BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens

So if the plan were to change from the United States Federal government taking action to Possibly state responsibility would it make my case more justifiable? for Harm 2: Yes i did agree that abstinence was completely better, but it is not acceptable for schools to teach abstinence because for alot of teens, they would not even consider it. Now apply that to my case being that because such methods of abstinence are so rarely practiced today it is important to make sure that they are at least being safe. And just for arguments sake, until you provide me with ample evidence that teaching abstinence is not the norm then I will assume that it is. As for the response to harm 3: I don't really understand what you mean by that. Sorry. I'm only 16, I apologize, and this is my first year of CX and public forum debate I have done in my school so I am still pretty much a newbie. And I'm sorry if you have any disads for my plan I havnt caught any.
Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens

Re2: Harm #1 You have not proven the government has any responsibility. Where does this responsibility come from? When you say government you are saying the tax payers because the government has no money of its own. Saying the government has a responsibility is no different than saying your neighbor is responsible your birth control needs and sex education. Regardless of the result or intention, the end doesn't justify the means. Re2: Harm #2: I disagree as a recipient of said training in the 60 and 70s. It was not about abstinence. Teaching abstinence is not the norm, it is the exception and usually found in private schools, not public schools. You have conceded that sex education and handing out condoms is ineffective compared to abstinence. Is there an argument here? Re2: Harm #3: Was this contention conceded? Re2: Advantage #1: I will extend my argument by citing two examples. 1) In the 1960's the Johnson administration proposed and won passage of many bills to create what was called the Great Society, to end poverty, obstinsibly to help minorities. Since the creation of the Great Society the poverty rate for black Americans has not improved, out of wedlock births have tripled, once strong families/communities have been destroyed, nearly half a million blacks are aborted every year, a feat even the KKK could never have a achieved or dreamed of. 2) The federal government created the Dept of Education in late 1979. Education quality has steadily decreased and costs have steadily increased since that time. The US had world class public schools before and has steadily dropped far in the rankings. Even some third world countries doe a better job than the US. There are very few things the government can do well and that is just the nature of government. It is not about sincerity, compassion or intentions, it is about results. As for responsibility one must remember that society's existed before governments. Societys create governments to do the things that society cannot do for itself, such as maintaining and army, providing courts to resolve conflicts. Given this it is clear that governments are responsible to the people. Government does not own society or the people; the people own the government. I cite of Declaration of Independence as self-evident proof. As for why it relates, you have claimed the government has a responsibility and a ability to solve the problem. My claim contends the government has no responsibility and you have not provided an origin for that responsibility. I further gave examples that the government is not capable of solving the problem and usually makes the problem worse. Best wishes to you and thank you for allowing my participation.
Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens

Well to answer the harm 1 question, yes it is the persons personal choice, however just because one decides to have sex prematurely, does not mean they have the access the needed protection such as condom (male and female) spermicide, birth control etc. And that is where the government comes in. I am not stating that it is the governments sole responsibility for a persons decision, however by implementing this plan the government would be helping others to understand the harmful side effects of unsafe sex among teens thus increasing awareness, and lowering the probability of pregnancy. For the attacks on harm 2: My plan does not only call for handing out condoms, my plan calls for increased awareness in public schools. I agreee that handing out condoms does not completely prevent unwanted pregnancy and or STDs, ut the handing out of condoms in consistency with the teachings of how to properly use a condom wil in turn increase awareness thus preventing unwanted pregancys and or STDs. It is true that the government has been teaching sex education since the 60's but this education has ben based on abstinence. Though I agree that bstinence is the best way, for some teens it is simply not applied in todays world. The internet and television has revolutionized the worlds thinking, thus policys must change. As I have shown with my new York times evidence, the time for a new policy is now. As the times change, policys need to change with it. As for the attack on my advantage: Could you please further extend your argument and give me this ample evidence and how it directy links to my case.
Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens

Re: Harm #1: Why must anyone other than the individual involved and his/her family decide anything? You have not established that it is the business of or responsibility of others. Re: Harm #2: Handing out condoms does not increase sexual awareness. Handing out condoms does not ensure or guarantee they are being used. Handing out condoms is like making drunks wear seatbelts. Public schools have been teaching sex education since the 60's or earlier; has the government effort improve the situation or made it worse? Re: Harm #3: Conservative views may be unpopular among liberals, but that does not mean they don't work. Re: Advantage #1: As history has amply shown, government is not the solution to most problems and it can only make most social problems worse by interfering with society. Furthermore the government is not responsible for society, it is responsible to society.
Golden Freddy is a hallucination

I, the instigator, will prove that Golden Freddy is a hallucination.Arguments:First of all, unlike Golden Freddy, every animatronic creates a reflection on the monitor in the security office. This statement implys that when Golden Freddy appears in your office, he is a hallucination because he doesn't have a reflection on the monitor.Golden Freddy also flashes the words " IT'S ME. IT'S ME." In the game, the animatronics are stripped from forcing words or letters on your screen. Aside from it being just a video game, hallucinations in real life create visuals impossible to acheive, and with that being said, Golden Freddy is a hallucination.On the channel, Game Theroists, He proves that Golden Freddy is a hallucination. Game Theorists can prove his assumptions with citations from the actual game. I took the reasonings from this video to prove my assumptions.Scott Cawthon, the game developer, also claims that the game is "haunted" and that a good observer can unlock the secrets to what happened to the animatronics. This can also prove that maybe your anxiety from being in a dark place with inanimate objects coming to life can create hallucinations during the game.I look forward to my opponents arguments and rebuttals.
Golden Freddy is a hallucination

I, the instigator, will be trying to prov that on of the antagonists in the indie horror game, Five Nigts at Freddy's, and, Five Nights at Freddy's 2: The Grand Sequel, is a hallucination.Rules:1. First round only for acceptance.2. No Plagiarism; Do not copy a long article of work to prove your argument.3. Take the debate seriously; No trollingFailure to follow the rules will resultin a 7 point forfeiture
Voter photo id laws.

I was tempted to define the term "Voter I. D. Laws", but I really want to give my opponent the debate, they are looking for. That term/phrase can be defined in such a general way that there is no way four trouble, would have any ground to argue. It could also be defined so narrowly that I would have absolutely no ground to argue on. I ask that my opponent offer a definition that gives us both a lot of ground to debate on and in an interesting way. Good luck.
Voter photo id laws.

Okay, real quick. My opponent says that new arguments don't count in the last round, implying I can't make counter rebuttals, so I demand that nobody considers any new arguments, counter arguments, rebuttals etc. he has made in the final round. My evidence that his studies agree with me still stand since his counter rebuttals don't count. Here is one point my opponent can't contend with, and I think this argument should be weighed heavier than anything. No matter how many studies are done on in person voter fraud, we will never be able to come up with even a close estimate to how much of it takes place. Every single investigative journalist who attempts to place a fraudulent vote, has been succesful. The stats may lie, because it is impossible to know when in voter fraud has happened (because they don't ID people, these people just come in, vote and leave, without leaving a paper trail other than the vote. ) My opponent is asking us just to believe people are who they say they are and just had the "honor factor" when it comes to voting. He doesn't believe people will be dishonest, under this "honor factor" system, despite the fact that investigative reporters have shown that in person voter fraud is extremely easy to commit. I don't know about you guys, but I want to know my vote isn't being erased by people who are ineligible to vote or who vote multiple times. I want my vote to count.
Animal experimentation is immoral.

The topic and the arguments for and against is actually pretty self-explanatory. I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that both sides of this debate have valid points that will make this debate very much enjoyable. I am not tolerant of any sort of name-calling or trolling. I am actually not a animal rights advocate. I'm here for the sake of battling logic to logic. If anything comes to condescension and belittling, I'm really not interested. 1st- round opening comments ( here list all the points that you will use in the arguments) 2nd - rebuttal 3rd - further rebuttal + cross examination (ask 3 questions) 4th - answer the questions. 5th closing statement. Pretty simple, right?
Animal experimentation is immoral.

Since I did not post my points in round 1, I'll use this round to do both a brief explanation of my points, and also a rebuttal. I agree to the definition that my opponent has given, though small rodents are not the only subjects:primates and other large mammals are also part of animal experimentation. My points are: 1. Humans do not have the moral right to experiment on other animals. 2. The differences between animals and humans are unclear and yield unreliable results. This weakens the justification of sacrificing other species for our own good. What gives humans the right to experiment on other species? I do not dispute that animal experimentation aids in the research of disease prevention. In fact, I do not dispute the utility of animal experimentation as a whole. Yet I believe utility does not justify immorality, just as the ends do not necessarily justify the means. Animal experimentation is the alternative to human experimentation. which we deem unethical. As my opponent astutely observes, human consent is always problematic as a consequence. Thus we justify selecting our subjects from other species, because human life is sacred, and any act which may jeopardize it is 'immoral.' Instead, we sacrifice, in place of human lives, animal lives, which we conveniently conclude carries neither the right of consent, nor the human rights we uphold as the triumph of human morality. What gives the human beings the right to conclude that a human life is worth more than an animal life? Even worse, the practice has been that several, if not dozens of animal lives are sacrificed in place of one human life. Then for what? While my opponent includes animals as the potential beneficiary of animal experimentation, this is a statement that is either naive or conveniently disingenuous. Science is an endeavor strictly made to help the progress of mankind. Our justification for the sacrifice of other species for the good of ourselves is nothing more than deluded self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Take for example, the Wall of China. These were built to protect the stability of the empires in China from the northern tribes. For the sake of political stability, millions of peasants were enslaved for the wall's construction. The attitude of the royalty, that peasant lives were dispensable for the stability of their regimes, is no different from the attitude we have in condoning the experimentation on other animals. At what point do we say one life is more dispensable over another? Is higher and more complex intelligence the answer? Then is it possible to use those born with mental defects for experimentation? Our emotions? We have found evidence of emotion in other animal species. So what separates them and us? What makes it right for us to mutilate bodies of other species, insert cancer causing agents, shoot down deadly radiation, and implant inorganic devices? Where is the moral defense for this? I wait for the reply of my opponent.
Animal experimentation is immoral.

Thank you to dwkwvss for offering up this topic. As a researcher myself, concerns like this are near and dear, though in my case I only test one plants, viruses and bacteria. I'll admit, this is something I struggle with to a decent extent, and much as I will be arguing against the resolution, I'm not certain if I could engage in this type of research myself.First, I'd like to spend some time elucidating what I think is meant by animal experimentation. Realistically, what we are discussing is the act of utilizing non-human animals (mostly small rodents) for the purposes of testing materials that may be harmful or beneficial to humans. I will stipulate that I think the most appropriate place to evaluate such research is where it is used most commonly and most necessarily. As such, I will be discussing animal research with regards to medical testing, and most specifically, my the pre-clinical trials that solely employ animal research. I think this reasonably narrows the subject of the debate, though should my opponent disagree, I would appreciate if we had that conversation in the comments.I'll go ahead and provide a brief outline of my case, as requested:1. Research aimed at treating or preventing human disease is hugely beneficial to both humans and animals.2. Animal experimentation is necessary to ensure a high degree of completeness to these studies.3. Consent is always problematic, no matter the subject being utilized, when it comes to preclinical trials. With that, I will leave it to my opponent to provide the first actual argumentation of this debate.
The world is less free today than it has been in the past

I am surprised that my opponent calls fundamental political rights and civil liberties "archaic", given that 55% of the world's population lives with either part or none of these rights. These indicators are used by political scientists in 2014. Pro claims that violations of privacy lead to the infringement of individuals' fundamental rights to movement and expression. I would like to remind him that these fundamental rights are classified under "civil liberties", and have been accounted for when labelling USA as "free". This implies that the infringement of privacy that Pro finds so deplorable is a tiny consideration against the repressive political landscape that much of the rest of the world lives in. (e.g. rigged elections, nepotism, discrimination) Pro should note that a Sudanese ex-Muslim woman was sentenced to death for apostasy this year. My arguments remain intact, and Pro's negated. I maintain that on the whole, the world has been getting freer over the past few decades.
The world is less free today than it has been in the past

My opponent points out the conventional indicators of freedom as the violation of traditional civil liberties and rights. We cannot treat freedom as merely these archaic, out of touch, values. We should consider privacy as well. Far from being freedom from responsibility, the right to hold your own opinion without the condemnation of that very opinion due to other background factors is a basic right (freedom of speech) . Taking an example in the US; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act outlines the procedures for gathering intelligence. This act has constantly been amended encroaching more and more into people"s privacy (covered by the 14th constitutional amendment) This results in the individuals freedom of speech and freedom of movement being limited in many cases due to the consequences of this surveillance(No fly Lists). Further shown by the PCLOB report. I hasten to add that the US is a listed free country on my opponents" source showing its incomplete definition of freedom.
The world is less free today than it has been in the past

I'll get right into it. The conventional indicators of freedom include a citizen's political rights and civil liberties, which I will adopt in this debate. Based on these indicators, the world has been becoming steadily freer, not the opposite. For lack of space, I will simply quote the annual Freedom in the World surveys conducted by the U.S.-based NGO Freedom House. From 1973 to 2014, the global percentage of countries that are not free has fallen from about 41% to 25%, and it is 27% to 45% for free countries. Based on the indicators, clearly the world has been becoming more free. Anonymity is not an indicator of freedom. What my adversary advocates is freedom from responsibility. Data collection is regulated by the judicial system and my opponent must prove that it the process unfairly infringes on the freedom of its citizens. Otherwise, even an increase in number of laws can be considered a violation of citizens' freedom, which is an odd argument. Sources in comments.
The world is less free today than it has been in the past

Thank you kindly. And the same to you :) The world does not appear to be becoming less free in the physical sense. People are still allowed to have all manor of opinions in the western world (largely). But with the dawn of interconnectivity in every part of our lives it is far easier to limit us based on the information this interconnectivity shares about us. If you take the true meaning of freedom as to be completely anonymous in ones actions it is far harder to do so now days than ever before. There is always someone or something recording our actions. With this level of records to restrict our future on a case by case basis it is hard to see how any government or organisation cannot make use of this thus limiting our freedom. As my proof for this I reference the existence of "no fly" lists in the US prohibiting physical travel sometimes based on information collected on line.
Doing the same thing/s the bullies did to their victims as a punishment is a bad idea

So basically you are talking about putting them in detention. This is the standard procedure for dealing with this problem today, however over 70% of kids admit to being bullied during their education! (1) Calling it prison and separating them from their classmates does nothing more then serve to make them bitter. A more involved manner of approaching this problem is necessary if we want to teach them how to behave. "There has to be someone in there to talk to the bullies one by one and tell them about how what they did was wrong. " This statement is flawed in that the kids know what they did was wrong. The rules are always established in school, the problem is that they choose to break the rules. Talking to them and telling them "what they did was wrong" does nothing more than confirm what they know. There must be a more active involvement in the lesson you are trying to teach them if you want to make sure they actually learn. (1)http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
Doing the same thing/s the bullies did to their victims as a punishment is a bad idea

I did not mean sending them to juvenile prison for days and weeks or something like that. I meant sending them there for the school day. Then, when it's home time, they can be free to go home. I know that's not how prison works, but they're just young people, so we wouldn't make them be apart from their families. That's why, my idea is to keep them in prison for a short time. They could still do their work, because they were to bring all the work that the teacher gives them to bring there, so they can do it. There should be a juvenile prison in schools. There has to be someone in there to talk to the bullies one by one and tell them about how what they did was wrong. Then, when it's home time, they could be let out. As Con had said, children shouldn't be parted from their families. That's why, what I had in mind was to not let them be parted from their families, but to be kept in prison for a few hours of school or for the school day.
Doing the same thing/s the bullies did to their victims as a punishment is a bad idea

Please can you reread my comments and respond to my argument? Incarcerating people is a terrible punishment. Confinement and lack of freedom are some of the most extreme punishments and even physical abuse, due to its shorter nature, is a much less harsh punishment then the separation from the child from his life and family. Furthermore, as I have said from my first argument, the point of the public humiliation and punishment would be explicitly shared to the whole group in order to make sure they learn a lesson from it. In this manner we are more efficient because we teach not only the bully but the whole group why bullying is wrong and the consequences of doing so. I do not see any reason as to why they would learn that lesson better confined in prison. I do not see any significant evidence of therapy being an effective way to prevent bullying. Therapy requires the person to want to change and to work with the therapist. For bullies who are not willing this won't be as effective. However, my method of punishment promises a more universally effective reaction.
Doing the same thing/s the bullies did to their victims as a punishment is a bad idea

If sending a bully to juvenile prison is a harsh thing to deal with bullying, then doing the same thing/s the bully did to their victim as a punishment is more harsh when it comes to physical bullying. It would only abuse them, and in return, wouldn't help much for the bully to understand that what they did is wrong. We must find a way to deal with the bully so they can understand that what they did is wrong, and they won't do it again. Otherwise, they might not stop because they don't understand how wrong they are to their victim and would only abuse them. You might think that sending them to juvenile prison will not help the bully to understand what they did wrong, but it's a better idea than just doing it back to them. In juvenile prison, someone could talk to them about what they did wrong and explain why. Then (hopefully), the bully would understand how wrong they were and would stop bullying others.