BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ban smoking

I'm not going to attempt to argue against cigarettes being terrible for people. I too wish they were gone. However, I have a two prong argument: 1. As much as we all want to see people stop killing themselves, individual liberty it paramount. Government intrusion is already beyond words. They are involved in every aspect of our lives now. With the Government being just a little out of control at the moment, because it is ran by a bunch of sorority girls with no life experience, handing them anymore power is a bad idea. Not too mention, 2: If the Government bans something, all we effectively did is create a criminal enterprise. There is now a black market for cigarettes. Can you imagine that impact? The amount of people that smoke in this country? What would be the penalty? Your going to have 16, 17 year old kids with records because of cigarettes. You are going to tie down Police even more than they are with this ridiculous drug war we've been fighting for years. Oh I forgot to mention even after all of that, people will still be smoking.
ban smoking

I support smoking bans. I am so happy a lot of countries are banning smoking in public places. I don"t smoke cigarettes but I grew up in a house of cigarette smokers. I am proud to say that tobacco smoking is one habit I did not pick up. I"m sure everyone has smelled that unpleasant odor of a cigarette, whether you are a smoker or not. The smoke you are inhaling is considered secondhand smoke, which is not good for you. "Exposure to secondhand smoke remains an alarming public health hazard" (Msn.com). I don"t understand how something that is well known to kill people is legal. Smoking has bad effects. Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause an individual to have an asthma attack. Preschool aged children are also at risk for new cases of asthma. Although smoking is a person"s right, it is also an inconvenience to us non " smokers being exposed to the dangerous risks of our health and our children"s health. Some smokers have no respect for non-smokers. Cigarette smoke is a well- known air pollutant. Secondhand smoke is when a nonsmoker involuntarily inhales cigarette smoke. Second hand smoke is just as bad as actually smoking a cigarette. Secondhand smoke can be very hazardous to a non-smokers health. "Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers, about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non- smoking adults, worse asthma and asthma"related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children, between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (lung and bronchus) in children under 18 months of age, with 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and in the United States, the cost of extra medical care, illness, and deaths caused by secondhand smoke are over $10 billion per year" (Cancer.com). Some advantages of banning smoking in public places protect adults that do not smoke and/or their children.
Should transgender people be allowed into positions of power? (Politician, Teacher, Police Officer)

I apologize for not giving a clear enough statement or introduction argument for this debate. I am very new to this website and so far it seems as though everyone has been doing the same layout. As for the definition that was meant (which was completely my fault), I did not mean the textbook definition of transgenders. Instead, I meant a male or female that is now the opposite gender through a sex change. To give an example: A man who has transitioned into being a female decides he/she wants to be a police officer (or any other example of positions of power I gave), should they be allowed to do so? Now, on to my case/argument. Which is now existent ;) Transgender people (by that I mean my example, since I will be referring to that for the rest of the debate) should not be allowed into these sorts of positions due to the ever increasing mental health issues as a community and individuals. "A study from Boston published earlier this year in the Journal of Adolescent Health, reported that 180 transsexual youth (106 female-to-male; 74 male-to-female) had a two-fold to three-fold increased risk of psychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, self-harm without lethal intent, and both inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment compared to a control group of youth." Now, of course, this may not seem so staggering as it does not relate to adults, thus not relating to the debate. But how come such a large percentage of a group that (according to my opponent) should be in power have such a large chance of suicide, depression, anxiety disorder and more. That puts a high risk for people who are under the power of these people. If that's not enough, then here is this bit of info: "The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality, is 41 percent, which vastly exceeds the 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime suicide attempt, and is also higher than the 10-20 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults who report ever attempting suicide." This is clearly something that should conflict with people of this community being in positions where they help youth, help the community, and most importantly help the innocent from attackers or themselves. How is a transgender person supposed to do these things when they can't even protect themselves? The truth is; they can't. If they want to be in high positions of power they should make these numbers significantly drop before doing so. SOURCE(S): https://www.mercatornet.com...
Should transgender people be allowed into positions of power? (Politician, Teacher, Police Officer)

Resolution: Should transgender people be allowed into positions of power? (Politician, Teacher, Police Officer) Let's start with some clarification on the key terms. Transgender- of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth; especially : of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity is opposite the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth https://www.merriam-webster.com... Power- : ability to act or produce an effect https://www.merriam-webster.com... Automatically prefer my definition over my opponent's since they did not provide any. Rebuttal First, my opponent only does two things. 1) He gives an analogy without giving an analysis, thus an empty statement. Analogies do not equal arguments so you can just disregard the analogy. 2) My opponent states transgenders are mentally ill, but provides no warrant on how this is true, therefore an empty claim. He also does not provide any consequences of letting mentally ill people in positions of power, thus we don't know how this argument actually matters. Therefore my opponent's whole case is non existent. On to my case. Contention 1: We need educators and officers The opposition is advocating for the removal of transgender educators and officers which would in the end make us less safe and less educated. This is true because in the resolution it states "Should transgender people be allowed into positions of power? (Politician, Teacher, Police Officer)" in which con is against. Evidence of shortages Teacher shortage https://www.washingtonpost.com... "Enrollment in teacher-preparation programs dropped from 691,000 in 2009 to 451,000 in 2014, a 35 percent decline, according to the study, "A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher Supply, Demand and Shortages in the U.S." Cop shortage http://abcnews.go.com... "A decade ago, there were 3,000 applicants for 10 openings with the Seattle police, the department says. Now there are 1,000 applicants for 70 positions " a drop of more than 90 percent."
Debate.org should award points to a debater when... (Too long, details below)

As Con, I will argue that it is not net beneficial to have this extra point system. In comparing the current system and Pro's proposed system, the current system is more beneficial. C1. The current voting system is currently the ideal system The current voting system contains a maximum of 7 points to be given. This system is simple, effective, and mostly fair. This system is set up to discourage abuse of voting while still establishing a manner in how the debate was won. What I mean is that important issues regarding sources, conduct, and grammar are also emphasized while the system still maintains a sense of order. I. The "best argument" issue is presented with 3 points giving it the most power by itself. However, it is recognized that a debater may still lose the debate despite having the best argument. If a debater acts unfairly, rudely, has awful grammar, plagiarizes, forfeits rounds, and/or fails to cite sources, the debater may not deserve a win despite his or her arguments. Because Pro's extra point system is dependent on who has the better argument and would give the most power to the better argument, this would significantly weaken the ability of the other votes. II. The current voting system, while not absent of misuse, prevents excessive abuse. The "best argument" vote is misused rarest, and thus it has the most points. The "sources" vote can often be misused since it is worth 2 points, but I argue it is necessary. A failure to cite sources can often be plagiarism, something that cannot be encouraged. The "conduct" vote is rarely misused but since conduct is not quite as important as the other issues, it is only worth a single point. The "spelling/grammar" vote is abused the most. However, it is only a single point and is quite necessary. In general, the votes in the current system are either necessary or seldom misused by voters. It is not necessary to add any other points to this system. C2. The proposed extra point system is not an ideal system With additional points come additional problems. Pro's system is begging to be abused by dishonest voters, which unfortunately are prevalent. Currently, there are only 3 points that are often misused on this site. The "spelling/grammar" and "sources" votes are responsible, yet still they are necessary. The new system would add a potential 2 points to the voting system which could easily be abused. That would mean 5 out of 9 points would potentially be misused. In other words, more than half of the points could be dishonestly given. This would mean "vote bombers" and the like could be even more dishonest then they already are. In a perfect world, your system may be ideal, however, such misuse is rampant especially on the internet. C3. The extra point system is unnecessary If it was necessary, then it would probably have been added already. Since it is unnecessary, and only allows more dishonesty, then the altered opinion vote should not be allowed any points.
Debate.org should award points to a debater when... (Too long, details below)

Extension of resolution: a voter's personal opinion was altered by their good argumentation. There are radio buttons asking the voter what position he/she had before the debate. I believe that if the voter changed positions after the debate, the debater who changed the position should get 2 points. Rules of how it works: If voter agrees with Pro, then afterwards agrees with Con, Con gets 2 points. If voter agrees with Con, then afterwards agrees with Pro, Pro gets 2 points. If voter agrees with "Tied" then afterwards agrees with either Pro or Con, either Pro or Con gets 1 point only. (The less opinionated, the easier to bend) If voter agrees with Pro, then afterwards agrees with Tied, then Con gets 1 point. Same for the opposite of this one. If you are able to actually change someone's opinion on a topic as a result of good argumentation, you definitely deserve points. It also creates initiative to debate well and increases the quality of debate. Con will have to argue that it is not net beneficial to have this extra point system. Argumentation begins Round 1.
the catholic church teaches that we r justified by faith and works

Does Pro mean that Con should add to the resolution of what the Roman Church teaches today? Or how about what the Roman Church taught in the 1500s? Because what the Roman Church taught in the 1500s when it had a monopoly on religion in Western Europe would literally have almost everyone here at debate.org burning at the stake. But probably Pro is right that we should adhere to the topic at hand- The Roman Church is real big. It has 100,000 priests. 100,000 nuns. 100,000 saints. 10,000 cardinals. At any given time not all these people that actually make the Roman Church go are going to agree. So given this important military information we have at any given time- 1 The official teaching of the Roman Church 2 The collective teaching of the priests 3 The collective teaching of the nuns 4 The collective teaching of the cardinals Pro would have us believe that theology is at the fore. Ok- Just like Martin Luther, Con here has little respect for the New Testament book of James. But let us take one example- "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:17 To be save there must be faith and there must be works. But the unsaved are dead. The unsaved can have neither faith nor works because the unsaved are dead. Christ must supply everything. Christ must supply the faith. Christ must supply the work. If Christ does not supply what we have then we have nothing. We have nothing because we are dead. Does the Roman Church believe in faith? Yes Does the Roman Church believe in works? Yes What's the prob there Pro?
the catholic church teaches that we r justified by faith and works

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right"." R13; Martin Luther Part of the problem with quoting documents like Trent or even the writings of Martin Luther is context. Martin Luther was a very powerful man. So much so that the Roman Church could not ignore him. The Roman Church was forced to address Martin Luther because he was on a spiritual looting rampage. Luther was not just entering church buildings and striping the building of artifacts. He was not just kidnapping some of the members of the local church buildings. Martin Luther was taking entire communities and yes even nations away from the Roman Church. Everywhere that Martin Luther went he sacked the Roman Church. And it is in this context the writings of Luther and Trent should be examined. For in the spiritual, what went on between Luther and Rome was Total War. And we must be sure- We are still at war
Star Wars is better than Star Trek

Star Trek was aspirational looking forward into the future, while Star Wars was a fantasy about the past.Star Trek was SciFi while Star Wars was fantasy, wizards & knights & princesses masquerading as SciFi.Martin Luther King watched Star Trek and felt the show advanced civil rights in the US.Lightsabers? Swords made of light? What's making all those clashing sounds when they crash? Phasers are cooler, follow the rules of physics and are adjustable.There are hundreds of hours of Star Trek to watch as opposed to 12 hours of Star Wars, so the politics and people of the world to a far greater extent.7 of 9 vs. Princess Leia? Is it even close?Spock was at least as interesting a character as Darth Vader.
Premarital Sex is immoral

First and foremost, I'd like to clarify that I accepted this debate not because I believe premarital sex is immoral, it's neutral I agree (off the record), I just like to debate on things, especially the ones I don't agree on. It really depends on the situation, I'll debate both sides if I have to. Yes, I'm Catholic, I believe in Creationism and Evolution, sounds crazy but it's true. Now, my rebuttals: "He's going to have to use a different word than fornication in order prove that the bible prohibits all premarital sex. "The definitions: Fornication is a term that typically refers to consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other, as Premarital sex is sexual intercourse engaged in by persons who are unmarried. Pretty close to me, that definition of Fornication is modern English, not your ancient meaning referring it to prostitution. But I'm not going to argue further semantics on this one unless my opponent wants to. Now, according to tCatechesis in the Catholic Church, premarital sex is prohibited, I quote: (1)"Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young. "I would like to point out that prostitution can be consensual depending on the prostitute. And yes, prostitution immoral, thanks for pointing it out, religiously speaking. My opponent asked what can lessen the danger to people, I have already stated some examples, which is typed eventually, the illness people can get without contraceptives in premarital sex. As slim odds as it is, it's still admissable to this debate. My opponent definitely needs to clarify his argument that he doesn't have to prove anyt religiously or practically. This is one of my first debates in DDO, just wanna point out. Good luck to my opponent. (1)- . http://www.usccb.org...
Premarital Sex is immoral

Just for the record, homosexual intercourse falls under premarital if premarital is meant to be sexual intercourse engaged in by persons who are unmarried.I will be basing my first arguments using Religion as my source. As a Catholic, I am fully aware that it teaches fornication as a carnal union between two persons who are unmarried, and it's opposite to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality. It's also worse when there is corruption of the young. The Christian church defines this as a sin, which is against God. In the old Testament, it's considered a property crime. Next, is that it can lessen the danger to people. People in poverty, who cannot afford sexual education and contraception, like women who are most likely to have unwanted pregnancies. Then come abortions, that can be endanger the woman and the baby. If the woman has a mental problem and keeps giving birth to children after premarital sex can cause other problems, financial ones. It can also avoid having AIDS and other sex diseases (for people who don't use contraceptives) while having intercourse. It can also lessen the dangers teenagers, since teens who have premarital sex are likely to do drugs, break the law and commit more offenses to society as a result. That's all for now, good luck to my opponent.
Premarital Sex is immoral

I would like to have a debate on the morality of premarital sex. First, the definitions. premarital = before marriage. sex = Sexual union between a male and female involving either insertion of the penis into the vagina or genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis. morality = right or wrong. Now, although I don't believe there is anything moraly wrong with gay or lesbian sex, for the sake of argument this will be about straight sex. Furthermore this does not include extramarital sex, or incest. I will be arguing that premarital sex is morally neutral; that it is neither good or bad. I want this to be a good thorough debate, so please put every effort into proving your belief in the immorality of premarital sex correct. Even though I haven't, feel free to post your arguments in round 1 - because I want to start this debate ASAP.
Schools Should Have Same-Sex Classes.

I'll start off by countering my opponents three points and then move on to my case. My opponent brought three points to the table: 1) You have to learn how to interact with the other sex sometime in life I completely agree... however, this doesn't apply to my case as I only proposed separating P.E and Sex Ed classes. Even if you figure an hour is spent in these classes, that still leaves 6 hours of a normal school day to interact with people of the opposite sex. 2) It's hard to keep the sexes separated (esp. at lunch/recess) Once again, I agree, and once again, it's irrelevant. The genders can mix during every class except P.E or Sex Ed. That still leaves 6 hours of the day to interact and develop social skills. 3) Friends/siblings can't have classes together. I ask that my opponent explain this point in more detail in the next round. I'm at a loss for how it applies to the resolution. While many schools do tend to separate siblings, friends are rarely separated, and usually by chance then choice. And onto my case... The only attack on my case my opponent makes is that there are several girls who are just as tough as, if not tougher than, the guys. While this is definitely a true statement, look no further than your local high school to see evidence of this "segregation" in a socially acceptable manner. Take your swim team. There's a guys swim team, and a girls swim team. Why? Because males and females bodies are different. You see the same thing with tennis, golf, track, basketball, baseball/softball, and the list continues... My other point on Sex Ed went uncontested, go ahead and extend that argument into the final round. At this point, guaranteed 2/3 points don't apply to my case, and 1/3 is extremely unclear (at least to me anyways...) and my case still stands, Sex Ed if nothing else... I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal
Schools Should Have Same-Sex Classes.

I would like to elaborate on my first three points, then move on to my opponent's case. First, you have to learn how to interact with the opposite sex sometime in your life. You are around people all throughout your life. Some people say having boys and girls in the same class is distracting for the students. However, if you grow up having classes with only one sex, you will never learn how to be around them or interact with them. If your school has same-sex classes, when you get college or get a job, you will have trouble. Plus, it is easier to learn when you are young rather than when you are an adult. Second, at recess or break, it is very hard to keep the sexes seperated. Some people say that guys are tougher than girls. However, this is not true. Everyone is different and cannot be treated like the same. Third, best friends or siblings cannot have classes together. True, they will meet new people. In the process, they may feel lonely. This could cause them to not want to go to school, resulting in absences or falling grades. No one can afford that, no matter what age. Also, no one likes to feel alone. Now to move to my opponent's case. "Younger schools: Physical Education is a class that should be broken up by gender" --I believe this to be wrong. Yes, males and females are very different. However, that is no reason to seperate PE classes. I know several girls who are just as tough as, if not tougher than, the guys. Through elementary school, middle school, and junior high, I distinctly remember PE being seperated by willingness to participate and skill. Often times those who didn't care to participate would walk around the gym. Those who did would be split into skill level. (Will finish in round 3)