BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should colonize Mars.

We shall debate again latter, but many times I accept those they never happen. So in order to get the satisfaction of the debate I shall argue. Contention 1: Earth is OverpopulatedOne of the main arguments for colonization of another planet is that Earth is overpopulated, but here's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (http://www.omgfacts.com...) See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Their childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated.Contention 2: US colonization of Mars is forbidden! In 1967, the UN, including the US, signed the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty forbids another nation claiming a celestial body for sovernty. What is a celestial body you may ask. (http://www.unoosa.org...) It is actually a planet, star, planetoids, asteroid, and planet (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The current resolution is that the US should colonize Mars. Which means Mars will be claimed by the US violating this treaty signed by the US, USSR (now includes all of the states of the former nation), and the UK, so the US cannot, by law, colonize Mars.Contention 3: Mars would cause nothing but problems.There is many things that Mars would cause to us here are some important things: loss of conscienceness due to little amounts of Oxygen, Extreme weather changes, because Mars is far from the sun and has little atmosphere, tissue expansion due to low pressure, but you think a space suit can help you? You're wrong because the space suit you are wearing would be ripped to shreds by micrometeorites moving at fast speeds. So even if you make it you can freeze or burn to death, implode, or die from suffocation. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) Contention 4: Getting there.It seems like the most viable option would be the Orion shuttle which is powered by nuclear pulpulsion according to NASA. (http://www.nasa.gov...) The bad thing about using this ship is that it is also illegal, this is also according to the outer space treaty. Which many nations have ratified and/or signed here is proof. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Public Locations should be able to request Pokemon Go removal.

Pokemon Go, although it provides entertainment and exercise, has a negative impact on several locations: hospitals, museums, and memorials. Due to the negative impact Pokemon go causes to these places, they should be allowed to request removal from the game. Pokemon Go negatively impacts hospitals, due to players entering restricted areas and wasting staff time. Several hospitals have reported Pokemon Go players trying to enter restricted areas, whether intentionally or accidentally, to chase Pokemon, leading to a ban of the game from several hospitals, including University of Kansas Hospital (1) and a hospital in Midlands (2). Players entering restricted areas can put their own safety at risk, as well as the safety of patients. Examples of restricted areas include rooms where patients with highly infectious and/or dangerous diseases are held; entering such an area can put the player at risk of catching the disease and spreading it to the general public. Additionally, players entering hospitals solely for the purpose of playing Pokemon Go can waste valuable hospital staff time. After a Midlands hospital's A&E (Accidents and Emergencies) department was marked as a Pokemon Go gym, they had to ban the game from the location, due to the large hordes of players arriving at the location. The associate chief nurse of that hospital said that "anybody who visits the hospital solely to play the game will provide an unwanted distraction to the important work of the hospital" (2). Additionally, Saint Luke's Health System said that "gameplay can lead to disruption in patient care" (1). These quotes from hospitals demonstrate the negative effect that Pokemon Go can have on their work. Pokemon Go can also negatively affect museums and memorials. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC says that "playing Pokemon Go in a memorial dedicated to the victims of Nazism is extremely inappropriate" (3). Auschwitz Museum said that Pokemon Go is "not appropriate in the museum", since it is "a memorial to the victims of Nazism" (4). These memorials to victims of the Holocaust are intended to be serious places, not a park for lighthearted fun. These locations have already banned Pokemon Go from the premise and requested to be removed from the game. Niantic, the maker of Pokemon Go, should accept these requests and honor Holocaust victim's memory by removing these memorials from the game. (1)- http://www.kansascity.com... (2)- http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (3)- http://money.cnn.com... (4)- http://www.cbsnews.com...
Public Locations should be able to request Pokemon Go removal.

Pokemon Go is a popular smartphone game in which users go to real life locations to catch virtual creatures called Pokemon. However, several locations have requested their removal from the game, including the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC (1), Auschwitz Memorial in Poland (1), and several hospitals (2) want to be removed from the game, saying that it disrespects the memory of the victims (Holocaust Museum and Auschwitz) or interfere with patient care (hospitals). This debate only deals with public locations (such as hospitals, museums, businesses, and police stations), NOT private locations (such as personal houses, private land, and other private property). (1)- http://www.usatoday.com... (2)- http://www.kansascity.com... In this debate, I, the Pro, will argue that public locations should be allowed to remove themselves from Pokemon Go. My opponent, the Con, will argue that public locations should not be able to remove themselves from Pokemon Go. Round One will be acceptance. Round Two will be support, no rebuttals. Round Three will be counterclaims and rebuttals of opponents Round Two claims. Round four will be conclusion/closing statement, with no new arguments/rebuttals.
Infanticide is morally permissible.

Pro agrees that killing conscious, sentient beings is morally wrong so now I will prove that an infant is a conscious, sentient being.SENTIENT: able to perceive or feel things--Merriam-Webster dictionarySo first we have to ask can an infant percieve and feel things. Well an infant has fully developed senses; it can hear, see, feel, smell, and taste. The infant has a nervous system so it can feel things; so we can conclude the baby is sentient.CONSCIOUS: aware of something (such as a fact or feeling) : knowing that something exists or is happening--Merriam-Webster dictionary.Well an infant although it can't comprehend its surroundings IS aware of them and can respond to external stimuli so we can conclude the infant is conscious.CONCLUSIONAn infant is both conscious ad sentient and therefore it is morally wrong to kill the infant. An infant can also feel pain so killing it for no reason is also morally wrong.
Infanticide is morally permissible.

I extend all my arguments and my original opening refutes Con's position. 'A moral is actually a commonly held cultural belief on what is right and wrong. Since not killing innocent people is a commonly held cultural belief it IS a moral in which case infanticide is morally wrong because it's the murder of an innocent human.' 'A moral is a commonly held cultural belief' So what? That is like writing, 'believing the earth is flat was a commonly held cultural belief, it does literally nothing for your case apart from saying 'infanticide is not a common cultural belief'. My arguments have not been dealt with. 'Since not killing innocent people is a commonly held cultural belief it IS a moral' No, not all beliefs are (a) Morals (b) automatically accepted. Like I wrote earlier belief in a flat earth was a common cultural belief, and for more contemporary uses of the examples 'Young Earth Creationism' is a cultural belief pertaining to certain groups. That does not then mean it is a 'moral' whatever that is supposed to imply nor does it mean it is true. Simply pointing to common held views means nothing in this debate. 'because it's the murder of an innocent human.' I already went into detail to explain why it is not wrong to kill innocent human beings. Con basically rephrases his opening, I have no need to go back over his opening because I would just be repeating my objections. So far Con's position has been shaken by the lack of reasons and arguments but rather assertions he makes. My arguments have not even been touched. So I extend all my arguments.
Infanticide is morally permissible.

The belief humans have a 'right to life' is simply a null statement. It is an assertion that holds no weight because it in itself is just a strongly held cultural belief stemming from the more general term humanity has a 'right to life' or 'sanctity of human right'. The existence of laws and codes which confirm a hypothesis of 'right to life' is again not a moral justification, so the fact humans are alive does not confer the concept of a moral 'right' to that life.A moral is actually a commonly held cultural belief on what is right and wrong. Since not killing innocent people is a commonly held cultural belief it IS a moral in which case infanticide is morally wrong because it's the murder of an innocent human.
Infanticide is morally permissible.

I will make my case on the basis of human rights (which come from morality).HUMAN RIGHTS: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.HUMAN: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.An Infant is a member of the species H. Sapiens.Therefore a human infant is entitled to human rights, and because those rights include life; infanticide is immoral.The same can be said about a fetus in the case of abortion; it is a member of the species H. Sapiens and therefore is entitled to human rights which makes abortion immoral.CONCLUSIONInfanticide and abortion are immoral because of the human right to life which comes from ideas of morality.
Infanticide is morally permissible.

I am re-sending this because my last attempt ended with no Con proposals. I am serious about this topic and want a serious opponent please. This will be a debate primarily on Infanticide but also on the case for abortion. The debate has to focus on the morality of infanticide. I am opening the debate, so Con I would prefer if he/she accepts and gives her argument, and then on the last round they do not write anything, I believe that evens out the responses. So usual rules apply, Round 1. Accept/argument for con. Round 2. My opening/Con rebuttal. Round 3. My rebuttal/Con conclusion Round 4. My conclusion/null. Lets keep openings free from rebuttal obviously, that applies to me not my opponent and conclusions cannot raise completely new arguments, only address and conclude. Discuss in comments.
Infanticide is morally permissible.

'Pro agrees that killing conscious, sentient beings is morally wrong so now I will prove that an infant is a conscious, sentient being.' No, that was not my argument. My argument was a being of self-consciousness with a desire to live on is the criterion for not killing. Con has simply taken my position and blown it out of proportion and failed to understand the details of it. I argued for the non-killing of beings which can in themselves know they exist as that is a criterion for personhood. Con doesn't understand this point. So first we have to ask can an infant percieve and feel things. Well an infant has fully developed senses; it can hear, see, feel, smell, and taste. The infant has a nervous system so it can feel things; so we can conclude the baby is sentient. An infant definitely cannot 'perceive' things in any way which supports my definition. It totally cannot know itself, or know its past or future or even think in a rational manner. The ability to 'taste, touch, smell are nothing more than functional by-products of biological systems, not anything near the standard I propose. So Con has not understand my criterion and believes that I propose anything that can 'feel' is self-conscious. This is totally false, again note my above argument for the details and elaboration. When I write 'infanticide is morally permissible' I do not mean to write in every single case we can do what we please to infants. I already explained the details and roles of parents wishes and also other aspects, my case was (a) An infant has no right to life. (b) Killing infants can be morally permissible in most cases. (c) Infanticide can be encouraged, I won't detail this point. 'CONSCIOUS: aware of something (such as a fact or feeling) : knowing that something exists or is happening--Merriam-Webster dictionary. Well an infant although it can't comprehend its surroundings IS aware of them and can respond to external stimuli so we can conclude the infant is conscious.' Totally beside the point of anything I have written. Being able to 'respond to stimuli' is not equal to being able to know yourself and your future with desires and belief. 'CONCLUSION An infant is both conscious ad sentient and therefore it is morally wrong to kill the infant. An infant can also feel pain so killing it for no reason is also morally wrong.' Being able to feel pain does not mean it is morally wrong for it to kill it, it simply means the animal or being has an interest in not feeling pain. No other ideas can be extrapolated from that. So at the very most an infant's only interests are food/water and not feeling pain, not of these require as the right to life requires a 'desire/right' concept but simply an interest/biological need. Con doesn't understand my arguments and still attempts a very poor straw-man. Con now has to leave the last area vacant as he should have held a conclusion in the third round.
Religion is harmful to human society.

Human beings are the pinnacle of evolution. The greatest asset that we posses is the 'ability to think'. This ability has enabled intellectuals to explore and unlock the various mysteries of nature. But there was a time when science was still in it's primitive stages and various phenomenons and occurences in nature caused confusion and axiety among the masses due to sheer ignorance. This was were religion came in. Religion acted as the language of a common man. An ordinary person would be able to understand religion even if he doesn't understand science and this has helped prevent mass panic and hysteria throughout the ages. Religion brought order to the otherwise previosly percieved chaotic random behaviour of nature through stories that were based on actual observation. For example, solar eclipse was featured as the moon god eating and spitting out the sun god through his throat in asian religions. Of course this this was all fictional but this offered an explanation for events as mentioned, when none were available and this helped to establish order. Now that science has progressed we have dissmissed all these theories as they are no longer in need to us. But even now there are places where the rays of science hasn't touched yet that still remain in the dark. Religion will help maintain order in these places till the people become informed enough to not need the crutches of religion. However, it is not to be understood that once humanity has progressed far enough we wouldn't require religion. Religion also serves another purpose and that is spreading virtues among the masses. No religion preaches people to embrace violence. Only corrupt individuals involve themselves in such acts in the name of religion because of their ignorance. And these people would commit such acts anyway if not in the name of religion then in the name of their country or any other reason they can find. Thus to be brief, religion is never to be blamed for violence it is rather the violent individuals who are the cause behind such acts. I'll articulate my arguments more elaborately in the upcoming rounds. Over to PRO.
Religion is harmful to human society.

:)Religion harms human society for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that it causes war and acts of terrorism among extremists throughout the world. People of many religions also use some of their beliefs, which are usually unable to be proven or disproven, to try and scare people into joining that religion. Although religion provides people with faith and comfort, it does much more harm than good, as it has always been one of the main sources of conflict throughout human history. Therefore, the purposes of religion, which include faith, comfort, and connection, are defeated by countless wars, deaths, and even the everyday arguments and insults that occur on the Internet.
Religion is harmful to human society.

RulesRound 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening statements (Limited to outlining facts)Round 3,4: Evidence/Rebuttals. Round 5: Closing statementss (Limited to restating and summarizing evidence from rounds 3 and 4. You can also reiterate your opening statement. )I will be arguing that religion as a whole is harmful to human society.
Racial Profiling is a Tool for Police

Black and Latino crime rates are high because of racial profiling, not in spite of it. Using the high arrest rate of blacks and latinos as justification for further racial profiling is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you examine racial profiling from the perspective of hit rates, that is, the rate at which stopped individuals are actually found to be in possession of contraband, you get a very different picture of racial profiling. If you examine the Vehicle Stop Report for Ferguson, you can see that while Blacks were much more frequently stopped, the hit rate of those stops was quite low. In fact, the non-racial profiling presumably used in the stopping of white suspects had a higher hit-rate than the racially profiled stops while using markedly fewer police resources. In the examination of New York's Stop and Frisk program, similar disparities between the hit-rate of White and minority stops can be observed. Racial profiling resulted in 1 arrest for every 10 Blacks stopped while purely behavioral profiling resulted in 1 arrest for every 8 Whites stopped. More abstractly, racial profiling is inherently inefficient due to the oversampling problem. Terrorists and criminals are vastly outnumbered in every population by innocents, and racial profiling results in repeated screening of benign individuals, ultimately resulting a great deal of wasted police resources. Stopping racial profiling has proven benefits in efficiency and effectiveness. The Customs Office in 1998 ended a practice of profiling Black and Latino individuals, resulting in a 300 percent increase in the hit-rate. Empirically, racial profiling serves only to waste police resources, and in fact might reduce the ability of police to fight crimes.And while ending racial profiling would not instantly heal the relationship between the police the community they are there to serve, continuing racial profiling will certainly not close that rift. Maintaining racial profiling can only serve to maintain the rift, if not widen it. Treating a population like criminals can only increase distrust of the police, and lower the threshold for criminal behavior.In a system which victimizes certain populations, there is much reason to for even citizens that are not involved in criminal or terrorist acts to feel threatened, particularly with the large number of high-profile officer-involved shootings in recent times.Additionally, racial profiling of terrorism suspects is counter-productive in the stopping of terrorism. Terrorists lack coherent profiles, and can be any individual. Islam can be easily hidden. Targeting individuals based on race or religion merely makes it easier for terrorists to defeat screening procedures through choosing agents who do not match profiles. Racial profiling is a waste of police resources and actively hinders effective and efficient policework, while antagonizing the community which the police rely upon for information.
Racial Profiling is a Tool for Police

Over time, racism has slowly gone down in our country. Therefore, the statistics of should change as well. But they do not. For decades the trend has been the same and it is easy to see. Most cases of racial profiling happen in places where the crime rate is high, as well as the population that is looked after. It is a sad truth, but the numbers don't lie. Even if you factor in the so called "racist cops", the numbers still show that blacks have a higher crime rate. As for them feeling threatened, if they haven't done anything wrong, then they should have nothing to worry about. But instead they are disrespectful, uncooperative, and try to escape if they can. Once they try to run, they are breaking the law. It is the cops job to protect the community, and if someone runs or is uncooperative, it shows that they are a problem and should be felt with. It is not just because they are black either. Like I said before, it matters were you grow up and how you were raised. If a community is raised to distrust the police, no matter what the police do they cannot live down the past. They should still try to respect the badge and the people that try to protect them. The people don't treat the police with respect because that is how they were taught, and in turn the police don't treat the people with respect. It is a cycle that needs to be broken by both sides. The police have rules to keep them in order, but what about the citizens? The cops are trained to follow the law to the best of their ability, while citizens are inclined to brake the said laws. As hard as it may seem in this time of media attack, the police are the good guys. It is also true that cops will learn from their past experience with that particular race. Crime rages spike dramatically in certain areas, and if those areas have mostly a Black or Hispanic race, it doesn't make a difference. The crime in the area must be committed by the particular race because they just happen to live there. While it is true that racial profiling isn't something that can be used all of the time, it can be used to quickly analyze a situation and help the police officer make a choice. Keep in mind that this choice isn't made by race alone, although race is a factor. Just like anything else, it is a factor in the situation that has to be analyzed. Racial profiling has help with terrorism, by the way of watching people that are suspected of it. Even the home grown terrorists have either a ancestry in the Middle East or have made a quick shift to radical Islam. By just watching them, it helps to protect our society. Just like you watch someone with criminal parents or family. You make a quick assessment on something they can't control. It either helps you avoid them if they are bad, or they do something that shifts your view of them. Lastly, as I have been saying, race is a factor in profiling that should be looked at. It is part of their identity, which means that they are part of the statistics.