BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Names should be used

I will defend my own case, then refute my opponent's case. My opponent has stated my burden to prove that "names should be used. " My argument, is that names serve the purpose of identification, and without such identification, it would be harder to distinguish between people; therefore, names should be used. This debate was started as a result of the conflicting ideas of my opponent and I on names. I felt it necessary to tell my opponent what I thought of his views before starting as to give a clear picture on where I stand. If that was improper, I apologize, and from now on we will continue disregarding that portion of my argument. My opponent states a definition of name. I agree with this definition. The definition of entity is "something that has a real existence; thing. " A "chair" does accurately describe an entity. A chair is an entity and is distinguished from other entities by its name chair. This statement is true by my opponent's definition of a name. Similarly, humans, entities, distinguish between each other, other entities, with names such as David, Mohammad, John, Gautham, etc. Lastly, names may attribute people to certain ethnicities or religions but most people will not judge a person based on these factors. Which I had pointed out in my argument. Now, my opponent's case. My opponent's fundamental point is that names are not needed in society for the following reasons: - The named does not choose his/her name, and as a result, the name may be an inaccurate representation of who the named is. - Names are unnecessary labels. My response: My opponent says that names restricts entities because they are a label. But entities are not restricted to names. Names are just a way to distinguish between entities. The meaning of the name does not restrict the entity to being just that. Entities can make decisions anyway they want, the name, a word, does not restrict them. As an entity I, you, and everyone else, can be whoever we want, defined by our decisions. Why not have a name to identify us as the person who has made those decisions? Names do not restrict the entity, but instead the entity defines the name. Though parents may name you based off of what they want you to be, this does not mean that you cannot determine who you are through your actions. Your actions define you as a person, the name distinguishes you as that person. You are remembered by name as a person who has committed the actions that define you.
Names should be used

---::Opponent's Case::--- >My opponent starts out his case with a summarization of what he thinks my beliefs are. First off, I would like to say that I have in no way nominated him to speak for me and that comment should be entirely emitted. I will state my views, my opponent will state his. My opponent has no right to tell us what I believe before I even officially claim it. >Next, my opponent moves on to the use of names in everyday life. He says that everything is given a name for the purposes of identification. Chairs are called chairs, tables are called tables. However, these are not names. These are each a description of a larger sub-category which the object fits into. If these WERE names, then we would all call each other human. Does that sound right? Of course not. My opponent is incorrectly using the word "name. "ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ By definition a name is: A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others Reader, I would like you to think about it this way: does "chair" accurately describe an entity? >Lastly, the next remarks or my opponent are in defense of comments which have not yet even been made. To address these anyway, my opponent is completely incorrect. To give an example, Luigi is an Italian name. Most humans would hear that name and immediately make references to the ethnicity of the person. Religion works exactly the same way. For example, the name Jesus. I think you, reader, will understand the point. ---::My Case::--- >The topic of this debate is "Names Should be Used. "ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ My opponent has the burden of proof to prove that names should be used. If he fails to do this, there will be no reason to vote for him. >I will give my fundamental point and later elaborate if needed. >You may or may not have noticed that I don't say things like "Hi, Jim," I just say "Hi. " Names are not needed in society. For one thing, we do not choose our names. Our parents choose them for us and (by not being us) probably make bad decisions. They cannot take into account what you want your name to be when they decide what to name you. They name you based off of what they want you to be, not what you are. >Next, a name is an unnecessary label. I don't want to be known by a name because I am not my name. The entity (see definition of name above) of myself is not restricted to a name, a name is just a word. I don't want to be known by name because a name is not who I am. I (myself) am who I am. I make decision, and choose what I want to do. Neither I nor you an a word. And A a name is just a word in all of this. By having names people are restricted. They can be remembered not by who they are or what they want to be, but by a noise. Hopefully I have convinced you. If not, do you honestly think that people need names? Why? >I await my opponent's response.
Names should be used

My opponent has a view that names render people to judgment based on the names origins and meaning, and therefore they are useless. I, on the other hand, find names essential in life. Here is why: - Everything is given a name, even tables and chairs. These are names given to objects for the purpose of identification. If someone uses the word chair in a sentence, we as people recognize what the someone is talking about. The same case applies to people. The name of a person serves the purpose of identification. In a story, it is useful to know the names of the characters for it allows the easy distinction of separate characters. If you were ever to talk to someone, start a conversation or issue a command, then you would most likely call a person's name so that person knows he/she is being addressed. If names did not exist, then differentiating between people would be much, much harder. Addressing the view that names group you with people that you might have no relation to, specifically in religious ways, I would like to say that not too many people look at names for their racial or religious attributions. And even if the religious and racial background is looked at, not everyone who does this will make judgments about the person. Names do not serve to make a possible negative impression but instead, serve the purpose of identification. Also, the meaning of names serve no importance to most people. Not many people will care what the name means, as long as it is a name.
Puppies should be tortured and killed.

In closing this argument, I feel the need to laugh a little since it has been so entertaining. (Twin laughs) There we go, on to the final curtain. I have clearly refuted all arguments my opponent has made toward his side of the proposition. I have pointed out that the majority of his case is constructed of opinions and nothing that support his side of the argument. In fact, review his closing argument. He clearly states, "you believe it to be my opinion, however, as I stated before…" You can clearly see that his own logic contradicts itself. And again, his logic is composed of opinionated facts. He offers no evidence that people like puppies nor does he establish that the argument defends the puppies from being tortured and killed. My opponent failed to establish criteria for this debate to be judge on so it fell to the pro side to establish criterion, which I did. Yet, nothing I put forward was ever truly refuted. It is my opponent who failed to meet the needed criteria for defeating my case in the first place. It can be seen in review that I did properly respond to all and every argument presented by the opponent. Thus, his claim that I did not is false and holds no weight in the outcome of this debate. It can also be seen that I did refute his claim that rainbows like puppies. There was no evidence given to prove that rainbows, being reflective light, were sentient enough to like anything at all, including puppies. With that, I feel the need to express that it is my opponent's arguments that have failed to succeed. TwinDragon, now stands down. Very interesting, thank you for the opportunity to get my feet wet in your debate.
Puppies should be tortured and killed.

Again, you believe it to be my opinion however, as I stated before: people like puppies. Puppies are cute. Therefore 2 + 2 = 7. You have failed to meet the needed criteria of the topic. You have failed to properly respond to my arguments. You never refuted that rainbows like puppies. Your argument cannot succeed. Thank you for your debate and your time, Tatarize.
Puppies should be tortured and killed.

Once again, you opinions over the matter hold little to no weight in this debate. You have not shown any thing citing that you have the ability to judge that puppies are cute. In fact, you merely state that all puppies are cute. But you have not proven that puppies' being cute saves them from untimely deaths. Thus, your case is defeated by lack of sufficient evidence and lack of rebuttal to my case. And again, you offer no evidence to support your claim that rainbows like puppies. You merely state that rainbows like puppies. Your case offers nothing on how rainbows liking puppies saves them from being killed thus that point falls. One cannot merely restate their claims after they have been disproved. Thus, nothing you have stated can be considered true since I clearly attack each point you set forth. And since my case was never truly attack other than the restating of your own case, Tatarize cannot claim victory. I now stand open for what comes next. (I am greatly enjoying this haha)
Puppies should be tortured and killed.

I disagree. Puppies are cute and 2 + 2 = 7. Therefore, I like puppies. Although, the word puppies starts with a 'q', I am not compelled that rainbows do not think puppies are cute. Rainbows DO like puppies. I have seen a number of puppies, all have been cute. I am sorry, but, for these reasons, your argument cannot succeed.
Puppies should be tortured and killed.

Salutations Tatarize. I am new to this so please, forgive my novice appearance. If I should do anything that is against the rules, feel free to correct me. As I am feeling, this is not a normal topic that is debated, but as it was up to be challenged, I decided to get my feet wet with it. I will begin by building my own argument and then attacking my opponent's case. We shall begin to notice that at first glance, this topic cannot be debated, that there are already many laws for animal rights. It would be simply illegal to torture and kill puppies. But if you look closer at the subject to be debated, you will notice that it does not specify a cause. It merely states that puppies should be tortured and killed. Under what circumstances should puppies be tortured and killed? I will put forth (for increase of a debatable topic) that puppies should be tortured and killed only if certain circumstances are met. A)You are lost with no human contact and all you have to eat are puppies. B)The puppies show signs of rabies and you have no means of curing them. C)The puppies show signs of a similar contracted disease. Now, I also stress that the puppies be killed in a humane way. But this statement disagrees with my position correct? No. It can be argued that animals have rights as well and can be treated no less than humans. Thus, I say that killing puppies using the standard method, euthanasia, without getting the puppies consent would be in fact torture. Lets say you were getting to old to live anymore and you had no ways of communicating to anyone that you did not wish to die but knew that you were going to be put down via a needle and chemicals. This would be an agonizing torture. Thus, I stand in favor of this proposition, that puppies should be tortured and killed if certain criteria are met. I will now move to attack my opponent's case. Regardless of the fact that puppies may be considered "cute" to Tatarize, this is a personal opinion that has no weight in a debate. Nor does his opinion that he likes puppies. And he supplies little evidence that people like puppies, thus this statement falls. It has not been proven that rainbows can like anything at all since optical illusions are not sentient. In the English language the word "puppies" certainly does not start with a "q." It makes no difference how many puppies Tatarize has seen now the ratio of how many of them were cute vs not cute. In most mathematical circles, the number two added with the number two equals four, not seven as my opponent suggest. I now stand down for what ever comes next…
Homework Should Be Banned

Study TimeMy opponent has pointed out that homework can count as studying. This is true - however, banning homework will not cease studying, because studying can be done without having a school assignment. Getting rid of homework will also help students become more responsible, because although homework won't count towards them, they'll know that the test will weigh much more toward their overall grade (at least in my proposed resolution) and will therefore be more obliged to study and learn the material. Homework HelpThe problem with homework is that students who don't understand it spend lots of their time on it. If they don't understand it, they suffer punishments if work is done badly or late. Without homework, if a student doesn't understand something taught in class, then they will not spend as much time going over it when it is assigned home. Also, they will not have to go through the trauma of getting an F on an assignment, and will enjoy school more if they can go over the problem in class without having their grade falter as a result of misunderstanding. The Internet can be helpful, but not everyone has Internet access. This leaves the poorer kids at a disadvantage, since less of them have the computers that other kids have.Student ProgressHomework does not ensure that the student has progressed in certain areas as accurate because in some cases, if the student is stressing over homework, he or she may have their parents do the homework for them, copy the answers off someone else, or look up only the answers if they have access to the Internet. The teacher would not be present, so he or she would not be able to monitor the student's progress or help them when they have questions.My ResolutionIt is true that a few hours' gap helps one remember the material, and that can be done during study time, not always through assigned schoolwork. Burden For TeachersAssignment after assignment leaves teachers with lots of homework to grade. For some, it takes hours of their own time. By banning homework, that burden will be lifted from their shoulders and they will be able to get better sleep, as to prepare better lessons.In short, homework isn't necessary. It provides problems for both the teachers and the students, and both will be able to teach and learn with better quality. It brings trauma and stress, and can be replaced through study time and independent learning for each student.
Homework Should Be Banned

I must apologize for the forfeit, as I have lost Internet for a while. Argument 1: It Reduces Study Time Small practice assignments each day can overall help keep the required amount of study lower. Your brain is refreshed after reviewing something you did just a few hours before. Some kids may push studying to the end causing a lot of stress, but homework acts as a kind of studying. Argument 2: Homework Help There are sites out there for homework help or explaining a topic. If you have trouble you are able to look up how the problem works, allowing to sneak in more teaching time the student needs. Once they understand it, they can attempt the problem. If not, for bigger projects, they can ask a teacher before it is due, and smaller assignments tend to be worth less points, but they can ask a teacher about the source material when they get a chance. Argument 3: It Can Gauge How Well a Student Is Doing Smaller homework is less stressful than benchmarks, and if accumulated, can show a student's progress over time and what areas they are weak and strong in., so she can do something to help him. If there are areas where most of the class is weak in, she can go back and reteach it. Now, for a few rebuttals. "...homework itself can prove to be unhelpful during tests. Sometimes, the material given in the homework is irrelevant to the material on the next quiz..." Yes,that can be true, but that be fixed other ways than banning it. This is just a kind of bad homework. We don't need to eradicate all of insect kind just to get 1 flea. "That time, the student will be practicing what they need to know , rather than having to do it as part of their grade." Some schools have done this by giving you all points as long as you put a clear effort into it and show your work. " ..fifty-five minute class, the teacher spends the first thirty minutes teaching the material. The next twenty-five is for students to practice the material taught, so they are better equipped for tests in quizzes." There's only one problem with this. It is right after the lesson. A few hours' gap shows you remember the material and it sticks to you a bit longer. Parents, and the Internet can teach you the lesson, or you can go to the teacher the next day, and ask for clarification. " ...better replaced through tutoring if they need..." Yes, but tutors are going to have to assign homework for practice to make sure you remember, and what you learned before sticks in your head for next time. "... reduces study...time," As I have shown earlier, if done properly, homework can act as a form of studying. I believe that homework should be tweaked and moderated rather than outright banned. If you don't have enough time with friends and family, no homework on Fridays so you can enjoy the weekend with friends. If it hurts your grade, make effort the only thing that matters and go over the answers in the beginning of class. There are other, better solutions to these problems rather than outright banning homework.
Homework Should Be Banned

I will be against this.Rules: Rules:1. You may not rebut anything in the same round.2. Round 1 is acceptance only.3. You cannot forfeit twice in a row.4. No swearing.5. Pictures are discouraged, but if you must, keep it small.If you break any rules, you forfeit the debate. Voter Rules:1. You may not take off spelling and grammar because a debater quotes a spelling/grammar mistake an opponent made. 2. Don't be biased.
Marriage Rights Should be Determined by the States

As I stated in my arguments, in the case of same-sex marriage, I do not believe the majority has the right to vote on the freedoms of the minority. I believe it would be a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority. To be tyrannical is to be oppressive. I am not for the Federal Government pushing forth oppressive legislature that places limitations on what an individual is able to do. I am also not for the public voting in oppressive laws that places limitations on a minority for no other reason than it’s their supposed “right”. If the Federal Government were to legalize same-sex marriage they would not be oppressing anyone. They would simply be giving more couples a choice and access to the same rights, benefits and protections that straight couples have access to. Indeed, same-sex marriage affects only those who desire to have one, are in one, or have parents that are in one. And it does not negatively affect any of them. It also does not put limitations on the freedoms of straight couples. It does not force straight couples into gay marriages. It does not strip straight couples of their ability to be married. It just simply does not affect them. Freedoms are important. But people should not have the freedom to limit another person’s freedom unless there is good reason for doing so. If no one’s quality of life is being threatened, then there is no good reason. I feel this much should be obvious.
Marriage Rights Should be Determined by the States

We cannot simply pick and choose what social issues should be decided by the people, that is not how democracy works. You state that, "the Federal Government would not be enforcing a particular set of values by legalizing same-sex marriage," but they in fact are enforcing a set of values by deciding either way on the issue. I will make the slippery slope argument here. If we start picking and choosing what issues people are incapable of deciding for themselves we will become more and more of a big brother state. Today it's the definition of marriage, under the pretext of, "it isn't hurting anyone," and tomorrow it'll be the banning of smoking or alcohol consumption under the pretext of, "you don't know what is best for you." As for what the Federal Government views marriage as, the only definition they've given it is in the Defense of Marriage Act. In the DOMA they defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, and so far they have not recognized same-sex marriages on the federal level. While not explicitly stating whether or not marriage is a religious institution, all states allow religious figures to grant civil marriages and the Federal Government recognizes these marriages. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution, either as a legal or religious right. Are you unhappy with the Federal Government's definition of marriage? Well that's unfortunate, because that clause in the DOMA essentially defines marriage for all fifty states and denies federal recognition of any same-sex marriage granted by any states that deems it legal. That is a small taste of the Federal Government over-exercising it's power and forcing it's will upon the states. States are always more likely to get it right, due to the more personal connection with the people. In closing I would like to remind everyone that societal values change over time, and the laws change with them. Laws will always be a reflection of the moral values of society, and what they believe is right and wrong. There is a reason why prohibition was such a colossal failure, and that's because a minority in society managed to convince the Federal Government that drinking was morally wrong and that the people did not know what was best for them or their community. It would do the nation good to remember that lesson the next time they decide that the people are not capable of self-governance.
Marriage Rights Should be Determined by the States

Topic: Marriage rights should be determined by each state and the Federal Government should not interfere. To reiterate; there should be no constitutional amendment for or against gay marriage, and the states should be allowed to choose if they want to redefine marriage, institute civil unions with equivalent rights, or choose neither option. Structure of the debate. Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Response to opening arguments. Round 4: Closing arguments.