BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moter-boats should be banned.

First, motor-boats should be banned because they are horrible for the environment. They pollute the water and infect the fish. Think about it, if you eat fish as a meal often (like me) do you really want oils in it? This would be disgusting and horrible for your health. Also, sailboats are better for your learning. Motor-boats are dangerous and you can get cut-up in the prop from tubing, wake boarding, and swimming which is what the main percent of motor-boats are used for. Sailing, you always have to look forward and that is a very important skill to have in life, especially when you get a job, like me, and you have to be able to spend your money wisely, especially in this economy. Also, motor-boats are very expensive to manufacture and using my reasons above, I say that there a waste of money for the consumer. In this economy, this is a very bad thing because it is practically throwing away money.That is what I have to say for now, Good luck!!:)
Being a "helicopter" parent is good

Helicopter parenting have a lot of drawbacks, I agree but most of them likely have a good intentions as well. Also, being involved in your child's life is a very good thing. Children nowadays can be easily influence by the people around them and without the parents to guide them, they will waste their lives. Children has to know as they grow that their parents is always beside them. There are also a lot of teenagers who are uncontrollable and leaving your children alone to figure what to do, will do nothing. Independent is important as well, but for the children in our generation, it will just turn into arrogance. Therefore, I am not against helicopter parenting because it helps the children amd parents in so many ways.
Being a "helicopter" parent is good

Being a "helicopter" parent is not that bad, I think. Yes, I agree that children will have to learn to be dependent on their own but why do they have to learn the hard way? Why do they have to experience "failure" if the parents already know what will eventually happen? I am not saying that the children must not know what failure is but I believe that all parents just wants what's best for their child. Only they can give their advice to a greater advantage to their children. God also gave the authority of being a parent to them, and they have to lead the children until they can stand on their own feet.
Being a "helicopter" parent is good

I believe that there are WAY too many "helicopter" parents and "bubble wrapped" kids. The amount of impact parents have on their kids is unbelievable and it is actually ruining their kid's future. Yes, it is fine that you want to be involved in your child's life- that is one of the roles that comes with being a parent, but when your at the point of being your kid's shadow that is enough. Kids have to learn to make decisions on their own. Reality is, you can't be in every aspect of your kids life, you have to send them off on their own at some point in hopes you have prepared them well enough for entering the world. But making every single one of their decisions for them is NOT helping them at all. We have a thing called "failure". Yes , no one wants it, but its bound to happen, but we are supposed to take our failures and analyze it to learn from our mistakes to try to avoid making that error again. Once you are able to think like this, you know you can think for yourself. If your kid is still having trouble making simple, everyday decisions for themselves, then it is your job as a parent to sit back a little out of your kids life and let them figure some things out for themselves. I think that kids need more independence in their lives and the problem is the parents hovering over their child too much. Yes, you are a guide for your kid and their is nothing wrong with that, you just need to understand that you need to let your kid try to make decisions for themselves. Independence can be a hard thing to achieve but if you give your kids a chance to make resolution for them self, you are actually setting them up really well for the future because if they are able to make decisions now, then they will know how to approach more scenarios as they grow older. So take the first step and unravel the bubble wrap off your kid, and guide them in gaining their independence- a crucial and very good skill to possess in your life.
Taxation is both theft and immoral

I must defend two main syllogisms to fulfill my burden of proof: 1.) Premiss One: Theft is initiated force aimed at revoking one’s right of ownership over something without consent and granting a new right of ownership to the thief. Explication: Definitional; when a highwayman demands money, they are removing your ownership of the money and making it their possession. This is theft not because of the transition of ownership rights, but because the transition does not respect the self-ownership of the victim, in that the victim was not able to decide whether or not to give up ownership of the money of their own accord; the choice was made for them, thus stripping them of free will. It is force or the threat of force which grants the highwayman his power. Premiss Two: Taxation is theft. Explication: For an act to not be theft, one criteria must be met: that the act be done with the consent of all involved. Just as one cannot be said to “consent to sex” at gunpoint precisely because of the violent consequences of one of the two responses (yes or no), one cannot be said to consent to anything at gunpoint. In the same vein, consent means the consent of he who is in charge of governing his rights: the individual. One cannot consent on another’s behalf; ten cannot make it so that one consents; ten million cannot either. Likewise, one cannot assume that another consents “by default”. What other meaning of “consent” is imaginable? Taxation is by no means consensual. Consent implies that one can either say yes or no; if one says no to taxation, they are jailed. If one tries to escape their unjust imprisonment, they are shot. Taxation is backed by guns. Conclusion One: Taxation is [the initiation of force]. 2.) Premiss One’: The initiation of force is, without qualifiers, immoral. Explication: Axiom: Humans are able to purposefully act.Axiom: Morality determines the proper acts and aims of moral agents.Extension: Where one cannot purposefully act (where one cannot choose one's goals and means), morality plays no role. Definition: Saying "X should do Y" is a moral claim. Axiom: All essential things being equal but the agent, moral judgments retain their validity. Extension: "X should do Y" is equivalent to "X' should do Y" if X and X' are essentially indistinguishable.Proposition: "X should give up his own freedom" is a contradixion.Demonstration: The statement professes an acceptance of morality (it is normative), but advocates that one discard morality (for giving up one's freedom destroys moral agency).Proposition: "X should violate Z's freedom (make Z give up his freedom)" is a contradixion.Demonstration: If X giving up his freedom is a contradixion, it cannot be prescribed, and if Z giving up his freedom is effectively the same, morally, as X giving up his freedom, the new statement also falls.The same applies to "X should give up freedom in favour of another value." Premiss Two’: Taxation is the initiation of force. Conclusion Two: Taxation is, without qualifiers, immoral.
Taxation is both theft and immoral

I am very interested in seeing what arguments are made. In an effort to save time, I'll detail some definitions of important resolutional words. I think these are "common sense" definitions, but if my opponent is using some other set of definitions, this will force him to reveal those in his opening arguments. Taxation: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods. Theft: Taking a person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. Immoral: As it concerns human character, something wrong or bad. I look forward to the opening arguments!
The moon is just a front for the government

The Moon is Earth's only known natural satellite,[nb 4][6] and the fifth largest satellite in the Solar System. It is the largest natural satellite of a planet in the Solar System relative to the size of its primary, having a quarter the diameter of Earth and 1⁄81 its mass.[nb 5] The Moon is the second densest satellite after Io, a satellite of Jupiter. It is in synchronous rotation with Earth, always showing the same face; the near side is marked with dark volcanic maria among the bright ancient crustal highlands and prominent impact craters. It is the brightest object in the sky after the Sun, although its surface is actually very dark, with a similar reflectance to coal. Its prominence in the sky and its regular cycle of phases have since ancient times made the Moon an important cultural influence on language, calendars, art and mythology. The Moon's gravitational influence produces the ocean tides and the minute lengthening of the day. The Moon's current orbital distance, about thirty times the diameter of the Earth, causes it to appear almost the same size in the sky as the Sun, allowing it to cover the Sun nearly precisely in total solar eclipses. The Moon is the only celestial body on which humans have landed. While the Soviet Union's Luna programme was the first to reach the Moon with unmanned spacecraft in 1959, the United States' NASA Apollo program achieved the only manned missions to date, beginning with the first manned lunar orbiting mission by Apollo 8 in 1968, and six manned lunar landings between 1969 and 1972—the first being Apollo 11. These missions returned over 380 kg of lunar rocks, which have been used to develop a detailed geological understanding of the Moon's origins (it is thought to have formed some 4.5 billion years ago in a giant impact event involving Earth), the formation of its internal structure, and its subsequent history. After the Apollo 17 mission in 1972, the Moon has been visited only by unmanned spacecraft, notably by the final Soviet Lunokhod rover. Since 2004, Japan, China, India, the United States, and the European Space Agency have each sent lunar orbiters. These spacecraft have contributed to confirming the discovery of lunar water ice in permanently shadowed craters at the poles and bound into the lunar regolith. Future manned missions to the Moon have been planned, including government as well as privately funded efforts. The Moon remains, under the Outer Space Treaty, free to all nations to explore for peaceful purposes.
In contrast to Left/Right Wings, I now introduce the Up Wing

I am just shocked that for once someone has actually acknowledged the merit of the opponents arguments. It doesn't matter that they were my arguments or that they were on this topic, but it's such a delightful break from the average back and forth screaming contests I somehow get dragged into. I really need to put aside more time for debates on this site. That being said, I think the basic idea of Up-Wing is alright, but not entirely necessary as its similar to what we currently have (though I may be wrong on domestic issues). This debate has really put things in a new light, since I can now look at the international community as a collection of bickering states, like the US under the articles of confederation. I also recognized that the larger question of whether force can truly solve problems comes into play every time government regulates or makes something illegal, since the threat of harm is used. Ex: Don't pay taxes, go to jail (threat of physical harm). My position is that military force should be a last resort, though I acknowledge it may be necessary in extreme cases like WW2 (WW1 not so much). Defense needs to be about defense, and if we need to help others along lets do it through persuasion. After all, if we have the best model, why not prove it through debate?
In contrast to Left/Right Wings, I now introduce the Up Wing

Thank you for debating this subject with me. It seems we both like the ideas surrounding the Up-Wing, but we disagree on the matter of military involvement. This debate was supposed to be a matter of Up-Wing: Pro/Con. However, since we both like the idea, this debate became about the more specific details, such as military involvement. Therefore, on what we have made this debate I must concede to you victory. Perhaps you are right, that it is the military intervention in their countries that causes the terrorism. Perhaps we should focus on protecting our own borders rather than waging war on nations that contain terrorists. Perhaps five nations should not call the shots in light of over a hundred different nations. Whether or not this is the case, your points are better, so you win. I apologize for not making the last round more interesting.
In contrast to Left/Right Wings, I now introduce the Up Wing

I'll answer your first question, but I was looking at round 1 and found one of my own to ask: How specifically should a nation help other less fortunate nations to become like itself (foreign aid, etc.)? There are certain things I like about the current Security Council, like how it can't get anything done. I have the feeling that if it were a simple majority, more often then not nations would get involved in foreign affairs, which is generally a bad thing, just as an overactive federal government is detrimental to the states here in the U.S. But the current veto powers afforded to only 5 nations defies the democracy we prate on about, so I would say a 2/3 majority may be better. Resolutions relating to the Security Council are fairly important, and should be at least as tough to pass as an amendment. For that matter, representation by population could be explored as well. But mainly I support actions being taken on a nation-by-nation basis as opposed to an international one. "Against leaders like this only military might will work." I think here in the U.S. we have looked past the defense in National Defense. We are always preoccupied with finding new ways to kill our enemies, and yet still profess to be interested in defending our country from hostiles. To see whether the military should take a proactive or reactive role, you need only use Kant's Categorical Imperative. If everyone in the world tried to suppress foreign threats, then we would very likely get wars, skirmishes, and tension. If everyone were to defend their own nation, then there would be no conflict to speak of. We should concentrate on missile defense shields, not on trying to eliminate the ever growing groups of the world that hate our guts. Terrorism is like a hydra, you cut one head off, and two more pop up. The culture that gives rise to it works in such the same way. Instead of trying to change Middle Eastern customs by force, making them resent us and hold on to them even tighter, we should convert them with open arms. Maybe the reason they don't want to change is because we are trying to change them. "Countries like these need long-term occupation, because the people of these nations do not wish to change." This is exactly what the Americans said when they were faced with the pesky problem of Indians. Its what the British said when they faced the pesky problem of actual Indians (from India). This attitude that we know better than others (whether we do or not) has got us into many situations in history, always harming those who we wish to help. Eventually, with increasing exposure, people will abandon their harsh cultures in favor of more reasonable ones. If capitalism has turned the world from a society of perpetually warring empires into what it is today in only 200 years, than what is to stop it from doing the same to a few more countries? Looking forward to the finale.
In contrast to Left/Right Wings, I now introduce the Up Wing

First of all, I'd like to ask...if you do not prefer this system, what system would you prefer? Now I'll get back to the matter of providing a rebuttal of some sort to your aguments. As you have stated, the United Nations Security Council has been doing a pretty crappy job, namely because the many member nations either disagree with issues or no nation is willing to take action. However, I find it unlikely that the number of Pro nations would equal the number of Con nations. When it comes to an issue, one stance will have more supporters. The majority wins. This is how issues should be resolved if nothing's getting done. Then you argued against military intervention, especially when that nation uses nuclear weapons. But India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and they haven't blown each other up, though they still engage in small-scale fighting. War between two nations with nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily have to escalate to the usage of nuclear weapons. What you have argued overall on this part of the debate is that the lure of capitalistic success will nudge hostile nations into friendly relations. However, some nations, such as Iran, have sacrificed trade relations for the pursuit of a weapon. Clearly some leaders give little regard to trade relations because they want war. Against leaders like this only military might will work. Then, you said that no one agrees on what systems work, or how precisely they work. Okay then, analyze the system of a successful nation and copy what they have. Then what you said about experts...you have a good point. But the world is getting better educated, and as time goes by, intellectuals will have more influence. But then again, the experts may disagree. There are Intelligent Design scientists, Evolutionist scientists, scientists who believe in global warming/climate change, scientists who are skeptical about it, etcetera. I think you may have a point here. Finally, you brought up how crappy the Middle East is, and how even crappier it's been after the US intervened. Countries like these need long-term occupation, because the people of these nations do not wish to change. They want their Islamic system, regardless of how barbaric it may be at times. But with long-term US occupation and as children of these countries can get a good education under the watchful eye of the Western powers, they'll come to see things in a more Western, more Liberal way. P.S. Your mention of climate change is something I must criticize you for. In the 1990s all the Left-Wing scientists were talking about Global Warming, and now that it's super cold, it's being called Global Cooling? Seriously? Anyway, you don't have to answer that. I await a response.
In contrast to Left/Right Wings, I now introduce the Up Wing

And first of all, you are right. I have neglected to mention domestic issues not pertaining to foreign policy. If the Up-Wing is to be its own ideology, it must have its own opinions on certain issues. As I've stated before, systems that are proven to be successful should be used to help nations grow more successful. A little experimentation should be allowed with the system to see what works best. There's always room for improvement, after all. For instance, the economic system that has been proven to work is Free-Market Capitalism, with just the right amount of government regulation to prevent corporations from paying their workers $3 an hour or selling undesirably dangerous products to their customers, yet enough freedom for the corporations not to be virtually owned by the government. Whatever aspects of a system are proven to work should be used by countries that seek to improve themselves. I do not recall saying that immigrants "take our jobs. " If they live here legally and pay their taxes and they are loyal to the US, there's nothing wrong with them being here. Immigration should be allowed, but the immigrants should have to pay their due taxes. Yes, one nation being a power should be encouraged, because if a country's allowed to win, it only encourages competition and causes all countries that seriously compete to better themselves. But you're right to an extent: countries that succeed should not become bullies. They should be obligated to assist other nations in climbing to their level. As for my next point, you claimed that your "insides started to writhe" when you read it. Actually, military intervention is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that you clean up your mess. For instance, if you invade a nation and topple its government, you should make sure that the new government is stable before you leave. Military intervention can, if done properly, be used to make a country start improving itself. Regime would know that they can't rule without regard to the welfare of their citizens. It would cost them their power. And yes, I know that military intervention shouldn't be taken lightly. And also, people from these nations would not always be able to immigrate. Perhaps they'd be too poor to do so or the government is restricting them from leaving their country. You said that economic trajectories are "slow and very hard to predict. " You also said that changes for the better could take generations. However, an impoverished nation's government should start taking steps to improve, even if progress is very slow. If they're not doing their job properly and these steps are not being taken, they get "fired" (military intervention). Then you asked how a nation's progress is defined. Well, intellectuals who study various systems to see what systems work and what doesn't. .. they should help decide this. I await your response.
In contrast to Left/Right Wings, I now introduce the Up Wing

The vast majority of people are either left wing, right wing, central, or none. I am a Conservative. However, here's an idea for the new...Up Wing! (Yes, I know up and down do not apply to the traditional usage of Left and Right Wings.) Anyway, here I go: There must be many nations out there. These nations all have freedom of trade and immigration. If you do the paperwork and all that jazz, you can move from one country to another. There would be globalization in this sense. HOWEVER, a single global government is a very bad idea. All, though these nations should try not to fight each other, they should not disarm their own militaries either. The idea is that nations will compete with one another to be the best nation. If one country has a successful system, less successful nations should set up this successful system to make their own nations successful. Systems that are proven to be failures should be cast aside. One nation being a power should be encouraged. However, instead of this nation bullying other nations, it should use its dominance in a way that helps the world. Also, if it becomes way above all the other nations it should help the other nations become better, closer to its level. Nations that are falling way behind should have ultimatums to make reforms or the leaders of these impoverished nations get removed by a military force. If conditions get really bad in one country, the people of that country should have the freedom to immigrate to a country where the conditions are better. Speaking of military, if a single nation rises up against them they will all form a confederation against that nation. However, preferrably there would be no establishment of new military alliances between countries in times of peace or fusioning of two countries to make one. Even if it's your own country that becomes more powerful, and you're confident that your leaders are benevolent, conquest of other countries is a bad idea. It would be a world connected by a large confederation or league, but there would not be a single government. A single government would be a monopoly, and monopolies are rarely good. This system has some aspects of both the Left and the Right wings, but it's neither system, but it also has some differences from Centralism. I call it the Up-Wing. I await a response, and please do not accept unless you're willing to debate this seriously.