BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prostitution should be legalised - Debate #1752

Before I go any further, my opponent wrote: "As for the ad, I am confused. What does this have to do with the debate? " To which I reply: "Nothing. It is the product of my over-active imagination and warped sense of humour. Please ignore it! " Just to clarify my position as requested, I intended this argument to be on an international basis since this is an international website and I wasn't, therefore, able to pre-determine my opponent's country of residence. Then my opponent wrote: "My opponent claims that people exploit women in the prostitution career. How would legalising prostitution help this? Shouldn't these women be prosecuted anyway for acting illegally? " If prostitution were legalised and a registered company formally employed the girls they would be protected from abuse by employment legislation. My opponent continued: "The basis for legalising something cannot be based on the fact that it is being done illegally. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder because murderers commit murders illegally anyway. I stress, it cannot be based on this. " We have to ask ourselves why prostitution remains illegal in most countries. Does a man paying for sex harm anyone? You may go to a massage parlour and have a 30-minute massage at an agreed price. That's legal. However, if the masseuse offers to throw in "extras" it's illegal. There's no sense in it. Both parties agree to the transaction and nobody else is involved so what's the problem? Then he wrote: "The next statement I agree with. For it to stand, however, we would have to accept that the basis for legalisation is because it's happening illegally. In any event, if it were legalised, then all the Health and Safety laws would apply to this industry as well, so it isn't really a problem. " The point is that if prostitutes worked for registered company, health and safety legislation could be properly enforced. Regarding morality, except in certain theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, the government does not legislate on sexual relationships between consenting adults – many people may consider adultery, homosexuality and even sex before marriage as immoral, but that doesn't mean these activities should be illegal. So why is paying for sex illegal? It is an anachronism in the modern world. With reference to economics, currently prostitutes may sell their bodies as an economic necessity but if prostitution became a legal, semi-respectable profession, young women might see it as an attractive career option. Believe it or not, the average woman enjoys casual sex just as much as the average man does so why not allow them to get paid for doing something they enjoy? Regarding health, of course, there are health risks with casual sex, and prostitutes would certainly be in a high-risk group, but just like porn stars, it would be in their professional interest to protect themselves against STDs. I think I've successfully addressed all the points my opponent raised and I, therefore, urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
Prostitution should be legalised - Debate #1752

As con, I shall argue that prostitution should remain illegal. Since this is an extremely short debate, I request that my opponent answer a question of mine on the comments page. Is this a debate on prostitution in the international community or domestically? If domestically, then which country? Until these questions have been answered, I shall attempt to make my argument be sound both internationally and domestically. My opponent claims that people exploit women in the prostitution career. How would legalising prostitution help this? Shouldn't these women be prosecuted anyway for acting illegally? The basis for legalising something cannot be based on the fact that it is being done illegally. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder because murderers commit murders illegally anyway. I stress, it cannot be based on this. What is required, in any event, is better enforcement. If these women are prostitutes, then they are acting unlawfully, and shouldn't be doing so anyway. Therefore, exploitation doesn't come into the picture. The next statement I agree with. For it to stand, however, we would have to accept that the basis for legalisation is because it's happening illegally. In any event, if it were legalised, then all the Health and Safety laws would apply to this industry as well, so it isn't really a problem. As for the ad, I am confused. What does this have to do with the debate? I would like to point out that whilst the government would earn money from the legalisation, prostitutes usually have jobs as strippers or "escorts" at bars, casinos, etc. Therefore, they are not entitled to welfare. Government money would not be saved as much as my opponent states it would. To begin with, we see issues of morality. Most people feel that it isn't moral to sell sexual services, as this is something that should be done out of love and affection. By legalising prostitution, many women would suffer from criticism from their neighbours and friends. The client, too, is seen as immoral, as he is having sex with a person he has no intention of maintaining a relationship with. According to religion, sex is an act of intimacy that shows affection and bonding. In prostitution, however, there is no affection or bonding. As asserted by my opponent, this is not a consensual act. Prostitutes are being forced to sell their "services" due to socioeconomic factors. On occasions, it leads to serious psychological and physical problems. As asserted partially, but not fully by my opponent, there is correlation between prostitution, drug use and drug selling. The risks with health is also a problem. By legalising prostitution, there could be an increase in the number of people with STDs and other factors associated with unprotected sex. Additionally, my opponent fails to realise that prostitutes, whether working full time or part time, would be having sex 5-10 times a day. This is unhealthy. A study carried out by a UN reporter concluded that, even in countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, prostitution satisfies the elements of human trafficking. I shall post my sources at the end of Round 2.
Prostitution should be legalised - Debate #1752

Sadly, employment opportunities for under-educated young women are thin on the ground and, as a consequence, they are more likely than almost any other group to find themselves economically inactive. But that doesn't mean there isn't work available for these women – they could go on the game. However, a lot of young women are deterred from adopting prostitution as their chosen career because they associate it with drugs and violence and it is certainly true that shady characters that ruthlessly exploit often young and vulnerable girls to make money currently dominate the industry. However, if prostitution were legalised, there would be an opportunity for respectable companies to provide the prostitutes with a safe and healthy environment in which to ply their trade. If prostitution were legalised, here is what an advertisement placed by a respectable firm of tart-farmers could look like: http://www.debate.org... In addition to the savings in welfare payments currently made to unemployed young women, if prostitution were legalised, the government would also benefit from the extra income that employee and corporation taxes would generate. Overall, I can see no reason why prostitution should not be legalised and I, therefore, urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
Prostitution should be legalised - Debate #1752

Indeed, they would be protected from abuse, but that would make the basis for legalisation the fact that the law is being violated. On consenting adults, we must ask ourselves if they really are consenting adults. The position my opponent established was that prostitutes are being forced to be prostitutes because of their socioeconomic condition. That would imply that they are not consenting to the action. Pornstars, however, are working with other pornstars. The actions are regulated, and they are instructed on what to do, with protection or without. Prostitutes, however, must satisfy their clients' wants. Therefore, they have a much higher risk than pornstars. It is not the government's place and I doubt it ever will be, to decide what is a respectable profession and what isn't. I apologise for not posting my sources, as I only have 1 minute before the deadline.
Answer questions before questioning the motive.

Previous Arguments Argument 1. 1. One should do that which is in their best interest. 2. It is in one’s best interest to be a healthy skeptic. 3. Therefore, one should be a healthy skeptic. Argument 2. 1. One should do that which is in their best interest. 2. It is in one’s best interest to be rational. 3. Therefore, one should be rational. Argument 3. 1. One should be rational. 2. Hence, one should not be irrational. 3. It is irrational to be suspicious of another person’s motives for asking a question without reason. 4. Therefore, one should avoid being suspicious of another person’s motives for asking a question without reason. CON’s Arguments CON’s arguments are essentially non-existent. There were no rebuttals, nor any positive arguments. Considering all of the forfeits, I should (at least) get points for conduct. CONCLUSIONS This hasn’t really been much of a debate, but since I was PRO, I offered some positive arguments. Taken together, I think they provide some good reasons to withhold suspicion until one has sufficient reasons, thus answering questions prior to questioning the asker’s motive.
Answer questions before questioning the motive.

Introduction I really do dislike forfeits. Hopefully CON decides to post some argument next round. I would like to remind the audience that we are look more at general cases. There are cases where one should wonder about the motives someone has for asking a particular question. That is not what this debate is about. CON seems to be claiming that one must understand the motives behind a question before answering it. I disagree vehemently with this. Now, it is hardly reasonable to believe that one should never question someone’s motives for asking a question. It is, however, reasonable to hold that one should be aware of the situations wherein questioning a person’s motives is rational and necessary. The arguments that I have already made are: 1. One should do that which is in their best interest. 2. It is in one’s best interest to be a healthy skeptic. 3. One should be a healthy skeptic. And: 1. One should do that which is in their best interest. 2. It is in one’s best interest to be rational. 3. One should be rational. These two arguments together are not crucial to my position, but they do have a degree of weight to them. One should be rational and a healthy skeptic. Questioning Motives Now, perhaps CON has a different interpretation of this phrase, but this makes me think of a very suspicious person. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it is irrational to never be suspicious of other people, however it is just as irrational to always be suspicious of other people. To regularly question the motives of someone asking a question is to be more skeptical than is healthy. Essentially, the level of skepticism that CON seems to advocate is on the side of mistrust and paranoia. Now, this is an argument from consequences, I will admit. I am submitting it because it is in direct contradiction of my previous arguments. Since rational people only believe that which has sufficient reason to be believed, being mistrusting of people for no reason is ill-advised. I think I’ll leave my arguments here, and see what CON has to offer. Hopefully, they won’t forfeit again.
Answer questions before questioning the motive.

1. Fundamentals of questioning include what the answer is supposed to indicate! 2. Furthermore, proposing that blindly answering a question will result in either accidental success or unintentional downfall, the first being undeserved and the second being detrimental. 3. Who is to accept? This is the question you must understand the motive of before answering, after all! In summary, there is no purpose to the question without the motive to use the answer for a predetermined purpose. Thus, to answer without questioning the purpose results in undeniably non-intended outcomes for the interviewee. All the best respectable audience, user_name.
The evolution theory is false

Interesting Initial statement Pro, firstly implying that people who accept nothing but fact will deliberately produce Rubbish. Hmm! If it was Rubbish, people who only accept Fact, would not accept it. So in that case, if Evolution Theory is demonstrably Rubbish, those Fact seeking people who made the theory would not accept it and would dispose of it in order to create something which satisfies their need for Fact. Somehow you opened the debate with an Oxymoron. Nice! :-D~
More Teams Should Consider the Steinbrenner Hair and Beard Rules

Pro supports the resolution that teams should enact a ban on long hair because: "The Hair and Beard Rules have been used throughout the history of sports." My response: This is an appeal to tradition; it's a logical fallacy, and therefore I reject the conclusion based on this invalid reasoning. Just because something has been done throughout history doesn't make it true, moral, or a good idea. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way." https://en.wikipedia.org... Pro brings up a quote from Jim McCarter about the hair rule: "It's about being disciplined to do what we are supposed to do." My response: Silly me...all this time I thought baseball players were supposed to play baseball and win games for their team, which I wrongly assumed. Now I know that what baseball players are supposed to do is have short hair and follow antequated subjective ideas of professionalism and discipline. You know what makes baseball so awesome? Hair length. I reject the resolution, because irrelevantly banning long hair is antithetical to individual freedoms on which this country, and its national pastime, baseball, are cherished. I'd rather watch hairy men crush homeruns than watch well groomed puppets play like crap.
More Teams Should Consider the Steinbrenner Hair and Beard Rules

When Randy Johnson joined the Yankess in 2005, he did become clean shaved and followed the Yankee code and tradition. As I explained before, the Hair and Beard Rules have been used throughout the history of sports. Also as I wrap up I'd like to quote an article from Jim McCarter when he discussed the John Wooden Hair Rule: "Its not about the dress code, it's about being disciplined to do what we are suppose to do. If you can't follow a simple rule, how can you do the tough jobs?"* Thank you for participating in this debate and best of luck in the future. http://www.baseball-reference.com... http://www.jimmccarter.com...*
More Teams Should Consider the Steinbrenner Hair and Beard Rules

The idea of a ban uniting people is somewhat funny...but if the whole point of the ban is to unite players, then couldn't the players be united by their unified ability to control their follicle projections? Couldn't we foster unity through liberty? Furthermore, aesthetics and professionalism are loosely related. Yes to look professional, you cannot look like some shlub on the street, but someone's physical appearance is subjective, and follicle expressions are perceived differently. http://www.sciencedirect.com... Someone could have short hair/facial hair and look unprofessional, conversely, someone could have well-maintained, long hair/facial hair and look completely professional. So to achieve unity and professionalism, one does not need to limit the privileges of elite professional athletes. In fact, I argue, that by allowing these elite athletes to reasonably express themselves via their hair length, one can unify them through this communal freedom, and encourage professionalism within these liberties. I also argue that claiming all teams should follow this ban is ignoring that each team has different levels of professionalism, and different levels of unity. For those teams who are really unified without the ban, to enact a ban may reduce unification. 1. Short hair does not = professionalism. 2. Short hair does not = unity 3. Short hair is irrelevant to the SHARED goal between all teams to increase win potential. Randy Johnson was one of the least aesthetic players of all time, but check his stats...his long hair and ugly face were irrelevant, and his ability to increase win potential fostered unity by success on his teams.
More Teams Should Consider the Steinbrenner Hair and Beard Rules

First I would like to apologize to my opponent for not arguing the second round, as I was focused on studies. The ban is used to unite players. For example when the Cincinnati Reds instituted their own facial hair ban in 2014, the goal was to "construct a team first atmosphere". The Yankees goal on facial hair was to make a professional more classy look. The idea behind the hair ban is for the athletes and the team to look professional. Although the ban had nothing to do with wins and loses, the ban creates unity and a professional look to an organization. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com...
More Teams Should Consider the Steinbrenner Hair and Beard Rules

Pro did not provide any reasons for why teams other than the Yankees should ban players from having long hair/beards. I reject the resolution, because reaching the ultimate goal of more wins is irrelevant to how long player's follicle expressions are. They ban players from abusing drugs and alcohol, because drugs and alcohol can negatively affect win potential. Subjectively, longer hair can negatively affect a player's appearance, but if there were a long-haired pitcher who always throws 100 mph and strikes everyone out, trying to remedy their appearance would not increase win potential. If teams are about winning, appearance by way of long hair or beards is not relevant. This ban would be unreasonable to the players, because it would value an irrelevant characteristic like appearance, which is unrelated to the player's ability to contribute to win potential.
Amend the United States Constitution to allow naturalized US citizens to run for President

I see where your coming from. This sounds like a good idea, to let all citizens of America have the ability to become President, but there are reason why the President cannot be a naturalized citizen. Contention 1: Loyalty The Natural Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago found that Americans are the worlds most patriotic people. Gallup found that 1/3 of all Americans are extremely patriotic. These articles are not refering to naturalized citizens, or else they would have stated this. Why is loyalty an issue for becoming President? Well, it is a very important factor when relating to foreign affairs. Hippocampus. org says that out of all the duties of the President, Chief Diplomat and Commander-in-chief are some of them. What if a naturalized citizen, say from Mexico, runs as President and wins the race. And then, Mexico decides to declare war on another one of our allies, say a more important one to us. Who would the President side with? Would he or she decide to fight with the more important one, or with the Mexicans? If he or she sides with the Mexican Government, this action could be seen as biased. Now, whether or not it was, this could greatly reduce that President's leadership and America's hegemony over the world. With only naturally born citizens being allowed to run for President, this eliminates this problem all together, thus ensuring America remains the superpower it is today. You cannot simply trust that a person's loyalty can be changed by saying : "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen". Thats to great of a change for many to take this step, and many could easily say this simply to get into the U. S. It is not discrimination, its survival. This loyalty issue seems to be your biggest point. However hard you try, it is not easy to change loyalities so easily, especially when family and friends may live in the county that the person left. If they want to run for President, allow them to be 'annexed', just like what America did with Hawaii in the 1800's. If they want to become President, the first step would be to become a U. S. territory, similar to Puerto Rico. Then, after a few generations, most of the population of the territory would feel loyal to the U. S. simply because the fly the flag of the U. S. After this, these territories can become states, just like what Hawaii and Alasksa. Through this process, the people of the Earth can run for President of the United States, and America would not be at any threat. Not only would this give them more freedoms, but American Hegemony would be spread. This is the best option availible. By only allowing an individual, not a territory, to shift loyalities. It becomes increasingly difficult to discover where their true loyalties lie. . http://www-news.uchicago.edu... . http://www.presidentsusa.net... . http://www.gallup.com...
Religious Claims to Objective Morality are Might Equals Right Arguments

"Saying to physically describe illusions would be to point to the brain waves that are firing inappropriately. " WRONG. That would be like to pointing to footprints in the sand in order to describe a surfer. That's not how you describe an object. Perhaps it is if the object has no physical characteristics to describe. So is that what you are saying, That Illusions/Hallucinations (things of the mind) do not have physical characteristics that can be described? True, Imaginary things are not real. But the idea, The concept, Of an imaginary friend is indeed real. The idea of a unicorn is real, Even though a unicorn may not be real-- the idea does indeed exist. It's not silly. I'm doing it to prove a point. Certain things exist that do not have any physical characteristics, Things like ideas, Concepts, Thoughts, Dreams, Etc. Granted, They may leave physical evidence, But these objects in and of themselves do not have physical characteristics. As a result, The scientific can not be used to "prove" these things exist. Yes, You can examine brainwaves, Etc, But in reality all that is doing is proving that the brainwaves exist. Much like examining (scientifically) the footprints in the sand doesn't prove the surfer exists, Only that the footprints are there. I'm taking little steps here with y'all. My first point, Is there are certain things that exist that do not have any physical traits to them. Yes, They may have leave physical evidence, But the evidence left behind (the brainwaves, The footprints) are not descriptive of the object itself and do not necessarily prove the object.
Religious Claims to Objective Morality are Might Equals Right Arguments

Illusions and Hallucinations are known to exist. Physically, They are false signals in our brain. A chain of neurons firing inappropriately taking shapes from the information stored there, As far as I'm aware, Though certainly a neurologist could show me inaccuracies with this. Saying to physically describe illusions would be to point to the brain waves that are firing inappropriately. What you're doing is kind of like saying 'describe music physically' when all it is is vibrations of other particles. It's silly. We can say imaginary friends are real to those who experience them. I had a lovely imaginary friend when I was a child. I grew out of it. Your imaginary friend is not real to most of the rest of us simply because omar and I aren't scientists who are fully capable of describing reality in perfect terminology. You could call certain processes chemical or mental instead of physical if you'd like. All you're doing is leading omar down a dialogue tree like an NPC in a video game. None of this proves your point.