BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Federal Government should increase Foreign Aid to Russia

Yet again my opponent has forfeited. He clearly can find nothing wrong with this case. Now, if you're voting right now and thinking "Why would I want to send my money to Russia! ? Fix our own problems! " Just remember, you're either voting for the status quo or the plan. With the status quo, this 1 billion is being spent on ethanol subsidies which cause inflation and actually make our dependance on foreign oil worse, not better. With the plan, it gets used for a better cause: our national security, and saving thousands of lives. Don't vote against this plan just because it's not using the money in america. You have to look at it through the comparative advantage lens. National security for america vs. worsened national security. Thousands dying vs. thousands surviving.
Chemotherapy for everyone.

You can't force people to take it. How will you fund it? How will you transport all the people? What gives you the right to do this? Do people even want this? Isn't this illegal? Readers I give you a case to read where a teen was forced to take the Chemotherapy. Many links same story. Read a few and get the full scoop of this teen who was forced to have chemotherapy. "A 17-year-old Connecticut girl forced by the courts to undergo chemotherapy for her cancer has finished that treatment and says she expects to be released from the hospital." http://www.nbcnews.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.cnn.com... vote with me and don't force this on everyone
Baseball is harder to play then tennis!

Just address what has been previously said. Many things you just said were so false it's unbelievable actually. Not only that, you failed to address many of my points I brought up in the previous round. Replays in tennis. You said. "Now my opponent said that there where no replays in tennis he is sadly mistaken. " That is either a terrible mistake or a bold face lie. This is what I said regarding replays the previous round. "No, there are only replays on challenges in tennis. " I clearly say there are only replays on challenges in tennis. The quotes you brought up even had the word challenge in them. 'But instead of scoffing, or scowling, or hurling a racket, the American simply raised his right hand. "Mr. Roddick is challenging the call," said the loudspeaker. ' This is your very own quote where they bring up challenging which I have confirmed they can do, yet you say I said there are no replays. That is false. I clearly said there are replays for challenges. You also said. "You are sadly mistaken again. In soccer the goalie can catch the ball, in hockey you can catch the puck, and in boxing you don"t even play with balls so why bring it into the argument. " The keepers in both hockey and soccer have special rules set out for them. I am talking about the rules that are in the run of play. You chose to be completely ignorant to what I meant and everybody who is viewing this debate knows I meant. I could even go as far as to say you brought in a strawman argument. The reason I brought up Boxing is because catching a ball doesn't make a sport difficult. Many sports don't involve catching a ball and are very difficult. Then in regards to my points about tennis. "Now this is his only valid argument and in the past debates I had contradicted what he had said so thank you for the debate. I enjoyed it. People please vote PRO. By reading the debate you can see that the PRO has proved that baseball his harder to play. " So your just not going to address anything I said about tennis? That seems odd to do during a debate. You also said "He also used Wikipedia as a source which would also make his argument invalid. " Since when does Wikipedia as a source disqualify your argument? You used Chacha answers which is a random person answering another random person's questions. That is completely unreliable and should not, and really cannot, be used in a debate. I will show you other debates in which people use Wikipedia, however. . http://www.debate.org... Those two debators have a total of 209 wins between them. They are both highly respected on debate. org Another debate where wiki was used: . http://www.debate.org... That's another debate with highly respected debators. Feel free to go look at their records. I could go on and on about debates with wikipedia however I don't intend to waste any more time on such an outlandish statement like the one you make. The audacity to make such a statement after sourcing various statements with chacha. com. I now rest my case that tennis is harder than baseball.
Baseball is harder to play then tennis!

It sounded like you were summing up the entirety of baseball with those facts but I will take your word for it. "Now you do realize there is one serve in tennis and the initial serve is power." This is false. In tennis there are actually four types of serves you can use, generally. These serves are the kick serve, flat serve, slice serve, and underhand serve. http://en.wikipedia.org...(tennis) "For instance, the batter comes up to bat and the pitcher throw a 100 mph fast ball. Ok, the next pitch is a 76 mph change up. He can most defiantly hit the ball." Yes because it is an entirely different pitch. In tennis the change of speed is during one service, one ball. You are talking about two seperate pitches, I was stating it would be impossible to hit in the same pitch. "The batter has to expect much much more that what a person returning a serve would have to. They have to react to so many different pitches. Change up, fastball, curveball, slider, splitter, knuckle ball, circle change, slurve." All you just did was name the types of pitches. No pitchers use every single pitch. Roger Clemens, one of the greatest pitchers of all time used just two pitches when he came into the league. These pitches were the fastball and a breaking ball. Later in his career Clemens did begin to use a splitter, still totalling just three pitches. Not the eight you just mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org... "If you want to hit the ball "opo" to the opposite side if the field, you have to let the ball travel deeper into the plate before you can swing. Or if you want to pull it you have to sing earlier." Tennis players do the same thing. "Not every ball will go in the strike zone so you have to thing to yourself if it is a ball or strike which will take extreme skill. You dont have to think if the ball could possibly be in or out. The lines judges tell you if its out." I don't even know what to say about this. Line judges act the same as the umpire. During the run of play both a tennis player and baseball player must make a decision and then the line judge or umpire make their official call. So I'm not sure what you were going for there. "Hitting the ball on the run is hard!!! But you have to do it in baseball as well. A bunt and run is when you are bunting the ball as you are running to first base." That is one instance which is rarely used anymore. In tennis it is every time a ball is hit. "A baseball player has to cover much more surface area than a tennis player when catching a ball." I would argue that on a ground ball the distance is actually probably greater in tennis but I cannot prove this. The only player that may cover more ground is an outfielder on a fly ball which tennis doesn't have since ever ball is drilled back and forth. Tennis is much harder than baseball.
Baseball is harder to play then tennis!

Thanks again for this debate. Now for everybody watching he just threw out a whole bunch of numbers to you. You're all probably still trying to calculate what he was talking about. I will make this much easier for you. First I will address what you said before moving on. Firstly, how could you possibly sum up the entirety of tennis and baseball into returning one serve and hitting one pitch? That's the most absurd proposition I've ever seen. You not only sold the sport I am defending short, but also your own sport, baseball. However, I will get back to your points. Baseball's strike zone is drastically smaller than the server's "strike zone" in tennis which gives the batter the ability to rely on walks and take less chances swinging the bat. In tennis you have to react to a larger area and there are no strikes in tennis. If the returner misses the ball, he is "out" so to speak. You also failed to mention the fact that in tennis you have to get the ball over a three foot (wider at the sides) net and back down into a box. (http://www.google.com...) This requires insane speed, form, dip on the ball, and precision. The server also only has one chance to do this. (Barring a let. That is hitting the net and still putting it in the oppositions box.) As a baseball batter you also only have to hit from the side you are strongest at. In tennis you must react to the serve whether it is to your left or to your right. In baseball you begin in the batter's box in position to hit the baseball. In tennis you are fairly square with the server and after it is served you must turn your body to the side of the ball to return it. You said that in tennis the ball slows down upon impact with the surface. This is true. However, I fail to see how this makes hitting the ball any easier? Hitting a ball with a sudden change of speed takes much more skill than hitting a faster ball at a steadier pace. If Albert Pujols was at the plate and the pitcher threw him a 100 mph fastball that slowed down to 76 mph midway to home plate, he would surely strike out every single time. Now that you should realize that serving a ball in tennis is harder than hitting a single ball in baseball let's move on to other facets of the game that you failed to mention. Aside from just returning a serve in tennis you also have to maintain a rally and hit the winner. In order to do that you need to run to the ball, hit it, and keep doing that until you hit a winner. Hitting a ball on the run is obviously much harder than from a stationary position. (Don't believe me? Try hitting a golf ball while running up to it.) Doing this all the while placing it in the corners of a 27 foot wide box. You need more stamina, physical fitness, and skill at the sport of tennis.
There is racial bias in the US Law Enforcement System.

In the past decade the US Justice System has come under much scrutiny for bias against minority groups within the nation. Much of the rhetoric established in this discussion has been politically charged and is therefore heavily biased to one point of view. This debate is an attempt to debate without any influence of bias from said sources in order to arrive at a closer understanding to what is causing the current events in the Justice System. That is to say, we are hoping to find if there truly is any bias in the Justice System and if that is true why this bias occurs. Alternatively if there is no bias inherent in the Justice System then we are hoping to understand why certain groups seem to be affected more than others by the Justice System. Rules: 1) Sources must all be from non-biased sources. Sources that are obtained through a biased source (such as a study obtained through a news report/article) are acceptable but only the actual source, and not the report/article, may be linked. 2) Any images to graphs or other visual aids must be cited. 3) Anecdotal evidence is not acceptable and will be ignored. 4) FBI statistics are deemed acceptable but it must be noted that White includes White Hispanics in these statistics. 5) Statistics concerning the Justice System in other countries is OK as long as the person presenting them clarifies the differences in recording such statistics from the US (if such differences exist). 6) Argument MUST contain at least 3 credible sources. 7) In text citations required (simply use number of the source; ex: "This is a cited sentence"[1]) and a list at the end of argument is also required. Definitions: White = Any person of European/Australian origin or descent (excludes Spain). Black = Any person of African descent or Black American descent (Australian aboriginals exempt). Hispanic = Any person of Latino origin or descent (Includes Spain). Asian = Any person descended from East Asian countries. All remaining races will be listed as "Other". Format: 1) Three rounds. 2) First round is acceptance. 3) Second round is presentation of argument. 4) Third round is counter-argument of opponents second round.
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

Only until recently has there been talk of seperation of church and state-- as we find on our coins-in God we trust- our songs-One nation under God-- It was never the early fathers choice for the seperation-- and as i stated God gives everyone free will to choose their path- either for God or against God. There is no other reality. Yes there are many religions ( confusion ) God only has one religion- not many. He only needs one religion because he is not a God of confusion, men are confused, mislead into accepting things against God.
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

Judges, please excuse my forfeit earlier considering my inability to be able to respond on debate. org because of strapped time. However, even with this one forfeit, I can explain to you why you should vote for me rather than my opponent based on what I have argued and what my opponent has not. My opponent might as well have forfeited along with me because nothing in his rebuttal responds to what I have said in my original case (which means, you can extend all of those arguments across the flow because they go unargued) and nothing in his recent rebuttal makes a compelling argument against the rebuttal I had established earlier. Of course, my argument about the Constitution remains unhindered, so with all due respect, extend that part of my rebuttal across the flow. Also, notice how in my opponent's rebuttal, he continues to bring his side of the debate back to himself--back to his personal beliefs. That only shows us how limited his case is for this debate because the United States is composed of so many religions and perceptions of deities that we must provide a medium that is equal for all of them, and this medium is through the eyes of secularlism because it keeps church and state separate so that it looks at everyone at equavalent statures. What he believes may not be what my Muslim friend or what my atheist friend will believe, and for him to simply assert that his religion trumps the other religions because his is the right one is not only unsustained and biased, but also heavily arrogant and disrespectful of the other religions we have in this country. Therefore, you should definately look at my case over his own. You may not vote for me in the realm of conduct because of my flaw of not being able to show up on time. However, you should vote for me because my case remains untouched; I have argued against my opponent's argument well and knocked down everything he said; my evidence trumps his own because it looks at gay marriage at a secular, equal level rather than this completely biased perspective and still shows us why we should uphold same-sex marriage. Therefore, you must vote PRO on this debate. Thank you, and I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

Yes the United states as the rest of the world has many religions--God has 1 religion- 1 truth-- The reason there are so many religions is CONFUSION-- As we find at 1 cor 6:9-11-- not only acts of being gay are condemned, but also sex out of marriage-besides other things. Its the practice of these things that puts one on the opposite side of Jesus. As his words at Matt 7:21-23 will show. As for me i believe a single christian religion has truth, being lead by the Faithful and discreet slave whom Jesus appointed, and only through them truths come. Under God there is 1 human family-living in 1 world-- satan divided the world into seperateness. Gods word teaches that satan is the god of this system of things-its his will that wants countries to pass gay marriage-- its his will to make everyone antichrist. So i say no, the passage of Gay marriage leads one away from God-The only hope mankind has at this point is Gods kingdom. Keep on seeking first the kingdom and his( psalm 83:18) righteousness, and all will be added
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

Alright, so it definately shows that my opponent has made a case, and with this, I will move on to addressing it and explaining to you why my case should win. When it comes to the state itself actually legalizing or illegalizing the marriage, it requires a defense at the constitutional and legal level, and when it comes down to that, I can bring us down to the quintessential argument about freedom of and from religion, which would pretty much knock down the entirety of my opponent's case considering that it is all based on religious scripture. However, instead of boring the judges with an entire rebuttal dedicated to arguing that way, we can analyze it at another level. The United States is an eclectic nation; it is not only encompassed by Christians, but also by Muslims, Jews, atheists, and also others. When my opponent says that we should keep same-sex marriage illegal simply because his personal religion dictates as such, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should have it as a reason for illegalizing same-sex marriage in general because there is such a diversity of religious beliefs and values. To implement a single religious belief for a society composed of so many cultures is not only unconstitutional, but also immoral because we are not allowing these people autonomy to their religions or the beliefs thereof. This is why the judges should vote for my case over my opponent's: my argument analyzes society at a secular level so that it can apply to everyone, and as it would dictate, same-sex marriage would be better for society.
2nd amendment

My opponent, in his last argument, stated,"I only believe that they should be more carefully monitored." The truth is, President Clinton signed a bill still in effect today mandating mental health evaluations before any citizen is to purchase a firearm. However, only 12 states enforce this law. The issues not passing legislation, the issue is enforcing legislation. I would also like to point out the fact that our government could become corrupt, or that there is a possibility we could be taken over by another country. These things are not far out of reach, and guns would be necessary for defending ourselves in these cases. Lastly, the government has no right to say by what means we may protect ourselves. Every American citizen has the right to purchase firearms to protect themselves,this we can both agree on. However, if I feel that a semi-automatic gun is necessary to protect myself, the government has no business to tell me I must protect myself by some other means.
2nd amendment

In your previous statement, pro, you made the point that we should be able to protect ourselves against a tyrannous government, as those in places such as Nazi Germany and Syria have not been able to. And I do agree that we should be able to protect ourselves, but in the places you mentioned, they had never started out with many of the rights and the democracy as we have here in the United States. Comparing our democratic government to the oppressive ones in Germany and Syria is unrealistic. The idea of events such as those in other countries with hardly any freedom happening here is very unlikely. Since it is so unlikely, we have to ask ourselves if all of the school shootings, senseless acts of violence and random fatalities are worth keeping guns so unregulated. And again, I didn't say that guns should be taken away from those people of sound mind, I only believe that they should be more carefully monitored to make sure they don't fall into the hands of those who seek to impose useless and, at many times, deadly harm.
2nd amendment

The 2nd amendment has been interpreted in many different ways, such as the right to bear arms for state militias in case of another war. In this case, the 2nd amendment would be outdated and irrelevant to our society in which we have a national military. Others, like my opponent, believe that the framers of the constitution wrote this amendment so the people could protect themselves, however, they were not aware of the advances in technology that guns would take in the future. These interpretations are wrong. The second amendment was written for protection against two things, a tyrannous government, and anyone who imposes harm on a citizen, or their property. It simply comes down to this, I have the right to protect myself, and the government does not have the right to say by what means you can protect yourself. In Nazi Germany, 1938, gun-control acts were passed giving the government full control over what guns a citizen could and could not own. The same law also banned all Jews from owning guns. Over the next decade, Nazi Germany rounded up, and slaughtered 6 million defenseless people. Because the government could control what guns you can and can not own, and who can't own firearms, citizens were left unprotected from the mad tyrant's, or Adolf Hitler's wrath. Recently, Syria has enforced strict gun laws on their own people. As a result of these gun bans, the government has been able to easily capture and kill their own helpless citizens. If our government was some how to become tyrannous, or we were taken over by another country. We should be able to protect our well being, and our rights as an American citizen.
2nd amendment

A lot of people make the argument that guns have been a part of our countrys history for hundreds of years, and so we should continue to own as many and any type of guns we like, often saying it is our constitutional right due to the second amendment. But the Constitution was written in a very different time, when guns didn't have nearly the capacity to kill as they do now. Many aspects of our country have changed in the several hundred years since the constitution was written, and it does not make any sense to hold on to such an archaic version of a law that protects such advanced machines that can kill so easily. I do not think we should take away guns completely or abolish the second amendment, but i do believe we should regulate them with stricter laws and monitor them more carefully.
2nd amendment

In conclusion of a good debate: 1. My opponent has failed to contest the reason the 2nd amendment was written. If our American government becomes corrupt, or we are invaded by a foreign country, high-capacity guns are necessary to defend ourselves from the enemy. Examples of this can be found in Germany in the 1930's, or, more recently, Syria. These countries both restricted their citizen's freedom to buy any firearm they choose. As a result, both of these tyrannous governments were able to slaughter their own people. 2. My opponent has also failed to realize that it is an American citizen's right to choose how they can protect themselves. By restricting the ability to purchase any gun an American citizen chooses, the government is eliminating the right all American citizens have to decide for themselves what methods of protection suit them individually. 3. Lastly, I would like to clear an issue up. I am for the legislation passed by President Clinton that mandates mental health evaluations before an American citizen can legally purchase a firearm. If this was enforced by every state in the country, we would have less issues with gun violence. Mandating mental health evaluations is not restricting a citizen's rights.