BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the U.S. ratify the Treaty of Versailles

I have spoken thus only that the whole world may know the true spirit of America -- that men everywhere may know that our passion for justice and for self-government is no mere passion of words but a passion which, once set in action, must be satisfied. The power of the United States is a menace to no nation or people. It will never be used in aggression or for the aggrandizement of any selfish interest of our own. lt springs out of freedom and is for the service of freedom. --Woodrow Wilson
Should the U.S. ratify the Treaty of Versailles

This war had its roots in the disregard of the rights of small nations and of nationalities which lacked the union and the force to make good their claim to determine their own allegiances and their own forms of political life. Covenants must now be entered into which will render such things impossible for the future; and those covenants must be backed by the united force of all the nations that love justice and are willing to maintain it at any cost. --President Woodrow Wilson
Should the U.S. ratify the Treaty of Versailles

The question before us is whether the League that has been drafted by the Commission of the Peace Conference and laid before us is will it secure the peace of the world as it stands, and whether it is just and fair to the United States of America. That is the question and I want to bring it to the test. Wars between nations come form contacts. A nation with which we have no contact is a nation with which we should never fight... In this scheme for a League now before us we create a number of new contacts, a number of new relations, which we have not undertaken before to create. -Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Massachusetts
Should the U.S. ratify the Treaty of Versailles

Woodrow Wilson defending the Treaty of Versailles I want to remind you how the permanency of peace is at the heart of this treaty. This is not merely a treaty of peace with Germany... it is nothing less than world settlement, and at the center of that stands the covenant for the future we call the Covenant of the League of Nations. Without it the treaty can not be worked and without it it is a mere temporary arrangement with Germany. The covenant of the League of Nations is the instrumentality (means) for the maintenance of peace. If the treaty is not ratified by the Senate, the war will have been fought in vain, and the world will be thrown into chaos. I promised our soldiers, when I asked them to take up arms, that it was a war to end wars... -Pres. Woodrow Wilson
Abortion

'Consider the example of a typical woman. she has two futures. In future 1, she gives birth to a child unintentionally. In future 2, she has an abortion of that child and later gives birth to a second child, intentionally and prepared. Now, you can say that the woman killed the first child, but at the same time, that death of the first child gave the second child a chance to come to this world; the allowance for the first to stay in this world will be an indirect murder of the second. You can argue that the woman can give birth to both, but whatever number of children she plans to give birth to, there must be a limit, and whether or not these children can come to this world happily actually depends on abortion. Now, consider the terrific amount of work it requires to take care of a baby, and consider the amount of grief that will be produced between both the child and mother if she gives birth unprepared.'There is no grief in raising a child, it will teach you to become an adult. If a woman has an abortion, she will keep having an abortion because she will never learn her lesson because there are no consequences in having one. In conclusion, don't target the unborn for your mistake.'In response to the two comments, I must agree that women should try their best in learning and adopting ways in preventing pregnancy, but everyone make mistakes, and when a women becomes pregnant, it is the child's life as well as the woman's remaining life that is dependent on this issue. It doesn't sound really fair if a woman needs to suffer for her remaining life just because she made a small mistake. For the second comment, I admit that the process of abortion probably looks very painful, so I am not completely with abortion but more supportive of abortion at the early stage of pregnancy, maybe within the first or second month, and I also hope that in the future, scientific research can be conducted over abortion so that the child can pass away painlessly.'Yes, i agree to a certain extent. Women shouldn't have to resort to killing their child for their convience. And no a women won't suffer all her life because a child is a gift.And should not be killed execpt for a very good reason. There is scientific research done for abortion and concludes that is no different from infanticide. In conclusion, stop the war on unborn children. No one should be being killed just for being unwanted. And there is many articles and biologists that conclude a fetus/ zygote is human life. We have to be civilized and clean our mess. Because the 50 million aborted babies had no choice and no voice. No one should be playing god. I had the right to live, you had the right to live, why should we take that right away ?
Abortion

Allow me to take back the argument about the choice making. There are women who choose abortion not out of financial reasons. BUT, I have a new argument. If you claim that every embryo has the right to a full and complete life, I can argue that every potential child in the different possibilities of future has the right to a full and complete life. Consider the example of a typical woman. she has two futures. In future 1, she gives birth to a child unintentionally. In future 2, she has an abortion of that child and later gives birth to a second child, intentionally and prepared. Now, you can say that the woman killed the first child, but at the same time, that death of the first child gave the second child a chance to come to this world; the allowance for the first to stay in this world will be an indirect murder of the second. You can argue that the woman can give birth to both, but whatever number of children she plans to give birth to, there must be a limit, and whether or not these children can come to this world happily actually depends on abortion. Now, consider the terrific amount of work it requires to take care of a baby, and consider the amount of grief that will be produced between both the child and mother if she gives birth unprepared. Regarding women in poverty, as long as poverty exists, there will be women in poverty. Development programs' ability has an extent, and the government's ability also has an extent. Those in developed countries might have the ability to gather unwanted children, but probably not as well with those in developing countries. In response to the two comments, I must agree that women should try their best in learning and adopting ways in preventing pregnancy, but everyone make mistakes, and when a women becomes pregnant, it is the child's life as well as the woman's remaining life that is dependent on this issue. It doesn't sound really fair if a woman needs to suffer for her remaining life just because she made a small mistake. For the second comment, I admit that the process of abortion probably looks very painful, so I am not completely with abortion but more supportive of abortion at the early stage of pregnancy, maybe within the first or second month, and I also hope that in the future, scientific research can be conducted over abortion so that the child can pass away painlessly.
Abortion

'Adoption is not very common. Most women in poverty don't have access to that option.'Yes, but there are programs to help women in poverty. 'For me, nothing is better than the possibility of dying after years of hunger.'I'd rather have a chance at life than have my limbs cut off and flushed down the toilet. 'In reality, most parents would've chosen one of the non-lethal ways if they have the choice. Killing off the unborn children can be better than letting the born children die.'Both are equally bad. 'Because there are people who don't take responsibility for their actions, there are children who won't be taken care of after birth.' The goverment will provide assistance to unwanted children 'And you agree that abortion is allowed if a mother is raped or might die from giving birth.'Yes, because those are the only good reasons why abortion is neccasary. Most abortions are done for convience.
Abortion

Adoption is not very common. Most women in poverty don't have access to that option. For me, nothing is better than the possibility of dying after years of hunger. In reality, most parents would've chosen one of the non-lethal ways if they have the choice. Killing off the unborn children can be better than letting the born children die. Because there are people who don't take responsibility for their actions, there are children who won't be taken care of after birth. And you agree that abortion is allowed if a mother is raped or might die from giving birth. If there are other alternatives to abortion, please list them.
Abortion

'There are many women in the world who can't afford financially to have a child.' Adoption is an option and the're are many programs to help those who are in financial need. Even if you live in poverty, you don't have to kill your unborn to solve your problem. If a mother killed her two year old for the exact same reason, she will be arrested for murder. 'If a child is born without anyone wanting him or her to born, he or she will probably live a horrible life.' It's better living a life than having none at all. 'Even though they have rights, since they can't decide for themselves, it is usually the best for their parents, who are responsible for them, to decide what is best for the baby.' So killing off your unborn children is the best option ? There are many, non-lethal ways of handling this situation. 'The world is too populated! We need less children!' The world is not even close to over-population and is supported by no proof what so ever. 'Honestly, they can be the result of a careless act between a guy and a girl.' Take responsibility for your actions. In conclusion, abortion is a violent way of ending a pregnancy and should not be allowed in our civilized society. Abortion should be only to save a mother's life or if she has been raped. Remember that fifty million babies are murdered for your 'choice'.
Abortion

There are many women in the world who can't afford financially to have a child. If a child is born without anyone wanting him or her to born, he or she will probably live a horrible life. Even though they have rights, since they can't decide for themselves, it is usually the best for their parents, who are responsible for them, to decide what is best for the baby. Honestly, they can be the result of a careless act between a guy and a girl. The world is too populated! We need less children!
The good old days before year 2000

We have spread diseases globally now, terrorism is at it's highest then ever, kids do not learn long division and soon nobody will be writing anything, just texting. You can't cross a border by plane without being body scanned, we have cameras on every corner, the NSA is watching and tracking everyone thanks to them carrying their own tracking device in a form of smart phone. In North America we have lost all manufacturing jobs to Asia because of globalization and cheap labor there. Detroit is bankrupt because of it. People can't even leave their house without their phone on them, we survived just fine without cell phones in the past. Young people today can't afford to buy homes because they are so expensive now, racial tension is at it's highest in the USA, should I keep going Life was a lot simpler and happier in the old days, movies always ended on a happy note, we didn't sensualize violence and sex on TV and in theaters like today, we didn't have sexual predators lurking on-line pretending to be kids, there was no cyber crime, and I'm sure people who grew up in the 50's and 60's would probably say that it was even better back then. The good old days of "Leave it to Beaver"
The good old days before year 2000

Ahhh the good ol days before the Internet, before we turned into too sensitive, too diplomatic, bubble wrapped society who gets offended about everything and has turned into a spineless mushy, glued to your smart phone society. I will be arguing how the old days before Internet were way better then they are now. Back in the old days you could smoke anywhere, you could send your 12 year old with a note to the corner store to get you a pack of smokes, fights were settled with fists not guns, hockey had fighting and hitting in it, Sundays were a day of rest, everything was closed, you could drive on the highway at 150 miles an hour without worrying about being arrested and fined for thousands of dollars, you would just get a small ticket, the music was great and it didn't sound like some tribal sounds, kids played outside by themselves, they didn't need to be monitored over their shoulder by parents. When you left work you were done for the day, not be e-mailed all night with work e-mails and texts, you could afford to buy a house on one persons salary, people weren't in a rush all the time, people went out to socialize at coffee shops, not sit across from each other and text. Who cares if you have 5000 followers on twitter or friends on line, how many friends do you actually go out to see now. The good old days when everything was simple and we had less rules, laws and discretion's then we do today. Convince me that today is better then it was lets say 20 years ago.......
Ron Paul is amazing.

Indeed, the different ways to say the word dinosaur are both insightful, and equally intelligent. I think Ron Paul would agree that he is older than dinosaurs, considering that he created God. Which is part of why he is amazing. Onto the song in Spanish... Many Ron Paul supporters are xenophobes that hate latinos and are in support of very strong immigration laws, including the erection (L0l) of a billion mile high border fence, that is slippery. This comes into conflict with the fact that the song that you posted was that of Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana who is the jailbait daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus, a legitimate hick. A good bit of hicks, or rednecks, or whatever you feel like calling them, are the same people that hate latinos and are in support of a slippery billion mile high border fence. Your creation of a conflicting situation of Miley Cyrus and spanish results in the simultaneous eruption of all volcanoes on Earth, destroying the third rock from the sun. The only thing left is Ron Paul, because he is amazing. I win.
Ron Paul is amazing.

While I concede my opponent's argument regarding him being everybody, and therefore him not being pleased and hitler and that stuff. However, he is deeply mistaken with the second half of his argument regarding how to properly wash oneself after #2. It was informative and enlightening to learn about how different countries wiped their rear. However, Ron Paul has never needed to defecate in his life, so that whole argument is irrelevant. Moving On, I believe that Ron Paul's superiority to other humans is inherent in his being. This is irrefutable, therefore I win. I await your response.
Scripture Forbids Christmas Trees

I will not make this long. I will simply disprove your statement, and probably win this debate in one round. You claim that "Scripture forbids Christmas Trees" and you back your information with an excerpt from Jeremiah. Jeremiah was one of the 5 books of major prophets, alongside are Isaiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel. What makes your argument factually incorrect and invalid is that these books are all in the old testament. JESUS was not born yet. Christmas is a celebration of Jesus' birth. We do not know about his birth until the NEW TESTAMENT. To my knowledge, nowhere does the NEW TESTAMENT state that Christmas Trees are forbidden. In order for me to pursue with this debate, you will need to show me a new testament passage that discourages the use of Christmas trees. Good luck, because the Christmas tree is a tradition that evolved far after the birth of Christ. I also would like to point out that sometimes the Bible should not be read so literally. I know that Jesus, the God I believe in, love, and worship, would encourage the use of a Christmas tree, if it means family gathering around it praising him, singing, and spending time together in LOVE with HIS name being the reason. Jesus is the REASON for the SEASON. Lame, I know, but true, and how quickly we forget. He would not discourage us from celebrating his birth.
Scripture Forbids Christmas Trees

Biblical scripture expressly forbids the use of Christmas Trees. So, why is it okay for Christians to directly violate scripture, especially in the name of honoring the birth of Jesus Christ? Here is the specific verse: Jeremiah 10: 1-9 1 Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: 2 Thus saith the Lord, "Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the heathen are dismayed at them. 3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of a workman, with the ax. 4 They deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. 5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak to: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. 6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O Lord; thou art great, and they name is great in might. 7 Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is non like unto thee. 8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities. 9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish and gold from U'phatz, the work of the workman, and of the hand of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are the work of cunning men.
It Is Unconstitutional To Ban Jews & Christians From Owning Slaves

Rebuttal #1:Perhaps then those other laws of the Bible should also be protected when Christians and for the Old Testament, the Jews are practicing them.The first amendment does protect the free practice of religion.Rebuttal #2:As for contrasting rights. My opponent brings up a poor example the words "right to privacy" never appear in the Constitution. Hence it is understandable why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.Rebuttal #3:When an amendment is meant to replace the effects of previous amendments, such as the 21st amendment it explicitly states that the amendment it is meant to outdo is repealed. There is no clause in the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendment that in any way even limits the 1st amendment. Since the 1st amendment was passed before they were and is given such a prominent position as 1st amendment it should be held to carry more weight and Christians and Jews should be allowed to have slaves. Rebuttal #4:No where in the Constitution does it contain the words "basic human rights", so saying that abolishing slavery is part of respecting basic human rights is a fallacy. Slavery should generally be prohibited under the 13th amendment, but because we also have the 1st amendment there should be religious exceptions.Rebuttal #5:Just because many Christians are unaware their Bible condones slavery does not negate the fact that their Bible condones slavery, and good Christians who are trying to learn more about what their religion really teaches might be interested in owning a slave. Rebuttal #6:How is it uninformed? The lifestyles of US slaves even back in the 1800s was better than the lifestyles of people living in Africa. Just a quick looking into how things are going over there with the widespread famine and disease shows that many of these people would be better off as slaves.
It Is Unconstitutional To Ban Jews & Christians From Owning Slaves

1) Biblical lawsThere are many things the Bible advises Christians to practice, it promotes stuff like animal sacrifice, circumcision, promotes against masturbation, to not cut your own hair, that whores should be burnt to death, that a guy who cheats on his wife should be put to death ALONG with the girl, etc etc. Point is, the Bible tells people to do a lot of crazy things that in modern society is just barbaric.... And repealing a Constitutional amendment to honor a single Biblical "tradition" that actually caused America to enter into a CIVIL WAR isnt exactly "for America's best interests"....2) The Nature of Constitutional RightsThere are many, many rights or freedoms that clash with other rights or freedoms, and in a modern society we must pick and choose which rights triumph others from time to time. Take the Supreme Court ruling regarding christian groups protesting at military funerals. This was a case of free speech against right to privacy (of burying one's kin) and after a while the SUpreme Court ruled almost unanimously in favor of free speech, even though the right to privacy stance was very valid. The point here is, there are constitutional rights that conflict with one another and often it has to be decided which right triumphs the other, and in the case of Prohibiting the free exercise of a single religious tradition that many Christians did not follow vs basic human rights of millions of people............ Human rights and freedom wins....3) Amendments are literally exceptions to the Constitution. An amendment is literally a change to the Constitution that according to the Constitution, should not be a law, but Congress and the President and the States all agree that it should be a law. Amendments are universally agreed changes/alterations made to the Constitution. The law that outlaws slavery and gives rights to former slaves (Amendments 13, 14, 15) are amendments, meaning they are in the Constitution. If you put these amendments against a single religious tradition to see which one triumphs the other, then the Amendments would win out (see round 2) 4) Do Christians even know that the Bible advocates slavery?Seriously, if your Christian did you actually know that the Bible endorses slavery? I sure as hell didnt, and im guessing there are many other Christians and Jews alike who dont either. On the other hand there are millions and millions of Americans, religious or not, who know that people are guaranteed basic human rights and that slavery should be outlawed. 5) "Many people in impoverished nations would be given the opportunity to live in a more stable environment. Most would be seeing improvements in their everyday lifestyles."Oh dear God please just drop this argument so that we can focus on the constitutionality of slavery and not start bickering over such an uninformed statement....