BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
English should be the official language of the United States.

Are you suggesting that a nation should change it's language because there are immigrants who want to use their own language instead of the country's language they immigrated to? Keep in mind there is a reason they immigrated in the first place. It might not be such a great idea to attempt to alter country's culture that welcomed them in their time of need. I do not care if the United States has more immigration that any other language, that is irrelevant. I also do not care if English is the widest used language in the word nor is that of importance. I have done you the courtesy of responding to your concerns however you did not address any of the above points that I made. It seems that as you got flustered you distanced yourself from the original point and let your grammar slide down hill. In my opinion the only issue to even consider for this debate is the language of the Constitution.
English should be the official language of the United States.

1. The Aboriginals may speak another language but that is their constitutional right written down for them in English. 2. Immigration occurs all over the world that does not mean a nation should change their native language. 3. Many Muslims complain that English translations of the Koran are not accurate, and they would be correct in doing so because no language can be completely translated with accuracy to another language. Your suggestion if changing the language of the Constitution would in effect destroy it.
Mike Huckabee.....embarassing

Let me hit on key points for the conclusion 1.Politician experience Huckabee won Iowa, as I showed, with less than half religious vote. He got third in New Hampshire, when he was projected to get 6th a week earlier. This shows that he did better off than expected. McCain is very likable, and less of a politician than Giuliani or Romney. Clinton pulled over half of the women vote. She also was seen very emotional at speeches. This was supposed to be what got her rankings up. Obama beat Edwards, a politician. New Hampshire only shows that the voters, especially in the Republican side, like people, not politicians. Huckabee must have some political skills because he was voted governor multiple times. But he has little corruption from Washington. Yes, I do state that all lobbyists are bad. Why? Because they are. Even if lobbying for a good cause, the means of getting someone's support is wrong. Money and perks are the tools for lobbyists, and Huckabee has yet to fall victim. 2.Positions You attack Huckabee by saying he has no individual position can has trouble defending it. First, he is the only one supporting a FairTax. He is the only one the has the 9-step Secure America plan devoid of amnesty or ID cards. The two biggest issues, he is unique on. You lack serious evidence otherwise. The two videos you have do show his stumbling and mumbling and void of reason. If anything it shows he has enough knowledge to defend his plans. You never prove he is devoid of merit on his positions as you claim. We stand here and can realize that Huckabee is very strong and unique on his positions, and is not an embarrassment at all. 3.Personability All you really say is how likable he is. You never have any negative impacts drawn from this. So this is why Huckabee is NOT an embarrassment, as why you should vote CON. - Is not corrupted by lobbyists - Is supported by the people - Has a strong stance - Is very personable You have only one reason to vote Pro, and that is his experience. I admit this has some drawbacks, but we can all clearly see that Huckabee has more ups than downs.
Mike Huckabee.....embarassing

Religion: Not all of his support is from religious people. http://www.iowaindependent.com... Less than half of his support came from evangelicals Bad Politician: Savvy politician good. Really? So why are the savvy politicians holding approval ratings under 50% why is Mike Huckabee and Barrack Obama, the 2 least experienced win Iowa? Why was Romney, a politician of only 4 years, come in 2nd? Why are term limits becoming popular if we want old politicians? Romney said that McCain has been around in Washington so long that he has lobbyists all around his elbows. Good politician: not liked lobbyists Bad politician: like no lobbyists I think it is clear which is the advantage. No Position: You claim that he has standard republican with no individual stance Let me go through his positions and explain them to you Secure America Plan does not have any amnesty. McCain and Giuliani agree on a plan with practical amnesty. Pro-Life, 2nd Amendment and Same-sex marriage is what almost all republicans support. Why? Because if he didn't he would be a democrat FairTax is not supported by any other republican besides Huckabee. Standard republican? Yeah Right. He supports energy independence, yet many Americans see Republicans as big-oil men. The stereotype does not fit with Huckabee Personability: Really? Bad speaker? I just watched an interview on FOX and he did not stutter any more than anyone else. If he is not personable, than why is he rated #1 on most honest and most moral of all the candidates? This was your ending "You claim that Huckabee is this really nice, religious, inexperienced guy. That is the problem. He has no policy merit or knowledge and the Huckabee campaign is tied together with trendy jokes and religious personability. His nomination would reopen a healing wound on the face of the party." Nice, is not a bad thing Religion, is not the reason for all of his supporters Inexperienced, is a good thing among the public Policy, is different in major issues such as Taxes and Immigration Knowledge, you only stated that he has to research some about one issue. Better research than some rash action done without thinking Only jokes and religion, yeah right! He had one, maybe two jokes at the debate. Thompson, Giuliani had 1, Romney has a thousand outside of debate, and McCain had 4 or 5. So far, you have supported MY side. You agreed he is nice. I prove that being a bad politician is good. You do not. He is better than many republican candidates, and he is actually one of the best.
Mike Huckabee.....embarassing

1) Religion I am not saying being religious is a problem. I stated that Huckabee's religion is the only reason he won the Iowa caucus and is even considered a viable candidate. His religiously zealous supporters reenforce the common notion that republicans are nothing but conservative religious fanatics who want to spread the Bible throughout our government. 2) Bad Politician This is NOT a good thing. There is difference between being a corrupt politician and a good one. Not all politicians in washington are selling out to corporate investors, despite popular opinion. This point is merely a commentary on his poor campaigning skills and awkward policy stances. I'm not saying being a dirty politician is good, but being politically savvy (at least to some degree) is. 3) No Position This is exactly what I mean. Huckabee practically copy and pasted all of the none contreversial republican positions and is relying on wit, religion and humor to win him the nomination. How hard is it for any republican to say "I am tough on crime" or "I am pro-life". My point here is that Huckabee fumbles through any type of question until he can loop it back to some Chuck Norris joke or religious affirmation. This was obvious when he is asked questions outside of the debates. When asked about teh Bhuto problem in Pakistan, Huckabee needed clarification on who she was, before saying that he needed to investigate further before he could make a conclusive solution. This is typical Huckabee. He is marketed well (plays the bass for crowds, tells jokes, and is religious), but clearly is not fit to be president. 4) Secure America Plan Again, this is exactly what I mean. The Huckabee campaign just uses positions that every republican has had for the last 5 years and asserts them as revolutionary. Tell me one none-religious position that is unique to Huckabee. 5) Personability This is essentially the only thing Huckabee has going for him and it does not merit a presidential nomination. If you watch any Huckabee interview or campaign speech that isn't pre-scripted and requires him to answer on the spot, he fumbles through giving rudementary responses which sound pretty, but have no substance. Finally, I would just like to point out that all of your arguments support my reasoning. You claim that Huckabee is this really nice, religious, inexperienced guy. That is the problem. He has no policy merit or knowledge and the Huckabee campaign is tied together with trendy jokes and religious personability. His nomination would reopen a healing wound on the face of the party.
Mike Huckabee.....embarassing

I tried to summarize your points 1. Huckabee too religious 2. Bad politician 3. No positions are these about right? ok first why your points are wrong and then why he is good 1. Religion Huckabee is religious. But he has yet to show that religion will make him a bad president. Besides, our founding fathers were all religious. They turned out great. 2. Bad politician I wont attack this point here, but down in my own section for why Huckabee is good 3. No position Excuse me? Have you tried to learn about his position? http://www.mikehuckabee.com... go there. It shows all of his positions. prove to me he has no position. ****************HUCKABEE 08************************************************ Ok here is why Huckabee is a great man for president 1. Secure America Plan 2. Bad politician 3. Personable 1. Secure America Plan http://www.mikehuckabee.com... the whole plan is outlined here the plan is good for following reasons - it solves the problem this is rare in Washington these days - it is very detailed it isn't a broad plan. It's a real plan - it has a good chance to work nothing too costly or too hard. Also a change in Washington 2. Bad politician. "Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now" "The president's approval rating remains a weak 35 percent" http://abcnews.go.com... Obviously, American are fed up with politics and politicians. In bleep bleep county (where i live) it was recorded in the Houston Chronicle that only 22% of voters, well, voted in the country elections. We need a leader who isn't a politician. Someone who has morals. Who believes in doing what is right, not what a lobbyist says. Comes in Huckabee. No bad reputation. No bad conscience. Huckabee is better than everyone else because he is a worse politician. 3. Personable I'm not making this up, I just couldn't find the magazine again. Apparently, Huckabee is rated #1 in most honest and most moral of all the candidates. Both red and blue. He is over 50% in both categories. Guiliani is around 20, as well is Clinton. He makes people enjoy his company. This speaker dignitos is worth more than any foreign affairs experience. HE can do great things because he is charismatic. Now I'm not saying Huckabee is like Hitler, but Hitler was able to do some many things because he was charismatic. All these reasons show why Huckabee would be a great president
Mike Huckabee.....embarassing

As a Republican, I have to say Mike Huckabee winning the caucus tonight will/is embarassing. It just furtheres the notion that Republicans are all ignorant religious fanatics, who will vote on issues that shouldn't matter in government, even in the face of a political moron. Huckabee is a terrible politician and has no cogent response or position on any of the issues. His only card is his faith and religious experience. He is lucky a state with traditional values is first, or he would have been out of this race already. Huckabee winning Iowa would/does take away from a REAL republican who would have a REAL shot at winning the nomination and the presidency. For my party's sake, I hope Huckabee doesn't win, or if he does/did, that it goes no further and am ashamed of Iowa republicans in general. By the way, I am not arguing for my personal opinion, this is generally a bash on Huckabee, so any response crediting him will work. Thanks.
Space colonization should be spearheaded by the private sector

Any new technology has steep development costs. Often there is uncertainty that there will be any payoff at all, much less a payoff that justifies the costs. However, sometimes things must be done. Aircraft carriers must be built, fusion power must be developed, and so on. For this reason government often foots the bill in developing technology, and appropriately so. There does come a point where private industry can be more agile in development and you bet your paycheck that the second there is profit to be made there will be plenty of greedy players trying to make it. In fact, even before it is wise to do so. In the case of space colonization we are nearing that point. There are private space tourism launches, but its going to be quite a while before we have colonization. The reason for this is that while there are plenty of wealthy people who want to go into space, only an idiot would be up for permanent relocation (imprisonment) to mars or much of anywhere, and idiots don't have money. If you want proof just look at the cross eyed fools that are volunteering for the NASA mars colonization. Probably there will be some early funding by wealthy elderly individuals that want to go up and siphon life force off the captives. More to the point NO ONE should fund colonization. Humanity is a marginally sociopathic species in the second lowest possible stage of civilization (civilization is defined by social customs not by technology). More than that the people pulling the strings in our "civilization" are to use a technical term . . . "freaking nuts". No intelligent human nor any intelligent alien wants humanity colonizing anything at this point. In fact if we are being watched by intelligent alien life, attempting to colonize another planet could likely trigger our extinction.
Space colonization should be spearheaded by the private sector

DEFINITIONS SPACE COLONIZATION- the permanent human habitation off planet Earth. This comes to include orbital habitations and those on all planetary bodies not Earth. PRIVATE SECTOR-an organization is it is a- non-governmental agency that is not a nonprofit or philanthropist project; company or corporation that is based on the premise of repaying their investors and growing to expand in some way ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My personal theory that space colonization should be led by the private sector is backed on historical evidence and current events. Companies must make a return on investment, therefore they must make their funding go further than a government which may just burn through funding and request more via taxes. For example, India was colonized by the British East India Trade Company, not the British government. This is because the government would have to answer to public opinion regarding the reason they (the government) went to the new place to begin with. However, a privately owned company merely answers to its investors, as they provide funding and expect a return on their investments. A government does not have to make a return on investment to its investors, the taxpayers of that country. For example, the United States of America is the owners of a massive national debt, it the range of 15 to 20 trillion dollars. This is not an economically sound principle, and it should be repaid before sending men and women to places other than Earth and supporting them. This is best left to the private sector, which would expect to make a profit from there venture and therefore as profitable as possible.
Military Conscription is Just

Spring Tournament R1: Kasmic vs. Lannan13 Resolved: Military conscription is justBurden of proof on me (pro) to affirm. Definition of Terms:Military: "of or relating to soldiers." (1)Conscription: "compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft." (2) Just: "righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: " Structure/Format:6,000 Characters/Select WinnerRound 1: Acceptance and termsRound 2: Opening arguements (Con may rebut and/or present and arguement) Round 3: rebuttalsRound 4: Closing statements, no new arguementsSources:(1) http://www.dictionary.com...(2) http://www.dictionary.com...(3) http://www.dictionary.com...
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

This is all of what you said in the first box: "I believe in the right of self-preservation, And also the right to bear arms in the case of a tyrannical government. Change my Mind. IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FINISH ROUNDS AND FORFEIT, PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE CHALLENGE. Thank you. " Nowhere in this text did you say that "Round 1 is acceptance" in any shape or form. If you're saying that Round 1 was for acceptance now, Then why the hell didn't you say that earlier? This is officially the most retarded part of the debate. "I'm not homophobic. I accept the people and their right to love whoever they want, Religiously I do not agree with their decision. I like them as people and look at them no different from other people. " Isn't that a bit hypocritical there, Everyone? You say that you accept them, But you do not agree with them. This would mean that you are A LITTLE BIT homophobic. And you're just figuring out that I'm a white supremacist? Yeah, No sh#t. I've always been one. I kill niggers at night as my job. I get paid $150, 000 every time I kill a nigger. I kill at least 100 niggers per night. In fact, My dad had the same job as me before he retired. It runs in the family. "Disabled people are not the same. Different disabilities warrant different behavioral actions. " Disabled people each have a disability, Yes? Then that would make all of them the same in this case. And since they have a disability, They should NOT be trusted with a gun. EVER. Especially since most of them like to throw tantrums like babies and some of them even cause school shootings. Most of them also believe in a homophobic and transphobic god. This is why Satanism is the way. Niggers are eating too much chicken, Which doesn't save any room for us. Asians are eating dogs, Which is just plain wrong. Indians are stinky, And normal people don't want stank in their lives. "Killings have risen drastically since we took God and morality out of schools. We at least need to teach morality in public schools again. " The reason why killing has risen is because there has been a population boom of disabled honkeys. It used to be just mostly Christians, Retarded criminals, And smokers, But now we have pure autistic sperglords like Chris-chan who obsess over pieces of media and/or can't function in society. School shooters came out of this group. To fix this, We need to at the very least kick all of the disabled honkeys out of the USA. They'll fit better with all of those stinky Indians, Ping pong tables, Etc. This has been a rather interesting but fun debate. Your place in society is quite clear now.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

To the voters, If any arguments are made after this, It is an automatic loss. I'm not homophobic. I accept the people and their right to love whoever they want, Religiously I do not agree with their decision. I like them as people and look at them no different from other people. So you are a white supremacist. You are stereotyping groups and none of it is true of all people in those groups. Disabled people are not the same. Different disabilities warrant different behavioral actions. I agree most disabled people probably wouldn't have a gun, But maybe few people who's disabilities are not that severe should be able to go through a background check, And so should good people from those groups you mentioned. What does it matter what blacks eat or what few Asians eat(many of them do not), Or how Indians smell? (you may respond to this question) It has nothing to do with the ability to protect yourself from threats and having the right to live, As outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Most of the mass shooters are not question. Killings have risen drastically since we took God and morality out of schools. We at least need to teach morality in public schools again. "Most of them don't believe in God, Yes, But that doesn't make them any less retarded. " Which is why before God was taken out of schools, There were very few shootings. Only the response to the earlier question may be allowed, Otherwise no arguments.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

So "love is love" is an opinion, Not a fact? So you don't think that the same gender should love each other? You really ARE homophobic. Also, You still haven't proved that God isn't homophobic and that YOU aren't homophobic yourself. I'd like for you to do that in the next round. REAL white people are truly good. That's what I meant. Niggers are sh! T eaters, Asians eat dogs, Indians stink up the place, Etc. We, As white people, Don't do that. Don't get us confused with the white disabled niggers, Though. After all, I already established that. Speaking of that, Disabled people are ultimately all the same. Unpredictable scum-buckets who relies on homeschool like a b! Tch and shoots up schools. Some of them are also Christian. You just can't trust them with a gun. Also, Google is your friend. Use it. And lastly; I DID respond to your last paragraph. I didn't deny or refute the statistics, HOWEVER, I said this: "Most of them don't believe in God, Yes, But that doesn't make them any less retarded. " You need to pay attention more, Bud. Final round, Here we come.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

First paragraph- opinion second paragraph- not all of them are bad, And what do you define as "truly good"? third paragraph- For most of them yes. The disability of some of them might not affect their decisions with guns, Though. What is "Chris-chan"? I am finishing the rounds so I can win because most of the people on this site are not as racist and disgusting as you. You also did not respond to my last paragraph, Which was pure statistics and facts.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I thought you rage-quitted. Oh well. Let's keep going, Then. Still, God is a dumba$$ for hardwiring people anyways. No good person should do that. Love is love, Whether God likes it or not. Everyone who follows him is either homophobic, A closeted homophobic, And/or a dumba$$. So far, It seems that you are homophobic since you hate the gays's actions. Again, This is not poor conduct, This is FACT. This is why I'm a Satanist. Satan loves gays. All niggers, White disabled niggers, Asians, Indians, Mexicans, Natives, And mixies are the same. None of them are truly good. A nigger is still a nigger, An Asian is still an Asian, Etc. It may be hard to believe to YOU, But it is true. Not all white disabled niggers believe in God. Yes, I should've said this earlier, But most of them are definitely Christian for sure. I wish all of the churches could be bombed so I don't have to hear their retarded bells all day. School shootings are commonly known to be caused by white disabled niggers. Most of them don't believe in God, Yes, But that doesn't make them any less retarded. And the last thing the smart white kids getting educated need is a school shooting. Therefore, We must ban guns for ALL disabled people like Chris-chan. May Satan have mercy on you, And good luck in the next round.