BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is sitting/kneeling/raising a fist acceptable durring the national anthem

These quotes come from football players, but can be transferred: "It was our goal to be unified as a team and to be respectful of everyone"s opinions, and the remembrance of 9/11," the team said in a statement. "It"s our job as professional athletes to make a positive impact on our communities and to be proactive when change is needed." Seattle wide receiver Doug Baldwin, in a video he posted online announcing his team"s decision to link arms, said, "Progress can and will be made only if we stand together."
Is sitting/kneeling/raising a fist acceptable durring the national anthem

I'm not going to make this long because you seem to lack interest, and you copy and paste your first response for your second. First off let me say again that it is only acceptable if you accept it as such. So in reality, this is up to you. Second; sitting, kneeling, and raising fists are all ways that one can exhibit their freedom of speech. The people that are currently doing these actions believe that there is an injustice happening in America, and this is their way to give it publicity. Third; you say that it is "proven." Actions considered disrespectful against the USA flag have not been explained in law, so it cannot be defined as "proven to be disrespectful." You seem to be arguing this cause simply because you see other people getting mad over. They're simply making a big deal out of nothing. USA believes in free speech, and thus we should accept countering behavior, even if we don't like it.
Moral citizens in America should be allowed to own guns and use them judiciously.

It is in this round of the debate in which I am supposed to offer a rebuttal to my opponent's argument, but my opponent has failed to cite a difference from myself, the proposition, and has forfeited all other rounds. In fact, my opponent has actually agreed with me, and in Round 1, wrote in reference to Americans, "yes, they should be allowed to own guns and use them judiciously." Thus, I have no pertinent information to which I can offer a rebuttal. Please take my conduct and my opponent's conduct into consideration while voting. Thank you.
Moral citizens in America should be allowed to own guns and use them judiciously.

Much substantiation for the justification of gun rights in America lies in the modern evidence, both historically and internationally, that shows a need for their existence. The most modern example lies in Mexico, where guns and even some knives are illegal (1). Despite this, guns remain prevalent and laws seem to be unenforced, as there is a constant barrage of news about gun-related violence in Mexico. The black market, Russian crime organizations, Columbia, China, the Mexican Army, and Guatemala are all veritable sources from which Mexicans can obtain AK-47s, and M-16s, among others (2). This demonstrates that illegalizing guns will not stop people from possessing them. This connects logically to new American gun restrictions that lower the legal size of the magazines. These restrictions are pointless because people who will commit gun crimes will not go out and relinquish control of their old, more powerful magazines in favor of smaller ones. They will continue to harbor the now illegal weapons and commit a crime with them. When guns are legal, retailers and manufacturers can create jobs and contribute to the nation's economy. There are about 220,000 American jobs supported by the firearms industry, and it generates about $33 billion for the American economy (3). By illegalizing guns, the firearms companies and retailers would be punished for something they did not do. Thus, the economy would be hurt and everyone would suffer. In addition to violating Americans' rights, gun regulations would be superfluous and could contribute to other problems. Sources 1 - U.S. Consulate in Tijuana Gun Warning - http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov... 2 - The Ninety Percent Myth by Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com... 3 - Gun Industry Employment from The Blaze - http://www.theblaze.com...
Moral citizens in America should be allowed to own guns and use them judiciously.

For this debate, I would like to propose the following format: Round 1: Variables are established, terms defined, acceptance of topic, position, and format on both sides Round 2: First argument Round 3: Second argument Round 4: Rebuttal Also, please note that sources must be cited for everything said unless it is debate syntax, personal interpretation, or, at your discretion, considered to be common knowledge for an American citizen of average intelligence and scope. I accept the topic and will take the PRO side, debating for guns. I accept the format and intend on adhering to it throughout the debate. Moral - "Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong" (1). In the definition of moral, it is important to recall the Transcendentalist movement in Antebellum America, with an accent on Thoreau and his thoughts on civil disobedience; he believed that the "citizen has no duty to resign his conscience to the state, and may even have a duty to oppose immoral legislation" (2). Moral citizens are not necessarily law-abiding, but they do what is right based upon their conscience and sense of right and wrong. Gun - "A weapon consisting from a metal tube that fires a projectile at high velocity" (1). For our purposes, we will be debating about guns that fire bullets and can be transported and wielded with no mechanical assistance. No further constraints shall be put on what is considered to be a gun. Judiciously is an adverb form of judicious - "Having or exhibiting sound judgment" (1). This connects to morality; Americans should be allowed to own guns and use them when they feel it is the right thing to do. When people go to prison for committing a crime, they lose rights (i.e. the right to vote) (3). From this, it can be concluded that when one takes away the rights of someone else, they enter into an implicit contract that by taking away said rights, they lose said rights as well. Thus, if a moral citizen feels as if his/her rights or someone else's rights are being taken away to the point where the person(s) taking away the rights deserve to be shot, the moral citizen will use a gun to shoot the person(s) taking away rights. Sources - (1) - Webster's II New College Dictionary (2) - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://plato.stanford.edu... (3) - The Sentencing Project on Felony Disenfranchisement - http://www.sentencingproject.org...
If we follow the Declaration of Independence, then it is past time to overthrow the U.S. government.

I do not contest the quote for accuracy. I do contest Pro's interpretations, on a point by point basis: == REBUTTAL TO PRO'S REASONING #1 - Liberty == Taxation on property - How is taxation an undue burden? The very founding principle of government is a group of people who sacrifice anarchistic individual freedoms to contribute toward a better, stronger mutual good. No government can operate without funds -- in fact, government is the very source and provider of currency, and without a strong central government, money would have no meaning. If you took away the government's ability to collect taxes to pay for its own operations such as civil works or defense (military), the government would cease to function. This could readily be observed in history when several states decided to secede from what they determined to be a too powerful central government to form a confederacy, allowing for more states' rights. The Confederate States of America born of this could not sustain nor protect itself because its model of a weak central government with no real ability to levy taxes to fund itself was ultimately, conclusively unsustainable. To do away with taxes is to undo government and create anarchy. Regulation without representation - Certainly, residents of certain portions of the United States, such as the "District of Columbia," might have a valid complaint of having regulation without representation, as the District of Columbia lacks congressional representation as do all non-state territories. For the "mainstream America" in the fifty states of the United States, however, each state has representation in legislative regulation in the form of two duly elected senators and at least two duly elected representatives (more apportioned depending on population determined in once-per-decade census reports) in the bicameral United States Congress. Bureaucracy - Government beaureaus, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are vital for carrying out essential functions of the government to protect its people and ensure the good of the people is met. I find that Pro has not established why beauracracies are an unconstitutional use of authority. Intrastate commerce regulation - I will seriously need Pro to address specifics on why he feels intrastate commerce regulation is a violation of the U.S. constitution by the U.S. government. Usage of powers reserved to the states - Care to cite specific examples at least? I cannot address miscellaneous, unspecified "other infringements on the constitution" and would ask Pro to specify them, as the burden of proof is on Pro to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.
If we follow the Declaration of Independence, then it is past time to overthrow the U.S. government.

Disclaimer: I do not advocate this, nor do I endorse this belief. In no way does wjmelements or debate.org endorse the views advocated in this debate. From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." http://www.archives.gov... Therefore, my burden is to prove that government has 'become destructive of' life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. ------------------------------ 1. Liberty- Government has laid upon the people two burdens to liberty: -Taxation on property -Regulation without representation Government has used authority not derived from the people through the constitution through: -bureaucracy -intrastate commerce regulation -usage of powers reserved to the states -other various infringes on the constitution 2. Pursuit of Happiness Government has put onto the people the following burdens that destroy one's attempt at happiness: -Windfall taxes -The progressive tax -Capital gains taxes These policies discourage success, reinvestment, and ultimately the ability of one to pursue one's happiness. ----------------------------- For these reasons, the United States government has intruded upon the 'inalienable rights' of the people. It has also gone beyond the consent of the governed.
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

Unfortunately, and all too often, it is true that American presidents are indeed evaluated by their charisma and personality. My Opponent has created a "ruler" by which to measure the "badness" of his selected President Wilson. Although I agree that peace, prosperity and freedom are important values by which to judge a good presidency, I have to disagree with the idea that if peace, prosperity and freedom are disrupted during or after a presidency, that we should deem a President as bad. The reason for this is because Presidents are part of an administration, as well as a continuum. Peace 1: The fact that Wilson had the intention to keep the USA out of war shows that he was not a warmonger like other Presidents who beat the war drums regularly. We must bear in mind that WW1 was heavily financed by American bankers and speculators who always have powerful influences in the government. Rather than having "decided" to enter the was, as suggested by my Opponent, Wilson was "pressured" to enter the war. Peace 2: It is extremely harsh to place the blame for WW2 on President Wilson when in fact that war was purely created by conditions outside of the USA. America was dealing with the Great Depression while Europe and Asia were trying to develop their own political ideologies. With regards to being labeled the "Interventionist President" by my Opponent, I must return to my argument that all presidencies are part of a continuum. Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Cuba were all pots boiling with conflict before the Wilson Administration. Again, Wilson had to respond to was he found on his table, despite the fact that he was a President that did not want to see America at war. I commend my Opponent for having laid out such a strong and detailed argument. Because of time constraints, I will not address every issues because I want the audience to consider my point that Wilson should not be judged as bad when he is in fact part of an administration and continuum. That fact that he boasted with his slogan for having stayed away from war shows that as an individual he had his own ideas about how to govern his Nation, but that as a collective, the American Government is responsible for the good or bad outcomes of the decisions that are made collectively. President Wilson should only be judge a bad president based on the singular decisions he made through his executive powers, and not those that involved other branches of the government that voted collectively.
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

High Five to my Opponent! Determining whether or not a former President of the United States is bad or not is surely not an easy task because one has to first create a ruler by which one can measure how bad a President was. In this debate, it shall not be my task to prove that Woodrow Wilson was good, but rather that he was not a bad President. It will be Pro's responsibility to demonstrate President Wilson's badness when compared to other Presidents. I would assert that Bill Clinton was a bad President, and therefore would consider Wilson to be not-so-bad. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" – President Bill Clinton
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

Resolution: Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.Rules: Debater must have typing experience.Debater must have internet access.No excuses or forfeitures.Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." -Milton FriedmanI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel.With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner.Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Let the game begin!
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

I would like to sincerely apologize to my Opponent for my ignorance when it comes to the history of traditional or professional debating. Although I was born in Italy, I grew up in the United States from a very early age. Despite this, I never made it beyond the 7th Grade. As a result, I never participated in, nor attended, a high school debate, a college debate or even a public or presidential debate. It can be said, with humor, that I am a "living room debater." It was later in life that I realized how valuable an education could have been and thus I became an autodidact. Honestly, my Opponent is correct in saying that I have disregarded the format, because I truthfully do not understand it. My experience of debating is relegated to a friend introducing a topic and should I be opposed to his or her assertion, I would take the contrary position; this would usually take place in a "living room." (smile) The first time that I ever heard the term "resolved" in the context of debating was during the excellent film "The Great Debaters." I will attempt to post a "main argument" in this Round, if I have understood what my Opponent has meant. Perhaps I will learn more about debating from this experience, or else I will avoid debates with rules and structures until I feel confident that I know what I am dealing with. My main argument consists of the idea that we should not judge a President of the United States as bad unless we are to consider his individual decisions and powers as a President. My Opponent has made a clear statement about President Woodrow Wilson being bad, and not his government, administration or the congress under his rule. I would not argue that Woodrow Wilson was a good President because I do not consider any President of the United States as having been good. All American Presidents, including Obama, are responsible for the enslavement of Africans in America. America was built on slave labor and the only "good" President will be the one who addresses and resolves this issue through public acknowledgement, apologies and reparations. What makes Woodrow Wilson a bad President? What executive decisions or lack of decisions have lead to negative outcomes? President Obama had the executive power to declare a moratorium on house foreclosures and chose not to, leading to millions of families losing their homes and hundreds of tent cities to spring up all over the United States. This for me defines a bad president. President Clinton could have used his personal power and influence to intervene in Rwanda and chose not to, having been fully informed of the situation at hand. President Wilson found himself in a very tumultuous period in American history and it can be argued that his administration, and the congress under his watch, made some bad decisions, but my Opponent is left with the burden of demonstrating that President Wilson, as an individual, was a bad president.
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

I would have liked to have a serious debate on this, but Con has disregarded the format of the rounds, making continuing the debate very difficult. He has also only rebutted two of my six contentions, so I will offer him a deal.This is the format of the debate:Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)Con should have posted a “main argument” on the reasons he deems Woodrow Wilson to be a good president, or at least not a bad president. However, he posted a rebuttal; this means that I have nothing to rebut, only a response to his rebuttal. I would be willing to suspend the rules, and allow him to post his main argument in this round to which I will rebut in the next round, while responding to his rebuttal, and bringing up voting issues. He will respond to my rebuttal and bring up voting issues.New round structure:(3) Con’s main argument(4) Pro’s response to opponent’s rebuttal, rebuttal, and voting issuesCon’s response to rebuttal and voting issuesIf these are acceptable terms by the Con, please post the main argument in the next round. Thank you.
Banning Guns

People can die from anything. . . Like Cars-FAR MORE than guns and no one wants them banned. You know how many crimes are committed with guns-300k oh yeah well guns save 800k to 2 MILLION crimes. Britain banned guns and saw an increase in crime for 6 years and regular crime stayed the same. Mexico banned all guns and has the HIGHEST gun crime in the WORLD. Lithuania and Japan doesn't have guns. HIGHEST suicides rates in modern countries. The current gun control system made by Bill Clinton, Every school shooter EVER failed it. 80k people committed a felony while buying a gun and only 44 were prosecuted for it. Assault Rifles are a common choice for hunting and gun store owners. As well as tyrannical government. Hitler took the guns, Mao and Stalin took the guns and the KKK was the first gun control group. To disarm a nation, First disarm its citizens -Adolf Hitler Answer these questions: 1. If guns existed before mass shootings, Why are we only seeing them now? 2. What is your solution to ban 300 MILLION guns.
Banning Guns

Guns are dangerous. People can die from them. They can save lives if only one is threatened and used as self defense. Usually, A gun is meant to harm or kill a person. You know, People start up school shootings, And robberies, And suicides because of this dangerous weapon. The world would be better without guns. How is this a good thing to own a gun? More guns = more crimes. . Again, A lot of these guns is what is partially used from crimes.
Actions Speak Louder than Words

Message to my opponent:If it was not oyur main argument, I apolgize for breaking it down but that was a preety long statement for a starter argument. Most of the time, people will just state "I accept", when they have thar rule; but it does not matter. We're trying to do a fun debate, and don't want to incite conflict. Plus also why did you call it your "second argument" if you claim that the beginning was not your main argument?Rebuttal to my Opponent:Stated by my opponent in round 2, "Actions speak louder, yes they do. But, if a person is moral enough to understand the meaning of the sentence, then the person is also moral enough to actually know when and how to use his/her actions". Once more, my opponent does agree that actions are indeed louder than words. He said this in the previous round, and in this round; meaning an agreement towards my position on the debate.Not only that, but my opponent makes another argument of being moral and understanding the meaning of the sentence. No matter how it is looked about, understanding a proverb is indeed an action. In fact, being moral itself can be argued as an action. Clearly, these following ideas always result from an action and not from words. Now I'm not disagreeing with my opponent that words are not powerful, they are; but actions technically have a higher setting comparatively to words. Words are there, but one needs to take action before that word is used to its full potential. How do we define a words to its full potential? By taking action of course. I also ask my opponent this question, which he did not answer, which is how are words even made? I hope my opponent answers this, otherwise his argument will drop this point; granting me the victory in this specified area.Then my opponent also states: "But that is just a state of mind. Words, if understood to their true potential, AND used properly, then they will be in the utmost honesty and no fear. Words, are very wise, but only if you believe them to be". Once more, my opponent states words are powerful but we need to look at how words are formed. Forming them requires an action, which forms the basis of words; and because of that continues to stand that actions are stronger than words.