BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia

Such cases may arise if euthanasia is made legal. There have been many cases where people who were not necessarily 'eligible' to end there lives were assisted with their suicide. Such as the Jack Kevorkian case, he would perform suicides in his basement for those who were gravely ill or injured except that in many cases the people had no traces of illness in their body. Even more cases like this will arise if euthanasia is made legal. "Jack Kevorkian." American Government. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Euthanasia

Yes, it is their life, so they should be able to make decisions about what they want to do with it...Especially in times of peril and great discomfort. People should be provided with the freedom promised with the citizenship of this country and control over their own life. Simon, Rita J. "Euthanasia and the Right to Die." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web 11 Oct 2013.
Legalizing gay marriage

I don't really think women not having the right to vote is a "tradition" as such. A tradition is a ritual and a celebration of something that has been passed down for generations rather than a pre-existing sexist stereotype. We already give homosexuals all the rights we have; the right to live together, to adopt children etc. However, marriage is a tradition rather than a "right" as such. Passing a law allowing homosexuals to marry would most definitely put pressure on them to get married! In addition, people, especially those who object to gay marriage, would feel angry if homosexuals didn't take advantage of new laws. Marriage can bring bad things too; more marriages, more divorces?
Legalizing gay marriage

It used to be tradition that women didnt have a say in society and not vote but look how far we've come. Now a lot of women work, vote, and take part in society and it isn't wierd at all. Marriage also comes with benefits that they should deserve too . Some people disagreed strongly with blacks and whites going to the same school but now its normal. A lot of people support diversity in schools and there isn't anything bad about it. If they didnt want so much attention then they wouldn't get married but they should still have that right. As said before. Who are we to keep them from marrying. I disagree. Allowing them to get married will give them the oppurtunity but wont pressure them to Sorry 4 shortening the amount of letters
Legalizing gay marriage

There is nothing that says homosexuals cannot live together. There is nothing that says they cannot have children, in the case of Elton John, or adopt them. However, marriage is a tradition that should not be changed; traditions are made to kept, not to be changed at will. I agree that people would get used to it, however there will still be some who disagree strongly. I believe that the majority of homosexuals would not want to draw undue attention to their sexuality; who they choose to live with is a private matter and should not be publicised. I also think they would feel pressured into getting married. We passed a law saying they could so a certain thing so they would feel obliged to do it, even if they do not want to.
Legalizing gay marriage

I understand that marriage is an old tradition but legalizing gay marriage isn't going to remove it. Its just going to allow gays to have the marriage benefits that everyone else enjoys so why should we denie them those benefits? I understand its going to be a big change. When woman began voting it was weird for people back then but they got used to it. Now its normal. When blacks and whites bagan going to the same schools some people didnt like it but now its normal. If homosexuals want to get married they will get married. Yes they will draw attention but i don't see why we should worry about that. Its their descision and i don't see why we should get into their buisness. If they want to marry let them do so.
Legalizing gay marriage

Firstly, I request that my opponent posts their arguments as soon as possible and I will try to do the same, as I will only be available for a couple of days. Marriage is a tradition that has been in our civilisation for hundreds of years. Is it right to cast aside these rituals to make room for new ones? What will come next? Will we start giving Easter Eggs at Christmas? Will we start playing pop music at funerals? Also, do homosexuals really want to get married? Marriage draws attention to the couple; would homosexuals really want that kind of attention? In addition, homosexuals would feel pressured into getting married, even if they do not really want it. Due to character restraints, I've had to keep this short. Over to PRO.
Legalizing gay marriage

Gay marriage should be legal because people should have the right to marry whomever they want, same gender or not. Even if your against it i dont think you should be the reason to denie people marriage benefits and rights. Even if god or religion tells you its wrong that also shouldn't keep people from marrying who they love. Yes, people say marriage is between a man and woman but its the 21st century. Things have changed. Women can vote, segregation has practically ended, we have made many technological advancements, ect. Back then women voting seemed wrong but now its normal. Gay marriage can be the same. .
We should listen to music when we do homework

I'm sorry to say this but phuongtran you may be wrong it may feel like it is refreshing but really its not when you do work you must focus on the work and not the music i believe that when you listen to music you get side tracked and loose focus on your school work it happens to a lot of people. for all of the voters out there this was a really good debate and i think you will choose the one who gave a better statment and gave a lot of info and back up to there side. Vote for CAHAL
We should listen to music when we do homework

But I think that music isn't just a took to help you concentrate, it's a way to make your life more refreshed. For example, when you have a not so good day, you should open some fun and exciting tunes so you rmind could be more relaxed and feel more comfortable. I also think that you could be right, listening to your favorite tunes might be a little bit not so well but for me, it's a good way to feel like I'm in the mood for homework
We should listen to music when we do homework

I sort of agree to you, but for me, personally ,I feel more concentrated when doing my work with my best song in my head, I feel awesome to listen to music when you are studying because you won't listen to your annoying brother/sister bragging about how good they are at something :( That would be more distracting, I also find myself some place comfortable to do my work and play a list of any kind of music (I would prefer classical music)
We should listen to music when we do homework

thanks for having this debate but i disagree because i thought music helps you but your brain cant do that much of things and when your favorite song comes on you listen to it and forget your homework and it just sits there and you do nothing about it the human brain is big with a large cerebrum and there is a lot of errors and when you listen to music you are messing it all up people say they can multitask but they cant we humans can only do one thing at a time and the more we do like listening to music while doing homework messes up our cerebrum (brain) now back to you
We should listen to music when we do homework

Let's get started! First of all, welcome to the debate. To open this debate of to a good start, I would like to say that listening to music helps us concentrate more on our homework. I think it really helps me focus con what I'm doing, not get side distracted and also the music would makes our mind fresh and clear for us to forget everything that is negative and do your work. Of corse, there are still some exceptions to listening to music. Like when you do your assessment..... you dont want to be chilling out and doing it so happily (in my perspective.... It's the creepiest thing EVER) because you forgot that tomorrow is the due date. Here's another reason why we should listen to music, when you just have your normal homework, you are doing it and your're supper bored..... Can't concentrate because everyone in your family is having a feast and there are people screaming....shouting and every noise that you could think of, HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU CONCENTRATE!!!!!!!!? But I have a solution, have your headphone (or earphone ) with you incase you feel like listening to music. Plug it on your device (but don't let the device control you!!) Listen to your favorite tracks (which helps you to not get bored again.) And do your work.... Good Luck debating with me :D See you next round!
God Exists And Is Both Omnipotent And Omnibenevolent

Thanks for taking the debate Pro. Well, though slightly confusing, I think I understand the main points of Pro's argument...feel free, Pro, to correct me if I misrepresent your stance in any way. Pro's argument: That order itself, which Pro asserts is omnipotent and supreme, is also the creator of the universe. How did supremely omnipotent order itself create the universe? Handwriting. That's what Pro likes to call the laws of nature. From the handwriting, comes the Constructal law, which is manifested as unalienable rights, which are also animated. From animated unalienable rights, comes morality. Morality and code of conduct share the same origin, which is group formation. To sum up Pro's arguments: God = order handwriting = laws of nature life's "animate" unalienable rights = Constructal law code of conduct in group formation = objective morality Yeah, I might be over analytical, but this is an argument from verbosity (intimidation). Even breaking it down results in over complication. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... Argument from verbosity is making an argument purposely difficult to understand in an attempt to intimidate your audience into accepting it. Well, I'm neither intimidated nor accepting Pro's argument. Also Pro relies heavily on reification. https://www.google.com... Pro takes abstract ideas like "unalienable rights" and treats them as concrete "animate" items. Pro also takes a concept, like order, and claims it is an agent in the creation of the universe without providing any explanation as to how order managed to create the universe. Pro needs to demonstrate HOW order created the universe to successfully demonstrate that order is god. So what if order is found in the universe? This does not explain the universe's creation. I also argue that before there was time, creation is not possible, because creation requires time to happen. So the temporal concept, creating/creation, is not possible before the expression of matter/energy and space/time (the big bang) from quantum fluctuations. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... Therefore our universe was not created, rather it was expressed. Pro now has to show, without time, how order managed to create the universe. Pro has to demonstrate that this god, order, is omnibenevolent. If this god created the entire universe, why are there things in the universe that aren't benevolent? If we're to buy the idea that because order is found in natural laws, thus the creator of the laws is order itself (refication), then we must also buy the idea that because there is immorality found in the universe, then the creator of the universe is immorality itself. This actually points to an omnimalevolent god. I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. https://en.wikipedia.org...
God Exists And Is Both Omnipotent And Omnibenevolent

Thank you Con (MagicAintReal) for bringing an important subject to the debating floor. My view on God is unorthodox, however, it will work within the context of your definitions defined here in Round 1. To me God is the “supreme” and “omnipotent” order, or the “creator and ruler of the universe” via the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God. Following God's handwriting, both animate and inanimate, results in “omnibenevolent” behavior in the course of progressive evolution via the physical Constructal Law (one of God's handwritings). http://constructal.org... As for being the “source of all moral authority” is also part of the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God. Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, where these Rights are the animate manifestation of the Constructal Law. Morality and code of conduct are two different manifestations of the same concept. That is, the objective of morality is the genesis and the evolution of a code of conduct in group formation; while following a code of conduct, one is generally perceived to be moral in preserving the life of the group. The first paragraph in Stanford University's definition covers a “universal morality.” http://plato.stanford.edu...Stanford's reference of a “universal morality” relative to non-human animals clearly reflects the Constructal Law in harmonious (going with the flow) behavior through the interface of life's Unalienable Rights, embraces mutual positive feedback promoting unity, survival, order, and harmony with the objective in group formation. The objective nature of morality is simply group formation as in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, including tribes of humans, and so on. Inter-specie relationships, in forming a group, can also exist, such as those between humans and their pets. Most morally treat their pets very well, some, better than humans. In summary, morality, being part of the Laws of Nature, is simply the fingerprint of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting. In closing, God (the order of the universe) exist and is both Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent.
God Exists And Is Both Omnipotent And Omnibenevolent

*You are Pro; you will be arguing for the resolution*ResolutionGod exists, and is both omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good).Burden of ProofPro has the burden of proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that:1. god exists2. god is omnipotent3. god is omnibenevolentCon has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro's claims.Definitions (from Google definitions)god - (in theology) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.exist - have objective reality or beingomnipotent - having unlimited power; able to do anythingomnibenevolent - having unlimited or infinite benevolencebenevolence (from dictionary.com) - desire to do good to others*There are no rounds, so there are no round rules; THERE IS NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND; just start debating as you wish.*Definitions are agreed on by posting your fist argument.*Definitions can be changed however, in the comments section, before posting the first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.
People Should Wear Mismatching Socks

Some quick references that I will use throughout this discourse: Matching Socks: MS Mismatching Socks: MMS No Socks: NS Man: referring to mankind, homo-sapiens Overview" The topic of debate is “People should wear mismatching socks”. The affirmative position therefore must neccearily judge that people should wear mismatching socks over matching socks or no socks. Therefore it will be the position of the negative that people should wear whatever socks they want, whether it be matching, mismatching or none as the agent in this case, presumably a human being, is an autonomous being therefore they should do as they wish. However if my opponent is referring to non-human agents in this resolution then he should clarify this in the next round and I reserve the right to then address this. I will now precede to attack my opponents case: "“People should be able to wear mismatched socks without people saying "That looks dumb," or "That is stupid."" This statement does not affirm the resolution. It does not give any reason or rational as to why the wearing of MMS is superior to wearing NS or MS. I wholeheartedly agree that people should BE ABLE to wear mismatched socks without being subject to condensation by one’s peers, however this is not a reason for an affirmative ballot as it is a non-unique argument that can exist in both the affirmative and negative world. "“I think that they look cool... it makes it so you can wear one CLEAN sock design for 2 days in a row, because you have 2 socks, or 1 pair.”" Now this argument can be solved for in the negative world, one may buy two pairs of the same design of sock and one may therfore wear one clean sock design for 2 days in a row. On a side note the “The Art of Manliness” (a leading publication in sock community) explains in their enlightening article, entitled “A Man’s Guide to Socks”, that the number one rule is that one’s socks should indeed match. However it is my position that one should wear MS, MMS, or NS, whatever suits their fancy which negates the assertion that one should wear matching socks. My case: Human beings are autonomous Men are self-owning, we may do what we wish, as long as our actions do not impede that of others. As long as the lack of wearing of MMS does not impede the actions of others we cannot restrict the autonomy of man by judging that one should wear MMS over MS or NS. As harms have yet to be established by the affirmative we can clearly see that one should be able to wear MS, MMS, or NS with no prioritization of which that is necessitated by the affirmative world.
Using taxes to build football stadiums is not justified.

I. The Justification of Tax Spending on NFL Stadiums is Unsound.My opponent has dropped my entire case. Since it remains standing unchallenged, I extend all previous arguments. II. Moral Nihilism KritikRather than either making a case that affirmatively advances his burden of proof, or rebutting my case, Con has elected in the alternative to run a "kritik" of the resolution which neither advances his burden nor undermined mine. Thus, my case stands and his approach fails for these reasons:1) Con cannot negate my reason by saying that intrinsic moral values do not exist, because of the nature of the resolution. This is a debate about what makes good or legitimate public policy, with regard to the funding of sports stadiums; not “whether intrinsic moral values exist.” Con states: "The aff. case must prove that using taxes for the building of football stadiums is not justified. Justified is defined as being done or marked for a legitimate reason. The affirmative case must prove that the resolution is not done for a good or legitimate reason."Notice the shifting of the goalposts fallacy Con commits in the underlined sections, this is Con's first mistake. "Good" and "Legitimate" are two different things, and I only have to affirm one or the other. His second mistake is that since his K relies solely on what is "morally good", it does not accurately challenge the full resolution, thus it is not even an applicable Kritik to the debate at hand. Con is merely raising a non-topical argument that has no real impact nor any real *link* to the debate at hand. 2) I do not have to prove that “intrinsic moral values exist.” All I have to do to win is affirm the resolution, which is “using taxes to build football stadiums is not justified.” I have done this fully in the previous round when I first shared what their justification was:According to the study, "Government leaders and team officials argue that publicly subsidized stadiums are justified because the projects encourage economic growth by generating wealth and creating jobs." I then showed through empirical data that a majority of these stadiums (21 out of 31) have negatively impacted the economy of the surrounding communities. This thus makes their justification not legitimate. [1] Additionally, a negative impact on the economy has no role in morality. If we boil it down to the simplist terms: the economy was larger before, and smaller after. It doesn't take proof of objective morality to show that this goes against the justification given by the government leaders and team officials. Ultimately, Con has now wasted a round utilizing a non-topical kritik that fails to even accurately address the full resolution. Thus I have successfully upheld my burden in this debate, whereas Con has done nothing to advance his own.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Using taxes to build football stadiums is not justified.

PrefaceI was recently made aware of the fact that, in the last few decades, new football stadiums have been constructed with the use and spending of our tax dollars. I personally was unaware of this, and do not support such spending by our government. I find it unjustifiable. Full Topic On balance, the use of our taxes to fund the construction of new football stadiums is an unjustified use of our taxes. Burdens As Pro, I will have the BOP to show that using American taxes to build American Football Stadiums is an unjustifiable use of our tax dollars. Con's burden will be to negate my arguments and thus show that using these taxes on football stadiums are justifiable. Key TermsOn balance: generally-speaking; or, with both good and bad consideredFootball Stadiums: a stadium where football games are held; American Football.Justified: Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. Rules 1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. First round is for acceptance only6. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss
Using taxes to build football stadiums is not justified.

Okay, this is the final round so I will just be summarizing why I think that I've won the debate. Kritiks were not against the rules. The debate specifically used the word justified making this an ethics debate, not a pragmatic one. In order for my opponent to meet his burden then he must prove that using taxes to build football staduim is not justified (ie. is not good or legitimate). Therefore, according to the resolution my opponent cannot meet their burden unless they can show that things can be "not good" or "not legitimate" My opponent has repeatedly failed to respond to the K and has instead resorted to ad ignorantiam attacks where he cannot respond to the K so instead he opts in to repeatedly claiming that it is irrelevant. He repeatedly calls it a nontopical and nonapplicable but fails to realize that his own burdens analysis AND his own resolution AND his own definitions AND his own concession to my responses prove that they are anything but nonapplicable. I have repeatedly noted all of this and all my opponent has to say is repeat that it's nontopical and non applicable. I ask that voters punish Pro for this. My opponent claims that I have failed to respond to his case but I have. If anything he hasn't responded to mine. He hasn't made a single comment on the acutal substance of the K. He hasn't mentioned Neizche or Brown once. Furthermore, my K directly negates my opponent's argument because if morality doesn't exist then my opponent's arguments bare no weight as they cannot be affirmed. My opponent hasn't provided anything that negates my K at all. The K, therefore, stands. My opponent's burden cannot be fulfilled. Regarding my burden, the first round states that I must prove that it is justifiable. I specifically do this by stating: "we may as well stick to it because there is no reason to view it as unjustified." My opponent ignores this. Furthermore, if you buy the K (meaning that Pro's burden cannot be fulfilled) but you also believe that my burden isn't fulfilled you still ought to be voting Con since Pro's burden is conceded to be greater than mine in the first round. So let's do a quick recap: The K stands. My opponent's burden is not met. Mine is. Even if mine isn't met, you still ought to be voting Con due to the larger burden on my opponent's behalf. The decision is clear. You ought to be votin Con.