BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Fouding Fathers (U.S.) Didn't Care about the Constitution

Dear Pro, Due to my old computer breaking, I have had to use an iPad to type. However, apparently iPads do not support some functions of this website, making it a long and strenuous process to type on debate.org. However, I was able to post my argument on a website I made called foundingfathers123.weebly.com. Please go to this website to read my argument for this round. To the voters - do not vote without reading my argument. Please click the above link to access my points, and make sure to read through them carefully before placing your vote. Voting without doing so would be an unfair act due to your lack of overall information on both me and my opponents' views. Thank you!
The Fouding Fathers (U.S.) Didn't Care about the Constitution

Hi, Pro. I accept your debate. I do not believe that definitions are that necessary at this point in the debate, so let us get straight to the arguments. I will be arguing that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America valued and lived by the terms of the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers of the U.S., specifically those who helped in the writing and ratifying of the Constitution, valued it extremely as a way to govern the nation in a democratic manner. Though this point may seem obvious, it is quite necessary in the debate - why would the Founding Fathers write the U.S. Constitution if they did not agree with and value its terms? The founders of our nation, who gained independence from Great Britain in order to escape from tyranny and gain freedom under a new type of government, wanted to have a good set of rules by which to live under, and so wrote these rules - which they themselves believed were just - in our Constitution. In fact, the Constitution begins with the famous lines, "We the people of the United States". This statement shows that the founders of our nation included themselves in the terms of the Constitution, and so obviously wanted to abide by it. You say that the founding fathers discarded loyalty to the Constitution in the name of 'power and American White Supremacy'. This accusation could not be further from the truth. The founding fathers who later held the positions of president and other important political offices are known today as some of the greatest political leaders our nation ever had. These men, including George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison (the list goes on and on) served our nation valiantly in the name of freedom and justice. These men, who were not power-hungry, heartless politicians, served not for power, but to better our nation and the freedoms of its citizens. You also state that the founding fathers were American White Supremacists. Though some of the Founding Fathers supported slavery, many others, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, did not. Furthermore, many of those who did viewed it as a 'necessary evil' and freed their slaves later in life or upon their deaths (George Washington). In fact, Jefferson, a prominent founding father, condemned the slave trade and its consequences in the Constitution, though this was removed from the texts by Congress. You might have denied that Jefferson was like the other Founding Fathers in his policy, though he certainly is a founding father and should be included in this debate. The Founding Fathers, unlike you mentioned above, would not be angered if they saw modern American tolerance, rather, they would be pleased by our nation's progress (the founding fathers specifically allowed constitutional Amendments to change our nation's laws, as they understood that many American views were to change over the years. I have given a general summary of my opinion, I would be happy to give more specific reasons for my views later in the debate. Thanks!
The Fouding Fathers (U.S.) Didn't Care about the Constitution

The debate at stake is to discuss if our founding fathers truly valued the document that they created. In my argument I will show how our founding fathers violated the very Constitution that they signed, the very document that patriots died for, only to be discarded by our founders in the name of power and American White Supremacy. If our founders were alive today (maybe except Jefferson) they'd turn over in their graves at the sight of our modern day tolerance. Round 1 will be acceptance, possible definitions, and a brief/general summary of your position. Can you defend original intent given the intent of our founders?
Debate.com should have a specified format

As this is the last round, I will try to not introduce any new material, unless it is directly addressing new material my opponent just brought up. This is one of the down sides of a 2 round debate. 1) No set format allows greater customization. My opponent has not refuted this and actually supported it. He said "There can be more than one style and an option to use your own style if you care to. I don't like refuting in the first round. " When one talks about a "specified" format, they are talking about a singular format, not a series of options of formats, that would be an "array" of formats (there are a ton of other synonyms as well). Pro uses the example of "first round for acceptance. " I will not go into why I favor doing first round for acceptance, but it shows the importance of not having a single specified format, so that those that want it can have it and those that don't want it, don't have to. 2) Debate. com My opponent has just moved the goal posts by changing the resolution (in the final round, at that) from debate. com to debate. org. Switching to an entirely different website. However, I firmly believe that all my points hold for debate. org just as well, if not even better than debate. com 3) Polls and Opinions My opponent said that he already refuted those, however he never addressed them at all. They still show the great risk involved with trying to force a single option and what will necessarily happen as a result. Lest we forget! Thank you,
Debate.com should have a specified format

Being that debate.com is an advertisement page, and the creators of debate.org didn't purchase it to redirect traffic to thier website, I will extend my argument to dabate.org. I see you are a very keen debator. But you seem to be more focued on word play than actually debating. all it takes to have a set format is a dropbox on the debate starting page. There is obviously in the voting structure for debate.org a line to vote for which debator has the better conduct. How can one conduct be better than another if there is no defining of conduct. Cursing and name calling is a reportable offence. so The first round is for acceptance. Why? Don't you have to push a button for acceptance? Isn't that enough? I'm all about flexibility. There can be more than one style and an option to use your own style if you care to. I don't like refuting in the first round. If there is going to be a debate, it should include adequate evidence from both sides so that readers have a chance to come to thier own conclusions before one debator starts attacking the other person's ideas. I think this is the part where most people talk about burdon of proof. I've already refuted the oppion section and polls section as an adequate measure for creating a specified format. Speaking of the oppinion and polls section. I was on yesterday and saw a particulary interesting comment posted and I decided that I wanted to debate on that topic. It took me to the start a debate screen. but none the topic of the debate didn't carry over. When you click challenge on the opinion section, don't you think the topic of the opinion is enough to be the topic of the debate? If I want to debate a specific person for some other reason, I'll go to thier page and challenge them, or change the topic of the debate. People are stupid, they say dot com after everything. I wonder what the hits are on debate.com. It has a worse format than this one. But I should still purchase that website and sell it to the creator of this one.
Debate.com should have a specified format

I will bring up my arguments now.1) There is an issue when debates have no format. When there are no set rules, things may get out of hand and go off topic. However, there are many different types of formats and rule structures that people enjoy using. By having no specified format allows the flexibility for members to set their own format. This creates a greater experience for a wider range of users, and is ultimately better.2) There has not been a single case on Debate. com where a lack of format has even been an issue. While there may have been plenty on Debate. org, there have been none on Debate. com. Also, lets all take a moment to notice that no format was established by my opponent. Thus leaving this debate open to a wide verity of diversionary tactics. Speaking of which. ..3) It was about 19 months ago that Innomen (president of DDO at the time) attempted to implement something similar. The idea was pitched to Juggle and they accepted and moved forward with the idea. It was to create a concrete format set for debates. To maintain the freedom and flexibility, Innomen and Juggle created. .. the Opinion and Polls section.
Debate.com should have a specified format

Debate. com should have a specified debating format. Just saying watch this video and have it carries no structure at all. People, cry, and moan about what ever they want, however they want in every comment forum on the internet. Take youtube for example, people just argue about things for no reason, I once saw an argument on a children's video over same sex marriage. I believe that the debate is appropriate but it has nothing to do with the video it was commenting on, so it is inappropriate but there is nothing to stop it. Debates often start out with one person making a claim-- that's good. But, they go on with the other person saying "You're wrong," and the first person saying, "I'm Right," then the second person saying "You're wrong," again and it's a vicious cycle. Debate. com does make a step toward keeping order by limiting the debate rounds because debates inevitably end with character attacks. Even here on debate. com there are character attacks. Statements like "well my opponent refuses to comment on my comment that I made two turns ago, so my comment must be the legitimacy for truth," do nothing to further the debate except attack the character of the other person. More often than not, the first round of almost every debate I've read begins with rules over what kind of comments are expected in the following rounds. And the rebuttal to that round is often acceptance to debate or confusion over what the rules are supposed to mean. This is cumbersome both in starting a debate and in following a debate. A format for refutation and rebuttal rounds should be enacted as part of the debate starting process. There can still be an open format, and the opinion section is great soap boxing. But when it comes to debating predefined terms over the process should be stated up front.
Kindergartners Can Be Good At Algebra to Precalculus

"Everybody is intelligent. But, if you teach a fish about flying, it will forever think it's stupid. " Albert Einstein Kindergartners should continue to hone their reasoning skills in order to set them up for success when their mind is more capable of understanding algebra. Bright kids will be discouraged from practicing mathematics due to how difficult it is. Pro is a malicious narcissist who is attempting to manipulate your emotions in order to raise support for a system that will make little kids feel stupid.
Kindergartners Can Be Good At Algebra to Precalculus

Kindegartners are good at Algebra, all the way up to Precalculus. If you just teach a kindegartner to plug in numbers in Algebraic problems, The kindegartner will keep up plugging numbers and easily solving math problems all the way up to Precalculus. If you say they can't do it, you are a bad influence to their life If you say they can't do it, you don't know how smart they can be. If you say they can, they will achieve higher goals If you say they can, they will pass Precalculus and algebra. If you say they can, they will enlighten our future kindergartners to learn easier and easier. So, vote for me!
Batman Vs. Superman

You miss the point though, Batman COULD beat superman. the robot that shot him simply tricked superman to think he was someone else. Batman could devise a much better plan than pretending to be someone else, being a strategic master. Also superman trusts Batman, so if one day Batman decided to kill him he could simply approach him, and kill him. Also for the commenter, the Kryptonite bullet, since in Superman's chest, would have the same effect as a metal bullet in a human's chest. If theres a hole in your chest in a vital spot, you are screwed (especially if the substance in your chest, weakens you anyway). The rang of Superman's laser vision won't help him too much if Batman already has a gun. Lastly, I will probably lose this argument because people most likely won't look it up before saying what they think. Its still kind of fun though.
Batman Vs. Superman

Many would think that Batman would be destroyed by superman due to the fact that one is human and the other is Kryptonian. Yet, I disagree. Superman is powered by our yellow Sun's rays, while a red Sun wold weaken him to his original state, and a blue Sun would make him even more powerful. These are just reasons behind his strength that I'm saying, because I can. Batman is powered by his training in fighting, and his arsenal. This obviously means that superman the winner right? Well no actually. I thought up something I would like to call the rock paper scissors scenario. This scenario states that although one individual (rock) can defeat another (scissors) it can also be defeated by a different individual (paper) which can be defeated by another individual (scissors).In this case, although superman has defeated enemies Batman could never face, Batman can,defeat superman. He can do this through Kryptonite, superman only weakness. In the comics it is depicted that Batman has a kryptonite ring in his belt. Also in a recent Justice league movie, it shows a shape shifting robot shoot the man of steel with a kryptonite bullet, almost killing him. He survived because the Martian and cyborg were in the right place at the right time to remove the bullet from his chest. The thing is, the idea of a kryptonite bullet was an adapted plan of Batmans to kill Superman if ever needed. Please debate with answers straight from the comics, shows, movies and not just your opinion on brute force.
the strongest light i can see burns out my eyes

The resolution, makes voters automatically vote for me. What the Resolution says"The strongest light I can see burn out my eyes. "However, you can't see the strongest light, because it will burn your eyes, meaning that you can't see it. That means you cannot see the strongest light because it will burn your eyes before you see it. The resolution makes voters vote for me because you cannot see the strongest light, therefore you won't burn your eyes. If you do, you will burn your eyes, and you would not see the strongest light. In either way, you cannot see the strongest light. Vote for Con. Rebuttals1. Pro says that beauty is the puzzle of a fantasy that may be real. This does nothing related to the resolution, as the resolution saying the strongest light can burn my eyes, this argument does nothing with them, making the argument insufficent.2. ugly=memory of beauty, Pro says. This is both wrong, and also not related to the resolution. It is wrong because ugly, you are thinking of these Why would you have a memory of the beauty?
New Saggy Pants Ban in NJ Is Slow Democracy Murder

Con "you can't base your argument off of a dictionary definition." Con suggests that definitions aren't important, but does not explain other methods of determining the meanings of his words ( at least not in a comprehensible way). This statement of his suggests my argument is valid if words are defined. Even if we are to not have definitions attached to words as he suggests, then he still has not explained how my argument is invalid. Sure maybe he did an incredible job of refuting my argument if we are to change the definitions of every word he uses, but since he has offered us no alternate way of interpreting his words we must go with the established definitions. Con "You have to base it off of actions." I have no way of seeings con's actions to know how to define a word based off of them. The only thing I have to go on is dictionary collection of words and meanings of words as established by society. Con "Who are the ones intended in that definition of democracy, the citizens of the US or a small group of stuck up ding bats that line their pockets with OUR tax dollars and still do the exact opposite of what we want? " You have offered no evidence that politicians have not enforced the will of citizens with this ban. Con "So, I don't care what the dictionary says. I care what the ACTIONS of our government say and they say a lot more than their words." The only thing we have established is a saggy pants ban is in effect in New Jersey. You have in no way showed how this is the catalyst for slow democracy murder. You haven't even shown how this is a symptom of an undermined democracy, let alone the cause of it. Thank you.
New Saggy Pants Ban in NJ Is Slow Democracy Murder

Excuse my tardiness in replying. I am new here and was not aware of how to proceed. Anyway, you can't base your argument off of a dictionary definition. You have to base it off of actions. Who are the ones intended in that definition of democracy, the citizens of the US or a small group of stuck up ding bats that line their pockets with OUR tax dollars and still do the exact opposite of what we want? So, I don't care what the dictionary says. I care what the ACTIONS of our government say and they say a lot more than their words. Thank you.
New Saggy Pants Ban in NJ Is Slow Democracy Murder

There is a new law in New Jersey where they ban people from sagging their pants and fine them if they continue to do so. I feel like accepting this and turning a blind eye could potentially lead to other very basic rights of ours to be taken away and chipped away at little by little. Fair enough, sagging pants is just completely senseless and horrible fashion sense but fining people?? What is this, some weird 3rd world dictatorship?
is america's food supply to unsafe to eat

America's food supply is not unsafe to eat. In fact, it is unsafe to NOT eat, due to the risk of starvation. Thus, I must negate, America's food supply is quite safe to eat. First, I would point out that my opponent has not shown anything that is unsafe about it. Let us consider, too, that most of the potentially dangerous substances in food are neutralized in the cooking process. One can safely eat a piece of chicken that happens to have salmonella. One must simply cook it first, and not be irresponsible in causing cross-contamination through utensils or cutting boards. Also, let us consider that we would die without food. There is nothing inferior about America's cropland or livestock, so there is no reason to suggest that eating food from other nations is less risky. And since it is more safe to eat than to not eat, it cannot be said that it is unsafe to eat. And now I'll wait for my opponent to explain why the food supply of America is unsafe to eat.
is america's food supply to unsafe to eat

Oh, believe me, I quiver with fright each time I sit at the dinner table. Will I get sick this time? Should I eat it? Actually, I just lied very blatantly. Of course I feel safe eating food from America. America is the most prosperous nation in the world. One would think, as I said before, that other nations have much worse problems with their food supply, something my opponent has made no counter to. Hundreds of millions of meals are eaten each day in America, and from this vast number, only a handful result in sickness, or anything harmful to health. And all of them [or at least almost all of them] result in positive health benefits, due to nutritional value inherent in food, including America's. It is not unsafe to eat America's food supply. Rather, it is quite safe, and indeed a wise idea.
is america's food supply to unsafe to eat

You are no doubt an American. You no doubt eat food which resides in America [and is therefore part of the American food supply]. Do you consider this unsafe? Would you stop doing this, due to safety issues? One person died last year from contaminated spinach. Does that mean it's not safe to eat spinach? More people than that died walking on sidewalks due to being hit by drunk drivers. Walking on sidewalks is not unsafe. Sure, that batch of spinach might have been unsafe to eat. But overall, the fod supply in America is VERY safe to eat. We have better food safety regulations than most countries, and most countries have foodborne illness much more often. Also, consider that the contaminations you speak of are in the past, whereas the resolution is set in the present "IS america's food supply to unsafe to eat". Since there are presently no major contaminations, the food supply IS indeed safe to eat, by any standards. The only significant problem we have with food in America is people eating too MUCH of it. And in this case, the food isn't unsafe to eat, the amount is.
is america's food supply to unsafe to eat

actually i ask you this because i am doing a servey. but i will say that i strongly believe that america's food supply is contaminated. just last week 11 different states had to turn down meat due to how contaminated it was, and your telling me thats safe? E. coli was found in spinach last year and some one died. and your telling me that's safe? there has been complaints of ssalmenelia in peanut butter... so yes you could starve if you dont eat but you can eat things that are not carrying illnesses.
The Bible is wrong.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com... Insects do not have four feet Lev 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Lev 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. Lev 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. They have six. In fact, NOTHING that can fly has four feet. ----------------- Rabbits do not chew their cud Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. They only appear to, due to mistaken human perception. How could an all knowing God not know this? ------------------ The Earth is not flat Yet these verses indicate that the Earth must either be flat, square or rectangle! Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. How can the Earth have four corners if it's sphere-shaped? Four corners indicate either a flat, square or rectangular structure! --------------- The Earth is not motionless Psalms 104:5 The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved. 1 Chronicles 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. The Earth is moving constantly 24 hours a day in its path around the Sun!