BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
When in conflict, Security should be prefered to rights

You can use any arguementation, just know that you are pro not con. (In the previous round you posted "can I argue that security should not be a priority because security itself is bad?). I'll present my arguements now The value is justice When faced with a decision to violate other people's rights, we are presented with harms and benefits of violating said right. Even assuming the truth of the claim that the injustices of the harms can be overridden by the benefits, some individuals in these situations cannot appreciate that the added security for others can truly outweigh his sacrifice, but those in an objective power can and for that reason can make a decision to sacrifice his rights on the basis of security. If that objective perspective is impossible to achieve, if no one can weigh costs and benefits without being subject to their own personal prejudice, than the justification can never be made. We may say than that if a speculative increase in security is to overide a neccessary violation of rights, those in power must be able to objectively way costs and benefits. This objectivity is the criterion for Justice My arguement is that no one can achieve objectivity. 1. No one can value other people's rights because they don't apply to them. David Luban, Professor of Philosophy in Georgetown argues The supposed "trade off" between security and rights is too easy as long as it's a trade off of your rights for my security. This is no real trade off. As a respectable, middle-aged, white, tenured professor who leads a dull life, I know the odds are slender that I will ever need to invoke the right against self-incrimination or the right to a speedy, public trial, let alone the right not to be shipped off to the Jordanian police for interrogation. So I am likely to undervalue these rights. In my own mind, I unconsciously classify them as other people's rights. So long as the government targets only Muslims and foreigners, young men and aging clerics paring back on the rights of the accused is no tragedy. Psychologically, it is very difficult to weigh the importance of rights and civil liberties without assuming, consciously or not, that rights I and my loved ones are unlikely to need are less important than my physical security. Under these distortions, no one has any buisness telling a small minority that their sacrifice is worth more security even on purely objective grounds.
When in conflict, Security should be prefered to rights

First off, can I argue that security should not be a priority because security itself is bad? But in case no I am prepared to argue pro for the exact text of the resolution. //Definitions\ Security: "the state of being free from danger or injury" [1] Rights: "Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting" [2] Preferred: "preferable: more desirable than another" [3] I await my opponent's answer/response. ============================================================================ [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Gun Control

Yes that true with "banning gun control" but even if you allow gun control that will still lead to people who have the intention of committing evil acts. With the approval of gun control mean higher crime rates but without it will lessen the crime rates and it will make it harder for criminals to find ways to get gun. Even if it law enforcement-only we can still use stricter regulation to make it even harder for the criminals or deserter or whatever the heck it is that have the intent to sell guns illegally will have a hard time. All we gotta do is make complex process to counter it when someone found a loophole to it we can keep patching it until it impossible to find a way. But about the drugs, I don't really see that it a part of the topic but If it come to mental health then that can be a problem and yes people can get addicted to it. But no worries we still have mental facility or therapy for that if they ever have that thoughts of wanting to kill. But with disapproval of gun control then it will be harder for them to get access to guns. Like I said complex processes and patches. Also about carrying guns doesn't just give a sense of security but it give the sense of uneasiness because who knows what going on in that person's mind. Cause at any moment he/she can kill even if he/she have poor emotional control he/she can kill out of no where so how can we trust the citizens if we just hand out guns and how can we stop crime violence of gun-fighting due to the fact that they got it from gun shop that have approval of gun control? Also for the #2 round I will provide sources but for now I didn't put any sources in and same thing for my opponent.
Gun Control

If guns are made illegal, they can still make their way to people's hands. Even though drugs are illegal, there are millions of people who are addicted. If guns are all gone, there would be more shootings because people with illegal guns know that no one else is going to have a gun so they can kill more people. Allowing guns allows people who have a sense of security. If shooters know that there are people carrying guns around him. They won't shoot because they can be stopped in an instant.
Communism should be given a chance...

Communism is seen as an evil, selfish way of controlling a nation. Most democratic or republican nations think this because of what the leaders of communist nations have done. Stalin did what he did because that was his temperament, not because his nation was communist. The faults of communist nations are because of the temperament of the people at that time and because of corrupt leaders. This is an open vote. I have an enthusiasm for debating and chose this topic partially because I agree with it and partially because I think my opponent, whoever it may be, can come up with some really convincing argument. To whom it may concern, Good luck.
Do you think liberal gun laws are promoting increasing crime rates in US

While I believe that lessening liberal gun rights would be the intuitive response if someone wanted to lower the crime-rate in America (less guns = less crimes with guns), I don"t think it is the correct response. Basically, restricting people"s liberal rights would not affect the crime rate with guns, AND increase the crime rate within the black market (selling of illegal guns). Hypothetically, the crime-rate would increase if guns were banned or to a greater extent restricted. Central point: Before I address any of your arguments, I want to make one very important point: guns themselves do not commit crimes; guns are merely tools which are used to commit crimes. If someone wants someone else dead, and guns are not readily available, he or she will simply look for an alternative way to kill that person. This is because people kill others not because guns are available, but because of other reasons. Brief refutation: Comparably, the United States of America has far more liberal gun control laws than some of the other countries you have mentioned (Australia, Brazil and Canada). While these are interesting to read, there is a lot of irrelevant information when you consider your resolution (i. e. Merely stating the gun control laws of other countries does not make an argument). However, you did compare Australia"s gun laws with America"s, and then provided these statistics: "The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States" The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States. " Although you have failed to cite these with the place you got these from, I"ll assume that you simply forgot and that these statistics are legitimate. Just because there are more gun related deaths in a country with liberal gun control laws (when compared with a more restricted one), this does not mean that the crime rate would lower if restricted gun laws were implemented. You have to view each case to see why the gun crime happened " simply restricting the ability to own a gun will probably mean that the crimes will be committed with other tools. Black market: Stricter gun laws will encourage a black market, especially in a country that is so accustomed to having guns. Think about it: weed is illegal in most parts of the U. S. A, do people still do it? J-Walking is also illegal, do people still do it? People are still going to want to own guns, and because stricter gun regulations would lower the number of people legally allowed to own a gun, this would increase the crime rate as more people are owning a gun illegally.
Skyrim is a much better game than morrowind

Pro Argues that Skyrim is a much better game than Morrowind. It is impossible to judge two games in a vaccum. That is to say, nostalgia is a legitimate reason to like a game. Without Morrowind, Skyrim could never have come to pass. The concept and gameplay of these two games are very similar. Also, it is not fair to judge the game by their graphics. The two games were created nine years apart! When I play Skyrim on a 9 year old television, it doesn't look as good either. Although Skyrim is a good continuation of the Elder Scrolls games, it is not a "much better game than Morrowind."
Skyrim is a much better game than morrowind

The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim has a better game engine that allows it to have massively superior graphics and AI. It also has extensive amounts of mod support on PC which can further greatly improve its graphics to levels far beyond Morrowind. In skyrim when you talk to NPCS they don't awkwardly shift their heads to you and stare at you as the camera zooms in while the world freezes in time. Nostalgia has a large influence on people who say it is a superior game.
Rich people should be required to donate to the poor.

First, I would like to start with some rebuttal. The rich people pay taxes, I will not deny that, but taxes don't exactly go directly to the poor. They are used to build roads, sometimes restaurants, and hospitals, but mainly all goes to the military. Because of this, the poor is not receiving enough help. Poor people need food and water, which public services cannot provide. What poor means is people begging, starving (like in Africa). Those are extreme cases, and that's what "poor" means. Now what "rich" means is that the people who have a lot of money, like your example, 150,000 USD per year. They are the ones who live luxurious lives who are able to give their children a good education, eat sufficient and maybe even more, and the ones who can buy expensive real estate. We are not talking 10% of its earnings, but rather 5% or 3%. It should be up to the person's choice, and when they donate to the poor (via Charity) there should be some record of the person donating the money. About your point about people having less incentive to be rich, I don't think anyone would want to become a middle class person as they are donating a bit of their income and donating once a year. Also, they are helping the poor people. As I said, this may reduce robbery due to desperation, which is best for everyone. I am sorry if I didn't explain the motion, but this is what I define it as. If you wish, we can start with this speech. Everyone would want the world to be a better place.
Rich people should be required to donate to the poor.

I would like to remind Pro that rich people are already doing this. That's what taxes are for. People pay tax to the government, who provide public services to the people of the nation, which would include poor people. [1][2] Therefore, it is implied that Pro's resolution demands that rich people should be required to donate money directly to poor people aside from the fact that they already pay taxes.I will be arguing that the rich people should not be required to donate to the poor. In addressing Pro's resolution, I would like to ask what the bounderies are as to who is rich and who is not. That is a major flaw in Pro's resolution. How do you define rich? Suppose you consider a person earning 150,000 USD per year, and he must give 10% of his earnings to the poor, which is 15,000 USD. If a person knows that if he earns $150,000 per year, he must donate a tenth of it, due to human nature and logic, he would lose incentive to work for $150,000 per year, and instead work for $135,000 per year, which is the maximum amount of money he can work for without losing any of it (except for taxes). This means that people will have less incentive to be rich, and desire more to be in middle class.Furthermore, by making this a required act, you are violating a rich man's freedom of choice.[3] A man, even if he is rich, should be able to choose what to do, not be forced into it. This also violates the basic human right to not be discriminated against. By saying that the rich should donate, the middle class don't have to, and the poor recieves the money, you are saying that people with different amounts of money don't have the same basic human rights. This is also violating the right to your own things. People should be able to choose what to do with the things that belong to them. Lastly, the resolution violates the 30th basic human right, which is the right to not have these rights taken away from you. In total, Pro's resolution violates freedom of choice, and 3 basic human rights.[4]Sources:[1] http://www.irs.com...[2] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[3] http://www.mormon.org...;[4] http://www.samaritanmag.com...
Abortion Should Be Legal

Many of my initial arguments went completely untouched so I will list them here: -Banning abortions does not stop abortions, it only stops safe abortions. -There are already 100,000 kids in foster care (in the USA), if people listened to the ban we would see an increase in 1,000,000 foster kids per year. -Contraception = Abortion -The potential success that a young girl could attain in life completely thrown away by a child. -Trees =/= Seeds, therefore potential children =/= children Most of Con's rebuttals were against somebody that was not me: "Pro choice activists" and Mary Anne Warren in round 2. Con also calls me out for ignoring many of their arguments in round 2, I did so because I was not being argued against. Pro choice activists in general were being argued against. As I stated in my original argument, this is a touchy subject, and I don't want either debater losing or winning due to bias.
Abortion Should Be Legal

The first thing my opponent did was to reiterate his definition of the word human being. Let it be known that I did in fact agree with my opponents statement that been a potential human does not make you a human in the case of an embryo. I also provided a much more in debt definition of the word human being which does not contradict my opponents definition. I also provide a standard for defining what a person is. My arguement that arbortion should be illegal because it takes away the fetuses life is not based solely on the definition of a human being but more on the definition of "Rights" and how to distinguish rights from duties. I will also like to point out that this argument was not addresed at all by my opponent. "I would like to point out something. Con used the word fetus eight times. I specifically argued that abortion should be legal during the first trimester. During this stage we are talking about zygotes and embryos, not fetuses. " My opponent did not specify the word embryo in the introduction of the debate. My opponent's words are as followed: "I argue that abortion should be legal During the First Trimester. " The first trimester as i recall is the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. A fetuse according to googles definition is "an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception. " This means that the word fetus is appropriate when describing the first trimester of pregnancy. "What about the kids that are forced to go without food because their parents cannot afford it? " Like I said in my first round of argument, value is brought on by the smallest things that makes life worth living. This means that the slightest chance of forming a meaningful relationship with someone is enough grounds to argue that that individuals life is valuable. This again does not require that the person has an exceptionally high standard of living. It should be noted that many of the arguments that I formed in my first rebuttal were ignored by my opponent. This includes my characteristics that makes an organism a person, definition and distinction of rights and duties, value of life argument, and even my argument on a woman's right to her body.
Abortion Should Be Legal

"To begin, I will start by offering two definitions of a human being." It seems that Con and I have conflicting definitions of "human." I personally believe that having the potential to become human does not make you one. "To be considered a person according to an abortion activists and author Mary Anne Warren" It seems that Con brought up this pro-choice activist as a straw man argument. "Using this standard, taking away the fetuses life or even a chance of life is an invasion of the fetuses rights." This really depends on the definition of "human". Until everybody can come to a consensus regarding this word, Con and I will disagree on this. I would like to point out something. Con used the word fetus eight times. I specifically argued that abortion should be legal during the first trimester. During this stage we are talking about zygotes and embryos, not fetuses. "This satisfaction does not require that they roll in wealth." What about the kids that are forced to go without food because their parents cannot afford it? -------------------------------------------- Con mentioned that they could not put together a full argument in the given time, but as it stands, almost all of my arguments have been left untouched.
feverish rap tournament philosophical vs untitled_entity

http://www.youtube.com... You find me in the DMV (D.C./Maryland/Virginia area) running the streets Never catch me slippin' 'cuz b!tch, I wear cleats Feelin' fresh and clean and I got your girl in the sheets She's a real freak when we play hide n' go seek Yeah it was me who killed Prof. Plum in the conservatory Meanwhile I'm tryna do an exploratory on your mediocre rap inventory Let's start with the intro, you're reppin U-F-C I'm like Cena, I'm RAW [ha], you can't see me And since we're in the arena be prepared to be SMACKEDDOWN Boy you can ask around, even out of my town, my rap skills are renowned You say you're authentic - if authentic means fake As real as Pam Anderson's rack son, give those titties a shake Yeah, you're psychotic...if you think you're gonna win It's quite obvious that you're rhyming dictionary, yea thin I'll give this to you like a one-two punch My flow so chronic - got your panties in a bunch I know you're frenetic, you're rhymes are pathetic And your beat fits like a too large prosthetic We can get physical, make it kinetic Cuz I'm a genetic poetic with an aesthetic athletic frame, boy And this is my game cuz I'm energetic and unsympathetic, and got a chiampionship to claim I've hit you like a anesthetic, work so quickly you're apathetic But I'm magnetic, fully charged and electric, I'mma keep goin, don't sweat it I don't need a beat, son, I wouldn't waste it on you Bringing heat? Good, cuz I got shoveling to do 33 inches of snow at my door Pile on the heat, bro, prove you're hardcore You try to act fly, I'll father you sone Take off the belt like your father do, son Let's get it straight: My rhymes are supersonic, so sick, they're chronic Your wordplay needs some help - you're hooked off phonics I find it ironic that you think you're demonic I should be nice, keep it platonic Even though those "rhymes" left me catatonic No need to get sardonic lets leave it symphonic I'll stop babying you, even if you're embryonic I'll leave you with this, a little mnemonic In case it gets shaky in your plate tectonics Queer Umbrellas Idolize Trigonometry On the win to lose spectrum, that's some easy spectrometry Q-U-I-T boy that means you quit Done, over, take an L cuz you forfeit Step it up in your next round, I ain't impressed I'll wait for your time to expire, you must be distressed
feverish rap tournament philosophical vs untitled_entity

Whats up guys, sorry about the audio, its not that great. I didnt have a whole lot of time to prep out a great video, but I'm excited for Untitled's response and look forward to it. Good luck! http://www.youtube.com... LYRICS: INTRO: My rhymes are exotic, This beat is hypnotic, Your raps are robotic, While mine are psychotic. MAIN: Last time you got off easy, but Im not gonna forfeit, So you better hit me hard, or get ready to quit. Your practice was sylux, but here's the real thing, Cuz ima bout to preach to you like martin luther king. Your last rhyme was good, I have to admit, But none if its real. And all mines authentic. Get ready to lose, because I aint playing around Right now I'm getting ready to bury you in the ground. you, know, what your last rap needed was a killa beat. I hope you got one this time, cuz i'm packin' the heat! I know I'm white but my rhymes are tight, I bust out when I'm in a rap fight so just bite... yo' bottom lip so tight while I bust a rhyme on yo' @ss... for the night. So wipe away the sweat from all your anxiety And seize the day like the dead poets society Cuz this is it, your playing with the big boy Whose only aim is only to kill, seek, and destroy I'm only going easy on you out of respect But even now i'm breaking your neck The way I'm comin' at you, ya might call me a scrub, But my rhymes hit harder than bradd pitt from fight club After this your gonna need an aesthetic Because all your rhymes just seem genetic And to be frank, thats a little pathetic But just notice my rhymes are masterfully poetic And more than highly energetic So much that they seem like their magnetic. I'm gonna keep this short and sweet. I'm just sure im one you cannot beat.
feverish rap tournament philosophical vs untitled_entity

Hey guys, I just got my power back...Philosophical said he would reinstate the challenge for me to post my final round in the event that I lost power. I'm gonna charge my camera and hopefully I'll get the challenge and post by tomorrow. Sorry guys, as for voting, please make you decision based on the first round until I'm able to post my second. Thank you guys, and sorry for the inconvenience.
Libya was better under Muammar Qaddafi

I'd like to extend all of my previous arguments, and move on to foreign relations. Libya's foreign relations have largely been reset since the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi, with Libya losing many allies, particularly in Africa, while gaining more recognition and appeasement, particularly from the West. Countries such as Algeria, Mali, Niger, South Africa, Italy, Angola, Bolivia, Cuba, China, the Democratic Repblic of the Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Namibia, Nicaragua, North Korea, Swaziland, Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe had closer relations in general with the Qaddafi regime than the NTC, and may have voted against recognition of the NTC in the September 16th 2011 UNGA vote. However, Libya has also gained many international allies during the regime change, chiefly from the West, such as France, Australia, Qatar, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Whole in whole, the Latin American countries, two Asian nations and many in Africa, North Africa and the Arab nations have lost contact and support for the new government in Libya, however, Libya has gained new support among some of the world's most powerful nations, which send a great deal of aid to the country. On balance, we can say that the foreign relations of Libya are about as well as before the 2011 uprising, and are neither particularly better or worse for the Libyan people.