BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rights For the Mentally Handicapped

It is not my fault that Pro overlooked the title of the debate, but just to be clear the debate is about "Rights for the Mentally Handicapped" not "is it okay if a mentally retarded man gets punched out by a concerned parent". While my opponent is right about society socially evolving past the point of primal needs such as mate finding or monkey like behavior, he does forget the hard fact that if you have somthing like the love for your child, there is nothing that is going to take that child away from you. In the first round Pro argues that... "Simply consider the following situation - the mentally handicapped individual is hit in the throat by accident, or after being knocked to the floor seriously hits his head, etc." It does work both ways in fact, what if the mentally handicapped man started to ferociously attack the child instead of just kick it? Or even worse, if the father did not act how far would that little kick have gone? Do you think that the man would have just kicked the child and went on his way without a care? If that man had been arrested and tried under a jury he would have been excused of all charges based on the fact that he is mentally handicapped, the jury would feel sympathy for the man because of his "Special case". On another point, to reitterate, this argument is over the rights of mentally handicapped people, not just one specific case, the case was used as a jumping off point, an example of how much they can get away with. Let me be very clear about one thing, my argument is on the side of ethically correct societal behavior, being morally just, on a large scale, and forgive me if I misinterpreted your last paragraph but it was rather hard to follow, you stated... " in the eyes of the law in regards to rape as they can be found not to be able to give consent and thus they can be treated as a minor even if they are typically past the age of consent." I did not know if you were saying the mentally handicapped person in question was the rapee or rapist because even in cases not involving mentally handicapped people it would not matter if the rapist gave consent, he is a rapist... By definition one party has to refuse consent in a rape case. But I assume Pro is smarter than that so the mentally handicapped person must be the victim, in which case wouldn't being treated like a minor a good thing? The penalty for raping a minor is much worse than raping an adult. Yes, this is the point that Pro is trying to make but he is forgetting one thing in this case the mentally handicapped person gets the better treatment than a regular adult who would most likely be more traumatized by the event. Where is the justice for them? You tell me.
Rights For the Mentally Handicapped

Let me start off this round by stating that in the previous round, Pro is mistaken, the act of the parent was not self gratification but a natural primal need to defend one's young. In this round I would like to propose another situation, at a small town local grocery store works a 50 year old mentally handicapped man, not mentally handicapped enough to be a danger to himself or others but is still under the line of mental retardation. This man works around a much younger crowd than himself and often feels attracted to the young female employees from highschool and college. He often expresses this fondness in an inappropriate manner, invasion of space, "accidental" bumping, and a few reports of inappropriate touching and fondling. He takes pictures of the young female staff with his camera phone and after he gets off of work he likes to go to the nearby college campus to oggle the female students and take pictures of them, sometimes even asking them if they want to "Be in a movie". The female staff of the grocery store have complained numerous times about him and they are unable to do anything because it is unlawful to fire a mentally handicapped man. Had this man been in a higher state of mind he would be fired, arrested, or worse. Does he still have a job? Yes. Are his actions going unpunished? Yes. Which brings me to my main point, just because a person is mentally handicapped, it shouldn't mean that that person gets special privlages, would a man who was blind, deaf, or paralyzed from the waist down get away with such actions? No. Cases like this true case happen a lot and more often than not society looks the other way because "They don't know better" or "He doesn't know what he is doing." Even if they did not know it would still be better to remove them from the public. Am I saying that all mentally handicapped people deserve to be treated like this? No, but why? Because not all of them ACT like that. But I see the worse cases all the time, nobody does anything about it, and it makes me sick.
Edward Snowden is an American Hero

My opponent has chosen to forfeit her response, therefore all of my arguments stand and I have proven my case, uncontested, that Edward Snowden is indeed an American Hero. I"ll now proceed round three extensions: Edward Snowden is An American Hero A. Edward Snowden"s Actions Enabled Americans to Curtail the NSA and Prevent Further Harm a. We Needed Edward Snowden to Provide Hard Evidence of the NSA There were multiple pending lawsuits against the NSA brought by the ACLU and other privacy advocates, however many were put on hold due to a lack of hard evidence. Edward Snowden"s leak provided that evidence enabling all of these court actions to move forward. Evidence: Mother Jones 2013 b. The Outcomes of this Litigation Will and Has Curtailed the NSA"s Power Due to the new debate on privacy that Edward Snowden"s revelations has sparked, and current litigation enable by Snowden"s leak, the NSA is being forced to adhere to new limits. Evidence: Fox News 2014 c. Curtailing the NSA Boosts Our Democracy If people fear the government will access any and all of their online communication it will decrease the amount of discourse and decrease the likelihood that people will feel comfortable airing unpopular opinions out of fear of professional retaliation. By limiting the NSA"s power, it increases discourse and the likelihood that people will be able to participate in the marketplace of ideas. Evidence: National Review 2013 B. Edward Snowden sacrificed his livelihood and risked his life & freedom in order to shine a light on the NSA"s misdeeds. Snowden left behind a girl friend, a home in Hawaii, and a six figure job with benefits to be hunted by the CIA for the rest of his life so that we would know that the Government was spying on us. II. Edward Snowden Champions American Values A. Transparent Government: Forcing this debate has curtailed the NSA and made us aware of programs that were once secret; thereby making the government more transparent. B. Free Expression: Edward Snowden"s leak to The Guardian & The Washington Post is a form of free speech and supports a Free Press. His actions are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Evidence: CNN 2013 C. Constitutional Limits on Government Power: Judge ruled that the NSA violated the fourth amendment. Evidence: NPR 2013 D. Non-Violent Civil Disobedience: From time to time, it is essential to break some norms in order to speak truth to power. Civil rights leaders had to break laws, or rather the unlawful selective application of some laws, in order to protest racism in the deep South and Henry David Thoreau once protested American imperialism by refusing to pay a local tax. III. Courage is Contagious A. People like Edward Snowden show that it"s possible to stand up and speak truth to power. Bradley Manning"s case and the smear campaign against Julian Assange proves that whistleblowers are getting unfair treatment. Snowden and Greenwald are models of civil disobedience that think strategically in order to remain free and stay in the debate. Respectfully Submitted, Hierocles
Edward Snowden is an American Hero

I kindly accept ypur challenge. My definitions and interpretations:Please note that I will add keywords of my stance and what Edward Snowden did:Treason- the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.Villian- the person or thing responsible for specified trouble, harm, or damage. Edward Snowden known for- Revealing details of classified United States government surveillance programs Criminal charges- Theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified intelligence to an unauthorized person (June 2013). I will prove why Edward Snowden is not an American Hero.
Edward Snowden is an American Hero

American: A citizen of the United State of America, and or someone who champions principles cherished by most Western liberal democracies. Hero: A person of virtuous character that risks and/or sacrifices life, limb, and/or livelihood to benefit others. Is: third-person singular of be an: Indefinite article; used when the noun may refer to one of several possibilities. Due to the nature of the resolution, the debate should be evaluated as a 'more true than false question. ' The PRO needs to prove that it's MORE TRUE THAN FALSE that 'Edward Snowden is an American Hero. ' The CON needs to prove that it's MORE FALSE THAN TRUE that 'Edward Snowden is an American Hero. '
There other life forms in the universe and other unvierses if they exist. We are not anything unique

Thank you for posting your...argument. My opponent has no comeback to my argument, so he tries to ignore it. My Opponent must learn that in a debate one can not just ignore the other person's argument. We have already started a "proper" debate. Thank you for telling me how many stars there are. Though you still have not proved anything. You have the burden of proof of showing that there is life on other planets. I have already argued my point. Until next time, argument extended.
There other life forms in the universe and other unvierses if they exist. We are not anything unique

something tells me that con is focusing on subtleties because he himself has no substance for argument. You seem quick to pick up on every little thing I say that is not to your standard but you seem to not provide much evidence or argument yourself. Anyway, lets start a proper actual debate. Firstly, It is extremely likely we are not the only intelligent life forms as there is 10^25- 10^30 amount of stars in the universe with even more amounts of planets. ( here's the link if u don't understand the terms I am using with the numbers... http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Argue back with a point this time please.
There other life forms in the universe and other unvierses if they exist. We are not anything unique

RESOLUTION ============================ " It is so likely we are not alone in the universe therefore we are not unique" DEFINITIONS ======================= Unique: Not typical. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Universe: The totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space . http://dictionary.reference.com... We: Used to denote people in general . http://dictionary.reference.com... ARGUMENT ===================== My argument will be brief, since there is not much that needs to be said. First of all, my opponent has listed absolutely no proof but rather has stated his beliefs. I encourage, my opponent to give sources in his next argument. Excuse me for saying, but my opponents logic is very faulty. "It is SO likely we are not alone in the unvierse. so we must not be" If I hear the five hundred people tell me there are diamonds in my back yard, then there is a big chance there are. But I can not say that there are diamonds in my backyard just because it is likely.
Alcohol is far worse than drugs

First, I apologize for the gender mix up with my opponent. I would also like to say that I at no point said that my opponent's article was written by him. Voters when voting on this debate please look through the entire debate and you will find no instance where I said this. Now my opponent has brought a new argument in the last round. He claims that the WHO says that 2.5 million people die every year due to alcohol related causes. I say that this is abuse and my opponent should not have brought a new argument in the last round and therefore it should not be used. My opponent has also tried to hide from the wording of the resolution. He in the resolution claims that alcohol is "far worse" than other illegal drugs. To prove this he must prove that alcohol is not only more dangerous, but "far" more dangerous. He has not done this in that his own source admits that heroin, crack, and crystal meth are more dangerous than alcohol to the individual. My opponent has yet not shown why alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs, let alone "far worse".
Alcohol is far worse than drugs

If you would kindly look on my profile, you will see that I am male and not "she". I'm not sure which led you to that assumption but never mind. My opponent is picking bits out in order to win this debate and not actually reading the evidence in question. Yes, I did copy and past the article, not in any point in my debate did I say that this article originated from me. If I remember rightly I quoted "Here is a report written in the Daily Mail". Picking out something like that in order to win a debate WITHOUT providing your own evidence shows that your knowledge of this debate is severely lacking. The World Health Organization estimates that risks linked to alcohol cause 2.5 million deaths a year from heart and liver disease. Lets not stick with my wording of "worse" or "far worse". In order for my opponent to win this debate, surely he would have to provide us with some evidence to back up that Drugs is worse than Alcohol. When I stated that Alcohol is far worse than drugs, it was on purpose that I did not clarify whether it was worse for the individual or society as I just wanted a debate about the subject as a whole. As stated, a massive 2.5 million people die from Liver and Heart failure each year. To ignore that would be purely ignorant. If you compare that to drugs as a WHOLE, the number would be far different.
Alcohol is far worse than drugs

My opponent copied and pasted a supposed study which showed that alcohol is "far" more dangerous than any other illegal drug. However the resolution which my opponent is upholding is that alcohol is "far worse" than other drugs. However in my opponent's own study it says:"the most dangerous drugs to individual users were judged to be heroin, crack and then crystal meth" My opponents own source which she claims to support her claim says exactly what I, her opponent, am arguing. That there is at least one illegal drug which is more harmful than alcohol. Namely heroin but also crack and crystal meth according to my opponent's source. However the study also says that:"Alcohol is a more dangerous drug than heroin or crack cocaine"Can we assume from my opponent's article that alcohol is then "far worse than other drugs"? Certainly not for the individual. My opponents own source claims that on that aspect crystal meth and crack are more harmful. If my opponent meant more harmful to society in general then her source would back her claim up, however she never defined what far worse meant. So I will define it for her as potential and practical harm to an individual. According to this definition, the resolution is clearly refuted.
Alcohol is far worse than drugs

In order to win this debate I am assuming that I must show why at least 1 type of illegal drug is worse than alcohol. But what does one mean by the word "worse"?Worse: more unfavorable or injurious[1]For my example of an illegal drug which is more injurious to one's body than alcohol I will use heroin.Withdrawal SymptomsLet's look at the withdrawal symptoms of heroin compared to those of alcohol.HeroinRestlessnessMuscle and bone painInsomniaVomitingSevere craving for the drugCold flashesDiarrheaDepressionAnxietyIrritabilityMore sensitive to painSweatingTearsRunny noseFrequent bowel movementsNauseaFever[2][3]Heroin withdrawal can also last from 2-3 days to weeks or even months.[2]I would say that looking at the withdrawal effects on heroin users, it is reasonable to conclude that heroin is more dangerous than alcohol.[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]http://www.nida.nih.gov...[3]http://addictions.about.com...
America has done more good then bad over the course of history.

I feel as though one of the others who wanted to debate this would have been a better choice, but I am happy to participate in this. A quick introduction, if you don't mind, my name on here is Blazzered. I do not debate often, but when I do, I normally debate the topic of the existence of a god. I do not believe America is a bad country, I live in America and was born here, however I feel as though while America has done MUCH good in the course of history, it does not excuse the bad it has done or overcome it. I look forward to this debate. Good luck to Pro, I look forward to your argument(s).
improper jurisdiction of icj

I will be taking the stance that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is justified, as opposed to arbritary, in its jurisdiction. This is a complex issue because the ICJ has two, quite unrelated jurisdictions (. http://www.icj-cij.org...). The first jurisdiction is known as "advisory jurisdiction" - essentially the UN or one of the UN's friends asks the judges for advice. The court will seek information on the subject from anybody or any agency that might have something to say on the topic, and then consider all of these viewpoints under the framework of international law, before giving a verdict. These verdicts are non-binding - people are free to ignore them if they wish - however, they carry great moral authority because of the respect for the members of the ICJ in the international community (. http://www.icj-cij.org...). In exercising the power of advisory jurisdiction, the justices are doing no more for the UN (or one of their friends) than a management consultancy firm does for a business. They are looking at the facts objectively and giving their legal opinion, just like every lawyer in the world does. There's nothing arbritary or improper about this - it is a normal, commonly accepted practice, protected by the rights of freedom of speech. The second jurisdiction is known as contentious jurisdiction. If Germany wanted to sue the United States over their use of the name "Hamburger", because they feel they are degrading to the people who live in Hamburg, then they would go to the ICJ, who would judge the case using international law. This service is only for governments suing other governments - the ICJ does not get involved with individuals or other legal entities (so don't confuse it with the international criminal court! ). Only states that AGREE to be bound by the jurisdiction of the ICJ are bound by it - both parties in the lawsuit must give their consent. If the USA was to say "we don't recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ," then Germany would be out of luck. (. http://www.icj-cij.org...). In other words - the court CANNOT exercise ANY jurisdiction over non-member nations. For instance in the case of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia v NATO, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia when the case was filed, and thus passed no verdict. If you and I were to sign a contract that Judge Judy will resolve our dispute, then her jurisdiction over us is not arbritary or unfounded. It is not arbritary because she will judge us based on the law (because she's a judge) and it's not unfounded because we both consented to her jurisdiction. The same is true for the ICJ. When two states give their consent to be bound by it, it is this consent that makes the rulings valid. This is not political dominance. This is voluntary submission that states can pull out of at any time - in Nicuragua vs United States (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) the USA even pulled out AFTER the verdict had been delivered so they don't have to pay reparations. The burden of proof is on my opponent. He must show why the ICJ is arbritary or improper in its jurisdiction.
Can Disney be inappropriate

There maybe some sketches (thank you for showing me) but after all, it's just animation, it's entire goal is not to be inappropriate. That's just a ridiculous way to see Disney. Before the 1990s and 80s, Walt Disney himself made great films like Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, All the Mickey Mouse shorts, All the Donald Duck shorts, All the Goofy shorts, and much more. There was nothing inappropriate about Walt Disney, you just look at it that way. See it for yourself, he was a good animator.
Can Disney be inappropriate

here are many different Disney movie that have "adult humor" in them for example, Disney's Aladdin when Aladdin is having some trouble with Rajah, he seems to say, "Good teenagers take off your clothes." You can hear it as Jasmine opens the curtains. It"s at that moment that your pre-teen self would giggle and hit the rewind button over and over. In Disney's Ratatouille, when Linguini Is trying to explain his "Tiny Chef" to Colette, Linguini says "I have a tiny, uhh, little..." Colette takes a peek under Linguinis belt, This is the moment that parents are hoping their kids wont notice. Here are some more examples https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
Minimum Wage

Thanks to pro for acceptance. The minimum wage hurts jobs and kills small business. To support this claim I like the Monopoly example, it goes like this. In Monopoly you have the two brown properties at the start, and the two dark blue properties right before go, you of course have some in between, but for the sake of argument we will just use these two properties. If you had to pay your employees in Monopoly, who would be in favour of raising or having the minimum wage in the first place? It would be the dark blue. The dark blue would want this to drive the brown properties out of business. Of course the brown could not afford to pay say $15 every turn, because he is bringing in less revenue. Some people may not be skilled in an area, say sewing. however if there are two candidates, and one has experience, who will they hire?? Of course the person with the experience. Now if the other applicant really wanted this job he could say, I will work for $6 an hour, the company may think it is worth hiring the cheaper worker. Once the worker gets the skill and experience he can work for more, or what he is worth. Whereas in a minimum wage system, it is very hard to accomplish this because the government has a wage the worker must be paid. Another thing to remember is that not everyone is worth $10.20 an hour (Alberta minimum wage) So it is not fair a corporation is being forced to pay their workers more than what they are worth. In order for everyone to be treated the same, we need to have no minimum wage. http://smallbusiness.chron.com...... http://www.forbes.com...... http://www.forbes.com......