BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government has the right to make laws about dress code.

Before I refute my opponents points, I would like to point out that in the beginning of the debate, I merely stated my points but did not argue them. The Contender announced "The Proposition began by saying that students in schools need to dress for success in order to get a good job and that it is vital when making life decisions." I did not say that students need to dress for success in order to get a job, I stated that it is an important factor in getting a job. Also, the Elastic Clause is related in this topic, as a well kept and orderly society should be in place for the government and the whole country to run smoothly. I did not argue this point because, as I reviewed in the beginning, I just stated the points. As for the appetite "joke", the opposition made a good point in stating why they SHOULD, which just enforces my other points on why they CAN. Just because they can, doesn't mean they will. I have reasons for both. Now to refute my opponents points. The Opposition proposed that the First Amendment says that Congress cannot limit free speech, but the Elastic Clause in the Constitution has the power to overrule an amendment, in order to help our government run smoothly. In order for our government to run properly, we need a well organized society, and we can't have that with "hipsters" and their pants halfway off their butt and girls' butts showing under their miniskirt. Secondly, I don't see how having guys pull up their pants and having girls wear longer skirts if going to affect a religious belief. I know their are a lot of religions but a religion forcing someone to wear gang clothes and sagging pants? Third and finally, I under stand what the opponent is trying to say, and I agree. Taking away a shirt that bad-mouths someone is only removing the first layer, which is helping the problem, but after that it's the schools responsibility to take care of the problem. Now to argue my own points. 1. Sagging, gang clothing, miniskirts, etc. are already unacceptable in most schools and workplaces. Why not make it legal in public? From a logical standpoint, it will make society much nicer and maybe it will decrease gangs and gang violence. 2. The Elastic Clause is a great example of why the government CAN enforce a dress code. As I said many times before, a clean and organized society may lead to a better run government, which may help our economy. The Opponent is correct in saying that amendment one denies limited expression, but the Elastic Clause overrules this and this now goes to why they SHOULD enforce a dress code, like I stated above. 3. In most job applications, if you wear sagging pants or a miniskirt, you will most likely not get the job. If it is denying jobs, then it shouldn't be allowed in public. Job standards should be public standards, in most situations. This concludes the the argument by the Proposition in the second round.
I won't contradict myself

In light of the fact you can't answer any more questions i shall use this round to point out the contradictions in this debate. 1. the first contradiction of the round is made by your answer to 8. Is south park better than death note?and 4. Is anime or animation better? you answered south park and then anime while death note is anime thus meaning you prefer animation to anime.2. The second contridiction is made by your answer to 10. What is the airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut? and 3. In the rule "2-5 asks and answered" does that mean you shall answer every question asked? You answered it yes however you not answer the question other than to comment that it is a movie reference and put several '?'s. thus you did not answer the question.3. Your third contradiction is in the answer to 9. Have you broken any of the rules so far? you stated no however you broke the rule mentioned in the second contradiction. thus this is a contradiction.4. Your fourth and final contradiction i have noticed is you stated the answer to 10. Have i broken any of the rules so far? you answered no however i broke the aforementioned rule by not asking questions in round 2.Voters if you notice any other contradictions feel free to point them out in the comments section or vote on them on your own and keep them to yourself. Your choice.
I won't contradict myself

1. Acording to OberHerr, Ron-Paul, Conservative I do.2. I don't know I guess so3. Yes4. anime5. Yes I guess so 6. Teal7. become a polition that turns this Country and expands it.8. My definition of one is if you get severly injurred, another movie referense I see9. Not that I notice any10. Not that I notice any
I won't contradict myself

1. Do you easily make spelling errors? 2. Do you count something that is easily seen to be an easy error? 3. In the rule "2-5 asks and answered" does that mean you shall answer every question asked? 4. Is anime or animation better? 5. Policy debate the best form? 6. What is your favorite color? 7. What is your quest? 8. What is categorized as a flesh wound? 9. Have you broken any of the rules so far? 10. Have i broken any of the rules so far?
I won't contradict myself

Voters: Don't hold Lucus's forfited round against him, for he was ill.1. 5 the max in my oppion2. NO3.They can marry just not the same sex 4. yes5. Its was okay6. so-so7. yes, age 25 is when reason in your mind is mature enough8. Part of the debate and I've got the Freedom to say it9. Sugar10. yes, cake is great
I won't contradict myself

I apologise for my lack of response i fell ill over the weekend and was unable to post. My questions for the next round are as follows. 1. How many children should a family have? 2. Should abortion be legal? 3. Should gay marriage be legal? 4. Are gays Human? 5. How was your weekend? 6. How good is your grammar? 7. Should the drinking age be changed? 8. Why did you choose the answer you did to the previous question? 9. Stevia or sugar? 10. Do you like cake?
I won't contradict myself

Questions: 1. Do all men have rights? 2. What is your religion? 3. What is your favorite topic in school? 4. What is your best topic in school? 5. What is your political stance? 6. What do you think of Gov. Brownback? 7. Who do you support in the upcoming election? 8. Is south park better than death note? 9. What is the answer to the universe, life, and everything? 10. What is the airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut?
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to

This debate is appart of Forever's tourney and is Round 1 match-up between Famousdebater and myself.The full debate resolution is as follows. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to $15 per hour.RulesFirst round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro.Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals. Pro refutes Con's arguments.Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion.Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round.In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, "No round as agree upon."If anything but the above is written in Round 4 then Pro forfeits the entire debate.No profanity.No trolling.Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be.No Kritiks.No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate.The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Raise- to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Minimum Wage Standard- The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both. The FLSA does not provide wage payment collection procedures for an employee’s usual or promised wages or commissions in excess of those required by the FLSA. However, some states do have laws under which such claims (sometimes including fringe benefits) may be filed. (http://www.dol.gov...)
Should drugs be banned in United States

You say that the Portugal per 100000 persons stat is in not proper, It is proper on a state level because Portugal's population is close to many American states, also they get the total number of drug sales in Portugal and the total population and divided for the total drug usage rate, they did this in 2001 and results shower 5.8% of Portugals population used drugs before the legalization, now it stands at around 4.5% of the population is consistantly buying drugs, In the United States that rate is 6.1%. For the judge also note that my opponent did not bring up any counter statistics. You than go to ASSUME, that cartels will just become legitimized with legalization, and you also assume they have ready chains and knowledge of people, this just servers my purpose my opponent is implying to the fact that drug cartels benifit in the United States because of the drug war and my opponent disregarded the economic theory of competition which works in free markets to keep quality high and prices low. He concedes to the fact that addicts will do anything to get there hands on money for drugs. He then makes another statement of 'magnatudes of addicts, more than before.' that is speculation and he came to this speculation by denying the competition and supply and demand economic theories. My opponent then moves on to say that drug addicts are hard to rehabililate and this is true, but placing them in a prison system to serve time will only feed the addiction, treat drugs like a health issue and try rehab prison just places non violent drug users next to convicted murderers and robbers, and evidently they may start to devolope personallities comparable to these convicts. You than go to sat economic fallacy that drug users just use what they can get there hands on which is again speculation no facts where brought up to prove this. You than say my solution 'Is like trying to throw fire at fire' when yours is just throwing gas at fire which just ignites the flames. Logically adding fire to more fire will not create more fire, you need a fuel source. Judges, my opponents arguements are based off of speculation and denying economic principles like supply and demand and competition, judges do a read thought my opponents arguements and try to find at least 3 statements backed with facts. *Drops mic*
A Random Debate

Just stay a bunch of random stuff. have fun Try to translate: 01001001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100010 01100001 01110100 01100101 00101100 00100000 01100111 01101111 01101111 01100100 00100000 01110011 01101001 01110010 00100001 con starts right away we dont want to waste rounds on this
The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

Here are my arguments against the death penalty:1) Human Rights ViolationsAccording to Amnesty International, "The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights." [1]2) Barbaric and MedievalPublic support for the death penalty is declining. As people become more civilized, their support for this barbaric, cruel and unusual punishment is declining. [2] The eye for an eye philosophy is dangerous. If a criminal literally plucks someone's eye out or cuts off the victim's foot, would the appropriate punishment be to take the criminal's eye/foot as well?3) Costs moreIt has been shown that the death penalty costs more than life without parole. [3]4) Leads to the death of innocent peopleLeads to the death of wrongly convicted as well as mentally retarded people.5) There are other optionsLife without parole in a maximum security prison does the same thing that a death penalty does by keeping the offender away from society.6) Doesn't help the victim or the victim's familyExecuting a murderer will not bring the victim back to life. When the victim can magically be brought back to life through execution of his/her murderer, that is when I will support the death penalty.7) Cruel and Unusual punishmentThe fact that most inmates spend years on death row waiting for the inevitable with nowhere to go wrecks havoc on their minds.Sources[1] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[2] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[3] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[4] http://www.philforhumanity.com...
Truths exists irrespective of the observer..

As the post was started I understand Truth as an absolute concept. 1. God Exists or Do not 2. The universe was created or it came into being by itself 3. There is life after death or do not. To debate, there will be a large number of statements like this. According to the law of contradiction two contrary statements pertaining to a concept can't be both true at the same time. Either one is true or both false. Taking one of the above statements; God Exists or Do not exist. Bot can't be true. An attempt to prove the existence and non existence simultaneously will be a definitely a tautology. A Physicist believe in the existence of God referring to the order of universe and the other believe in the non-existence referring to chaos in universe have a relative understanding of the something absolute. Regardless of the relative perception here, only one of the beliefs can be true as their perception and conclusions contradicts. Taking an example from daily life - "Mr. X was present in the office Yesterday" and "Mr. X was absent in the office Yesterday"; can't be true at the same time.
Truths exists irrespective of the observer..

As Yraelz forfeited the previous round, I am moving on to my final argument in continuation to my 3rd round. "Ekam Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti" means existence/truth is one, but defined variously; quote from Rig Veda, a very ancient Indian literature. Ages before the age of reasoning and enlightenment, many of the very old wisdom writings of the world accepted the absolute nature of truth, signifying the quest in search of meaning & purpose and the human realization of the existence of eternal truths. I am not trying to state that the truth is absolute, because the ancient literature mentions so; but the quest of human intellect from the past itself, on the absolute nature of truth which is logically acceptable. While logically analyzing, the statement "Truth is relative" itself is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves. When a speaker says "no one knows what the truth is", then he indirectly is persuading those who are listening, to affirm the truth of his statement. And here the speaker obviously believes his statement is true. There are numerous philosophers who pent countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on nihilism and the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think, their text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers! "Absolute truth" is an inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares and you add on....."
Truths exists irrespective of the observer..

I think, throughout the discussion you were trying to explain the perception of truth alone, which I too agree with you. My thought was on the absolute existence of the truth. God or gods? According to me 'the gods' are the result of the perception or understanding of "God" and is probably the explanation of the absolute in relative terms. You are very much right that the concept of God changes from person to person. But, Individual perception or belief of something does not alter the essence, nature or property of the truth which exists independent of one's understanding of that. Human perception is based on the collection of stimulus through the senses and its interpretation by the brain. There are various factors that affect our perception and hence, different individuals interpret the same concept in different ways. Our understanding is always epistemologically dual and indirectly real which some philosophers call Representationalism. The truths with regard to the existence of Matter, God and everything tangible & intangible is objective and hence not prone to relativity. Blinds perceiving the elephant through the sense of touch may interpret as rope, trunk, spear or fan depending on the part of the body they touched. This never alters the structure of elephant as a whole but only develops the individual's perception of the truth. "I don't know, depends on what you consider life to be I suppose? " Let whatever way we consider life be, there exists some realities and truths pertaining to it. There is is something that differentiates the state of physical living and non living. Considering "thinking" as that attribute will straight away deny the existence of every non thinking matter, with a nihilistic interpretation and subjective explanation, which in turn will nullify the validity of any discussion and debate concluding in meaninglessness. Take for example, it is empirically evident that elements Hydrogen and Oxygen combines to form water. This is a scientifically verified truth and existed as truth itself, irrespective of people's unscientific belief in the past that rock produces water or it is made in the sky and fall as rain. These explanations are only based on the limited and closed observations. Someone asked, what people breathed before Joseph priestly discovered Oxygen? The answer is Oxygen itself which is the truth. The fact is we never knew until the discovery that we breathe oxygen. There is no relative explanation for the this. Once again let me come back to one of the previous example, "Mr. X was present in the office Yesterday" and "Mr. X was absent in the office Yesterday"; can't be both true at the same time. No relative explanation can be given to this than approving one (which is the truth) and rejecting the other. I will agree with you on the subjectivity of Experience but not of Existence. Existence is independent of subjectivity.
Truths exists irrespective of the observer..

Hmmm, that's a pretty difficult burden to uphold. For starters, what are you considering truth to be? The correct thing? And to who? God exists or god doesn't exist, alright but what god are you talking about? Are there different forms of gods? I would say their are. In fact I'd go as far to say that the definition of a god changes from one person to the next. Which leads me to another interesting question, are those really the only two choices? We have a being that is often considered to be outside of time, a concept that we can barely understand. And a being that is also considered to have been made from nothing, thus defeating the natural causality of the rest of our world. Is that being truly bound by either existence or non-existence? Why couldn't that being be a bit of both? Perhaps somewhere else entirely? Or even more likely, somewhere that we haven't thought of yet? Which brings me to your second example. The Universe was created or it came into being by itself. Are we really bound by just those extremes? Perhaps it was a little bit of both? Or once again something that we just flat out haven't considered yet. And your third, there is life after death or there is not. I don't know, depends on what you consider life to be I suppose? Would life be what I am living right now? In other words when the status quo changes out of my currently livelihood then I am no longer living? Perhaps, but I could just as easily argue that life is simply the ability to think, which one is the truth? Seems pretty subjective...... Hypothetically the human race has been around for a while, and throughout that time their have been men known as philosophers. They've done a great deal of work inside of our constructs and mindsets but honestly they've done almost nothing in the realm of metaphysics. Honestly "Cogito Ergo Sum" I think, therefor I am, is about as far as we have come. And that's not even a truth irrespective of the observer, it's a personal truth. I can say I think therefor I am but I know that for absolutely no one else. It's entirely possible that everything happening right now is completely and utterly subjectively in my "mind". Without a great amount of proof on the subject I fail to see how we can at any point reach the conclusion that truths exist irrespective of the observer. My entire experience on this earth is completely subjective, and while I can't speak for whoever else is reading this I will assume under my own subjectivity that each of you are acting as your own individual. Which means everyone reading this debate understands that everything they think and see is entirely subjective. Your move.
The Words "Under God" Should Be Removed From The Pledge of Allegiance

Since I have some space to fill, I just want to say that I really enjoy DDO. I frequent this site at lunch every day and I really enjoy many of the debaters. I find that this site provides a unique opportunity to more fully understand the positions of those I do not necessarily agree with. In addition, it helps me to think more deeply on issues that I may have only considered on a more superficial level. Please keep this going. It is a very good thing.