as it does now. Therefore, this is one instance where spreading the wealth is good. In fact, this is American since taxation with representation has been in America for centuries. In addition, it is not punishing Americans. It is actually providing for Americans as I have shown. Finally, I assume what you are referring to is Obama's taxation plan. Obama plans on increasing taxes for the minority of the population earning $250,000. But the problem is that a government has to look out for its people. This means that in order to benefit the majority of the population, we must in fact rid this debt by increasing the taxes of the rich a reasonable amount. However, by ridding this national debt, the benefits will in fact come back to all Americans, and benefit the rich in the long run. I would continue, but I assume you understand the jist of what I am saying.
Capital Punishment

C1. A. "The way that capital punishment is carried out is fundamentally flawed. There is no humane way of carrying it out." Yes, I understand that, but is them killing another person humane? I think not, at least that's my opinion. B. Yes, it might be barbaric way of punishing someone, but in a way the deserve it. If they were barbaric enough to get themselves it that situation in the first place, then they should be put to death in a barbaric way. C3. Yes, it might cost money, but at the same time keeping them in jail costs even more money. "It costs an average of $3.42 a day to keep a prisoner on probation, and $7.47 to keep that same prisoner on parole. Compare that with how costly it is to keep prisoners locked up; it costs an average of $78.95 each day to keep a criminal behind bars." source: http://www.creditloan.com...
Capital Punishment

C1: Human Rights, Not Constitutional(A) The way that capital punishment is carried out is fundamentally flawed. There is no humane way of carrying it out. Lethal injection causes paralysis and can be considered as cruel and unusual punishment. The electric chair also causes extreme cruelty, with details so graphic I best not describe them. (B) Since 1990, each year an average of about 3 nations have abolished the death penalty. Now, 2/3rds of all nations have ended capital punishment. [1] From this information, we can conclude that the world is moving away from this barbaric medieval practice called the death penalty. We should also become more civilized and abolish the death penalty like the rest of the modern world. The death penalty also is putting us at a disadvantage, since we lose the moral high ground.(C) Since there is no humane way of carrying out the death penalty, it is thus cruel and unusual punishment clearly. Cruel and unusual punishment is banned in the Constitution, the 8th Amendment. [2] C2: Imperfect Justice(A) There have been 273 post-convicted exonerations and 206 exonerations since 2000. Of those exonerations, 17 out of 273 of them were found to be innocent by DNA testing and were on death row. [4](B) Many others not exonerated and were executed could of been innocent. After somebody is executed, most law professionals move on to other cases. Many people of the 1,000 executed since 1976 could have been innocent for no gain. [5]C3: Financial Cost(A) The cost of the death penalty is huge. When you consider the costs of the courts, putting somebody on the death waiting list (or what it is called), it costs $1.25 million more than life in prison w/out parole. [3] The filings for somebody being executed takes many years.Overall, the US has exonerated 138 death row inmates to date so far.******Side note is that the arguments only have 1 hr to argue, and I am going to go on a 4 mile run and stretching, so if my next argument is forfeited, I apologize.Thank you.Sources: http://www.amnestyusa.org... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.deathpenalty.org... http://www.innocenceproject.org... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Capital Punishment

Sorry, the time constraint killed me, but like I was saying.... See but when you say that we are inhumane by killing people, isn't in inhumane that they killed another person. There for since they just killed they should be killed also, so your saying that it is okay to kill, another person. And with the argument about innocent people there has only be 140 people on death row that have been innocent since 1973. Which is not a lot, compared to how many deaths happen a day due to capital punishment. THERE FORE PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE PRO!!!!!!
Capital Punishment

"See, but your belief and my belief differ. You believe that taking any human life is wrong. I believe that if a person takes a life, their life should be taken as well." As I have said, this is cruel and unusual punishment, and is thus unconstitutional by the 8th amendment. Also, when you take their life, it costs much more, you lose the moral high ground, and you have a risk of taking the life of an innocent person.
Capital Punishment

---Rebuttals---"Yes, I understand that, but is them killing another person humane? I think not, at least that's my opinion. That killing is humane. Plus, YOU said killing is inhumane, so why would killing the killer be any better? We need to have the moral high ground. Contradicted. B. Yes, it might be barbaric way of punishing someone, but in a way the deserve it. If they were barbaric enough to get themselves it that situation in the first place, then they should be put to death in a barbaric way." First, killing somebody at all, and giving a person cruel and unusual punishment is contrary to the Constitution. The 8th amendment as I said bans "cruel and unsusual punishment". [1] So, they DO NOT deserve it, since it is against our founding document for our nation.Second, the validity of human rights needs to be maintained. The world is moving ever closer to a more civilized state, in which capital punishment is banned. We need to go there as well. "Yes, it might cost money, but at the same time keeping them in jail costs even more money. "It costs an average of $3.42 a day to keep a prisoner on probation, and $7.47 to keep that same prisoner on parole. Compare that with how costly it is to keep prisoners locked up; it costs an average of $78.95 each day to keep a criminal behind bars."It may cost about $80 a day to keep a criminal locked up, but putting someone on death row for Capital Punishment costs $1.25 million MORE. [2] In other terms, $1,250,000 more, and what do we get besides losing the moral high ground, breaking the Constitution, and violating human rights and killing possibly an innocent person? [3]Out of time Sources: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.deathpenalty.org... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Wether or not we should use electronics that much

'Second, it can help teacxh how to do math and other subjects'Yes good sir or madam, you are very correct on this point. However accepting electronics 100&ly into our life just because of one reason that you provided doesn't mean we should do so however. Electronics is not the only thing that teaches us math and I could argue that it even dumbs us down in math when we start to use calculators more and more. Even for the slightest problems where it requires us to think. We become so lazy that we want everything else to do the thinking for us.'Other subjects'It could help us with other subjects. However you failed to mention which subjects. It could very much teach us but it is not necessesary. And that's what we are arguing for wether or not we should use electronics that much. Based on the arguments you portray we don't need electronics that much to be honest.
Wether or not we should use electronics that much

Firstly. I want a reference for that quote. Secondly. We are debating electronics in general. As you notice social platforms like facebook and platforms like youtube start becoming more and more popular. With it comes downfall of our humanity in a sense. Electronics are an amazing thing connecting us with friends and family but sometimes it just goes too far. We surround ourselves with electronics. With TV with so many things just to keep our mind busy. Our habit of stopping and thinking starts to become less and less out of fear of being bored or out of a fear to face reality. It would be amazing to have these two worlds apart but that isn't the case right now. These two worlds are slowly becoming one.