BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO Win/Loss Record is Detrimental

I believe that keeping a record of every member's Win/Loss record is overall detrimental. It changes the dynamic of the debate by encouraging some participants (not everyone, not citing anyone in particular) to act differently than they normally would in order to increase their record. Firstly, some participants will accept a debate challenge because they spot a technicality in the wording of the instigator, and then exploit that in order to add another victory to their record, thus, defeating the entire point of the debate for the instigator. Secondly, this will discourage such participants from accepting a debate because they don't want to risk losing, when in reality, they would engage in order to better their understanding or test their position on the issue at hand. If there was no record of a participant's Wins/Losses, then participants will be more likely to engage in a debate for the sake of debating, rather than aiming to improve their record. Again, this is not against anyone in particular, these are just some observations I have made in my short time here. (I also have an ulterior motive here; this will be my third debate, and thus, I can acquire voting privileges.)
Abortion

"Isn't that a bit inhumane?"- I do not think so. The fetus at this point is just a bunch of cells. It has no feeling, no thought, no emotion, no one that cares about it. "Is it really necessary to kill an unborn baby in that inhumane way, when you can always put it up for adoption, which is a way better way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy."- It is necessary. Con fails to take into account the drastic change a pregnancy has on a woman's life and body. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy may be unable to take life changing opportunities that will never come again. Things like job offers, promotion, schooling, travelling, or may fail at these thing because of the pregnancy. The pregnancy changes a woman's body and state of mind. It can cause severe depression before and after birth, cause the woman to gain a large amount of weight, get pregnancy-related diseases, and suffer from health complications because of the pregnancy that could kill or injure the mother seriously. Also, why should a woman add child that no one wants to an already overpopulated Earth? There are already so many children up for adoption in orphanages, foster care, and make-shift homes all over the world. There is in no way a shortage of adoptable children. Instead of adding to the amount of unwanted children and forcing someone to take care of the child, let us reduce the number of unwanted children until every adoptable child has grown up or has a home. Not to mention that carrying a baby for nine months and then giving it away can seriously harm the mother mentally. Clearly it is not just as simple as "just give it up for adoption" as many pro-life people would like to assert as the best option. "How would you like it if you were a baby who was aborted and now you never get to see the light of day."- I wouldn't like or dislike it. I would never have consciousness so I would never know. I would not feel sad or hurt or any kind of remorse because I would never have felt anything. I believe since the mother is important to people and is already a member or society, and the baby is not, the mother should have priority. This means she should get to choose if her life is going to be so drastically changed and possibly ruined or ended by the pregnancy. If we force every woman who gets pregnant to have the child, many women's lives will be ruined or ended. It will take away a woman's right to her body. The mother's life is also at stake during pregnancy, and many pro life people seem to forget that.
Abortion

Abortion, in my opinion, is very wrong. Some people are for it but only because they have no clue what happens in an abortion. Well, I will tell you what happens in an abortion now. In an abortion, the doctor will remove some of the liquid surrounding the fetus and replace it with salt to dry out/kill the fetus. To take the fetus out and dispose of it, the doctor will take this vacuum type thing and suck out the fetus piece by piece, killing it all the way. Isn't that a bit inhumane? Well, I think it is. Is it really necessary to kill an unborn baby in that inhumane way, when you can always put it up for adoption, which is a way better way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I think that for Christians especially, this hits them where it hurts.(The heart.) How would you like it if you were a baby who was aborted and now you never get to see the light of day. I wouldn't like that at all. I do however understand what it would be like to have an unwanted pregnancy because I am the child of a mother who had an unwanted pregnancy and she put me up for adoption. So what is your decision on abortion going to be? Are you for it? or Against it?
Consensual Incest Should be Legal

"Incestuous couples should be able to marry, but they should not be able to have children. If you said that if their children were defective they should be aborted? That wrong that is the same as killing someone because they aren't perfect." It was never stated that defected children "should" be aborted, it was just stated that abortion was one of the many choices that incestous couples can choose from the handle their products of reproduction. One may rather have their child not exist rather than letting them live to suffer a life with a genetic defect. On the contrart, some couples, non incestous or not, choose not to abort their fetuses upon discovering that it had developed autism or down syndrome because they believe they rather let the fetus live than have nothing at all. Abortion is not murder, it's just that you perceive abortion to be murder. Some believe fetus is not a person, thus not entitled the right to live. Nobody is "perfect," so that means that I'm entitled to kill everyone just because I believe that abortion should remain a choice? "As for the percentages, that is only for two birth defects which makes the percentage worthless. what if I said that some kind of car got into accidents 1% of the time, then said that it was almost impossible to get into an accident. So do you really want to leave children's lives to chance?" 1% DOES make it "almost impossible" for a certain type of car to get into an accidents. The 1% doesn't mean that the occurance is impossible, it just means that the possibility of such happening is rare. There genetic defect risks for every child, but that doesn't mean that we should make procreation illegal in fear that babies have a risk of developing a genetic defect. 1% of babies in the U.S. are born with a heart defect and 1% of babies in the U.S. are born with autism. There are various genetic diseases that can develop in babies, however, people still choose to have babies regardless of the possible risks. In fact, we leave children's lives to chance many times. In the United States, 115 people are killed in car crashes. We choose to put childrens' lives at risk by driving them in cars, even though there is a possiblity of a car accident that can kill them. Because Con agrees that couples of incestous relations should be able to marry and because they should clearly be allowed to procreate with the intention giving them responsibilty and freedom to handle their offspring, vote PRO. My Sources: 1. http://www.wisegeek.com... 2. http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org... 3. http://www.canada.com... 4. http://www.car-accidents.com...
Consensual Incest Should be Legal

Incestuous couples should be able to marry, but they should not be able to have children. If you said that if their children were defective they should be aborted? That wrong that is the same as killing someone because they aren't perfect. As for the percentages, that is only for two birth defects which makes the percentage worthless. what if I said that some kind of car got into accidents 1% of the time, then said that it was almost impossible to get into an accident. So do you really want to leave children's lives to chance?
Consensual Incest Should be Legal

I believe that consensual incest should not be illegal. Couples of incestuous relations should not be stopped from having children, having sex or marrying. If the two parties are consenting adults, why should it be illegal for them to have sex, have children or wed? One may argue that incest produces deformed babies, therefore, incest should be made illegal. This is not always the case. In fact, a study here: http://www.nytimes.com... proved that the genetic defect rate of babies that are a product of first cousins is fairly low. The study stated that first cousins only have a 1.7 to 2.8 percent extra chance of having offspring with spina bifida or cystic fibrosis. Additionally, incestuous couples can simply adopt children or hire a surrogate mother to bear their children. They can also abort fetuses that have been discovered to have a genetic defect as well. They may also choose to not have children at all, so there is no chance of producing babies with genetic defects. Incest should not be illegal because it infringes on human rights. More specifically, making reproduction between close relatives illegal infringes on reproductive rights. The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as: "...the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health." Marriage is a fundamental right of all human beings. Making laws against incest marriage breaches on that human right. There are no laws imposed to prevent older women from reproducing. Old women (over 40) have a higher risk of producing children with genetic defects, yet there are no laws preventing them from having children or having sex. According to this website: http://www.babyhopes.com... women 40 years of age has a 1-in-100 chance of having a baby with a birth defect and a women 45 years of age has a 1-in-30 chance of having a baby with a genetic defect. A common birth defect is down syndrome. Since we don't ban old women or the disabled from reproducing, genetic defects as an argument against incest holds no value. Incest is defiantly a taboo subject in society and is commonly regarded as "gross, wrong and unnatural." However, on a deep moral level, there is nothing morally wrong with incest. I look forward to a good debate.
French Should Be An Official Language in the Province of Ontario

As we near the end of our debate I hope to have convinced you that the motion at hand is far more than simply a symbolic exercise adopted for purely historical reasons. I hope that I have demonstrated that making Ontario officially bilingual carries with it clear benefits for our province. Lastly I hope to have shown that Ontario's transition to official bilingualism would be much easier than what people seem to believe. I would like to take the time to thank everyone who has taken the time to monitor this debate. I also want to thank my opponent for taking up the challenge and engaging in a highly productive conversation about this particularly interesting issue. After all, it is through debate and reasoned argument from both sides of an issue that progress comes and one must never underestimate the value of that. I believe that this debate helps underscore the importance of the French language in Ontario and by extension the rest of Canada. More generally I think we can all agree that this debate is an expression of the sheer power of language in the advancement of human society and the degree to which language can influence social progress. Language was one of the first realms of human knowledge whose importance has not diminished with time but rather grown. The fact that we are having a conversation such as this and that similar conversations are currently taking place around the globe underscore this fact. Back to the issue at hand I hope you also see this as further evidence of the fact that taking language into account in a legislative sense has implications more far-reaching and profound than that of symbolism and historical deference. Language legislation has far-reaching effects in society and those effects can be very positive as they were for New Brunswick and would most certainly be for Ontario if the motion were to be implemented. The importance of the French language in the modern world cannot be underestimated and it is almost universally accepted that the clout of the French language will grow dramatically over the next few decades. If the motion were to pass Ontario would be still better equipped than it already is for this reality. I will wrap up by sharing a quote from Canada's first prime minister Sir John A. MacDonald. He said "Let us be French, let us be English, but most importantly let us be Canadian!"[1]. We cannot escape the reality of the importance of both languages to public life here and certainly not here in Canada's mid-section, the part that holds up the rest of the Canadian body. We must be English and we must also be French and this is not a tense balancing act but rather a happy medium that allows us to base our national identity on more than just ethnic identity or political power but rather the vastness and diversity of our land and its people. More than any other country, we are shaped by bilingualism which is why I support this motion. Thank you. References: [1]http://www.canada4life.ca...
French Should Be An Official Language in the Province of Ontario

My opponent has stated that Ontario's priority should be China. This is a common notion given the size of China's economy however prioritizing China-Ontario relations vis-a-vis language is a dangerous game. China is the world's second largest economy but it also fraught with major internal problems. China is an autocracy whose policies have fostered an ambient of dissent and tense political stability which can falter at any time. There are also severe environmental issues which can have disastrous consequences in China's future. Labor laws are weak at best and China was ranked 100th out of 175 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index scoring 36 out of 100.[1] Furthermore you may be aware of China's recent economic woes. China has a large but unstable economy and combine with their other problems, some of which I just described, that makes China a "developing country (albeit huge) suffering growing pains and the excesses borne from overconfidence and misplaced optimism" as John S. Tobey describes it in his August 20th Forbes article.[2] Please note that I have no desire to discourage investment in China and as my opponent terms it "language relations" with China. We have a large Chinese-Ontarian community but there are big risks with China and if we overplay our hand the results can be adverse. Countries like France, Belgium and Switzerland have much more stable socio-political situations which is a very attractive commodity in an increasingly unstable world of which China is but a microcosm. With regards to how companies would react to language legislation, it should be noted that foreign companies operating in Canada, specifically Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, already operate to varying degrees in both languages. McDonalds coffee cups have warning labels in both languages already for example and insurers offer service in both languages already so they are not being asked to radically change their business models. Another important point to consider is how Quebec has suffered from relegating English. The percentage of Quebec residents who speak only English is small nevertheless Quebec has suffered clearly from failing to acknowledge the political importance of the English language. Do note that Ontario doesn't marginalize French the way Quebec does English with an equivalent of Bill 101. However Ontario still misses out on some economic opportunities though. Finally, I will submit that there is a cause and effect relationship between language legislation and economic growth. Here's one example. Before 1969 Francophone farmers in New Brunswick were being hampered in their efforts by lack of access to services they needed in their native tongue. After, they were far more productive and the province's economy grew as a result of the law. References: [1]http://www.transparency.org... [2]http://www.forbes.com...
French Should Be An Official Language in the Province of Ontario

My opponent has put fourth a well-structured argument, for which I commend him/her. Unfortunately, however, my opponent has critically erred in drawing a cause and effect relationship between the legislation in question and economic enhancement. While companies may cite bilingualism as an important factor drawing them to Quebec and New Brunswick, it is unclear how legislating two Official languages has contributed to this economic draw; both New Brunswick and Quebec have long histories of bilingualism, far preceding the introduction of dual-language legislation. I would argue that, paradoxically, any additional demand for a bilingual labour force is created by the language legislation itself. In other words, when legislation is imposed, companies are forced to adopt strategies for coping with the legislation - this demand would not otherwise exist. This is very different than servicing an unmet demand. With regards to global trade, my opponent is correct that France and other french-speaking nations represent significant trading partners. However, it is again unclear how the specific legislation in question would enhance these relationships, and why French language legislation should take priority over any other languages of trade. Indeed, based on current demographic trends in Ontario - specifically the rapid and continued growth of Chinese-speaking populations, which are now greater in number than those holding French as their mother tongue - and the booming economic growth of China, a more compelling argument can be made in support of legislation to promote and enhance access to Cantonese and Mandarin within Ontario. China is Ontario"s second-largest trading partner trade volume totaling $36.2 billion in 2014, and Chinese companies have invested heavily in Ontario with close to $1 billion in investment and 1,800 jobs created from the Premier's 2014 trade mission alone [1]. There is no question that, aside from the US, China is Ontario's most important trading partner for continued long-term economic growth and stability. With this, I suggest that, with regards to language relations, Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin) should be Ontario's first priority. 1. https://news.ontario.ca...
French Should Be An Official Language in the Province of Ontario

My opponent's argument stands on two points. Firstly, my opponent claims that bilingualism has in general hurt New Brunswick. He also claims Ontario's economic success hinges on English as a unifying language and that bilingualism would hurt Ontario. I already essentially refuted part of the first claim by presenting the study of Desjardins and Campbell which showed that bilingualism is good for business and has attracted major corporate players to that province like Xerox and IBM.[1] You may recall my also mentioning that New Brunswick has become a favourite of major insurance companies due to its bilingualism.[1] My opponent also claims that New Brunswick has struggled to attract new immigrants. The annual report of the Office of the Commissioner for Official Languages reports that in the 2013-2014 13.2% of students in that province's universities were international which is a 53% percent increase from 2009-2010.[2] The Desjardins-Campbell report also states that blingualism has helped attract more foreign entrepreneurs if not as many new immigrants.[1] Immigration is low in New Brunswick due to federal regulations not bilingualism as the 2013-2018 New Brunswick Population Growth Strategy paper notes. The federal government cut down the amount of business applicants and skilled workers the province could accept.[3] They account for 80% of New Brunswick's immigration.[3] Finally on that point the Perfect Demographic Storm paper from the Journal of New Brunswick Studies cited by my opponent actually notes an increase in immigration as per the 2011 census.[4] The second claim is the idea that Ontario would hurt by bilingualism and that English as a unifying language is key to Ontario's economic success. You may recall in my opening argument that I mentioned the 2013 Conference Board of Canada study and how New Brunwick's and Quebec's trade with French speaking countries was significantly bolstered by common language.[5] That same report also discusses the growing clout of Francophone countries in world trade which makes bilingualism still more economically attractive for Ontario.[5] As for the idea that English as a unifying language is the key to Ontario's economic success, well that is simply not true. Ontario's robust economy has far more to do with wealth of resources and the fact that Ontario hosts both Canada's capital and its largest city whose financial district is home to several French speaking companies. This knowledge should assuage all fears surrounding the motion. [1]http://www.officiallanguages.nb.ca... [2]http://www.officiallanguages.nb.ca... [3]http://www2.gnb.ca... [4]https://journals.lib.unb.ca... [5]http://cedec.ca...
French Should Be An Official Language in the Province of Ontario

In continuing, I will review New Brunswick as a case study for how official bilingualism has continued to segregate the province and marginalize non-official language groups. New Brunswick is a province dominated by two mother tongues - French and English. As of 2011, New Brunswick's French-speaking population accounted for 31.6% of its population [1]. 32.7% of its population reported being bilingual in both French and English, while 9.0% spoke French only. Less than 1% of its population holds a non-official language as their mother tongue [1]. Due to its lack of diversity beyond its two language groups, New Brunswick has struggled to attract new immigrants, who have cited significant social and economic barriers in the province. This poses significant economic challenges for a province with an aging population and highly mobile youth workforce. [6] With a long history of language-based tensions, French and English communities continue to be largely divided in New Brunswick. Language legislation is still used as a spring board for perpetuating the tensions and division in the province - e.g. fines being issued for French not being the first language posted on all signs [2], and an alleged Charter violation that arose from French and English students sharing school buses to save costs[3]. Despite legislation, the province continues to struggle to meet its requirements for bilingualism; in 2014, the Office of the Commissioner for Official Languages received 155 complaints [4]. Conversely, Ontario has a highly integrated French population. While just over 4% of its population maintains French as a mother tongue, only 0.3% of the population speaks French only. Diversity in Ontario continues to be a driver for sustained population and economic growth, with the province boasting significant populations of non-official mother tongues such as Chinese, Italian, Spanish and Punjabi [5]. Of note, as of 2011, Chinese surpassed French as the second most common mother tongue after English [5]. Ontario's economic success through diversity stems largely from its high adoption rate of English as a unifying language; introducing a second official language would promote segregation and stifle its success. 1. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca... 2. http://news.nationalpost.com... 3. http://news.nationalpost.com... 4. http://www.cbc.ca... 5. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca... 6. https://journals.lib.unb.ca... 7. http://www.sse.gov.on.ca...