BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

My opponent's summary sums up the debate. "I was defining Conservatism by its core definition", without explanation to why he is defining it correctly. My argument has been "Conservatism is not Conservativism". It is not the policy of conservation of all things good and bad. We have no reason to suppose that Conservatism is about rejecting all changes, and every reason to suggest Conservatives support change. Conservative in theory support change. Conservatives in practice support change. Conservatism is the policy of rejecting unnecessary change: "to innovate is not to reform". Conservatives promote change when necessary, and when it empirically has been shown to work. It rejects wholesale change without seeing it in practice first. That has been my core principle that I have justified with examples and quotations from Conservative thinkers, none of which has been refuted. As such, I urge a vote CON. Thank you.
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

Let's start with something straight-forwards: different people have different views, even if they fall under an umbrella term. Conservatism has One Nation Toryism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, as well as pure Conservatism that Popper and Oakeshott espouse as modern thinkers. Liberalism has libertarian, classical liberals, modern liberals, socialist liberals, as well as other ideologies under the umbrella term. Nationalism has Conservative Nationalism (e.g. Ireland), Liberal Nationalism (Rousseau), Religious Nationalism (Qutb), Fascism (Hitler), etc.One Nation Toryism is the ideology I take because it's a good example. I could easily take Thatcherite neoliberalism, one of the two dominant theories of Conservatism about now (which is frankly undeniable - Thatcher, Reagan, and half of the Conservative Party follow her theories) as a clear example of Conservatism not being for change, but instead I want to point out even the most pure Conservatism is in no way against change.My opponent claims that we "should not base your evidence...on what a few scholars said" but this makes no sense - we take what Conservatism is by what people explain it to be. It is a political theory, and thus it is an idea. Ideas are learnt by learning the idea, that much is obvious. So why not read what the idea is? Of course, there are people in the Conservative Party who do not follow the strict Conservative philosophy, but that is only to be expected - like everyone, we are not perfect, political parties are not perfectly unified, and their method is going to change depending on what is thought to be successful. The Conservative philosophy is clear because of how Conservative thinkers and politicians espouse their view. If I asked you what John Stuart Mill's political belief is, for example, you'd look at what he said and what he wrote about his belief, not guess at it from his lifestyle. Going "He's a rich aristocrat so he's Conservative" or with Kropotkin "He's a Russian prince so he's an absolute monarchist" is blatantly wrong. If we go "John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty, Utilitarianism and On the subjugation of women and promoted liberalism in his work" or "Kropotkin wrote that the state was abhorrent and unneccesary", we have a much more truthful understanding of the ideas. The fact of the matter is my opponent disagrees with how the Conservative Party, who do not necessarily represent conservative philosophy, is going about things, and as such claims they are against change. My opponent then proceeds to ignore both Conservative scholars promoting change as necessary (my opponent still is ignoring Burke) and wanted for society to propsper, as well as how the Conservatives want to change law - for example, how Cameron wants to change the system - whether it is the welfare system, NHS system, make gay marriage legal, etc. etc. etc. Conservativm clearly isn't purely against change: it is against needless change, and that is the major factor of conservatism, whether my opponent wants to admit it or not.
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

Let's get things straight - I am talking about modern conservatism. I was not straw-manning it, rather I was providing a logical point. There should be a goal to aim for. I am against the conservative philosophy that there isn't. You should not base your evidence that conservatism does not exist on what a few scholars said - make the decision yourself. It does not make my criticism irrelevant because from what I have witnessed how modern conservatives in the western world are overly afraid of change. The point of changing a working system is that it only works for some people. The goal that many people aim for is a society where the system is fairer. Systems tend to have those at the top who prosper and those at the bottom who don't. I talked about Conservatism in the UK to provide an example to back up my argument. The current Conservative government aren't working towards One Nation Conservatism. They make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I disagree with their unpractical method. We are talking about modern conservatism - it is still conservatism no matter how far it has drifted from people like Disraeli due to the values that it holds. Change is good and it should come as often as it is needed to ensure that the people prosper. With all due respect, would you please contribute new arguments instead of only attempting to mock mine. Would you also please make your own opinions rather than saying something because a few scholars said it. Fair enough, they may have influenced your opinion but all you seem to be doing is either quoting them of claiming that what I say is "invalid."
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

Modern ConservatismMy opponent seems to be as a whole strawmanning modern Conservatism. This is the simplest way of putting it. As we are referring to Oakeshott's Conservatism, or the modern Conservatism, then the criticism that it is against change is irrelevant: there is no goal to aim for, except the welfare of the passengers of the ship. The fact that he is talking about a different 'Conservatism' which frankly does not exist, as no major Conservative scholar argues wholly against change, makes his criticisms irrelevant. Change is necessary, and should be done when needed, but no more than that. What is the point of changing a working system? Conservatism in the United KingdomI have no reason why my opponent is lecturing on the UK Conservative Party's ideas, as simply put he has them all wrong. Conservatism for one always has had at least a third of the vote of the working class[1]. The Conservative Party works towards Disraelian Toryism, One Nation Toryism, similar to Miliband (though a variant). However, this is still quite irrelevant. His discussion shows how the Conservative Parties makes a lot of claims, but the majority are false. The Conservative Party stands, repeatedly, for the general welfare of everyone on the ship, for in the words of Cameron, "We are all in this together". If my opponent disagrees with their practical method, fine, that is the fact of politics: people disagree. But the motivation is clear. However, this interestingly this is extremely moot. For if we even concede that the Conesrvative Party aren't following One Nation Toryism, so what? It simply means they are not following Conservatism proper. This does not mean a massive deal, in reality. It simply means that a party has shifted from a hundred year old ideology, but kept a name.My opponent, then, has failed to show how Conservatism is for no change at all. I hold to my original position: Change is good, but just in small controlled amounts, not in excessive bursts. The stance of Conservatism.1 - http://www.guardian.co.uk...;2 - http://books.google.co.uk...;
Men should not be expected to put the toilet seat down for women.

It appears that my opponent has vanished into the wind. I hope that he is well but I will attempt to close up this debate with a final thought. This debate ultimately is about how people should behave in a civil society. While there is little tangible benefit to the current bathroom user in closing the seat there is definite benefit to almost anyone who comes after him. In many ways this makes lower the seat a selfless act that we undertake for the benefit of an unknown party. It could be a coworker who benefits from your courtesy, it could be a stranger, it could be someone you dislike, but by lowering the seat you have made their lives (more often than not) easier. I believe that in our society we should strive to do this whenever we can, not because of some high moral principle, but merely because it is the right thing to do. I would rather live in a society where people make small gestures of kindness towards others than a society where everyone only looks out for their best interests, even when the cost of helping out someone else are trivial, such as the time it takes to lower the toilet seat. If you believe that is the type of society we should strive to live in please vote Con. Thank you.
Men should not be expected to put the toilet seat down for women.

I am forced to point out that at lest one of your main three arguments is completely irrational and wrong. Ironically enough, this is your 'rational' argument. In your "Rational" argument you confuse the toilet seat with the toilet lid. A toilet seat is a simple seat, whereas a toilet lid is something which might protect the surrounding area from odors, or things falling into the toilet. The toilet seat, as it is a simple seat that goes along the rim of the toilet will not in any meaningful way prevent anything from falling in it (At least not toiletries) , and it will not prevent odor. It is unfair to suggest that men are subordinate to women. If a man does not wish to leave his own toilet seat down for the possibility of a woman, he should not have to do so. While Chivalry might be a nice thing for men to do, it should not be absolutely expected of them, especially in this modern society where women are gaining strides in equality with men daily. When Chivalry is expected, it looses it's meaning. Chivalry is a nice thing for people to do, and for it to be nice they must do so on their own free will. When it is expected, and women get mad if it is not executed to her standards, as if she were entitled to be treated superior to her male counterparts, it is no longer a nice thing and it looses it's meaning entirely. Would it not be more efficient for each gender to simply leave the seat as they just left it? This way the efficiency is more individualistic rather than collectivist. Men do not have to go through any unnecessary steps to please the opposite gender, and nor do women. Each individual person should be responsible for what they would like to do. While it may be more efficient for OTHER PEOPLE to cater to them, this is not necessary in most other parts of society. If you are sharing a place with non children, men are not expected to put toothpaste on the toothbrush for women, even though it might be more efficient for them if they were to do so. This still holds true even if the particular woman happens to brush her teeth far more than the man. Efficiency, at least in this regard, is an individual concern- it should be this way and stay this way.
Men should not be expected to put the toilet seat down for women.

There are several different arguments one could use to justify placing the toilet seat and lid in the closed position. For the purposes of my argument, I will combine the seat and lid into one entity – as it is impossibly to put down the lid without lowering the seat. The rational argument: There are several reasons that men should leave the toilet seat down in a shared bathroom. Toilets can often be unsanitary and even a properly flushed toilet can emit an odor. Closing the toilet seat reduces this odor and makes the area near the toilet more pleasant for everyone. Several items are often stored near the toilet in a residential home, books, soap, decorative items, and the like. The chance of these falling into an open toilet increases dramatically if people leave the seat and lid up. I have outlined two practical and realistic reasons that we should leave the toilet lid down. The courtesy argument: Often in polite society, it is required that members perform an action that is not in their best interests, but which we consider common courtesy. Such situations can include gestures as simple as holding the door for someone else, assisting someone who is over burdened in carrying some items, or asking polite questions about ones family and general health. While several of these ideas are throwbacks to the antiquated notion of chivalry the are no less part of our societal make up. Leaving the toilet seat down is just another simple act of friendship and courtesy. When it takes little effort and causes little inconvenience to please others then we should make the effort to do so. My opponent already admits that leaving the seat up is courteous. His contention then is that people should not expect courtesy, at least in this case. Why should we not expect others to act in a polite and courteous manner? I believe it is reasonable to expect that people conduct themselves in a courteous manner and that such behavior should be expected by society. The efficiency argument: "Men need it up, women need it down." This is the argument that is often made in defense of not closing the toilet lid. However, this is a misrepresentation of the truth. Men need it down to complete a bowel movement and up for a bladder movement, women need it down for both. Therefore, only one fourth of the time does the toilet seat need to be up and three fourths of the time it needs to be down. Assuming that members of both genders then it are using the bathroom in question with equal frequency is overall far more efficient to close the seat every time.
should juveniles be tried as adults

There are several major flaws with my opponent's first contention. For starters, juveniles are in fact capable of testifying in their own defense. It does not take life experience for someone to say "I'm innocent, here's why." In the case of true innocence, there should be no contention with a juvenile testifying. Second, while there is some room for error while on the stand, defendants are instructed by their lawyers pre-trial as to what to say; they are responsible only for framing their words. Lastly, this argument is largely not topical to today's debate. Because we must judge an action by its result, the manipulation of words during a testimony should be largely disregarded. Moving on to their second contention, which talks about how rehabilitation is more effective than a traditional trial. What we can see is that this is accurate for both juveniles and adults, which is why we must vote affirmative. How can a society deprive someone of rehabilitation and give it to another, just because of a one year age difference? Why should an eighteen year old be treated differently than a seventeen year old, even when their crimes are exactly the same? The answer is that they shouldn't. It is because of this that I urge a strong affirmative vote in the resolution that states Resolved: Juveniles should be tried as adults.
should juveniles be tried as adults

My first contention is that juveniles are not capable of meaningful participation in his or her defense. Even though youths may develop the capacity for understanding rights early in adolescence, it often takes additional time and life experiences before their capacity influences their actual understanding. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is different than understanding long consequences. For many juveniles, past experience with authority provides little reason for them to imagine that an adult in a professional role would take their side against other adults in a legal process. The primary goal of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate and treat, whereas the goal of the criminal system is to give punishment proportional to the crime. Therefor, my second contention is justice is better served by rehabilitation. Putting young offenders in adult prisons only leads to more crime, higher prison costs, and increased violence.
should juveniles be tried as adults

Because I believe that morality is found in the result of the action, and not in the intention, I affirm the resolution, Resolved: Juveniles should be tried as adults. I support this view with the following contentions. Contention One: We must judge morality of an action through its results. It is crucial to look at the end result of the action at hand as opposed to an intention. There is a reason that, say, martyr killings are still illegal and looked upon as wrong: even though someone may kill someone else in an effort to do something good, they have still caused hugely negative consequences that, on balance, make the action bad. Essentially, if I am intending to do something good but end up hurting someone, I did do something bad. Contention Two: The results of an adult offense and a juvenile offense are the same. A murder committed by a twelve year old, a murder committed by a seventeen year old, and a murder committed by a twenty two year old all end up with the same thing: a dead body and a distressed group of friends and family. Because I have already shown you that we must look at the result of an action to determine morality, and because the result of an offense committed by someone of any age is identical, we can see that there is no reason to give have a different justice system for juveniles. Because it is unnecessary and immoral to hold juveniles to a different standard than adults, even though the results of their offenses are the same, it is crucial to confirm that juveniles should be tried as adults.
should juveniles be tried as adults

My opponent has continued to drop the most important part of my argument: that morality must be evaluated through the result of an action as opposed to the intention or other factors. Because this is the case, we can't talk about the rights or privileges an adult holds. My opponent has agreed that juveniles know what they're doing is wrong. Further, they have said that seventeen year olds "probably should have adult trials." Voters, if this doesn't convince you, nothing will. Side with morality and vote for the affirmative.
should juveniles be tried as adults

Juveniles often don't follow directions therefore, they will get in trouble regardless of age. But that doesn't mean they don't know what they did was wrong. If there was a 17 year old in court yes he probably should be tried as an adult but does he have the right to buy tobacco, alcohol, or vote? So until the day he turns 18 he should be tried in the juvenile court because still then he doesn't have as much responsibility as if he were 18.
should juveniles be tried as adults

What my opponent fails to see is that we are almost definitely not talking about three year olds when we're referring to juveniles. Teenagers are more than capable of listening to their lawyers and defending themselves; that extra year between being seventeen and being eighteen does not contribute so much added life experience that they need a separate trial. You can use that same argument to address my opponent's second point. I am sixteen years old. If I murder my parents tonight, I would be tried as a juvenile. Do you really think that I would have a hard time remembering how I stabbed my mother? Of course not. This is simply illogical. Regardless of age, one will remember their crime based on the resulting emotion of the crime. What my opponent has yet to refute is that we must evaluate a crime based on the results of the crime. Because the result of a murder committed by a juvenile and one committed by an adult is identical, I urge an affirmative vote.
should juveniles be tried as adults

My first contention, juveniles may be able to defend themselves but are not completely familiar with how the law works and the consequences that comes with their actions. Therefore, having them tried as adults would result in a pointless case. My second contention, when the age factor comes into play in such situations as marriage, jobs, voting, etc., because we all know that the same cannot be expected from children as adults. if an adult comits a crime they will remember what they did throughout their sentence as to juveniles who often wonder what they did wrong throughout their sentence.
does the term, "survival of the fittest" apply to students in highschool

I will give a brief overview of the contentions and cases that I presented in the precious rounds:After Pro posted his first, and only argument, contending that the phrase "survival of the fittest" applies to social experiences in high schools, and possibly other institutions of secondary education, I rebutted his case by making the following contentions: "survival of the fittest" was created chiefly to describe a mechanism in the theory of evolution, and is synonymous with natural selection [as demonstrated by cited passages from "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication", in a piece written by Darwin himself], and that to use it to apply to "students in high school" would risk conflating that meaning. The implicaton is that by conflating definitions to suit areas outside of their intended designation, one risks generalizing specific meanings into general ones. The promotion of such conflation can lead to more misunderstandings of both the meaning, and even use, of the term. In my secondary argument, I also focused on Pro's ill-defined resolution and how, even by the literal definition of the phrase "survival of the fittest", cannot apply, since Pro failed to designate what type of student or even high school [private, public, magnet, charter, and so on]. All of this was uncontested by Pro, who forfeited two of the three rounds, thereby confining his arguments to his solitary post in the initial round, and giving me ample time to refute and question such claims. I advice Pro to at least set rules and standards, since I was easily able to give my own definitions and phrases, which, in a debate that centers more or less on semanatics, guarentees a victory for Con. In addition, since Pro allowed a character limit of eight thousand, he could have exploited it to write clearer, more fleshed out arguments. In fact, Pro could have contended the risk of conflating definitions and at least questioned the flexibility of word application. .. .As I have stated before in the debate, Pro should continue to debate and share his views, as well as communicating with the members of the community here. It is felicitous for him, as a new debater, to do so, and will be a rewarding experience. ..
National Socialism/Fascism is not the same as supremacism.

National Socialism and Fascism are not the same as white supremacism, or any supremacism in that matter. Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and any other NS/Fascist leader in history were not supremacists, they did not support supremacism either. The KKK are not really nazis/national socialists, they are nationalists yes but they are also supremacists. Everyone thinks nazism is only for the white man, but explain why the spanish had nazism, explain why the japanese had nazism, not really nazism but national imperialism. Explain why Hitler had asian, arab, white, black, and hispanic soldiers/allies. It is NOT supremacism.