BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Pope Francis should be put in charge of the NSA

Here's my opening arguments for why Pope Francis should not be in charge of the NSA.I guess we'll do opening arguments this round, and then refute the opposing side next round.1. Pope Francis still clings onto bigotry.While Pope Francis certainly has brought the Caltholic Church into better light, church doctrine has not changed while Francis is in charge. Yes, Pope Francis has opened his arms to both the LGBT community and atheists, he still vehemently believes that both group are destined for hell. This will ultimately cause a rift in the Catholic community between conservative and liberal Catholics, one that may bring the chruch down. This bigotry cannot be overlooked, and would not be acceptable for a government official in the United States that is in charge of a very powerful orginization. How would you feel if the head of the NSA thinks Catholics are going to hell? Not very trusting, eh? This, combined with the insurrection brewing in the ranks of the church, do not make Francis fit for leadership of the NSA. 2. Pope Francis would disenfranchise millions of Americans.Pope Francis is very obviously Catholic, and putting him in charge of the NSA would be great, if the entre country was Catholic. However, it is not. According to a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center, only 22% of the US population is Catholic. Another 20.4% is unaffiliated with any religion, 48% are Protestant, 3% are Mormon or Orthodox, and the remaining 6% are of some other faith. As you can see, over 75% of Americans woud disagree with Pope Francis on belief alone, and his policies could alienate that same ~75%. Also, the head of the NSA is not elected, which would cause more dissatisfaction with the appointment of a heavily Caltholic chief.3. Pope Francis still hides records of child abuse.While Francis has done a great deal to bring justice to child-abusing priests, there are still thousands of incidents that have gone univestigated and thousands of offenders that have gone unpunished. Therefore, while Francis may seem transparent at first glance, he is actually protecting offenders and molesters. Who's to say he will do a better job with the NSA?4. Pope Francis has an easy cop-out.If anyone questioned his motives for a certain act while head of the NSA, he could easily say that God told him to do it. He would wash his hands of any guilt, and we would never know if his statement was true, as we are not the Pope. (Well, if you are an atheist, it's different, but I'm going to relegate myself to the outliers in the data.)
Resolved: Pope Francis should be put in charge of the NSA

Sorry it took me so long to post an argument... Lotta weird sh** happened ot my computer when I was in Vegas for some reason. Anyways here are my opening arguments for why Pope Francis should be put in charge of the NSA:1) Hes great at fixing images. When Francis inherited the Catholic Church, it was mostly known for the child sex scandal and outdated stances on certain religious and political issues.... Since then though the Church has greatly increased its reputation, which is hard as sh** to do since just a few years ago, the Church was literally known predominantly for the child sex scandal.....The NSA meanwhile has an image problem of its own in light of the revelation of blatant abuse of power over unsuspecting victims, much like the Catholic Church did a few years ago. If Pope Francis can fix the Catholic Church, he could fix the NSA too since they essentially are suffering the same problems2) Pope Francis already knows who to keep an eye on. - The Pope is officially the human link between God and humanity, meaning that the Pope answers to God and nobody else- God is (allegedly) all knowing- If Pope Francis is put in charge of the NSA, he will literally have the connection to God to know who to spy on and who not to spy onNot only will Pope Francis manage to make the NSA likable, he will make them infinitely more efficient since he literally knows who to spy on and who not to spy on due to his connection with the all knowing God. 3) He has better qualifications than anyone elseWho else in the world has experience in handling massive organizations and is as trustworthy as Pope Francis? He's literally the best option available to have run the NSA and he would probably be approved by Congress with flying colors since Conservatives and Liberals both love the guy. 4) He'll probably reveal other crazy sh** the NSA has done. Snowden did a pretty decent job in exposing crazy stuff the NSA has done in the past, but you can believe that Pope Francis will be honest and straight-foward in revealing what else the NSA has done in the past and be sincere in promising to change it. That gives Pope Francis accountability, which these days is something we can use in politics :P5) It could help him run for President in 2016Being a head of these big national organizations usually gives someone a stepping stone for building a presidential run, and even though im a fan of Hillary, I would throw her and half the democratic party off a cliff to have Pope Francis run for President.
Can you choose who you fall in love with? (not referring to homosexuality)

You can choose who to fall in love with. (The one your attracted to of course.) People may not notice it, but as soon as you start develop feelings, you push them aside. Soon, these feelings can't be bottled up any longer. Eventually, they have to be out of the bottle. You can't make love happen. It just happens. Just as my opponent said In his first debate.
Can you choose who you fall in love with? (not referring to homosexuality)

This does however depend on the level of awareness of the individual concerned....and not only that their interpretation of their experience and whether they believe they are thinking or feeling.. Many of us do not think we decide to fall in love - we think it just happens. Sometimes of course it does, or at least appears to happen like that. But if you think about this...and thinking is not feeling (and this is where it gets further complicated;) many of us make a decision to start thinking about a person. We imagine being with them. We imagine what it would be like to be their partner...and so on. In other words we are thinking about them that then creates or intensifies feelings for them.
This house believes that profiting from the prison system should be a crime.

Rebuttals 1) 'the government need the money, with out that money, we can't have anymore prisons. with out those prison, said, criminals will be out and free because there will not be enough jails. we have to pay for, worker, food, electricity, everything.'The government is the government - it has plenty of other sources of income without resorting to slave labour. We do not live in Ancient Babylon, and can create a prosperous society without slavery.2) 'the criminals are in jail meaning they can't get a normal job like regular people. This way, they also contribute to the country.'By all means, let them work and pay them, but don't try to exploit them. That takes away any semblance of a rehabilitating prison system and is fundamentally abhorrent. They should be allowed to work for the minimum wage or higher, and they should be allowed to save up money for when they leave prison. 3) 'the criminal system can help rehabilitate and get money at the same time.'Profiteering takes away any incentive to rehabilitate. If the prisons want to be more profitable, they need a constant workforce, and that means longer spells in prison and more prisoners. Why rehabilitate your slave labourers when you can keep them agitated and extend their sentences for them expressing their displeasure.The commercialising of prisons is an abhorrent practice, and is one that removes any rehabilitation from the system. How could anyone be content living in a society that contains labour camps and slave-employing sweatshops?
This house believes that profiting from the prison system should be a crime.

To restate my point and add new points. 1) the government need the money, with out that money, we can't have anymore prisons. with out those prison, said, criminals will be out and free because there will not be enough jails. we have to pay for, worker, food, electricity, everything. 2)the criminals are in jail meaning they can't get a normal job like regular people. This way, they also contribute to the country. 3) the criminal system can help rehabilitate and get money at the same time.
The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised

First off, you question whether " the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce" is true. Economics 101 would support that it is true in most if not all cases. Your statement "raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. " seems more an indictment of welfare than a cogent argument for raising minimum wage. Here is another opinion (with a citation) From : http://www.essortment.com....... "Beginning in 2008, the United States economy entered a recession. Yet, at a time when many companies found it necessary to cut labor costs, the minimum wage increased. Faced with the limited choices of ( remaining in business) or laying off workers, the minimum wage workers were the ones to suffer by being laid off, according to Forbes.com. In 2004, three states that had higher minimum wage laws than were required---Alaska, Washington and Oregon---were among the five states with the highest unemployment, according to an Economic Policy Institute article by Jeff Chapman. " To clarify, I would support keeping the minimum where it is, but making it beneficial for companies to give "merit' or "service" increases. In other words, keep minimum wage as a STARTING wage, but give increases based on performance. This would be much better than a blanket raising of the wage for workers, some of whom are more of a liability than an asset. On a personal note, I once worked for a Fortune 500 corporation that paid minimum wage plus commission on sales. Those that sold did well. Those that did not produce usually left for another job. Raising the minimum would not have changed anything at all.
The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised

The argument that raising the federal minimum wage would cost business owners more money, and thus force them to either lay off workers or not bring on additional workers, seems to assume that the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce. Instead, raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. As the federal minimum wage stands, there are people who feel it is not worth their time to work for the minimum wage, and instead would be able to sustain a lifestyle they are comfortable with by continuing to stay on welfare for as long as they can. The argument that raising the minimum wage would increase "overall costs" seems to be reasonable in the short-term; in that, business owners would likely try to compensate for the increased wages of their employees. However, there are many other factors that have a direct impact upon the "overall costs," and such a discussion seems to be beyond the scope of this debate. As far as your statement that raising the minimum wage would have a "negative ripple through the economy," I will note that the very purpose of the enactment of a federal minimum wage is to increase consumer-spending power in order to stimulate the economy. That said, due to the inflation of our dollar over time, it would be reasonable for the federal government to raise the minimum wage in accordance with economic inflation, to preserve the intent of having a federal minimum wage in the first place. Without doing so, due to the already increase in "overall costs" of the standard of living in our country, minimum wage workers will continue to fall behind and the very purpose for a federal minimum wage would eventually become compromised. Lastly, I agree with you that if states want to raise their minimum wage that is their decision. However, if the federal government feels the need to step in and set a floor for what it believes the minimum wage should be, it has every right to do so. (Darby)
The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised

Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say "The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that "The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time."
Resolved: The United States ought to be considered a 'good' country.

Past atrocities are out of control in America. Do you see any groups or organizations for whites? No, every f*****g race except whites get benefits or have some form of group/society. The whole Nazi thing is old and the Jew's that were affected by WWII are dead. So let's forget about that and not make it a big ball game. Do you see white people b******g about the Black Panther's? No! And murdering the doctor is moral cuz it's a just cause by destroying an evil so that he can't kill anymore babies. The profanity all has to do with religion, personally, I think they shouldn't ban it but A LOT of others do. That's why it is a Democracy, the majority of the pop. wins. WOOT WOOT! DEMOCRACY BABY! Haha. And your last remark, is well, weak. I hope we have a draft and you get drafted. DO A LITTLE SOMETHING FOR THE COUNTRY. Miliatry, they die/died for us.
Resolved: The United States ought to be considered a 'good' country.

Thank you for your response. Oklahoma is part of the midwest. The south is Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky, etc... The KKK is fading away and are nothing like they used to be. The abortion clinic doctor is a bad man, the MAN not GROUP that shot him was doing what God would want him to do, destroy evil. If you belive in the Bible it says, I can't remember what exactly but in a nutshell it said that homosexuals shall be destroyed! Abortion is WRONG. It is totllay immorally incorrect! How could you take a babies life? It may not be born completely but it has a beating heart and a brain and could benefit the world when it grows up. And the profanity, well Idk where that came from but no, everyone will cuss no matter what.
Resolved: The United States ought to be considered a 'good' country.

Yes. I see you really hate America. Move out! You have proved many good points but let me just tell you, the KKK is in the South which is where I live but I'm from Eastern Mass. And the KKK don't kill anyone anymore anyways. Not in a long time. Oh btw, they are against gay's too. Not just blacks. http://www.kkk.bz... The abortion clinic is clearly some whack job that does not like abortion, every country has people like that. I'm devastated about 9/11 and I have become much more... irritated with Middle Eastern people. But that's just me.
Resolved: The United States ought to be considered a 'good' country.

America is the land of the free & the home of the brave. We have the opportunity to vote for whom we think is right and not forced by anyone else to tell us who to vote for. Some countries don't have this great opportunity. A lot of other countries don't have freedom of speech either. Or freedom of religion, etc... We have had a number of great Presidents that have made America what it is today, which you don't like! So here I go, hopefully I change your views. Let me begin with stating the fact that there are a number of countries that are a democracy like us, such as most countries in Europe and very few in Asia but none compared to the great U.S. We've never had a bad President up until now... Personally I think your, hatred, if you will, towards America is based on the economic situation. Most people are upset about this but when you are trying to protect this great Country it requires spending a lot of money. I'm referring to the War On Terrorism. We are there for a reason but it has not been totally admitted why we are but thanks to, uhm, Mr. Obama, we are pulling our troops out which is going to cause another terrorist attack on our soil, which will force us to spend more money on repairing the damage. But I'm falling away from the subject, America is a good, no, GREAT country for the following reasons... We don't have to worry about a group of p****d off extremists running around shooting innocent people. Yes, we have gangs but the crime rate is going down and you could always move to a safer area. Such as North/South Dakota, Vermont or Maine. Anyways, America is the founder of a free Country. Everyone country aims to have a government like us but certain countries have certain needs, like Iraq for an example was a Communist Nation only because of it's previous dumb a*s leaders. And eventually the people adjusted to it and started developing into Communistic people! Some even attempt to move here, this is why in areas such as New Hampshire have such heavy Middle Eastern, Jewish percentages of people. N.H. is a quiet, more remote area and foreign people come here to enjoy it. My last point is if America was so bad then why is it the Land of Opportunities? Even though economic times are rather worse than they used to be. Why do SO many people move here? Why? Why is learning Spanish and French so important in schools if America is as bad as you claim it is? People LOVE AMERICA! Even Europeans move here and they have Democratic forms of government in there home countries! So why do people even come here ILLEGALLY? I look forward to your response.
Resolved: The United States ought to be considered a 'good' country.

In my profile, under the 'BIG Issues', I have marked Con by 'United States'. I have been challenged on my beliefs, and thus, I feel that I might defend my opponency to the United States as a country. For definitions: ought - implying a binding obligation good - We will be referring to 'good' in a very broad sense - satisfactory, of high quality, excellent, reliable, responsible, competent, skillful. I should clarify before the debate begins; in talking about the United States, I am not referring to the territory extending from Atlantic to Pacific (or Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.); I am discussing the United States Government, all citizens of the United States, overall ideology, our involvement in the world, and so on; thus, in this debate, my opponent must prove that the many aspects of the United States ought to be considered 'good'; instead of taking the easy way as Con and playing the United States off as 'neither good nor bad', I will obviously be defending the position that the United States ought not be considered 'good'. Now, as I am the one who has been challenged, I will allow my opponent to present his views first, and we will go from there. Good luck.
ADHD is not real

You say that genes are not set, so if a black male grew up in a white female sorority then they could become a white female because his their genes are not set? Some genes are changeable and others are not. And a second child's genes would be different because there are endless possible combinations that can be made of different genes from different parents. myadhd.com Says that children who have parents with ADHD are more prone towards having it. This seems like a direct indicator towards a genetic hereditary disorder. People have shown symptoms of ADHD for ages, only the environment was different and there was no diagnosis. Now that we have seen negative effects of it in daily life we want to diagnose it and treat it. Often we will see ADHD in one sibling but not the other, and yet they have very similar environments. This is because one has a genetic predetermination that the other does not. Denying that these people have a genetic predetermination implies that there is something wrong with them that they could have prevented. ADHD cannot be prevented or changed, people are born with it they do not acquire it over time, it is something that was not preventable. As soon as a baby is conceived and their genetic makeup is created they either have ADHD or they do not have it. It is not created by environment, it is an unavoidable genetic predetermination.
ADHD is not real

You say that these are not specific traits, then what defines specific. Also one of these traits might not be specific on its own but the more and more traits you add, the rarer the combination is. You show the example of one gene that is changed by environment, but fail to mention hundreds of others that are for the most part not. being in the womb does affect personality, but only a tiny bit. The ADHD school that I speak of was one of the most alternative schools that I have ever seen. Every morning they would provide intense exercise of the children for an hour. Then the children were provided with specially trained private tutors, every hour they would have a break. And every Friday they would spend all day outside. That sounds pretty far from normal to me. You say that the classroom caused it. Then why don't all children have it? Do some have some genetic predetermination that could be causing this? ADHD might be becoming more common is genetics, if parents pass down ADHD to their children then it should be increasing exponentially.