BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flag burning amendment

The flag burning amendment, is a controversial proposed constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow the United States Congress to prohibit expression of political views through the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol, protecting free speech, and protecting the liberty represented by a national symbol. The American flag, represents more than 200 years of our history and has come to be the visible symbol which embodies our Nation. It does NOT represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy therefore, Burning the flag is irrelevant and disrespectful to our nation. Im looking forward to hearing my opponents views on this debate.
Flag burning amendment

I will be refuting what my opponent said, giving an overview and then providing voting Issues. //RefutationsSpeaking, writing and printing are actions. Every form of expression is, in someway, an action so this argument falls. It may be diesrespectful to you but that doesn't mean an amendment taking away our rights is good. It is not illegal [2] nor does it go against our virtues. What would go against our virtues would be limiting rights. I didn't say things without sources are untrue, I said we must take them with a grain of salt because you could make them up. You also should never make assumptions on what I would or would not click. //OverviewMy opponent has not extended any arguments yet he merely said "I stand by my opinion" thusly we must extend all of my arguments, mainly the one about the fact that the amendment is killing our first amendment rights and thus is destroying our virtues. This went uncontested this round and thus I should win on this alone. //Voting issuesI extend all my arguments but what must be evaluated is the fact that the law to make burning the flag illegal is killing our first amendment rights and this has gone uncontested through this last round and thus I should win on that alone. Please evaluate on any other things you see in the round. I would also like to thank my opponent for this fun debate. ~~Peter [1] http://answers.yahoo.com...
Abortion

My argument will be simple and easy to follow (hopefully).In the course of argumentatively justifying any proposition, one invariably use their body to do so. Whether it be arguing politics over dinner or arriving at a solution to a complicated moral dilemma like that of abortion, argumentation is everywhere and always a pre-requisite.Therefore, argumentation endows us with a window into the necessary qualifications of any (argumentatively) justifiable ethics. I choose here to ignore positions which might seem alluring but which are by themselves unjustifiable through argumentation. One such example would be solipsism. It's easy to doubt the existence of the material world, but to argue such a position amounts to meaninglessness since one must presume the existence of other objects/minds in order to argue in the first place.Now applying this methodology (what Habermas termed "discourse ethics"[1] and what Hoppe referred to as "argumentation ethics[2]") to abortion (and really to any ethical discourse), we must start with self ownership. By arguing, one presupposes exclusive control over one's person. A simple and easy to flow justification of this may be arrived at by a reductio. Take the opposite thesis, that we do not 'own'[3] ourselves. By even arguing in the first place one is presupposing the opposite since the act of argumentation categorically necessitates that very thing. We can't argue without having exclusive control of our bodies.So the first moral truth we arrive at is self ownership. Now I will show why self ownership is at odds with the Con position on abortion. The Con position on abortion necessarily lends itself to the view that the foetus has a justifiable claim to the resources of the women's (a) space (in her womb that is), (b) to her nutrients and other materials necessary to keep a foetus alive in the womb, and (c) to restrictions on what the mother puts into her body during pregnancy (since there are obviously materials that would kill then foetus if ingested during pregnancy i.e., large quantities of alcohol, hard drugs, etc.).These demands though are insufficient when viewed through the lens of self ownership. If a woman owns her body she necessarily has the right to either ingest anything into her body that doesn't by itself necessitate harm to outsiders and the right to force out unwanted visitors, whether parasitic worms or foetus' (I realize this comparison may put off many people, though the comparison is succinct I think in this scenario). If self ownership is justified (and I believe I've provided a strong argument in its defense) than a Con position on abortion is likewise unjustified.===Sources===[1] http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...[2] http://archive.mises.org...[3] (For simplicitys sake, here I use the term 'own' to denote the condition of someone having legitimate, exclusive control of their person)
Democracy is the Best Form of Government

Merrian Webster definition of republic:" a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law" definition of democracy: ' government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" Therefore, a republic is merely a subdivision democracy and therefore it is a democratic government as it require majority rule. Inaccurate: "A democracy is nothing more then a mob rule in which fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." A democratic government is one in which the government representative are elected my a majority. This can range from 50.0...1% to 99.99....% as both are still some form of the majority. The fact that my opponent advocates for a democratic governmental system in order to show that democracy is not the best government heavily supports my position. Inaccurate statement: "There are no mechanics to stop a law the majority wants." -> In no way does this imply to the definition of democracy as democracy does not even address this issue.
Democracy is the Best Form of Government

The word best is a measure of comparison. For democracy to not be deemed the best there must be an alternative that is better than democracy. My opponent is merely point the flaws in democracy which is completely irrelevant since he is not comparing democracy to any other system. No one is arguing that democracy is perfect. I simply stated that democracy is the best form of practical government. Since there is an inexhaustible list of governmental systems that can be created, the BoP thus rest on my opponent since it is impossible for the Pro to compare democracy to every single possible government as the number is infinite. My arguments is simply that democracy is the best practical governmental system which is why the founding fathers used it as a model.
Democracy is the Best Form of Government

This debate is about if pure majority rule is the best way to run a society, I will argue that it is in fact not. To begin I will quote one of the founders on this subject. "A democracy is nothing more then a mob rule in which fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson Okay, so if democracy is the best form of government, it should produce not only good results, but the BEST results. I will show that neither is true. In this democracy what the majority wants will happen through referendum or legislature. There are no mechanics to stop a law the majority wants. So we must ask ourselves if want the majority wants best. Well, if you believe that people are very reasonable and always consider all sides arguments before making an informed decision then democracy may be the best form of government, but evidence shows this is clearly not the case. Much of the problem lies in the fact that political beliefs are very personal to people. Thus, people will ignore evidence to the contrary. This is called the confirmation bias. Media outlets worsen this fact by having smart-looking people defend not-so-smart views. Even faced with information that contradicts their views, they can fall back on the words of a media personality. Things would be better if someones vote were decisive as they would then have to research their views. However, a single vote is not decisive, so people will vote what they think is best with little research. So, we have a situation were there are no cost for voting for something ignorant because your vote is not decisive and if thus people tend to form an opinion and not change it. As we can see, total irrational views such as protectionism can flourish in democracy. Policies that stifle growth like such as high taxation can be voted into law because people believe that they help and are not motivated to look deeper into the topic.
Capital Punishment Should be Abolished

R1) The right to life In this argument my opponent says that sentencing criminals to death is a direct violation to Article 3 of basic human rights. Well criminals on death row typically murder and take away that right from another so therefore must have that right taken away R2: Justice Justice in the united states is a big deal my opponent took my words and twisted them by saying "we don't rape rapist." When the point I was trying to make is that BIGGER crimes deserve BIGGER punishment therefore he did not win any point on justice because he failed to prove that wrong. R3: Innocence In this my opponent brings up a very INTRESTING point about how innocent people may be convicted of this huge crimes they did not do, and even provides a static that 148 people were exonerated and released from death row which makes his argument on it not being fair COMPLETLY invalid this shows that it is fair that they had their chance to get off of death row prove their innocence and that's exactly what they did! Which should be a point to me! R3: Methods In this my opponent states that the methods are horrible and inhumane. I provided evidence in Round 2 showing how it is not and even if was just think about it they're dying anyway weather it last for seconds or hours, is that even comparable to the years of tortures families have waiting for justice? R4: Prejudice/ Lawyer quality I as a minority, understand prejudice all too well. but the fact of the matter is these people had a right to a fair trial and a lawyer. Which determining if a lawyer is good or not is simply opinionated he failed to say if these lawyers lost every case won every case, regardless of that even these lawyers went to school YEARS AND YEARS OF SCHOOL to get where they are today and you mean to tell me they aren't good? and that these death penalty inmates don't have a right to a good lawyer because they all went to school and got their degrees. Regardless of race you did the crime, sadly it just so happens that blacks have been tried and convicted for this more than that of their white counterparts. Conclusion My opponent failed to prove that capital punishment was wrong. He supplied us with mere moral arguments as to why it was wrong, which is a Kritik within itself and should be grounds for lose. Capital punishment is not a horrible thing it should be allowed I negated all of my opponents arguments! thank you opponent thank you voters. Vote for me :) (P.s I know there are 50 states that was a typo)
Capital Punishment Should be Abolished

I as CON will be arguing that Capital Punishment should not be abolished. My opponent, pro, will be arguing that Capital Punishment should be abolished. It should be noted that we will be arguing the current system of Capital Punishment, the one they use today. This means neither I nor my opponent can suggest that the system can be reformed in the future, for we are arguing whether the current system should go or stay, not whether to change it or not.
Capital Punishment Should be Abolished

PrefaceI as Pro will be arguing that Capital Punishment should be abolished. My opponent, Con, will be arguing that Capital Punishment should not be abolished. It should be noted that we will be arguing the current system of Capital Punishment, the one they use today. This means neither I nor my opponent can suggest that the system can be reformed in the future, for we are arguing whether the current system should go or stay, not whether to change it or not. Full TopicThe current system of Capital Punishment should be abolished from the United States. Round StructureR1 AcceptanceR2 Opening ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsTermsCapital Punishment- Also referred to as ‘The Death Penalty’, is the legal authorization by the government to execute someone as a punishment for a crime they committed. Execute- to formally carry out a sentence of death. Death-Row- a prison block for prisoners that are sentenced to death. Criminal- a person who has committed a crime. RulesA forfeiture is an automatic loss. No new arguments in any rounds except R2. Maintain a respectful manner throughout entire debate. No “kritiks” BoP is shared. Breaking these rules will result in a loss.
The Star Wars series is better than The Harry Potter film series.

So, instead I will conclude my side of the argument. I think the Star Wars series is better than the Harry Potter film series because:- it impacted more aspects of the film industry than Harry Potter did. - it has been nominated for more Academy Awards than Harry Potter- it had more memorable writing than that of the Harry Potter franchise- it is more successful from a merchandising point-of-view- the canon and mythology is denser and open to more possibilites than Harry Potter. My arguments and point still stands because my opponent has not refuted the claims and has not made an effort to submit any arguments for his SIDE of the debate. I presented the reasoning and evidence for all my arguments in R2. Thank you. This concludes my side of the debate.
The Star Wars series is better than The Harry Potter film series.

For the remainder of this debate I will refer to my opponent as, "pro," when referring to his/her arguments. The "pro" also laid out some definitions to give more detail to the topic, these are. .. "better; adj. of a more effective or excellent type of quality series; noun. a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another. " The "pro" also laid out parameters so judge each film series to determine which is "better," "you can research anything related to the film series itself: box-office, reception, cult-following etc. " Since he offered the debate, I comply and agree with the definitions offered. I will obviously be the "con" and view the topic in the opposition. So I will hold that the Harry Potter film series is "better" than the Star Wars series. Both of these series, according the opponents definition, should focus on each series as a whole. So episode "1-6" for Star Wars should all and only be acceptable for debate while various other animated film and novels should not be acceptable. The Harry Potter series should focus on the film series (not the book series), ranging from "The Sorcerers Stone," to "The Deathly Hallows part 1 & 2. " My opponent by offering this debate should take into his concession that the Harry Potter series has 2 more films than the Star Wars series and is also based on popular source material. Since the pro, didn't make any arguments in round 1 I feel it would be an unfair advantage for the con to have the first and last word. So I will wait for my opponents initial arguments in round 2 before I respond and make my arguments.
The Star Wars series is better than The Harry Potter film series.

Hello. I would like to present the debate topic that: "The Star Wars franchise is better than The Harry Potter franchise." Before I begin I would like to set a few definitions: better; adj. of a more effective or excellent type of quality series; noun. a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another I am looking for a legitimate debate. No trollers, no teasers please. Maybe next time but not now. I'm looking for a good fight. In terms of the word "better", you can research anything related to the film series itself: box-office, reception, cult-following etc. to strengthen your arguments. I'm hoping someone will accept please.
extreme sports

First of all, I won't argue against what you think, because you probably have a very good idea of that :-). Second of all, will you please define "extreme" sports? Next, by "there should be" I assume you mean extreme sports to be accepted in society and available via mass media e.g. television. You are arguing we should have extreme sports because they are "fun and amusing." Is this the point of sports, to be fun and amusing? Or is it instead to compete and see who or which team is best? Or is it to create revenue for a business? Or is it to keep people in shape and striving to achieve all that they can physically? All of these could be reasons why sports exist and are acceptable and encouraged in society. If extreme sports means like what took place in the Colosseum in ancient Rome, or perhaps the original UFC in which almost anything went, we can debate the ethical problems with that. Thanks for posting this debate!
If the Taliban are terrorists, then the United States are as well

I. Terrorism is ObjectiveA lot of people try to disregard all arguments by saying they're subjective. Augustine of Hippo disagreed with these people, and I have for a long time myself. Defintions are not interchangable. They simply aren't. The phrase, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" holds true in all scenarios when objectifying a term. I am setting this up as a clear establishment for the rest of the debate, and attemps by the opposition to subjectify a definition should be disregarded.I also want to make sure this doesn't become a semantics debate. When I say United States, I am not talking about the nation in general, but actions undertaken by it. Which means don't troll and say "only the millitary did that". Not everyone in the taliban has a gun either.II. Those who commit violent actsThe Taliban are regularly noted for killing citizens, blowing bridges, and organizing civilian attacks. Violence will follow this defintion, "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". Both the US and the Taliban use violence in war to acheive their objectives. The US sends soldiers to fight and kill, therefore, are considered violent.http://dictionary.reference.com...III. Intention to Create Fear The Taliban attempt to create fear by forcing religion on Afghan youth, organizing bombings, and killing innocents. The US, create fear in other ways. We project military strength, use flame warfare tactics in combat, and have several intimidation technologies for the purpose of avoiding combat. This also answers the last clause of the definition, that the goal is to suppress individuals. These being their enemies.http://www.foreignaffairs.com...IV. Deliberately or Intentionally disregard Civilian safety Simple. It's no secret that the Taliban disregard and kill civilians to achieve their means. The US, during Vietnam, was estimated to have killed over 5000 innocent civilians deliberately around bases. These were suspected to be Viet Cong. None the less, 5000 innocents died for an order that wasn't entirely thought out. Additionally, it is believed that at least 1/2, and some claim more, of the civilian deaths in vietnam were a result of napalm and reckless total war. Unless our military commanders are idiots, they knew this would happen. Another example would be drones. Most of our major drone commanders have issued public statements, that they are well aware civilians will most likely die in certain strikes. Yet, they are allowed to fire if there is less than a 100% chance that the missile will hit a civilian. In other words, an operator may launch a drone strike even if there is a 40% calculated chance of hitting a civilian. As a final example, during Nixon's secret executive bombing of Cambodia, it is believed that 50,000 to 150,000 civilians were killed by plane strikes alone.http://www.yale.edu...http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...https://www.hawaii.edu...
If the Taliban are terrorists, then the United States are as well

Official Resolution: If the Taliban are terrorists, then the United States are as wellThis is an intresting concept I've been meaning to get to, on a philosophical argument I've been studying for awhile. The BOP will reside on me proving, that if the Taliban were to be considered terrorists, then the United States would also have to be considered terrorists. The opposition must be of the belief that the Taliban are terrorists. Usually, the BOP only constitutes in a policy debate, proving something is net good. Using an affirmative statement in this manner, will give me the responcibility to show the United States are definitely terrorists if the Taliban are considered so themselves. Any takers? Use R1 for acceptance and your clarification of the word terrorist.
If the Taliban are terrorists, then the United States are as well

First I would like to extend my condolences to Wolff, seeing as his amazing debate was removed :(But back to business, I disagree with this analogy with bobby, instead the analogy would be like this, Bobby holds up the sky so it doesn't fall and crush everyone, he also says he is against murder, however every once and a while the sky will lurch and kill someone. Is bobby a murderer? NO, there is no intent to kill. So in my next two points i will address the difference in INTENT between the Taliban and the United States.I: Augustine's analogies do not apply;Augustine's analogies are broad in and of themselves, it is irrational to say anything that kills people are terrorists because terrorists kill. What you need to see is that every detail must be the same for something to match, so when we compare the USA to the Taliban differences arise, the first of which was/is intent to kill. The definition of terrorist called for a group or individual to be intentionally disregarding the safety of innocent civilians. thus because differences exist Augustine's analogies hold no weight.II: Contradictions;My opponent in round one took the BOP on himself to prove the resolution provided my definition. Last round he claimed the Taliban are cutting collateral like the USA. This however proves I am correct, my opponent doesn't prove that "If the Taliban are terrorists, then the United States are as well" he gives evidence the Taliban aren't terrorists at all. Which doesn't fulfill the BOP he claimed he would fill, thus the vote should go in favor of the negation.III: Intent;My opponent did not actually show that the Taliban are cutting collateral however that's not true, on July 8th they bombed a building in eastern Afghanistan killing four NATO troops, 10 civilians, and a police officer. They are not cutting back but instead continuing to kill innocents, with intent. My opponent has not shown how the United States has shown the intent to kill and thus this point flows to me.http://www.theguardian.com...Vote Neg!