BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negitive Assertion #1 Race should not be used as a basis for school assignment. eveidence #1 desegrigation does not speak to drop out rates. eveidence #2 the natunal center for education statistics reported that the average white kids attend 80% and 70% black kids. eveidence #3 in all 17 states were seperated by race were required by law and matter of culture. Negitive assertion#2 students and society benifits when more children are able to attend racilly integrigated schools. Eveidence #1 the students in the sixth grade may not take the servy seriously eveidence #2 no one is sure if this is only for black kids and lations. Eveidence #3 self-esteem could be from somthing other than diversity. Negitive assertion #1 to create a desegrigation school system, a judge shouldnt be able to tell to tell parents were their children must attend school. Eveidence #1 the mayor thinks the new plan will create quality and equality in schools
United States Selective Service System

I obviously brought up a point my opponent did not know regarding the Constitution and the powers it gives to Congress to raise an army. My opponent didn't address this and forfeited the round, which means that I technically have won the debate.The US Selective Service System is a good policy. Like I said before, it may not be the greatest system, but it is a good system that I agree with. The reason I stated it wasn't great is because in my personal opinion, it's not a policy where I jump up and down screaming for another perfect system such as this. I find it to be solid and well organized and a policy that is carried out fervently and very well. HERE IS WHY VOTERS SHOULD VOTE FOR ME:1. I fully explained that the US Selective Service Act is Constitutional through what we saw in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11-12.2. I explained that numbers in a battle matter if each side is equally trained. In a draft, the U.S. military trains each draftee to a place where the soldier is equipped for battle and made effective in the line of forces, which is a huge advantage if we were thrown into a worldwide catastrophic event.3. My opponent forfeited the final round and didn't refute my final argument meaning that he did not attempt to refute it or he couldn't find time to finish which is unprofessional and should automatically disqualify his argument.
United States Selective Service System

My opponent is much more educated in this area than I, and I applaud him for that. I see exactly what his point is and he has laid it out in a very well manner.My response to him is this:Even if... Even if the draft violated the Constitution... The debate here is whether the US Selective Service is a GOOD system. The argument was never if it was constitutional or not. By using this foundation... Then it becomes more subjective. As a conservative, I believe it is important to fight for rights and to fight for freedom if the time comes, pushing me to say that a draft should be mandatory because each young man is held responsible for the country he now resides in and owes loyalty to that country by living it in alone. As a liberatarian, I believe that it's wrong because it interferes with my rights as a citizen.Here's the deal. Our government approved of it in the 1940s. The government is by no means perfect, but as U.S. citizens, we must realize that in dire times, dire decisions must be made, and in a time of war. Our rights as citizens are compromised because a threat to our country has been posed.The problem I have with this is if our country was in serious danger... I mean. In serious danger... And we needed all the help we could get... Wouldn't it be the most cowardly thing for some young men to watch their country fall to the enemy when they could have saved it.I am passionate about a man fulfilling his duties as an American citizen and stepping up and walking into the battlefield with his head held high and boldly proclaiming his CITIZENSHIP as an AMERICAN.
United States Selective Service System

Well. I am very excited to dig deeper into this, and my opponent is correct. I am a conservative and my opponent is also right in saying that most conservatives take the side that a draft is a ncecesarry approach to battle.I will state why I believe that a United States Selective Service System is a good system.1. By moving to the United States, we are submitting ourselves to authority.Before I move on to say whether this is a good system or not, we must teach ourselves that we, as American citizens, must submit to governmental authority. We believe that unless whatever the government is doing is unconstitutional. The US Selective Service System has been set up ever since 1940 by President Roosevelt. It never has been deemed unconstitutional due to the fact that it was seen as an excellent system. We, today, still enforce this system, and it is our job, as Americans, to embrace it unless we know with absolute certainty that it is wrong or oppressive.2. It is an honor to fight for one's country... Especially America.We must now see that it is indeed an honor to fight for a country... Especially for Americans. We live in a country so full of freedom that people across the globe wish to even see our borders. We live in the land of opportunity and the home of the brave. And it is that fact that I wish to point out. "Home of the Brave". Men are very weak now-a-days and by being drafted, it calls to their inner bravery and manly spirit. To have that constant sense of the possibility of being drafted fresh in the mind of young men adds a certain dignity and presence to their lives that would not be there if we did not have the draft. 3. It gives us a stronger advantage over our enemies.When evils, such as ISIS, appear to threaten our country, it is imperative to have a military, and our military does not have as much power as they would against a force that crafty with what they have now, than what they would have with a draft.
United States Selective Service System

You, as pro, will be defending the United State's current selective service policy. Our current policy is that all male immigrants and citizens, with few exceptions for disabilities and other reasons, between the ages of 18 and 25 must register for the Selective Service System. This is to ensure that if a military draft were to take place (although one has not taken place since the 1970's), we would have a directory of people to deploy. Here is their website: . https://www.sss.gov... I sent you the think to this debate because generally conservatives back this policy, and you label yourself a conservative. Feel free to take as long as you can to compile information with this subject, and I hope you enjoy debating this with me! Thank you for accepting.
United States Selective Service System

Hello! I am ready to debate! I have a things before I start. 1. I am very uneducated in the category of debate, so my opponent will already have an upper hand. I would like to know what the Selective Service System entails. As in, what age are we talking here for the draft? Male or Female or both? And what exactly are all the details I need to know concerning the US Selective Service System? 2. What exactly are you against? I look forward to this debate and becoming educated on this subject! Best of skill to you con!
United States Selective Service System

We are debating whether the United States Selective Service System or any sort of forced military registration or draft is a good policy. Rules: Round 1: Rules, questions/clarifications by pro, and acceptance. Round 2: Con responds to questions by pro about rules, pro presents first argument. Round 3: Con presents first argument, pro gives counter arguments. Round 4: Con gives counterarguments, pro gives closing remarks. Round 5: Con gives closing remarks, pro does not give another argument because they were given an extra round, as because they are pro, they went first.
The Democratic Party has abandoned it's roots and heritage in an attempt to pander to the far-left.

Are you trying to assert that the Democrats aren't even economically populist at this point? Intitives like like universal healthcare or complaning about the cuts to the capital gains tax would connote otherwise. Economic populism is the theory that the middle and working classes should be represented because they make up the majority of people, as opposed to the wealthy and poor. Some people beleive this to be doen through tax cuts, others through social programs specifically catering to them like say, unisversla healthcare. Certianly they represent economic populism far better than the GOP is. The socialist sympathizers like Kucinich have compeltly been ignored in caucuses so far, and show no serious attempts to tkae the presidency, if what polls say is correct. In conclusion than we should ackknowledge that the major Democratic leadership hopefuls like Obama, Pelosi, Edwards and Clinton are doing their best to serve to better represent the middle and working classes and aren't even thaat liberal socially, if Giulani wins it is possible one of these may even start playing as a Social-con.
The Democratic Party has abandoned it's roots and heritage in an attempt to pander to the far-left.

Once again you make intelligent and well-formed points. My point is not that the Democrats should evolve. Instead i am stating that instead of merely evolving, the Democratic Party has lost its roots. Slavery and segregation were never the core beliefs of the Democratic Party. Neither was the belief in an aggressive foreign policy. The roots of the Democratic Party have always been a support for the middle-class and those struggling to get by. I agree that the Republicans have done the same thing by pandering to the Far-Right (Big Business, Neo-Cons, and the Christian Right). That is why you see so many debates about how Ron Paul is so great and what a true conservative is on this sight. However that does not excuse the Dems from abandoning their roots. Thankfully they seem to be realizing this now, albeit because they are so desperate to win. I am a Democrat and I hope that we not only embrace the populist economic ideals that we are beginning to do now, but that we also accept social conservatives back into our party. The Democratic Leadership does not need to become more conservative, but it must realize that a return to at least economic populism is in our parties best interests.
The Democratic Party has abandoned it's roots and heritage in an attempt to pander to the far-left.

As you said beofore, the Democrats once were beloved by most Americans and have mutated since into something pandering to gather up the extremists around the board. But if its heritage and roots is meant to appease the common-folk and help represent them, shouldn't America's changing vlaues be taken into account? The Democrats once supported slavery and later segregation, but no poltical party with that sort ideals could survive in the modern world. Isn't it best to be more revolutionary and abanadon obsolete values in sake of progress? International politics are also quickly changing, old threats like communism being mitigated and new foreign ones being born. Just because the Democrats were on the forefront of the crusade against Hitler doesn't mean they should be aggressive on every diplomatic stance today, and be prepared to become anti-war when the time comes. Change is not always a bad thing. And what makes you think its the Democrats that going about doing the pandering to the far corners of the political spectrum? Might it be more accurate to assert that is the big-buisness funded GOPers that are a trying to attract strategic voters by seducing social conservatives and the pro-milatary types in an alliance? With th Republicans pushing so far on the social/foregin right can you really blame the Democrats for, rather than going even further right (which would be too extreme for getting votes) are picking up the leftovers by filling allying themseleves with the social/foreign left, thus furthering the cause of their orginal economic goals?
The Democratic Party has abandoned it's roots and heritage in an attempt to pander to the far-left.

I agree with your premise that party ideologies and messages shift over time. That is a fact in all countries and with all parties. My point is that throughout American political history a common thread has been the Democratic party's support for the "average" American vs. the Republican/Federalist/Whig Parties which have openly supported pro-business and pro-upper class policy. Another way to put this is that the Democrats have always been in support of the majority vs. the minority. This reached its apex during the New Deal, when the Democrats represented almost the entire population. It ended with the coming to power of the "New Left", people like George McGovern, George Soros, and others. At that point the Democratic Party decided to only embrace minorities while openly antagonizing the majority. The Republicans quickly swooped in and captured the majority of Americans by touting Christian Conservatism, and were able to build their first long term dominance since the 1920s. This would not have happened had the Democrats kept to their roots as the Party of the People. Now the Democrats seem to be the party of those who fit into a very small category and nobody else. Thankfully Barack Obama, who is touting a platform of unity vs. polarization, one in Iowa and is the new front runner. As far as your statement about candidates running to the center, that is true as far as the general election, but in the primaries it is all about pandering to the extremes. P.S. I would like to see a more Populist vs. Libertarian political spectrum like it was in the old days.
The Democratic Party has abandoned it's roots and heritage in an attempt to pander to the far-left.

First of all I would like to point out that I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican for that matter. Rather I'm not even American, and generally viewed as a conservative in my own country. But I interested in this debate anyways. First of all let me remind you that historically the Republican party was formed as a party with progressive social policy, controlling economic policy, and aggressive foreign policy. The Democrats were their inverse. By the time WW2 had rolled around the GOP had become isolationists and fiscally conservative (though there social policy remained progressive) and once again the Democrats of FDR were the inverse, i.e. aggressive foreign policy, socially conservative, and economically controlling. Nowadays the Dems are as you point out economically controlling, war-shy, and socially liberal. My point overall though this: parties and issues change. not having a name like "liberal" or "conservative" gives you Americans a lot of leeway in determining your party's polcies. Who knows perhaps someday the Republicans will be Statist and the Democrats Libertarian. Or vica versa. As to your allegation that they are "trying to appease the far left" surely the way the polls are going show otherwise? Bush has polarized the political spectrum to the point where it's recoiling- the center is the new place to be (as people like McCain, Clinton, and Romney demonstrate) and any party wishing to rule America in 2009 will have to swallow. The polarization that happened during the Bush years is not permanent and likly in the future people will shy away from the center again to appease their base, this is a cycle. By the looks of your profile you appear to be more of a Statist (big-government) type than a liberal or conservative. No doubt you would be happier with a Libertarian vrs Populist format of parties rather than America's current ways. lol
The Democratic Party has abandoned it's roots and heritage in an attempt to pander to the far-left.

It seems clear to me that the modern day Democratic Party has completely lost touch with its heritage and what made it great. The Democratic Party was founded on the belief that the government is their for its people. This originally meant small government and pro-farmer stands, as opposed to the pro-big business and pro-big government views of the Federalists/Whigs/Republicans. These views died off around the turn of the century when the Progressive movement of Woodrow Wilson and Bryan took over the Democratic Party. He believed in a government that helped the people while promoting classical liberalism (Free markets, personal freedom). These views then evolved into New Deal/Paleoliberalism. This ideology believed in a government that actively helped its people, especially the middle class. It also advocated a strong pro-humanitarian and anti-tyrannical foreign policy. It also embraced a wide array of social views, though many of its leaders were strongly Catholic or Evangelical. All of these ideologies held one common thread, the belief in the government standing up for its people. That belief has been pushed to the back by the modern Democratic Party, which has instead focused on issues like Abortion, Gun Control, and Gay Rights. They have taken hard-left stances on each of these issues and thus have driven away many middle-class voters. For the Democratic Party to create a long term majority, it must return to its core issues: Protecting middle class jobs, helping re leave poverty, and providing affordable health care to just name a few.
Political correctness is something that should be acknowledged as a threat to society.

Due to the time running out on my opponent, all i can do is extend all of my arguments. PC affects every second of our everyday lives and does cause harm to the people, states, and nation. If everyone stopped worrying about being PC, we as a whole will begin to understand ourselves, eachother, what seperates us, and what brings us together. Then and only then can we solve our greatest problems, instead of putting a band aid on them. I've defeated all opposing arguments and proven PC is a threat to society and must be acknowledged. For those reasons I strongly urge you to vote for me. Thank you.
Political correctness is something that should be acknowledged as a threat to society.

First off I want to say that I am new to this. Im just trying to have a simple round to become oriented with the system. Im sure there are many who agree, but i had pick something, so ya. First off i just want to introduce the idea that PC (Political Correctness) is cultural Marxism. "Political Correctness is cultural Marxism… If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious" -Bill Lind. PC introduces the idea that everyone must be pleased, everyone is equal, and we must change the way we express ourselves to make others happy. That is not all true. PC takes our freedom of speech, and stops us from saying what we truly feel, even if its for the greater good. I need arguments to defend, but thats my opening argument.
WWII weapon debates

Yeah man we can drop grenades, but i really would rather not. And about the pistol thing sorry dude, can't believe i thought it was ww2 era. Anywhoo. In your argument against my Gewehr 43, your M1A1 Carbine. You Don't list it's effective range. Where as mine is 500 m. 800 m with scope attached. You also explain the M1's Muzzle velocity, 1,990 ft/s (607 m/s). This is great for it's own design, but is beat by my Gewehr 43, 775 m/s (2,328 ft/s). Thats at least a 168 m/s difference, a 338 ft/s difference. These two play major roles in war, meaning the difference between life and death by how much faster, and farther your firearm can strike. Now in your second response, your PPsH-41 against my MAB 38 submachine gun. In almost every way your weapon does look more effective than my choice. But you have not matched them stat for stat. I saw that your weapons effective range is 150m. While mine is 250m. This is nearly twice your range. And if i am not correct as the PPsH-41 Is fired over time it becomes very inacurate when over used or fired continuously. Making it a very inaccurate weapon. Now in your final response on your lmg choice, the MG 42 versus my BAR. I have notice a few differences in the two. First to trump is weight issue. Your MG weighs at 11.57 kg (25.51 lb), my choice weighs about 7.25 kg (15.98 lb). Making it a lighter weapon more manuverable choice. The next thing was the Muzzle velocity. Your MG 42 fired about 755 m/s (2,477 ft/s), mine however was 860 m/s (2,822 ft/s). This is another example of faster takedowns upon the enemy. Now in the final stat that i matched up was the effective range. Your MG 42 range measured in at 1000m, where mine was 4500-5000yd 4128-4587m. This is makes for a much great killing distance than your selection. I now leave it to my opponent to make his responses. Good luck man! ^.=.^
WWII weapon debates

The Beretta M9, formally Pistol, Semiautomatic, 9mm, M9, is a 9ï¿½—19mm Parabellum pistol of the United States military adopted in 1985. It is essentially a military specification Beretta 92F, later the 92FS. The M9 won a competition in the 1980s to replace the M1911A1 as the primary handgun of the U.S. military, beating out many other contenders, and only narrowly defeating the SIG P226 for cost reasons. It officially entered service in 1990 Um, this is WWII weapons. Unfortuneilty, your pistol is not from World War II. Since this is the case, pistols are no longer involved. M1A1 Carbine Weight 5.2 lb (2.4 kg) empty Length 35.6 in (900 mm) Barrel length 18 in (460 mm) Cartridge .30 Carbine Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt Rate of fire Semi-automatic (M1/A1) 850–900 rounds/min (M2/M3) Muzzle velocity 1,990 ft/s (607 m/s) Feed system 15 or 30-round detachable box magazine Sights Aperture L-type flip or adjustable rear sights, barleycorn-type front sight As you can see, it has a bigger ammo capacity, bigger round, and a higher muzzle velocity. PPsH-41 Weight 3.63 kg (8.0 lb) (without magazine) Length 843 mm (33.2 in) Barrel length 269 mm (10.6 in) Cartridge 7.62ï¿½25mm Tokarev Action Blowback, open bolt Rate of fire 900 rounds/min Muzzle velocity 488 m/s (1,600.6 ft/s) Effective range 150 m Feed system 35-round box magazine or 71-round drum magazine Sights Iron sights The PPsH-41 is lighter, shorter, and has a way higher rate of fire. It was so good that the Germans used capured PPsH's. MG 42 Weight 11.57 kg (25.51 lb) Length 1,120 mm (44 in) Barrel length 533 mm (21.0 in) Cartridge 8x57mm IS Action Recoil-operated, roller-locked Rate of fire 1,200 rounds/min (varied between 900–1,500 rounds/min with different bolts) Muzzle velocity 755 m/s (2,477 ft/s) Effective range 1000 m Feed system 50 or 250-round belt This MG was feared by the Allies. The Army made films for Allied troops to deal with the fear of facing the "Meat Chopper". I say we drop the gernades as well seeing as I cant look up info on them.