BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Parole Board has failed in Protecting the Community

I will now make my own arguments against the resolution.Negation Case (since Con is actually Pro)P1: The function of a Parole BoardAs an example, I will use the Adult Parole Board of Victoria [1].The aim of the board, as stated on the official website: "The Adult Parole Board of Victoria plays an important role in the Victorian criminal justice system by managing the appropriate release of offenders on parole orders to enhance the safety of the Victorian community. In all decision-making, the Board’s most important consideration is community safety." The functions of this board, taken from the website: "The role of the Adult Parole Board is to make independent and appropriate decisions in relation to: release of prisoners on supervised conditional release cancellation of orders and return of offenders to prison custody submission of reports to the Minister for Corrections as required by legislation The Board may: grant a prisoner release on parole deny release on parole defer consideration until a later date cancel an offender's parole" So, a Parole Board is a governing body designed to do these things.A1: Parole Boards are beneficial to a community Parole gives prisoners an incentive to behave and re-enter the community. Especially for younger people, to be stapled with a full-time sentence can ruin a life, for reasons like businesses not wanting to hire criminals. Without parole, prisoners, at the end of their sentences, would be without supervision and incentive to behave. With the Victorian example I am using, there is extensive measures taken to help prevent re-offence, too [2]. Therefore, using a Parole Board, a society can have effective rehabilitation that helps the community, as well as remove those who are likely to re-offend.C: Brief ConclusionBasically, Parole Boards are highly regulated and have strict rules enforced so as to avoid careless release of prisoners. They are not, as my opponent suggests, frivolous with their releases terms. Furthermore, Parole Boards give people second chances and incentives in the criminal justice system. For these reasons, it is clear that the Parole Board has not failed in protecting the community.I await my opponent's affirmative case. Until then, the resolution is negated.References[1] http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au...[2] https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au...
The Parole Board has failed in Protecting the Community

Thank you, chansena, for instigating this debate. I think, based on my opponent's opening round arguments, that my opponent is looking to affirm the resolution, as he/she argues that the Parole Board has failed to protect the community. Due to this, my opponent has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution.Since "failed" has not been defined, the debate will be around what best qualifies as a failure.So, I await my opponent's arguments that aim to affirm the resolution.
Governemt Should Intervene to Lower College Costs

Rules Debate is 5 rounds. 1st round is acceptance, definitions, etc. 2nd is for opening arguments. No new arguments in Round 5. 72 hour debate rounds, 1 week voting period. Pro will argue that the government should intervene to lower college costs. Con will argue that government should not do this. Both sides are allowed to use any kind of justification they so desire, be it political, economic, moral, legal, etc. Let the debating begin!
Greed has had more of a negative influence on American society than a positive influence.

our topic is Greed has had more of a negative influence on American society than a positive influence.so here the following points are relevant to decide the debate:1] greed2] influence on american society negetive or positive.all other points are irrelevant and immaterial.all the instance of american greed ( tax on rich, war, profit motive, energy consumption etc.) shown by my opponent has prospered american economy and society.so greed has a positive influence on american society except in obesity case.decided.
Greed has had more of a negative influence on American society than a positive influence.

the defination of greed is an intence selfish desire for wealth , power etc. 1] you say that tibet and india example are fallacies because they are nearby country. it means invading nearby country is not greed but invading faraway country is.i have never heard such a fallacious logic before. invading any country, capturing its resources, destroying its culture is greed. the distance is irrelevant and immaterial.china invaded tibet, destroyed tibet, used its natural resources forcefully. china invaded india, captured aksai chin and parts of arunachal pradesh, used their natural resources and now it becomes an ally to pakistan. this is greed. both us and china are greedy.you said alex graham bell did not make any profit from telephone. but if companies did not market telephone then the GDP of amrica would not rise. american economy never prospered. america will never become a financial power. invention like telephone must be marketed in order for economy to prosper. the law of economics say so.the profit making selfish desire is what makes america financial super power.china is not yet a superpower in any dimension.2]1% of american own 42% of wealth because they have a burning desire in their mind to become wealthy. they have the brain to become wealthy. most people do not have such thing.this is probably the explanation why 1% owns 42% of wealth. if you study the lives of rich people, you will find out that few of them inherit their wealth. most of them earned it or make it.less tax for rich people is a motivation for becoming rich. if rich people have to pay more tax, then nobody will gain any wealth and there would be no point of becoming rich. 3] i have already mentioned that alternative sources of energy i.e. soler power, water power etc. is questionable. scientists do research on it. till they come up with a solution,america needs fuel.Based on data from BP at the end of 2009 the highest proved oil reserves including non-conventional oil deposits are in Saudi Arabia (18 per cent of global reserves), Canada (12 %, mostly oil sands), Venezuela (12 %, mostly tar sands), Iran (9 %), Iraq (8 %), Kuwait (7 %), UAE (7 %) and Russia (5 %). so you see america do not have any oil researve. what would it do in the meantime ? please understand my argument before disproving it.source:http://en.wikipedia.org...all of the above points are example of selfish desire for wealth and power called greed that makes america a financial superpower.now you see how greed has positive impact over american economy.
Greed has had more of a negative influence on American society than a positive influence.

1] one point you mention very right,to which i agree, is that greed drives american to use technology, intelligence or other tools. ok thats correct. and you tell us that china is not greedy but also very successful. my dear opponent, what makes you think that china is not greedy? a country which occupied tibet from 1950s till now, using natural resources of tibet, threatning india every hour with millitary presence in indian border, is not greedy according to you? if yes, then i want you to rethink. greed is the driving power behind both america and china.without greed no country can be powerfull. greed is necessary even to live your life, let alone success of country. if you do not get anything from what you are doing currently, then would you find the motivation of doing that job?greed is the motive power in human mind that runs human being on the ladder of success.2] according to my opponent greed is the reason of inequal distribution of wealth. is that so ? i don't think so. i think the reason of inequality is inequal amount of money generated by different jobs. different jobs generate different pattern of cash flow. thats why inequal distribution of wealth prevails. if a janitor gets paid the same amount as the CEO of a top corporation, will there be any inequality?but why jobs generate different cash flow? because we value jobs differently.so our value system causes inequality in cash flow from different jobs which in turn create inequality in distribution of wealth.greed has nothing to do with inequality of distribution of wealth. it is a common misconception.3] america use oil resources of afganistan, iraq, chilie. this is its greed for power. thats why these countries turned against us. but do you have any alternative sources of oil resources? the answer is no. alternative fuels are still questionable. in this situation what you can do except using their resource? it is not greed for power. it is necessity. 4] america is greedy, because they consume more foods. then india, china and all obese countries are greedy.greed is the motive power which will drive all the human being earning more money and more comfort in life. it has no negetive influence in american society but positive influence.
Greed has had more of a negative influence on American society than a positive influence.

I believe greed is one of the most self-destructing behaviors of the American society. Greed is untrammeled throughout the American society and has caused an extreme negative impact. The format of the debate will be: 1: Acceptance 2:Cases 3:Rebuttal to 2 4:Rebuttal to 3/Final Focus Definitions: greed-intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. negative-not desirable or optimistic Sources: . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms

PrefaceSince the recent mass shootings at Sandy Hook, Pulse, and many others, there has been an influx in demands to increase gun control measures. One of these ideas is barring those on the Terrorist Screening Datatabase (also known as the no-fly list, or the terrorist watch list) from purchasing firearms. While I agree with a number of measures that have been proposed, this idea is not one of them. Full TopicThis house believes that citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms. Key TermsFirearm - Any legal firearm. Terrorist Screening Database - Also called the no-fly list or the TSDB. The central database used by the FBI to screen potential terrorists (1). BurdensThe burden of proof is shared. Rebuttals and Full Engagement are to be expected from both sides. StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening argumentsRound 3 - RebuttalsRound 4 - RebuttalsVoting is open to anyone who has an ELO score of 2000 or more. Rules 1. No forfeits - a forfeit warrants a conduct point loss2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. R1 is for acceptance only; No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is evenly shared; both debaters should affirm the desirability of their positions8. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss Sources1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;
should students be allowed to wear flip flops

Unfortunately, if the school that you are going into is bad enough to allow any bacteria deadly enough to effect your body in such a way, they school is more at fault. The excuses you are using is more so that schools are not required to make sure the bacteria is cleaned from school grounds. Flip Flops are allowed within stores, and many other areas, so why would schools have a problem with it when no-one else does?
should students be allowed to wear flip flops

1. They expose your feet to bacteria, viral, and fungal infections. Any time your feet get particularly filthy (i.e., any time you wear your flip-flops in public), they're likely covered in some nasty things likes Staphylococcus, a bacteria that can irritate the skin on your foot in the best case or lead to amputation in the worst-case scenarios. (It depends on whether you have open wounds, like microwounds from exfoliation during a recent pedicure, or actual cuts, and your state of health when you pick up the bacteria
The Bible Disproves Young Earth Creation

Dear Pro Thank you again. And for the audience as well. As this is the conclusion I’ll just go over some things for reference. You put forth a claim. Specifically that the bible refutes YEC. I have yet to see any valid argument. Also I don’t have to prove my side of the argument, the bop is on PRO. I think looking at this with Shakespeare point of view is valid. So I’ll go with Pro’s comparison in the conclusion. The Claim put forth by Pro is laughable. Imagine if the Hamlet Crowd suddenly found truth in Shakespeare for a 6000 year old earth. The Macbeth crowd goes, no it doesn’t, and clearly “Romeo and Juliet” shows a big bang based universe. This is the argument that Pro is trying to have with me as a Macbeth point of view. And saying I need to prove that hamlet crowd is right as clearly its “loves not loves” means Big Bang. I refuse to play your game of “he said, he said”. I say “a pox on both your houses”. I don’t care what Shakespeare says about the creation of the universe, he is a poet. I don’t care what his plays say “there poetry.” I don’t care what the hamlet or Macbeth crowd draw from the tempest in French, as it’s not a book on science and using it makes your argument faulty to start with. Your original claim, is “that x does not support y.” However unable to prove your point, you have shifted ever so slightly to “YEC belief in x is not supported by y. “And that I cannot prove the reverse is true. That’s not the original argument nor is it valid argument as well. Your original question, claim, statement I say is faulty on its face. And if you re-read my conclusion with the word Bible instead of Shakespeare in the 3rd paragraph you can see that my comparison is as true as Pro’s claim false. The bible doesn’t make claims, and the YEC claims are not valid is a different argument that “the bible doesn’t support YEC”. A separate argument that Pro has missed. Conclusion 1) The question is faulty and not valid, regardless of what Pro says. 2) The bible is not a science text book and cannot be used as such 3) YEC may point to their interpretations as true, but pro pointing to other interpretation are about as valid. 4) The question presumes a number of falsehoods. Aka Have you stopped beating your wife assumes I beat her, and I’m married. 5) BOP is on pro, no me, and I hope to show he has not met it. Thank you for your reading this. . I really enjoyed it and has made me think and I hope you enjoyed it as well. Thank you.
The Bible Disproves Young Earth Creation

You said, regarding my arguments, "you interpret [the Bible] in a particular way. From a book that is not a science text book. To refute a science claim." There is a fundamental error in this statement. YEC is, although regarding the origins of life, a claim based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus, if one could show that the Bible does not support YEC dogma, said person would discredit the entire theory. "Then why are you claiming that your interpretation of a book that is not true is true from your perspective. " I never said that the Bible was true, nor have I said that it isn't true. I will not make a claim regarding the validity of the Bible, either for or against it. I find that such a claim would only take the focus away from where it is important: on the validity of the interpretation that the YEC make. My past two arguments were dedicated to showing why the YEC interpretation is not a valid interpretation of the Bible, due to the fact that the Bible says things contrary to those interpretations. You have failed to defend the YEC interpretations or directly discredit my arguments, but have only claimed your opinion that the Bible is not a science book but rather poetry. My arguments do not rely on the Bible speaking of anything scientific. If a play by Shakespeare claimed birds were aliens, and someone believed that the play claimed birds were not aliens, the scientific validity of the play is irrelevant as to if that person is right. In the same way, if the Bible says things contrary to YEC, even if the Bible contains no scientific truth, someone who believes that the Bible supports YEC is wrong. My arguments show that the parts of the Bible quoted by YEC in support of their dogmas were not intended to be taken as literal truth as they are in YEC, and logically cannot be taken as literal truth without the literal interpretations contradicting themselves. Your arguments in no way contradict mine. In essence, your argument could be reworded as the following: "It doesn't matter if the Bible supports or contradicts YEC beliefs, because the Bible isn't true, and it makes no scientific claims." Such an argument is irrelevant to the question of this debate, which is if the Bible disproves/contradicts YEC beliefs.
The Bible Disproves Young Earth Creation

Thank you for the very quick response. I like the fact that we are moving forward in the discussion and narrowing your flawed premise. And your response, though not as poetic as the bible is enlightening and interesting. However I would like to point out you’re not really debating. I put a number of challenges to you that under cut your position. You have not really refuted them but instead just quoted more bible quotes, that you interpret in a particular way. From a book that is not a science text book. To refute a science claim. On a premise that is not to prove a claim, but to claim something is untrue. You claim - I would like to remind Con that this debate is not about the validity of the Bible, but about what the Bible teaches regarding the origins of life. The bible is poetry and fiction. At no point does it claim a scientific theory of the universe. It’s a 2000 year old book that some people believe is true, that doesn’t mean it is. To equate it with a science book is faulty. The bible tells a creation story, the fact that some people interpret it a particular way (including you) does not mean your interpreting it correctly. If one person can interpret it a different way and see it as valid or poetry, your argument falls apart. You claim - The question of if the Bible is correct in its teachings or historical claims is therefore completely irrelevant to this debate. Then why are you claiming that your interpretation of a book that is not true is true from your perspective. It doesn’t go in to bio-genesis, or anything else scientific that makes a claim, not even dates. You Claim - I am not claiming in this debate that the Bible is accurate or a reliable source of truth. If it’s up for interpretation your argument falls apart. Thank you for proving your premise is faulty. Your claim - My only claim is that the contents of the Bible contradict the beliefs of YECists. My claim – Its poetry, bad poetry. I see a creation story the has a beginning, the start of life, and change from life to death, and then an awareness of “who am I”. Though overly long, and a bit long in the tooth, a sort of lord of the rings kind of wandering in geology, it’s a pretty poem. It is not a science book, nor does it claim to be. As such its passages are poetic and speak to prettiness and wonder. You can quote the bible all you want, however you would first have to prove the authors were actually writing a book of scientific claims with proof, examples and predictions. However as they clearly were not doing that (prophecy is not a science prediction) you argument that it’s a science book makes your original premise a faulty argument. Example. . . “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?“ This question is completely stupid. It presumes I have a wife, I beat her, and that after the first punch she didn’t kill me, have me arrested or that she shot me. Your question the bible disproves YEC is similar. It presumes that the bible is a book that is making a scientific claim. Back to you . . . . .
The Bible Disproves Young Earth Creation

Dear ProThank you again for the debate. My response is very simple and straight forward. As CON I do not have to show or prove the bible supports YEC, I just have to show that Pro’s premise is false. I Have 4 arguments again Pro’s claim. There straight forward and very simple. 1) The burden of proof. Your claim is The Bible Disproves YEC. However in any debate you make a claim and prove it. You are not making a claim, your making an anti-claim. You cannot disprove something. You question is invalid on its face, because the question your asking is faulty. 2) Appeal to authorityThe second assumption you make is that the bible is a book designed to show a scientific theory. At best its poetry, and not even good poetry. It’s not comparable to “a brief history of time” or “evolution of the universe” or any other scientific book. You assumption that the bible is a authority text on creation of universe as a scientific process is false, just like anyone reading “there is nothing as lovely as a tree” would assume it’s an authoritative text evolution. 3) Interpretative The 3rd assumption is that also based on the interpretation of the poetry. If you and I look at a brief history of time, we both know what the book says, there is no interpretation. So if you and I can interpret the book in different ways, you and I can come to vastly different conclusions. So, if it’s interpretive, you can’t ever prove your statement as you may have interpreted it differently.4) Narrow historyThe 4th and final assumption in the debate. There is no evidence for a historical jesus, the history of the bible and its evolution shows that it went through many updates. The king james bible which you insisted on using has changed vastly from the original text. The books “misquoting jesus” goes in to how the intention, words, meaning and even phrases of the King James bible are not as you or me would use it today. So to use a book that is out of context, does not move the conversation forward or hold your claim (anti claim) to be valid. Taking something out of context, in a narrow field, in a language that’s poetic (not scientific) to prove it doesn’t say something is not rational to accept. So you assumption of the debate is to point out a question. One that I claim is about as valid as “what is north of north?” or ‘can god make a rock he himself not lift”. These question and the one by which you have framed your debate is invalid. Even if you have pointed to a dozen things in your opening arguments you really haven’t done anything to present a logical argument for you claim. However after looking at the way I have framed it, you'll have to present something more valid then a bible verse to support a question that isn't really a question. I look forward to your response.