BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If it isn't broke don't fix it

I do not agree with the statement "if it isn't broke don't fix it." The way I see it things need to be fixed sometimes even if they work fine. You can improve something and fix it to where it works better. One of the definitions of fix is to do the work to improve or adapt something. Some situations there seems to be something that works fine and we never know that there was problems until you begin to work on and it actually needs fixing. You could say why does it need fixing and why would you even try to work on a problem that has caused no problems. I think about it this way. If you have a computer and it works fine and you wouldn't think to fix it because it does work fine. Eventually you would want to adapt the computer and fix it to do something else. Like an i-phone. when you had IOS six it worked fine. however when the new update came out most people updated it. In other words they fixed it and made it better even though it wasn't broke. The idea works for several other things as well.
gay marriage should be legal

Oh really? Because scientists have found animals showing homosexual behaviors. And how is it impossible for then to marry. This makes no sense. Same sexton couples have married before. This isn't incest relationships we are debating on. Another reason it should be legal is that they are more likely to adopt children! Straight couples will wanna give birth to their child, but gay couples don't have that option. So, they will adopt children. And don't start saying the children won't wanna be adopted by a gay couple. They would. And it's better to have two parents then one. People claim that it's supposed to be man married to women, but that is no where beat the truth. It is just another way for anti gays to steal other's rights. What you are expressing is people shouldn't be allowed to be happy due to different preferences. Gays are committing suicide because of the harassing they get, and not being able to be with the one they love. If gay marriage is legal, society will have to accept.
gay marriage should be legal

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
gay marriage should be legal

I believe gay marriage should be legal everywhere. Most arguments against gay marriage are ridiculous. Yes, the Bible is against it, but what if your atheist and the bible has no part of your life? The dumbest one I've heard is that if gay marriage is legal more people will become gay and society will collapse. 10% of the world is gay and it's stayed that way for a LONG time. Gay marriage is actually a good example for your kids. It takes a lot of courage for two girls or boys to be proud they are dating. What this teaches young children is people are different, and differences should be celebrated and rejoiced. To takes away basic human rights from some people is of course racist, and extremely rude. Everyone should be free to live their own life, and what happened to the separation of church and state? And why do people Want to control things that aren't their buissness? What I'm saying is Christianity doesn't rule the world and marriage is none of the government's buissness.
gay marriage should be legal

I still don't see how legalizing gay marriage will increase divorce rates. Straight couples have nothing to do with gay couples. Unless they try to squeeze in. I highly doubt a married couple will sit down and say, "gay marriage is legal let's get a divorce!" And if they do they are huge idiots. Legalizing gay marriage can actually decrease divorce. Gay people sometimes marry members of the opposite sex, and that will most likely end in a divorce. For example: Rock Hudson was married to Phyllis Gates 1955-1958. How happy do you think they're ending was?
gay marriage should be legal

Allowing gay couples to wed will further weaken the institution of marriage. Traditional marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothers in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution. As argued by Ryan T. Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation, "In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults" desires than children"s needs... Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is the culmination of this revisionism, and it would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds."
Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote.

My opponent is quite correct in his analysis of due process of law. Rights and privileges of citizenship can be TEMPORARILY suspended for an infraction against the law. However, to suspend rights PERMINENTLY with the only recourse being to petition the state for reinstatement of these rights is unconstitutional. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVLAGES OR IMMUNITEIS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." These laws do indeed deny the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Forcing a citizen to petition the government for the restoration of a basic right after punishment has been served does abridge a privilege of citizenship. Any person, not only citizens, enjoy equal protection of the laws in the United States. A former felon is hardly receiving the equal protection of the laws after the right to vote has been taken away. In a legal sense my objection to legislation denying the right to vote to former convicts is the lack of specified duration of punishment. Actions such as this start down the path of life-long punishment for a lesser crime than serious felonies or capital crimes, which carry a justifiable and constitutional punishment of specific length. The moral question I ask is can society dictate what rights a person enjoys? Only when the exercise of your rights impeded another's can society step in and punish you for that infraction. Every legal adult is in a contract with society as a whole. Abuse of another person's rights results in punishment. After this punishment has been completed what justification is there for a continuation of the punishment in the form of disenfranchisement? By continuing the punishment of these individual through disenfranchisement we are only encouraging them to remain on the fringes of society as second-class citizens. Criminals need to be punished, in my opinion often more severely than we do now, but indefinite punishment to be lifted at the discretion of the government is not only unconstitutional but poses the risk of creating a class of subjects, not citizens.
Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -14th Amendment of the US Constitution. A convict has served their time for their infraction against society. How does denying an ex-con help to protect the public. What legal or moral argument can be used to defend this unconstitutional measure? None exist.
Immigration

I would like to first point out a few things. There are many many countries, I believe at least 77, That have some kind of structure along their borders, Either a wall or fence or both. A wall to some Americans is being turned into a symbol of hatred toward outsiders. Most everyone else in the world who has a wall knows that it is a device for not only protection, But responsibility of the government for the people to know who is coming in and out of the country, Regardless of who they are or what their intentions are. All for various reasons and I will let you research this on your own. Those who are educated on the matter as far as witnessing the effectiveness of walls will say that they work at keeping people out. Again, You can research this. Sorry for not citing sources but I am reading a few easily accessible ones that shouldn't be hard to find if you want to look them up. Also, Our border patrol wants a wall as well. As long as we don't have completely open borders, There will be a border patrol. Why would you employ people to be responsible for regulating who is entering and leaving the country, And then tell them that if someone wants to forego all of this and make a mad dash across the border, You cannot stop them but it's still your job to find them and figure out what to do with them once they're in the country makes absolutely no sense. This idea that immigration laws are somehow completely impossible to abide by in order to become a citizen or unfair or unjust is not true. Even if it was, Then the argument should be on if legal immigration laws are too unfair, But nobody is even considering this. Nobody even cares about how fair the legal immigration laws are, They're automatically unfair just by existing. As far as the expenses, It is a common counter argument to complain about the billions of dollars it will cost to build the wall. This argument of it being too expensive is always given without any context. The highest estimate I've seen (which is 3 times the initial projections for the cost) is $21 billion. Holy cow that's a lot of money. How much? Well the US annual budget is almost $5 trillion. Hence, The wall would only cost 0. 42% of the US annual budget. I don't think people realize how much money the government has to spend on us.
Immigration

It appears the United States is struggling yet again with how it should handle immigration policy. Conservatives currently in power pressingly claim stricter boarder policies and management will somehow resolve the problem. I ask what problem? While it easy to get swept away by the fierce rhetoric either side utilizes, The Right's claim of a boarder crisis seems misguided, If not entirely fallacious. The heart of the issue though, Seems to be what we do with immigrants once they arrive here. If the claim from the Right is that illegal immigrants damage the economy, Reap free rewards, And abuse the current system, I strongly oppose such a claim. Immigrants, Illegal or otherwise, Are overall good for America.
Resolved: Mitt Romney would make a better, more effective president than Mitt Romney.

There is one thing you, sir, have neglected to mention, and that is the fact that rich a**holes like Mitt ROMNEY know how to keep track of their money.If there's one thing that Mitt ROMNEY can provide: it's exactly what is needed at the moment: responsible financing. I believe Mitt ROMNEY would put all of the US' money in offshore bank accounts where it can sit and wait for the economic storm to pass. Mitt ROMNEY has effectively saved millions of dollars of his own money by putting them in offshore accounts. Why wouldn't an s**hole like him employ these same strategies as president?There's also the matter of MITT Romney being a unicorn. As Mitt ROMNEY is unwilling to release DNA to prove that he is in fact a human, we must accept the fact that he has something to hide. No matter HOW good he is, no matter his record, we must prevent this inhuman beast from taking office. Mitt ROMNEY would ensure that all unicorns die a slow, painful death (because he likes to kill joy) which would ultimately create a safer environment for we humans like us. Furthermore, it is imperative that we look at this issue: Americans would rather have Obama defend us from an alien invasion that MITT Romney. If Mitt ROMNEY received the attention he deserves, I believe people would feel differently, and demand we install Mitt ROMNEY as protector of our planet.His experience at non-diplomacy and his aggressive attitude towards anyone suggesting he ran a d*ckish campaign is a clear indicator that Mitt ROMNEY would inspire the people to rise up and destroy our alien adversaries.
Resolved: Mitt Romney would make a better, more effective president than Mitt Romney.

This DOES have to be somewhat organized, you MUST signpost, you MUST have contentions (how many is up to you). You do not have to have a value or value criterion. Evidence: Citations are necessary ONLY if the opponent asks for them, you may NOT use: Fox News, MSNBC or Rush Limbaugh. You MAY or quetion attack methodology of evidence.
Who is the actual (FLESH!) Root of David. I say Adam started the line of David.

Is that your proof? Misqouted bible texts. I need more to argue against. In the meantime you can figure out how to show me that Adam's bloodline is David's. What I mean by that is this If Adam started his own bloodline then who started David's? Why, are they different? If there not then why isnt it just called Adam's line? If they are different then how is it Adam's still? Wouldnt that difference be the start of a new line? If it is indeed a new line why shouldnt it be credited to David, the person who started it? My questions can go on and on but I believe youll have a hard enough time just answering these. Good luck
Who is the actual (FLESH!) Root of David. I say Adam started the line of David.

If Christ came in the flesh then He used a individual race=Israel/Jew/Line of David. Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rev_22:16, I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
There is proof that the Christian god exists

Very well then. I am struck curious by a few of your arguments. First of all, the very source you gave said that the christian god was actually made of three seperate people who are all co-eternal and equal and power. That means that the father has the same ability as the son. Even if you don't credit Jesus with the creation of the cosmos (a different person of god did it), he still needs to be credited with omniscience and omnipotence. If he isn't, how can he be the Christian god in full? Yet again, I am asking what evidence is there that Jesus had these attributes. Also, let's say hypothetically that the Christian god exists. How would you know that Jesus was the son of God? How do you know Moses, Abraham, or even I am not the son of God? There is no evidence supporting him being a deity. To me your argument is somewhat inconsistent (not to be rude). You even admit that Christianity is not entirely consistent, which I would like you to clarify on. Please explain to me how Jesus can constitute the Christian god in his entirety AND is supposed to be EQUAL to the father and the holy spirit without being credited with the attributes of the Christian god. Also, for the Christian god to exist, all 3 persons of Him must exist. The disprovement of one means that the Christian god as a whole is disproven (if Jesus or the spirit existed but the father didn't or vice versa). What evidence is there that the father exists or created the cosmos, earth, or Adam and Eve? What evidence is there that the holy spirit constantly: a) convice sinful people to do right b) brings people to the Christian faith c) inspires the writing of scriptures and helps other christians interpret these scriptures What evidence is there that the holy spirit is also responsible for the birth, baptism, and empowerment of the son? I urge my opponent to answer these questions. I also urge a CON ballot. Thank you.
There is proof that the Christian god exists

My opponent concedes that the person of Jesus Christ fully constitutes God, in that proof of the Father and the Holy Spirit is unnecessary. However, he claims that I must prove Jesus' omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. This is not necessary. Christianity is, shall we say...not entirely consistent. Though Christ is attested to constitute God in His entirety, he is not granted the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Arguments: 1. The Father created the cosmos, as well as man, and subsequently created Jesus. [3] 2. Jesus was never credited with omniscience. 3. Jesus was never credited with omniscience. Essentially, Jesus is the Christian God. He is stated to be such, though not granted godly qualities. The Christians believe the person of Jesus Christ to be their God, in full. I have proven his existence. Resolution affirmed. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is proof that the Christian god exists

Ok then pcmbrown. Thank you for accepting this debate. First of all, you say that because the holy trinity makes the father, son, and holy spirit undivided. This means that Jesus of Nazareth and the father are the same person. Second of all, I would like to point out that Jesus of Nazareth must live up to all of his claims. He claims omnipotence, omniscence, and omnibenevolence. He also claims to have created the cosmos as well as this planet in just seven days. If he didn't do that then he cannot be classified as the christian god. Doesn't matter if Jesus existed as a person, his failure to meet these criteria means he didn't exist as the christian god, and therefore his existence doesn't dictate that of the christian god's. Also, you can't get away with just upholding one of these things. All of these things about Jesus have to be correct. Now for my arguments. Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a human being. I'm not saying he didn't which makes your sources irrelavent. The question is whether he was a deity. Now, how could Jesus have created the cosmos when the cosmos existed before he did? Wasn't jesus born? And how could he be the son of man if he created man? That doesn't sound very legit. On top of that, there's no proof to support any of this. Also, if Jesus was of flesh and had a mind of a human, how could he have known everything? And how is it mathematically possible to know everything? Did he know every single position of every single particle in the universe? Why did he ask 'the father' "why hast thou forsaken me?" when he died. He had to have known if he was omniscient. As I said before, there is no evidence to support any of this. Also he claims omnipotence. You ought to know that I like to use the paradox of the stone. Can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift? Can he create a problem too difficult for him to solve? Can he create a being too mean for him to love? Omnipotence not only conflicts itself, but conflicts with omniscience and omnibenevolence. All of these claims affiliated with the christian god have not been confirmed and therefore cannot be considered factual. Thank you.
There is proof that the Christian god exists

"proof" any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn "The Christian God" According to widely held Christian beliefs, God is in fact, a Godhead, consisting of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. However, God is undivided, each of these parts constitutes the entirety of God. Ergo, the Son is equivalent to God (the Son being Jesus Christ). Therefore, the person of Jesus Christ IS the Christian God. "exist" to have actuality. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn The resolution, therefore, essentially reads: "There is factual, relevant evidence that the person of Jesus Christ has actuality." A historian named Josephus compiled a history of the Jewish race. In it, he notes: "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ..." [1] Another historian, Tacitus, mentions the existence of Jesus Christ [2]. Both instances suggest Christ's existence. [1] http://wiki.answers.com... [2] http://www.infidels.org...
The US ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute CAH.

This debate needs to be executed in a traditional LD style in this order: Round 1: No arguments made (begins in round 2) Contender introduces one's self Round 2: AFF gives case, NEG gives case and attacks aff case Round 3: AFF attacks neg case and rebuild own case, NEG rebuilds case and gives final observations Round 4: AFF gives final observations and key voting issues, NEG gives key voting issues I am looking for an opponent willing to follow above rules and also willing to critique my case with a helpful eye rather than a useless flaming reprieve that I cannot benefit from. Thank You and Good arguing.
Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs

I'm in college and have to deal with this number of times a year as far as i know no student is able to be denied loans since it comes in when their credit score is still new and unused. The system is set up that between scholarships and financial aid most students especially with a good gpa and sat should have no problem paying for college. The money you're talking about a young uneducated worker getting is minimum wage if you worked full time (60 hours a week about the same amount as school) something no student in school will be able to keep up with you would have allocated $15,000 in a year assuming your state has a ~8$ minimum wage in Georgia where i am it's 5.15$. It's a good deal to a kid who doesn't pay for bills or meals but when you try and put it towards tuition you won't keep it for long. since the average cost to pay for a school year is around $32,405 at private colleges and $9,410 for state residents at public colleges. My personal scholarships and Federal aid for a private college pay for about 30,000$ a year which would take two years of a 14 years working a minimum wage job in some states. Those transportation options create issues like now you take time and gas money away from family and i don't know where you are from but a golf cart is not street legal in many cities and suburbs. It would not be viable transportation it also doesn't handle bad weather.
Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs

If you ever really looked into student loans you will see that the teenager would have to pay of the loans that they got from the college.When the student of the college gets a loan they will need to pay back the school after that semester that they are doing.Also, some of the families cant afford getting loans because of how poor they are, with the transportation issue they could always get s ride from some one or they can have their own permit on a 4-wheeler or a golf cart, they really dont need a drivers license.