BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
R1 HISTORY TOURNAMENT Resolved: War is a net negative

http://www.debate.org...The premise of this debate will be Resolved: War is a net negative. I will take the Con position of this premise, and my opponent, That1User, will take the Pro. Due to the fact that this debate is part of the history tournament it is expected that both debaters will heavily utilize historical references to back up their claims. Now for a few clarifications/definitions. War: a state or period of fighting between countries or groups. Net: overall, as a whole. Negative: being without rewards, results, or effectiveness. Therefore. .. Net Negative: overall the event is without rewards, results, or effectiveness. Thus implying that in order for Pro to win in this debate, he must show that war on a whole is without rewards, results, or effectiveness. As per requst of my opponent, in order for Pro to win this debate he must simply show that the Cons of war outweigh the Pros. If my opponent has objections to the definitions I gave, please PM me or leave a comment. This debate will have four rounds, 10,000 characters per round, and 72 hours to post an argument. The structure will be as such: Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: Offensive RebuttalsRound 4: Defensive Rebuttals/Concluding StatementsGood luck!
Gays Should be Allowed to Marry

i would like to first state I am not gay/I have nothing against gays and am debating this for the sake of debating it Heterosexual marriage is based around the emotional attractions of the opposite poles of the male-female polarity. This is about the complementarity of the organs of reproduction. The emotional bonding of man and woman fills the missing half of each in order to create the one whole being which then gives birth to new life. Heterosexual marriage is about bonding at the level of reproduction and subsequent creation of a nest and household in which to raise children.The model of the family is traditionally hierarchical and structured. The male and female partners have roles specified for them by their sexual function in the relationship. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. This however, is not present in homosexual marriages. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. Like I've stated above. To elaborate further God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. It should be plainly obvious to most Americans and especially those that are indeed already married that Gays should not be allowed to marry. The truth of the matter is George W. Bush will probably be revered by Gays once they figure out that what he and other Republicans are doing. What they are doing in short is simple giving them the single greatest gift in the world and really protecting one of their most inaliable rights, namely the pursuit of happiness.Marriage in the United States has a rate of failure of over half. Failure has never meant happiness. It has also been reported that nearly "eighty percent of all working comedians speak about the unhappiness of marriage as part of their routine." Al Bundy, Homer Simpson, and Nick Lachey are but a few men who openly complain and speak about the horrors of marriage. In bars across the country men and women who are married are looking for sex from outside their marriage and will complain to anyone about how their spouse is perhaps the laziest, dumbest, or somehow the worse person alive. Ask yourself why you got divorced or why your parents did? And if these questions don't apply to you it is probably because you are gay or not American or perhaps both. It is clear by now that marriage equals pain and suffering. What the President is doing by not allowing Gays to get married is assuring that they can remain happy! He is protecting their rights to pursue happiness and have freedom to have sex with whomever they wish whenever they wish without fear of being divorced and losing half of their assets to some filthy fat slut whore of a wife (or husband). Just look at the damage marriage has done to heterosexuals; do we really want to spread that to the Gay community as well?
Gays Should be Allowed to Marry

There is really no legitimate reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. If marriage is meant to be based on love instead of medieval property exchanges then it should be available to anyone. Furthermore, if the argument against it is founded in religious ideology then it should be remembered that this country has a fundamental separation of church and state, and as a purely legal institution marriage, and the privileges that accompany it, must be available to all people.
Gays Should be Allowed to Marry

I very strongly disagree with his argument against my first point. If that were true there would be no children. I myself am the heir to my fathers name and the last to carry on our name. Couples nowadays do divorce for things such as a barren woman or a man that is unable to create a child. However, there are now also alternatives to that to make children, and they use them to stay together as man and wife.The male and female partners have roles specified for them by their sexual function in the relationship. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. This however, is not present in homosexual marriages. We are not discussing medieval times either, we are discussing right now in this time period. Your example of car crashes does not even apply to the debate. Neither does your example about speech although we do limit our freedom of speech. Because we don't want the president to feel like we want to kill him. America is obvisouly not a nation that respects differences between people. Look at all the racism involved around the muslim/islamic culture now because of our inability to respect differences and because we love to stereotype. Gays not being allowed to marry doing in short simply giving them the single greatest gift in the world and really protecting one of their most inaliable rights, namely the pursuit of happiness. Marriage in the United States has a rate of failure of over half. Failure has never meant happiness. You fail a math test. Are you happy? No. You fail a drug test. Are you happy? No. I stand in negation of gays having the right to wed.
Gays Should be Allowed to Marry

Essentially you've argued two pionts: 1) that marriage is a natural occurence between men and women for the sole purpose of procreation, and 2) marriage is miserable and homosexuals need to be protected from making the mistake of getting married. As to the first point, marriage is an abstract, human developed construct that was created for the purpose of securing land arrangements and generating greater wealth between families by creating heirs. In the middle ages, marriages could be essentially annulled if it was discovered that the man was impotent, as the whole idea was purely to create offspring. This is clearly a far cry from the institution of marriage today, as no one would say that a couple could not wed simply because the woman was barren, or the man was unable to create a child. Thus, in modern jurisprudence, marriage is no longer defined by exchanging property or generating heirs, or even as a means of ensuring procreation but as a contract between to people. As to the second point that illegalizing marriage for homosexuals protects them belies the very freedom your speaking about. The pursuit of happiness is very much the ability to make mistakes. If that thread of thought were applied to other freedoms, it would have disastrous and intolerable results, i.e. banning free speech to protect a persons feelings, we could say that people aren't allowed to drive to protect them from accidents (how many people a year die in car crashes). The idea that we must deny a privilege in order to protect a person is ludicrous at best and dangerous at worst. If we are a nation that respects differences between people and attaches legal rights to marriage, then marriage must be available to all of its citizens, whether a person chooses to embark in marriage is for them to decide, and for them to decide with whom to make that contract.
Liberalism>Conservatism

Thank you Mike and dido. Lets first look at the true nature of conservatism shall we. Conservatism is the political ideals of tight spending and stay with past functions of policy to guide a country. Lets also look at the creation of American-Conservatism. After the second constitution tow major groups formed from the events. Federalist and anti-federalist, Liberals and conservatives respectably. The federalist knew that they needed a strong central government to hold down a crazed country at that time, while the Antis wanted to stick to the past articles and basically risk an all out state vs state apocalypse. Conservatives stick to the nature of past believing it would be better for the future but, that is never the case. Then you have a very conservative-southern democratic party while a new liberal republican party takes the nation by storm. Democrats were for slavery and past agriculture policies, while the liberal republicans supported abolishing and wanted to go forward with the promise future of manufacturing, they were right again. You have conservatives wrong morally and economically speaking. They you get southern conservatives fighting for segregation and anti-civil rights and also keeping notions of protecting fat cat CEOs and support for Vietnam war. You have liberal politicians that are the opposite like FDR and JFK and LBJ. Conservatives stick to the past just because it kind of worked, liberals think to the future for the betterment of America and its people. I will continue with arguments in third round as well and thanks again.
Liberalism>Conservatism

It would seem Pro is debating Leftwing-Ideology > Rightwing-Ideology not Liberalism or Conservatism. Conservatism is not an “ideology” but found in all civil societies having different cultural ideologies. Conservatism, includes neo-conservatism (emphasis on a robust national security), paleo-conservatism (emphasis on preserving the culture), social conservatism (emphasis on faith and values), libertarianism (emphasis on individualism having small limited government), and compassionate conservatism (conservatism with lipstick and a heart).http://theregimen.wordpress.com...Progressive Liberalism is an “ideology” having its roots from Social Darwinism, where big centralized government solves social, economic, etc problems embracing statism. http://www.ehow.com...Con needs not address Pro's arguments relative to some extreme rightwing rhetoric. Since Pro is a professed Liberal, implies Pro is open minded. Con would recommend Pro to see the newly released movie “America” and read the following books: http://www.youtube.com...http://www.amazon.com...http://www.amazon.com...http://www.amazon.com...In closing, Con would like to thank Pro for a learning experience relative to Pro's perception on Conservatism. I could only hope, Pro will one day see the importance of Conservatism throughout nature, for humans and their social systems are a product of the physical Laws of Nature. And finally, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life” having ample “Liberty” (aka money), in the moral pursuit of “Happiness,” and looking forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.
Liberalism>Conservatism

Thanks again and please let us start, First you use the notion of conservatism is found and bonded with nature, the literal aspect is horrendous, no ideology or way of life co-insides with nature. Also you refute that conservatism is the proper of unalienable rights, that is also false. Take Jefferson, an outstanding liberal that put his life on the line to unsure that citizens have unalienable rights. At that time the concept of unalienable was a ghost. Not heard of in Europe or anywhere else especially since have the country was in an area that slavery was legal. If anything the concept of unalienable rights is a liberal notion because you are not sticking to the past but for the future. The many forms you listed of conservatism is correct but still fit under the umbrella of conservative facts. They all believe that in their specific situation you must go backwards and stick to the past or go back in time even farther to find the correct solution to the current issue. The ideology is very sad. I did take us through a very short process of American history showing the many mistakes of assumptions and policies of conservative people. Take the KKK, a very conservative cult that supports the past, old time America with family values and race separation. KKK is not a good party to be associated with. You can also make claims with Nazi Germany, economically speaking along with family values were very conservative and many people mistake them for being full blown liberals on the socialistic side. Take some famous liberals and see if they are good company. Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. These are all men that wanted change for the future and wanted the past to be past and move on. You have many current issues also were conservatives are on the wrong side of the moral and logical battle. Take gun rights, Jefferson said many times in multiple newspapers that the 2nd should be overlooked and could be changed every 20 years based on the current times. A famous liberal giving great liberal advice for an amendment that conservatives think they should have. If Jefferson were alive today he would 1) be disgusted by the government to not change it and 2) regret a lot. Also you speak of the invisible government or 4th branch. I totally am for the destruction of these agencies and think there is no room for them anywhere anytime and the reason why liberals are not kicking and screaming is because our president is a democrat. Liberals want to change the current for a better future while conservatism is the notion of sticking to the past programs and hope they will work because hey, were alive right so something right. Thanks and again Liberalism>Conservatism
Modernized Education Systems does not help our kids learning system, but makes it worse

To begin the second round of the debate, being a rebuttal and the third round being a closing statement, I will counter argue my opponents given opening argument. He or she stated that what MES stresses the most about is: "Memory and Attendance"; where I must disagree. To begin, my opponent states that this system was used in his or her school system, where for students to graduate, they are required to have five or less excuses for absences in order to pass the quarter. As well as the State Standardized Test, in Maryland, is based on a "Memory Test". Where the students job is to retain the information needed in order to pass the test. It is great and all, but only for Maryland; where the given debate is in discussion about the whole country. One fact about the MES is that for absences, teachers are restricted into "penalizing" the student for missing. For the simple fact of attempting to keep the schools popularity rate up. Because if we consider the funding for a school, it is achieved through popularity rating of how good or bad the school is, and if all of a sudden students failed to graduate for loads of absences; the school would be hated. This mainly has occurred in California, Texas, New York, and other states besides Maryland; where your state is one of the lucky few. This also falls under the condition of a school giving "responsibility" because if most schools, besides Maryland, are all "tweaking" the true grades (Through test curves); than no true responsibility is given. For the standardized tests, we can both come to agreement that they are at times "silly"; however, they truly do add more stress to a students life. And, stated under the website 'Demo-List-Ic", it states: "A student who has stress, will lack motivation". So, is this truly the best of an education system we as society has? Where the goal of an MES is to make a student more well-prepared for the future. And this is restrained from the student because of Standardized Tests, and an income scheme by most schools to receive more income to keep everything at balance. Also, for the statement of retention being given through your standardized tests; that shows if the student is ready for graduation or not is just a curve, by the state, to keep a schools popularity up. As a teacher yourself, at times you must be surprised on how some students you expected to fail; pass? A student who had the lack of irresponsibility, and yet passed on this test to determine if he or she graduates. Which illuminates the effect of the "easy route", in order to retain a high popularity rating. Not only in your state, but numerous other states. Stated in numerous articles in the time of 2013 to 2015. As well as, if the system does work, where the student does pass with a great score with loads of studying and responsibility; how much information after school in retained? Can it be used to contribute towards society in the future then?
Modernized Education Systems does not help our kids learning system, but makes it worse

As a teacher, I feel the need to reject the resolution that the MES does not help our kids' retention of information from school and I further reject the claim that the MES makes retention worse. "Retention of information from school" is the working definition for "kids' learning system" that Pro gave in the comments section. I think just about anything besides retention and accountability are problems with the MES. If anything our MES stresses memory and attendance. All standardized tests look for what the kid can remember, and our grading systems reflect attendance. In my public school system, which I will not name, if a student has 5 or more unexcused absences, they fail the quarter, and for a semester long course, this is almost a definite course failure, by county law. So if you agree that we are not holding them accountable, then why are the ones who are graduating, the same ones who have attended school per their responsibility? I will say that my school is in Maryland, and our educational policies are on par with most of the MES in this country. Also, every standardized test given to students is a memory test. Testing protocol almost goes out of its way to eliminate notes and outside sources like the internet, so that whatever the student does on the test, is purely from memory. You can't graduate high school without passing these standardized memory tests...so I would ask you, if students aren't retaining information, how are they passing retention tests to graduate? Yes the standardized tests have problems, and as teachers we complain about the types of questions appearing on these tests...one of those things is how the standardized tests only assess for memory/retention with no real focus on application or critical thinking. So, your claim that the MES makes students' retention and accountability worse, cannot explain how students are graduating from said system that is overly focused on retention and that requires attendance accountability in order to graduate. Our salaries are not based on grades of students; that's a myth. Our salaries are based on our education level, years of experience, and continued success on teacher evaluations. Students' test scores are not the basis for our salary system. I believe that you, Pro, have the burden of proof in this argument, despite the way the resolution is worded, because you are demonstrating that the system is broken or is an agent in worsening kids' retention/accountability. I reject that claim.
Modernized Education Systems does not help our kids learning system, but makes it worse

With the recent year of schools coming to an end, for the summer, more kids turn into adults and graduate. "Yay", I would say, but there has been a ton of talk whether or not the kids becoming young adults are getting "dumber" after each generation. And I would have to agree with the given statement, because the thing that is to blame is our Modernized Education Systems (MES). They expect less and less of students, and bring them along the "easy route". In schools nowadays, a term called "accountability" is foreign. Accountability is defined as "The act of being responsible", defined from the Webster's dictionary. Students are not accountable, and that teachers are not accountable either, when the teachers job is to influence their students to learn responsibility. The whole system is "whack"! Now I admit that I graduated high school recently, and do know a lot of teachers (at least in my school) that wish to have more power within their students. The problem is that the salary system for teachers are based on the grades of the students, and standardized testing. If the students fail, the teacher suffers the consequence; yet when the student does fail, its more because of laziness or irresponsibility. And they obviously don't learn responsibility from their parents, so it is the hope for the teacher to get "aggressive" with the student in order to give responsibility. And to close the first argument, the education system used nowadays is not helping, but is broken. It needs to be fixed by giving more "flexibility" to the teachers, than following a supposedly "great" system.
Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals for religious reasons.

Your approach to this is very holistic. Let me use the bakery in Oregon as an example. Those bakers were fined for 135,000 because they refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding, as that interfered with their religious views. The 2 women sued for "emotional damages", and since Oregon has a law prohibiting complete religious freedom, they won. There is no need for checking the background of a person, whether it is religion or sexual preference, but that is the point of freedom. There is no need for hate groups, there is no need for Nazism, there is no need for Satanism, but that is freedom. Freedom and liberty is about expansion, the ability to be despicable, and not face legislated consequences. I personally do not believe in gay marriage. I believe the government should stay out completely, but I personally do not believe in gay marriage. I believe that people that follow a faith should not be forced to comply with gay weddings unless they serve the public, as you cannot discriminate as a public worker. A private business that denies service to gays is most notably a small family owned business, not a large corporation, as news will spread fast and boycotts will occur. Your argument states that it does not affect the businesses bottom line. In the end, that is correct, as money from homosexuals or heterosexuals is the same money. However, being forced to provide service to homosexuals will affect the one providing the service. The point of privatization as well as liberty is that you are not forced into doing something that is against your will. As homosexuals do not have the right to other's property or service, denying them these would not affect their inalienable rights. Forcing a person to provide service in their own establishment against their will is a direct violation of your liberties as well as religious freedoms. You also state that the Bible says not to pass judgement. Disagreeing is not judgement, that is argument. "Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin." "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." - Genesis 1:27 In the end, I need sufficient and biological evidence that homosexuality is chosen or is a sexual preference that you are born into. This preposterous claim has not been proved false nor correct by scientists, so I will choose not to accept it, since there is not sufficient evidence. Sources: [1]http://www.cleveland.com... [2]http://www.mlive.com...