BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
India should give Pakistan Kashmir for smooth bilateral relationships in future

For the proper functioning of the Indo-Pak bilateral relations India should give Pakistan Jammu to prevent repeated cease fire violations and save the lives of militia of both the countries. Moreover, a constant power tussle between the two South Asian nations is becoming a breeding ground for international display of the supremity of one country over another. Also showing the drawbacks of one country or the other, the countries are putting themselves in a vulnerable position.
Objectivism is a valid ethical system.

Keep in mind that a value is “that which one acts to gain and or keep”, using the definition that Rand gave and my opponent agreed with, My opponent has made the mistake, it seems, of putting the cart before the horse: he claims that, because life would not be worth living or that it would be meaningless without that which makes up life, life is not an objective standard. He ignores the correct order, here – life is presupposed before the content of life can be discussed. You cannot have ANY experiences without life, good or bad, so claiming that those experiences come first in terms of importance is absurd. Have I denied that an individual’s experiences and values matter? No, which is shown in my first round, where I write, quote, “Imagine a scenario in which two people are trading – both have objective reasons for why they value certain things, but they might not hold the same values – this does not mean the values are subjective, rather, it means that they recognize that they are different people in different scenarios. ” Just because these experiences exist does not mean that they have primacy – they are only able to be evaluated and even thought of or had if the subject is living. As I have pointed out many times, “life is good” is a necessary assumption in ethics, and I don’t believe that my opponent ever sufficiently challenged this point. The argument that “life itself is not something which can be evaluated since life without any content is unconsciousness” does not recognize that, following this line, content would be equally meaningless, because content without existence is a contradiction in terms. There is no way around the primacy of life, because any arguments against it, by definition, assume it. As such, it is an undebatably true fact. My opponent then makes the argument that “[i]f I truly wish to live dangerously, then I see no reason why [I should not do this]. ” This, again, falls to the argument that life is needed to be held as a standard of value before any value judgements can be made, and, as such, any value-judgement that puts value on something life-destroying is self-defeating. The only way this argument can stand is if life is not the standard of value, which I think is something which my opponent has not shown yet. That is, in fact, what I think is the main point of contention in this debate. If it is disproven that life is the standard of value, CON wins, but, if it is not, and my other arguments correctly flow from that standard, PRO wins. Again, Wocambs, this was really fun, and I hope we debate something else in the near future.
Objectivism is a valid ethical system.

DEFINITIONS:Objectivism: The philosophy of author Ayn Rand, and mainly, for this debate, the idea that all individuals should act in their own rational self-interests. Valid: True, or, in other words, pertaining to the facts of reality. Ethics: The study of how any given individual (or group) should act in life. This debate will focus on the ethical claims made by Objectivism, as well as any metaphysical or other such claims that directly support the arguments being given - try to keep everything relevant to the resolution, if you can.In this debate, PRO will argue that Objectivism, as defined above, comes to true and correct conclusions about ethics and accurately describes how one should act in reality.The first round will be for acceptance only - I will present my argument in the second round, and my opponent will present his, along with any objections to my arguments that he sees fit to write. The third round will be used for counter-arguments and defences, as well as new arguments. The fourth round will contain no new arguments, and will only serve to allow the debaters a chance to both give final counter-arguments targeting the already-established arguments put forward earlier in the debate, as well as letting them conclude their arguments.I hold the majority of the BOP - CON only needs to explain why my arguments are invalid to win the debate. He does not have to directly support any other ethical system.You will have 72 hours to post a round, can use up to 10,000 characters per round, and the debate will be in the voting period for two weeks. I don't care much about voting, but please be fair.
Should Texas have the cowboy hat as their"Official" hat

Although I understand what your saying. I imagine the state logos depict the beauty and strengths of the state, not noticeable attempts at profit from tourist. Take for example the state bird, The Texas legislature noted that the mockingbird: "...is found in all parts of the State, in winter and in summer, in the city and in the country, on the prairie and in the woods and hills...is a singer of distinctive type, a fighter for the protection of his home, falling, if need be, in its defense, like any true Texan..." That sort of representation of my state I'm totally for, and encourage. Making something belong to a state is not only an honor but a privilege. To try and gain or profit in any way other than to spread the awesomeness and strength of the best state of the United States would be outrageous and insulting to the demeanor, and pride that the state of Texas has clearly worked hard to achieve. I have no problem with patriotism and when it comes to the USA we should do what it takes to maintain the Glory that our Country is known for, however identifying Texas for being a bunch of Cowboys and calling it patriotism are 2 different things. Flags we're never called pointless, they mark territory, represent freedom in our, sense and remind people of the cost of freedom. A cowboy hat is in no way comparable to a state flag....Put a cowboy hat on the ground and what happens...the wind blows it away. What kind of honor blows away?? A state flag never gives up! Ha-ha. Reference: http://www.statesymbolsusa.org...
Should Texas have the cowboy hat as their"Official" hat

Yeah I am just doing this so I can vote too. All I can say is that there's a reason for that stereotype and its not at all a bad one. In fact you could argue that the work ethic and honor code usually affiliated with cowboys are very good things and should be promoted like in this instance, by holding up their iconic symbol, the cowboy hat. New Jersey where it may have originated but Texas took it and made it their own, just like how the USA took the German hamburger and made it their own. Even Texas' football team is called the Cowboys. And on the contrary nearly all states have a state motto, a state flower, a state animal a state tree, etc. This attempt to bring a very common headgear into that picture makes much more sense than a flower, wouldn't you say? It will resonate with a lot more people and actually make money for the Texan economy by having Texans and tourists alike purchase the state hat in higher numbers. These seemingly "pointless" things actually are a form of patriotism and identity of the Texan people, which values go back to the very beginnings of the USA. Are flags also pointless stuff? Because they symbolize the same things as what Texas is trying to do with the cowboy hat.
Should Texas have the cowboy hat as their"Official" hat

Thanks for accepting my 1st debate, which I just found out was required to do, to be able to vote. I have grown up in Texas all my life, and I am far from country. You get tired of being related with that stereotype. Yeah, it could be worse. But if we start allowing the wasting of government money over pointless stuff like this, what will this lead to? Is Massachusetts going to make their state hat a witch hat? Is Tennessee going to be the coonskin hat? When will the madness end? And if cowboy hats should be an official hat for any state it should be New Jersey. That's where the inventor of the cowboy hat was from. they were first manufactured by John Batterson Stetson. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should Texas have the cowboy hat as their"Official" hat

Sure why not? What other hat could be used as the Texan official headgear? Texas has a history of cowboys and cattle drives. It is the Lone Star State and what do you think of when you hear Lone Star? That's right! The Lone Ranger! He even wears a star. But more importantly what does he wear? You guessed it! A cowboy hat! Texas is always linked to westerns and cowboys. It is its heritage and proud history and what better way to show that than having the most iconic piece of clothing of all that, the cowboy hat, as its official hat. Bring it on partner!
we should have more background checks, it would reduce gun violence

I looked at the source, it did not help your case very well. For one, Darrel Booker acquired two guns and ammo before he got caught purchasing the third. The background checks did not work twice and almost did not work a third. Furthermore, the source does not describe how people do not try and get guns after realizing they cannot get one legally. I did more than just insist that everyone will still try to buy a gun, I disproved your point about how guns actually make people less safe by using an interview with a police official. Furthermore, you ignored my point that even if they do not get a gun because there are none, people can make bombs easily, which are far more dangerous. You claim that you are not trying to take away guns. However, universal background checks are the first step to a gun registry, and a gun registry is the only way to fully take guns away from the law abiding citizens. Nazi Germany proves this. American Rifleman magazine is a good source for this as well. Furthermore, many sources that tell about how guns make it more dangerous for people during a robbery are collected simply by asking if the people had a gun in the home. Not if the gun in the home was actually used, just if they had a gun in the house. Not to mention my story about the two women in Georgia that showed reasoning against this. Not to mention the thousands who have protected themselves with guns this year alone. Your source says that Darrel Booker got around background checks twice and almost a third. Clearly, they are not very effective. Best to just make it easier for the law abiding citizens to get a gun so that they can shoot Darrel Booker when he tries to rob them. While you have a couple of sources about Australia and Japan, I have sources about America. Gun free zones Chicago and D.C. have some of the highest crime rates in the country. How? They do not have any guns there? Easy, the criminals still got guns. They still got guns but the people could not protect themselves because they did not have a gun.
we should have more background checks, it would reduce gun violence

you just insisted that everyone who can't have a gun will go out and buy one to commit criminal acts. not everyone will, though. this is common sense and explained above, not everyone is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun. you didnt specficially address all those points. you also ignored the link that says background checks are effective, and the study that says you are on average less safe for having a gun... if you want to reduce violence reduce who has a gun etc makes sense then. i will concede if you know yourself well enough perhaps you could be the exception. but overall my points are better, and all the oints i make you pretty much ignore and go back to your own talking points. no one is trying to stop eople from having guns, just limiting the wrong people. so your points about how some control inreased violence didn't specifically address background check effectiveness, self defense is still possible. plus i got plenty of studies like australia and japan who show that control done right can limit violence beyond checks. but here and now all im asking for is checks. you really need to address teh specific points i raised better
we should have more background checks, it would reduce gun violence

I am going to make two primary points in this round of debate: 1. Background checks are not effective and even if they are, they are not worth the annoyance. 2. Criminals, if they do not get guns, will find an alternative. 1. Background checks are not effective and even if they are, they are not worth the annoyance. Bob, as you have previously stated, is violent prone. He cannot get a gun legally. So he gets a gun illegally from his neighbor who needs the money from a gun sale. His neighbor does not know that he is a felon. Bob goes and kills people. 2. Criminals, if they do not get guns, will find an alternative. Go to google and search "how to make a tannerite bomb", "how to make a nitrogen fertilizer bomb", or "how to make a chlorine bomb". Go to youtube and search for how to make homemade napalm. All of these things can be built with nothing more than what you may find, and purchase legally, at a drug store. Which is worse, a bomb going off in a school cafeteria, killing everyone, or a shooter in a school cafeteria who kills twenty? Furthermore, in response to your idea about guns being harmful to the legal gun owner, how about this: The police in my region have stated multiple times that crime and murder rates are higher in gun free zones. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, but has the highest crime rate(or one of). How about you read an American Rifleman magazine, you can see multiple examples of a person who would be dead if they did not have a gun in their home. I once saw one about a sixty year old woman who could defend herself. She did not have her gun taken away, she just killed the guy. Where I live, the police will tell you that you will be safer if you have one of two things, dogs capable of swallowing a crook whole, or a gun. It is obvious that guns make people safer. Furthermore, look at the number of deaths by guns. Include Newtown and Aurora in this, it is still barely a fraction of the number of people killed by car accidents per year. It is about the same as the number of kids who die in a swimming pool, or those that fall off of their bike. The gun crime statistics are negligible compared to the real threats. Oh, let us not forget of the millions of babies who have died because their mother's did not want them and aborted them. I will leave you with this thought. Two crimes occurred in Georgia in one weekend. Both criminals were armed. House one had a single woman, who was unarmed. The criminal broke in, she hid in the closet, he found her and beat her to death with a crowbar(an alternative to a gun, but just as effective). House two had a woman and her baby. The criminal broke in, with a gun. She got her husband's gun and shot him five times. She and her child lived. You want to take guns away/ control them more: you want that woman and her baby dead. I want to encourage gun ownership: I want to save that single girl's life.
we should have more background checks, it would reduce gun violence

40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented. studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps. this shows that people are denied because of background. it shows that peopele are arrested because of background. it shows that people often don't buy guns, because it is illegal for them to have them. http://www.timesdispatch.com... you may say youself "most" of those checks are annoyances. that means not all of em are. and you say bad people will find a way to get a gun, but to say what i said before, not all of them will. bob is violent prone. he can't get a gun legally. so he doesn't. when he goes off and doesn't have a gun, someone is saved. this is simple common sense. sometimes people like bob will get the gun, sure. not always. in fact id guess not usually. again most people are not black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. even if some livesa saved wasn't statistically significant, it's still lives saved. it can only help. but it's more than statistically significant. it's obivous that it'd help reduce gun violence. if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution and at least have checks? there's no question checks would be helpful, and at the very least give more checks a shot ----------------------------- the following shows that gun control in general has worked. i wont dispute that other studies show sometimes it doesn't work etc... but it's evidence never the less. -they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc. -japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small.
Evolution is realistic

Now, let me introduce my case. Definition of Evolution - Organisms changing over time through generations Now, we all know organisms have genes. One way for evolution to occur is through natural selection; organisms with genes that are more suitable for their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce while organisms with less suitable genes are more likely to die off before they reproduce. Next thing you know, the whole species has the suitable gene. You have yourself an evolution. One good example of this is the evolution of the peppered tree moth, which is recent, within 200 years. There once upon a time was a white colored tree moth, which could camoflage very well with trees and stuff. There was a gene out there however that created a rare black - colored tree moth, which only .01% of the population had. Usually, the black ones would get eaten because they couldn't hide very well. However, because of the Industrial Revolution, the trees became all black and poluted, and the BLACK tree moth was able to blend in and survive and reproduce, while the white ones got eaten because they couldn't hide very well. Nowadays, like 99% of peppered tree moths are black. You have yourself evolution http://en.wikipedia.org...
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Firstly, my opponent defended himself by saying he achieves moral relativism by the rule of law. But in his first rebuttal he himself is admits that moral relativism is bad. However, this turns on him because the link to his VC proves it as incorrect also. Second "If you vote for my opponent, it's because you think it is just for people to run around killing whoever they want whenever they feel like government has failed them." I believe this is completely exaggerated. Look a the "will" I established. The will of the vigilante is justice, however just because a vigilante thinks he's doing justice but hes not, its not his true will. Since this is a deviation of Will to Power is not afflicting my case. On to his VC. If the laws are bad then we have to be above them. Ex. The law is all African Americans are slaves so since none are above the law they will forever be slaves. To react unto his defense is that a failed govt. is a bad govt. and bad govt. have bad laws. Political authority is not just at all times. If we abide by a government that tells us to kill all the jews and my opponent claims this as just then I believe the world has gone upside down. And again you rebuttal on your contention two makes no sense. The true will of the vigilante is societal order and justice. This further explains that any vigilante with misconceptions about his will is not achieving his true will. Or you true will is what you are truly tiring to achieve. If you don't have the true will of justice then you aren't a vigilante. C.3 Understand that there is NO legitimate government LEFT. Since there is no Legit govt. left then it cant be dangerous to it. In your rebuttal you say that some people may have misconceptions about the failure of their government. This is completely illogical because of your vc.Rule of Law. As long as we abide by the law or are caught in most instances then we know the govt. is working. However, when the government is not working is easy to see. It is when most are above your criterion.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

First, Your value shows no clear understanding of what you are trying to uphold, If your value were true then, you would be upholding an inability to achieve morality due to the lack of a true line of concept or real definition. Your basis is illogical to the resolution too. If the laws are bad then we have to be above them. Ex. The law is all African Americans are slaves so since none are above the law they will forever be slaves. Contention 1 Political Authority again is not necessarily just. Ex. The monarch does not allow a vigilante to give his people a cure to but the vigilante does so and his people are saved. Cont.2 Trust to use authority This is illogical vigilantes "will" as I stated is societal order and thus justice. Cont.3 Dangerous, YES I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU It is dangerous to the government but I will remind you that this is a government that has abandoned its people, It does not apply directly to the resolution because of your proof the confederacy. They have not had a failed government, thus that is no longer a goverment. Rebuilding: 1. No, if the will is truly justice then he is trying to establish justice. If he has a misinterpretation of justice then his will is no longer justice and he is not a vigilante. As you offered no other definitions this has to be immediately accepted and thus the will and goal to achieve is justice. 2 Again this is disproven because of my attack on your vc, look above 3. I will admit that this is a bit exaggerated but this is supposed to be a poetic ending and I accidentally put a 3 there. SORRY Thanks again for accepting my second debate.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Hi, this is my SECOND debate on this website. I stand in Affirmation V. Societal welfare VC. Will to power Thesis: The criterion of will to power represents the struggle of good and bad to ascertain power. If anarchy is met with no opposition then the societal order will collapse. For these reasons I believe that it is in the interest of society to fight against anarchy. Please critique because I just jotted this down. And can someone explain to me the WILL TO POWER concept? I get that it is the struggle against one's environment, and in the vigilantes case it is against anarchy but how does it really connect and what are the advantages? Cont.1 The criterion of will to power could be interpreted differently, because of that I will set up the "will"of the vigilante. The vigilante could further be defined as an individual who takes justice into his own hands.- Oxford Law handbook. We can see from this phrase that justice is taken into his/her own hands and thus, the goal is justice. Cont.2 Letting the social order collapse is not moral My opponent however pays no regard for the social order...... He is not moral Cont.3 The struggle of the vigilante against the criminals is the same as the one that another government could propose. I believe that standing there is death. I want life