BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The political science of climate change

I did not respond to your arguments because you didn’t make any arguments. What you did is make a bunch of assertions which you failed to support with reasons or evidence. However, since you seem eager to have address your arguments, I'll give it a go. Green Guilt CON has claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses propaganda in order to create green guilt. This is simply a bald assertion; I’m not sure what evidence CON has to support this claim, but I am interested to see it. As an intergovernmental organization, the IPCC is not tied down to the politics of a particular nation or religion, and its reports do not prescribe policy [1]. Again, I am interested to see CON’s evidence. Eugenicists CON has claimed that the term “global warming” is used by “modern eugenicists. ” I’m not sure that there are any significant numbers of eugenicists around these days, but if they are I am saddened that they are trying to hijack the phrase referring to this great threat. I actually don’t know how to respond to this because CON has again failed to provide any evidence; either for the existence of actual groups of eugenicists or to their goals related to their use of the term in question. However, even if CON’s claim is true, it has no bearing on the veracity of global warming. Globalist Elite Finally, CON has made the claim that believers in anthropogenic global warming are being manipulated by the “globalist elite,” whoever that is. First, I would like to point out that, again, CON has made claims that he has not backed up with evidence. However, I would like to make the point that those who believe in global warming are following the evidence [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. CON is also claiming that these alleged “elite” are trying to manipulate global population to make it more closely resemble themselves. Perhaps CON provide some arguments and evidence in support of this claim as well. Final Thoughts The instigator of this debate has provided very little in the way of supporting arguments, and has failed to provide ANY evidence whatsoever for his claims. Instead, he has made numerous bald assertions. I am interested to see the arguments along with supporting evidence CON will provide in the next round. Sources: (Note: Whenever possible, I have linked to the full article, however, this was not always possible as some scholarly journals require a subscription to view them. In these cases, I have linked to the abstracts. ) [1] . http://www.ipcc.ch... [2] . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [3] . http://www.nature.com... [4] . http://www.sciencemag.org... [5] . http://www.pnas.org... [6] . http://www.sciencemag.org... [7] . http://academic.evergreen.edu... [8] . http://www.ecd.bnl.gov... [9] . http://courses.washington.edu... [10] . http://www.nature.com... [11] . http://www.geneseo.edu...
Equality and Equity are two different things, and Equity is more fair.

I have realised, after reading your argument, that my example wasn't great. I do agree that this would not be practical for the football stadium to provide different heights of boxes for different people (although the picture actually illustrates different numbers of the same box, not different heights). However, I'll take another example to argue my point. If, say, there were 10 people stranded on a desert island (clich"d but simple) - one was a baby, two were children under 12, two were teenagers, four were adults between 18 and 60, and one was an adult over 60. If, for arguments sake, the average person needed 100g of food per day to survive (I know this is not true, but I am making up figures here), then 1kg of food would be needed each day. Giving the group equality would mean giving every person 100g of food every day, but equity would give each person the food that they need - the baby wouldn't need much (or none if they are still breast-feeding), so that 100g could be used to feed the teenagers or young adults, who need more food than the extremely young or elderly. I do think that equality is important though, e. g. between races, genders, sexualities etc. However, I think what society needs is equity within equality. Every race, gender, sexuality etc. should be treated equally, but within that, there needs to be some equity with different ages/conditions. Having a completely equal society would be boring; there would be no diversity, and everyone and everything would be the same. There would only be one brand of cereal, milk, everything, and society would be very dull. But think about it. There would be absolutely no way to have a fully equal society. Who would lead the country? Surely no one could because it would mean they don't have equal rights to everyone else. I said that there would only be one brand of everything, but who would lead these companies? Who would make the products as a job, instead of doing something better that they want to do? I understand your argument, but I just don't think equality could exist without equity in the equation somewhere.
Equality and Equity are two different things, and Equity is more fair.

I agree with you that Equality and Equity are different things. I am arguing that Equality is more fair, in the lens of pragmatism and of social policies. There indeed are a vast array of different individuals in society--each with their own traits, demands, and needs. From your examples of the football game boxes and comparison of people of two different ages, I assume that you define the notions of 'fairness' and 'justice' by this definition: fairness is the optimal distribution of physical goods, social benefits, or legal protections, etc. that are proportional and reflective of individual's unique needs. Please correct me if I am wrong. However, there is a problematic assumption in generalizing the box analogy to larger aspects of society: the differences between individual's needs are usually not quantifiable in large enough steps(i.e have one box for Large People, Medium People, and Small People) as mentioned in your example. Even going with the height analogy in a football game, it would be largely impractical for the stadium to provide boxes of every 12 inches, 6, inches, 3 inches, and so forth. In other words, society/provider can try to best accommodate different people's need, but they need to draw the line somewhere. But where do they stop? I will propose how equality, not equity, can set this dilemma straight, and equality is at the core of the endeavor. Equality is about the absolutes, both in terms of what is distributed amongst all individual but also what is achievable. Think of the famous quote "Inalienable Rights", or the equality such as the right to preserve our own life. By implementing these core absolutes, these equalities form the very foundation of our modern societies and personal thoughts. And by definition, everybody has exactly equal amounts of something, no more, no less. By this I call equality more fair than equity. Of course, we have the possibility to give and receive more/less than how much this equality demands, (these are the fine points of the discussion), BUT who has the authority/knowledge to determine what distribution is fairer (more optimal)? Mathematics? Statistics? Surveys and census of every individual in the world every second? I doubt that people would have an timely agreement in a practical sense (such as deciding upon legislation) based on equity, therefore making equality more practically fair and theoretically clear when compared to equity. Hope to hear back!
Equality and Equity are two different things, and Equity is more fair.

For those who don't know, equality is where, quite obviously, everyone is treated equally. However, equity is where people (or animals) are given the right things to suit their needs. The most common example of this is at a football game. There is a tall person, a medium sized person, and a small person. There is a fence in front of them which means they can't see the game. Equality is giving each of the people the same box to stand on, to help them see, but equity is giving more boxes to the smaller people and less to the taller. In the first situation, only the tall person could now see, but in the second, everyone could see. Although this is on a much smaller scale to the real world, it is still a compelling argument to show that actually, equality isn't enough. I believe that equity is much more important than equality, because it means that people get what they need, not what others need. I understand that everyone needs equal rights to some extent, otherwise there would be no justice, but a 3 year old child would obviously need more support than a 35 year old man/woman. I hope you will debate my topic and I am looking forward to debating with you!
I love licking 4 year-old girls!

I love licking 4 year-old girls, They feel so good. In my mind, I see a little child waiting to be licked. When I was a little kid, I wanted to lick so many things. I wanted to lick adults and other children. And yet I didn't lick them. Now the things are different, Now I am licking children, Whether they want it or not. If they want it, It becomes cute. If they don't want it, It becomes hot. Tongue will make a way, Where there seems to be no way, I will lick little girls, And express my love towards them. They will know I want them, They will know I like them, And my deeds will remain in their hearts. Maybe one day, They will grow up, And lick children as well. They will be like me, I will be like them. One lick on the cheek has a lot of power, But what has even more is dozen licks on the cheeks of dozen different children.
Bring it On

Much thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Here are the topcs I will be choosing. That Hoppe's argmentation ethics is a justified theory of rights.- I would be Pro Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a revision of Jugermas' discourse ethics, taken to libertarian conclusions(non-aggression principle, self ownership) The existence of objective secular morality- I would be Con Secular objective morality would be an objective moral standard in the abscence of a deity. That Anarcho-capitalism is a preferable system of social and economics organization than [insert political system here] I will allow my opponent to decide which political system he is to argue is superior. Anarcho-capitalism is defined as "a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty in a free market.[1] I am much looking forward to this debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bring it On

Greetings to the contender, I have titled this debate "Bring it on," as the contender will suggest three to five controversial topics (and also identify the stance that s/he will take). I will then select one of the topics and prepare a case. We will use round one merely as the selection phase. Round 2 will initiate the debate. If you have any queries, I will address them in the comments section. Good luck to my opponent!
North Korea is a more serious threat to United States National Security than Iran

First, my attack on Alliance argument. First, the evidence he posted is a biased new source, you can see it in the name, so disregard it. Also, my definition of national security is in this link. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... security Looking at his Myer evidence, you can apply the same argument to Iran. Iran knows many nations are on Israels side, and that they simply cannot contend with all of thath, also looking at the fact that they do not have the means to reach the united states with any physical threat. 2. proliferation Correct, having the ability and actually doing are different things, but this debate is not if North Korea will attack, only that they are a greater threat than Iran, so the argument about motivation and incentive is not topical to this debate. I will not address incentive to attack, as it is not what we are debating. All of my opponents evidence is opinion, while I have brought up statistics referring to North Korea's army. 3. Iran not dangerous. Once again, the situation is whether Iran can harm the United States, not terrorist organizations. Iran is not the only sponsor of terrorism. If every nation that sponsors terrorism is a huge threat, we could add various african nations to the list. Regarding my CoR evidence, the individual states are more powerful than individual organizations. Simply put, the fact that Iran is dependent on North Korea shows that North Korea is the larger threat. Now to my opponents case, 1. Iran and terrorism My opponent referenced 9/11. SInce then, global and national awareness of terrorism has increased, and airports have taken preventative measures to prevent attacks. The failed Christmas Day bombing a couple years ago illustrates this. http://security.nationaljournal.com...: This evidence by The new director of national intelligence, retired Adm. Dennis Blair, clearly points out that the top threat to the US' national security is the worldwide economic crisis. Outweights his terrorism argument. North Korea having ties to Russia was stated because Russia is a world power, and clearly outweighs terrorist organizations. 3. Iran Prolif. My opponent directly contradicts his terroism contention with the quote,"Terrorists cant attach a fully functioning nuke on an ICBM and launch it from the middle east." While North Korea has been testing fully functional nuclear weapons for quite a while now. http://www.foxnews.com... A quote from the evidence, "The United States and its partners have pushed North Korea for years to abandon its atomic ambitions, but the North has conducted two nuclear tests and now claims it has 2,000 centrifuges producing uranium for a new reactor." The world will agree that nukes outweight terrorism, and Irans program is flawed. http://www.denverpost.com...
North Korea is a more serious threat to United States National Security than Iran

North Korea poses a more serious threat to united states national security than Iran for the following reasons. 1. North Korea is attacking our allies and threatening us. 2. North Korea is proliferating and gaining military resources 3. Iran is simply not as dangerous as North Korea 1. North Korea is attacking allies Last month, North Korea decided to attack their neighbors to the south, South Korea, with ballistic missiles. A south Korean island suffered 2 deaths, South Korea responded with more attacks of their own. Also, when the US and South Korea began military exercises in the wake of this attack, North Korea threatened extreme retaliation if they continued. If the North is attacking our friends, they are attacking us. 2. NK is proliferating and gaining military resources. As it stands right now, North Korea is gaining huge strides in its nuclear program and has the fourth largest standing army in the world. NK is gaining the resources necessary to strike, and if given the motivation, they will do so. The nation bows to it's leader Kim Jong Il, altering its constitution and naming him "supreme ruler" and giving his philosophies high priority. The North Korean people will stand by him if he choses to fight. 3. Iran is not as dangerous. Iran is simply not a strong military force. Sure, they can talk the talk, but they have not and will not walk the walk. The riots in Iran have caught the government off guard, and its response is to fire tear gas into crowds and terrorize it's own people. The Iranian government cannot handle it's own people correctly, how can it handle a war? For those three reasons, we must see that North Korea is the most dangerous threat to US national security.
War on Terror

8,000 charactersTime to argue - 72 hoursResolved: The positive impact of the war on terror on the United States outweighs the negative impact of the war on terror on the United States.I will be arguing against this resolution, or that the United States receives more of a negative impact from the war on terror than a positive one.No semantics or trolling please. Forfeited rounds result in an automatic loss.First round for acceptance. Thanks to anyone considering
Self-improvement books do more harm than good

Self-improvement books do more harm than goodLet‘s talk about self-improvement books. I am going to argue that, they actually are not that helpful but in most cases can be rated as problematically to dangerous. Society Debate | Shared BOP | 4 Rounds | 72 Hours Reply | 10.000 Characters | 7 Point Voting Definitions and LimitationsThe terms of self-help and self-improvement are sometimes/often used as synonyms but can be semantically a bit vague. This is not aimed at books on Technology and Crafts such as „How to knit“, „C Programming for Beginners“ as they might be categorized as self-help books but certainly not as self-improvement books. Because these teach and deal with hard skill problems such as lacking the ability to kit or program and have nothing to do with soft skills such as fancy speaking or self-motivation.Debate StructureIn terms of fairness, we will start with a round of arguments only and end with a round of rebuttal only. Which means my opponent can choose to have the last word with a first round of acceptance or open the debate immediately and end with a forfeit. I don’t mind pictures as additional media, but I’d hope my opponent can restrain himself/herself from posting videos, as I don’t always have a stable connection as well as access boundaries due to different home countries may occur. Looking forward to having an enjoyable debate I say welcome and good luck.
Military Spending In Uganda Should Be Reduced

Hello, I"m Nid. In this debate, my opponent will attempt to support a reduction in military spending in Uganda. I will defend the opposite Uganda is a war torn country in Africa which has been able to maintain an uneasy peace for several years. As any Kony 2012 buff will tell you, it is the former headquarters of the LRA (Lord"s Resistance Army). Why has it had peace? Its Military power is why. The passage below from the US state department Website tells of one such instance. The Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a rebel group operating in western Uganda and eastern D.R.C. near the Rwenzori Mountains, emerged as a localized threat in 1996 and inflicted substantial suffering on the population in the area. It has largely been defeated by the Uganda People's Defense Force, and the affected areas of western Uganda have been secured. Remnants of the ADF remain in eastern D.R.C. In my opponent"s argument he says that Ugandan citizens are dying in hospitals. The reason for many of these hospitalisations is internal strife. If Uganda lowers its military, It will be consumed by the violence of Africa more than it already has Sources: http://www.state.gov... Have a nice day
Military conscription is unjust

Alright, as it's only one round, I won't post an opposing argument, and simply critique the case instead. If you find the criticism to be effective, vote Con. "Justice: A moral duty." You need legitimate definitions. If you wish to use this one, provide a source. Otherwise, default to Aristotle's of "giving each his [or her] due". Moral duty and justice are not one and the same. Criterion: First off, you never properly linked your V/VC, which is necessary for a legitimate case. Second, maximal freedoms can't achieve justice. Maximal freedom is only present in a state of nature. In a state of nature, you can't achieve justice. You need a VC which can be achieved without totally abandoning any sort of society. Contentions: "It is an action out of fear for retribution and as it can clearly be seen, fear does not constitute justice" Fear isn't necessarily unjust...You must demonstrate that it is. "Again, allowing the people to do whatever they want is not a constituent of justice either." Maximal freedoms inherently mean allowing any behavior. You actually destroy any link between your V and VC with this statement. "it is necessary HOWEVER IT IS NOT JUST." If the draft is necessary, your opponent can demonstrate that it achieves justice for the civilian majority, and permits a legitimate system of justice to exist. DO NOT concede the necessity of military conscription. "a: Fear doesn't constitute justice" You're not supporting your criterion, and supporting a flawed definition of justice. Find a legitimate definition if justice. Find a practical VC. Link the two. Support your VC. Your value should be supported indirectly by the VC. Find warrants. If you can't warrant your claims, the case is illegitimate. If you want further criticisms, feel free to message me.
Military conscription is unjust

I need help with the natl's topic... If anyone can help me with my case not just by attacking it but by helping me build it up and other things. I also require someone who is very good at LD Resolved: military conscription is unjust Military Conscription: compulsory or involuntary service directed to aid during times of conflict predominantly in the military. Compulsory: Mandatory and coercive or enforced order. Justice: A moral duty. V: Justice VC: Maximization of possible freedoms Since the resolution is based upon involuntary military service whether it be active or stationary it should be deemed important to note that the negation of this resolution invariably robs one out of options. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for military service but forcing individuals to risk life and limb to help their country is no longer justice. Under my criterion of maximization of possible freedoms compulsory military action is condemned not because military action is bad, but because it is compulsory. Contention one: Compulsory Justice is no longer justice. As I stated earlier I am all for military service, only if it is voluntary. The problem with a draft is that it robs us of an option to negate. Even if we save the country, the world, the universe, it is no longer justice. It is an action out of fear for retribution and as it can clearly be seen, fear does not constitute justice. Again, allowing the people to do whatever they want is not a constituent of justice either. This is why the affirmative position is based upon practicality. We must still enforce the law even if we know compulsory enforcement is wrong. The affirmative does not advocate a military draft but as fate may see it for practicality it is necessary HOWEVER IT IS NOT JUST. a: Fear doesn't constitute justice As the European philosopher Kant stated, Good Will is that which is intrinsically good. Therefore it must be derived from duty and a sense of justice than inclination and fear. So, to commit to be just one must want to do justice because it is the right thing to do not because one is forced to. A military draft is followed because of fear from retribution from the government. The government may fine you or put you in jail. Whatever the case military service is compulsory and thus enforced. Any citizen fearful of retribution will enact the draft. Operating out of fear is not justice. Justice is made up of good will a sense of duty but not fear.
should the punishment of cyber crime be at par with the punishment for rape,murder etc.

My opponent did not specifically choose one particular cyber crime that can cause as serious damage as murder or rape. Generally, cyber crimes DO damage network systems, and consquently internet users, but not as significant as rape or murder does. As I pointed out at the earlier point, punishment for a crime should be consistent with the cruelty of a crime. Even though my opponent believes the cruelty of cyber crimes can be compared to that of murder or rape, it certainly cannot be compared to such inhuman violations, rape and murder. Cyber crimes often causes damages to financial means, while rape and murder often take victims' lives. Financial means cannot be more valuable than people's lives in any case, regardless of quantity. Therefore, it is absurd to consider cyber crimes as same as murder or rape, and give same punishments to those who commit them.