BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lance Armstrong should still be considered as more of an international hero than just a lying jerk

First, my opponent forfeited the last round, so bring my Counter Contentions 1, 2, and 3 across and through to the whip speech. Second, the Pro side failed to provide new business for discussion in this round, and that will be added to my voters in the whip speech. But as this is an educational process, I will endeavor to continue by discussing what has been previously mentioned. My opponent attacks me in round three for not attacking his primary argument, when I thought the conduct here was to not attack in our opening statements, but rather lay out our cases. Well then, I"ll do it here. My opponent"s critical argument, as mentioned by him, is as follows: "Well, I suggest we actually imagine he never doped and never won all that races and never even existed. He wouldn't have been an amazing and maybe best ever inspiration to people who suffer cancer. But, more importantly (since today it's all about the money), his foundation raised more than $470 million to support the mission to inspire and empower people affected by cancer. And that's a lot of money. I am sure those people appreciate it and I think that the public image of Lance Armstrong should be more positive due to this." My opponent is asking us to just simply forget that this man, Lance Armstrong, came into the public life, accepted fame and glory for his actions, and then turned out that the linchpin of his image was built on a lie. If he had simply been a guy who recovered from cancer not much attention would have been paid to him though it would have still been a nice feel-good story. Instead, he chose to return to cycling, and be successful in cycling, in order to raise the profile of Cancer Research and be an inspiration to others, a worthwhile goal. However, in 1998, as someone who was recently recovering from Cancer Treatments, his body was not perhaps in the best shape to begin competing in an endurance sport at the International Level. So, he decided to go with the culture of the sport, a culture my opponent noted earlier, and began using Performance Enhancing Drugs and Blood Doping as part of his new cycling team in order to be able to compete, as noted in the USADA's report that was submitted to WADA, retrievable from http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org.... He could have, if he wanted to, at any time, blow the whistle, and even if he had admitted his part, could have been heralded as an even bigger icon as it would have shown his integrity. Instead, he chose to live the lie, live the culture of the sport, and not only kept quiet, but helped to keep the program going and improve it. Is this a man we should look up to and say is an inspiration to others? I say no, and I again urge you to vote for the opposition. I await my opponent"s whip speech.
Animal Rights

Round One: This is just for acceptance, rules, and definitions. Burdens: Pro has the burden to show that animals should have some rights and Con has the burden of showing that animals should have no rights. Provisos: (1) Let's limit this to non-human, vertebrate members of the Kingdom of Animalia, (2) This is just a discussion in the abstract--should animals have some rights, it's not about what particular rights the animals have, and (3) when I say some rights, that could mean one or more rights. Rules: No swearing/personal attacks, etc. No new arguments or evidence can be introduced in the final round. Definitions: Just Government - one that respects the human rights of its citizens (see UDHR), is democratic, and liberal (as in tolerant, not oppressive, and evenhanded). A government more specificially is the complex of political institutions and laws, as well as the body of persons comprising the governmental authority, through which the function of governing is carried out. Ought - Expresses moral desirability Grant - to give Right - a entitlement, freedom, or immunity recognized either by law or by morality (how exactly we determine if something is a right is fair game for debate.) I've started two debates with this topic because it appears as if the persons I was debating with it before have either closed accounts or forfeited. I would really like to have (and finish) this debate, so many thanks in advance to anyone who might accept!
Child Beauty Pageants Should Be Outlawed

Children should not be put into beauty pageants! The show "Toddlers & Tiaras" shows the horror behind all the fake hair, flippers, and make-up. Parents feed their children an endless supply of pixie stix to keep their energy up. When the child does not want to do a pageant, few parents will follow the child's wishes. Children are dressed in outfits that are very inappropriate, and encouraged to "flirt" with the judges. The whole thing is about beauty, and winning! Parents also bribe their kids to do a routine. When the child does not do everything perfectly, the parent criticizes them endlessly. Jamie Sterling, from Texas, puts her twin daughters against each other, saying openly to the cameras how one is prettier than the other, and belittling her on the show by making her cry, ignoring her, and favoring her other daughter. All of this is borderline abuse and should be stopped!
Child Beauty Pageants Should Be Outlawed

In conclusion I think I might lose this because I didn't really have many points to raise apart from this:Just because something is inadvisable in some cases doesn't mean it's harmful in all cases nor that the children may not gain self confidence from being so admired. It's all subjective. Child beauty pageants shouldn't be outlawed, only advised against. Law leaves no choice or parental variety, after all in a multicultural world we should begin to see that different parents raise children differently. Since there is no direct abuse involved, and even indirectly stress is not abuse, if anything it helps the child deal BETTER with stress as an adult (they learn faster as a child how to cope with things hence would rapidly learn stress coping mechanisms involved with performing in front of a crowd). I think that it shouldn't be outlawed if we wish to have a democratic world.
Child Beauty Pageants Should Be Outlawed

This was my first debate, and I found it very enjoyable. I really thought no one would offer to debate me, but someone did! By making child beauty pageants illegal, we can help the children of our country. This is a very important cause. I have invested my time in countless youtube videos, reading online articles, and watching Toddlers & Tiaras to support my position. Children will be scarred for life, either resenting their parents, or never realizing the true meaning of life, and yet, that meaning is different for us all. These children are wasting their precious years of youth and talent, and we need to stop beauty pageants to help them carry out a worthwhile goal.
Child Beauty Pageants Should Be Outlawed

Okay, here is a piece of evidence. Jamie Sterling, from Keller, Texas, makes her 6 year old twins compete against each other. She openly favors one, while insulting the other one and making her cry. That poor kid is going to be scarred knowing that her mother didn't think she was pretty enough to win a pageant. Another example: A father of a four year old on Toddlers and Tiaras repeatedly told his daughter "You suck". He and his child regarded it as funny, but imagine how much that little girl must be hurting on the inside. Many children on this show wear very inappropriate outfits, such as three year old Paisley, who's mother dressed her up as Julia Robert's character from Pretty Woman. What kind of message are these children getting? That it's good to wear revealing costumes and cute to do inappropriate dance moves? That will scar a child for life.
Child Beauty Pageants Should Be Outlawed

The main issue I have with the pro side of this debate is that you have a burden of broof regarding the extent of harm that being a child beauty pageant causes a child being so severe that it should be deemed illegal. You have not supplied one piece of evidence regarding any child beauty pageant gaining physical nor emotional scars from being one. Thus, whether or not it is ethical, it's not unethical enough to be legally banned.
Child Beauty Pageants Should Be Outlawed

But it does permanently harm the child, because they carry the lesson that beauty is everything throughout their entire lives! There are many things, such as copyright, that would not actually kill a person, but are illegal. Twenty years from now, the child will look back with resentment toward their parents for exploiting them on television at an early age. They will remember the troubled relationship they had with their parents, and that will carry them into adulthood. They will think that it is fine to blow your college money on a plastic trophy and live through your kids. We have to stop this before it gets out of hand! Already, there are spin-off shows about certain pageant kids, presenting them as "little divas", in a seemingly "cute" manner. But they will get to be too old for the "little diva" attitude that society once found acceptable. Not to mention the label they will be plastered with through college as "the kid who threw a fit in episode seventeen."
Resolved: Disney buying out LucasFilms is more positive than negative

Before we start, let me provide a list of films produced by Lucasfilm [1]. I would also like to note that, as such a nonserious topic, I'll keep my points brief. I shall be arguing that all parties benefit to show that the decision was positive. Now, onto my arguments.DisneyNow, this one should be obvious. Disney buys Lucasfilm, and can continue and/or reboot several different franchises and movies, such as Labyrinth, Indiana Jones, and Star Wars, leading to them earning quite a lot of money. Not eally any negatives here, onto Lucasfilm.LucasfilmDisney bought Lucasfil for $4.05 billion [2]. Disney is great with movies, and its features Lion King, Frozen, and Avengers (with the aid of Marvel Studios) are seen as legends in fiilmography today. Disney can clearly lead the Star Wars franchise to even more fame, along with the company as a whole.FansAs I said before, Disney has had huge success with movies, and especially those with other franchises they have bought. I am, of course, talking about Marvel (also bought for $4 bill). Originally, people were very critical of the choice [3], but The Avengers went on to win over fifty awards [4], and is still the third highest-grossing film of all time [5].1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com...3. http://www.sodahead.com...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
School Uniforms

I'm going to be honest I don't think the color of the clothes I wear effects the fact that I have drugs on me and if my school has violence or not. People are the same no matter what you wear. Its like saying "hey did you know if you get your oil changed you will have a flat tire? " its unrelated to getting your oil changed but you will get a flat tire most likely because most people get their oil changed when they are about to have a trip and that's when you get a flat tire. Also I don't know if you count vapes as drugs but now in 2018 there is sooooo many vapes at my school is unreal That would not change whether we wore school clothes or not(which we do). Just because people changed and there have been more awareness for school shootings and presentations about drugs over 2 years and it just so happens that over those 2 years they decided to have uniforms over those two years is NOT related at all.
School Uniforms

No, The things definitely are not getting better because of teachers. Those statistics are getting better because of school uniforms. I think the situation that is going on at your school is the kind of uniforms you guys wear. Your school doesn't really have a good choice when it comes to that. It honestly really depends on the quality of the school uniforms and also what kind they are. I believe if schools can adapt good school uniforms, Like the uniforms at Long Beach California, Then the school will be a more professional and a more safe environment.
School Uniforms

It takes longer to put on school clothes because of missing buttons and things like that. And I don't think the uniforms will stop school shootings. At the high school I go to, If your a girl you're required to wear a skirt or very tight pants which I can tell makes a lot of the guys at my school touch and stare. And some of my friends get bullied because the buttons and zippers on their pants keep breaking so I don't know if those "facts" are because of school uniform, Or if stuff like that is getting better because of different things like teachers.
School Uniforms

Do you currently wear uniforms for your school, Or are you saying that it takes longer to put on normal clothes because of missing buttons, Etc? Secondly, I believe the right to expression is very important, But the right to safety in school is even more important. After two years of a district-wide mandatory uniform policy In Long Beach California, Reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, Assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, Fighting incidents dropped by 51%, Sex offenses were cut by 74%, Robbery dropped by 65%, Possession of weapons dropped by 52%, Possession of drugs dropped by 69% and vandalism was lowered by 18%, According to ProCon. Org
Would The US and Canada go to war

War would be horrible, and that goes without saying, but defying all of our alliances would make it much worse. We revolted against England because they were taxing us without representation. and various other reasons. We have no reason to break such an integral alliance for no reason. And we couldn't stage a revolution against the queen because we're not under her jurisdiction. Canada is one of our biggest allies. So are France, the UK, and Australia. We would lose all of those alliances if we went to war with Canada.
Would The US and Canada go to war

As I've said, we no longer have the idea of Manifest Destiny. Not to mention, going to war with Canada would be absolutely horrible for the United States. Sure, we could get land, but we have plenty of room. We don't need land. Canada has not done anything against us. But they are under the rule of the Queen of arguably our most important ally. Also, there are many French people in Canada. So, if we did go to war against them, we would easily have 3 of our biggest allies against us (UK, France, and Canada). Australia also belongs to the Queen, so they would also be against us. Going to war with Canada would cause way more harm than good. So say why not, but really, the better question is why should we? And I can't answer that question. That's your job.
Would The US and Canada go to war

My opponent has argued that, since Americans have fought a civil war, it is not too far off for Americans to fight their nearest neighbors. That is a valid point. However, there are a few things I must point out. First of all, the American Civil war was caused because the confederacy seceded from the Union, and we wanted them to come back. Canada is not really like that. At all. Also, the Civil War happened in the mid-19th century. It is now the 21st century. With the internet, planes, and other things, the cultural differences aren't nearly as glaring as they used to be. The southern states seceded because of the cultural differences, but now, while cultural differences still exist, they are much less glaring. Also, the Civil war had to happen because we had states leave the union and we wanted them back. Canada has never been part of the United States (Although about half of British Columbia was part of the Oregon territory). Since our country doesn't hold the imperialistic idea of Manifest Destiny anymore, we have no desire to annex Canada. We are at good terms with them, so there would be no reason to go to war. I am looking forward to your argument.
Should the U.S. government continue to aid other countries

Americans are of the 1 % when compared to the world. The real questions is can we afford not to give aid?? 1) 1)_What percentage of the U.S. federal budget goes to foreign aid? 2) What percentage should go to foreign aid? 3) If your answer on (2) was "0," is any foreign aid at all worth any expense? Now for the facts on question No. 1 (the other two are opinions): roughly 1.5 percent. There is no missing zero. Most Americans believe foreign aid is close to 10 to 15 percent, but the real answer is 1.5 percent. So, move on to question 2. If you thought the answer was 10 percent, would you agree that 1.5 percent is reasonable? Or is even 1.5 percent too much to give away during a U.S. economic recession and unemployment at 9-plus percent? It is not a question of short-term spending, but of long-term investment and whether security, democracy, human rights and all the values we believe are worth preserving and promoting are worth 1.5 percent of our money. Can we afford not to give foreign aid? » Opinion » NewburyportNews.com, Newburyport, MA
Should the U.S. government continue to aid other countries

Following World War II, the United States implemented the Marshall Plan to rebuild the economies of Germany and Japan. This massive investment brought with it a significant reward. Rather than being forced to wallow in the sort of poverty that nurtures thoughts of revenge, the people of Germany and Japan experienced the great generosity of the United States and went from being bitter enemies to vital allies. The sad fact is that poverty leads to war. Poor countries are internally unstable and subject to revolutions and civil wars. When poor countries share borders they are likely to go to war against each other, as is so often the case on the impoverished continent of Africa. Poor countries also become breeding grounds for terrorist groups and as we saw on 9/11, no country is immune from the hatred born of poverty. The instability in poor countries makes international trade difficult. Multi-national corporations are reluctant to make investments in such places for fear of seeing them lost through destruction or nationalization following a coup or revolution. Vast potential markets for American goods and services remain untapped because the populations of many nations are too poor to buy what we have to offer. The best way to view this type of government spending is not aid, but rather investment. We are investing in the futures of other nations. Our hope is that they will develop into stable countries with productive, self-sufficient economies. Of course no investment is without risk, but in the instances where they prove sound, we will end up with strong allies and new markets to fuel the growth of our own economy.
Should the U.S. government continue to aid other countries

Yes, as you said, people are moving into the U.S. to start a new life, and because they are illegal, the government is left to take care of them and pay for them. Just to be clear, giving money to the U.S. military does not count as aid to other countries because it is the U.S. military. The U.S. economy is doing terribly right now, we are in $15 trillion of debt and we can not afford to help other countries because we need to get out of this debt.
Should the U.S. government continue to aid other countries

We as Americans have been helping people within other Countries make a better life for themselves. You see, more often than not, some those people migrated to the United States of America and did make a new life for themselves, and sent money and goods to their friends and relatives within the Country from which they came. Some of those people were also educated within the United States of America and subsequently went back to their own country to help their own people. As such, the United States of America made an indirect positive impact within each of those countries.
The Iraq war is illegal and amoral and should never have been waged.

The proportion of foreign troops to our own is irrelevant. We had support going in (45,000 British troops is quite a bit), ergo, the law prohibiting unilateral military action does not apply here. Action is not the only important political tool. Bush could not have gone to war against Iraq if the animosity theretowards had not persisted through the eight years separating him from Bush Senior. You make the point that the Bush administration used 9/11 to rally American support for an Iraqi invasion. This proves it was opportunistic, but not necessarily amoral. The administration set themselves up for a strong confirmation bias when formulating a response to 9/11 - certainly not wise, but there is still no evidence suggesting the war's justification was a deliberate and malicious lie.
The Iraq war is illegal and amoral and should never have been waged.

Well having a green air freshener in your car doesn't make it green, nor does having a few thousand other troops to our 120,000. There were 45,00 from Great Britain, 2,00 Australians, 300 Danes, and 200 Poles. The forty other nations you mentioned didn't offer any combat troops. Now lets compare that to the Coalition of the Willing in 1990: 697,000 from the United States, 100,000 from Saudi Arabia, 45,400 from Great Britain, 35,000 from Egypt, 14,600 from France, 14,500 from Syria, 13,000 Morocco, 9,900 from Kuwait, 6,300 from Oman, 5,500 from Pakistan, 4,300 from the United Arab Emirates, 2,600 from Qatar, 2,200 from Bangladesh, 2,000 from Canada, 1,200 from Italy, 700 from Australia, 600 from the Netherlands, 500 from Senegal, 500 from Spain, 400 from Bahrain, 400 from Belgium, 300 from Afghanistan, 300 from Argentina, 200 from Czechoslovakia, 200 from Greece, 200 from Poland, 200 from South Korea, 100 from Denmark, 50 from Hungary, and 50 from Norway. They also had U.N. resolution 660 condemning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanding their immediate withdrawal. Something we didn't have, get, or wait for the second time around. The Clinton years did see a ratcheting up of talk of deposing Saddam but there was no solution for it just words. So yes it was a Bush family legacy. On inauguration day President George W. Bush wanted IRaq democratized and Saddam removed as seen in this quote," After leaving the administration, former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq was planned since the inauguration and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion." So yes it was planned from the beginning with the Bush Administration full well knowing what they were doing could be wrong as this quote form Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld shows, "Despite key Bush advisers' stated interest in invading Iraq, little formal movement towards an invasion occurred until the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to aides who were with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on September 11, Rumsfeld asked for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at same time. Not only Osama bin Laden." The notes also quote him as saying, "Go massive", and "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." So with no U.N resolution and no real information the Iraq war was illegal started for amoral reasons.