BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House would introduce compulsory voting

P1: It is never fine for repressive parties to come into power. It doesn't matter if they were elected democratically. When I say apathetic government, I mean governments that take away rights. They don't care about the people and their rights. P2: I never advocated for anarchy. This rebuttal is out of nowhere and irrelevant. C1: What is society? Why must it be more important than individuals. Society is just a group of individuals, so sacrificing the individual to 'society' is just sacrificing individuals to other individuals. Everybody is repressed, not helped. C2: And what if the majority don't want universal suffrage? The reason that blacks and women could not vote for a long time was because the majority " white men " was better off without their vote. Prisoners are also not the only group that is prevented from voting in certain parts of the world. Young people and non-citizens come to mind as well. C3: The merits of democracy are not irrelevant. My opponent's whole argument rests on the idea that compulsory voting is more democratic. Thus, if that reason is illegitimate, it must be used as a point of argument. And the only evidence provided against it was the idea that democracy is better because it is more democratic. A system where people do not agree with oppressive rulers is better, because that is when they rebel, and sometimes even put in something better. If the majority always supported their rulers, America would still be a British colony. France would still be a monarchy. Mubarak and Gaddafi would still be in power. P1: I don't necessarily mean that politicians lie, but they do focus on non-issues to sway the public. Examples include Barack Obama's birth certificate and Mitt Romney's tax returns. Both were non-issues that swayed public opinion. My opponent's only argument against compartmentalizing voters was that it was undemocratic. I don't even know how that relates. It isn't an argument, it is using a meaningless word to criticize something. Rather than rebutting my source, my opponent chose to throw an ad hominem at it. Considering that she figured out objective morality, I would definitely say that Rand is a moral authority. There is no such thing as a reasonable denial of liberty, or any right for that matter. That is why they are rights.
This House would introduce compulsory voting

P1: My opponent believes that limited participation means that the government is not representative of the people. If bad governments do arise from limited participation, then those who did not participate were represented. Their lack of a vote was a vote for apathy, and they got a government that was apathetic about them. P2: The argument for voting being a duty is the so called "social contract". One question: did you sign it? No, and neither did anybody else, because it doesn't exist. My opponent must prove the legitimacy of the social contract before using it as evidence. C1: I apologize for not proving the right to liberty. I am including an essay that explains rights (1). As for obeying the law violating this, that is sometimes the case. In such cases, the law is illegitimate. However, if the law is preventing violations of rights, the right to liberty is not harmed, because it does not condone force against another human being. C2: There are rational and irrational voters. There are some groups of irrational voters that are prevented from voting, and for good reason. One group is prisoners. Since they are in prison, we assume they are irrational, and would vote on irrational principles. I know that I would not like it if my government started being partially run by serial killers. C3: No, I don't have to prove that democracy is not ideal. The burden of proof is on the one who claims a system is ideal. By default, a system is not ideal. However, the ideal system would be something objective, where the right decision is made as opposed to the most popular. If democracy is the closest we can get, so be it. I would hope that with improvements in technology, there are more possibilities for objective government. Now, how about this quote from my opponent: "'tyranny of the majority" is fairer and more democratic than the "tyranny of the minority'" More democratic? So the argument is that democracy is better because it is more democratic. Circular logic. And tyranny of the minority is better. If I happen to mugged on the street someday, I'd rather it be by one guy than by several. The only reason dictators stay in power is because of cult of personality: They have the support of the majority. Democracy just institutionalizes it. P1: Candidates will always try to mislead the public. Mandatory voting will increase the lies simply because they will, as my opponent says, not have to focus on getting out the vote anymore. As a side note to all this, I never actually used the term "irrational voters" in my initial arguments. That was all you. I do like the term though, so thanks. Sources: 1. http://www.aynrand.org...
This House would introduce compulsory voting

Thank you for the argument. 1. The role of government is to protect individual rights. As such, people must be able to choose what and what not to do in their own lives. Forcing citizens to vote is a clear violation of the right to liberty, and must not be allowed to happen. 2. Why don't people vote? Chances are, it is because they are uninformed or apathetic about the election, rather than protesting. But uninformed and apathetic people still vote, and in large numbers. Mandating voting would only increase the power of these people to run the lives of rational citizens who actually care about their lives. 3. My opponent's argument rests on the idea that democracy is the ideal system to live in. But is this assumption correct? Democracy is a system of majority rule, meaning that, in its true form, would result in the minority being consistently oppressed by the ruling majority. This is antithetical to freedom, which is the actual ideal. Sacrificing freedom for the sake of making your country more democratic is the wrong decision.
This House would introduce compulsory voting

I will be arguing in favour of introducing compulsory voting, the Opposition will argue against. The debate will run as follows: Round One is for acceptance. Round Two is for definitions and substantive arguments. Round Three is for rebuttal and substantive arguments. Round Four is for rebuttal and summing up - no more substantive arguments at this stage. Sources can be stated if the speaker feels they support the argument but they should not be assumed to be necessary.
Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal

Ok due to it being the last round in this debate I will cut it short. I will end my case and continue by attacking my opponents case, then if space allows I will attempt to summarize the above debate. First, my entire case I ask to be flowed over. Second, starting with my opponents comment "Add is ADHD its just generalized" Ok first I am going to use my aunt as a source(she is in the medical profession) "One is Hyperactive and the other is not" by this she means that Add= Attention Deficit Disorder, Adhd= Attention Hyperactive Deficit Disorder. "Yet cannabis is still not endorsed by pharmaceutical companies as a cancer cure, and since it is not promoted through mainstream channels, very few people are aware of its benefits. Consequently, it is not sought after as an alternative to disfiguring chemotherapy and other harmful drugs"(opponents case)" as I had proven earlier in my case Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited(16). In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors. Now as you can see my opponent has failed to uphold the goal of trying to get everyone to agree that MJ should be legalized for medical reasons- My response to this was A. the person could get hooked B. people are more likely to develope the things that MJ is trying to cure. Since my opponents case is basically what I have addressed above the only last thing to bring up is: Methylphenidate- known as Ritalin. My opponent by bringing this up has basically endorsed it I am now saying: Methylphenidate may cause side effects. Tell your doctor if any of these symptoms are severe or do not go away: nervousness difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep dizziness nausea vomiting loss of appetite stomach pain diarrhea heartburn dry mouth headache muscle tightness uncontrollable movement of a part of the body restlessness numbness, burning, or tingling in the hands or feet decreased sexual desire painful menstruation And by my opponent saying that Queen Victoria used Meth(ritalin) for was to ease the pain of menstruation. As you the Judges can read it increases the pain of menstruation. Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://pr.cannazine.co.uk... my opponents case I do also want to say that by my opponent endorsing Methylphenidate they have just gone against what they have said in their ENTIRE case along with the Rebuttle. It is for the above reasons that I respectfully ask for a firm vote in negation of the resolution. Thanks again for leaving this debate open!
Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal

I do also believe that by giving peopel "medical" MJ people will start to become addicted to it. I accept this debate and look forward to the following rounds Def: Medical- medï¿½iï¿½cal (md-kl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characterizing the study or practice of medicine. 2. Requiring treatment by medicine. n. A thorough physical examination MJ-A common street and recreational drug that comes from the marijuana plant: the hemp plant cannabis sativa. The pharmacologically active ingredient in marijuana is tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC). Marijuana is used to heighten perception, affect mood, and relax. Many people think marijuana is harmless, but it is not. Signs of marijuana use include red eyes, lethargy, and uncoordinated body movements. The long-term effects may include decrease in motivation and harmful effects on the brain, heart, lungs, and reproductive system. People who smoke marijuana are also at increased risk of developing cancer of the head and neck. A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, that contains synthetic THC, is available as a prescription medication. It comes in the form of a pill (eliminating the harmful and cancer-causing chemicals present when marijuana is smoked) and is used to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to treat loss of appetite in AIDS patients. mood-altering herb they smoked marijuana Legal-1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers. 2. a. Authorized by or based on law: a legal right. b. Established by law; statutory: the legal owner. 3. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations. 4. Recognized or enforced by law rather than by equity. 5. In terms of or created by the law: a legal offense. 6. Applicable to or characteristic of attorneys or their profession. n. 1. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws. 2. legals Investments that may be legally made by fiduciaries and certain institutions, such as savings banks and insurance companies. Also called legal list these came from: . http://www.medterms.com...(MJ) . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... If there are any problems with the above let me know and ill explain each.
Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal

My first debate!Round 1: AcceptanceI think Medical Marijuana should be legal and ther are many benefits.Definitions:Marijuana - Marijuana (marihuana) Cannabis sativa L., also known as Indian hemp, is a member of the Cannabaceae or hemp family, thought to have originated in the mountainous districts of India, north of the Himalayan mountains.http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...LETS DO THIS!
Capitalism Is A Religion Of The Rich And Anybody Who Believes In It Is Nuts

Now the rich did not crash the economy in 2008 it was a simple creditor crash which brought down the entire economy. Capitalism does not twist people is corrupts far less then communism or socialism, the United States is one of the least corrupt capitalist nation on earth where as communist/socialist Cuba, China, Russia, Vietnam, Loas, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Mexico have severe, severe corruption problems. What's the common link between them all? They are socialist communist countries. The U.S. And Britain are not dictatorships each person in both countries has a voice to choose the direction, the path that they want their country to take, no socialist country has that ability. Every election in this nation ( The United States) is based on how our capitalist country is doing. If the economy is faltering then those in power take the blame. The capitalist system has been the driving force behind the greatest inversions of our time, the computer in Britian, the internet thier as well, the iPod and iPad U.S. Inventions as well as Microsoft Windows, courtesy of Bill Gates (a capitalist). Although Africa is developing it is wrent with corruption under socialist dictatorships and the people, the people overthrew them and put in place pro democracy pro capitalist systems. That is what will cause them to flourish not socialist systems. The reason the Capitalist system looks to the poor individuals is because it is these individuals who are the driving force behind the roar of a booming economy. What are they motivated by? Money. What system allows them to make as much money as they can? Capitalism. Under a system of socialism everything is distributed evenly so thier is no incentive to work because they are guaranteed a set income. And so that is why Capitalism is not a "religion of the rich" but a system that poor people (such as myself) see as a motivation to succeed and thrive so that we may live comfortably, maybe not rich but comfortably. I rest my case.
Capitalism Is A Religion Of The Rich And Anybody Who Believes In It Is Nuts

"Consider this, if it weren't for our capitalist system would you have the technology to make this debate possible? probably not." Lmao. Really? Then please show me some evidence that capitalism and evolution are the same thing, because I believe what you just said to be the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. Technological evolution predates capitalism by at least fifty thousand years, mate, and there is precisely zero evidence that capitalism positively increases technological achievement over any long-term period of time. Indeed, much of Africa is actually devolving, which kind of exposes your stupid myth as... Well, a stupid myth, really. "Although the system crashed in 2008 it is the only system in the world that recognizes the individual's ability to thrive." It forces poor individuals with no money, status or power to compete against rich individuals with millionaire fathers, political connections and power. The individual cannot thrive, but rather is crushed under the weight of the currently existing hierarchy. Paris Hilton can thrive, because she has enough money to enjoy life. I can't thrive, because despite having more talent and intellect in one of my own pubic hairs, I was not fortunate enough to be born with the last name of Hilton. "Communism has all but collapsed. Why?" Jesus. Does it have anything to do with the fifty year war the US fought to prevent it from working perhaps? "Because the system is flawed by human nature" Another ridiculous capitalist myth with no evidence to support it and no grounding in reality. As Hegel pointed out, there is no such thing as human nature. Humans are versatile creatures capable of adapting to pretty much whichever social environment you put them in, from slavery to kingship. Aside from the American leadership bombing the living daylights out of every country it was worried would turn communist, communism ultimately failed in Russia because the people had already adapted biologically to the skills necessary to survive within a dictatorial tsarist regime. This probably explains why they needed a hard right dictator such as Stalin to pretend he was a Communist simply in order to continue economic life. Try introducing capitalism into a tribe of die-hard commies and see how long it lasts, pal. "As capitalism caused the crisis so it will help us to recover from it as time goes along." Yeah. Nice logic mate. The problem is the solution. Good one.
Capitalism Is A Religion Of The Rich And Anybody Who Believes In It Is Nuts

Consider this, if it weren't for our capitalist system would you have the technology to make this debate possible? probably not. Although the system crashed in 2008 it is the only system in the world that recognizes the individual's ability to thrive. Communism has all but collapsed. Why? Because the system is flawed by human nature. Sure Capitalism has similar problems but they mostly are grouped Into the category of cronyism or a corporate state. As capitalism caused the crisis so it will help us to recover from it as time goes along.
Capitalism Is A Religion Of The Rich And Anybody Who Believes In It Is Nuts

The rich crashed the economy in 2008 by selling subprime mortgage investments to people it knew could not afford them. The rich recouped their losses from the taxpayer, courtesy of the same people whose political campaigns they funded. Most other people lost their homes, their jobs or both. Many of these are the same people being attacked by Conservatives right now as "benefit slobs". Capitalism has twisted people's thinking to irrational and absurd degrees. It is perfectly obvious that the people who benefit (or believe they benefit) from capitalism will not change it. That's all the people you get your news from and all the people you elect into office. You don't think the US and/or England are dictatorships? When was the last time you had a vote about capitalism?
Cheerleading is a sport

My opponent: 1. Really? Cheerleaders "wave a baton? " Like a said before, months of hard core practicing go into it, and many competitive teams go to several competitions and learn different routines. I have participated in cheerleading and track, and running for three straight minutes in track is much easier than performing a cheerleading routine. Watch the routine below and then tell me that it's easy. (By the way, that is only dance. Most teams do both cheer and dance in one routine. ) You have to be extremely strong mentally and physically to do that. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... 2. If cheerleading just consists of "waving batons," then why is it the leading cause of injuries among women, more than any other sport? According to Live Science, cheerleading accounts for 65.1% of catastrophic sport injuries in high school, and even more in college. Cheerleading is the top leader of fatalities, followed by gymnastics and then track. . http://www.livescience.com... . http://espn.go.com... There are two reasons that people think cheerleading is not a sport: 1. Sideline cheerleading gave cheerleaders a bad reputation. 2. Many people are still stuck on anti-feminism. Conclusion: 1. Cheerleading meets all the requirements for the defintion of "sport. " 2. Cheerleading combines two sports in itself. 3. In most cases, athletes that cheer are the best in all other sports they do. 4. Cheerleading is the leading cause of injuries among women.
Cheerleading is a sport

Here is of course another definition of the word sport. Sport is all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical fitness and provide entertainment to participants. So yeah I may lose my case here but lets take a look at this. Sport is all forms of physical activity. Lets stop here for a second. Are you going to tell me that cheerleading is a sport on this one? You are not being physical at all. You wave a baton. Sure yeah for the men that do it, which I think they are the lucky ones, they have to lift the girl and hold her. So yeah sure I guess you would have to put about 1% physical activity in it. But lets look at the second part. Aim to use, maintain or improve physical fitness. Are you going to tell me that cheerleaders are cheering to maintain or improve physical fitness? Can't wait to hear what you have to say. Definition- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cheerleading is a sport

Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others. 1.The reason cheerleading is sport is because of the definition of sport. Competitive cheerleaders go to regionals, sectionals, state, and even nationals. They compete against teams, follow rules, and judges decide who win. That is the exact definition of sport. And if you've been to even one cheerleading practice, you know it's hard core, very unlike a golf or bowling practice, which are both considered sports. 2. Gymnastics is a sport, no one can argue that. The best gymnasts go to the Olympics. And gymnastics is a part of every good cheerleading routine. At junior high cheerleading competitions, I have seen many full twists, an extremely hard gymnastics skill. Gymnastics is a huge part of cheerleading. 3. Dancing is a sport. And as we all know, it can be very tiring. In every cheerleading routine, they dance, a lot. And not slow dances at all, they are extremely fast and difficult. So with two sports combined in cheerleading, how can it not be a sport? 4. Furthermore, it makes no sense at the junior high level to consider Scholastic Bowl, where you answer questions, a sport over cheerleading, with much physical exertion. There is a saying "Athletes lift weights, cheerleaders lift people," that should speak a lot about cheerleading. Lifting people up, or mounting, is very difficult, especially the advanced mounts. I doubt anyone but the cheerleaders, who are arguably the best athletes, could do this. http://www.aacca.org... http://www.varsity.com... Finally, according to IHSA, cheerleading is a sport. http://ihsa.org...
Cheerleading is a sport

If I understand you right you want me to agrue that cheerleading is a not a sport. I think that cheerleading is not a sport because I think it is a hobby that someone gets into. Now some people will probably be upset about this but think about it. Lets take chess club for example. Chess club is a after school thing too. Just like cheerleading. Chess Club is something that people get into and do little competition over. Just like cheerleading. Cant't wait to hear what you have to say.
Homosexual Marriage

I think I already explained my answer to your first question in the previous round by stating that because no matter the situation people will still support Gay marriage and people who really support Gay Marriage stick to their opinion and its not like i want them to change their opinion about Homosexual Marriage, i just wouldn't advise it. Well I've already listed a couple of disadvantages during our argument but i could say a couple more like it defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage and it validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle. The question in where you say "who is saying that gay parents only want gay kid" I must have misunderstood the question. Its obviously true that we are sinners, but doesn't mean we're sinners means we have to take advantage of it. When we sin we repent but whats the point in repenting something you don't want to change. There was not really much to say and i didn't want to say a lot on this round.