BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.

My opponent first uses utility and argues benefits the most sentient beings. The problem being of course that animals are sentient beings. Vaccine research causes much suffering to animals. This is unjust. Though this is within the confines of utility. Sacrifice twenty people to save more. Scapegoating is allowed in utility."The degree of suffering, which may include both physical pain and psychological distress, depends on the nature of the experiment. Generally, animals are 'given' a disease or condition then experiments are done to investigate: how the illness develops what effects it has how it could be prevented or its progress halted whether proposed treatments actually work As well as pain and distress from the scientific procedures used, animals will suffer from the symptoms of the disease or condition that is being studied. Healthy animals are also then used to assess the safety of any treatments developed before trials are done on humans or on farm or pet animals. Animals are usually killed at the end of the tests."[3]I think this damages my opponent's overall argument that vaccine do more good than harm. Second, my opponent states statistics about vaccines saving lives and the economy and so forth. I have my doubts. Honestly, this will sound like crazy talk, but I don't think vaccines have saved a single life nor prevented a single outbreak of a disease. There are several reasons why this might be. I'll divide it into two sections.First, disease is caused by sin, not microorganisms. There are many biblical references to God sending plagues. Impact, this marginally weakens my opponent's claim. A small dent perhaps.My second argument is that the medical establishment is blindly following incorrect science. The longer this goes on the harder it is to refute. The only reason I even give this a second though, is because I know that the cure for cancer has already been found. [4][5] Thus, if the cure for cancer has already been found, and the medical establishment ignores this, then there is a good chance vaccines are useless too. Impact, the cure for cancer has already been found, yet the medical establishment doesn't acknowledge this fact, casting huge doubt on the confidence of the medical establishment and thus vaccines. This would then call for a through investigation into the credibility of vaccines, the scholarly peer review process, scientists, and doctors. ConclusionsWe cause animals to suffer for nothing. We save nobody from vaccines because the medical establishment is blindly following false science. The cure for cancer has been found, yet most people don't recognize it. Finally, there is a chance disease is caused by sin and not microorganisms. Sources3. http://www.rspca.org.uk...4. 5.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.

To answer my opponent's question, his argument was not a kritik and he has not violated the rules in this debate. This round, as per rules, I shall be focusing on the attack of my opponent's case.My opponent brings up minor areas of this where some people are uncapable of recieving these types of vaccinations. Many of these issues are quite serious and can harm many. If this does occur, death will certainly come to the few that this occurs to. We would see that the government would likely accomidiate these people with their issues, though, I didn't clarify this and will refute this argument. We have to weigh the impact calc in this debate via the Utilitarianism argument which shows that we must do whatever helps benefit more people. If these vaccines occur, we could see, at worse case scenerio, 500,000 deaths in the US, which are the amount of people with the immune system disorders that my opponent has brought up [1]. I have shown that the US saved 732,000 children. The UN showned that this saves 2.5 million children a year, 285 a year world wide. It may seem heartless, but it benefits the majority of the people on the face of the Earth that this resolution is ennacted. This is just taking my opponent's DA vs. children saved. This doesn't even accomidiate the amount of adults and others saved as a response. Just looking at Rubella alone, we have nearly erradicated it saving 12.5 million that were infected in the outbreak in the 60's [2]. We have erradicated this disease and can do more will a multitude of others. Sources1. ( ttp://tinyurl.com...)
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.

I assume my opponent means all people in the USA will be subject to these mandatory vaccines. I mean what would be the point otherwise? I see no list of exceptions, so I expect an easy win. I made a similar debate and got nailed for this. 0. Medical contraindications. Sometimes for whatever reason a person is unable to receive medication. This is called a contraindication. This is true for vaccines. [1] By forcing everyone to take vaccines you are exposing them to unnecessary risk and harm. People with contraindications should not be forced to take vaccines. 1. Severely immunocompromised patients should not have vaccines. "In general, these patients should not be administered live vaccines" [2] At this point I think I've effectively destroyed my opponent's premise. Forcing people who have contraindications and are severely immunocompromised is dangerous and cruel. I see no good reason to force these people to have to go through mandatory vaccines. Note this could fall under "6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)" I don't think so, I think this was a vast oversight by my opponent. Assuming my above arguments fall into kritiks of the topic, I apologize and have therefore forfeited the debate. Thanks for your time. Sources. 0. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 1. . http://www.cdc.gov... 2. . http://www.cdc.gov...
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.

This debate's resolution is as follows: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations. Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. Con must present their case in R1, and must waive in the final round11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's terms and definition; Con acceptsR2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalDefinitionsThe United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought(used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (. http://www.dictionary.com...)Mandatory- permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified (. http://www.dictionary.com...)Vaccine-any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing aninnocuous form of the diseaseagent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. (. http://www.dictionary.com...)
Atheism is Irrational

My opponent fully plagiarised his whole opening gambit, observable here: http://www.heaven.net.nz... If he wants to discuss this issue in the form of a private message, or on the forums, or even in a chatroom, I can message him/post one up/send him a link on the issue. However, the debate itself is a open-and-close case. My opponent broke the third rule and common convention, thus I respectfully request the seven points in favour of CON. Thank you.
Atheism is Irrational

I accept. For reference, I shall post the rules to the debate here. They'll be common standard on the site. 1) Pro holds the Burden of Proof. This means that they go first in the argument, nothing more, regarding the voting. 2) The motion to be upheld is to show that atheism is an irrational position. 3) Plagiarism, either directly or indirectly, is resultant of a full seven point concession. Irrational means: not in accordance with reason; contradicts reason. For the burden to be upheld, my opponent must show the specific aspect of atheism which contradicts reason. Invalid means: a syllogism which does not follow. An argument with a fallacy, informal or formal, is invalid. Invalid arguments are not rational. Valid means: the premises logically entail and necessitate the conclusion. Inconsistent means: a statement which is inherently contradictory. For example, "atheism is seven" is inherently contradictory, as seven isn't a property. Similarly, "atheism eating is" is inconsistent, for it does not hold a meaning (for the purpose of accessibility of this debate). Atheism: the lack of belief in a deity; without belief; not holding belief. The website http://www.investigatingatheism.info... is to be seen as a very good, in depth authority for the definition, as it cites repeatedly philosophers in their definitions. As such, I'll wait for my opponent's opening argument.
Cyber Bullying Should Be a Criminal Offense

Wonderful debate, Con! Thank you for the fast reply! Okay. Let's begin: 1. Smoking "Why do you keep...They are... Kids stop..." False. You can still see teenagers smoke even if they gone through the DARE program. "Bad kids smoke." ~ www.flickr.com/photos/istorija/3853160825/ Some kids that gone through the DARE program still smoke. "Gone into one ear and out of the other." 2. Suicide Let's face it. People who are depressed suicide. Kids could get depressed. If kids were heavily harmed from cyber bullying, they would harm themselves. They would think that they were a big failure. "The main targets of cyber bullying are teens." ~ http://safety.lovetoknow.com... 3. "Vote for me!" You could, but it takes up "characters." 4. Harms of Cyber Bullying You even stated, "Bullies just do it because they want to make fun of the victim, but they don't mean to cause suicidal." Thank you for agreeing to my point. Cyber bullying indeed harms others. Bullies make fun of the victim, therefore, cyber bullying harms the victim. 5. Justice System "VOTE FOR ME IF YOU WANT LESS COMPLICATED THINGS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM." Isn't the justice system good? If there weren't laws, the world would be in chaos. If we didn't have a justice system, innocent victims would be arrested for a crime that they didn't commit. I thank my opponent for this great debate! Vote Pro, please. Good job, con. I would like to debate you again in the future. Good luck!
Cyber Bullying Should Be a Criminal Offense

Why do you keep thinking school programs won't? They are SUPER effective. Kids stop smoking because of the dare program. Kids stop being pregnant early because of FLE. And anti-bullying programs work. You are exactly correct. Killing yourself is an option. They why do people do it? I mean, I understand if they just die because they're no options left, but killings yourself, LIKE YOU SAID, is an option. Why can't people deal with it instead of suicidal? ?? I can go "VOTE FOR ME! " all I want because they're no rules saying I can't. Cyber bullying is NOT intended to harm others. Bullies just do it because they want to make fun of the victim, but they don't mean to cause suicidal. VOTE FOR ME IF YOU WANT LESS COMPLICATED THINGS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
Cyber Bullying Should Be a Criminal Offense

Great debate, Con, "Education is a big influence to cyber...Programs will...They teach..." False. You still see teenagers cyber bullying each other, even if they are in 8th grade. The boy hanged himself because of cyber bullying. Therefore, cyber bullying should be a criminal offense. Killing yourself is actually an option. It's like saying: "Here are three options on your test. You can die. You can fly. Or you can cry." It actually is an option. "Making cyber...You see..." If you make it a criminal offense, it could strike fear into their hearts, and there would be a decline in cyber bullying. "What I meat was that...There shouldn't be laws..." There already is a law banning cyber bullying. You don't have to go "Vote for me!" You should state that in round 3. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cyber bullying is intended to harm others. Challenge: Rebut this. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I thank my opponent for this great debate! Good luck, Con! :) :) :) Sources: stopcyberbullying.org www.cyberbullying.us I rest my case. I await my opponent's response. Thanks!
Cyber Bullying Should Be a Criminal Offense

Education is a big influence to cyber bullying. Programs will work. They teach students what is right from wrong to those who don't know. The boy who hanged himself? Give me a break. He chose that decision. Not the victim. That boy need to learn that suicide isn't that answer when theres no where to go. Find help by asking an adult or do something! Killing yourself is NOT an option. Making cyber bullying isn't going to work. You see people in the world who do horrible stuff even though it is illegal. That doesn't stop them. And excuse me, when i said we shouldn't need laws, you don't have to go and say it is a big time failure. What I meant was that There shouldn't be laws on cyber bullying. Use context clues! Thanks for your argument :) And hope to you awesome people out there to vote for me!
Cyber Bullying Should Be a Criminal Offense

Greetings Pro, Welcome to debate.org! "First of all, education…" This has nothing to do with the topic, " Cyber Bullying Should be a Criminal Offence." "Third, criminalizing..." False. If you make it a criminal offense, they will more likely stop cyber bullying. "Programs work! They..." Not really. Have you heard that the cousin of a boy hanged himself because he was cyber bullied. Programs work, yeah, right. "Cyber bullying should be dealt..." Rephrase that. I almost thought that you contradicted yourself. Rephrase, please. "Contention Two- It is NOT..." Still, the cousin of a boy hanged himself because he was cyber bullied. Your hole argument is false. It is a big threat. "Making cyber bullying illegal..." Yes, it does stop it from occurring. If you do something illegal, shouldn't you be arrested or something? Yeah. Totally. It's like saying: " If I killed a president, I would die?" Yeah. I bet you are going, "WHAT?" Okay, I'll rephrase that. If you knew that you were about to do something wrong, you would definitely feel that you shouldn't do it. So, it does stop it from occuring. "We shouldn't need laws." Sorry to say this, but that was your big time failure. "We shouldn't need laws." Wow. If we did not have laws, the world would be in chaos. The human race would be long dead. So, this argument is false. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Cyber-bullying involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others. Cyber-bullying is bullying which uses e-technology as a means of victimising others. It is the use of an Internet service or mobile technologies – such as e-mail, chat room discussion groups, instant …" ~ http://legaldefinition.us... This means that cyber bullying is horrible because it is intended to harm others. Cyber bullying is already a criminal offense. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.worldlawdirect.com/.../46287-cyber-bullying-criminal-offence.html www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11757710 http://legaldefinition.us... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I thank my opponent for this debate. Good luck!
Cyber Bullying Should Be a Criminal Offense

Why are people making such a big deal on cyber bullying. I would like to debate about this in preparation on my NFL debate coming up soon. First of all, education is a much better way to solve this. Second, it is not a big threat. Third, criminalizing it doesn't stop cyber bullying. Contention One- Programs work! They are very effective. Anti bullying programs work-According to Newsday, "Statistics from the state Department of Education show a nearly 11 percent decline on the Island in incidents reported as intimidation or bullying from 2006-2007 to 2008-2009. Cyber bullying should be dealt in schools, not courts. Schools can have no bullying programs to stop cyber bulling. It is very effective. The government is not meant to protect from life. You can't make it illegal because someone is being to another person. Contention Two- It is NOT a big threat at all! The person can delete the text message, close the window, and chooses not to look at it. Cyber bullying also doesn't have to be taken so seriously especially if it's just a joke and sarcastic comment. Plus, you can report the abuse. Over the internet and text messages, it can be hard to decide the person is being sarcastic or not. Contention Three- How in the world does criminalizing cyber bullying work? You see thieves rob banks even though it's a illegal. Making cyber bullying illegal doesn't stop it from occurring. It will overwhelm the courts as well. This violates the first amendment because of freedom of speech. Bullying over the internet is not a big threat. We shouldn't need laws Thanks and hope you vote for me.
Democrats and Republicans are 2 sides of the same coin

"They are 2 sides of the same coin. On the Democrats side, You have extreme left wing people intermixed with some with Social Justice Warriors. On the Republican side, You have extreme right wing people with some Neo-Nazi's mixed in. " I agree with the SJW statement. What does "extreme' mean, For both parties? What type of people are neo-nazis? Is it individuals or systemically? "I would say I agree more with Democrats such as the minimum wage, Global warming, And gay rights, However this stupid Black Lives Matter garbage is a waste of time, Considering most Blacks are shot by other Blacks and not cops, And the Social Justice Warriors play the oppression olympics and I can't stand it. " On minimum wage, It helps young people get jobs if there is no minimum wage. Also, Money flow will go awry because higher positions will not be able to pay employees if the minimum wage is increased. It also teaches young kids responsibility if they get paid little, Rather than getting paid a minimum but working less than say other people. I am not very educated on the minimum wage, And you probably know more, So this is a pretty weak point for me. Global Warming is a cycle of weather, And after scientists told on other scientists they were making up data, I became more skeptical. In the 70's people said it was global cooling, But after they changed to global warming because it didn't continue to cool. It is just a cycle of weather. I agree on black lives matter. "And I don't want to ban all guns, Only automatics and semi-autos, And bump stocks. Any gun that the military has, Civilians don't need. " This is my most firm topic, And I already know you are not very educated on it, But that's fine, I am on other things too ;) Automatics have been banned since the 1930's. Semi-automatics are basically every gun, Except for maybe shotguns and revolvers, Even though they shoot one bullet after one trigger pull, Just slower. Not sure about bump stocks. Civilians need guns for self-defense and protection against a potential tyrannical government. Guns save far more lives than are taken by them through self-defense, And gun bans have proven not effective in decreasing murder rates. For example, The after the UK banned guns, The murder rates spiked up, Then went back down but only the same as was before the ban. In Australia, The gun ban was not effective either. "I didn't like Obamacare, All it was is a mandate to buy private insurance. We should have Bernie Sander's plan for universal healthcare, Or a system like Canada has. " Agreed with on ObamaCare. But not a big fan of government health care in general. "Both represent only 1 extreme side each yet people are duped into voting for them every year. Each side just says what certain people want to hear or just see what the polls say, But don't actually believe their positions. Most Americans are moderates. I consider myself a Classical Liberal, Or a Center-Left libertarian. " I think people believe their positions. At least most. Some people back up claims with facts, Too. Ehh, Based on your positions, Your a little more than classical, But not too much ;)
Democrats and Republicans are 2 sides of the same coin

They are 2 sides of the same coin. On the Democrats side, You have extreme left wing people intermixed with some with Social Justice Warriors. On the Republican side, You have extreme right wing people with some Neo-Nazi's mixed in. I would say I agree more with Democrats such as the minimum wage, Global warming, And gay rights, However this stupid Black Lives Matter garbage is a waste of time, Considering most Blacks are shot by other Blacks and not cops, And the Social Justice Warriors play the oppression olympics and I can't stand it. And I don't want to ban all guns, Only automatics and semi-autos, And bump stocks. Any gun that the military has, Civilians don't need. I didn't like Obamacare, All it was is a mandate to buy private insurance. We should have Bernie Sander's plan for universal healthcare, Or a system like Canada has. Both sides are bought and paid for through wall street bankers, Both represent only 1 extreme side each yet people are duped into voting for them every year. Each side just says what certain people want to hear or just see what the polls say, But don't actually believe their positions. Most Americans are moderates. I consider myself a Classical Liberal, Or a Center-Left libertarian.
animal rights

Well, that was pretty disappointing... Without making an argument or even refuting my points, this debate seems to be over. "o.k just to let you know i got the first round stuff of a website i forgot to put in the adress so just a heads up." ------> Plagiarism: http://www.idebate.org... "And im talking about dogs well im also talking about house pet not like cows bears and all of that stuff. so ya" ------> What??? Extend all arguments.