BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is justified to sterilize citizens with below average intelligence

CASE "why can't we just all get along" - Rodney King and because i agree that we should all be able to live together without having to turn to different meassures i rise to oppose the following resolution Resolved: It is justified to sterilize citizens with below average intelligence V:Justice VC:Kant's categorical imperative I agreee with all the affirmatives definitions I also agree with his standard for intelligencce cont. 1 - IQ's are not passed on from generation to generation A. how smart someone is is not encrypted into their d.n.a it is based soley on the fact of how much they learn as they grow up. cont 2- sterlizing citizens is against kants categorical imperative which is the only way to measure morality. A.kant describes his categorical imperative as a standard or law governing our behavior. a categorical imperative sees the act as good in itself and of nothing it produces. so a categorical imperative is true no matter what. AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS A.DISCURSIVE he stated that someone with below average IQ cannot properly take care of a child and i argue discursive because that is a HUGE steryotype, there was no proof backing this up, and you cannot pass personality traits by genes. possibly by actions but why sould someone just because they have a below average IQ score act differently B.IQ's being so low they will most likely be abusive this statement might prove that they have trouble coping with certain issues but it was proven that doctors and architects ahve a higher chance of committing suicide than a lower middle class person does. C. Lower crime it will not lower crime it will stay at hte exact same point because the IQ level will slowly rise and rise until they're sterilizing citizens with IQ's higher than Einstiens. D. Value his value is societal welfare but that could also fall under justice because it is justified to have a well being of a society in matters of health, safety, order, and economics E. Value Criterion Kant's categorical imperative is the only way to prove what is right and what is wrong and utilitarianism although it might be good for the greatest amount of people.. through the categorical imperative it is good for EVERYONE. Thank You
Classical Liberalism is More Effective Than Conservativsm

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Introduce and Expand on Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Counter-rebuttals/Conclusions NOTE: I am arguing for the more general Classical Liberalism, not the version specific only to the United States. My definitions of both worldviews are as follows: Liberalism- a political worldview founded on liberty and equality, usually supporting civil and human rights, private property, and a free market Conservatism- a political worldview advocating traditional and existing social institutions, usually supporting tradition, customary values, and social conformity Please be respectful and do not use offensive language or a personally insulting tone. Good luck to my opponent.
Classical Liberalism is More Effective Than Conservativsm

Religious Freedom RebuttalThere is a religious conservatism, to say that religious freedom is liberal ideology, would be a lie. Wikipedia says "Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws." http://en.wikipedia.org...; . Conservatives also support individual freedom, that individual freedom, is also religious beliefs. The government should not interfere with religious freedom, is another thing related to this topic. Now you know that it doesn't just apply to liberal ideology. The Military Rebuttal.What does trade, tradition, and social institutions have to do with this topic? Your rebuttal only mentions military budget once. I also explained about the advancement in technology in the military debate, some of the lesser form of the military technology could be sold to the public, or a foregin ally. which means an increase in trade. Many conservatives are in favor of keeping a well-maintained military budget.The Economy Rebuttal.Business is what makes capitalism run, and a big economy is beneficial, so many are in favor of that. Conservatives are the ones who support a limited government. Liberals support the idea that the people need to be dependent on the government. Conservatives (like I said) support individual freedom. Sources; http://cmerritt.hubpages.com......http://www.u-s-history.com......http://taxfoundation.org......http://www.conservatives.com...... http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.studentnewsdaily.com...
Classical Liberalism is More Effective Than Conservativsm

To clarify your earlier statement about my lack of sources, I am basing my arguments on logical reasoning. However, to avoid further conflict, I will cite sources for the remainder of the debate. Here are my rebuttals to your arguments: 1. The concept of freedom of religion is a liberal one. In fact, liberalism was the first political worldview to advocate religious freedom. The only requirement is that members of ALL religions are afforded the same rights. http://books.google.com... 2. Conservatism as a political philosophy does not necessarily entail an increase in military budget. In fact, it does not focus on any single political issue. Rather, conservatism is a political worldview advocating tradition and existing social institutions. Ronald Reagan, though he is undoubtedly an excellent example of a conservative leader, does not represent all of conservatism. http://www.britannica.com... 3. A conservative government does not necessarily mean a big economy, just as a liberal government does not mean increased welfare spending and taxation for corporations. Through liberalism places a high value on equality, it also advocates limited governments and individual rights. http://www.britannica.com...
Classical Liberalism is More Effective Than Conservativsm

My opponent has not used any sources to back up what he has said, keep that in mind, voters. Religious Liberties. Humanity enjoys taking a part in faith, or religion. Valuing religion, is important, and a key belief to support a strong foundation for human rights. A free exercise in a religion, is what makes people moral, and confident in their everyday life. The picture that I have posted above, basically sums the rest of it up. The government, cannot tell citizens of the U.S. who to believe in, or why their God is 'wrong'.The Military. The defense of a nation, is very important. By increasing the military budget, the safety of a nation, and its citizens, will. increase. A country with a well-funded military, can help advancement in technology, or other important researches. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the military budget went up by 43%, this helped with more troops, weapons, equipment, and a better intelligence program.The Economy. One big issue all over the world, is the economies of nations. A big economy, can help a long-term growth of a nation. A smaller economy, can keep a country in the dark for ages. Capitalism will bring long-term economic growth to any country. Another great idea that will help businesses, and an economy, is the cut of corporate taxes. A cut in corporate taxes will lead to better living standards, long-term economic growth, higher wages, lower tax burdens, lower corporate debt, and increase productivity, entrepreneurship, and investment. There are other things that can be cut, helping the economy of a nation. One, would be welfare. Cutting welfare out of the government spending can cause an immense increase in the growth of an economy. Lower job taxes, will help the homeless/poor people get back on their feet. At this stage, welfare is smaller, corporate taxes are smaller, and job taxes are smaller. This would help increase jobs, increase growth of the economy, and help businesses. Sources; http://cmerritt.hubpages.com...http://www.u-s-history.com...http://taxfoundation.org...http://www.conservatives.com...
Classical Liberalism is More Effective Than Conservativsm

Here are my fundamental premises/arguments: 1. The effectiveness of a political philosophy can be measured by the quality of life that a government employing that philosophy can provide it's citizens. 2. A government founded on liberal ideology, which supports civil liberties and limited government to protect the right of the individual, is more likely to be less restrictive on the activities of it's citizens, thereby allowing them more personal freedom. A conservative government will be more inclined to restrictive policies, as it is likely to support conformity and traditional values, which are often in conflict with personal freedom. A prime example of this is the ultra-conservative Islamic government of Saudi Arabia, in which Sharia law places immense restrictions on personal freedom. 3. My final and most important premise is based on the Darwinian principal that those who are the most adapted possess the best chance of survival (in this context, success). Conservative states, whose philosophy is inherently opposed to change, reform, and adaptation, will eventually fall behind more liberal nations whose policies will be tailored to suit modern society. The only constant in our world is change, and only those who can adapt to it will succeed. Conservatism is naturally in opposition to adaptation (it's defining principal is aversion to change), no matter how beneficial and rational that adaptation may be.
Religion is not the problem with the world, its the people in it!

Religion is a much needed "entity within society." People have said that religion is the main issue to our problems and that it is the ultimate war causer! People are the ultimate war causer and if its not on a religious base it is usually territorial or political. Actually, to be more exact, religion is used as an excuse to enter and intensify political and territorial wars! It is not the religion that is the problem it is people. People and their strong "opinions" cause wars. A corrupted view to be more exact. People will twist a religions ideologies in order to fit their view on the world and their cause or fight(war). Religion has helped many people in their relationships to just basic decision making. Whether you have "faith" or not is another question. However, catholicism and many religions are the biggest donaters and care-givers to society! Catholic charities entail the largest private network of social service organizations in the United States works to support families, reduce poverty, and build communities! In fact, it was Christians period who instilled the whole "charity" concept and food drives! MAIN POINT: Religion does not cause problems, it is people that use religion as an excuse to commit fraud or harm to others that are the problems, but if its not religion they are using it is philosophers and the internet! Furthermore, religions like Islam developed our customary numeral system we use today and Algebra, catholics and christians a like created the top hospitals in the world, developing the idea of a medicare or medicaid and reaching out to society and the poor more than anyone else!
the Clintons are the most corrupt politicians ever in the history of the US government

First, we must realize that all politicians are corrupt, the real question is who can get away with what? Second, when you type in any phrase about the most corrupt politicians in the history of the US, one would clearly see that few of the articles specify that the "Clinton's" are the most corrupt politicians in the history of the US but rather they state that there is little evidence to convict them of such a claim. Third, I will advocate that the Clinton's must be doing something right because Bill Clinton is help as one of the most prestigious men in the WORLD. He is second in the world as most favored politician amongst foreigners. Also, Hillary is currently a senator meaning that she must be doing something right as well. What you will all see in this debate, is that the Clinton's are NOT as corrupt as Solarman1969 states they are and I will advocate that there have been far more corrupt politicians in the past. Others will advocate that Nixon was the most corrupt politician in the history of the US but rather, he was one of the few who have ever gotten caught.
the Clintons are the most corrupt politicians ever in the history of the US government

Just do a google search on "Clinton Scandals" I challenge all you Clinton lover democrats to answer the 100s of REAL scandals, deaths and out and out felonies that were and are IGNORED by the lackey mainstream press I dont have a problem with any of the other democrats- just the Clintons For example (just a few) Vince Foster and Ron Brown WACO Ruby Ridge the FBI files on their opponents the China donors, the Lippo Group 1000s of illegal donors fleeing the country Selling our nuclear secrets to China for $$ (Loral and Schwartz) WAG the DOG- bombing every bridge on the danube Elian Gonzalez and many many others comon- kool aid drinkers - lets have at it - I love to eat liberals for lunch
The U.S. should privatize health insurance.

I regret to inform my opponents and anyone watching this debate that I can not continue. I am much busier in my life than I expected to me because of school, social life, debate etc. I am sorry, but I do not have the time to give a quality debate to my opponent at this time. I signed up for this tournament thinking it would only last for the summer when I would be a lot less busy and would have been able to give a quality debate. Once again I sincerely apologize. You deserved better. With that I concede all points to my opponent. Congratulations on winning the tournament. I watched your other rounds and you clearly deserve the title.
The U.S. should privatize health insurance.

This is the Finals of the Official August Beginner's Tournament. Greg and I have both come a long way, and throughout the tournament, our debating skills have grown, and it has been quite the experience. Let's make this as memorable as possible! Thank you to all!DefinitionsPrivatization: The transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector is termed privatization.Health Insurance: A type ofinsurance coverage that pays for medical and surgical expenses that are incurred by the insured. Health insurance can either reimburse the insured for expenses incurred from illness or injury or pay the care provider directly. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round; R1 is just for acceptance4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. The BOP is Shared; Pro must argue that the U.S. should privatize healthcare.9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
is school legalized slavery? (libertarian viewpoint)

If you are forced, by law, to attend school until yiu are 16 years of age, are you considered property of the government because they are making decisions based on your life? I understand you have no actual rights until you are 18 but that is also morally and ethically wrong because you are telling someone what to do for the first 16 years of your life. The government is impeding minors right to the pursuit of happiness.
is school legalized slavery? (libertarian viewpoint)

As it is uncertain whether my opponent will be joining me for the remainder of this debate I do not want to spend a disproportionate amount of time preparing an argument. As I will be taking on the Con position I will be arguing that school is not legalized slavery. Point one: All the state (in many western countries) requires is for children to receive an education, it does not specify whether they must attend an established school or be can be educated in their own homes. Attending school is not legalized slavery, but a choice whereby the legal guardians decide that that institution will be the best alternative for their child(ren) Point two: Children do not have the mental capacity to determine what is in their best long term interests Point three Attending school is for the sole benefit of the child attending. All educational infrastructure is devoted for the benefit of the child. Although it takes the child"s time to attend school, this time is for their own development. A slave on the other hand would be spending time unrewarded for the primary benefit and financial development of someone else. Point Four: Government is not impeding minor"s right to the pursuit of happiness, but legislating to ensure that children obtain an education to greatly increase the chance of obtaining happiness and fulfilling lives. Without legislated school, children are often kept to work in small businesses by their families and their right to an adequate education is ignored by their primary caregivers. School is like SO not legalized slavery
The Judeo-Christian God is a good foundation for moral values and duties

Okay, let us begin. I would like to point out to voters that both of us are assuming the Judeo-Christian God exists in this debate. My first point about why Yahweh is a good arbiter of morality and ethics concerns the grounding of moraity. The Judeo-Christian God, as an essentially perfect being, can arbitrate objective moral truths in a way that other conceptions of God or an atheistic world-view cannot. By objective moral truths, I mean statements that are binding whether or not you agree with them. Statements like "murdering someone is wrong". That is a good moral statement, but how do we assert it as objective without God as the foundation of that truth? My answer is that this is impossible, and that moral duties and values must rely, ultimately, upon God. My second point is that without God, we cannot really expect people to abide by society's morals all the time because there is no sound foundation for them. Without such a foundation, they will lie or commit minor offenses against society because there are no solid boundaries for personal behavior.
Resolved: That anonymity should be granted to all people merely accused of a crime

After my opponent has accepted, I will give my arguments and we will have a 3-round debate as per usual. I believe the resolution largely speaks for itself. I will, however, give two definitions and one caveat that define the terms and boundaries of the debate, to avoid possible confusion about what I'm proposing and what I expect my opponent to oppose. 1) "Merely accused" = the status of every alleged criminal and defendant in a court case, before they have been convicted and actually found guilty of the crime in question. This covers the period after the allegation has been made to the police, right up to the moment that the judge/jury declares the person to be guilty of the crime. If they are found not guilty, then their anonymity should remain indefinitely (pending whatever re-trials may or may not take place). 2) "Anonymity" = That no information be released into the public domain about the accused that would enable someone to identify them as the accused. This includes (but would not be limited to) the person's name, address, date of birth, picture or relation to the alleged victim. This does not include such generic information as: "Police have arrested a 25-year-old male". This ban on the publication of information extends to police information, media reports and "public gossip" (e. g. Facebook/Twitter allegations). Any such publication of information contrary to the above would be treated as interfering in a police investigation/contempt of court, and punished accordingly. All of the aforementioned withheld information can of course be used during the trial itself, but such information should not be released to the general public before such a time that the person may or may not be found guilty. 3) Caveat: if someone skips bail and fails to turn up for court on their due date, then (if possible) the trial should go ahead without them. If they're found not guilty, the anonymity still applies; if they're found guilty, then as per my proposition their anonymity will be dropped to find and arrest them. If for whatever reason the trial judge determines that the trial cannot go on without the accused present, then anonymity can also be dropped in this circumstance, to allow the police to publicise their attempt to find and capture the accused. In this circumstance, the accused has forfeited his right to privacy by clearly and unequivocally breaking the law - by virtue of not turning up to court, he is in contempt of court and already guilty of that crime; and it is the nature of publicising information about someone's contempt of court that details of the original trial be made public. In this case, anonymity need not (and should not) apply. If there are any more questions, concerns, points of clarification or issues of general confusion that people wish to raise, I ask that you do so in the comments section, before accepting this debate and potentially derailing the debate as a whole. Thank you.
AOW Debate (Shattered World, Game IV)

This is a war debate. It is based off of my scenario Shattered . I will be playing as the Republic of California. These are the rules: 1. If you choose to accept this debate, tell the name of your country, and tell the numbers of your armed forces for things like vehicles (aircraft, ships, tanks, armored cars), men, missiles, and hackers (Yes, certain countries have the ability to do cyberwarfare). You can not play as the Republic of California or the Vatican City. You can play as any country except the ones that are dead (USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, the UK, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, China, Australia and Russia) 2. If you need information on a country tell me in the Comment section. Wikipedia is allowed to be used for military units. 3. You do not have to choose the countries I present, they merely represent the countries that broken up. 4. You do not have to declare war on my nation as soon as possible, for you could conquer any nation. 5. Please listen to the Geneva Convention, if you do not there will be major consequences. Here is a link to the Geneva Convention: http://www.redcross.org............... This also includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. 6. If this AOW Debate takes more time then 5 rounds, it will be extended to another debate. Link to new countries: http://mapgame.wikia.com............(Countries) 1) Military Force: Tanks: 1,768 AFVs: 8,032 SPGs: 386 Active Soldiers: 280,000 Reserve Soldiers: 220,000 Manpower: 20,300,000 Reaching Military Age Annually: 152,000 Total Aircraft: 2,688 Fighters: 460 Fixed Wing Attack Aircraft: 576 Helicopters: 1,216 Attack Helicopters: 191 Aircraft Carrier: 2 Frigates: 1 Destroyers: 12 Submarines: 15 Coastal Defense: 207 2) Political State Disputes: None Alliances: WENAA (Dialogue Partner) (The UN has collapsed) Wars: None 3) Economy Defense Budget: 116.2 Billion USD Debt: 1.374 Trillion USD Reserves of Foreign exchange in Gold: 26.2 Billion USD GDP nominal: 2.615 Trillion USD Current Account Balance: 261.52 Billion USD I hope you will accept this debate.