BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Justin Bieber should be deported, have his citizenship revoked, and not be allowed back in

Reasons why Justin Bieber should be deported, have his citizenship revoked, yatta yatta yatta1) Hes CanadianSince Justin Bieber was actually born and raised in Canada, deporting him is actually a LEGAL option for the US to pursue. 2) Hes CanadianWe can all agree that Canada isnt a 'real' country, and is most likely just 100 people acting like they are a country, similar to how the kid in Home Alone made it look like the house was having a party even though it was just him. The US currently has a policy where it does not allow immigration from countries it does not recognize as legitimate, meaning that its very possible that Justin Bieber is indeed..... AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, and therefore could and SHOULD be deported3) Hes a criminalForeigners who immigrate to the US and partake in criminal activities often get deported back to their country of origin since they are problem members of society..... And everyone and their mother now knows that Justin Bieber was arrested recently for (allegedly) causing thousands of dollars in damage to a neighboring house, since CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News wouldnt shut the hell up about it.....The fact is though that Bieber is a criminal, how much of a criminal we still dont know, but a criminal nonetheless. Bieber is also guilty of crimes that technically arent crimes also, such as waging jihad against good music with his crap, massive brain-washing of children similar to what Joseph Kony is doing in Africa, and just being an idiot, which we all agree should be a criminal offense in the US. Bieber is a criminal, and definitely is a bane to society, therefore there is good reason for why he should be deported back to Canada.4) Its better than the death penaltyI know that ive been outspoken for my stance that Justin Bieber should be put on a terrorist-kill-list and be blown to smithereens by a military drone strike, but some pansies consider that 'unethical' and 'too hilarious to let happen'..... Now while the argument over whether or not such a punishment is justifiable or even ethical, we can all agree that simply being deported is a much more benign punishment then being blown up into a thousand pieces, or being strapped to a gigantic firework that would explode in midair to take the shape of Kurt Cobain...... 5) It will end the ongoing US-Canadian warWhen the damn Canadian maple-tree humpers up there sent Justin Bieber into our borders, it was nothing short of an act of war, and ever since the US and Canada has been viciously at war with each other.... Most people deny a war is ongoing because of the damn media blackout on the subject, but trust me, its happening. Sending Bieber back to Canada will right the wrong they did to us and bring an end to the bloody Canadio-American war, or whatever the hell we'r going to call it.....I will now allow con to introduce arguments about why Bieber should NOT be castrate- I mean deported.....
The 2nd Amendment Would Not Protect Citizens from a Tyrannical Government

You claim Chris Dorner is an example of the situation. Sure, he did turn the entire LAPD haywire, but also the LAPD didn't have significant advantage of technology over him and the LAPD doesn't have nearly the amount of killing power as the US government does. Besides, Chris Dorner didn't beat the LAPD, he just shook them up before he got killed. In Vietnam they had the advantage of knowing the land, the US military will know the land also. You claim the government wouldn't rain artillery on it's people? Well that didn't stop Sadaam Hussein who bombed Halabja with chemical bombs, which killed 5,000 people. Same thing happened with President Bashir in Sudan, he started bombing his own people and school's which caused wide spread fires. Or maybe Asaad's chemical bombs he put on his own people in Syria too. Those bombs contained a deadly nerve gas. With the amount of surveying, technology and killing power the government has, petty semi-automatic rifles versus automatic rifles will not suffice.
The 2nd Amendment Would Not Protect Citizens from a Tyrannical Government

The 2nd Amdnedment would not protect citizens from a tyrannical government. Let's be real here, I'm going to keep this short and sweet. The public cannot, or not easily, get their hands on assault rifles. Therefore, the only thing the Second Amendment would allow, in today's standards, shotguns, semi-automatic and handguns. If there was a tyrannical government, shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and hand guns will not be sufficient to take on the government. A bunch of American citizens with pistols, shotguns and semi-auto's will not be enough to take down a trained military armed with high weaponry, assault weapons, explosives and technology. Good luck fighting back when you have artillery raining down and tanks flowing in.
The 2nd Amendment Would Not Protect Citizens from a Tyrannical Government

According to The Federalist Papers written by founding fathers going over their thinking behind the Constitution, the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is for the People to be armed should the need to resist a government that became too powerful and tyrannical. Both sides of this argument will assume this to be the intent of the 2nd Amendment and will not argue about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The argument will be about whether or not, now or in the future, the 2nd Amendment would be effective to deter tyranny should both A. The 2nd Amendment, as defined above, were not infringed upon any more than it already has been at the Federal level. And B. The government became tyrannical to the point where the majority of the country, excluding active duty US military who we will assume will fight for said government, became willing to physically resist it. In the first round, my opponent taking the Pro position will submit his or her argument for why the 2nd Amendment would not be sufficient to serve its intended purpose. In the second round, I, taking the Con position, will rebut Pro's argument and present my argument for why the 2nd Amendment would be sufficient to serve its intended purpose. Pro will address both my rebuttals and argument without adding any new arguments. In the third and final round, I (Con) will address Pro's rebuttals and make my conclusion. Pro will make his or her conclusions. In this format, Pro will have taken 3 turns while Con takes 2, but each will have made 1 Opening Argument, 1 Rebuttal to Opening Arguments, 1 Addressing of Rebuttals, and 1 Conclusion. Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. The first party to forfeit a round forfeits the entire debate. 3. The format and definitions above are to be adhered to. If reader finds any of these to have been violated by one party, with explanation, all points shall be awarded to the opposing party.
The 2nd Amendment Would Not Protect Citizens from a Tyrannical Government

My argument using Sudan, Syria and Iraq weren't to prove a revolution or not nor was it to show oppressive gun laws. You claimed the government would not fire artillery or bombs on its own people, so I cited three tyrannical situations in which the government bombed it's own people. Con is taking on a very optimistic role here. She's claiming, that under this circumstance, somehow HALF, not just a small group, HALF the population of the US, which would be 156,957,020 people, would all rise up, under the same situation and beliefs. This is not only absurd, but unrealistic. Secondly, with the extensive amount of intelligence the government holds, the leaders of the resistance can be easily taken down. As well as rewards, in cash or land for people who sell out members of the opposition. It is not reasonable and no logical thinker can conclude that someone can gather half the population of America, remain in secrecy and plan and construct attacks without getting caught by the US servailence which can be done via Internet and cell phones, thereby cutting off all forms of communication, or being caught/turned in by other people and facing serious punishments. Even if somehow, the resistance could gather and not get caught, the government's jets, tanks, ships, missiles, drones and chemical's would be enough to take out the resistance. In conclusion, I want to wrap up all of my points. There reasons why the resistance would fail and the second amendment wouldn't be enough to take out a tyrannical government is: 1. The resistance would need to unite itself. Which is unlikely that such a large group would be able to unite, considering the surveillance of the government. But, even if the resistance could gather, it still wouldn't be a guarantee that the resistance would be united. It is more probable for the resistance to split into factions in which now the factions are fighting the government and each other. Therefore, Con's argument about the numbers is invalid. 2. The US surveillance would be enough to take down the leaders and many members of the resistance. As well as rewards for members of the resistance being turned in by people too afraid of the government. As well as this being an obstacle for the resistance to overcome because of the fact this would cripple the resistance's forms of communication. Furthermore rebuting the argument of unity and numbers. 3. the resistance would be armed with petty handguns, semi-automatic weapons and shotguns while the government would be armed with assault weapons, jets, tanks, ships, missiles, drones and chemical warfare. I want to thank PurpleDrink for allowing me to debate this subject with her and those who are reading, thank you for your time. With that, I rest my argument.
The 2nd Amendment Would Not Protect Citizens from a Tyrannical Government

I brought up the Chris Dorner situation to illustrate the difficulty the LAPD had to kill a single man. My point stands that if outnumbered 100 to 1, the Resistance scattered throughout the population and armed, the situation would be hopeless for the Government. My point stands that they have neither the personnel nor the resources to deal with them all. After 18 years, the US wasn't familiar with Vietnam? With their allies the French sharing intelligence from having 11 years experience fighting on that land? No. They lost because of Guerilla tactics and possibly numbers, the ONLY advantages the communists had, and the only advantages the Americans would have against a tyrannical government. There are very oppressive gun laws in Sudan and Syria, removing the power from the people and so your use of those scenarios to support your argument is invalid. Per [http://www.gunpolicy.org...]: In Sudan, there are less than 5 firearms in the possession of civilians per 100 people. In Syria, there are less than 4 firearms in the possession of civilians per 100 people. Compare these to there being almost 90 privately owned firearms per 100 people in the USA. There is no comparison. Also, atrocities committed by Asaad in Syria actually led to civil war with a faction of his own military (who by the way has guns), which weakens Asaad's power. If the population were also armed, things would be even worse for Asaad. Let's take a look at tyrannical dictatorships that confiscated guns prior to imposing their tyranny: Castro, Stalin, Marcos, Chavez, Mao, Asaad, Bashir. An armed population was a threat to their power, so they removed power from the People. "With the amount of surveying, technology and killing power the government has, petty semi-automatic rifles versus automatic rifles will not suffice." I've explained how it would suffice. Pro has failed to refute that and has failed to prove that the 2nd Amendment would not be sufficient to resist tyranny. And with that, I conclude and rest my case. Thank you for the debate. I look forward to your final thoughts.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

So just to be clear, you are stating that slaves were not angry to be slaves. If they were not angry that would mean they are contempt as slaves and have no reason to fight back. Therefore, the civil war would have never happened in the first place. How would a slave know what's morally right? Their whole life is brought up on a plantation where there taught to be a slave, not how to treat people. They felt angry about the way they were being treated. Their were other people who felt angry about how they were being treated, this is what caused the war to get rid of slavery. Anger pushed them and the north won the war.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

The civil war was not done out of anger but rather for what was morally right. The forefathers of the United States had declared in the Declaration of Independence that slavery would be abolished. But that was taken out because not everyone would have agreed to it. The United States was more focus on getting their freedom from Great Britain. So the civil war was not done out of anger because this was a problem that was suppose to be dwelt with when the American Revolution happened.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

War is a major part of American history. From civil war, to foreign wars, they all have been fought. The reason these wars were ever started was out of anger. However, don't think about it in a negative way. A prime example is the civil war. This was the fight for freedom. Can you honestly say that wanting freedom would not make you angry? I believe that it would make most people angry. What was the outcome of this anger? A war between the north and the south. The fight for slavery, saying anger is of no use can be compared to saying African Americans should still be slaves. If anger is of no use we would have never fought back to slavery. Anger is meant to be used as a good moral motivator.
Resolved: The action of protesting at funerals ought be prohibited

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that your con stance is due to your disagreement that it's legal to protest at a funeral. If not, send me a quick message and we can start officially during round two. If so, then I'll have to argue that precedent is a powerful thing. If a demonstration, a peaceful and legal demonstration at that, can be outlawed then where stop? If you can outlaw one type of demonstration there's nothing to stop politicians outlawing all demonstrations because they'll have legal precedent.
The term "Master debater" is funny.

I will attack my opponents case as that is all I can really do at this point. His 1st point) My opponenent is advocating that puns are funny and highly comical. He would be wrong as all puns or play on words are not funny even if used for the punch lie of a joke. As evidence it would be this. http://www.wordsellinc.com... His 2nd point) Agreed that masturbation is a normal part of human life. He is advocating that because it is natural and a part of human life is funny. If that is true than nutrition, transport, respiration, excretion, regulation and locomotion must also be as equally funny. But since they are not his point is negated. I would also like to bring up the definition of the word master: a combatant who is able to defeat rivals http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Debater: A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... It order for someone to be a master debater they must be a skilled combatant that defeats rivals (opponents) in a formal contest of argumentation. That hardly seems funny. That seems more of a borefest to watch or do. Thus the term master debater is not funny.
The term "Master debater" is funny.

To open my argument, I will bring up two points. Point 1: The term "Master Debater" is a play on words because it sounds like masterbater. Plays on words are a highly used comedic element, and is often the punch line of jokes. Point 2: Masturbation is a natural part of human life, and therefore, it is funny. Other natural parts of human life are the following; Sex, sexual orientation, race, bowl movements, anger, and fear. Jokes about these, no matter how much of a guilty pleasure they are, are funny. Conclusion: Combining the comedic element of a play on words with a common thing that most humans share makes the term "Master debater" funny.
Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins

IN FACT, YES! WHEN PEOPLE DIE, THEY GET REINCARNATED AS A TREE! AND TREES KILL PEOPLE! AND PEOPLE BECOME TREES! THEREFORE, THERE WILL BE A GIANT LOOP. GUESS WHAT ELSE IS A LOOP? A HULA HOOP! GUESS WHO LIKES HULA HOOPS? TEDDY BEARS! AND EVERYONE LOVES TEDDY BEARS! THEREFORE, STANDARDIZED TESTING CAUSES TEDDY BEARS TO BE HAPPY! HAH-HAH! back to pro.
Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins

YOUR WISDOM IS OBVIOUSLY FLAWED! IF PEOPLE WERE ALLERGIC TO PAPER, PEOPLE WOULD BE ALLERGIC TO TREES AND EVERYONE WOULD DIE! BUT TREES ARE HEALTHY FOR YOU AND THEREFORE STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE ALSO HEALTHY FOR YOU! SO IF WE DONT HAVE STANDARDIZED TESTS WE ALL DIE! YOU WANT US TO DIE, CON??? ANSWER MEEE!!!
Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins

FIRST, YOU WISELY IGNORED MY INCREDIBLY INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT, BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE THE BRAINS TO MATCH MY ARGUMENT! WELL, YOU SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO TAKE STANDARDIZED TESTING LIVE LONGER. WELL, GUESS WHAT? SOME PEOPLE ARE ALLERGIC TO PAPER! AN IT IS A DEADLY ALLERGY! IN FACT, A PERSON I KNOW HAS A CONTAGIOUS ALLERGY TO PAPER THAT IS NOW SPREADING ACROSS THE WORLD! WITH A SINGLE TOUCH OF PAPER, THE PERSON WILL DROP DEAD. SO STANDARDIZED TESTING KILLS PEOPLE! GOOD LUCK BEATING MY WISDOM, PRO!
Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins

SHENANIGANS!IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY PSEUDO-SCIENCES THAT STANDARDIZED TESTS LET YOU LIVE LONGER AND HEALTHIER AND REDUCE STRESS! MY FRIEND'S, NEIGHBOR'S, COUSIN'S, DOG LIVED 100 YEARS BECAUSE HIS OWNER TOOK STANDARDIZED TESTS. THUS, IT IS CONCLUSIVE, YOU NEED STANDARDIZED TESTS OR YOU WILL DIE YOUNG. GOOD LUCK BEATING THAT KIND OF LOGIC, CON!
Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins

YOU ARE WRONG! WITH STANDARDIZED TESTING, KIDS GET STRESSED! AND WITH STRESSED KIDS, THERE IS A LOT OF SADNESS. AND THE EARTH HATES SADNESS. THEREFORE, THE EARTH WILL EXPLODE DUE TO AN OVERDOSE OF SADNESS! ALSO, WHEN THE WORLD IS SAD, THE WORLD GETS COLD. AND WITH COLD, HOT CHOCOLATE WILL BE COLD. IT WILL TURN INTO LIQUID COLD CHOCOLATE. AND NOBODY LIKE LIQUID COLD HOT CHOCOLATE! ACTUALLY, DO YOU KNOW WHO DOES? GRIZZLY BEARS DO! AND WITH COLD HOT CHOCOLATE, GRIZZLY BEARS GROW STRONGER! AND GRIZZLY BEARS ARE THE INSPIRATION TO TEDDY BEARS! AND TEDDY BEARS ARE EVIL! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT! SO IF WE HAVE STANDARDIZED TESTING, TEDDY BEARS WILL TAKE OVER THE EARTH! WELL, AFTER THE WORLD EXPLODES... OH, AND ALSO, COLDNESS MAKES BACON, PATTIES, AND BURGERS COLD. AND FRENCH FRIES. AND THE GOD OF BACON, PATTIES, FRENCH FRIES, AND BURGERS WILL GET MAD! AND IT WILL KILL YOU! BUT IT LIKES TEDDY BEARS! SO IT WILL HELP THE TEDDY BEARS DESTROY THE WORLD! Back to pro...
Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins

STANDARDIZED TESTING IS A BEAUTIFUL THING. WITHOUT IT, KIDS WOULD BECOME DUMB, AND DUMB PEOPLE ARE LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE THINGS THAT HARM THE EARTH AND ARE MORE LIKELY TO PRACTICE THESE THINGS, LIKE LITTERING. WITHOUT STANDARDIZED TESTING, DUMBNESS WILL DESTROY THE EARTH WHICH IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE. THUS DESTROYING STANDARDIZED TESTING DESTROYS THE UNIVERSE!!!THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME!!! BACK TO CON! >:P
Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins

STANDARDIZED TESTING K-12 EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES your claim has to be. .. a) random b) crazy c) funny ex: STANDARDIZED TESTING IS HORRIBLE BECAUSE IT IS MADE OF PAPER AND PAPER IS FROM TREES AND TREES ARE FROM THE GROUND AND THE GROUND IS FROM THE EARTH AND THE EARTH IS FROM THE UNIVERSE, THEREFORE WHEN STUDENTS TAKE TESTS, THEY ARE ULTIMATELY WASTING THE UNIVERSE. i will let the aff go first.
Money runs the world - the rest is just details

First of all, I wish to contest the point the Pro side has made about billionaires owning politicians. Yes, billionaires use some of their power (in the form of money) to influence decision making, but that it far from the only thing that influences decision making. This is shown by the fact that large blocks of people (such as unions) often greatly influence decision making, having far greater an impact then forms of power such as money ever could. Additionally, money doesn't necessarily spell political success. This is shown by the fact that Donald Trump spent far less money than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election, yet he still won [1]. Secondly, I wish to contest the Pro side's point about OJ Simpson winning his case due to money rather than fame. I believe that though there is substantial evidence that money played a role in this win, the publicity around the trial undeniably had had a far greater effect on the eventual outcome then money. This view is reinforced if you look at newspaper clippings during the trial. Thirdly, I wish to contest the Pro side's point about Nelson Mandela gaining money along with power. Though I accept Nelson Mandela gained a large amount of money upon ascending to the presidency, this money is definitely not what drove him. This is because there is no way he could have known of the money he would be rewarded with for his fight against apartheid, and there is far more evidence his desire to end apartheid was what drove him. Finally, I wish to identify that the main point of contention in this debate is whether or not money is simply a token for power (with other forms of power existing), and it is in fact power that runs the world. If this point of contention is found to be true, it would mean that money is simply one of many things that assist in running the world, and thus the moot would be disproved. I have pointed out that there are many examples of situations in life where power is the main factor, money is nowhere to be seen. Clearly power is the common factor in the running of the world, not money. Therefore, I believe I have won this point of contention, and thus, the debate. For these reasons, I am proud to rest my case against the moot that "Money runs the world - the rest is just details". I cannot thank enough everyone who has taken the time to adjudicate this debate. Sources: [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Money runs the world - the rest is just details

I'm glad you bring up the point of billionaires and politicians. Politicians are the legal public view and puppets of billionaires. Billionaires own politicians, that is why laws and tax shelters and decisions made in politics are at the request of billionaires. Politicians have no money, so how do they get elected in the first place, they need expensive platforms and tours through out the country to make them available to see for the public, and who do you think funds that, the billionaires. Who hosts those $5000 per plate money raising dinners, billionaires!! Without money the politician would not win an election because they wouldn't be able to afford the campaigning, the money has to come from somewhere.. OJ got off because he got the best most expensive lawyer, not by his fame, his fame was over in the 70's and 80's when his NFL career ended and he finished some movies, by the time he was tried for murder he was a wash-up with lots of money, all that money went to his legal defense. Mandela had no money, but once he got into power he was a millionaire, his wife at the time Winnie, bragged that she had 50 thousand pairs of shoes in her mansion, where do you think that came from, money!! Like I stated before it's all about the money, You could be appointed some trustee, or President or boss of somewhere, but without money your power means nothing, because you an be bought off. Just look at Mexico, the government with all the power has no control, the cartels with all the drug money run that country. Taliban drug lords run Pakistan and Afghanistan, not their puppet Presidents of the countries. Power might be important but it can be bought off with money. Without money power means nothing. Case closed!! LOL