BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
government should implement a 'fat tax'

This was one of the first debates I ever did. Let's see if my arguments still hold up.I. Cross-Examination"the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes."This argument is completely irrational. First off, if we are going to go taxing people for having obesity-related diseases, then why not tax people with diabetes or someone who has cancer? After all, they are increasing health care costs. "my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends."First off, Pro's understanding is irrelevant, She should support her argument here. An argument that is not supported by evidence can be digarded without evidence.Second, Slippery slope argument being made. Simply because over-eaters would have to pay a tax does not directly mean that they will eat less or be less sedentary.Finally, I'm not sure Pro even knows what a fat tax is. A fat tax is a tax on fatty foods, it's not a tax that is taken from overwheight individuals. Regardless, her arguments for the latter were pretty bad.II. Closing remarksPro seems to just spout out unsupported claims and use fallicious arguments. Perhaps if she understood what a fat tax was, she may have had some better arguments.
government should implement a 'fat tax'

the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes. my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends. could make an exception for medically known reasons for being over weight. i might agree with making the tax contingent on taking any government benefits, i'm not sure. probably along the idea of the 'obama care penalty' logic, i'd tax all who are fat, cause everyone needs health care at some point, especially notably those who are fat.
Teachers should not be allowed to contact students through social media.

I believe my opponent has conceded this debate. By stating that professional pages could be monitored and that students and teachers could use them, my opponent disagrees with the resolution. The first two paragraphs my opponent posted in Round 4 basically state that social media could be used for good. Personal pages was never brought up until this round, which, in my opinion, is not applicable to the debate (also, my Twitter argument stands; students could follow teachers without teachers following students). My point on abuse (which was brought up by Pro) was dropped. My point for Twitter, concerning personal pages not being a requirement for teachers to follow students was dropped. My opponent provides no proof for personal pages not being monitored (seeing as on Twitter, personal pages can be viewed by everyone, unless they are private). In conclusion, there are times where social media can be a benefit outside of the classroom. It provides an opportunity for students to ask for additional help and receive further classroom information. This can all be done, in fact, without the teachers having any access to the students' personal information and lives. Thanks for reading and voting.
Teachers should not be allowed to contact students through social media.

Yes there could be separate pages that teachers and students can use, but I am talking about personal pages that are being used for this sort of thing. Professional pages are monitored, whereas personal pages are not ( at least not that I know of). It would be harder to get away with things that are inappropriate when using a page that could be monitored. I think that student/teachers social media relationship should be banned. They can talk in class and there is not reason to contact out of school, unless on a field trip or something of that nature.
Teachers should not be allowed to contact students through social media.

To begin, my points stating that several of the examples were due to texting, and not social media, were dropped. Those arguments are extended. Pro goes on to state that when a teacher and student are friends on social media, situations can spiral out of control. This neglects my point stating that there can be contact without teachers being a student's social media friend. For example, there could be a Facebook class page, where homework and information is posted. Likewise, there could be a Twitter page that the students follow to understand what is happening in the class. My opponent fails to explain how reporting this abuse is bad. By this logic, it is better for the abuse to continue than have it reported. Yes, it would probably be difficult and end up being quite an awkward situation, but it would ultimately have a positive impact on the student. Pro states that there needs to be stricter laws, but gives no proof for why. The only law that my opponent should agree with is a law banning all student/teacher contact through social media. If there are simply limitations, the resolution is not fulfilled. Teachers could still be able to contact students through social media without having access to their personal lives. With this, my arguments still stand that this contact should remain in place, especially in a world so concentrated on technological advancement and a generation that revolves around non-personal contact.
Teachers should not be allowed to contact students through social media.

When a teacher and a student are "friends" on a social media site things can get out of hand quickly as I stated before. If they are friends on the site then the teacher can see anything that they post in the site. As i stated before this can lead to problems because then they are legally obligated to report suspected abuse. This could be a bad thing because if it turns out to be nothing at all then the teacher may have ruined the chance to go on and teach that particular student. This could also lead to the students home life being turned upside down. There need to be stricter laws as to what teachers and students are allowed to do online.
Teachers should not be allowed to contact students through social media.

My opponent begins stating that there is a downside to this social media contact by referencing two different tech-related scandals. These arguments, however, are not quite the same seeing as they both were due to texts, and not through social media. Texting, a private ordeal that is (for most occasions) between just two people, is far different from the publicly viewed social media sites that are seen today. They go on to state that "things can get out of hand very quickly" and that there needs "to be boundaries of what can and cannot be done online." This may be true, but with these boundaries in place social media can be a place of educational advancement and supplement. Boundaries could be as simple as - Social Media Contact is restricted to public Twitter Tweets, where everyone is able to see them. Furthermore, this argument that teachers "can see everything they post on the site" may be true, but only if the student friends the teacher from their personal page. It is quite easy to set up a second page that the student could use strictly for academic purposes. In fact, there are several schools that have already implemented this, using Twitter to send out reminders to students' secondary Twitter pages telling them about tests and homework. Likewise, Twitter does not require that the teacher follow the student. If students follow the classroom page, contact can be achieved without any personal information being released to the teacher in question. This can be beneficial, as well as a form of contact that has progressed with the advancement of technology [1]. Addressing my opponent's point on abuse. I fail to see how this would be a bad thing; it may be difficult for the teacher to do, or the student in that case, but addressing abuse and fixing the problem would be a better outcome than the continuation of the abuse. The next couple of paragraphs address the outrageous increase in inappropriate contact between teachers and students, while blaming social media for this. Yes, technology has proven to show an increase in accessibility, yet this is not a reason to block it off completely. For example, the police officer that looked through the phone is quite lucky that texting between the student and teacher existed (once again, not social media). Had we cut off contact through social media, the camping trip could have been planned through word of mouth; something that may have gone unnoticed. I agree that things need to stay on a professional level, but there is no reason that things aren't able to remain at this status with the inclusion of social media. It is a format of instantaneous contact that can push information to the students in a matter of seconds. It is an ever-expanding industry, and one that many students are extremely comfortable with. It is communication that, if adhered to the boundaries, can be safe and effective. Sources: [1] - http://www.nytimes.com...
Fiasco of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

In fact, the UDHR is not a legally binding document. It therfore may not impose either positive or negative obligations to members states and individuals. Although it may exercise pressure on governments that violate them, it may not sanction them, since there is no Court for Human Rights, which could control human rights implementation. Furthermore, there often appear conflicts of law when some provisions of the national law contradict the UDHR. For instance, death penalty is still legal in some US states as well as in some Muslim countries, though the UDHR declares every human is endowed with the right to life. Thus, I'm firmly convinced that there is a limit to human rights implementation.
Fiasco of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I am for the contention that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is not a useless document. The UDHR plays an essential part in making peace and order in the society. Although many countries have subsections that vary among themselves, the UDHR is a firm basis of virtually every law that is written in different law books. Without the UDHR, there wouldn't be any strong basis of order and justice to start with. Also, the UDHR, as every law purports to do, is a legitimate source of human protection. Without the declaration of rights, people would be oppressing each other, killing and abusing one another, wreaking havoc to society and total chaos will emerge. The UDHR eliminates this type of phenomenon, although it cannot utterly suppress the potential chaos that is bound to befall, the declaration of rights could, in the uttermost, lessen it. The UDHR is not useless. By that, I affirm the resolution.
The Historicity of Jesus Christ as a real Historical figure is valid and sound.

The whole reason I can't accept the fact Jesus existed is because there is no evidence from the time he supposedly lived. Any so called "evidence" for Jesus comes from way after his supposed life time or from people hundreds of year later looking back. The first biblical "proof" came 20 years after his death, there is no way that the first Biblical writings can come 20 years after his death. Many people also consider Josephus evidence. Again though I don't consider him valid; Jesus was said to have died in the year 33. However, Josephus was born in the year of 37, he would have never had any eye witness of Jesus. Perhaps most important is that no Roman Census ever mentioned a Jesus Christ.
The Historicity of Jesus Christ as a real Historical figure is valid and sound.

I propose that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure [whether he was the messiah or not] and that there is more than enough evidence to accept this as fact. I believe that extreme bias has caused this to be looked at with more scrutiny than is necessary. First round will be acceptance only. The only rule is that I will not accept any arguments from Zeitgeist because there are no respected scholars who agree with any of the claims made within.
Abortion

By doing this we are ignoring the right to life though. If this is a potential human being or a human being (some sources, not all) then this is murder. Regardless of a woman's right to choose her body does not supersede the law. Nothing I have posted is irrelevant, we'll see how your conduct and your lack of professionalism gets you when the debate is voted on. A word to the wise, it will not benefit you. Allowing women to access abortion on demand because its their right means that they will use it as contraception. That destroys the concept of the sanctity of life. The preciousness and validity of life is no longer the same when it can be ended easily. The fetus is apart of her body though. She is no longer responsible for just herself. For example behavior during pregnancy such as severe alcoholism can impact the baby. Clearly, it's no longer just her own body and it is debatable how far her rights to end the life inside her go. So therefore the father and his wishes do not matter ? This is infringing on his paternal rights. The mother has agreed to birth the child but withdraws the decision in favour of an abortion but the father still wants the child. So just tell him his child is going to be terminated ? It does not work like that. Woman's rights and choice have to be subject before the law just as the rights of the father will. A woman does not have the automatic ability to have an abortion whenever she wants. I would like to thank in advance all the people who will read and vote on the winner of this debate. I sincerely hope that you recognize who argued the points better and had better conduct throughout. I appreciate it.
Abortion

I have made the same argument 3 times now, and instead of responding to it, you have ignored it and posted irrelevant drivel. Here is the argument one last time for you: A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body. If she doesn't want to let a fetus use it to live, she has that right. If she doesn't want to donate a kidney to someone who is dying, she has that right. It's not that the fetus' wants, wishes, etc. don't matter, it's that the fetus needs the body of the woman to survive. It doesn't need the body of the father to survive. It needs the body of the mother. Therefore, the decision is up to the mother, not the father or the fetus. Let's see if you can actually respond to this argument this time rather than posting irrelevant information, all of which I have debunked.
Abortion

Does it give you any more right to say that they should die ? Point refuted. This is my point all the sources disagree. Therefore we cannot make a presumption without full proof. If the scientific community cannot agree on when human life actually starts how can we actually give the right to end a life ? If multiple sources confirm that human life begins at conception then abortion is technically murder. However many sources will disagree and therefore it is termination of a not-yet-a-human entity. How can we invest full power into the rights of a woman if potentially it includes murder as according to some sources, but not all. There is difference between the conscious choice of humans and the potential breakdowns of vehicles. Anyway that was not the main part of the argument. The main part was if a conscious decision results in the formation of life why should it be punished ? The analogy should go if two people decided to drive and got into a car crash why should a nearby bystander be punished ? Who has the right though ? The mother has the right to decide what to do with her body. What about the father ? If they consensually decide to have a child which impregnates her as a result and she changes her mind and wants an abortion does she automatically get the right to terminate the father's potential child ? Or does her rights get decided by the court before she can end another man's child. What about paternal rights ?
Abortion

It is irrelevant that both are living. Is a tree a human? It lives too. What about an ant? Being a living organism does NOT mean you are human. That argument is debunked. Moreover, Just because you have sources that say a fetus is a human does not mean a fetus is considered a human. I can find plenty of sources to claim a fetus is not a human. Here is a source for you: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org.... There are obviously MANY more sources claiming this as well. If a fetus is a human: why don"t they issue conception certificates? why do they go to an OB/GYN for medical care instead of a pediatrician? why is no one (I shouldn"t speak too soon) suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions? The list of questions goes on. HOWEVER, AS I STATED BEFORE, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT A FETUS IS HUMAN. As I stated, a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body. In your example, "An almost fully grown baby still requires the mother to survive." This is UNTRUE. An almost full grown body does NOT need the mother's body to survive. It may need a caretaker, although it could be easily argued that some babies could feasibly care for themselves, but it doesn't need a specific person's body to survive. Your argument is debunked. As for your argument about having to deal with the consequences of actions, say are driving to work. By your logic, you accept all responsibility of driving, including the possibility of accidents. Now, you get into a horrible accident and require a trip to the hospital in order to survive. Your logic states that you should not be allowed to the hospital because you "accepted the responsibility of driving." Again, your argument is debunked. Your last argument is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT; however, although abortion may have deprived the world of a "great person," it may have also deprived the world of a Hitler as well. Argument debunked again.
Abortion

Both are living though. The fetus is alive and so is a human. In fact like I previously mentioned their is various definitions of when a fetus is actually considered a human life. Keith Leon Moore is a professor emeritus in the division of anatomy, in the Faculty of Surgery, at the University of Toronto who defined the formation of the new cell: "Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." He believes that fertilization is the process in which a human being is created. Whilst in the stage of an embroyo it is still a human being. I suppose that the exact time of conception will be difficult to prove. The moment a baby comes out of the mother everyone knows the exact time and date. It would be near impossible to keep tabs on the moment the sperm fertilized the egg. Just because a caterpillar is not a butterfly mean it has any less rights or chance to live ? If the end result is something beautiful and alive then why should it be considered any less of just because it is a caterpillar ? At what point does it stop becoming her body though. When a developing human is growing insider her, or a potential to become a human is it still her own body ? An almost fully grown baby still requires the mother to survive. This is very much the point of the reproductive system. I see no similarities between the rights of a child/fetus and of the kidney situation. The mother most likely (except in some circumstances like incest or rape but this about everyone woman's right) made the consensual decision to have sex and therefore was aware of the consequences of the choice she made and her partner as well. If as a result, intentionally or unintentionally a baby is growing inside of her why should the potential for life be punished ? If the potential for a unique human being is killed then we have deprived the world of a great person. Sources: https://www.princeton.edu...
Abortion

There is a MAJOR difference between "life" and "human life." A fetus is alive, but it is not a human. I'll ask you a simple question: if human life were to start before birth, then why is age counted from the start of birth, rather than from the start of pregnancy? Moreover, just because a fetus BECOMES a human doesn't mean that it IS a human. A caterpillar BECOMES a butterfly, but it is not yet a butterfly. A baby BECOMES an adult, but it is not yet an adult. A fetus BECOMES a human, but it is not yet a human. It is a fetus. However, EVEN IF you falsely assume that a fetus is human (which it's not), abortion is STILL to be allowed. As the topic states, it comes back to the argument of "A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body." The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
Abortion

First of all we need to get one of the most important points of this controversial issue out of the way, when does life actually start ? At what point does the life inside of a woman actually become considered a human and therefore a woman is no longer just dealing with her own body ? Whilst this is highly disputed and there is no one scientific answer many, including those not even religious believe that life begins at conception. When a sperm fertilizes an egg there is a whole new entity then created inside the mother. This new cell will soon develop into a foetus and continue its development until it becomes a human being. This concept is represented best in the following statement: "At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens" (When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004) Therefore if many experts believe that life begins at fertilization or conflicting opinions make it impossible for science to find an answer we cannot fully know when life actually begins. To then give the power to have an abortion when there is no positive way of telling if it is a living being is potentially dangerous. I will let my opponent refute and give his own arguments before continuing with my own. . http://www.justfactsdaily.com... . http://www.justthefacts.org...
Crime and mental health are linked

It was found that the major mental health disorders that are found in prison populations are depression, anxiety or drug addicts. However, every single person in the world has the chance to fall into any of these three disorders. No one is born with a drug problem, no one is born with depression or anxiety. So, it is not exactly reliable to base their actions on the fact that they are suffering from these. They could still think straight and they are still behind the crime regardless.
Crime and mental health are linked

Whether the blame is placed on the offender's mental health or for other issues does not matter all that much. In reality it all leads back to some sort of mental issue, even if it only had a mild influence on the crime that was committed. Crimes are committed because of disagreements and an inability to control frustration, anger and even fear. A perfectly healthy mindset would weigh up the reasons before committing a crime, whereas mental issues can influence the decision in a different way.