BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxation should be abolished:

Re: German government having legal right to murder JewsTechnically, according to the German government, this was not murder, as murder is usually defined as the unlawful killing of one human by another human. It wasn't unfawful under German law. However, for nearly every other country out there, it was unlawful, so for international law, and the league of nations that existed during the time period between world war 1 and 2, it was unlawful. So, the Germans may have had legal right according to their own laws, but they didn't have legal right to kill Jews according to international law. Taxation has legal right both in national law and international law, thus it's not stealing. Similarly, it wouldn't be murder if Germany killing those Jews wasn't against international law. It would be killing, but it wouldn't be murder. Selling drugs to obtain funding for a militaryWell, it's just a claim that selling drugs would be able to afford the current military budget. Can selling drugs really lead to almost 600 billion dollars a year in revenue to pay for our military? Here's a source for the 600 Billion dollars that we almost spend on the military currently[5]Sources:[5] https://www.nationalpriorities.org...
Taxation should be abolished:

First of all, the German Government in the 1930's and 1940's had "legal right" to murder 12 million Jews, but this doesn't make it somehow not murder. Also we mus consider what defines legal right- what makes one government more legitimate than an other? Better yet, what makes any form of government legitimate at all?Just because the law says something doesn't mean it's right- the law used to say that enslaving black people was fine-but this didn't change the fact that it wasn't. Second of all, I am serious- we can host fundraisers and sell drugs, this is guarenteed to get enough money for a military.
Taxation should be abolished:

I already addressed both of these issues my opponent came up with in round 1, when I addressed potential counter-arguments. Nonetheless, I suppose I will address this again, with a different angle.Quotes from my opponent will be italicized. if 2 people decide to mug 1 person, is this somehoe not theft just because the majority says so?Alright, let's define theft. Theft is "The action or crime of stealing"[3] This may not be too helpful, as now we need the definition of steal. To steal is defined as "Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it:"[4] Thus the full definition of theft is "The action or cime of taking (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"I want to stress the "legal right" part of this. The government has legal right to tax us, as agreed upon by the law of our government which is created by representatives of the people. Thus, it's not theft for the government to tax us since the government has legal right to tax us. we can just make giant cookie factories and have the military work in them, then we can sell marine scout cookies with canibis in them and they'd make a lot of money off this.Are you being serious here? This doesn't sound serious, and I feel like this might be trolling now. Sources:[3] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Taxation should be abolished:

First of all, taxation is theft- and that the government is controlled by the majority doesn't change that- if 2 people decide to mug 1 person, is this somehoe not theft just because the majority says so? Second of all, the military and police can be funded through voluntary fund-raisers. With the military, for example, we can just make giant cookie factories and have the military work in them, then we can sell marine scout cookies with canibis in them and they'd make a lot of money off this. We can also raise funds by donations and whatnot.
Taxation should be abolished:

I'm not sure how the government is forcing us to use these services as my opponent says. It's up to everyone whether they use public roads, among other things. It may be hard not to use these products, but it's still possible if you were to, say, go live in the wilderness on your own. Part of being part of this society means paying for what we use and want. I would imagine almost everyone wants to have public roads and other services. Those who don't, well, they can go live somewhere else.
Taxation should be abolished:

First of all, the government is forcing us to use these "services," and so we do not have an oblegation to pay for it. We honestly don't need a government for any of this. We can privatize roads, the military, social security, and the police. The Italian Mafia can do all the policing in America for a price, and the military can be funded through donations or by selling cookies. Second of all, taxation isn't consentual- otherwise force wouldn't be necesary. It may be the will of the majority to impose taxes, but I refer to round 2- if 2 people decide to mug 1 person, it's still mugging, and those 2 muggers don't get to "consent" to mugging the 1, as they are not him.
Taxation should be abolished:

Morality of taxationA government is legitimate when it has consent of the governed. As long as the people are represented, it is a legitimate government.While taxation might be coercion, so is forcing someone to pay for a product you provide them. The government provides us with roads, a military, social seurity, and a myriad of other things. For us to use these things without paying for them would be the immoral thing, as this is stealing. This is why taxation is not theft as well, for if we just took these things from the government without paying for it, that would in itself be theft. The necessity of taxationAs I said I was going to do this round in comments, I was going to point out the other problem with relying on selling drugs for government revenue. It wouldn't be enough, even if we completely nationalized the drug trade. The total revenue for drugs being sold is around 400 billion[6], not quite enough to pay for our military. And that's assuming that the government will take on 100% of the drug market for themselves. Now, the problem with what my opponent is saying is this:People would be able to freeload off of the government's work. Suppose some people choose not to give funds to the government, then they get to have the military protect them for free, they get to use roads for free. This is stealing in and of itself, as they are using things that they didn't pay for. As for the mafia point, I think the argument I had against militias above stands. No country without a formal military was able to survive that long. Sources:[6] http://www.worldometers.info...
Women Have The Right To Abortion

I must stop you at your first couple of sentences. Specific rights. That "child" is not a human at all. Or at least not yet, but in the few weeks where it can be aborted, it is not a human. A right to live? Perhaps so, but the mother is in charge of keeping care of the "baby". You have excellent arguments, but they completely bore me. I apologise. A child itself doesn't have many rights to begin with, whether that child be a couple of months to 5 years old. It's still under its mother's care. Now, it's murder. Of course. "Killing" anything is murder. But "murder" is quite the strong term to something that really isn't considered human. I'm sure you have killed an ant or a fly before, correct? Would you call it "murder". Would you really consider it murder? If the mother cannot support the child, what can the mother do? Give birth to the child, then what? But, not to mention, a mother can die from giving birth. Remember that. Then the child can suffer without a mother. If the mother gives birth to a healthy child, they both can have emotional scarring. A mother gives up a child she could have loved but could not raise. But a child will not be raised by their own mother but a different, not biological mother.
Women Have The Right To Abortion

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic."The child has no specific right whatsoever, anyway, and because it is still a foetus, you cannot say that it is a complete human being."The child has no specific rights? It has the right to life, to be sure. That's one of those three guarantees in the U.S.'s Declaration of Independence, right next to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They're all unalienable rights, and cannot be denied to anyone. In any sense, fetushood is not a synonym for an "(in)complete human being" (which begs the question... can a person without arms be considered a complete human being?). It is, as Merriam-Webster calls it, "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born" (1). It is not only a human being after it is born, but before so as well. Thus, it is guaranteed those same rights to life."Is it murder? Well, hunting deer is murder. So what's the difference?"So, am I safe in saying that you do agree it's murder, then?Also, hunting deer is not murder. It's hunting. Murder is defined, again by Merriam-Webster, as "the crime of deliberately killing a person". If we really need to define person, M-W says a person is "a human being" (2, 3). Murder is murder is murder, whether it's an adult, an unborn child, a person who is brain dead and in a coma, or even a person without arms."If a woman does not want to have the child or she knows she cannot completely support it, she has the right to not give birth to a poor baby into such an awful life it MAY lead."That's an awful big "may" you put in there. I think you pretty much said it yourself-- there's no guarantee that these "poor" babies will be born into "such an awful life," especially if they're given up for adoption, which is always a viable option.There are some who believe that people who get pregnant should not be punished with a baby. It seems like that would be backwards... There's no reason for a child to be punished to death due to two people's mistake. They have been given the opportunity for life, and we cannot decide that they don't deserve it, for better or worse. If that were the case, we could abort every child based simply on the fact they might just have an awful life. That's obviously not a clear way of thinking. Life is not necessarily full of misery, pain, and suffering.I look forward to your response.1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Women Have The Right To Abortion

I believe women have the right to abort an unborn child. The child has no specific right whatsoever, anyway, and because it is still a foetus, you cannot say that it is a complete human being. Is it murder? Well, hunting deer is murder. So what's the difference? If a woman does not want to have the child or she knows she cannot completely support it, she has the right to not give birth to a poor baby into such an awful life it MAY lead.
Women Have The Right To Abortion

"That 'child' is not a human at all. Or at least not yet, but in the few weeks where it can be aborted, it is not a human."I just gave you a dictionary definition for proof. Where's yours?"A right to live? Perhaps so, but the mother is in charge of keeping care of the 'baby'."I think life takes precedent over inconveniencing the mother."You have excellent arguments, but they completely bore me. I apologise."Nice asinine response, there. Then why did you start a debate in the first place?"A child itself doesn't have many rights to begin with..."But it has the right to life (as you yourself admitted). That's what this debate's about. Nothing else matters here."I'm sure you have killed an ant or a fly before, correct? Would you call it 'murder'."No, because flies and ants aren't people like I explained last round."But 'murder' is quite the strong term to something that really isn't considered human."But fetuses are human. I showed you proof last round. You have one more round to prove me wrong."If the mother cannot support the child, what can the mother do? Give birth to the child, then what?"Cripes, you really didn't read my argument at all, did you? Adoption."(A) mother can die from giving birth. Remember that."You say that like it's a regular thing. One study found that .006 percent of all abortions are for the health of the mother. (1) I think we can make a fair but extremely rare exception for this blip on the abortion radar, as you can't have one without the other."(With adoption,) a mother gives up a child she could have loved but could not raise."Or the mother could just kill the child! That would solve her problems!"But a child will not be raised by their own mother but a different, not biological mother... (and) have emotional scarring."Adopted children do quite well, as the adoptive parents show great affection for their new child (2).___If my arguments are still boring you, you could just forfeit. Just sayin'.1. http://www.patheos.com...2. http://www.npr.org...
High School Service Learning Requirements Should Be Eliminated

Thanks for accepting, and I see your point. Sorry, I'm a bit new at this form of debate and neglected to provide a contention for solvency. The main problem I see with the system in the status-quo is that it is too vague as to what "service learning" is and what it is meant to accomplish. Students are often given a time sheet and told to use their own discretion in finding an activity. I believe that if the system becomes more centralized to focus on the purpose of service learning and provide more guidance and opportunities for service learning initiatives that service learning will be taken much more seriously as an enriching experience, rather than an obstacle. To respond to your second point, I find it somewhat insensible to believe that simply because someone would lie about their service learning that they would be completely useless as a service learning participant. Many people lie on their forms simply because the system is, again, too vague. This vagueness prevents a service learning participant to see the purpose of service learning and further see it as a useless endeavor.
High School Service Learning Requirements Should Be Eliminated

Although I understand the pro's argument, I think that it would be near impossible. The pro so far hasn't shown any ways that the plans could be reevaluated, and I truly cannot see a way that would force students to be more honest. In addition to this, I believe that the current system is effective. Anyone who would lie on their form wouldn't do an effective job volunteering even if they did. It is useless to expect those who don't care about service to provide adequate service, so why not just allow them to lie.
High School Service Learning Requirements Should Be Eliminated

In many high schools across America there is a service learning requirement for all students. This is often a condition for graduation and is meant to teach and encourage youth participation throughout the community. I understand the concept behind it, but I feel as if it has lost its meaning in today's schools. Many people simply lie about about the hours they clock in toward the project and those who don't lie about it do a project that has nothing to do with the community and therefore learn nothing from it. Many see it as nothing more than an obstacle rather than a learning experience, which is why I believe that this system should be re-evaluated to reflect today's changes in school social climate and made more relevant to both students and administrators alike.
High School Service Learning Requirements Should Be Eliminated

I am afraid I have to disagree. I do not think students lie on their form or don't volunteer because it is too vague. In fact, I think vagueness increases the number of people who volunteer. It allows people to choose outlets for their volunteering that interest them. This way they aren't forced to do something that they find uninteresting and boring. If the system forces people to do certain things, it would make it even HARDER to get all of their hours, and they would be more inclined to lie. The more possibilities for volunteering, the more volunteering will take place.
Creationism and Evolution

Full Resolution: Debates Between Creationism and Evolution Cannot Be Won and Therefore are not Necessary Rules: There will be 3 rounds. 1) Acceptance 2) Rebuttals 3) Cross Exam./Closing Argument The question of whether or not scientists should debate creationists is far from settled among those actively opposing creationist efforts. Though many support debates, many oppose them. In this debate, my opponent and I will decide whether or not these debates are necessary.
Creationism and Evolution

"In almost all cases, it makes no difference what is being debated for the debate to have value. "I would like ask if my opponent would give me the source of that. As he clearly stated, I showed that "there are negative agendas that can be associated with these debates. " In turn, I would like some reasons as to why my opponent believes his claim to be justifiable. "Regardless of the subject, I can find no time when questioning anything can be considered a negative thing. As for this specific case, regarding creationism versus evolution, I find no definitive contradiction between the two, and therefore believe that debating them is even more important. " "A debate does not need to be scientific to be beneficial. "That was not my point. My point was that creationism is not scientific yet evolution is. Therefore, we're not debating between two non scientific ideas. They are different. My opponent's main arguement seems to be that debating reinforces our beliefs. You cannot get yourself a ink jar in one hand and dice in the other hand and ask yourself, "which one is correct? " There are an infinite amount of interpretations and analyzing all of them would not just be time-wasting, it would be illogical; furthermore, I do not see how this debate can be seen as beneficial especially if lead by lead scientists. I believe there are actually many contradictions. [1]Similarly, my opponent agrees with my 13th point that preparation is time consuming (although he believes it is not a waste). Therefore, he agrees that preparation "distracts greatly from more important scientific work. " "To summarize my arguments:1) All debates should continue unopposed as nearly all hold some value.2) Creationism and evolution are not necessarily contradictory concepts and therefore require an infinite number of debates to potentially reconcile these major ideas.3) Those who are interested in exploring these concepts objectively will listen critically, and avoid certain debates outright.4) We do not need to stop debating this topic simply because there are those who are misguided or intend to misinform. "1) My opponent makes an empty claim.2) Creationism and Evolution are not contradictory. My point was that these two are uncomparable and spending any time arguing over it and building hatred towards the other side seems pointless.3) I did not understand my opponent's claim.4) So my opponent would be supporting the spread of lies and false education. I thank my opponent for participating in this debate with me. Sources:[1] . http://atheism.about.com...;
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

Evidence has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) . This value is derived from several different lines of evidence however i do not have to prove that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old i simply must prove that the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.P1. Radiometric age dating The oldest rocks which have been found date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago by several radiometric dating methods. Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia. These values alone do not excatly indicate an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age P2. The realiability of radiometric dating The atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable have a fixed decay over time by dischargeing particles at a fixed rate, transforming the material into a stable substance. For example, half the mass of carbon-14,(the hardest substance known to mankind)Is an unstable isotope of carbon, and decays into nitrogen-14 over a fixed time period.The regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials.With a high degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth. Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay to try and test the true accuracy of dateing by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay. Therefore we can all come to the conclusion that since P1 and P2 are valid and backed by evidence and science the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.Sources. http://tinyurl.com......http://tinyurl.com......http://tinyurl.com......http://en.wikipedia.org......;
In approximate 300 years, important natural resources should be finished

Note: - I shall remind Pro that the affirmative resolution is: “in approximate 300 years, important natural resources should be finished”, not “assuming the current state of affairs, in approximate 300 years, important natural resources should be finished”. A LOT can change in 300 years, maybe the human race will cease to exist for all we know. Thus, I suggest Pro attempts to argue for the his affirmative case so that I can have something to rebut. :)
In approximate 300 years, important natural resources should be finished

Well BOP can be shared, but I'll need to provide some proof anyways. Source 1 http://www.worldometers.info... This source shows the amount of water consumed in a day, which is 1.5 million liters, with 64000 liters demand increasing per year. It also says the world's population is growing by 80 million everyday, which would increase demand. In a time period of 300 years, the population should be a lot and freshwater is only roughly 3 percent of the world's total water. Desalination may be the alternative, but underground water will be finished if the current usage continues, which will turn the world into a desert with few plants able to grow. Also, desalination is a slow and inefficient process, which may not meet the demand for survival of the higher population of that time. Source 2 http://www.grida.no... This source shows the rise of population for food demand. Also, urbanization is declining agriculture in developing countries, meaning that there is more food demand and lesser people to produce the required food. By 300 years global warming itself is predicted to grow so much to allow certain crops not to grow, as winter may be extinct at that time. If the glaciers melt then they would cause enough damage to the world's resources. Source 3 https://www.ecotricity.co.uk... This source shows the increasing consumption of fossil fuels, which are predicted to finish in roughly 80 years if the current demand lasts. Fossil fuels take millions of years to be made, so there is no chance that this resource would be long-term. As I mentioned in round 1, resources like fossil fuels, drinkable water and food may be at shortage after 300 years. I await Con's counter arguments.