BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. Government Ought Not Sell the UnaBomber's Possessions

Alright, to start off, both of my opponent's points are derived from the deontological philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Note that Kant's beliefs are not universally accepted as morally correct, nor did they have any bearing upon the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution relies on utilitarian principles (which directly contradicts Kant), and the philosophy of John Locke. I will demonstrate that, a) the resolution adheres to the principles upon which our Constitution was formed, and b) the resolution does not contradict the U.S. Constitution. First, my opponent's case: A) Kant's first formulation dictates that the maxim to be universally applied is "an action paired with its motivation". [1] Therefore, I hold the maxim in question to be: "A criminal's possessions ought to be sold in order to provide civilly rewarded restitution to said criminal's victims". This is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution, and under the moral philosophies on which it is based. My opponent argues that the maxim violates the First Amendment, which I'll address later. B) Kant's second formulation, firstly, has no ground in this debate, as it is not reflected in the U.S. Constitution, nor is it the widely accepted basis for all morality. Secondly, the Unabomber used many persons as means to an obscure and fanatical end. Thus, by refusing justice to the victims, they are further treated as means. Essentially, if the second formulation were applied in the manner my opponent proposes, the involuntary imprisonment of rapists and murderers would be morally incorrect, and ought to be discontinues. First Amendment: The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, I fail to see how the sale of the Unabomber's writings violates this basic right. My own case: As previously stated, the Constitution, the basis for United States law, is based on Locke's philosophy. This includes social contract theory, which essentially states: as a function of being subject to the protections of a state, one's life and possessions are made forfeit to the state in consequence of violation of the law. Thus, the Unabomber's actions leave any and all of his possessions forfeit to the state. The United States has rightly determined that, given the Unabomber's lack of funds, his possessions should be sold in order to compensate his victims, who are well deserving of restitution. I'll explain any unclear points in the next round. Thanks for posting. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The U.S. Government Ought Not Sell the UnaBomber's Possessions

I'll quickly analyze what Con said before going on to my case. Con claims that he doesn't need to support the sale of the Unabomber's writings. However, the Unabomber kept journals. How are these any different than a television or furniture? His writings are definitely part of his possessions. Con says that he must support the sale of material possessions - diaries, diagrams, and writings are all material possessions. With that said, I will examine a decision to sell the Unabomber's possessions without permission through Kant's Categorical Imperative. The Imperative basically states: 1) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. 2) Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end. 3) Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. Or more simply: 1) Act how you wish everyone would act. 2) Never use humans as a tool to achieve something; always treat people as the end result. Try to improve this end result. 3) Only act in ways that would comply with the end. Selling the Unabomber's possessions without his permission would definitely be immoral for the U.S. government. We are not focusing on what 'must' be done or what is done - rather, what 'should' be done. Also, we are examining the morality such a decision without permission from the Unabomber. A) Conflict with the First Maxim -Selling the Unabomber's possessions includes confiscating and selling his writings. If the government were to sell his possessions, they would have to universalize this standard. That is - they would will it be that all criminals' possessions be confiscated and sold regardless of their wishes. Such actions would conflict with First Amendment privileges, which prevent the government from "abridging [their] freedom of speech". Writings, which are a part of speech, are protected under this amendment. Confiscating them in order to raise money is an encroachment on this right. B) Conflict with the Second Maxim -Selling the Unabomber's possessions reduces him as a means to an end. We would be disregarding his personal rights and wishes in order to raise money. The bomber is not treated as an end in any way. Alright - that's the Pro case. I look forward to the rest of this debate!
Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected.

I am in favor of gun rights for law abiding citizens. The constitution of the United States protects our right to carry firearms. Citizens of the US should be allowed to own and carry guns, for the following reasons: a) A situation where the government is armed and the people are not can lead to frightening abuses of power. b) Criminals will obtain guns whether they are legal or not. If guns were illegal, criminals would know this, and take advantage of unarmed civilians. finally, and most importantly, c) The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land."
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

I do agree completely that athletes put many stress on their bodies between workouts. But those are only physical things. Which would impact their ability and physical education. Although one could argue that a member of a club such as mock trial could be mentally tired or stressed from there work as well. Which would impact there ability to function well in an academic class. This is just another problem of where would it be ok to draw the line. If a line is drawn one side or another will be angry. The best is to leave things as are. This will create no animosity between any sides of the argument on whether student athletes should have to attend physical education or not.
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

I don't believe the only reason an athlete could have that extra free time just because the time management. All that stress and work can put a stress toll on the body. Athletes are not opting out of a class, they still have all their classes, plus any other extracirrcular activities they may particpate in. I understand that drama students have play rehersals and such every day but they don't endore the workouts that athletes put their bodies through everyday. Like you said before, extracirrcular activities of any sort are privilege. I don't think their could be a line drawn without causing problems from both sides.
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

Some students are not athletically inclined but may excel in other areas. If a high school student was told they did not have to take physical education because they are an athlete because the time commitment could one argue a drama student should have the same opportunities? They practice multiple days week and have performances which can be the equivalent of a game. Should a student who participates in academic clubs or organizations be able to opt out of taking a class? Would it be fair to say that a drama student should not have to participate in a fine arts course? That is the problem with taking student athletes out of physical education. Once you start with them where is it fair to draw the line?
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

I can see where you are coming from when you say students may feel left out but I believe that it can be avoided. Here at Mount there is a no cut policy. For those who choose not to particpate in a sport, they can be active in gym class. If you choose to particpate in a sport, you are gifted with the opportunity to take a free period to do work. Student athletes are not given special treatment, the students have a choice.
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

I do agree that managing ones time is very challenging as a high school athlete. In addition I believe an athlete should not use that as an excuse for not doing homework. This could create animosity between student athletes and non student athletes. It may seem to others as though the athletes are getting special treatment. Making students feel left out because they are not athletically gifted may not go over very well. Lastly as nice as it would be for one to not have to participate in any physical activity that is not the case in all colleges. Some colleges do have a physical education requirement. Like all other high school classes physical education is just preparing the student for the world of college academia.
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

Although being a student athlete is a privilege, its also very time consuming. It's not easy at times to keep up with school work, and other issues you may be having at that very time in your life. Having that extra free period could help decrease the amount of stress a person has. Most student athlete's are good at time management, but with the extra free it could help. I understand that gym class could help set examples for students that don't particpate in varsity sports but there are more people that can set examples than just the athletes. In college you have much more free time than you do in high school. If we don't have to particpate in gym class in college, I don't believe it should be required in for athlete's to take.
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

To be able to participate in sports is a privilege not a right. It is called a student athlete for a reason. The word student comes before athlete. Studies for school come before being an athlete. A student should not participate in athletic activities if they are unable to meet the prior demands of their academics. As nice as it would be for athletes to have that extra free period instead of physical education that should not be necessary. If one is unable to handle the world of high school academia and the demands of a varsity sport how can someone expect them to be able to handle college courses along with sports which are much more demanding. Gym classes need to the student athletes to serve as roll models for the class. They are the ones who will know what to do and can be there to help their classmates. While helping their classmates these students will be able to develop leadership skills that will help them for the rest of their lives. Student athletes may not have these opportunities without taking physical education.
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

High School Athletes should not have to take gym class. Athletes at the varsity level are practicing everyday for multiple hours. These student athletes should have that 50 minutes to do homework and or catch up on work that they have missed. Most athletes in high school are looking to get a scholarship in college to play their sport. In order to do so their grades need to be very high. Gym class can take a lot of effort in order to get an A. Usually games are after school and if they tried really hard in gym class they might not be able to preform up to potential in the game. Gym class is just to keep kids active during the school day, athletes are already active every day for multiple hours.
High School Athletes should have to take Physical Education

Gym class teaches students how to be physically fit and how to make choices to stay that way. Where as a sport will teach an athlete to be physically fit but may not teach them to stay that way for life. Also being an athlete is a privilege so all though it would be nice to have an extra study hall it is not necessary. Student athletes should know what they are signing up for. The academics are what is supposed to come first because without the academics one would not be able to be a student athlete. In addition to these things gym class is a welcome break for a day that is otherwise filled with academic work.
Do Native Americans Have The Right To Claim Areas As Their Sacred Land

Once again, Black people experience the outcomes of a period of slavery of their people, such as poverty, racism, discrimination, and police brutality, but Black Americans living today, did not experience being enslaved. A lot of people's ancestors have been enslaved at one point or another. Some of mine were most likely enslaved by Romans. It is true that the slavery of Africans in the new world has caused great social and economic inequality that lasts until this day, but the actual and direct experience of slavery is a much worse fate than what Black Americans go through now. Racism has gone from common and being morally acceptable to being a taboo and those who practice it are often ostracized (though it is still a problem). Plus, Black Americans do get reparations. They get them in the form of affirmative action and diversity quotas and the like. This is more helpful then simply giving them money. This helps them long term get a job or an education. But this debate isn't about Black Americans. This is about Native Americans. Native Americans also get reparations in the form of Affirmative Action and such. Same as Black Americans and other minorities. Natives do not need their land back, they have reservations given to them because we claimed their land. They have affirmative action as reparations. The current generation of Americans does not owe anything to Native Americans. Instead, we simply feel sympathy with Natives due to the things they experience as a result of the actions of the colonists in the past. That is why we support Affirmative Action and such for these groups that faced past grievances and oppression. Not because we are morally obligated to because we personally drove them off, but because we feel sympathy. In summary, Native Americans attempting to reclaim lost land would result in logistical nightmares from them claiming a suburban area that was built on top of their tribe site. And enforcing a payment on Americans living there is unjust. These Americans did not drive their ancestors off, if they were at the time they would have opposed it, and they are now unknowingly occupying this land. It would be an injustice to suddenly come up and say "Hey this is our land buddy, gotta pay up". I close my argument by saying that Natives do not need to reclaim their ancestors land for the following reasons: 1.) Reservations were given to the tribes because their land was taken. 2)Affirmative Action greatly helps minorities to achieve in a White majority America. 3.)Native Americans can easily assimilate (if they want) into mainstream American culture whilst still keeping their heritage and traditions. 4.) Logistical nightmare of dealing with the displacement of Modern Americans who greatly respect Natives but do not wish to have to pay them a tax to live there or be displaced due to the actions of their bigoted ancestors. Thank you for this debate
Looking for a Challenge.

I look forward to this debate - it should be interesting, whatever happens! Without further ado, here are my three topics. Clarificatory definitions are added as bullet points under each topic. 1) Schools (and colleges, universities etc.) should not use written examinations as a form of student assessment. I would be PRO in this debate. A "written examination" is one, broadly speaking, in which students are expected to sit in an exam hall and write answers to one/multiple questions within a set period of time, usually 2-3 hours. This includes both closed book and open book exams. Alternatives may include individual coursework, group projects, continual teacher assessment, and/or an assessed discussion with the teacher about the subject (as happens already in foreign language speaking exams). 2) The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote, rather than by an electoral college. I would be PRO in this debate. This should be fairly self-explanatory. The number of votes cast for each Presidential candidate would be added up across the whole United States, with the winner simply being the candidate who received the most votes. 3) We, as individuals, have a moral duty to give a significant amount of our income to charity. I would be PRO in this debate. The phrase "significant amount" is left intentionally vague so as not to get bogged down in specific percentages, and to focus on the "moral duty" part. Different people would feel able, and be able, to give different amounts anyway, so it seems pointless to set a specific amount. It lies somewhere in between giving a fiver every now and again, and giving so much that you impoverish yourself. If anything isn't clear enough, feel free to ask in the comments section. Good luck!
Looking for a Challenge.

Greetings all, I'm looking for a challenge, and I ask only that the contender provide three reasonably controversial topics that s/he would be willing to debate. I would, of course, prefer that they be clean, but they don't necessarily have to be serious. In the first round, my opponent will introduce the three topics and I will select one in the second round. The second round will initiate our debate. As a note, my opponent does not have to be con, depending on the issue. I have merely accepted the "pro stance" due to the fact that I have started the debate and am eager to commence. Thanks for reading and may we have an enjoyable debate!
It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

Okay well first off, you obviously mean in the grand scheme of things that winning or losing, who gives a $#^K. It's pointless, should be above competition a this point, winning or losing is just a stroke fest, et cetera. Well oh the irony because I bet you can't wait to win this (which I'm rooting for you!) Win/Loss doesn't matter to atoms or the sun or the galaxy or even to George Carlin. Most competition is more spectating than anything. People betting or rooting for their favorite team. But that's my main argument; winning or losing doesn't matter, but for the human mind, of course it does! It's a developmental thing. It's psychological. For humans, win/loss can make or brake you. On another it's-important-to-human level is that thank athiesm for winning because without it, our history would be $#^Ked. Again the Universe, doesn't give a $#^k even if it could, but I bet it matters to you even if you won't admit it that your glad the Nazi's lost lol. I'm glad the Allies won.
are tv shows better than movies

TV shows are most definitely better than movies because of content. one movie per year in a series would have a MAX time of 2 hours and 30 minutes while a TV show that has one season per year would add up to about double of what the movie would be. also, the wait in between movies is about a 10 month period just to watch a 2 hour movie when you can wait 8 months to watch 10 episodes of a TV show.
are tv shows better than movies

I love being able to sit down on some days and just be able to watch several movies. movies are so much better than tv shows because TV shows end and a lot end with cliffhangers then they make you wait till the nest episode. movies do just about everything. they have Christmas specials and Halloween specials and comedies and horror and drama and sometimes a movie as it all. I just think that movies are better because you can sit down, relax and watch some of your favorite movies with a proper ending.
WW3 Happening

"Many conflicts have turned into war."This just a sweeping generalisation. No examples, No historical evidence, No causal correlation whatsoever. This argument barely holds any contesting points, at best it currently sits at 0 on the relevant scale.My opponent have failed to uphold her Burden of proof that is to proof that WW3 is happening. Instead she came up with Q & A which is surprisingly enjoyable, lol. Thanks anyway.
WW3 Happening

Thanks for having Q & A with the president, anyone got questions?"But what about the Middle East and Syria?"Syria isn't a war...uhhh(impersonating obama) ....uhhh it's just a...civil war that happen to be under the... uhhh... international spotlight. =I was just playing around with Q and A haha, I hope you don't mind lol.=I wouldn't classify terorrism as a world war, as it basically revolves around guerilla warfare. World war involves huge scale battles, the one in the middle east is just small scale harassment day by day.Thank you.
WW3 Happening

A prelude to war hardly means anything. Like I said Samantha. Ukraine and Russia are hardly representative to a world war scenario. If I was to take your argument, that means I'd have to regard every conflict in history, from the Chechnya rebels to the Romans as world wars. It would then degenerate into world war 9 million of which makes absolutely no sense. Thus, that argument is unsound. Thanks Samantha.
WW3 Happening

A prelude to a world war hardly means anything. We are bounded by the UN, that of which prevents nation states from going rogue. Sure, major powers such as China,Russia and the US are gearing towards that direction but all of them agree that diplomacy is the path to success. China has its economics as its politics, Russia with its nationalistic vendetta and the US with its globalization material. All of which doesn't prove that there will be a ww3. Thanks
Programming competition

Here you can see my AI square off against his. Mine plays black, his plays white:. http://lynkd.co.nz...Voting Instructions1. Open the URL (. http://lynkd.co.nz...)2. Thrill as both AIs finish their game3. Vote in this debate for whoever's AI won (if white wins, vote for my opponent, if black vote for me)Thank you so much in advance for everyone who takes a moment to vote on this! Final NotesFor fun, here you can see mine playing white and his black: . http://lynkd.co.nz...You can also play a game yourself against my AI at . http://lynkd.co.nz... . It's not that strong but it's fun anyway. My AI exposes its thinking to the ja vascript console in browsers that support that for web workers, telling you what moves it is anticipating to come next and how much it is liking its current position with every move.