BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Utopia

Appeal to Ridicule in the end, Argument from Fallacy in the entire post. The first is obvious so let me explain the second. First though, let me try to remove the fallacy in the first place. The first part of my argument where I seem to argue about why it doesn't or can't exist is actually me giving some background to why it would be a waste of precious materials to try and maintain one. By doing that, I establish that a Utopia would be bad because it would be wasteful. And since ever.one has to be happy, who knows what you might have to do? I would be mad if my dad bought (this wouldn't ever happen) a Lamborghini Aventador but I wanted a Tesla Roadster. How would you fix that? Now to show why you made a fallacy. Basically, you made a conclusion that my conclusion is fallacious because I had a so-called fallacy. While you look at my material, you spread bits of the "fallacy" everywhere making everything fallacious (think of spreading mud everywhere). Now for argument. In a utopia, it would require that all material and emotional desires are granted. This would, in turn, make people unhappy when it is established that you can't marry your best friend's wife or husband, or that you can't go to Pluto for your birthday tomorrow. When provided with an illusion of infinite happiness, humans would try to test the boundaries, only to find that there is no infinite happiness, which would create a revolt against the government because the society would believe the gov. was lying and tricking them. As we all know, that doesn't end well. I will save a lot of my argument as I am realizing I did too much last time. Here's a little extra portion: When you make an argument to analogy, you create a small fallacy. First of all, it is almost an ad hominem, second, you chose a bad analogy. You chose to compare knowledge to knowing utopia is hard or impossible to achieve, but you state the application (aka wisdom) as whether or not it is a good thing. The two do not have an applicational correlation. Here is a table that shows the analogy. A is knowing B is not C X is not putting B in Y Here is your statement. R(asmit) knows U(topia) is not P(ossible) R forgets not putting it in Y(Salad) Therefore, R(asmit) does not have X(wisdom) That is ad hominem and creates a faulty analogy. I would recommend looking up how a perfect argumental analogy works to understand my point.
Utopia

My opponent's arguments are great, but they just aren't perfect...pun intended. Before I jump into responses I want to first get back to the most important part of this debate: That we are debating whether a Utopia is good or bad, not so whether it exist or is doable by the world right now. (1) Now in the first paragraph Rasmit agreed to the definition that a Utopia is the ideological version of our society with perfect order and complete happiness, however he goes on to talk about how the current status of this world is competitive/greedy, basically the Hunger Games. In other words that there is no perfect Utopia right now. My response: Straw man's Fallacy. This argument isn't related to what we are talking about as I stated earlier. I agreed and still agree that the current world is and could never reach a Utopia, but that is not the debate, as that has nothing to do with whether a completed Utopia is good or bad. Therefore the argument of whether it is achievable should be dismissed. Rasmit even acknowledges this when he says "it seems like I changed the Subject" -Rasmit. He later states that Utopia's are unmanageable and so this new argument is on topic and applies to this debate and therefore Utopias are bad, however he never made the connection how in this perfect world (Utopia) how bad things would arise, rather he returns back to how corroded our current world is and how our current situation wouldn't allow for the creation and maintenance of a Utopia. Again this is not our debate. This leads us to the second section/paragraph response: (2) Basically here Rasmit states how Utopia's in our modern world couldn't be managed and he gives the examples of Minecraft, Einstein as a farmer (which I thought was awesome! Although I would like to point out that the definition of Utopia is perfect happiness not making everyone farmers ;), and St. Thomas More/FreeMarketAmerica. While these examples complete the task to show that Utopia's are hard to reach in the modern world, it is still avoiding our debate to whether Utopias as defined and agreed to are the perfect order and happiness of society. This means that in a real Utopia there is no problem with management and all are satisfied (so no greedy competition is warranted). The Utopia even though far, is what we all strive to achieve. The Utopia's perfect happiness and order is certainly a wonderful thing for all of us to reach for to make our imperfect world a better place. In the end as the Paraprosdokian goes: "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad" Rasmit talks about the tomato as a fruit which I agree (Utopias are hard/impossible to archive in our current world), but the debate is, as Rasmit forgets, about the fruit salad (whether a Utopia, to be achieved, is a good thing).
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve Foreign Policy Objectives

I haven't received word from skookie about the above forfeit, so I will reinforce some of the impacts I brought up in R1. The entire negative case and rebuttal have been dropped, so those arguments can be extended through the flow. The analysis I provide in this round concerns links into the value criteria of preservation of life. 1) Aff link to VC of Preservation of Life You can look at the analysis under my second contention, which shows you that affirming ultimately leads to the loss of far more life by limiting the diplomatic toolboxes of nations to war or diplomacy. Semelin '07 showed that for dictators to commit genocides or massacres, they have to believe that they can get away with it. When countries are unable to go to war, they are forced to rely on just diplomacy. Let's face the facts - receiving an angry letter signed by the world really will not stop genocidal operators. It will only succeed if the nation in question is willing to open up and discuss the issue. The Britt card under my criterion shows us that the best way for a nation to value life is to actively protect it, and affirming severely limits the capability of the world to do so. When the only active step a nation can take to stop dictatorial regimes is war we see a vast increase in deaths because war, ipso facto, involves governments sending soldiers into war, some of whom will die, and many of whom will cause collateral damage. 2) Sanctions will constantly self-correct Lopez '07 provides the warrant, Shagabutdinova and Berejikian provide the model, and Hovi provides the empirics. Sanctions, much like any tactic, will always improve as nations learn exactly what factors make them successful and what factors contribute to failure. Over time we have learned that inconsistent application (Burma - we sanctioned a few mines and a pineapple juice company...) or targeting necessities (Iraq - food and medicine) are incredibly inefficient methods that can have tremendous human cost. We have also learned that sanctions of banks, luxuries, and travel can be incredibly effective at pressuring the elites. Lopez tells us that we are constantly learning from our mistakes and successes. Shagabutdinova and Berejikian performed a logit-ordered regression to examine the correlation between the implementation of smart sanctions and and predict that they are far more effective than traditional sanctions. Hovi confirmed this correlation with an analysis of sanctions policies that have actually been implemented. Thus, negating allows us to further hone our sanctions capabilities and increase our ability to preserve life. Remember, the negative burden is to show that countries ought to have the ability to use sanctions, not that they are compelled to levy them at every given opportunity.
Abortion is morally wrong

Classing an unborn foetus as a human being is a common argument from the anti-abortion movement. I have always found it to be somewhat emotionally driven but then that is understandable. You asked "at what point will the fetus be full developed?" If there are no complications during pregnancy and labour, a human being will be born regardless of what stage in the pregnancy you refer to. I therefore ask you, what is the significance of a foetus being developed or not? Because it resembles a person? Forgive me for being so crude but every time a fertile man has an orgasm and doesn"t impregnate a woman, is he being immoral? His semen contains millions of living beings with the potential of creating at least one human being. If you approach this objectively, there is no difference between a fertilised egg in a healthy woman and a foetus at 8 weeks because time is constant, the outcome is still the same, a baby is born. Equally, is it immoral for a woman not to have as many children as she can in her lifetime, denying her eggs the ability to harbour new life? Is that like killing a child? No, it clearly isn"t. There is no social norm in civilised society that makes women optimise the number of children they can have. It's totally different to murder. Let me suggest you consider the role of contraception in this debate. On millions, if not billions of occasions, contraception has successfully prevented children from being born. It is used in developed and secular countries because of it"s practical, social and moral benefits. Just as abortion is. Using anti-abortion logic, a condom is potentially a death sentence for an unborn child. That"s how moral concerns over abortion come across. You also asked "even though it is not yet a human being, does that give the woman the right to kill it just because she doesn't want it." From a moral standpoint again, women"s rights are vital for civilised society and I value them greatly, as I"m sure you do too. This includes the right to have an abortion before a certain number of weeks. Frankly, I think giving women this choice must be prioritised over the wishes of people such as yourself. Just as people have the choice to use contraception and are encouraged to do so. I would hesitate to compare orphans to dogs so I won"t say any more on that. As for disability, one could say that society has a moral obligation to allow parents to make the choice to abort. Many developing countries already practice that to some degree. However the morality of the following decision is open to judgement separately. It is utterly absurd, the idea that rape victims must give birth to their rapist"s children, on moral grounds. What a sickening thought. That alone is enough to quash the argument that abortion is immoral. I"m fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn"t force such an injustice upon these women. I"m fascinated to know what you think about my response.
Abortion is morally wrong

Thank you Impartial for accepting my challenge. I would like to start by saying that I'm not advocating any law making regarding abortion or women's reproduction. This is an argument on morality. My belief that abortion is morally wrong comes from my belief that the unborn fetus is a human being. Most abortions take place during the first trimester of the pregnancy because most people think that the fetus is not yet full developed. But I have to ask, at what point will the fetus be full developed? Is it when the limbs are grown, or when the eyes come out? Well at 8 weeks (2 months), the baby is showing signs of limbs and eyes. It starts to develop breathing tubes for it's lungs. Although you can't know the sex of the fetus, it shows signs of being a human being. Also, even though it is not yet a human being, does that give the woman the right to kill it just because she doesn't want it. We don't kill dogs just because we don't want them, instead we give them to animal shelters. Why can't they just give the child up for adoption if the know they can't raise them. There are a lot of childless people out there that are looking for children and there women that kill their unborn children just because they don't want them. I've heard the argument that women abort their children because it might be a health risk, but statistically that group of women account for about 7% of women that do abortion. <1% of women that commit abortion do it because of rape or incest. The rest, about 92%, do it just because they don't want to take care of the child. Look, I have no problem with people doing abortion because giving birth might endanger the life of the child or mother. That's fine because it wasn't the woman's fault that the child had complications during the pregnancy. This is a different case from aborting a child just because he or she is disabled. People can live with disability. As for rape victims, I still think abortion is wrong. This might seem harsh but the truth is that if you kill your child just because you were raped, you are worse than the rapist. Why? Because you are taking the life of an innocent human being and you value money more than the life of a child. Don't believe me? Just imagine that something happens in the world and if you get raped, you automatically get a million dollars. Tell me, would you say "Oh well keeping this money would constantly remind me of the rape. I should just burn it up." No one would do that. They would happily take the million dollars and do what they want to do with it, yet they are willing to take the life of their unborn child that is worth much more than that million dollars. Thanks for reading my argument, as badly written as it is. I'm waiting for a response from my contender. Thank you.
phones in class

Please, I ask you, don't be repetitive. The point I am trying to make here is that when the school internet is down, they can turn to their phones to complete an assignment. Their phones run on cellular network, not school network. Now about students using their cell phones in class, if they become a distraction to them, that is the student's fault. If they become a distraction to other students, then they can be accordingly punished. If they do not learn anything, when the teacher is teaching correctly, then that is also the student's fault. We shouldn't take away these privileges for the students that will use the technology correctly.
The 2000 Baltimore Ravens were the greatest defense of all-time

Howdy, I believe that the 2000 Baltimore Ravens are yes, one of the best defenses of all time but not the best. I believe the Best are the 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers d...the Steel Curtian. The Steelers defenses of the 1970s are legendary, but the 1976 unit was the best Here's why: 28. That's how many points the Steel Curtain surrendered in the last nine games of the season. That's a total. As a result, Pittsburgh, which started the season 1-4, made it all the way to the AFC Championship Game, which they lost to the Raiders 24-7. (It's worth noting that Pittsburgh running backs Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier were both injured in that contest.) The '76 Steelers didn't have it easy. their opponents had a .528 winning percentage. But they had these guys: Hall of Famers Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Jack Ham and Mel Blount. And eight Steelers defensive players made the 1976 Pro Bowl team: cornerback J.T. Thomas, defensive end L.C. Greenwood, Greene, Ham, Lambert, defensive back Glen Edwards, safety Mike Wagner, and Blount. Compared to the 2000 Ravens the Steel curtian are definiatly bettr. they had a relatively easy regular-season schedule (opponents had only a .428 winning percentage), The Steelers of 76 also had 7 Pro Blowlers compared to the ravens 3. What about the '85 Bears? They were pretty good. The Bears had a very good offense in 1985, but it was Buddy Ryan's blitzing "46" defense with a D anchored by middle linebacker Mike Singletary (with superb assistance from tackles William "Refrigerator" Perry and Dan Hampton, outside linebackers Otis Wilson and Wilbur Marshall, and DE Richard Dent), went 15-1, holding seven opponents to fewer than 10 points. The Bears showed their ultimate mettle in the playoffs. In the NFC divisional playoff, they shut out the Giants 21-0. The next week, they won the NFC championship by goose-egging the Rams 24-0. Then, in the Super Bowl, they held the Pats to a total of seven (7) yards rushing, helping to seal a 46-10 win. Now the Bears gave up 10!!!!!! points in the POSTSEASON, 10!!!!!! The Ravens are again one of the Greatest Dfences of alltime, but not the best.
The 2000 Baltimore Ravens were the greatest defense of all-time

The 2000-2001 Baltimore Ravens were the greatest team defense of all-time. There are several points to back this statement up. 1. This 2000 Ravens were the greatest scoring defense of all time 2. They featured arguably two of the greatest players at their positions (Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson) of all-time. 3. They did not allow an offensive TD in Super Bowl XXXV against a solid Giants offense 4. Ray Lewis, Sam Adams, and Rod Woodson were all named to the pro-bowl They were clearly the best, but i welcome a challenge
Faith Schools Should be Banned

I will be arguing on the side that Religious education for children or young adults is unhealthy because of the acceptance at that age. A child will accept on religion just as easily as it will another, just as they will puke the first time eating a banana, having being told that banana's are poisonous for their whole lives. This is not a debate, or an attempt to outlaw religion in any way, it is simply removing from the education, because it does influence it very strongly.
Faith Schools Should be Banned

You make an interesting point of the increase of religious influence within the educational system. I have no problem with churches, or family devotions, because they typically do not impede upon the rights of the general public, without their consent. It is fantastic I believe to inform the students of different types of worldviews and religions, as long as it does not take the place of facts, is detached from other classes, and does not hinder different and possibly incompatible ideas/theories. Although, I must say, larger problems do in fact arrive when religious institutions adopt one religion and treat it as the truth that trumps all opposing and scientific discovery. As for what I see religion as: I see it a person's view of ultimate truth, and how they interpret reality, usually involving some sort of divine god/deity. Again, thought crime should not be punished, but it is very evident that the curriculum within the schools is purely unscientific in nature. These faith schools are only willing to go so far within the scientific world. For example: evidences which uphold the "Big Bang Theory" or the "Evolutionary Theory" are most times not even taught in these schools because they not only don't support their position, but are completely incompatible with them. Even if these topics are brought to the surface within these religious educational institutions, they are twisted, misrepresented, or misunderstood, so the child is without a comprehension of the subject, of which is required in the public system of education. In conclusion, I would also like to ask some questions, as to have insight as to why it is acceptable. Would crime rates go up due to lack of morals within education? I can hardly see a correspondence between the morals someone is taught within a religion, and that of which is law, keeping the population in line. Is understanding of basic principles of Biology unnecessary in education, if so, how can those children expect to keep up with the academic levels of those who do know, accept, and put this knowledge to use? Not only does this leave the children forced into these institutions unable to distinguish fact from falsehood, but they miss out on an essential part of understanding this world that we live in. Finally, would you agree that it is harmful or detrimental for the child or society by this sort of indoctrination? Why or why not?
Faith Schools Should be Banned

Since we are going to be debating religious education, I find it necessary to define Religion. The Webster's New World Dictionary defines it as so "1. Belief in or worship of a God or gods 2. a specific system of beliefs, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics" I personally think more towards "a specific system of beliefs, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics" when I think of Religion. However, I would like to ask you to specify so I can understand the argument clearer, now onto the argument. All religious beliefs have direct influence on how people act in their day to day lives. Thus we can gather that understanding them is the key to understanding why people act as they do. If this is true than removing religious education will keep back vital information that will not only help decode history, but will as help decode the actions of the present day. Therefore, rather than remove religious education we should encourage a FULL education, that shows all the different viewpoints throughout history and now giving the student a full understanding of the different sides of the issues that are being debated today. Even if you only view religion as a belief in God, you still must realize that the beliefs surrounding God have had massive influence on the world. Whether it be the polytheistic Greeks or the Monotheism of Christianity and Islam. Those idea's are still the reasons for debate and discussion throughout the world. it would be simply irresponsible to leave out such vital parts of today's culture. As for your fear of being influenced by a single Religion through education I would argue that: 1. It is the responsibility of the school to give an account of ALL viewpoints, not just one. 2. In Reality a religion is not caught from education as much as from friends, relatives, or entertainment, we should really be more concerned with teaching them to recognize other viewpoint rather than blind them too them. So in closing I would ask a few questions. 1. What do you define a Religion as? 2. do you deny its influence on today's culture and issues?
Large companies should provide on-site daycare for workers or provide higher salaries

Companies with over 150 employees should provide on-site childcare or compensate worker with higher wages so they can pay for childcare. Childcare concerns make up for why most employees tend to miss work or are considered unproductive in the workplace. The cost of child care, added transportation costs get to and from childcare providers to work and home,and time constraints are some factors KEEPING able bodies parents from entering the workforce, thereby one reason unemployment stays high. One way to rectify the problem is to support a close-knit connection between parent and child throughout the day. Providing daycare that is both interactive and can be observed by the parent (with some ground rules ), helps increase employee productivity and attendance. The real burden of caring for children falls disproportionately on women, who in the U.S. still perform twice as much child care and domestic work as men, even as they work outside the home. Women held 49.83% of the nation's 132 million jobs in 2015 and they are gaining the vast majority of jobs in the few sectors of the economy that are growing, according to the most recent numbers available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nearly one-quarter of the best employers for working mothers provide four or fewer weeks of paid maternity leave, and half provide six weeks or less, according to an Institute for Women"s Policy Research.