BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
BIRT The Student Body & Faculty Members Be Able To Appoint Their Principal and Vice Principal

o Introduction I agree with my honorable opponent that our current school system is effective. Although the purpose of the resolution was to change the relationship between the principal and the student. Students are often hesitant to approach a principal regardless of how many years they have been attending the same school and student voice is lost in the voices of only the faculty. With this resolution the principal voted into the position would have thought to get to know some of the students before hand and get to know their opinions so that even before they get the position they already know what the students are like and what their opinions are. o Pro Case Sorry I wasn't clear and that i didn't explain the way I thought about my resolution. I was thinking of it as a the student and faculty vote on a person who has gotten the right training and education to become a principal. 1. Confidence in their principal. Having the student and faculty choose who they feel the most comfortable leading their school would give them some sort of confidence on the principal. Although that doesn't promise that the principal wouldn't do anything that they would react negatively to but since the principal would be the one whose ideas are the same as the majority of the school the chances of negative opinions could be decreased. o Refutation of Con Case 1. What makes a person credible? What makes a person credible to determine their leaders or in this case principals? Since the "we" as a school are affected the most by this decision why wouldn't we be credible enough? 2. So what if they may pick the most free-spirited and lenient? If the students pick the most lenient and free spirited how can you say it may not be the right one? Can a principal be lenient yet a good one? 3. Democracy is not just voting. I am fully aware that democracy isn't just voting. Democracy also involves being able to identify your opinions and ethics, listen to many voices and messages and being able to make the appropriate choice by voting on the person that shares your views and values. When the time comes for students to vote for their principals they would learn all these characteristics of being an informed voter and will carry out these characteristics as they progress into adulthood. o Summary So the purpose of this debate is to justify that students and faculty are capable of choosing the person who is in charge of them. I agree with this resolution because I believe that to increase the number of students that vote in their adulthood by educating them starting at a young age. Also because I don't believe that this system of democratically choosing our principal would "dumb down" our educational system. o Sources (if necessary) http://en.wikipedia.org...
BIRT The Student Body & Faculty Members Be Able To Appoint Their Principal and Vice Principal

=== Content === o Introduction o Con Case o Refutation of Pro Case o Summary o Sources (if necessary) ============ o Introduction In the day and age of 21st century America, we have progressed to be host to one of the most complicated and intricate school systems in the world. Although we may not be the most intelligent nation statistically speaking, our universities and private schools are of the most sought after on the planet. Whether you agree or not, our education is extremely effective methodologically in terms of providing the nourishment for the young mind that anyone needs for a bright future. o Con Case 1. Principals and Teachers are trained professionally, and differently Whereas they both are taught in the "education" field, a teacher cannot be "voted" into principality. Principals have the certification of educational administration [1]. A teacher would need to go the extra mile to become eligible to be a principal. 2. Students do not have the merit or credibility to determine their leaders. This will be elaborated upon in the refutation of the Pro case. o Refutation of Pro Case My opponent makes a few claims; I will do the organizing for her for the sake of the debate. 1. Students and Principals get in tune. ---> First, I would argue that students wouldn't choose the right person to be principal; they would choose whosoever seems to be the most lenient and free-spirited. ---> Second, the principal won't really know what policies will be enacted until he/she gets the position, just like what happened with our president. Thus, they won't really be as in sync as my opponent claims they will be. 2. Students will be educated about democracy. ---> Consider this. Democracy is a lot more complicated than voting. If all democracy consisted of was voting, there really is no reason to be teaching our kids about government. ---> The students, as mentioned before, don't have the qualifications to vote, especially not in high-school or lower. Hence the voting age being 18. o Summary This debate poses the question of whether or not students should be allowed to democratically elect their principal. I contend that it doesn't make sense to do so for two reasons; the first of which being that, through my opponent's proposed system of electing teachers, we will have unqualified individuals running a school. Second, student based elections in an educational system as convoluted as ours would dumb it down and essentially ruin a generally effective educational sector. I urge a Con vote, and thank the readers for their time. I look forward to my opponent's response. o Sources [1] . http://education-portal.com...
BIRT The Student Body & Faculty Members Be Able To Appoint Their Principal and Vice Principal

My class will be doing this debate in the future and considering I was the one that thought of the resolution I was curious as to how many directions this debate could go. Therefore I will try the resolution out here. So good luck to my opponent and I hope I can be some sort of challenge. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How many times have you been unhappy (as a student/faculty member) with a decision the current principal has made? Well by having the faculty & student vote I think that the school would benefit because the students would know what the principal's plans are and how they want to run the school and they would get to decide if that's what they want as a school. Also the principal that is voted would be the best person to run the school because he/she would have the same opinions or has a message that the students agree and respect. Also having students in a democratic setting would have the youth understand democracy fully so that as adults they would become more knowledgeable as voters. Also it may increase the number of people to vote because if they're familiar with the concept of voting it may come easier to them. That is why I think that this resolution must and will stand.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

To quote my opponent: "Politics are the process by which groups of people make decisions" So any group of people making decisions is a political unit. Another definition: "Government: the offices of a nation/political unit being responsible for direction/supervision of public affairs" So government is the offices of any group of people making decisions being responsible for direction/supervision of public affairs But vigilantes are groups of people making decisions. So vigilante groups are political units So the offices of any group of vigilantes being responsible for direction/supervision of public affairs is government. They are also authorities so they are political authorities. Another definition: "The Law: the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law" But a group of vigilantes is a political authority. So the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a group of vigilantes is The Law Another definition: Vigilantism: occurrence when a person violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals, because they think that the criminal will not be caught or will not be sufficiently punished by the legal system so Vigilantism: occurrence when a person violates the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a group of vigilantes in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals, because they think that the criminal will not be caught or will not be sufficiently punished by the legal system So if a person violates the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a group of vigilantes in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals for some other reason that is not vigilantism. This is getting absurd. There are 33 debates with this same exact title. Enough already.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

I did NOT forfeit the round. I specifically asked for my opponent to debate in the LD format. I'm not even sure why you accepted if you weren't going to use LD format. Also, when you day that you can't debate LD online, I think you should know that many people on debate.org request to debate in LD format, and their opponent debates in LD format. I'm just going to set aside this argument, because it is not what we are debating about. Onto the resolved: Politics are the process by which groups of people make decisions. There is no need to exact justice from law-abiding citizens. What warrants these quotes? What ensures you that bias does not exist in vigilantism? Say you had a brother, and a criminal killed him. Wouldn't you be harsher on him than a normal government because he killed your brother? Even if you say people that work in the government are corrupt, there are still plenty of checks that ensure that criminals are punished in a just way. "Get back at your least favorite supermarket or restaurant by handing them a personally autographed health violation citation. If we handled road rage this way it would certainly be more satisfying." This isn't even an example of vigilantism, because there is no law that needs to be enforced. I urge an affirmative ballot because my case better upholds the resolution, I haven't failed to attack and aspect of my opponent's case, and my opponent hasn't really attacked a lot in my case.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

My opponent's response was not in LD format, so he should automatically lose the round. Since he has no value, criterion, or contentions I have nothing to attack. Also, he hasn't made any attacks on my value, criterion, or contentions, so I have nothing to respond to. Vote affirmative because the negative hasn't even been debating in LD format and my case better upholds the resolution.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

There are 501(c)(everything else) so why not 501(c)(lynch mob)? These outfits are pretty much true to their mission. A lynch mob could be empowered to perform acts of vigilantism but then it wouldn't be vigilantism since it would be authorized by law and everyone would be happy. http://en.wikipedia.org...(c) . What we are trying to avoid is this http://en.wikipedia.org... sort of thing and note that it is not vigilantism by your definition infofar as they are not assuming the functions of government but only ruining lives. Or else you will have to make spanking vigilantism. At least a lynch mob would not be a cult like the government. A cult is a group that becomes your total environment, and subject all kinds of sacred cows and rules of thought. http://en.wikipedia.org... whereas in a lynch mob at least the people know each other in a wider context which will extend in time beyond the life of the lynch mob. They will have to face one another again outside of the context of the lynch mob. Also cults are carriers of Important Disease and militaristic behavior and are characterized by a strong central authority. There's a word for that which I will think of. Let's take a look at your definitions, and thank you for laying it all on the line. Notice that word "political." It is used to define "law" and "government" but itself has no definition. Now how to define it non-circularly so as to include government but exclude the Mafia and other NGO cults. We could take the position that there is no such thing as political (the one I prefer), or that everything is political. The definition of that word will decide what is vigilantism and what is not. If it is not political it is vigilantism. Show me a law or a government. How do you know they exist? They are stories we have been told, figments of our imagination. Some criminals wear uniforms. Some vigilantes wear uniforms. The Universe is just a reflection of our own minds anyway. As soon as we realize that there are no laws there will be none. Nor jobs, nor money, nor government. Oh yes. That word is "fascist." One way to avoid groupthink is to let the newest members have disproportionate power. That way the government will be actual children instead of adults acting like children.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

All I need to know is what is LD format. I have no idea what my opponent is talking about. Well until my opponent can explain what he thinks LD format is other than Lincoln-Douglas I don't see how I can comply with his request. I do not think this is unreasonable. If there is no such thing as LD format I certainly cannot be faulted for not following it. If there is then it should be a simple thing to show me some rules that say "LD format" on them. Am I missing something? Are private prisons vigilantes? Private prisons are worse than vigilantes. They have a vested interest in more crime. They benefit of a few of their, shall we say clients, escape once in a while, more than usual. This way they can bring more of their friends back inside with them and generate lots of profits which is the main thing with private anythings. There shouldn't be any prisons anyway. They just cause more crime. If they were truly rehab there would be ladies' prisons and gentlemen's prisons. We should rehab society instead.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

LD format. http://wiki.idebate.org... An LD format argument would of course have to define the scope of the topic. Worldwide? Just U.S.? It would set forth the values that law enforcement upholds, and the criteria of a good law enforcement system, and how these criteria support those values, and how our government, and every government within the scope of the topic, meets those criteria. It would do the same for vigilantes, examining all vigilante groups within the scope of the topic, and their actions, and then compare the two, and select the one that creates the most value. If there are no vigilante groups then what is the value of this debate? It is of course the responsibility of the Instigator to do this. I cannot respond until all these things have been done. The Contender then takes a position that disagrees with the Instigator. Disagrees. Not object to in its entirety as is commonly supposed. Obviously the contender needs to have something to contend. But I am tending toward something of the form: When any part of government, or of society itself does not, or is perceived to not, function as it should this is a serious matter, and that is the most important thing to address. If people are committing murder, for example, the prime thing to address is why they are doing it and how to stop it. Is punishment the answer? We have a failed criminal injustice system that says otherwise. The one who should get the job is the one who can address it. This is clearly not even in the same universe as anyone who could propose such a topic. It is therefore a profound disagreement.
Free Will Exists

ScienceTo address my opponents "newer study" it was conducted in 2005, while my quote on why all previous studies occurred in 2010. mine is newer and thus more credible, thus mine should be looked to when valuing your studies. My source if you actually read it has written multiple studies to back it and explained how his experiments were conducted. my neuroscientist is a more viable scientific recourse when compared to a summary provided by my opponent. remember my opponent in round 2 took the BOP upon himself, and he has not accurately filled this he stated that if even 99% controlled by physical or divine forces and 1% directed by "free will", then free will exists. by winning this argument alone I've shown at least 1% exists and thus win this round. Either way we can drop Occam's Razor completely, my opponent didn't refute my evidence at all. Occam's razor is not a modern principle and works against the science of physics completely. NON-ScienceMy opponent has confused religion for philosophy, he seems to think that philosophy that allows the views of general ideas to form understandings on hypothetical concepts is the same as a dogmatic narrowed view on creation that is meant to explain why we exist. but if my opponent were to argue they are the same thing they would need to provide an explanation why that is. thus out of failure for an argument after accepting the BOP we can only see this point flowing to my side. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, and my opponents failure to meet the BOP, we can only see a vote in favor of Pro. GG indeed!
Free Will Exists

As agreed no new evidence in the final round, just concise rebutals.ScienceIn regard to neuroscience, I would like to simply point out that the second experiment I cited(source 2), was performed in the new millenium by a team of well qualified and academically accpeted researchers. Secondly, the critique that the experiments are crude and incomplete may well be valid. However, PRO presented no scientific evidence in favor of the existence of free will, and cited no studies. The position with minute evidence must be selected over the position with no evidence introduced. Thus I stand by my contention that the field of science, sides with the position that free will does not exist, albeit not unanimously. Since I can bring forth no new academic evidence in favour of Occam's Razor as a logical rule of thumb, I will provide a demonstration. Imagine that there exist two theories on this debate: 1.ThermidorSnow is a debator who seeks to disprove free will, and Preston is a debator who wishes to affirm the concept. 2. The account "Preston" was set up by the same owner of ThermidorSnow several weeks ago, in an effort to stage this debate. The second theory relies on the belief in a conspiracy, which is hard to both disprove nor prove. Following Occam's Razor one must dismiss the second theory because it also relies on a belief on a number of assumptions which is not based on objective data. If the line of thinking shown above apears to be a logical rule fo thumb, then I urge you to vote CON.Non-ScienceMy opponent first dismisses my evidence then goes on to give an example of evidence he judges to be equally without value. This is violation of the resolution, the resolution clearly states: "review of science, history, and philosophy affirms that human beings exercise free will." Thus to ignore the conclusions of two essential thinkers in Judeo-Christian, fails to satisfy the demands of the resolution in regard to philosophy. Their conclusions were indeed of a theological nature, the same tradition that produced, free will, the subject of our debate. Thus I urge you once agian to vote Pro.Over and out, GG.
There should be a law passed to make desecration of the US flag illegal.

"The men of our great nation have always fought for what the American flag stands for." The American Flag stands for individual rights, however diluted these may be. Individual rights are life, liberty, and property. If I buy a piece of cloth with that pattern on it, it is MY property, to do with as I wish. "They have not fought for the ability to desecrate it." Yes, in fact, they have fought for the ability to do as you please with what is yours. And socializing fabric would desecrate any symbol far more than submerging it in fire, the symbol of human reason. "How can ruining a symbol of all our nation stands for, be considered a "right" or "free speech"? " Because the symbol just happens to be on the piece of fabric I bought. It is eminently MINE. " Take terrorism. Is that free speech? " No. A terrorist does not burn their own property. They burn or bomb someone else's property. See the difference? "So why should we allow the desecration of the flag of our nation? " First, since you are the one advocating legal action, in any civilized society YOU have the burden of proof- innocent until proven guilty. Second, allowing it to be desecrated is far less of a problem than actually desecrating it ourselves, as you propose, by making it a symbol of a totalitarian state that does not recognize private property rights.
There should be a law passed to make desecration of the US flag illegal.

The men of our great nation have always fought for what the American flag stands for. They have not fought for the ability to desecrate it. How can ruining a symbol of all our nation stands for, be considered a "right" or "free speech"? Take terrorism. Is that free speech? Should we allow terrorists to partake in their own activities? Of course not. Any thinking otherwise would be atrocious. So why should we allow the desecration of the flag of our nation?
There should be a law passed to make desecration of the US flag illegal.

"Ruining the symbol representing all of the hardships the American people have faced, and all of the men and women who have fought so hard for our freedom, is outrageous." I agree. Ruining that symbol by making it the symbol of oppression, by socializing (placing under state control) every last bit of fabric that bears it, by making it the vanguard for the destruction of free speech, is an outrage to every man and woman who has ever fought for our freedom.
Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.

Actually, growing the animals for meat IS becoming a huge problem. For example, McDonald's. To provide all that meat, they need several billion cows a year, and they need huge ares of land to grow all those cows. Also, there aren't much distinction between lands of nature and lands for growing animals. Forests, fields, and lots other places with the right conditions can be used for both growing nature and growing animals. Forests ARE pretty good for animals, since there is water, fresh air, basically everything an animal needs to survive. Secondly, vegetarianism might not the only way to save nature, but it may be the biggest way, don't you think? I said that you could be vegetarian, not forced to be. I meant that vegetarian would be the best choice. You can choose not to be vegetarian, but I think it's the best choice. Also, the other methods you showed me are for good lifestyles, and have nothing to do with the other problems of eating meat, so that doesn't really count (no offence), and can you suggest some things that might prevent the other problems of not being vegetarian? I think that vegetarianism is the only ethical choice because first, by eating vegetables, you can get all the minerals needed, like vitamin C, D, E, etc. Also, I don't think it's moral that all those animals are dying out only to give us food. Third, the minerals needed from meat can always be replaced by something else, like tofu or mushrooms, so meat isn't actually necessary.