BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Software can (and should) be free

My opponent forfeited in the last round, I don't have much to add. To summarize: Voters, please vote pro... Because Software, when sold for money, can lead to violations of your basic rights as a user. Your friend can sit on the chair you bough, you can open your TV up and see what's inside, you can make a paper airplane from a book. So why can software developers take away those basic rights? Because free software developers DO make money. Because free software means great software and there are many examples of that. Because of Firefox and Chrome (Currently the best browsers in the globe), Linux Ubuntu (Awesome and complete Operating System used by millions), OpenOffice (Alternative to Microsoft Office), VLC (The best media player ever!), GIMP (Photoshop alternative), 7zip (Compresson tol), Thunderbird (Best email software ever), Paint.NET (Image editing). Because it's about your rights as a user!
Software can (and should) be free

Also your distinction between the different definitions of free does not seem to make sense. Software is a product like beer which is sold for profit and not some abstract entity like speeh. ============================================================================ > Free software = freedom With free software, you can use a program as you wish without any restrictions, learn from the program's source and even improve the program and distribute your changes. ============================================================================ How does free software = freedom for the person or company who spent money to develop that software? Take Microsoft for example. That company spends millions of dollars a year to develop the best software in the world. Why do they do this? Not so that the world will become a better place but because they make a sh! tload of money making it. Without profit there is no incentive for huge corportations to create new software. ============================================================================ > Free software = better software Bugs can be fixed much more easily by a community of users and developers built around an open-source program. Anybody can improve the program, share his changes with others and receive feedback. This basicly means that open-source programs constantly evolve to meet the demands of their users. ============================================================================ You could make the same argument for any other product but that does not necessarily entail a better product. Why do people get hired by software production corporations? Because they know what they are doing. A community of people who are not necessarily qualified to make changes will not necessarily have the user's best interest at heart. Especially of they have no profit motive.
Software can (and should) be free

By free, I mean free as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” > Free software = freedom With free software, you can use a program as you wish without any restrictions, learn from the program's source and even improve the program and distribute your changes. > Free software = better software Bugs can be fixed much more easily by a community of users and developers built around an open-source program. Anybody can improve the program, share his changes with others and receive feedback. This basicly means that open-source programs constantly evolve to meet the demands of their users. And to an extent, knowledge and information should also be free. And yes, open-source software developers can, should and do make money from their work.
racism today is based largely on steryotypes created by the victims of said racism

thank you for joining this debate, hopefully it will turn out good, i'm new to this so yeah... anyway, my opponent contends that stereotypes have nothing to do with current racism, and i obviously disagree. for example, a modern day stereotype of african americans is that they are criminals in some way, shape, or form. this is because, in large part, there are more african americans in american jails today than any other race, my statistics provided by wikipedia: "The racial composition of the US population as of 2008 was 79.79% White American (65.60% non-Hispanic and 14.19% Hispanic), 12.84% African American (12.22% non-Hispanic and 0.62% Hispanic), 4.45% Asian American (4.35% non-Hispanic and 0.10% Hispanic), 1.01% American Indian or Alaska Native (0.76% non-Hispanic and 0.25% Hispanic), 0.18% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander American (0.14% non-Hispanic and 0.04% Hispanic), and 1.69% Multiracial American (1.64% non-Hispanic and 0.05% Hispanic). 15.25% of the total US population identified their ethnicity as Hispanic." and the prison populations racial statistics "The racial composition of the US prison and jail population as of 2008 was 33.44% White American (non-Hispanic), 40.21% African American (non-Hispanic), 20.29% Hispanic, and 6.06% Other (American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander American, and Multiracial American)." as you can see, this would provide a negative stereotype associated with the african american community, and it would show that in some way, shape, or form blacks are being arrested, and since it is the choices people make that get them arrested, one can inference that blacks have created this stereotype themselves. this stereotype then serves as fuel to the racism of today by giving other races a negative view of african americans as criminals, and it was in effect caused by the choices that were made by the african americans in jail. also, i agree that stereotypes do not fuel racism all on their own, but i never said they did. in fact, i stated that stereotypes created by the victims of today's racism caused the racism directed at them. finally, i would like to mention that i literally meant the racism of today, as in from the end of the civil rights movement onward, so as not to confuse my opponent in any way.
racism today is based largely on steryotypes created by the victims of said racism

Greetings. It is a pleasure that I accept this debate and wish my opponent the best of luck during this debate. Keeping in mind of the controversiality of this topic, just as pre-note, anything offensive that my argument may contain to some do not reflect my ACTUAL views. I don't mean I'm going to bash races in my argument, it's just that some people take offense if racism is okay to you. Moving on, I would first like to begin with some small pre-argumentation to support my case. ------------------- Contention 1 - Stereotypes do not have anything to do with current racism ------------------- This is actually simple logic if you put your mind to it. As a definition, my opponent states that stereotypes "are generalizations about a group of people whereby we attribute a defined set of characteristics to this group". I agree, however, more times than others these generalizations are positive, so how exactly will positive steretypes cause racism as opposed to bad ones? Second, stereotypes do not fuel racism alone. The fact of the matter is, that although stereotypes may seem to be a bad thing, it is really a personal hatrid that causes racism. For instance, upon the founding of the KKK, a religious extremist group turned racist faction, the KKK believed that blacks were inferior. However, that was not really the case. At that time, many people signed up for the KKK with a personal hatrid for them, not because they heard they were inferior "through the grapevine". Therefore, it is quite evident that it is not JUST stereotypes that cause racism. Unless my opponent can prove otherwise, then my argument stands strong. For the moment, I will allow my opponent to start their argumentation and refute if wanted and will elaborate more in my next arguement.
You cannot be a Naturalist and believe you have Free Will

Apologies for forfeiting the previous round, busy weekend etc. . I realise that I gave no scientific or philosophical example for my so-called "opinion" that our genetic nature or upbringing does not take away our ability to choose an alternative, in my view, this is simply common sense. For example, it has been shown that children born into criminal families are more likely to turn to crime themselves, either through genetics or simply by being in that environment, but this does not mean that they have no choice in the matter. Since not all of these children will go on to commit crime themselves, it clearly is possible. Undoubtedly, people are influenced by their surroundings and the people they interact with but if a person has peer pressure and social conformity shoved down their throat, it doesn't mean they now suddenly don't have brain function. IT HAS NO IMPLICATIONS ON THEIR ABILITY TO REASON. They still have the ability to choose their behaviours. Whether they do or not is irrelevant, the point is that they CAN choose not to be criminal. And coming back to the little voice in your head, it is not the same thing as free will obviously, though it uses similar brain processes - electrical impulses etc (I am not a scientist so am unable to go into detail about this). A person gets free will through thinking and reasoning with themselves (" should I eat a Mars bar or a Snickers? ") and if they use their reasoning to decide that they don't like nuts, they will choose a Mars bar. Since they also have the ability to use neurological processes to lift their arm and pick up a Mars bar, they made this choice all by themselves, showing free will. Naturalism comes into this as everything I explained above is completely natural and viewable in the natural world. There is nothing supernatural about brain processes and arm movements.
You cannot be a Naturalist and believe you have Free Will

Thankyou Con for his thoughtful response.Con claims that our genetic nature: "does not take away our ability to choose an alternative."But this is merely an opinion, he has not even tried to provide a philosophical or scientific basis for it.I don't doubt that we have the appearance of free will, but for a naturalist that appearance must be an illusionCon asks:"To have free will, we must be able to think and choose. If you argue that the processes of free will - the thinking and reasoning - are supernatural, then how do you account for individual thoughts? You are probably reading this with the little voice in your head, are you saying that that's supernatural as well"Well, the little voice in your head is not necessarily an indicator of free will, it just gives the illusion of free will because you feel like you can discuss with yourself. The question is, is there any basis to for a naturalist to believe he has free will? A naturalist recognises that all things in nature are mechanical, any reaction is always decided by its ingredients rather than by itself. How therefore can humans have free will without the laws of physics being broken?Thankyou
You cannot be a Naturalist and believe you have Free Will

I define free will as having the ability to choose an alternative course of action. You argue that all of our decisions are based on pre-determined causes such as our genetic nature. However, while this may leave us more predisposed to certain behaviours or actions, it does not take away our ability to choose an alternative. Bringing this back to the concept of naturalism, the brain functions used to make decisions are completely natural forces, as we have electrical impulses etc that cause thoughts and reasoning within the brain. To have free will, we must be able to think and choose. If you argue that the processes of free will - the thinking and reasoning - are supernatural, then how do you account for individual thoughts? You are probably reading this with the little voice in your head, are you saying that that's supernatural as well? It uses the same brain functions required for free will.
You cannot be a Naturalist and believe you have Free Will

Naturalism and belief in free will cannot co-exist together. Naturalism is the idea that only natural forces are present in the universe, but free will cannot be invoked without supernatural explanation. The reason is very simple. The decisions we make according to the naturalist are nothing more than reactions, reacting to predetermined stimuli. For instance, a person is born and they are a genetic robot. A person develops a unique character and psychology when genetics interact with environmental and experiential factors. A person then makes decisions based on genetic inclination (leading to for example brain chemistry) and psychology/previous experience. What room is there for free will here? Whenever a decision is made a concoction of ingredients such as psychology, genetics and experience are all thrown into a pot and the reaction is determined by the ingredients that went into it. The naturalist therefore has no basis to argue for free will as he is suggesting that any reaction can decide its own fate, rather than is predecided by the ingredients. This is fundamentally at odds with the naturalistic world view as they can only invoke the supernatural to argue for free will. Otherwise Con needs to explain when there has ever been a reaction which decided its own fate, and his tools for arguing this can only be limited to scientific, empirical examples. That concludes my opening remarks.
After school jobs are beneficial

Higher GPA: just because those who work have higher GPA than those who don't work does not mean work causes good GPA. Correlation does not show causation. " The only way to really learn how to manage your money is to go out in the real world and do it."This still doesn't rebut my counter-plan... " but in whatever job they move into it always looks good on a resume to have work experience somewhere."Not if its irrelevant to the new work environment...
After school jobs are beneficial

"According to an article on snagajob.com, 86 percent of high school students have an after-school, weekend or summer job and "students who work between 10 and 20 hours per week during the school year have statistically higher grade-point averages than those who do not work at all." (1) Teens who have after school jobs are more likely to do well in school because they can learn how to better manage their time. Not every teen is going to work 40 hour work weeks when they are in school. One because they are not allowed to do that unless they are 18, and two they are only allowed to work tell 10pm at the latest. You can only learn so much when you take a financial planning course. The only way to really learn how to manage your money is to go out in the real world and do it. Work experience is always good, yes not all teens are going to go on a work "white-collar" jobs, but in whatever job they move into it always looks good on a resume to have work experience somewhere. (1) http://www.teenink.com...
After school jobs are beneficial

Most teens already spend too much time on homework. It remains that most students have insufficient sleeping time. [source: http://faculty.washington.edu...Their homework can take up a lot of their time, with most students agreeing they have up to 25 hours of homework each week. [Source: http://kistoday.blogspot.com...In addition to normal school and after-school activities, this is overloading and counter-productive. Students are already struggling with the amount of sheer homework they have, they are already barely getting any hours of sleep nowadays. With the addition of a job, the students would be lucky to even obtain one hour of sleep, as I see it. After-school jobs would hinder the students' usual performance and possibly even stop the possibilities of building a ground for better jobs, as the student wouldn't work well with the insomnia, both in school and in their jobs.Helping financial management:COUNTER-PLANThere are financial management classes in school. The parents, when buying gifts along with them, giving them payments every month as a "salary", is enough for financial management. This is far more beneficial and moral than after-school jobs. The policy of giving students a "payment" for their chores makes the parents and their childrens' relationship. After-school jobs would be repetitive and not very helpful as noted above. Having parents or teachers lead their children when they have free time would be a much better plan than having students work in after-school jobs. Work experience is moot because when the students start out, they most definitely aren't going to work in the white-collar environment. Students are still students; they don't have the skills necessary for anything more than blue-collar. Very few students can actually have the ability to work in a white-collar environment to set themselves up. An environment in McDonald's is going to be very different from an environment in say, Northrop Grumman. While the boss may expect to you work all the 8 hours in McDonald's, maybe in Northrop Grumman you have to do more of the talking, discussing, and have break-times as well. A work that requires the brain is too different from a work that requires physical strength. Working in McDonald's is going to be counter-productive in this case, since your habbits will clash with your work expectancy in Northrop Grumman.Back to you my opponent.
After school jobs are beneficial

" After school jobs for high school students helps the student to learn responsibility, and does in fact help them along as they become adults. It has been known for some time now that responsibility is the chief lesson learned while the student is working a job after school. There are however, other benefits as well." (1) I would agree with this 100%, if teens have a job after school it will teach them responsibility and the value of having a job. "After school jobs for high school students can help to teach the student financial management. Perhaps they are handling money where they work, and they are most certainly handling money when they are paid, and they can be urged to realize that saving a portion of that money is something that is important to do, ultimately furthering their financial education. " (1) If teens learn the value of a dollar early and before graduation, they will learn not to take money for granted. It forces them to be responsible for their own money. "Another thing the student gains by working a job after school is work experience. He or she begins to know what to expect and what is expected of them when they go out into the world. This is a valuable lesson that cannot be taught from a book. This lesson is one that must be learned while actually doing it, and gaining that experience early in life is important to the overall success of the individual. After school jobs for high school students is important to this aspect." (1) Having that work experience early on can also help them later in life when they want to move up in the working community. (1) http://jobler.com...
Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI

I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.
gay marriage

If you think that, then you are very much in the wrong. There is nothing wrong with marrying someone of the same sex. Look at the definition of marriage..."a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other" there is nothing there about a man and a woman, or man and man, or woman and woman... Second, people get married because they love each other. Love is not limited to man and woman...it goes much farther beyond. Think about it like this, How would you like it if you were prevented from marrying the one you love because of something so petty as she's a certain race or religion? It's the same thing. It's not fair that a woman/man cannot get married to the person they love because that person is of the same sex! Third, not everyone believes in God. So to them, it doesn't matter if He approves or not. Besides, if he is such a loving God, then don't you think He would want us as his creation to be happy?
gay marriage

I apologize about the previous round, but I would like to sum up my arguments. I will not add any more, because that would be unfair to ojmartinez. First, as I stated before, marraige is the union of two people who are in love. And love is not limited to a man and a woman...it can go any way. Second, If people wanted to have god in their lives, then all they have to do is go to church and read the bible right? What difference does it make if they're married or not? And Oj, in your argument about AZ supreme court you stated yourself "A seemingly arbitrary decision from this poster's purview, as I don't see a legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples." There is no difference between hetero and homosexual couples. Your entire argument in round two supports my entire case. Case and point; gay marraige is not wrong. People should be allowed to marry whomever they choose.