BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Universities should endorse respect as a value

Respect to other people seems to be a great value, so no one gets discriminated on immutable feature like skin colour, disability, country of origin, parent"s religion, etc. And this is why many universities had a "dignity and respect" policy, the problem is that the concept of respecting people for their immutable characteristics has been extended from people to ideas and epistemic systems. For example: religious people demand their religious ideas to not be question. Leftists claim that no other culture can be judge no matter what they do because they have other way of thinking, and all cultures are equally good. This change in meaning of the word respect is incompatible with "critical thinking" which is one of the main values of education, and universities who don"t promote seriously education are like kinder gardens to keep students away from society. For this reason I oppose to the enforcement of respect at universities.
It is the right of Muslims to treat women according to their own cultural principles and guidelines

Okay, I'll help you with your project. First, Though, I think (according to your position) you mixed up the "pro" and "con" labels or the statement you wanted to use. We can just look over that, And I'll say that I'm debating the side that Muslims do NOT have the right to treat women according to their own cultural principles and guidelines. First, I'll lay out the BASIC arguments for my side, And delve into my justifications for them in later rounds: My first argument is the concept of autonomy of the individual, Which is highly valued in advanced society, And is the basis for key social arrangements (like the institution of stable higher authority, Or the intolerance of slavery in modern law). Secondly, Muslims are a very volatile group of people with many sects. They can go to violent extremes within and without to enforce their principles. They are also known in history to use less-than-straightforward tacticts (known as "undermining" in law) to acquire undeserved wealth or power over others. Now you can post your arguments and I will respond.
Nick Jonas Should be President

"SHOULD = must, ought, used to express a future condition CAN = am, are, or is able to, ought, can be in future" My opponent does not realize that "should" implies a moral obligation. My opponent has failed to provide a moral obligation as to why Nick Jonas should be president. Let's exclude this "obligation" and focus on the difference between "can" and "should." For example: I CAN kill my mom with a loaded gun. I SHOULD kill my mom with a loaded gun. The uses of "can" and "should" do not mean the same thing in the example whatsoever. As a matter of fact, these two terms do not have very similar definitions, and they usually cannot be interwined. In regards to this debate, these two words are unable to be intertwined. "My opponent agreed that Nick Jonas still has time to challenge new oppourtunities and this implies that he SHOULD be president." It is obvious that Nick Jonas still has time to challenge new opportunities. This only implies that he CAN be president. In the future, I CAN become president as well. It does not matter if I do or not, but there is still that chance. It does not imply that Jonas SHOULD be president. "Nick Jonas should be president to also be a voice to younger generation that were inspired by his music. If he was to be president he would make a great role model to show that you can be more than one thing in your lifetime. hows that for affirming the resolution!?" He should be president so he can speak out for a younger generation? My opponent's statement does nothing to affirm the resolution. He is speaking out RIGHT NOW for the younger generation by continuing to pursue his musical career. If he was president, he may be able to serve as a great role model. However, once again, this does not mean that he SHOULD be president. The character who played Michael Oher in "The Blind Side" was a great role model; thus, he should be president. Do you understand how silly that is? No offense, but you have yet to affirm the resolution. "there is no other way than to go affirmative. since the con case doesnt did agree tt younger generations can have an impact, then nick jonas SHOULD be president." My opponent has been unable to affirm the resolution. She is clearly misguided in the contrast of "can" and "should." I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Nick Jonas Should be President

MY opponent keeps bring up the resoution itself saying that should and can are completely different. Well, from dictionary.com it states that SHOULD= must, ought,used to express a future condition CAN=am, are, or is able to, ought, can be in future These definitions as you see are very simiilar, in fact should and can can be intertwined and have the same meaning. My opponent agreed that Nick Jonas still has time to challenge new oppourtunities and this implies that he SHOULD be president. Nick Jonas should be president to also be a voice to younger generation that were inspired by his music. If he was to be president he would make a great role model to show that you can be more than one thing in your lifetime. hows that for affirming the resolution!? there is no other way than to go affirmative. since the con case doesnt did agree tt younger generations can have an impact, then nick jonas SHOULD be president.
Nick Jonas Should be President

My opponent's quote at the beginning of her second argument only affirms the fact that Nick Jonas CAN become President of the United States. However, this debate is strictly regarding if he SHOULD be president. Thus, the quote is irrelevant. Although Nick Jonas still has time to challenge new opportunities, it does not mean that he SHOULD be president; only that he CAN, which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I do not underestimate the younger generation. However, my opponent is not arguing the resolution. The excerpt about fans really does not prove any side of the debate. Once again, my opponent has failed to affirm the RESOLUTION. Thank you.
Nick Jonas Should be President

My opponent states that NIck Jonasdoesnt have proper political training or hasnt done anything to show that he will be successful in the future. One of the comments on this debate brought up a very good fact stating that," Nick Jonas is sixteen, correct? So that means he has his life to go to a major college and learn about law and politics. He could then run for office in a state and then for president. Arnold Schwarzenegger (might be misspelled, but oh well) was an actor and became Governor of California. Now acting and music is not the same thing but they are both high level occupations and therefore to leave either one to go to a political position is a big change and thus proves that Nick can become President of the US." Now to actually contribute to this fact, I will say that Nick Jonas still has time to challenge new opportunities. Yes, he wants to keep singing and maybe even acting. Arnold Schwarzenegger acted in numerous movies and still was able to pursue a career in politics. One thing to note is that you should never underestimate what the younger generations have in store. And, my opponent said he will have to leave his fans if he becomes president. Who said he had to leave his fans he will still have his fans when he becomes president In fact,wouldn't he get more fans when he became president!? Yes. An affirmative vote is the only way to go.
Nick Jonas Should be President

I stand in negation to the proposition, "Nick Jonas Should be President." First, we shall assume (by my opponent's argumentation) that "President" refers to the office of President of the United States of America. We shall also assume that the election of Nick Jonas would be in 2040, since my opponent directly cites this year. Simply, my opponent has failed to provide proof or evidence that supplements the claim of advocating Nick Jonas's presidency. He does not have political experience, the proper education, or appropriate, general requirements of a presidential elect. Above all, Nick Jonas is a musician. He has become widely popular, and will probably stick with music for most of his life. Thus, he will not leave all of his fans in the music career to switch to the role of presidency. His discussions of diabetes and tours of Washington do not merit an acceptance of his potential presidency. I rest my case. Thank you.
Nick Jonas Should be President

I stand in firm affirmation of this resoultion. It is time for change. According to USNEWS, Nickki schwabd states, Pop superstar Nick Jonas of the Jonas Brothers hinted that he wouldn't mind spending a lot more time in Washington: "I always had this dream that I would become president one day," he said to a chorus of giggles coming from the dozens of tween girls who came to see him speak at the National Press Club today, "2040 to be exact." And who could blame him? The 16-year-old has gotten a pretty fabulous tour of Washington thus far. First, over inauguration, the Jonas Brothers were invited to play a private acoustic set at the White House for Sasha and Malia Obama and friends. Then, Nick Jonas was invited in June to testify before Congress on type 1 diabetes alongside actress Mary Tyler Moore, a longtime advocate for people with juvenile diabetes. "I was a little nervous when I spoke," he admitted. "But it was great to see that it went over well." He returned today as one of the youngest speakers ever to talk from the Press Club podium and again described what it's like to live with type 1 diabetes to the mostly young crowd. While diabetes was the main topic, he revealed other things, too, which got some shrieks of glee from the packed audience: He's single, he would date a fan, and while meeting President Obama was "an honor," he'd rather have dinner with fellow musician Elvis Costello. it is neccessary to have nick jonas as a president because we need to spice up our country. I urge and affirmative vote.
Evil proves God does not exist (Part 3)

Countering Pros Argument Pro says "3. An all-powerful agent can do anything it pleases. It COULD therefore stop all immoral things from happening and it could do so at no cost at all. " As the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Stopping all immoral things does have a cost, for example the cost of not having moral free agents being able to choose between good and evil. Another cost of stopping evil would be anything that would result in a world where evil exists which would not have been the case in the absence of evil existing. This clearly shows the claim that stopping evil has no cost if false, and thus the conclusion that God does not exist which rests on this premise is in doubt. Evil and objective morality Pro says "5. But evil exists (I hope we can agree on this) and therefore immoral things exist (see 1; evil is immoral). Hence, no agent has stopped them from happening. " When evil is used to prove that God doesn't exist, the evil that is presented must be presented as an transgression against an objective moral standard. This is the case cause if evil was just presented in the argument as being subjective, this makes what is evil based on our own personal preferences. As such it would be arguing that God should get rid of this personal distaste that we call evil, and while he is at it, why doesn't he get rid of carrots since we have a personal distaste for them too. Objective evil can't exist, unless there is an objective moral standard. So Pro has two options, either deny that an objective moral standard exists, at which point there is no objective evil, thus the argument falls apart or commit themselves to the existence of an objective moral standard. The existence of an objective moral standard means God might exist Now I am not going to argue that the existence of an objective moral standard PROVES God exists, but rather make the more modest claim that God as defined COULD be the objective moral standard. God as defined could be the standard of which things are compared to determine if they are "good" or "evil". If something is contrary to God then it is "evil". Now Pro can't refer too God as the objective moral standard, so then what is the objective moral standard that Pro is referring too when they make claims about the existence of objective evil ? As such it must be conceded that God could be the objective moral standard and thus God might exist. I look forward to Pros reply.
Evil proves God does not exist (Part 3)

At the outset, I want to point out that I disagree with my opponent's use of logical sentences (eg rabbits and aliens) but I don't believe that, for the present purposes, I need to argue the issue of "sound argument" versus "valid argument". My argument is simple and I intend to proceed by way of a syllogism of sorts. Consider the following: 1. Evil is immoral. This is a premise but it's not a hidden premise. We can all agree (I hope) that, by definition, evil is immoral. Of course, if my opponent asks for dictionary definitions to prove this point, I will happily oblige. 2. A morally good agent must have in its nature a desire that no immoral things should happen. This goes with the very definition of moral goodness. 3. An all-powerful agent can do anything it pleases. It COULD therefore stop all immoral things from happening and it could do so at no cost at all. 4. An all-powerful AND morally good agent would NECESSARILY want to (see 2) and would NECESSARILY be able to (see 3) stop immoral things from happening and it could do so at no cost (because it's all-powerful). Therefore, such an agent would NECESSARILY stop immoral things from happening. 5. But evil exists (I hope we can agree on this) and therefore immoral things exist (see 1; evil is immoral). Hence, no agent has stopped them from happening. 6. Since no agent has stopped immoral things from happening (see 5), there can't exist such an agent that would NECESSARILY stop immoral things from happening. 7. But an agent such as the one in 6 above (or, to be precise, at least one type of such an agent) is a morally good and all-powerful agent (see 4 above), otherwise defined as "god" in my opponent's opening argument. (Note that the fact that these two attributes are not the only attributes of god's definition is not relevant here. If an agent who meets even only two of god's attributes can't exist, god can't exist. ) 8. Therefore god (as defined) can't exist.
controlled legalization of minor-adult sex would reduce the child sex murder rate

Most child sex murders result from a desire to destroy the evidence. The murderers wish to destroy the evidence, i.e. murder the child, because child-adult sex is not only illegal but punished worse than murder. If child-adult sex were given controlled legalization, there would be less incentive for the perpetrator to kill the minor. We know from anthropology, psychology, and medicine that child-adult sex can be safe and beneficial. Substantiation for this contention is found in Menninger, "Love Against Hate," 1941 and "The Rind Report," 1997; and the Kinsey report, 1953. Some minors and their guardians would agree to minor-adult sex. These households could then be authorized to provide this service. It would still be illegal for anyone to attempt minor-adult sex with any minor not so authorized. If people who want minor-adult sex can satisfy their desires legally, there would be less need for them to kill. No solution is 100% because the human race is defective, but this would reduce the percentage of child sex murder
controlled legalization of minor-adult sex would reduce the child sex murder rate

By forfeiting the round the challenger has conceded the argument and is obligated by intellectual honesty to agree with my position. He has addressed neither my logical points nor my research points. The challenger can look for ammunition by consulting he documents I mentioned, or other sources, to see if they support his opinion. He can also carefully examine the psychological mechanism going on in the minds of both the murderers and the victims behind the tragic murders of children in these cases, which happen frequently in America.
Abbortion should be illegal

At this point it's very clear to me that you don't know what abortion is. I'm curious as to whether or not you even read my arguments where I clearly defined it for you. You assert that abortion is the "killing new born babies". It's not. See my above arguments for the correct definition of abortion. It appears that you haven't made any new arguments, so I'll address those you've made thus far. 1)Killing is wrong 2)Abortions occur for no reasons So. Your first argument was: Killing is wrong. I asserted that this kind of killing is necessary. And so you said "Killing is wrong". Your second argument was that abortion occurs for no reason. I addressed that with arguments in my first round. Since I've rebutted your two arguments I'd like to point out that you failed to answer any of my arguments. I'll assume that you concede the following points: -It is impossible to make abortion illegal. -Abortion has never been fully illegal in this country. -The abortion of fetuses in rape victims is morally justifiable. -Legal abortion is necessary to prevent deaths. -Abortion prevents children being born into unwanted, or unstable environments. Since you agree with me on all of that, I can't see any arguments that you'll be able to make in your final round. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'll say something like "Killing is wrong". You're really not at a developmental stage where you can make reasoned structured arguments, I suggest that you wait a couple of years and then try debating then. No harm meant though. Perhaps you could try debating in a safer more favorable environment, online with people six or seven years your senior probably isn't a good idea until you feel more comfortable with debating -Matt
Abbortion should be illegal

First off, I'm not entirely sure what position you're taking in this debate. The topic is "Abortion should be illegal", and you took the con position in the debate, meaning that your position is 'Abortion should be legal'. However your opening argument states: "If killing is Illegal then why is killing babies in the wound legal what if your mother had an abortion for you see all you have to do is give the baby up not kill it." Though your statement is somewhat hard to understand, I extrapolate that you are against abortion. Since this is just the first round I won't rebut your arguments now, but I will make some arguments of my own. 1) It's impossible to make abortion illegal. Abortion is defined as: "The premature termination of a pregnancy; may be induced or spontaneous (miscarriage)" (A). Miscarriage is defined as: "Spontaneous loss of an embryo or fetus from the womb." (B) (I'll assume I don't have to define spontaneous as well) Since abortion can occur by miscarriage, which is natural, not induced, it is impossible to make it illegal, just as it is impossible to make a disease, virus, or other unintentional bodily ailment illegal. 2) Induced abortion in this country has never been fully illegal. There are always cases in which abortion is required to preserve the life of the mother. (C) 3) The abortion of fetuses in rape victims is morally justifiable. 4) Legal abortion is necessary to prevent deaths. Before Roe v. Wade in 1973 it was estimated that around 5000 women died each year due to complications illegal abortions. (C) 5) Abortion prevents children being born into unwanted, or unstable environments. 93% of all abortions occur in situations where a child is unwanted. A majority of abortions take place with women who are single. A plurality of abortions occur in situations where the mother, or family has an annual income of less than $30,000. (D) That's all for now, I have several more arguments, but I'll introduce those in Round 2 if necessary. Looking forward to your next argument. -Matt A) http://fz.fertilityzone.net... B) http://www.barbadosivf.org... C) http://feminist.org... D) http://www.abortionno.org...
Minimum Wage

My opponent asserts that his minimum wage would allow wages to fluctuate "as long as they are above the lower minimum wage". The deal is though, that wages still pass below this line in times of deflation. This creates unemployment and fuels the recession. It still has a negative effect in this regard. My opponent also asserts that a minimum wage is "bad". This is clearly a concession. He then asserts that the minimum wage should exist so that people don't earn less than the natural minimum wage. However, people do not earn less than the natural minimum wage. So, such a wage would have no effect and would therefore only create an otherwise unnecessary government bureaucracy. Welfare payments DO allow wages to slip below the natural minimum wage, but this is irrelevant to the debate at hand. My opponent asserts that government could spend millions of dollars "making itself more effient. My opponent says not how this would work. Money can not make Congress change the minimum wage quicker. My opponent then asserts that in some situations, a minimum wage is not necessary. In order to make this work, more government bureaucracy would be needed to approve each case under which someone makes below the minimum wage. My opponent's only argument for a minimum wage is that it should prevent people from being paid below the natural minimum wage. As I have already argued, this does not happen. This fact is something that even Karl Marx has agreed with. . http://www.scribd.com...- The minimum wage, therefore, cannot be corrected, as it is always a harmful policy to all wage labourers.
Minimum Wage

1. "My opponent asserts that a low minimum wage would only outsource a few jobs. This is correct in the short run; however, in the long run, a deflatory recession would push more and more jobs out of existence. The best option therefore would be to have no minimum wage, as it would allow for wages to fluctuate. " How would it outsource any jobs if the workers are being paid their natural wage. The minimum wage I am talking about is lower than most natural wages. The wages can still fluctuate as long as they are above the lower minimum wage. 2. "Government cannot set a fixed minimum wage and change it effectively to react to day-to-day market changes. Government is not that efficient. " Why not. It spends billions of dollars on wasteful things. It could spend a few million making itself more efficient. I agree, a fixed minimum wage is bad, but some sort of minimum wage should be there so people don't earn less than their natural wage. 3. "So, a minimum wage is not even necessary to keep workers from starving, as the market naturally gives workers enough to subsist times 2. " Really? So, if there was suddenly no minimum wage than workers having to support families would be earning much less. they would not be able to support themselves and would be forced to rely on government. However, the minimum wage really should not apply to all because a boy running a paper route does not have to support his family. There, it would be plainly stupid. I don't agree with the way that minimum wage is run, but I do agree that there should be one. If it is run correctly, then it would be benificial to the economy. I believe that of instead of trying to abolish it, we should try to correct it.