BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sean Hannity is Being Naughty With Himself

Many thanks to my partner, for joining my debate. I must voice some delighted surprise that anyone agreed to play with me. Sean Hannity has attempted to portray himself as a gentleman, who will not stoop so low as to question President Obama's "patriotism." In fact, his broadcasts are little more than clearinghouses for insults toward the President and his party. This fact allows us to find (with ease) many shoolyard taunts that question the president's love of America and of American values. I will define "Patriotism," although I want to specifically ask that we not resort to childish semantic scorecards in this matter. Either Hannity is, or is not, willing to insult the president with regard to his love of country. PATRIOTISM: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it. (Taken from Google Definitions.) A very quick Google search yielded the following quotes from Hannity that I feel more than question President Obama's love of country: 1. April 17, 2009: "Is there anything that Obama likes about this country?" 2. July 16, 2009: Obama's "Soviet Style" health care will "Destroy Capitalism." 3. October 13, 2009: Hannity declared that Obama has won the Nobel Prize "for trashing America," "for calling America arrogant," and "for apologizing for America." 4. April 20, 2009: Hannity wonders if Obama "even likes" America, since he "has so completely condemned his own country." These quotes came from Hannity's broadcasts, but were compiled by Media Matters. http://mediamatters.org...
Sean Hannity is Being Naughty With Himself

Sean Hannity, of Fox NEWS infamy, made the claim that he "would never question President Obama"s patriotism" (August 24, 2011). This made him seem quite the gentleman. I maintain that he has, in fact, repeatedly made derogatory statements towards this President, statements that often paint him in a specifically unpatriotic light. This is naughty, because it is a lie. I, as "Pro," shall argue that Sean Hannity has made comments that directly question President Obama"s love of America, and I invite Con to defend Sean Hannity as something other than a liar in this case. I am willing to be fairly relaxed about any rules for this debate. I ask that Round 1 be set aside for acceptance, so that my partner and I may be afforded the same number of rounds with which to present our arguments. I also ask that lawyering, semantic games and other gotchas not be used, so that we may actually discuss the matter at hand. If these requests are not honored, I ask our judges to score as they see fit. I also ask that drops not be counted as concessions, because I am certain to ignore silly arguments if they are too numerous. Anything else can be negotiated in the comments section. I will be happy to honor any agreements made there.
Capitalism vs Social Democracy

Parameters and Precepts: Round 1-Acceptance Round 2-Cases Round 3-Rebuttals Round 4-Defense No kritiks Forming a new argument in the last round is unacceptable Terms: Capitalism-an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Social Democracy-a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means. This debate will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of both system. Pro will be definding the advantages gained by a social democracy(Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada), and disproving the advantages of capitalism provided by Con.
Businesses should have the right to refuse service.

I want to solidify the question and then answer it.Should a bussiness have a right to refuse service. This is a yes or no question. Not sometimes or maybe. Should the government be allowed to force businesses to accept anyone from using the business or allow the businesss to choose who their customers are. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye. - See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com... I strongly Believe that All businesses should be allowed to refuse service from anyone, anytime, anywhere. Just because they have a right does not neccacrly mean they will use it. as refusing service is a large risk at making profits. As we all know one bad customer experience spreads faster than 10 good experiences.However businesses have a right to succeed or fail by their own choosing. If you create a "Racist Redneck Bar" You can choose to only allow rights. Thats your choice, and depending on the location you may or may not be successful. But its a choice that business makes. A business has every right to choose who they cater to such as the baker question. The misleading arguement is that how come you refuse gays but might serve an adulterer or a divorsed? Who cares? Its not our place to tell that baker right and wrong. They are not hurting anyone, for each baker who chooses to not serve, there will be 5 more waiting to make that cake for them. Ultiamtely what this comes down to is America does not like it when peoples feelings are hurt. They take away ones rights due to feelings, not because its the right or wrong thing, but because someone is sad. It is ridiculous in thisday and age we still have to argue over our rights to do as we please. This slipperly slope of giving up rights to make people feel better is only going to get worse before it improves. and Implore all of you to agree, we have the right to refuse server, and we also have the right to go somewhere else. Civil Rights Act of 1964
Businesses should have the right to refuse service.

The prohibition against the right to refuse service was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the Ollie's Barbeque Case due to the fact that the federal government could pass laws regulating interstate commerce and Ollies Barbeque (was at that time - it is closer now) 11 blocks from an interstate highway. This was a prohibition against refusing service based on race, national origin, etc. The law as it has existed for decades had no impact on anyone's religious beliefs. I support the law as it has existed in that a business does not have the right to refuse service for the aforementioned reasons. However, this is not an issue with only two sides (for/against). I have a very different opinion when it comes to sexual orientation. First, let's look at the often quoted scenario that we have seen recently: Should a baker be able to refuse to cater a gay wedding based on religious grounds. My answer, in this case, is YES! In this country, we have first amendment guaranteed freedom of religion and a person should never be required to act against their religious beliefs. For many Christians, the ban on homosexuality is a core belief as it was part of the law of Moses from the Old Testament. John Stuart (whom I usually agree with) says, "does the same baker refuse to cater weddings of people who have been divorced?" Well, it is impossible to know, without in-depth checks, whether someone has been divorced or not and more so, the rules against divorce are much "grayer." The hypothetical baker will have no doubt that they are at a gay wedding if they attend said wedding. Thus, in this hypothetical, I am for the right to refuse service. Now, let's look at another gay rights issue where I would take the other side. A restaurant should not have the right to ban someone that they know is gay. Yet, they should have the right to refuse service for "public displays of affection." Thus, gays and straights would be treated equally in this situation. Now, without public displays of affection, how would anyone know if the person is gay? Or, let's look at another example, simply wearing a shirt that says "proud to be Gay" should not be a reason to refuse service as people have first amendment rights. On the other hand, disturbing everyone else in the restaurant by screaming about how proud someone is to be gay would be grounds for refusal of service. The bright-line tests between right to refuse service and prohibition against refusal should be 2 part: 1. Clear violation of a person's religious freedom should allow for refusal of service, however, if there is no violation of religious freedom, we should look at part 2 2. Are other customers being "reasonably" disturbed by the patron who is being refused service? I strongly dislike the attempts by the media, both right and left, to try to simplify very complex issues and consequently ignore the rights of some people at the expense of others. Being able to refuse service in a restaurant or another business is one of the most complex of issues and there is no simple solution that would also be a fair solution...
Businesses should have the right to refuse service.

Should they have the right to refuse service taken away? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye. - See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com... Civil Rights Act of 1964
Businesses should have the right to refuse service.

I will keep final argument short:You reference history as an arguement that if businesses discriminate it will multiply and cause harm. However I will refute that we live in a fast pased world of social technology where businesses and people are quickly on the move to find money. We live in a country where gay marriage is now legal, any sort of discrimination is shunned and blasted on the internet rapidly. Look how fast the reaction was for the confedorate flag?Businesses should be allowed to choose their customers, it is their choice that will likely hurt them more than anything else,but that indidual that built that business from the grond up has every right to choose their customeres and face the consequeneces.taking away that right is morally wrong. As we are a country of freedom to allow one to make choices. and that includes how to run a business they create.
Businesses should have the right to refuse service.

I apologize for the delay in responding. There are no yes/no questions. Trying to solve complex issues with simple solutions is one of our nation's greatest problems. Even with cross-examination in Court, witnesses are allowed re-direct to explain their "yes/no" answers. Businesses should only have the right to refuse service when it is reasonable considering the behavior of the person being refused service. For example, if a patron at a restaurant decided to urinate on the tables, I believe we could all agree that it is reasonable for the owner to refuse service to said patron. Your argument that business owners should be allowed to refuse service because there will always be five other businesses that will take the potential patron's business is severely flawed. History proves this not to be the case. Were their five other businesses willing to take African-American customers during the Jim Crow days in the South? No, there were not. The reason is that business owners just as others in society follow a "herd" mentality. This "herd" method of reasoning stems from a business seeing another business following a practice and fearing it will fall behind that business if it does not emulate the practice. This "fear" of falling behind is the reason we have market bubbles. Intelligent investors such as Warren Buffett have become very wealthy by playing the contrarian position to the "crowd's" irrational fears as well as their irrational exuberance. Since businesses do not behave rationally in the "short run" and people's rights are infringed in the "short run," we must have laws to regulate businesses. Failing to have regulatory laws would be like a football game where there is no "out of bounds." Imagine the game where the receiver could run up into the stands to catch a ball and then go back into the field of play to score a touchdown! The team on offense would love these rules. The defense would not be so enthusiastic. The patrons of the game probably would not care for being run over by football players either. The point is, regulations are an absolute necessity within a free market economy, otherwise, you will have "too big to fail" banks crashing our economy! I will note that sometimes, such banks will even use bailout money provided by the government, to lobby the government against regulating said banks, so that these banks can continue to perform foolish acts without having to be bothered by the government! My point is, the owner should have the right to refuse when it is reasonable. "Reasonable" is what society deems as reasonable. There is no "slippery slope" in having such a common sense solution. The greatest thing to fear about "slippery slopes" is fear of "slippery slopes" themselves. No one ever said governing and regulating a free enterprise democracy would be easy.
Public execution should not be frowned upon

*****#iacceptyourulemotherf*cker #ineversaidanythingaboutdrinking#whataboutthepeoplewhodon'texposethemselvestof*ckedupsh*twhatthenmotherf*cker#icanreadlikethisallgoddamndaymotherf*cker#sinceyou'renotalittlef*ckeryouwouldn'tknowthat#jusbecausethere'snoneedtocensordoesn'tmeanyoudoitinpublic#ifthatwerethecaseyoucouldshootporninthemiddleofagrocerystoreyousickf*ck #irestmycase
Public execution should not be frowned upon

***#newrule*** #onlyhashtags#sinceyouhatin #whatdoesdrinkinghavetodowithanythinginthisdebate#ibelievethatifmostpeopleexposethemselves#tof*ckedupsh1t#thenyoucanhandleallthebloodandcrap#ifyoucanstillreadthisshi*thencongrats#thelittlef*ckersdontmindthegoreand#shi*sononeedtocensor#mightaswellmakeitpublicright?#seewhyihatehashtagsyet?
Public execution should not be frowned upon

The old times are renowned for being full of sick f*cks. In the old times the most common form of entertainment was hunting gypsies or serfs for sport. If we went back to olden times we'd still have a bunch of old f*cks running the country in a monarchy. And f*ck monarchy. Pro argues that the hypothetical little f*cker has already seen sh*t. Most little kids haven't yet been exposed to sick sh*t, as proved by the lack of little f*ckers drinking themselves to sleep every day. Public execution would make murder seem like a feasible way of solving problems, and the last thing we need right know is a horde of homicidal toddlers. #whythehateforhashtags?
Public execution should not be frowned upon

There must have been some sick moter fuc4ers back in the old times because they found itentertaining. if it is history, then we shcould accept it like we did in times of old! To his attack on my 2nd argument: I bet that little fuc4er has already seen some sick shi7. Have you seen Meet the Parents? that little fuc4 wanted to watch SAW. tere is some nasty @ss $hit in that movie. ***new rule?***okay do what ever you want but you broke my rule. No hashtags!
Public execution should not be frowned upon

My Honorable motherfvcker of an opponent claims that public execution could be entertainment or some sick sh#t. You'd have to be a sick f*ck to think that's entertaining. (1) What else would these people find amusing? Satanic sacrifices? Kitten catapults? Jersey Shore? The list is endless. *****New Rule! ! ***** #idowhatiwant 2nd argument: To the gore argument: What is some little f*cker saw the gore? They'd be traumatized for life. (2) As for the movie argument, all the people who died in those movies weren't being publicly executed for doing some f*cked up sh*t, and they were armed so they were giving a fighting chance, even if that fighting chance was against Russelll F*cking Crowe. (1) "That sh*ts entertaining"- Some sick f*ck (2) Some little f*cker- "Mommy what's coming out of that man's head? " Little f*cker's mom- "Oh, just his brain honey. " Little f*cker- "WHAT WHY" Little f*cker's mom- "Because some @#$% thought it would be a good idea to publicly execute f*ckers.
Public execution should not be frowned upon

Fu*cking awesome! ! First off i would like to define what frowned upon means. Frowned Upon: To regard something with fu*king disapproval or distaste . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... y first argumernt: Entertainment Okay think about this sheit: A long long time ago, in a galaxy far away. .. jk in the 3rd century B. C. , Gladiators were prisoners that were punished with death or slaves. They were given a chance to rise up and fight their way to freedom while killing other fuc*ers for the entertainment of the public population. Even the great Caesar found joy in this form of entertainment . http://en.wikipedia.org... *****New Rule! ! **** #saynotohashtags 2nd argument! ! ummm. .. . Yeah. .. Blood and gore. Look at almost every good Movie. Muttafucin blood and gore. Saving pvt ryan Gladiator 300 any need to continue? Im not saying that good movies have to have blood and gore but it sure helps. we already see all the b*tchin' blood in the media, why censor it in the public? Sheit happens right? anywho. .. .
Dog Man is awesome.

Dog Man is absolutely stupid. The words are spelled wrong. I get that's on purpose, but half the time it's hard to understand what it's supposed to mean. There's an opinion post on it, and one of the 10 year olds thought that they would get by to everyone by saying "The kids love it" when it's obviously a kid themselves. It makes unfunny jokes and it's completely idiotic. The storyline is so hard to follow, and the storyline (if you can follow it) is really bad.
Is abortion murder (no mean pics).

I am sorry to hear that. I was born with 4 mrntal illnesses, so I empathize, but I feel I have the moral right to live. My councelor says I'm probirth control, not prolife, but I do suooport humans from genetic conception to death. Life begins at conception because that is when you had your genetic code. It would be wrong to kill you. God created you for a reason.
Is abortion murder (no mean pics).

So you admit that abortion kills a baby? I am a woman, and I am very offended to think you are infering my alleged neeed for abortion to avoid parenting. I had my tubes removed for contraceptive reasons, because prevention is better than a cure. I was sexually assaulted by my natural father, but I am glad to be alive. Being tortured to death is no joke, ask Jesus. Anywhoo, despite our differences, I feel sad that you don't love yourself enough to assert your right to live before birth. Do you honestly feel your mother had the right to kill you before you were born? Do you know that unborn people are being cut to pieces in the name of choice? Did you know that unborn people are genetically seperate from the mother? Did you know that God had a plan for you before you were born that is being played out right now. I believe God was incarnate as an unborn baby Boy, so please understand that I can't support abortion.
knowledge=memory of nature

You just posted two sentences, so all I can do is respond to those. Your first sentence says, "all memory you have where nature is involved, is knowledge. " This is false. There are plenty of false memories, as is demonstrated by everyday experience and numerous scientific experiments. Three out of four false convictions result from eyewitness identifications on the stand. Here is a source about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony: "Eyewitness misidentification is widely recognized as the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States, accounting for more wrongful convictions than all other causes combined.1 Since 1989, DNA evidence has been used to exonerate nearly 200 individuals who were wrongfully convicted. Of those, approximately 75 percent were convicted on evidence that included inaccurate and faulty eyewitness identifications. In some cases, these innocent individuals were misidentified by more than one eyewitness. " . http://web.williams.edu... Further, even if you were right about this, it isn't sufficient to demonstrate that knowledge is identical to memory of nature, which was the resolution being debated. It would only demonstrate that all memories of nature are knowledge, not that all knowledge consists of memories of nature. There could still be other types of knowledge, like direct perception (a case you have not addressed) and prediction. Your second sentence says "truth can only be in the past, predictions are unknown. " This is also false. If I hold a brick above the ground, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that it will fall if I drop it. That's not only common sense, it's attested to by all of physics. Predictions are capable of being known beyond a reasonable doubt, if they are based on a proven and tested scientific theory. In conclusion, I think I have rebutted all of my opponent's claims, and used reputable sources in doing so.
knowledge=memory of nature

I take it that Pro is putting forward a definition of knowledge. Considered as such a definition, "memory of nature" is woefully insufficient. For example, I know that I am looking at a computer right now. This isn't a memory of nature, it's a perception of nature. And what about scientific knowledge, or mathematical knowledge? Those qualify as understandings of nature, not memories of nature. With scientific knowledge, I can predict things about nature that I've never seen happen before, so scientific knowledge can't just be memory of nature. You can't remember something that hasn't happened yet. Overall, knowledge can't just be "memory of nature."
Christianity

I don't want to answer a litany of new questions, but yes, you could say that science is more logical than religion. This is kind of like saying an apple is more fruity than a blanket. It's a true statement, but is it useful? Again, Christianity is a religion. Religious topics include faith-based beliefs, the nature of the divine, metaphysics, culture, etc. Generally, science asks 'How?', whereas religion and philosophy ask 'Why?' They are different questions that don't cover the same domain.
Christianity

I meant that the big bang is more logical than Christianity or any religion in general, which, logic has no flaws. Logic Logic originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (See source for more information: http://seesharppress.com...) Christianity is based on fear? Christianity is based on dishonesty? Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific? In his Pulitzer Prize-winning play J.B., Archibald MacLeish nails it when his character Nickles declares: "If God is God, he is not good; if God is good, he is not God." How can you believe in a God who would allow so much senseless evil and suffering in the world? Why would "god", if humans existed for 100,000 years, wait 5,000 years to contact them, and only the people in the Middle East? "God" favored the Jews and would even help them fight thier neighbors. No real god would ever act in that way.
Christianity

I believe in The Big Bang Theory, which if you think about it, it's more logical. Some questions: Do you know the paradox "If god could do anything, could he make a rock he couldn't hold?" Doesn't that prove the concept of god is impossible? If mass couldn't just appear out of nowhere, then where did god come from? Ten actually thought out and not dumb reasons why homosexuality is wrong? (Including bi) How does christianity link with science? Or does it fully contradict it? Believe it or not, scientists are smart.