BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the USA

As I have said in my previous statement, the abolition of birthright citizenship is a logical step for the United States to take. We are one of the only developed countries that still have this law in place. The 14th Amendment is being taken out context from when it was created in the mid-1800's. Finally, the money we would save from eliminating the welfare given out would greatly help our current debt problem. The Con brought up the point that those born in the United States would not have a country or a nationality for themselves to align with. Well what happens in all of the countries that have eliminated birthright citizenship? They survive. They get along because that is what we all do as humans. They can leave and go somewhere else, or go throught the naturalization process. They do what any of us would do in their situation and they survive. It is not our responsibility that they were born in the United States illegally. It is their parents' fault. We have no reason to reward their parents' illegal actions by giving their children citizenship. That is an outlandish thought. With birthright citizenship abolished, the issue becomes the parents' for giving birth to their children somewhere they will not have any national alignment. Finally, the Con fails to show any meaningful statistics or sources, but instead uses opinions to form his argument, such as speaking of uhe 14th Amendment as something the made the nation unique and proud and made the country successful. There is no proof to back such a statement and is therefore an opinion that holds no ground. Also, the Con uses many hypothetical situations that can not be proven under the changed circumstances, but cites information that uses current statistics of immigration to show what would happen after the 14th Amendment is abolished. These statistics obviously then lose all credibility in this debate. For all of these reasons above, and that Con has not refuted any of my points, please vote Pro in this debate. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.marketingcharts.com... http://pointersviewpoint.wordpress.com... https://www.numbersusa.com...
Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the USA

Pro In a time when our country is flailing due to money issues, what more incentive do you need for action? The birthright citizenship allows for illegal immigrants to come into the country, give birth to children, and then live off of the welfare that their now legal children receive. This welfare incentive is why illegals would be giving birth to their children in the United States. With birthright citizenship abolished, this welfare dilemma would cease to exist and another source of our deficit budget shall be solved. The con has stated that if birthright citizenship were to be abolished, then the amount of illegal, undocumented citizens that are currently occupying the United States would rise to 40% by 2050, but this is assuming the current trend of illegal immigration and the birth of illegal immigrant's children continues. With the birthright citizenship abolished, the trend of illegal immigrants would drastically decrease because there is no incentive to give birth here. The NY Times, in article, states: "Children of illegal immigrants make up 7 percent of all people in the country younger than 18 years old, according to the study, which is based on March 2009 census figures, the most recent data on immigrant families. Nearly four out of five of those children, 79 percent, are American citizens because they were born here." This means that roughly 5.2% of all children under the age of 18 or roughly 3,864,000 people in the United States in 2008 are citizens because their parents had them born here and their parents were illegal immigrants, according to the United States Census Bureau. Most of these children are then considered anchor babies because they are goven welfare, which their illegal parents live off of. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was created in a time when slaves were being denied citizenship and illegal immigrants were not a problem recognized within the country. Now, many years later, the 14th Amendment applies to all people born here, but this was not how it was meant to be used. The birthright citizenship of those born here, where neither parent is a legal citizen, is exploited for their gain and should be amended to more reliably apply to the time period. Finally, the United States is one of a handful of developed countries that still have birthright citizenship for those born to non-legal citizens/immigrants. According to numbersusa.com, the Unit States and Canada are the only developed nations that still have birthright citizenship with nations such as the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany, etc. having gotten rid of it. The United States needs to mend itself and its laws o fit the times and, relative to this debate, eliminate birthright citizenship. Sources shall be posted in my closing argument.
Euthanasia

It am not saying it's for people we don't see fit to help society because than of course everybody would be offing themselves. Euthanasia would be beneficial to those who are terminally ill and who are in pain. These people should have the choice whether or not to end their own life. In addition the oath yes states that doctors should practice medicine ethically. . but each doctor must have different ethics? or ethics mean different things to different doctors?
Euthanasia

If a person wants to end their life, that is their problem. However, If we hospitals use euthanasia, that will lead us down a slippery slope. Soon, we will be using euthanasia on the elderly, mentally retarded people, or anyother people we consider to not be a help to society. It's also against the hippocratic oath, which states, "I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan."
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health not criminal justice

Value: He says he links to both values because he uses rehab, however I already showed us that the criminal justice system enforces rehab as well, therefore there is no ground gained off this argument. Criterion: It is essentially agreed that more lives were saved by the Hiroshima bombing. The only issue is whether or not the saving of lives is subjective. The Japanese people were not aware the bombing prevented greater losses, mainly focusing only on the deaths that happened. Therefore the consequence was still good, it simply was not perceived. Lack of perception does not make the consequence any more good or bad. Nazis: He says the Germans really believed they were superior. I agree. However my opponent has yet to prove that this was a direct result of religious differences rather than Hitler simply desiring something to blame Germany's troubles on, therefore he still fails to prove the impact on his first contention. He talks about religions using drugs again but changes it up a bit, saying its immoral to criminalize something that isnt hurting anybody. This is where my opponent's logic is flawed the most. Everyone reading this should know illegal drugs are destructive to the body and cause severe health problems, including death. This assumption that drugs dont hurt anybody is completely false. C2: His argument seems to be that education is more effective at deterring drug use that imprisonment. I agree that both methods are effective deterrents. This is why we have Rehab programs in the criminal justice system, because we get both the deterrant from education AND the deterrant from punishment, providing maximum deterrence. This is much more efficient than public health alone.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health not criminal justice

Yes, I did say write your rebuttal but accidentally. I agree this isn't your fault. However, you had a value and criterion so i misunderstood and though your intent was to write a case. So I will just attack your value V: Societal welfare I agree that it will come down to the contentions, but the fact is i can link into both frameworks because rehab achieves societal welfare Criterion: Consequensalism- you state estimated more japanese and americans would have dies therefore the bomb was a positive consequence. Ok, but did the japanese govt know that? did they know they were doomed to have that amount die? Is there any actual proof this would have happened? Japan obviously still does not regard this nuke as one of the best things that ever happened to them, so obviously it is still subjective. did japan go, "Oh gee, I knew we would have lost more people, thank you America for bombing innocent people and helping is?" No of course not. On the Nazi contention: You are trying to say that actually the nazi govt made no moral assumptions. isn't the fact jews were inferior an automatic moral assumption? They didnt do this simply for economical reasons, they actually believed it. You could say they were supremacists, which is a philosophical stance. He states examples such as the civil war don't matter because they aren't religious issues. Actually the problem of slavery was very much a religious issue. Southerners were known to read the bible to justify slavery, while northerners thought god treated all as equals and brothers. I didnt only say religious issues, I said governments cant make moral judgements at all. He says the wine example is non topical. i meant it as an analogy for what would hypothetically happen. Lets use a hypothetical example then. Suppose I came from a religion who believed only by consuming crack can one go to heaven. Does that belief harm others? Most likely not, and in the case it does govts are allowed to interfere. If the govt banned crack, how am i going to get to heaven? Obviously true believers would defy the law or rebel against these, which woulnt be achieving his value of societal welfare. c2: solvency You misunderstand, you are saying the cost for only rehab would outweigh the cost of criminal justice. I agree with this, but the fact is that rehab has a better cost benefit relationshi because t educates about the fear of death and not simply imprisoment. The fear of death is obviously more motivating. If what you mean is that in criminal justice more money is spent in rehab, this is false. If it were true, that would make it a matter of public health because rehab is prioritzed over punishment.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health not criminal justice

What? Here is a direct quote from your aff case "ok, I am making this a quick fast round just to test it out so just write your rebuttal or cx me either way." "...so just write your rebuttal..." He did not want me to present a case, he wanted a quick round and for me to just refute the points. I even explained that at the top of my round 1 arguments. Plus, with my opponents character restrictions, there's no way either of us could post an entire case and arguments. So his own words contradict his entire second paragraph. Furthermore, I do not need to provide solvency. The negative has the burden of clash while the aff has the burden of proof. Thus, he is the one who must provide solvency, I only need to prove he does not to win. Onto societal welfare. He says just decisions are necessary for achieving it, however I have shown you how this decision of abandoning criminal justice does nothing to benefit society or prevent harms to it. This clash will likely just come down to who wins the contentions, since they are linked to the value. He says consequences are subjective, using the Hiroshima example. However, just as many people would have died in an invasion of Japan as did in the nuclear bombings (1), in addition to more American soldiers. Because evidence shows that both American lives and Japanese lives were saved this is not an adequate example. Also, the saving of lives in general is not subjective, everyone agrees it is desirable. Onto C1. He says the Nazis disrespected Jews because they felt they were simply superior to other races. That was my point in attacking his argument. Because Germans felt superior to other races, they were able to make Jews a scapegoat for their economic troubles. It wouldnt have mattered if the Jews were of the same religion, they were simply different and thats all Hitler needed to blame them. He brings up the Civil War racism and Japanese-Chinese reltions. However, this point is about religious conflicts. Neither of those conflicts were motivated by religious differences, this this is nontopical to his argument. He says banning wine would lead to revolt. However, we are talking about drugs. As his own India example showed you, banning drugs does not cause revolution. C2: He says prison costs more than rehab. I again direct you to my link (2) which shows the opposite. They are also cited so source credibility is not an issue. 1. http://www.scaruffi.com... (ctrl-F Japan) 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... I await my opponent's responses.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health not criminal justice

Ok, brief roadmap, I will be attacking my opponents case and defending my own. Observation one is not biased against the neg- it makes it fair for the aff and clarifies so there is no ground skew. The wording of the resolution does not intend the negative to advocate both public health and criminal justice. First off, the neg only has a value and criterion but no contentions. He fails to provide any solvency. in fact he doesn't even state if the criminal justice system is good. Essentially in cx(comments section) he said good consequeces achieves societal welfare, but he fails to prove what good consequences come from incarceration. Therefore you can drop his entire case. On his value of societal welfare: He states a just decision is less important and brings no good to the world. how is this so? Governments must make just decisions in order to achieve societal welfare, and crossapply contention one which states governments who assert their own morals and faIL to make a just decision benefiting the country and not simply their own beliefs have been doomed to fail. On his criterion of consequensalism: you can't achieve societal welfare simply by weighing the consequences because good consequences are so subjective. For example, when U.S.A bombed Hiroshima and killed thousands was it a good consequence? Maybe for Americqa but not for the axis powers or japan so this demonstrates the subjectivty of good consequences. Since he has no contentions, I automatically win Onto my case: Contention One : He states Nazis didnt care about religion or morals, simply the economy . This is completely false. The Nazis imposed their own morals that white people were better than jews or blacks, thet imposed christianity was better than judaism, that germans were superior to other europeans. To say they did not impose moral beliefs is utterly ridiculous. he says i provide only one example but this is simply because I assumed he could think of other times. What about the civil war, fueled by white supremacists who felt blacks were inferior? What happened to the Confederacy because of it? What about Japan feeling superior to chinese people during World War 2? What became of them? He states in india drugs are criminalized. Yes, I apologize this is correct. However, this doesn't stop people from pursuing religious beliefs. This was simply an anlogy not actually an example of rebellion, I apologize. Lets use the example of wine. Wine is commonly used in Catholic cermonies. if the govt were to ban it, there would be outrage and refusal to comply. The India exampl is simply used to illustrate what would hypothetically happen if someone imposed law against ypur belief. Contention Two: I agree drug courts do integrate both matters, but they are unsuccessful because the cost for incarceration outweighs the actual cost for rehabilitation. My goal is to spend more on education. And I am out of room so that is all
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health not criminal justice

My opponent offered a fast round, so I will only offer a value and criterion, then attack his arguments. I agree with my opponents definitions. Because my opponent defines Ought as desirability, the debate comes down to whose world is more desirably, a world where drugs are criminalized or not criminalized. His observation seems to be a little biased against the negative, but I'll go ahead and accept it, even though 90% of debaters in real life will not. My value is Societal Welfare, the criterion is Consequential. In order for an action to be moral, it must not create negative consequences. His value is a just decision, which is completely outweighed by societal welfare. His value accomplishes nothing, it brings nothing good to the world and is not inherently valuable. Societal welfare actually benefits people in the world whereas his value just weighs decisions. I win the value clash simply because my value is doing something to help society. His criterion is Secular governance, I accept this criterion. However I will explain in attacking his contentions how this does not give the aff any ground. Contention 1.a. says Drugs are used in rituals and cites how Indians would rebel if drugs were criminalized. Guess what? Drugs ARE criminalized in India (1). So where is this rebellion? B. He says "historically" but can only provide one example. Also, the reason Hitler killed the Jews had nothing to do with their religion. He simply desired a group to pin all Germany's economic problems on, and that happened to be the Jews. They were disrespected so they could be scpegoats, not because of their religion. Contention 2 talks about educational measures preventing people from overdosing and providing rehab. 1. Rehab exists in the criminal justice system. Drug courts are a prime example, so extend this argument to the con side. (2) 2. Education for drugs alone is not enough. People already know drugs are destructive to the body but use them despite that fact.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health not criminal justice

Hey, since you are doing the Ld topic, i though i'd challenge you to a debate. I won't use my actual arguments or case, but I will be using this to gather data. so accept if you wanna debate. cx in comments section. I affirm I offer the following definitions ought: used to indicate desirability justice: giving each his due criminal: anything not abiding by governmental law Observation one: Negation of the resolution means the neg advocates the total opposite of the affirmative, therefore any impacts gained off of making it a matter of public health and criminal justice will become non unique. Value: A just decision- considering the impacts of a decision Criterion: secular Governance- the seperation of church and state Contention One: Governments cannot make moral judgements about what is immoral if the object does not hamr others Subpoint A: Drugs are commonly used in rituals. Tribes in India use cannabis and hindus often use illegal substances because they believe it enhanes communication with gods. Hypothetically if we were to globally negate this resolution and make it a matter of criminal justice, the consequences would lead to rebellion. The reason why governments must have mutual respect for religions will be explained in my next subpoint Subpoint B: Historically and modernly, nations failing to respect religious rights have been doomed to fail. An example of this is Nazi Germany. Simply because thy disliked judaism and the jewish people they eradicated 6 million people. after the war was lost, Americans and other nations were repulsed by this and this contributed to the current military sanctions on Germany. In modern times , countries such as Afghanistan hose government imposes sexist and religious beliefs are economically weaker and many citizens attempt to flee the country or rebel. Governments must not make moral judgements simply becaus the result is that morals will be placed in front of the pragmatic solution. Therefore the governments moral beliefs will hinder its ability to make just decisions. Contention Two: The solvency is public health education Public health educates about the threat of death, not simply the fear of punishment. It educates about preventing overdose and therefore ritualistic use of drugs can be used more efficiently. it provides rehabilitation and hospital treatment in the event an accidental overdose appears. It allows for individuals to make a just decision about whether the religion they choose to follow is worth their health. Crimninal justice simply threatens with the fear of punishment, however the fear of inevitable death is a more efficient detterence. ok, I am making this a quick fast round just to test it out so just write your rebuttal or cx me either way.
Abortion should remain legal in the US

Abortion should be outlawed in USA. I define outlawing as the obvious but furthermore outline the punishment as this: It should not be considered murder, abortion should indeed be considered something less abhorrent than murder since the psychological state of a fetus killer is very rarely the same as that of a murderer of an already born, conscious human being. The law of abortion will be up for discussion and my justification for it will also be discussed later.
Abortion should remain legal in the US

Hello all! In this debate I will be arguing the following statement:"Abortion should remain legal in the United States."This means, the Con, upon accepting this debate, agrees to argue the following:"Abortion should not remain legal in the United States."~~~~~~~~~~~~Itinerary:Round 1: Acceptance and definitionsRound 2: IntroductionsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Conclusions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~I believe my thesis statement is self-explanatory, however, should there be any questions as to the semantics, feel free to ask in the comments or in a message.This also goes for any specific rules that a contending "Con" may wish to see in this debate.I'm leaving this debate open to anyone, so please remain committed to this debate, and read carefully before accepting!
We all have the right to keep and bear arms.

If you actually read the U.S Constitution you would know that the right to bear arms means carrying a firearm. Killing a bear has nothing to do with this unless you hunt, and in that case people do have the right to hunt. I do understand that if a specific species is at risk, hunting is not appropriate. Otherwise hunting and shooting a gun is a perfectly acceptable hobby; many people make a living hunting and feeding their family if necessary. So once again I do not see why it is so horrible to own a gun, and why to this day they think it is necessary to take away our right to bear arms.
We all have the right to keep and bear arms.

No, we actually don't have the right to bear arms without a license. Killing a Bear, and taking its arm is considered poaching in America, and in most states can result in serious jail time. When this amendment was passed there were no poaching laws so this was acceptable. Now the bear population has gone down, and we need to protect them from people like you. The constitution did say we have the right to bear arms, but we need to protect the bears, and thats why states have made laws against it. This amendment is almost impertinent now.