BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The American Colonies were not justified in rebelling from British rule.

Let us begin. First off, let us begin with the aftermath of the French and Indian war, fought mainly between France, Native American allies, and The Kingdom of Great Britain. This war was fought mainly on the North American continent for many reasons, one of the main reason for having colonial supremacy. After the war, the British had won, but had now doubled their previous debt and had a large and expanding North American empire to defend. In order to make up for lost revenue, the British Parliament began taxing it's citizens in Britain and her colonies. We must keep in mind that the colonists were, in fact, British citizens, and were expected to pay taxes just like the rest. Now regarding the taxes, the colonists should have to help pay for the war. The Americans did not really do anything groundbreaking to help the war efforts, and the British even kept and maintained an American army to protect it's citizens and borders, so the colonists should have helped pay for this. The British colonies payed a 1 shilling tax on paper compared to the mainland's 26. The colonies were a tax heaven compared to England, and the Parliament was not mistreating the colonists anymore than they were mistreating the citizens back in England. I rest my case and look forward to my opponents response. ..
The American Colonies were not justified in rebelling from British rule.

Hello, in this debate, we will be arguing weather or not the American Colonies were justified in rebelling from the British rule. I hold the position that the colonies were NOT justified in revolting. The layout for the debate will be: Round 1 is acceptance Round 2 is building your argument, NO refutes Round 3 is refuting your opponent Round 4 is defending your points, NO refuting your opponents defense Round 5 is closing statement and final words to the voter. I look forward to a good debate!
The American Colonies were not justified in rebelling from British rule.

I have explained time and time again that it was both a civil and revolution. Now I ask, how does this evidence justify the colonies revolting? How does this help your argument and reasoning because you are very off topic with the debate. I know how the revolutionary war was fought and like I have said, it is both a revolution and a civil war (see previous definitions) I now must tell the voters that con is off topic, and I have successfully refuted his on topic arguments. I thank you for the debate and leave it with the voters.
The American Colonies were not justified in rebelling from British rule.

What my opponent fails to realize that the majority of the revolutionary war skirmishes were between loyalists and patriots. These by very definition were both Englishmen. The only difference between loyalists and patriots is that loyalists saw the colonies as part of the crown, whereas the patriots did not. Therefore my opponents rebuttal is more of a red herring than my own, due to the fact that by very definition the revolutionary war was a civil war due to the fact that it was brother against brother father against son, and neighbor against neighbor. Loyalist-a colonist of the American revolutionary period who supported the British cause. https://www.google.com... Patriot-a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. https://www.google.com...
The American Colonies were not justified in rebelling from British rule.

M opponent is committing a red herring and is not sticking to the topic. His "Ace in the Hole" Arguement is weak and is inadquite for the subject. The war is in fact a revolution and a civil war. Here are the definitions rev"o"lu"tion G6;revəG2;loV2;oSHən/Submit noun 1. a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. synonyms:rebellion, revolt, insurrection, mutiny, uprising, riot, rioting, insurgence, seizure of power, coup (d'"tat) More civ"il war noun 1. a war between citizens of the same country. They are both technically correct terms, but what you are trying to say, is beyond the point. The debate is were the colonies justified in revolting from British, not if the war was civil or a revolution, when it was in fact both. The American civil war was a revolution in the south, and was a civil war in the north. I urge my opponent to stay on topic, and if he was getting at something to explain. Sources: https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
The American Colonies were not justified in rebelling from British rule.

I would first like to cede the point of representation to my opponent who is right on the grounds of the logistics of communication within colonial times. I would however like to point out that my opponent did not touch the ace in the hole within my argument which was that the revolutionary war was rather a civil war. I would now take this argument farther and say that the simple reason it is called a revolution is due to the fact that the English did not win the civil war. Point in case the American civil war; the north refers to this as the American civil war, but in the south they refer to it as the second American revolution. Point being that your argument is all based on the Americans won so it was called a revolution by the Americans ( The American War for independence happens to be its namesake in Britain). Here we can apply the principle of stare decisis; by saying that with the successful revolution of the colonies as congruent to the north in the civil war, that the winner may name the war as they choose. For example if the south had won the civil war it may very well have been named the second American revolution. I rest my case and hand the floor over to my opponent.
The American Colonies were not justified in rebelling from British rule.

I thank my adversary for his response and I will refute his point about no representation in Parliament. At this time, the British Parliament had around 600 members, and the colonies would get about 20 representatives, so they would not really make a difference. We also must understand that these representatives would not be paid, and would have to constantly make a 3,000-4,000 mile trip, just to represent their colonies. Now, they could get messages from their colonies, but again, it would be delivered through a 3,000-4,000 mile trip, taking about two months, when the parliament met much more often than that, so the representatives would not know what to do for a while. I agree they should have gotten representation, but it would be much rather inquietude. That is all I need to say for this round, back to my adversary.
The American Colonies were not justified in rebelling from British rule.

Though my opponent has valid points that the colonies paid little to no taxes compared to their mother country. However the colonies were not represented within the British government like those in the home country, thus they had no representation to even speak out against a tax increase. Also by your definition of the colonies they were Englishmen as well, which logically directs us to the basic interpretation that since it was Englishmen against Englishmen that it was another civil war that could be added to the already long list of 12 civil wars that England has had throughout it"s history.
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

We are lacking in people to work in the mines and get us resources now? That's a new one. Never heard it before. There are plenty of people working the mines. As I have explained, children cannot work there as it would be useless, heartless and cause many problems. Nobody is an inferior pro. Your 'standards' are wrong and stupid, just to let you know. The only inferior people in this word are people like you, racist, arrogant, supremacist people who have nothing better to do with their lives. Most kids lead more productive lives than people like you. So if people like you don't change their ways, I sometimes think they should work in the mines. Closing statement: Pro has failed to give any valid reason that children should be enforced with labour. He did not consider any of the reasons I gave in round 2 and said the same thing in all 3 rounds, with not much variation. He says 'MY HOLY STANDARDS. ' Which is irrelevant to this debate because we are not debating about his thoughts or 'standards'. He is also (as usual) Offending other members with his racist comments.
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

Okay, con, so you are a child. (Oops. I forgot. You are only 13 y.o.) Anyways, today's kids to nothing productive and they waste their spare time. We need mine resources, such as coal, and we also need somebody to work there. So we get kids to work there. Thanks for pointing out, ma'am. I am a Nazi fan. The Nazis did a good job at reducing world population, killing off 17 million people, mostly Jews and the disabled, as well as Indians. I think that Russia should do a global purge, and kill off anyone who is inferior by MY HOLY STANDARDS.
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

No, we do not need to enforce child labour on every child and young teenager. It is cruel, horrible and is a punishment for nothing. Children do not deserve this dangerous work. Here are some reasons: It will not help prepare kids for the future. It could possibly traumatize, injure or cause other problems in them. It will make kids hate the generation of adults who sent them there by force. Most kids in the world go to school... I think we deserve some screen time after work. (Like adults who are on screens more than their kids, according to a study.) Like you have stereotyped other people, in this 'debate' you are stereotyping children. We should not be forced to work in mines by adults, and we never will as it is a horrid, cruel and Nazi-like idea. Thankfully there aren't many Hitler fans like you in this world. If there were then there probably wouldn't be a world.
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

Kids are becoming more and more lazy and incompetent now. To prepare them for the future, the only thing we can do is to force them to work in the mines, and make them learn those mining skills. Also, they will not have the time to play video games or watch TV, so they will become less addicted. Every year, kids from between the ages of 6 and 18 years will be required to work for 100 hours in the mines. The only alternative to working in the mines is being sent to the gulags.
Burger King is better than McDonalds.

Yeah like i said you have 5 min it go to work and u lose 3 by going through the drive through and getting and probably another couple of minutes (depending on how far your work is away) it get to work. To prove this you said you were going to be at the Nerd Championship at ten but you came at ten thirty. I'm guessing part of it was because of work but other than that you were late to the Nerd Championship and if your late to work you get fired. So if it takes 3 or 4 minutes to get food from burger king you would be late to work which means you would get fired!
Burger King is better than McDonalds.

Like I said, it does take a little bit longer, but not to the point where there is going to be a 5 minute difference. It will end up being like a 3 more minute wait at most. They are still fast enough to make it in a 5-10 min limit while keeping flavor. With McDonalds, its like they move so fast that the taste goes out the window with the rest of the air. Also, against the Big Mac, Burger King has the Whopper. The Whopper is one of the Kings of sandwiches. Its so full of flavor. The Big Mac doesn't have any meat compared to The Whopper.
"Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a just check on government."

Thank you again for accepting and posting your case ===Attacks=== V- my opponent states his value is morality. Is it moral to deny the jury the right to decide upon his/her own judgement? It is not moral therefore my opponents value is flawed VC- my opponents value criterion is flawed because my opponents value is flawed. if my opponent trys to achieve a flawed value then that would only destroy his case and destroy the society C1- Jury nullification does not undermine the government as the government, if just, would want to give rights to its citizens. A- of course juries may be bias. that is inevitable. But the chances of all the juries to be bias is nearly impossible B- one individual will not overturn the whole judgement as there is more than one jury (my opponent skipped sub point c) D- This argument is the same as his C1 so as I attacked C1 this is attacked as well C2- This is not a contention so much as an UNTRUE statement. courts believe that the right to nullify according to their judgement as courts are just A- My opponent didn't provide a warrant for this statement B- Judges are just therefore this statement is false ===Observation=== My opponent didn't provide sources, warrants, evidence or any cards to prove his points ===Defence=== V- as I stated, people being bias is inevitable so the judge could be bias as well so neg is unjust. Since there is only one judge he can overturn all of the decision vc- if juries can be lenient then so can the judge so that statement is false All contentions- The resolution states " a just CHECK on government" therefore Ur statement is wrong. Putting power in the hands of the people checks the government ===Voters=== My opponent did not provide sufficient attacks to my case nor did he defend his case properly. He also did not provide sources for ANY of his arguments and his case is flawed it every angle. For all of these reasons I strongly urge an Affirmative vote Thank you
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and have equal rights in the USA

The government has a duty to save it's people and if a way in which it can do so is by forcing its people to uphold to view the penises were created to be inserted into vaginae then all the better! I have ultimately won this debate because my opponent admitted that what I said was true and even admitted to me, secretly, that he'd rather see straight pornography than homosexual pornography and this bias is thanks to brainwashing! http://www.youtube.com...
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and have equal rights in the USA

While your first statement is true. I don't feel that gay people lacking the ability to procreate is an incredibly important issue, if you read my previous statement. Just because gay people CAN get married, doesn't mean that all of a sudden a bunch of straight people will just decide to be gay. That's not how it works. All I want, is equal rights to all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation. Especially when it comes to marriage. -Thanks for joining me in this debate!
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and have equal rights in the USA

I do agree that the USA's population is aging, however I believe this trend to be due to the "baby boomer" generation kids reaching their 50's and 60's. According to http://www.census.gov... 3.98% of the USA's population is still ages 0-5. That is about 12,589,655 citizens just 0-5. So the notion that gay marriage will stunt our re-population is false. (I was getting to your 3rd point but can't due to my idiotic self putting it at a 500 character limit. I apologize for the restriction)
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and have equal rights in the USA

USA is currently suffering from an aging population! (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org...)Homosexual couples do not, between themselves, and only do so by surrogate which takes up a woman's time from another relationship anyway.In order to avoid America's ever-growing pandemic of an aging population the government must at the very least offer some sort of superiority to the sexual orientation that will help the nation get out of the rut it currently is hurtling into at full speed!
Death Penalty

I'll be arguing against the death penalty while my opponent must argue for the death penalty. This is the current list of crimes that the death penalty applies to. [1] We will apply these crimes to the debate and won't talk about crimes punishable by death in the past nor future crimes that can be updated to this current list. Structure: Round 1 - Opening Statements from Pro Round 2 - Rebuttals from Con, Defense from Pro Round 3 - Opening Statements from Con, Rebuttals from Pro Round 4 - Defense from Con, Pro Must Waive Rules: 1) No hate speech/ slander 2) No kritkiks 3) No plagiarism 4) No new arguments in final round 5) Please use citations 6) No forfeiture 7) No trolls 8) BoP is shared Voting Rules: 1) Vote Convincing Arguments 2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present 3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand Thank you Citation [1]http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
leggings/fashion

“There are people who feel that leggings shouldn’t be worn as pants.” That’s my stance. “I somewhat agree with them.” Conceded my position. “Leggings reveal too much cleavage.” Showing a harm of wearing leggings as pants. Leggings will not get you a job. Another harm. An interviewer will not interview you if you walk in with some tight fitted leggings. Another Harm. Pants are nice looking and acceptable in plenty of work places unlike leggings. Leggings are not acceptable? Got it. I believe that it is okay for girls to wear leggings as pants. Belief there is no proof that it is okay. Leggings can be very classy at certain times, it always depends on the way a lady wears them. It depends, contradiction because she is saying there are times when a lady should not wear them. It all really depends on how much respect a lady has for herself. If you don’t respect yourself you wear them? Most ladies that have respect for they selves wear leggings under a long shirt or sweatshirt. Okay? Some women work oput it leggings, they can help your body figure. Proof? “Leggings are sold all around the world.” Proof? “You practically can buy leggings at any clothing store.” Proof? “They also can keep you warm.”Leggings are so thin, it is unpractical to wear them by themselves. “I prefer leggings because they are like stretch pants.” Personal opinion, not an argument. “To sum it all up, leggings are trying to take over and become consider as pants.” You are pro, you should be proving this as a good change. “It"s up to us ladies to not let leggings overrule pants.” Um, Still pro… Leggings can ruin your work flow. A harm of leggings. “Leggings are acceptable at times.” At times. Also not at times. “It is okay for girls to wear their leggings as pants.” ß You said if you don’t respect yourself you can wear them and now you are advocating little girls wearing them?
leggings/fashion

Leggings are getting more popular by the day. Have you seen lots of females wearing leggings? Do you wear leggings on a daily? Are you attracted to leggings? Is it okay for girls to wear their leggings as pants? There are people who feel that leggings shouldn"t be worn as pants. I somewhat agree with them. Leggings reveal too much cleavage. Leggings will not get you a job. An interviewer will not interview you if you walk in with some tight fitted leggings. Pants are nice looking and acceptable in plenty of work places unlike leggings. In my opinion, I believe that it is okay for girls to wear leggings as pants. Leggings can be very classy at certain times, it always depends on the way a lady wears them. It all really depends on how much respect a lady has for herself. Most ladies that have respect for they selves wear leggings under a long shirt or sweatshirt. Some women work oput it leggings, they can help your body figure. Leggings are sold all around the world. You practically can buy leggings at any clothing store. Leggings are very comfortable and affordable. They also can keep you warm. I prefer leggings because they are like stretch pants. To sum it all up, leggings are trying to take over and become consider as pants. It"s up to us ladies to not let leggings overrule pants. Leggings can ruin your work flow. Leggings are acceptable at times. It is okay for girls to wear their leggings as pants.
there should not be a control on the use of smartphones amongst students

I'm sorry this is late, I'm really kinda busy with my other debates. Every point you made is true. However there are two problems with them 1. It is entirely plagiarized from . http://www.presdebates.idebate.org... . Look at the Children Should be comfortable with modern technology point. 2. It is unrelated to the topic. The motion to be passed is that there should not be a control on the use of smartphones amongst students. Your argument focuses on why they should be given to the student, not why they should not be controlled. As you are Instigator and Pro, BoP is on you, therefore I have no need to make an argument. Please, try harder to make an argument, don't just plagiarize.
there should not be a control on the use of smartphones amongst students

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is now a normal part of modern life, used by everyone from toddlers to pensioners. So studentsneed to grow up making use of technology such as mobile phones if they are to be able to fully participate in contemporary society. The average age at which students get their first mobile phone is eight according to a recent study.[1] To prevent a studentfrom having a mobile phone at that age is to put them at a clear social disadvantage compared with their peers. Mobile phone use develops skills for the modern workplace with its need for tech-savvy employees with communication skills and the ability to work flexibly. In any case, students often have better phone manners than adults " they are less likely to shout into the phone, more likely to text discreetly, and more aware of text and phone etiquette. Such manners are the direct consequence of familiarity with the device and an understanding of appropriate use in certain contexts.
THW: ban written examinations in educational establishments

Full text of resolution: "This house would ban written examinations in educational establishments". Round 1- Acceptance only. No need to ask for permission. Rounds 2-4: Main arguments and rebuttal. Round 5: Rebuttal and summary only- no new arguments. Sources should be placed in the comments section. Voters should ignore any arguments made in Round 1 or the comments section, or any new points made in round 5. "Select winner" voting system. Open to the first member to accept as con; no need to ask my permission. Good luck, and enjoy the debate!
The death penalty should be abolished

I would like pro to argue first—I dunno, I like that setup better—and the BOP on PRO. I hold that, on balance in the US, I am for the status quo. And I am con, and pro usually gets the burden. [--Definitions--] Death Penalty -- "Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for [murder]."[1] Abolished -- Formally put to an end—in this case legally. Should -- ought NO SEMANTICS OR TROLLING, BOP AND THE DEFINITIONS ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE. Remember, pro starts. Proceed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...