BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
: According to the Constitution the South committed treason in the Civil War

i did address the 2nd round when i showed that i did not have to prove that the confederacy committed conspiracy. therefor his entire 2nd contention had no relevance. 1. the southern states did fight prior to to succession! This proves that the south committed treason. Also we are not debating if northerners have committed treason, so that has no relevance. 2. You can not change the meaning or reference of the resolution during the las round. I am not relying on the term "the south" but am just arguing the resolution best i can as it is written. If he wanted to debate the confederacy committing treason then he should have written the resolution to say so.
: According to the Constitution the South committed treason in the Civil War

Pro dropped my entire 2nd round, therefore my 2nd round is assumed true. As per the rules, I will devote my last round to defending against Pro’s 3rd round rebuttals, which is aimed towards my 3rd round rebuttals rather than my 2nd round arguments. Defense Hasty generalization The Southern States did not fight until after their secession. While some southerners fought prior to secession as individuals, it would be a logical fallacy to claim that the sample is reflective of the population as a whole. Just because X is true for Southerner A, does not mean it is true for Southerner B, C, and D. Some southerners in the Deep South actually fought for the Union, against their State. These southerners were deemed traitors by the south, for taking up arms against their own state. Some Northerners were sympathetic to the Southern Cause, and were deemed traitors by the North. People living in the Neutral Border States took up arms to support both sides. According to Pro’s logic, the North committed treason during the civil war, because there were some northern traitors. The states did not take up arms, until after they seceded. Prior to secession very few southerners took up arms. The whole point of the south taking up arms was to defend their state. That is why northern traitors didn’t take up arms. In order to avoid the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, when the resolution uses general terms like “the south”, it refers to the southern states or the CSA. Pro is relying heavily on semantics in order to change the context of “the south”. The constitution A key component missing from Pro’s argument is the constitutional basis of treason. In order to be deemed a traitor you need to meet the following criteria; 1.) Take up arms against your state or assist the enemies of your state 2.) Be convicted of treason by the testimony of 2 witnesses, or by a confession These criteria have not been met.
: According to the Constitution the South committed treason in the Civil War

My opponent still believes that i have to prove that the confederacy committed treason. All i have to prove is that the South committed treason. As my opponent has defined treason, it is levying war against themselves. The southern states that were still a part of the union and fought on the side of the confederacy before they succeeded were committing treason. They levied war against them before they succeeded. This means they committed treason according to my opponents definition. Had they already succeeded they would have been a separate nation and there would be no treason. The South committed treason! it is very obvious. Not the confederacy but the south, as written in the resolution.
In canada, the impact of international buisness had many positive benefits

For my final alloted argument, also my first. I would argue that while my opponent chooses to label all of these percieved benifits to canada in the past tense, hence the word "had" in the resolution, i say that these benifits are still occuring today and therefore affirming the resolution would indicate these benifits are no longer occuring. Thanks for a not so good debate haha.
In canada, the impact of international buisness had many positive benefits

Canada benefits from importing and exporting goods and services because of the fact that you receive the best quality and quantity of products at the lowest possible price. Not only do you receive the best product but through certain imports and exports you receive technological developments. Through these certain benefits, with the large amount of international business that takes place with Canada, importing and exporting goods creates jobs for citizens that in the end help progress and develop the economy.
The 10 commandments are a JOKE!

Wow. You are truly pathetic and a snot meat sow ridiculous within your snuffed pillow talk. Can’t you read? Or are you just totally incapable of delivering a used lecture from your hole in the wall to speak for you because you have to defend your reputation somehow because you like nearly all christians are out of excuses? As stated for at least the THIRD FRICKEN TIME, do you understand now? Or do I have to repeat it again for your stumbled eyes, ears, and maw that juiced out from your radioactive PJ’s in the middle of the night when its bathroom time… that what you have taken are from George Carlin’s lips and NOT from me. Got it? So you cannot use George Carlin and thus say "my opponent". And yeah you absolutely deserve to be insulted, degraded and dehumanized on that merit alone. Now how can I or anyone speak for someone who is dead? Nor would I want to speak for him if he was alive because he, unlike YOUR god was an absolute genuis. I simply agree with everything he stated posted in this debate. And it would be absolutely 100% wrong for me to interpret what he was saying and thus bend his comedy of truthful errors in your god's horrid miss-steaks. Do you really think for a nth of a degree as to know what he was saying? Of course not. All you try to do is slam ME underneath a headstone without any sad sack easter egg ability too. And no I’m not even going to bother making a miserable attempt at reading what you have to say under those circumstances. So what I will do is try to scroll down and see if you have anything to state and or say about what was stated back to you in regards to what I said in RD2. If you said nothing about it, I’m just going to let RD3 fly. Should you not choose to argue RD2, then that’s your problem and you lose this debate because hey, you brought the entire thing up for RD2 in which I responded to in turn. Now say a very big DUH for the camera. So every time I scrolled on down I saw “my opponent” those paragraphs thus dismissed. You argued George Carlin. Not me in which was your entire bankrupt unread conversation.The parameter stands for itself. Argue the parameter if you want to argue the debate… “So it is your job as Con for this debate is to prove that the 10 commandments are worthy of following within today's hamburger market society.” AND argue what was put forth to you by myself in RD2 which was brought up by yourself in RD1. Or not. And if not then this debate is over and I win this debate.
John McCain (Pro) vs. Hillary Clinton (Con)

On your first argument about Hillary not being able to reach the potential of a man, you only argue her ability in the election, but mention nothing if it was a physical fight, so this entire argument must be discredited. Next, pulling out an AKA 47 is one of his powers, and although he's getting old, he's still not to old to life a gun a pull the trigger, this is just ridiculous and my opponent is just trying reach for some kind of weak argument here. Now Xena's powers vs. McCain. As shown throughout the election, McCain and Huckabee have been quite close, so much that Huckabee may be the next VP. And Huckabee's been trained by Chuck Norris and gotten McCain to be trained by Chuck Norris himself. So, if you look between the two, Chuck Norris vs. Xena Warrior Princess, it's quite obvious that Chuck Norris would roundhouse kick Xena to the ground. Chuck Norris is unstoppable, so obviously McCain could beat Hillary in this sense as well. This is gameover for Hillary. Although old, he's been taught by the best and has the most behind him. And Hillary just doesn't have the equipment to beat a man in a fight, she's waaaaaaaay too small. Hillary wouldn't stand a chance!!!
John McCain (Pro) vs. Hillary Clinton (Con)

Ah, here it goes. For your first comment on hillary being short so she can not reach the potential of a man is rediculous. Hillary has beat out many men in the race for the election, but this arguement is political so we will throw out this entire arguement. So for the only point you have left, that when john mccain will pull out an ak-47 when he is losing means you know john will lose and will have to resort to using a gun. BUt unfortunately that will only have worked in his youth unfortunately he is too old to lift the gun back. Hillary has many powers. her first is the bounce back power. no matter how far she gets pushed back by john mccains wheel chair, she will push him back. With her amazing hand-to-hand combat powers taught to her by Xena: Warrior Princess, if john mccain ever got a chance to take a shot; hillary could just put the pinch on him. She is also able to flip over him and knock him down, and because he is nearly handicapped, game over. To people reading this i am actually supporting condelezza rice for president for 2008
John McCain (Pro) vs. Hillary Clinton (Con)

I wanted to start this debate because I believe that in a fight, McCain would beat Clinton. Now although I personally believe that in an election, McCain would still win, but I'm talking about a physical fight. Boxing, superpowers, anything, McCain would still win! Hillary is small, and I don't want to degrade women, but she's not capable of reaching the potential of a man. Many women have this capacity, but not Hillary. Plus, if McCain were ever to be losing against Hillary, he would pull out an AKA-47 and shoot her down! Thank You PS - Please don't just vote for who you'd vote for in the election, rather vote for who was the most convincing and who truly would win the fight!
Socialist systems are fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure.

I'll admit, You've done pretty well at proving your point, But despite this, I still have my point to prove, While you show that capitalist countries operating on socialist values CAN go well, But socialism itself, The extreme example it is, Tends to disagree with your points, Many socialist countries have started out committed to freedom of speech and other liberal values, But have clamped down on those very same things. While socialist countries CAN go well and CAN survive, The circumstances must be nigh perfect, If a capitalist country mismanages it's economy, It almost always recovers, If a socialist country does, It turns into a nightmarish nightmare land-just look at Uganda, While it never made the full socialist move, It's status as a dictatorship with a nationalized means of productions make it a fair estimate of the average socialist country (if a bit less than socialist), Not only does it suffer from massive corruption, But the economy, Despite being a developing economy, It's classed as one of the worst economies world wide, Where as Kuwait, A mixed system valuing freedom for the private sector, Is currently the most valuable currency against the U. S dollar in the world. (Sorry it took so long to respond, )
Socialist systems are fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure.

Let's start out with the obvious - the examples. Whether it be the Soviets or the The Korean DPR, All have fallen, Those two are, Obviously, Just two memorable examples of the many fallen socialist nations that have begun and died, The failed revolutionaries not included. Next Let's look at one of the founding principles of socialism: Government ownership of the means of production, And equal distribution of the products. As a concept, The Idea isn't bad, But our pesky human world get's in the way of that, Some government officials tend to enjoy hoarding the products of the industry they own, Thus tending to make government officials a de facto elite class which resembles-to a minor, Yet still present effect-the very 'Bourgeoisie' which the movement tends to rise up to destroy in the first place, This attitude, In turn, Tends to cause the rise of dictatorships, And very rarely do those dictatorships care much for the people. And not the stable kind of dictatorship either, These dictatorships tend not only to be massively corrupted but also quite easy to topple over, The Soviet Union collapsed, Not by military force or anything of the sort, But instead, By falling gas and oil revenues combined with policies from Gorbachev which promoted the economy and social liberty, Including one of which that allowed private ownership under certain circumstances, Let that sink in for a second, The USSR didn't even die fully socialistic! Meanwhile eastern Europe dealt with mass uprisings-most of which promoting democracy-and generally seemed to find itself less than content living within the socialist/communist union which cared so little for their well-being. While I admit this evidence does little to prove that the socialist principle's of government owned Industry and Equal distribution of Products and Resources are irreparably flawed, I believe it does cast enough doubt towards the ability of the principles to coordinate economic operation of a Nation. Now that I've gotten my point out there, It's Con's floor, I'm looking forward to a productive debate.
Should we believe in God or should we not

I am saying we should believe in God. If you were going to make up a story about a savoir, how would you tell it? I mean if you were going to think of a story about the God of the universe coming to save the world, Would you have thought of a baby in a manger or Lion? No human mind thinks of a story like that. Humans wouldn't say that the God who is going to save the world is a baby born of a virgin. As humans we would have said that he would come like a lion instead of a baby. I mean do you really think that you would've thought of a baby born of a virgin, grew up, his friends were taxes collectors, and fisher men. We would've never told the story that way and that's why we should believe in God.
Contender's Choice

Okay not 'Aliens' but complicated and intelligent life forms.Very well, that's reasonable. I am not denying that among the vast amount of earth-like planets in the universe there will be microorganisms but at least in our galaxy there can not be any complex life forms as if they were indeed any complex life forms we would have seen signs of them by now as it is feasibly possible for such a life form to create a device that could be used to populate them selves across the Galaxy. But here is a problem. It is a Gamblers' Fallacy to assume that if there is no life on Mars or the next Star System, there is a greater chance of life in the next bigger area. Even then, it is cherry picking to say that they haven't advanced far enough, as in the vastness in space, there should be some sign of life, via Fermi's paradox. Advanced computer modelling has proved that these self-replicating alien probes would be able to populate and explore the entire Galaxy in just 10 million years, a tiny amount of time in astronomical terms, even if they could only travel 10% of the speed of light! Given that a Galaxy near us has a star and planets that is similar to the Soar System, and that there are older Solar Systems, they should be possible to explore the Galaxy and chew the fat coming over here and we still could have seen them. In fact, looking up in these "Von Neumann" probes[1] that are designed to make more of themselves and explore the galaxy, I learned they can explore a galaxy in as little as half a million years, in theory of course[2]. Even if these probes have to go galaxy to galaxy, they can fully explore 20 galaxy's in ~11 million years, counting travel time, and stacking that with the chance there are multiple Alien Races, we must be unlucky not to find them.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
Contender's Choice

Okay not 'Aliens' but complicated and intelligent life forms. I am not denying that among the vast amount of earth-like planets in the universe there will be microorganisms but at least in our galaxy there can not be any complex life forms as if they were indeed any complex life forms we would have seen signs of them by now as it is feasibly possible for such a life form to create a device that could be used to populate them selves across the Galaxy. Advanced computer modelling has proved that these self-replicating alien probes would be able to populate and explore the entire Galaxy in just 10 million years, a tiny amount of time in astronomical terms, even if they could only travel 10% of the speed of light!
Contender's Choice

This is an open choice topic. The Contender may choose a topic, either from a Pro/Con position in the comments, or in a PM with me. Standard "DDO rules" apply.The one thing about this is that voting is STRICTLY off-limits, this shouldn't be a issue, however, as only TUF, airmax and bladerunner have the ability to vote.If you are one of the above, do not vote. This is a debate, not a contest.
Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

Thanks for making the debate. It's been awhile for me. Before the debate starts, you should make clearer what you mean by "equal." This debate could go in almost infinite directions depending how you want to argue equality. Are you going to argue that gay couples do not deserve the same, or equal, benefits as heterosexual couples? Or are you going to argue that gay marriages are not as traditional as heterosexual marriages, so therefore do not deserve equality? Without formulating an argument quite yet, and to make my position explicit, I'll just say right now that I believe that someone has the right to marry whoever he or she wants as long as that marriage is between any number of competent adults. I don't care if the marriage consists of 50 men and 1 woman as long as they are all consenting adults.
Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

This is my first debate on Debate.org, and I hope to improve my debating skills during my time on here. In this debate, I would like to use the first round to define the terms of the debate. Arguments will begin in the second round. Objective of this debate: To determine whether or not homosexual sexual unions are the equivalent of heterosexual sexual unions, thus determining whether or not gay unions deserve legal recognition equal to that of heterosexual unions. Burden of Proof rests equally on the debaters. Pro must prove that homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions. Con must prove that the two unions are not equal. Gay adoption and IVF are not being discussed here, the discussion is limited to the unions themselves.
The United States Should Withdraw From the United Nations

Considering this round is clear already, I'll take the opportunity to layout the arguments I'll be postulating in later rounds. Firstly, The US should not withdraw from the UN because it is a major player in global politics. Withdrawal from th UN would result in an upheaval in global political systems and would, possibly, spark uprisings and political unrest in countries that are at this point in time under pressure from the US, and the UN, to maintain a non-hostile political state. Secondly, the US is a major representative for many countries such as Iran and Australia; these countries rely on the US as a political ally in the UN to represent their viewpoints and their agendas. Much of the UN is based around 'coercing' other countries into agreement on issues and conventions. If the US withdraws, the western world will lose a leader in global politics, and many of the bonds between these countries (who maintain alliance through their mutual co-operation with the US) could be strained.
The United States Should Withdraw From the United Nations

I believe that it is in the best interest of the United States to withdraw from the United Nations. The first round will NOT count as a round of debate, but instead a round to clarify definitions and make sure we are both on the same page. Definitions: United States - A federal constitutional republic situated in central North America, comprising fifty states and a federal district. United Nations - An international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. Withdraw - To remove from consideration or participation. I await any challengers.
Barack Obamas presidency

if you disagree with the president you should work on the stuff you agree on. and fight him on the stuff you disagree on. if everybody worked with the president no matter if they agree or disagree we would have a 1 party system. i dont refuse to recognise the economic success because he has none. i do see the pros of what obama has done. he gave the authority to get osama bin laden. he deserves alot of credit for killing top terrorists with his drone program but i do not agree with droning other countries but i still know he has done a good job with it. i just think he has done a very poor job.
Barack Obamas presidency

If you disagree with the President, you should still work with him. Congress lacks the capacity do its constitutional duties. I have made valid points, yet you refuse to recognize the economic success of the Obama administration. I never claimed nor will I ever claim that the administration is perfect. However, I have the capacity to acknowledge both the pros ans cons. You only have the capacity to see the cons. I had to rush this argument. I did not have much time. I will have a more thorough argument in the next round.
Barack Obamas presidency

ron paul and rand paul are supporting the radical idea of getting government out of peoples lives and allowing people to live freely. ron paul is the only person who ive seen run for president that actually supports liberty. hes the guy who should have won in 2008 because he would have put us on a much stronger recovery than obama has. obamas recovery is pretty weak. i aint gonna deny obama suceeded in liberating libya. obama did not cut spending by over 1 TRILLION dollars. where did you get that number from. we cut 80 million dollars and the democrats freak out. alot of what you say is big government. big government telling auto makers that their cars have to meet a certain level of fuel efficiency. why not free up the market and allow competition to drive up fuel efficiency instead of having government regulate their way to fuel efficiency. obama invested in science and look at how that turned out. remember solyndra and the rest of the companies i wrote in my first argument. obama did not protect equal pay for women. and if he wants to protect equal pay for women why not start in the whitehouse. in obamas whitehouse women make 18 percent less than men. http://www.breitbart.com... woodrow wilson was one of our worst presidents. kennedy was great ill agree with you there but johnson was not very great. we had a strong economy under clinton but he was a horrible person in the whitehouse. and barack obama like i said is not a very great president. the only thing he should be remembered for is being the first black president. and obama is probably sitting on the couch wishing it was summer so he could go golfing and then he probably just said "lets go golfing in california." barack obama is a weak leader. and if barack obama is fighting for me and my country then he sure as hell aint doing a very good job. i want a leader who fights for liberty, not authority. http://www.theblaze.com... and the obama administration is instituting more big government. how has obama perservered and prevailed? the fact is is that the only thing obama is fighting for is authority.