BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18

We have over 100 thousand people or some without jobs and most are uneducated; some who have never passes high school that vote, these people are definitely qualified to vote. Apparently teenagers are too busy to form political opinions between their car, job, and school. Not like 18 year olds or 20 year olds or even 30 to 40 years worry about those things I mean they don’t have jobs, cars, house payments, taxes, and school. Oh no teenagers cannot comprehend voting at all, not like civics and economics are taught in high school, my opponent seems to think 16 year olds as complete idiotic buffoons. The point is my opponent thinks that 16 year olds are not qualified to vote, this is completely false because half of Americans are not qualified. Not every adult knows economics, or if a politician is going to do what he says he will. Most Americans don’t really care about politics they vote for who they like, all in all only people that care about the issues are intellectual and care, half or more of America doesn’t care or we would have less pollution, and a alternative fuel source, heck we don’t even have our basic first amendment rights anymore with protesting areas were the government makes a space for protestors most likely in a place to not make commotion even though that’s what a protest is for. Then we have the good old patriot act which was idiotically passed by congress that lets the government go through your email, phone, mail, and even your bank and medical records. The simple fact is voting is only for who’s the most popular, and who agrees with your platform the most and I assure you teenagers can form opinions about subjects like abortion, and oil, even economics.
The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18

On average 16 year olds are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, but that doesn't mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the other part of society. They aren't at that stage that they would fully understand what things would help our economy and what wouldn't.
Do you think cheating is getting out of hand

As I have been recently informed, the BOP rests on Pro, but I want to tell the voters, my opponent took the Con position on the resolution "Do you think cheating is getting out of hand" meaning she thinks cheating isn't getting out of hand.But then in the debate round she claims cheating is getting out of hand, I ask her to clear up the confusion and she never does.But by going into listing what constitutes cheating, and never that it is getting out of hand.
Do you think cheating is getting out of hand

includes students who go to other students that have already passed a class for help, students that copy off of others" work and those that let students copy, and students that intentionally plagiarize or steal information. Asking a student for help in a course that they have already completed is just one of the examples where peoples" opinions determine whether it is considered cheating or not. I believe if the student was merely trying to understand the material and coursework it is fine as long as the student does the work on his own. If that student feels that he should get help in the form of copying from past quizzes, tests, and worksheets, I believe that constitutes cheating
Government Shutdown

It may seem difficult but it may be just as easily done as it was started. All she has to do is try to get as many congress members as she can to actually see all the mistakes that Obama has made (and other recent presidents) and get them to reverse the actions. Then they need to come up with new plans that would easily get us out of the trouble we're already in, and not anger the people. In order for this to happen, Hillary needs to be elected president. She' s probably the last hope we have.
Government Shutdown

True, I researched and found out that getting ObamaCare and not paying for it, it's cheaper to pay the fines of not laying for the health care than to pay for the health care. I also heard that Hillary is planning to run for president. But the truth is by the time she would get in to help us, we would be too far gone. Obama and his wife have messed everything up so much there's practically no going back. We might as well bomb china and try to seize Britain. But I'm not really sure if we can come back out of this. This is going to effect further generations for years and years. It would be nice to create a political party to rival the other two, but yes, sadly, we can't.
Government Shutdown

I also agree with your statement, and we probably should create another party to rival the other two, but we can't. We have to deal with what we have now, unfortunatly it's not Hillary Clinton, who would have been better. We can also hope that one day congress will impeach obama but with his wife practically running the country, they can't. To take it further, if he really wanted to help our economy and the poor people, he wouldn't make it so difficult to get a job, and force us to buy expensive life insurance that about 60-80% of the American population can't afford.
Government Shutdown

I do partly agree with you. It is Obama. But it is also the republicans. They want 100% for the rich and 0 for the poor. I do think this might result in war if they don't figure something out. They need to agree on something quick or this will be another Great Depression. They need to agree on ObamaCare and our debt ceiling and unemployment and all that. Obama can't even run his website! Why do we think he can run our country? They expect us to pay for it and it's not right because their hole is bigger than any of the ones we are in. I do agree that Obama should be kicked out of office and that we need someone who knows what they're doing to run the country. But that's not for another 2 years. Right now, we need to get out of this rut and work out our problems with the government instead of just sitting around thinking "oh, hey! This is already bad, it can't possibly get worse!" But they're wrong. They need to work this out together instead of putting up walls like brother and sister fighting. Right now they're being, "I'm not talking to you!" And it's crap. So if they're not going to work it out then it will result in war and another depression and we are in no state for that especially with Syria and all the other military problems.
Government Shutdown

It's not the government, it's the guy who controls it. I honestly blame Obama. He's not fit to be President. He's turning us into a socialist country, he's destroying the very thing the colonists built up, he's becoming a tyrant. We built this to be a free country, and he's turning it into a monarchy. If this weren't so he wouldn't be forcing us to have espensive and useless insurance policies and making it nearly impossible to get a job. He is also trying to get himself a third term which is against the constitution, if he succeeds in this, we will plunge into a civil war, leaving us vulnerable to invasion, and the only defense we'll have is China do to our debt and shared economy. Not to mention that it has been proven that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.
Nullification: Winning States Rights Guarantees Freedom from Tyranny

I regret that my opponent has chosen to terminate her argument so near the conclusion of our discussion. No amendment in our Bill of Rights is more deeply rooted in American history, politics, and government than our Tenth Amendment. Its roots are deep in the colonies histories, in the framing and ratification of our first constitution, our Articles of Confederation, and in the framing and ratification of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. They might be traced back to English history and the authority of self-governing entities in medieval law, and even to the form of civil government which God gave His people when they entered the Promised Land after their exodus from Egypt. It should be enough for us to know that the Tenth Amendments protection of federalism of each states right to govern its own internal affairs except for those few areas of authority which the states delegated to our central government in the Constitution and those few powers which the states forbade to themselves in our fundamental law was not an afterthought but an explicit reaffirmation of a principle that is absolutely fundamental to our constitutional system of civil government. No amendment is of more practical importance than our Tenth Amendment for protecting what remains of our liberty and recovering the huge percentage of liberty that previous generations, and we ourselves, have surrendered to the Federal Leviathan. For our federal system was and still is a system of separation of powers with checks and balances between our national/central government and our states governments. Our state governments have powers which can be used against central government usurpation. And our state and local government officials, not to mention our states citizens, have means of influencing the officials of our national government to obey the oaths of office which all our elected and appointed officials take to uphold our Constitution. (ref) It is encouraging to see that more and more of our elected officials, particularly at the state level, are realizing the importance of our Tenth Amendment to the proper functioning of state government and its function as the gateway to the preservation of our liberty. It is important to preserve the rights of the States and those of the citizens to be able to enjoy those rights and to be able to protect them from a Federal Government, intoxicated by its own usurped powers, which is less and less willing to recognize that the origins of its power comes from the States and the citizens. To need to have at our disposal a mechanism such as nullification is truly unfortunate. But if we fail to protect our rights, reserved by the founders, we will lose the. The Federal Government posits that we either gave them up or never had them at all.
Nullification: Winning States Rights Guarantees Freedom from Tyranny

Except that there are several powers which only the Federal government may hold, both logically and in the Constitution, either that they must approve or that they only can do. For instance, new states may be created or states may merge together, but ONLY with the permission of Congress. As well, Congress is reserved the power to protect the states from international and domestic violence. There are others as well, but by that argument, if nothing is reserved to the Federal government, then nothing can be reserved to the states, since the tenth amendment grants the state the powers not given to the Federal government. But perhaps we're simply disagreeing on the definitions. As for the Founders intentions in including the Tenth Amendment, some Founders may have desired it to limit the Federal Government, but I believe the true intent was to give the states more options, and specify that the states are awarded certain rights of their own. Arizona is an example of the government using our courts systems to fight an unconstitutional law, and the federal government was not the only one to do so. Other individual non-profits filed the same complaints against Arizona's immigration bill (which is what I assume we're talking about). The Federal government did not overturn the law without any checks and balances, they went through the same legal procedure that it would have if the ACLU or another organization's case was taken. Except for the government to defend against such a crime, as they HAVE done, would have to impede across state borders would it not? Arizona can not simultaneously demand that the Federal government do something about it while trying to change the way the law works. In the same way a teenager can not demand their parents buy them a car, while at the same time ignoring the requests made of them. The states are notorious for this. Many have demanded that the Federal government "get out of states rights" while at the same time not hesitating to request money from the Federal government when they're in need. As I said before, this is it's own argument - as I don't believe in this example that the Federal government hasn't done it's job - the rate of deportation has spiked, meaning the Federal government must be doing something about it. Your argument now appears to be that tyranny is the government NOT imposing on state abilities. I don't believe that is tyranny. Tyranny is imposing on rights where you do not have the ability granted (or reserved). The government not enforcing laws where it has the ability may be stupidity but is certainly not tyranny. I await my opponents response.
Nullification: Winning States Rights Guarantees Freedom from Tyranny

I want to preface this by clarifying that there is no merit in arguing whether the Constitution protects States' Rights - there is only merit in argument which rights the Constitution reserves for the federal government. However, there is merit in arguing whether the concept of States' Rights can truly prevent tyranny, or if it simply begets tyranny on a smaller scale. 1: Removing Federal Gov't from Certain State Issues Discourages Positive National Discourse In the late 1800's the United States was in the middle of a Civil War. This Civil War stemmed directly from the concept of States' Rights as it pertained to slavery. Between Lincoln's victory in the Presidential Election and the already heated debate about the legality of slavery, the states were at each others necks and this led to Civil War. In a country where States' Rights is never an issue to begin with, it won't cause a Civil War. Civil War may not be completely preventable without the presence of States' Rights, but similarly you can still contract lung cancer without ever smoking a cigarette. The presence of States' Rights however has always left the United States in a constant tension - giving states the rights to remain inconsistent on so many serious issues, especially on social issues, encourages negative discourse between the states. 2: States Can Be Just As Tyrannical if not More Remember the slavery thing I mentioned earlier? One of the worst injustices in the history of the United States which would have ended much sooner if not for the continued argument of "states rights". Those states that used the argument used it to continue their subjugation of American slaves. Over the course of our nations history it has been used most often as a means of restricting the rights of citizens within that states, including women, gays and lesbians, racial demographics, and low income families. And whereas individual rights do not give a person the right to discriminate, states' rights allows them all the power needed to discriminate for any reason. In a democratic society it is much easier for the tyrannical majority to control the minority than nationally, given that most states tend to have a majority political presence, making tyranny much easier. Tyranny on a national scale is much more difficult, though it s constantly feared. But throughout our nations history it has been the States' Rights advocates who have been the most tyrannical, such as Andrew Jackson (who violated state decisions regarding Indian Land) and Ulysses S. Grant. Conclusion: States' Rights can still lead to tyranny and in fact may be a more likely road to social tyranny, as history has shown, but simply on a smaller scale. The lack of political balance in individual states gives leaders and the tyrannical majority the ability to subjugate minority demographics as they desire. And while progression can change this subjugation, without the input of a federal government, they can often take many many years. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Resolved: The United States should value the pro-life stance above the pro-choice stance.

Resolved: The United States should value the pro-life stance above the pro-choice stance.I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that the right to life outweighs the right to liberty.Here are my conditions for a successful debate:Round 1 - agreement to debate, introductionRound 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level argumentsRound 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issueHere are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification:1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 12. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2)3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponentAnd finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them):1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits)As affirmative, I believe that the U.S. should value the pro-life ideology above the pro-choice ideology. However, I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate.I look forward to it!
Yes Virginia, There Are Stupid Questions

Here are the questions: How do you spell "GPS". (14th question). [1] Where does the Sun go at night? (15th question). [1] So it's eight kilometres away . .. is that in miles? (22nd question) . [2] Was it you or your brother that was killed in the war? (4th question). [3] How many times have you committed suicide? (13th question). [3] -------------------------- [1] . http://www.tickld.com... [2] . https://www.linkedin.com... [3] . http://www.lectlaw.com...
Yes Virginia, There Are Stupid Questions

Kyle_The_Heretic - I accept your challenge.I was also under the false perception of the ideal that there are stupid questions, however have since been enlightened to the fact.The fact (For dramatic effect), will be explained in due course, however I pass the debate seat to my dear opponent here, to present his five examples, to which we will both pick up, analyze, and deduce rational explanations to explain them.I for one, cannot wait to see what evidence i may use! :D
Yes Virginia, There Are Stupid Questions

In the many classes, seminars, discussion groups, etc, that I have attended over the years I have heard repeated ad nauseum, "There is no such thing as a stupid question." Well, I completely disagree. In this debate, a stupid question will be defined as any question lacking basic intelligence or common sense. Round 1 - Acceptance. Round 2 - I will present five stupid questions (with their sources) that were actually asked. The five question limit is for the sake of avoiding lengthy arguments. My opponent will explain how each question is in fact "not stupid" in whatever manner they deem most effective. Round 3 - I will argue against my opponents explanations, and my opponent will rebutt my argument/defend the explanations. Round 4 - Free space for final words.
Religious public schools in Canada

Publicly funded Religious schools only exist in a few provinces: Alberta, Ontario, parts of Saskatchewan and the Northwest territories. Having been educated in the Alberta version, I find such schools are no longer necessary in this day and age. Separate School divisions are still allowed to discriminate based on faith when employing educators. Parents are compelled to send their children to these schools due to lower cost and higher quality of education. However, in doing so their children are indoctrinated into faith, whether it is the faith of the parents or not. I say no to the public funding of religious schools in Canada. I am however, not opposed to private religious schools. Government should neither support nor inhibit religious activity and education.
Resolved: Dogfighting should be legalized in the United States

Ok so your view to sum it all up is we should legalize dogfighting because it can benefit the economy by taxing it, saving prison money, saving animal shelter money. Gives dogs in shelter a purpose. Well I reckon I ought to save my argument for round 3. So next I will state why dogfighting shouldn't be legalized. Cruelty is an obvious reason. The dogs often die of blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion and infection. Many other dogs known as "cold" dogs (ones that refuse to fight) who could be turned a family dog are sacrificed as bait dogs. Dogs used for fighting are chained, taunted and starved so they are triggered into survival mode and become very aggressive. My favorite author Jack London writes great books depicting such events, White Fang, and importantly Call of the Wild which tells the story of Buck a great Bernard who was a nice family dog stolen from the family to use for the gruesome sport of dogfighting. Same kind of storyline with White Fang. Nowadays to train dogs are often forced to swim in water until they are exhausted, to run on a treadmill while a cat or other frightened pet (often stolen) is placed in front. (later to be caught and chewed up for reward) The dogs are likely to be injected with steroids. Owners often sharpen teeth and claws, cut off the ears, and even add roach poison to the food to make their fur taste bad. This is just training, I could go into details about what happens in the ring but I beleive I have made my point. It is very very cruel. Children are often in attendance at these events. Which desensitizes the young population. It will desensitize the world if such cruelty is allowed. There are passages in the Bible also that make it clear that animal cruelty is immoral. There are also better more moral ways to save or make money. Start an honest business, don't lie about your taxes, invest, walk to work, save water, save power, grow a garden the list goes on and on but dogfighting is not on the top of my list. It shouldn't be on the governments either. Also it takes money to change laws. If we legalize this we might as well legalize every other such event including gladiators. I will wait to hear more.