BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest.

*I actually did take the right side in the debate. It may seem wrong, but I took the right side. I am supporting the fact that, "Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest." I am going to now counter each of the Con's arguments in reverse order. 4. "The healthcare deficet is already a major issue in the Whitehouse." There is no "health care deficit". 3. "It could. However, it's aid is miniscule when in comparison to other industries, like the clothing industry." This was not one of my MAIN arguments, so I accept the fact that the cotton industry wouldn't be DRASTICALLY affected by the tobacco industry, but it is a pro. 2. "While the employment itself is a good thing, the effects of tobacco and it's toll on health and healthcare is far more at a disadvantage" I note that you DO, in fact, accept the fact that the employment benefits are present. But you also say that "it's toll on health and health care is far more at a disadvantage" I'm sure I know what you mean, but the grammatical error could open it up to mean more than one thing. What I think you mean is that the tobacco industry is bad for health care as a whole. The main point I would like to note here is that, although tobacco may kill people, non-tobacco users tend to live longer and as a result, end up having more health problems that would cause them to go to the doctor. In conclusion, tobacco users actually have LESS health problems than non-tobacco users. 1. "I would imagine even more are hospitalized and leech the hospitals for their eventual deaths because they are too ill to work. This pushes our healthcare deficit and could lower the quality of healthcare, for this is a major issue in the Whitehouse." I am going to refer back to my last point. Contrary to popular belief, non-tobacco users tend to live longer and incur more health problems than tobacco users. I don't feel the need to post any new arguments, as my main argument proves sufficient. Pro ballot. :)
Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest.

Hello, Pro, and thank you for this debate. (READ THE BOTTOM PARENTHESIS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS!!!) I will first contend with my opponents points and then move to affirm my own. =Rebuttals= 1. "The buying, selling, and making of tobacco all support a healthy economy". However, does tobacco make healthy people? Does it have any positive direct benifets? No. In fact, I will use you as my first source: "There are 435,000 tobacco related deaths each year." I would imagine even more are hospitalized and leech the hospitals for their eventual deaths because they are too ill to work. This pushes our healthcare deficit and could lower the quality of healthcare, for this is a major issue in the Whitehouse. 2. "The tobacco industry employs at least 200,000 people considering only the factory workers and farmers." While the employment itself is a good thing, the effects of tobacco and it's toll on health and healthcare is far more at a disadvantage 3. "The tobacco industry could also be seen as helping the cotton industry flourish considering that every cigarette includes a cotton filter." It could. However, it's aid is miniscule when in comparison to other industries, like the clothing industry. There are more than 1,000 ways to use cotton (http://news.google.com...), and this would not matter too much in that aspect. 4. "I'm simply asking you to take these into account when you think of jobs that the tobacco industry helps create, indirectly. I have, my friend. I am now asking you to take into account the DIRECT causes of still maintaing tobacco. Deaths, hospitalization,- and other things. The hospitilization alone makes them a leech on society, since they are unable to work in sever conditions and the hospitals are required to treat them if their health is directly in danger. The healthcare deficet is already a major issue in the Whitehouse. =Contentions= 1. Eliminating tobacco rights is in America's best interest, because it would aid greatly in the healthcare deficit. Thusly, it would improve the economy through healtcare and would help Obama be more at ease with the current issues, which could decrease his stress levels and increase his work preformance, since healthcare is already a big issue on Capital Hill. (http://www.healthquoteinsider.com...) With this, I strongly urge you to vote for Itsallovernow ((NOTE: My opponet took the wrong side to support. I will give him the benifet of the doubt. From now on, my opponent is CON and I am PRO.))
Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest.

Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest. I believe that eliminating tobacco rights would create a sharp decline in the economy as a whole. The buying, selling, and making of tobacco all support a healthy economy, and one of the points that I would like to stress as a main argument is: - The tobacco industry employs at least 200,000 people considering only the factory workers and farmers. The tobacco industry could also be seen as helping the cotton industry flourish considering that every cigarette includes a cotton filter. I'm not saying that the cotton industry is still alive as a direct result of cigarette filters, I'm simply asking you to take these into account when you think of jobs that the tobacco industry helps create, indirectly. I would like to see my opponents main points before stressing anymore of mine. *Keep in mind that this is not my only argument.
The damaging effects of shame-based sexual education

""All I see in your post are individual stories from people with bad experiences." That"s why you are a christian who can"t think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, nor use logic, nor read, nor comprehend which is what the christian religion is and what is based upon and founded upon. So I"m ending out fruitful debate. With that one sentence of yours it proves to me and unto others that in no possible way did you read that entire article, but only the first 3 paragraphs, if that and then you jump to your erroneous, stupid pathetic, truly ignorant, tangent, arrogant combustible conclusions. And you expect me to read the trash in which you spread in which case I read your first link, in which case you go right ahead and tell me and everybody else what is wrong with it and why it is just another piece of meat and truly fake and fraudulent just---like---you AND YOUR religion? See, in a debate what I hope for is intelligence and those that have an edumacation. Wow you most certainly have showed that you like nearly in all the rest of my debates, that christians like you SERIOUSLY lack both. Bye.
The damaging effects of shame-based sexual education

All I see in your post are individual stories from people with bad experiences. Here are some stories to the contrary which I found googling around in about 5 minutes. http://www.abstinenceresourcecenter.org... https://www.louderwithcrowder.com... http://www.thebamblog.com... It looks like you have fallen prey to the age old fallacy of confirmation bias. You have picked through the web to find the most extreme examples which proove your point. Also, here is a study to run counter to the one you posted. (NOTE: This study only demonstrates that it is beneficial to delay sex in a relationship. I am only including it here because it shows that waiting does have benefits.) https://www.livescience.com... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Do you see how easy it is to pick and choose sources which support your case while ignoring those which do not? Now, I am still in need of clarification on what I am defending, and this did look like a fun debate. But these "Shame-based education" systems are not what some religions teach. They are responses to the teachings, not the teachings themselves. For instance, the Christian worldview teaches that lust is a sin, but it is a specific church which migtht incorporate these "shame-based systems"This is what confuses me though:Prove that religion and god and the bible should be in anyway followed as far as what its sexual intentions are. If we are not talking about a specific religion, then I will be proving that every single view of sexuality brought up by every single religion is valid. And since religions differ on their views of sexuality, then you are potentially asking me to prove potentially thousands of religions. Have I got that right?I do not mean to waste your time or debate, but I am just unclear on what I am supposed to do. You seem to be asking me to do two different things.
The damaging effects of shame-based sexual education

Could you clarify the point of the debate? The debate is titled: The damaging effects of shame-based sexual education. Then at the bottom of your post say that I have to prove that religion, God, and the Bible should be followed based on the sexual intentions? And I am supposed to do this for every single religion and God? I guarantee that not every religion has a shame based education system, so if that is the main thing you want me to defend, then I am not going to defend every single religion. Hell, I don't even know how many religions there are in the world. Please clarify what you want me to do here.
Epistemic Justification is possible

So I've finally decided to have my third debate so I may start voting on others. My goal is to show, as an indirect skeptic, that all dogmatists lack justifications for their beliefs and are inconsistent in their pursuit for objective truths. Definitions: (1) Pyrrhonism - a school of scepticism based on the suspension of belief (2) Gettier Problem - a philosophical question on whether justified true belief is sufficient for knowledge (3) Knowledge - Certain Justified True Belief The topic is "Justification is possible". My opponent must either show that the conclusion of Munchhausen's Trilemma is false, that justification can be based on Coherentism, Foundationalism, Infinitism or show that it is a false trilemma. Rounds: 1. Con's opening, Pro's arguments 2. Con's arguments, Pro's rebuttal 3. Con's rebuttal, Pro's defense 4. Con's defence, Pro's concedes Notes: (1) Do NOT accept if you are unable to commit to this debate (2) A single forfeiture counts as a loss (3) All contested or added definitions should be included in the comments section to utilize all characters in their round and avoid disagreements (4) Please do not accept if you are unfamiliar with the terminology (5) Burden of Proof is on Pro. Looking forward to an intellectually stimulating debate!
Hillary Clinton should be our next president.

There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be our next president. To begin, Clinton wiped her entire email server clean, which "appears to have been wiped after October 2014, when the State Department asked Clinton to return her official emails to the department"[1]. While she forfeited around 30,000 emails to the government, she only did so after immense pressure by the congressional group investigating Benghazi[2]. In addition, there are another 30,000 emails (there are around 60,000) in total which she refuses to give up. While some argue it is her right to privacy being invaded, in reality she is an elected official who wiped her server clean when she had to give them to the State Department. If Clinton is elected president, who's to say such a scandal won't occur then either? Here are some issues Clinton has voted on[3]: "Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)" "Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)" "Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)" "Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)" "Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)" These are big issues and someone who votes so irresponsibly is not qualified to be the next U.S. president. Not only did she support warrantless infringements of our most basic right to privacy, Clinton also voted "No" on notifying parents of minors who get out of state abortions. It is appalling how blatantly irresponsible this is. Parents have the right to know if their child gets an abortion. This encourages children to embrace the practice and is an attempt to pass off abortion as a reasonable form of contraception that can be kept secret from family. It seems hypocritical that Clinton is in favor of children getting secret abortions yet favors the government's warrantless intrusion of its citizens phone records. There are more suitable candidates than Hillary Clinton to run for president. For example, here are Marco Rubio's stances on big issues[4]: "Toughen laws against prostitution & sex trafficking. (Apr 2007)" "Collect DNA of those convicted of sexually deviant behavior. (Nov 2006)" "Mandatory life sentence for repeat sex offenders. (Nov 2006)" "Teach students skills to avoid gangs, violence, & drugs. (Nov 2006)" "Pro-life, but understands that woman's right is the law. (Jun 2012)" "Supports No-Child-Left-Behind Opportunity Scholarships. (Nov 2010)" "Voted for more scholarships for private schools. (Apr 2007)" "Incentivize foreign language curriculum in elementary school. (Nov 2006)" Rubio is a good alternative to Clinton. While Clinton favors crime policies which affect gun ownership for law abiding citizens, Rubio prioritizes going after the criminals. Rubio also favors cracking down on sex crimes, supports women's right to choose for abortions, and has beneficial educational policies such as exposing children to foreign languages at a young age. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://www.washingtontimes.com... [3] http://www.ontheissues.org... [4] http://www.ontheissues.org...
Impromptu Debate

There is no Morality under the communist doctrines that the USSR followed. It simply did not exist, in Communism that which furthers the goal of Communism is good all other things are bad. Therefore all things were done with the belief that it would aid the worldwide Communist revolution. Therefore the entire point falls because the USSR practiced the morality that they believed to be correct SIMILAR SYSTEMS Just a technical matter here but the Soviet Union was not the only Marxist style superpower as China laid claim to that title as well when its economy was Communist as well Again thank you for this excellent debate Yvette
Impromptu Debate

My three options for my opponent to debate are 1. American Capitalism as practiced was superior to Soviet Communism/Socialism 2. Marxist dialectical materialism is superior to Christianity 3. Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations As for me I will choose to argue against my opponents third choice, that is I take the position that sexist and racist portrayals should NOT be removed from television and other media Thank you again for the opportunity for this debate
Impromptu Debate

I enjoyed my last debate of this type and would like to have another one. Please no semantics or wordplay, be respectful, and have fun. I ask that my opponent find options that are equal in difficulty/complexity to the ones I have offered. ROUND 1: I propose three options for CON to argue for or against. CON proposes three options for me. ROUND 2: We each provide our argument. ROUND 3: We argue against our opponent's argument. This way, each party has an opportunity to point out any flaws in their opponent's logic. My opponent may choose one of the following statements to argue for or against: 1. President Obama is a better president than President Bush. 2. The BP oil leak will result in environmentally-friendly policy changes. 3. Sexist and racist portrayals should be removed from television and other media.
Conservative side

" I'm not so proud of it for the way it is. Letting jobs get lost, worthless and needless wars, having presidents that only intend to ruin our economy," The facts are that the Pres helped to save the economy, with not much help from congress. In a world of constant change, jobs are made obsolete, but new jobs are created. As to 'worthless and needless wars', that seems to have been a tradition going back several decades.
Conservative side

The fact that you think the Pres is the worst only proves your lack of knowledge regarding past presidents. James Buchanan - A Pennsylvania-born Democrat, deeply devout in his faith and the only bachelor elected to the presidency, Buchanan rejected slavery as an indefensible evil but, like the majority of his party, refused to challenge the constitutionally established order. Even before he became president, he supported the various compromises that made it possible for slavery to spread into the western territories acquired by the Lousiana Purchase and the Mexican War. Warren G. Harding - He was an ineffectual and indecisive leader who played poker while his friends plundered the U.S. treasury. Warren G. Harding's claim to infamy rests on spectacular ineptitude captured in his own pathetic words: "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here." A former newspaperman and publisher who won a string of offices in his native Ohio, he was an unrestrained womanizer noted for his affability, good looks, and implacable desire to please. It was good, his father once told him, that he hadn't been born a girl, "because you'd be in the family way all the time. You can't say no." John Tyler - Joining the young Whig Party, he ran with popular war hero Harrison, and the ticket of "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" trounced the Democratic candidates. But once he became president, Tyler opposed everything his adopted party stood for, including a national bank. One fellow Whig accused Tyler of reviving "the condemned and repudiated doctrines and practices of the worst days of Jackson's rule." The entire Harrison-appointed cabinet resigned, and Tyler had to fight an attempt to impeach him.
torture

Torture is inflicting mental and physical pain to a person in order to break down their will. Torture isn't considered to be a moral act but it can be justified depending on the purpose of the torture. For instance cases that involve harm to innocent people are cases where torture is justifiable. For example a terrorist group has plans of blowing up a park where a lot of people will be presented, and the police arrest one of the terrorist in the group, interrogation would be the best techniques in order to make the terrorist talk. Therefore a form of torture was what saved a group of innocent people from dying. If the form of torture used is from the minimalist form, then it cases minimum effects of mental scars, and stops the endangerment of innocent lives. So cases where innocent life can be protected without severally hurting the tortured, are cases showing justifiable torture. Meaning that torture used at the minimalist form and saving lives are innocents, is minimally morally justifiable.
torture

I understand what you mean, however no one deserves to be tortured to the point that they are terribly mentally damaged. There should be a better way to go about getting information out of people than to harm them physically and/or mentally. It is true that people who endanger the safety of other people should be punished, or at least questioned but does it have to be in a harmful way? This is the reason why torture is not minimally morally justifiable, because there are no morals involved when torturing a human being.
torture

Those effects that you mentioned are long term effects seen in cases of torture that are consistent with torture that is applied in maximal cases not cases where the minimal force of torture is involved. Minimal torture can have those effects but they only last for short periods of time, and the torture is only used to insure the safety of other people that the tortured was putting in risk. So if someone is under the suspicion of being able to/or committing, attempting, or being involved in a crime, they deserve the torture that is appointed to them and that includes the short mental effects that come with that torture.
torture

In that instance, the tortured can still be severally hurt mentally. The mental effects of that type of torture make it unjustifiable. Continuing to interrogate someone by torturing them (beating them up until they talk, waterboarding, etc.) can lead to that person being mentally unstable for the rest of their lives, and that is a form of severe hurt. Just because the hurt is not physical, does not mean it is not "severe." For example, someone who has been a victim of waterbaording will wind up being afraid to walk in the rain or take a shower. The mental damage of those kinds of torture make the torture unjustifiable.
torture

In explaining the forms of torture that are minimally morally justifiable we must point out the differences between minimalist form and the maximalist form, which in order means that in this instant we are only talking about the minimalist forms. In order to understand the cases that are justifiable then we must understand that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and amoral, so knowing this we must also know that just because all acts of torture aren't correct or moral some are justifiable. For example a case of a justifiable act of torture is interrogation. In these cases, the individual in interrogation is not responding to the questions being asked because they believe that they have the power to inflict pain on others, torture is used to interrogate them in an attempt to prevent their action from happening and the lives of many innocent lives being taken. Cases where innocent life can be protected without severally hurting the tortured, are cases showing justifiable torture.
torture

(1) Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical and mental suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will. (2) The purpose of torture is to cause someone to cease to act in accordance with his or her own will and act in accordance to the will of the torturer. (3) What is moral is ethical. (4) Ethics is acting in accordance with what is right and wrong. (5) What is meant by saying that something is minimally, morally acceptable, is that there are some exceptions in which torture is permissible, whereas other cases it is impermissible (6) Cases where the lives of innocents can be saved such as bomb threats and car jacks with children in the car are cases where necessary minimalist torture is morally justifiable. (7) minimal torture only affects the person being tortured for a short period of time where as in a maximal torture they are tortured for a long period of time, therefore minimal torture is permissible and maximal torture is not. (8) Necessary minimalist torture is morally justifiable. (9) Minimalist torture is torture in where the tortured can still physically and psychological functions after the torture occurs. (10)Torture is morally justifiable if presented with imminent threat to the life or lives of other. (11)Therefore torture is minimally morally justifiable