BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Violence can be prevented

Let me start off the arguments. Human beings has a reason and moral. However, they can not prevent violence. Therefore, the prevention of violence is a difficult problem to deal with. We must keep in mind that violence in society is triggered by a number of factors. In my opinion they contribute to preventing serious violence which develops into crimes resulting in serious injuries or death of human beings. John, Monahan(Psychologist and professor of school of law at University of Virginia) points out three main cause of violence. They are(1) biological, (2)sociological and (3)psychological causes. There are many biological factors which can be nominated as candidates for causes of violence. He says that ``hormones like testosterone, transmitters in the brain like serotonin, and blood abnormalities like hypoglycemia are only a few that have been mentioned. Biological factors do not have to be hereditary. They could be caused by a head injury, poor nuitrition, or environmental events, such as exposure to lead paint. ``(. http://www.sodahead.com...) According to the studies by the National Academy of Sciences, biological factors like hereditary does not necessarily trigger human violence. The important thing is that a violence has something to do with the kinds of food which he or she takes, disease and the environment in which he or she lives. Second is sociological causes. Firstly, it depends on where he or she lives. For example, ``within America, violence is subject to great regional variation. The murder rate, for example, is almost twice as high in the South as it is in the Northeast, but the robbery rate is almost twice as high in the Northeast as it is in the South. ``(. http://www.sodahead.com...) Moreover, ``the smaller the community, the lower the rate of violence. Within the same city, some neighborhoods have rates of violent crime 300times higher than other neighborhoods. ``(. http://www.sodahead.com...) For example, in the big city like New York of the U. S. people come together not only from every part of the country but from many parts of the world. In urban areas community which bonds people deeply from cultural and social perspective does not function. The opportunity to promote dialog among menbers of the community is deprived. Therfore, seeds of violence are always grown. I continue my arguments further in round 3. I am looking forward to reading arguments in round 2 by Con.
Resolved: A vegan diet is superior to low carbohydrate diets.

Resolved: A vegan diet is superior to low carbohydrate diets.Now I would like some clarifications:1. I know that veganism isn't mutually exclusive with low carbohydrate diets. That isn't the point, we are talking about a typical fruit(quite a lot of carbs) and vegetable filled diet.2. I also understand that many people oppose vegan on emotional and ethical issues. I am okay with ethical arguments but emotional arguments are not allowed in this debate. I have specified so in the rules.3. I understand I use low carbohydrate diets non-specifically but I will not attempt to argue a multitude of different diets, I will stick to a standard low carbohydrate diet, I am only using the plural term in order to indicate that there are many types of low carbohydrate diets.Rules:- No lawyering,trolling or disrespectful remarks- Burden of Proof is shared-No direct plagiarism(copying and pasting without sourcing or acknowledging it isn't your work)-Structure must be adhered too.- No pathos arguments(emotional)Structure(very important):Round 1: Con explains Rules, Pro 1st argumentRound 2: Con's 1st Argument, Pro RebuttesRound 3: Con rebuttes, Pro Closing RemarksRound 4: Con Closing Remarks, Pro does not make any more arguments.
it's time to repeal our antiquated anti-slavery laws.

I am incredibly short on time and I apologize so this FF will be brief. What we have to see here is simply that Americans value our moral principles that we uphold today. While the words of the declaration mean something different 200 years ago to people, they yet again mean something different to us as well. Now my opponent says we are doing these people in Africa a favor by bringing them over because we are saving them from the cold nights and hunger but we can see that in no sense is that the case. We saw all last century almost every African country attempting to declare their own independence. Those weren't a small group of people, it was all of them. Currently it's not like we aren't doing much to help those people there as well. I guess it all depends on the person, but personally and I hope many agree, I would rather die of starvation then live my life getting beaten, watching my mother and sister being raped, and my father killed. I'm sure that over 1 billion Africans would agree with me on that. The United States and any country for that matter should hold morality above all else. We want to live by each other's happiness not misery, through that life can free and beautiful. But slavery isn't that, it's greed and it poisons our souls. Without kindness and our brotherhood we are nothing. We only imprison these people and we aren't helping them by treating them like they are less than us? I don't know what's worse the fact that we can think so much about our economy and competing with these unnatural countries who hold sweat shops. Men, woman, children being told how to live and think? Through that we feel so little. Or could it be worse that we can't compete and instead of being a world super economy we are a country who is developed and yet believes in the same morals we were taught as children? Perhaps that's the question voters really need to decide. Thank you for this debate.
it's time to repeal our antiquated anti-slavery laws.

I will find this to be an interesting topic to debate. I am going to offer the following observation; The con concedes the obvious economic benefits by enslaving an entire race but the United States (and every developed western country) value human dignity over economic benefits. Thus by showing that it's morally wrong and that the bible can not be used in the context of this debate I believe a negative ballot is in hand. I support this stance with the following contentions 1) Slavery is the most immoral thing humanity has perhaps ever done A) Human Rights Abuses I will start by citing the entire "UN Declaration of Human Rights" that the United States signed in 1948. We violate literally all 31 articles in the process of enslaving an entire race. Rape, murder, and physical assault on these people will be constant and our country becomes out of touch with humanity. Millions of these abysses will occur on a daily basis, you're a sick bastard for even proposing such a ridiculous topic. B) Morality>Economy We, as in the United States, should not value our economy more than the basic human liberties that our country was built off of, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN, were created equally." When those words were written they were in the midst of distress and in danger of losing the lives of not just themselves but the ones they cared about most. Thus it holds infinite more weight than your supposed economic benefits. 2) The Bible I'm not even going to give a structured response to this because quite frankly you don't understand the first amendment obviously. I'm sure the only one you pay attention to is the second... Nonetheless I know for a fact that it says there is to be a clear separation of church and state. Since you're talking about a policy you can't propose the bible as you're source for affirming slavery. I believe my opponent is joking because the stance he is taking is so immoral and if he's going to cite the Bible he should probably uphold all of the basic human rights that the bible says we should protect. I took this debate not even to win but to hopefully show my opponent how ridiculous he sounds and that he is plain and simple wrong. Thus I urge a con ballot in today's debate. Thank You.
4b. Campaign Finance Reform

A campaign lives and dies by money and it's getting worse and worse every election cycle. When money is more important than votes, we find that anybody we need to elect is going to be far more indebted to the money than the people. The current system is a legal nightmare, a joke, and an albatross around the necks of everybody in politics. I don't know what the solutions to the problems are, but I do know that the problems are not going to be solved by doing nothing. We need to reform the system because the current system is categorically broken. 1) Politicians are indebted to the money. 2) The superwealthy rather than the most qualified can most easily seek office. 3) To comply with the current system you need an army of lawyers. 4) The 3rd party candidates cannot afford an army of lawyers and thus are forbade. 5) The rules are seemingly random and makeshift as to what is an isn't acceptable. 6) Campaign rules at present violate freedom of speech dictating what is and isn't acceptable. 7) Regardless if somebody opts into campaign finance they are buried by the 527s and are hamstrung by the rules and unable to fight back. 8) The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent. We need to find a way to remove money from the equation without limiting free speech or making it a requirement to hire an army of lawyers, shutting out third-party voices and insulating incumbents from the will of the people. The money in politics must be removed, not half-socialized, if you want and agree to jump through certain hoops, only to be buried by a quasi-independent group's 24/7 attack ads with bottomless funds and vile lies. We need something better than the best politician money can buy. There are a good number of proposals to draw from, from clean money to state funded elections as to how we remove money from having a greater input to our democracy than the people. -- We need Campaign Finance Reform.
Businesses Should Be Able To Deny Service To Anyone They See Fit

Part 2 ( This is here so I can keep track where I am. ) Reason I didn't go for your argument is because Second Round - Arguments Moving on ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason it takes away freedoms of others is simple. - This law could be used as a blank card for Discrimination. How so? It gives people the right to deny people service due to " Personal Reasons ". Whether its hate against people of different Ethnic back round, sexuality, gender, etc. Denying someone the ability to shop is denying happiness and income. The car : You have already closed a deal, you can let him know instead of forcing yourself to sell him the car. If he demands proof, your friend is coming to your location. I would rather not be able to shop somewhere due to who I am or personal reasons then denying someone else the ability to shop/ be happy. Yes, I jumped onto the Homosexual wagon, but it can easily be placed with Blacks, Jewish, and other " Undesirables/ Minorities ". Are you generalizing that all Religious men are against Homosexuality? Unless you are Referring to west baptist church. Which do not have much popularity in the first place. I suggest them to cook, since the west baptist church are more likely to help approve Gay Marriage then to do anything against it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Final Statement This is just a step towards apartheid. Giving individuals the ability to turn people away for Personal Reasons is likely to be abused, and bad for business. Since getting Labeled Racist and such is not good when you do turn people away, but they misunderstood it. Lets not take a step towards apartheid. Vote con? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Side note : Anyone know how to bold letters, underline, etc? New to this.
Businesses Should Be Able To Deny Service To Anyone They See Fit

Imagine this, an entire Corporation now has the ability to turn away Homosexuals because " It is against my Religious Practice " of the owner of the company. Another Imagine. There is a open homosexual in a small town, a rather religious homophobic town as well. Now he can't shop at any of the town stores since they can turn him away, and stores that do sell to him within this small town receive feed back from the homophobic population. Now he is forced to drive out of town to buy stuff, and possibly be turned away, or to move. ( Or they find out, or blamed as such. ) This is what this is, Legal private discrimination. This does not come down to what color people's shoes are. This gives businesses the Ability to refuse selling to anyone they do not like. This can include. - Homosexuals - The Jewish - People of different Back round - People of different wealth, such as poor to Rich - People with Different Political Standings. - People with different ethnicity - Disabled The List can go on. Civil Rights act of 1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; " Discriminatory practices under these laws also include: harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age; retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices; employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities, or based on myths or assumptions about an individual's genetic information; and denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group. " Laws are already against Discrimination. So how about we don't legalize it under the title of " Freedom " when it is the Freedom to take away the Freedom of others. Sources http://www.eeoc.gov... common sense
Women cross DMZ never talk about human rights issues of North Korea

The militarized situation in Korea is bad for all Koreans. Regimes on both sides use the threat as justification for repressing human rights. For example, South Koreans are subject to heavy censorship (1) and there are severe political restrictions on North Koreans. (2)Christine Ahn argues that North Koreans have every reason to fear the US, and that the human rights abuses are directly related to the military threat experienced by North Koreans. (3)War would be disastrous, and the military build up is bad. The only other option is demilitarization.(1) http://www.economist.com...(2) http://www.hrw.org...;(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
The Bible predicts history in advance

You continue to hold to the idea that vaguely written words somehow predict specific events. I say the faithful simply fill in the blanks. This isn't anything new or unusual and has been well studied by behavioral scientists. http://www.scientificamerican.com... In fact, we earthlings tend to believe in all kinds of interesting fairy tails: 60% believe in the devil 42% believe in ghosts 32% believe in UFOs 26% believe in astrology 23% believe in witches 20% believe in reincarnation http://www.harrisinteractive.com... The bible isn't the only written text that proclaims such predictive capacity. Authors such as Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus made the same claims. Put simply, if you write enough text in vague enough terms, you will indeed eventually "predict" (sarcasm) the future. To address my opponents specific claims: Your first paragraph speaks again about iron and clay. I refer again to my rebuttal C3 in round 2 which wasn't addressed at all. Specifically the wording of the text clearly implies Daniel refers to the clay as brittle. Rome as the fourth empire. I guess chapter two, the story of the statue isn't working for you so you've decided to take up chapter 8, the goat and some broken toes. My original C1 rebuttal in round 2 still stands: vague words left for the faithful to fill in blanks. The fact that you say the EU might be one of the ten kingdoms proves my case regarding postdiction: you are simply filling in facts as history plays out. Then and only then can we say what was actually predicted. I wonder which toe the United States is? Probably a big toe :) In closing, making a claim as strong as written text predicting the future requires more than interpretation of vague terms left to ones imagination, especially when readers want to believe.
The Bible predicts history in advance

You asked how Daniel was talking about bulletproof vests. He described the strength of the first nation as using gold, the second nation using silver for their strength, bronze for the third nation's strength, and iron for the strength of the fourth nation. Since he was describing the metal the nation used as their source of strength, why would the feet with iron and clay be the only exception? As to my insistence that Rome is the 4th empire, he claims that the only way to reconcile the ten toes with Rome being the 4th nation is assuming that ten nations would grow in the Consummation. Here's the problem in his logic: The Bible assures us that if we suffer with Christ, we shall also reign with Him. Last time I checked, there were more than ten people who suffered with Christ. Another problem is that God doesn't WANT to take our power from us, yet Daniel says one horn is broken off and four inferior kings took his place. Sounds like what happened to Greece, right? As for the ten kingdoms, there's the European Union that could be this kingdom. Anyone who wants to may read Daniel 8: 15-27. This section is all about the interpretation of Daniel's dream. Compare what Daniel says to what history says.
The Bible predicts history in advance

I thank Instigator for this opportunity to debate the bible's predictive capability. Instigator claims that the bible "predicts history in advance". This is interesting since history is in the past - even I can "predict" history in that sense. Fun aside, I find the burden of proof on Instigator to show that this bible predicting power exists. Simply believing something does not make it true. I believe this is all an example of postdiction, where history is made to fit after the fact. Instigator has given Daniel 2:31-41 as proof the bible predicts the future, with the following claims: C1: Predicted the "fourth empire", Rome C2: Predicted the importance of iron as Rome's strength C3: Predicted the use of clay as a tool of war C1 Being that Rome has a well known association with iron, it conveniently becomes the fourth empire. Daniels text is vague and, in fact, doesn't mention ANY empire by name. Even religious scholars debate whether the fourth empire was Greece or Rome: http://www.danielprophecy.com... C2 Instigator says iron was "pretty much top secret" and yet Daniel knew enough to write the words "as strong as iron". We have a metal that was new and stronger than anything before it. No surprise Daniel used that for his fourth empire. C3 This contention is patently false. The text given: As the feet were made with both iron and clay, so will the nation be partly strong and partly brittle. is clearly calling clay brittle not strong, so makes no prediction about strength or war. Also, in what way does this text "predict" bullet proof vests? Instigator has clearly gone on a postdiction binge here.
The Bible predicts history in advance

Daniel 2:31-41 Daniel: You looked, O king, and saw a large statue. The head was made of pure gold, it's arms and chest of silver, it's belly and thighs of brass, it's legs of iron, it's feet of partly iron and partly of clay. As you watched, a rock of super natural origin struck the statue on the feet of iron mixed with clay. The feet were destroyed, but the rock of supernatural origin became a mountain that filled the Earth. This was the dream, and now I will interpret it to you, king. You, king (of Babylon), are the king of kings. God gave you great dominion. However, a kingdom will take over, even though it is inferior to you. (Meade and Persia). Next, a third kingdom will rule over Earth (Greece). Finally, a fourth kingdom as strong as iron will rule. (Rome). Just as you saw that the feet and toes were part clay and part iron, so this will be a divided kingdom, yet will have some of the strength of iron, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. As the feet were made with both iron and clay, so will the nation be partly strong and partly brittle. The people will not mix, just as iron won't mix with clay. Daniel is talking to the king of mighty Babylon. Meade and Persia were well known, as was Greece. However, Rome was just a speck on the wall. How could Daniel have known that Rome would conquer the world? Another point to consider is this: Daniel could have known the source of Babylon's strength was gold. That would be pretty obvious. If he did his research, he could also know Meade and Persia used a lot of silver. Bronze instruments were very common in his time. However, how could Daniel have not only known that Rome, a little speck on the map, would conquer almost the entire world? Not only that, but iron swords weren't common in his day because people back then didn't know how to make swords out of iron that would stand the stress of battle. A few people, such as the Phillistines, knew the secret, but this gave them a huge edge, so it was pretty much top secret. Also, how could Daniel have seen the use of CLAY as a tool of war, rather than as a building block? It would seem almost impossible... except for the fact that a lot of bullet-proof vests use tile to help stop bullets. How could someone in ancient Babylon have known about bullet-proof vests?
The act of docking a non-working dog's tail should not be legal

Rebuttals: 1)"The dog"s tail is crucial for communication and agility".What if a dog had to run away from a threat such as another dog? It"s tail could save it"s life." In this case, we are talking about domesticated dogs. Domesticated dogs are very rarely put in a case where they are running away from another dog, and if so, this is because of the owner. The owner should then be looked at, not the process if docking the dog"s tail. A domesticated dog, (see citation 1) means that the dog is domesticated, which means that the animal is tamed and kept as a pet or on a farm. Which in my previous argument I proved that tail-docking helped farm dogs. Pet dogs should be closely watched, then they wouldn"t be in a chase situation. Plus, some of the most aggressive and agile dogs, like the pit bull, have docked tails. 2) "They [dogs] are generally not given anesthetics to numb the pain of tail-docking" Maybe you should be arguing that anesthetics should be required before tail-docking.This is the fault of the owner, and/or the vet, not the fault of the process. 3) Docking a dog"s tail right, in my opinion means offering anesthetics first. (Because this wasn"t clear in my previous statement. This being said, docking a dog"s tail for cosmetic purposes/ "so it looks nicer" would not harm the dog, if the tail-docking process was done right. (See previous definition of right.) And on top of that tail-docking is the owner"s decision. Citations: 1: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...