BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There Should be Gladiator Matches for Prisoners

I'm pro, and I believe that in prisons, there should be gladiator matches for prisoners. This way, the guards and prisoners get some entertainment, and also, it's a way to get rid of the weak, mentally retarded, and stupid people, such as reggee. debate.org/reggee For death row inmates it will be a 1 v 1. They will be allowed to use swords, spears, shields, but no guns. Here is the schedule for the week. Of course, different prisons can revise it as they see appropriate. Mondays will be 1 v 1 as I stated. Tuesday will have rabid, ferocious animals while they fight. Wednesday will be 10 v 10 team fight matches. Thursday will be fighting with their bare fists. Absolutely no weapons or shields are permitted on Thursdays. Friday 3 prisoners will be randomly chosen to fight 3 bears. Saturday will be a tournament. The champion will have their remaining prison time reduces to one-half, rounding down, and the loser will have their heads chopped off and their flesh be sent to feed the polar bears. Sundays will be a break time. For the matches, 4 armed guards will be watching the match. Con will have to prove this is a bad idea.
There should be no such thing as alimony payments, spousal support or maintenance upon a divorce

What exactly is social stability? Do you mean it would look bad if the divorced wife had to go on welfare because her husband was no longer supporting her? How about you require all wealthy bachelors go out and find a poor family and they must donate 10% of their income to them for "social stability." How about the government requires all large businesses give X number of dollars to charities in their community for "social stability." How about the government require all retired teachers spend 3 hours each week tutoring struggling kids so they are more likely to go to college and get great jobs and contribute to public funds thereby encouraging "social stability." How about the government inspect every household and force people who don't volunteer to do so or face a fine for the sake of "social stability" and as far this whole notion of lost income and fairness: I am sure there are plenty of examples of couples who divorced and had no kids and one CHOSE to simply not work and it did nothing for the relationship by not working, but yet they get X number of dollars every month for 10 years simply because they were the poor ones in the relationship. Furthermore, even if they had kids and the one parent didn't work so they could babysit, clean the house, run errands, etc. One, they chose to do so and to the amount of money the working partner is required to pay in alimony is often more than what it would have cost them to pay for a nanny, personal assistant, housekeeper, etc.
President Bush was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks on his own country

Al-Qaeda may have been responsible, but they were originally funded by the CIA. Also the Bush family and the bin Laden family were (and probably still are) partners in the oil business. Put two and two together and tell me what you get. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.rense.com... http://whatreallyhappened.com... http://www.theinsider.org... http://newsone.com... http://www.informationliberation.com... http://www.hermes-press.com...
President Bush was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks on his own country

Final round will consist of my final arguments and my conclusion. We were not the only country to fund Al Qaeda during the Afghanistan war in the 80s. Several countries came to the aid of coalition groups fighting against the soviets. I don’t understand the logic of truther when they say we created al Qaeda in the 80s then use them for the destruction and terror of our own country? There are hundreds of jihad groups why would the US blame Al Qaeda if the American people already knew we funded them? My opponent’s arguments are based off of a few individuals and corporations gaining a profit when the economic downfall was far worse. One man received a compensation for the towers being destroyed and one corporation received just around 40 billion dollars in profit because he was Cheney’s friend? Then an airline industry received tax breaks. Doesn’t make any sense. The negatives of 9/11 far outweigh the positives, like i have stated in the previous rounds. My opponent focused his argument on the reasons why we went to Iraq. He never made arguments about why we entered Afghanistan almost immediately after the towers were hit. Iraq was almost 2 full years after. One fact I would also like to point out. Congress did take a vote on a joint resolution that did pass for Operation Iraq Freedom. 77% were in favor. Bush must have been a mastermind to trick 77% of congress including Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. They voted in favor of invading Iraq. https://www.govtrack.us... Conclusion Truthers are almost positive that the bush administration conducted these attacks even when there is still no evidence or even empirical evidence to charge Bush with this horrendous crime. Flying planes into your own infrastructure would damage your economy, like it did. Bush and Cheney are not retards, by any means; they wouldn’t fly planes into their own Department of Defense. Planning for war would not consist of attacking your own Defense Department. Truthers claim to have all the evidence but yet I still see Bush walking free. Vote pro. Thanks to my opponent for a fun and good debate. You are knowledgeable on the subject and I’ll give you credit for that.
President Bush was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks on his own country

Well the fact is that the CIA knew Al-Qaeda supported radical Islam, they knew how unstable and violent people who support radical Islam are and they took advantage. Knowing that, they should have maintained some kind of control over this extremist group. i find it highly suspicious they looked the other way after they served their Soviet needs. They could have easily brought other more suitable forces to the task. It's simply inexcusable to use extremist militant groups for your own selfish benefit with no regard to the future! They may not have created radical Islam, but they utilized radical Islam. And even chemistry can show you that playing with unstable elements in uncontrolled environments can lead to disastrous and explosive consequences! I also never stated that one corporation had gained financial benefits from the results of 9/11. That was your assumption. Here's some info on those who benefited (http://globalresearch.ca...) Also have you heard of Lucky Larry? (http://globalfire.tv...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) He was the leaseholder of the WTC. He showed up everyday to the towers. Except for September 11th of course. He also had insurance taken out on the WTC. "Soon after the September 11 attacks, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though he and his insurers became embroiled in a multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event. A settlement was reached in 2007, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion, which was not as much as Silverstein had sought." Also the WTC security company hired by Silverstein (Securacom [now Stratasec]) was owned by Marvin Bush. None other than George Bush's brother. That's not a coincidence by the way. (http://www.informationliberation.com...)
President Bush was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks on his own country

Even if some of the websites are truther websites, that doesn't mean they should be automatically discredited. Especially if they have legitimate evidence/arguments/sources. Also, if Wikipedia is not a proper website to source from than PBS, Britannica, and Foreign Policy.com are up for debate as well. So you admitted the CIA was instrumental in training about Al-Qaeda, yet it seems you're suggesting the CIA isn't responsible for their actions. If a child is trained to be violent, is the parent at least at some fault when the child exhibits violent behavior? Also Bush claimed that a major purpose for invasion was for possible WMDs. And we have yet to find them 13 years after the fact. You're right they were partners for economic interest. Blood for oil. Did you know that Saddam had almost nothing to do with 9/11? He just happened to refuse to use the U.S. Dollar for oil trading. Which means less money for the U.S? How do you fix that? Kill him and install a favorable government of course. Did you know the CIA is infamous for installing government that are favorable to U.S. interests? You can deny all you want. But the actions of the U.S. and the widely available information will ALWAYS prove you wrong. Also, Halliburton gained major profit thanks to 9/11. Guess who was CEO of Halliburton in the 90's? None other than Bush's VP, Dick Cheney. Sorry to tell you, but America isn't always the good guy. If hardly ever. There was plenty of financial motivation to commit a false-flag on our country. Sadly for some people, money > human life. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://content.time.com... (Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks) http://www.globalresearch.ca... (No administration has ever been more in bed with the energy industry -- but does that mean Big Oil is calling Bush's shots?)
President Bush was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks on his own country

Wikipedia is not a proper website to site information or factual matter to support an argument. I will keep this round rather short because my opponent has not offered much of any theoretic data to debunk. "Al-Qaeda may have been responsible, but they were originally funded by the CIA. " This is indeed correct information, however, it doesn"t directly link the Bush administration to the attacks. Al-Qaeda began as a logistical network to support Muslims fighting against the Soviet Union during the Afghan War (funded and trained by the CIA); members were recruited throughout the Islamic world. Soon after the war ended Al Qaeda split and merged with other radical Islamist groups like Egypt's Islamic jihad. This was the beginning of an ideology where any form of government not affiliated with radical Islam or sharia law were to be taken over/destroyed. Al Qaeda were responsible for several terrorist attacks across the globe. They have attacked several of US embassies around the world and also were held responsible for the 1993 terrorist bombings in the world trade center. This link provides most of the terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda against US soil/personnel. . http://www.nbcnews.com... Why is this information important? Simple, it shows the consistency of the attacks and that Al qaeda is capable of conducting such an attack like the one during 9/11. "Also the Bush family and the bin Laden family were (and probably still are) partners in the oil business. " This information is still not to be considered evidence that the Bush administration had conducted these attacks. They were partners most likely for economic interest. . http://www.foreignpolicy.com... . http://www.pbs.org... . http://www.britannica.com...
The Judicial Branch is the best branch in the government

Definitions:My opponenet has not defined "best" so this makes the resolution rather vague. However, in his opening remarks, Pro makes the statement that the Supreme Court is responsible for the most change in society therefore the "best branch" which I will disprove.Burden of Proof:In order for Pro to win this debate, he/she must not only prove that the Judicial Branch is effective in promoting social change but also at the same time prove that the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch contributed less social change than the Judicial. On the other hand, I only have to prove that either Legislative or Executive have contributed equal or more positive social change.Arguments:Judicial branch's role:One of the biggest flaws in Pro's stance is that Judicial Branch itself plays no role in the acual policy-making in the United States usually responsible for such social changes. The Judicial Branch can only contribute to positive social change by striking down policies it deems contradicts the "Supreme Law of the land", the Constitution. Meaning that if there is something in society that needs to be changed for the better and the Constitution or the Bill of Rights aren't involved, then the Judicial Branch can't do anything about and such issues like racism (it was Congress that passed the Amendments that the Supreme Court upholds), slavery (combined efforts of Congress and the Executive Branch during Civil War), or income equality.The Supreme Court upheld supression of rights:The Supreme Court does have a history of conrtibuting to positive social change. However, the effects are diminished if you look at the multiple times the Supreme court did the opposite:Dred Scott v. Sanford:Upheld slavery and barred African Americans from obtaining rights. Those rights would have to be earned through a bloody Civil War.Buck v. Bell:Upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities.Plessy v. FergusonUpheld Jim Crow laws.There are plenty more cases but you get the point.Conclusion:In the insanely low amount of characters I'm given, I have proven that the Judicial Branch is not the best in the aspect of creating positive social change.
President barrack hussain obama has done bad for america

Who is Barrack Obama, do you even know? What about his affiliation with the Black Liberation racist church? Is a racist a good president? My opponant has done nothing to prove me wrong but simply put a slight attempt to argue the definitions then kinda gives up. Perhaps he knows the evil that is Barrack Obama, i want my opponant to actually tell me how exactly Obama is good in any way. Without merely saying im wrong because i only have one definition of csar right, which still makes him have csars in office. You need to watch Glenn Beck as much as I to know what you are talking about.
President barrack hussain obama has done bad for america

That is true but Obama is trying to waste all our money on communist bills that make us pay more money with government spending, Bush merely gave us a dept , obama is stacking it up very high. And Obama has appointed people of "great Power" in office so you suopport my arguement in a way. "Having socialist medicine does not make everyone in a country poor, Canada and Great Britain have socialist medicine and not everyone in those countries is poor." Yeah but they have less docters as a result. "We have not stopped getting information, just from that one source." One Very effictive source that has gotten much knowledge.
President barrack hussain obama has done bad for america

Due to the nature of this debate if I can render a majority of my opponent's arguments invalid then I should win the debate. I will be attempting a devil's advocacy here. ///He gave us a dept/// I believe that my opponent means 'debt,' and giving America debt does not make Obama a bad president as nearly many president in the last 35 years has increased national debt [1]. ///wants socialist medicare system that will make everyone poor/// Having socialist medicine does not make everyone in a country poor, Canada and Great Britain have socialist medicine and not everyone in those countries is poor. ///he stopped guantanimo bay so we get no more information/// We have not stopped getting information, just from that one source. ///appointing czars in office, hes trying to make us communist/// The word czar is defined as 'one having great power' or 'the ruler of Russia [2].' These appointees are not rulers of Russia, and having great power does not make one a communist. All leaders of all nations have great power, but not all nations are communist. [1] http://www.lafn.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
President barrack hussain obama has done bad for america

I believe Barrack hussaine Obama has ruined our country. He gave us a dept, wants socialist medicare system that will make everyone poor, and he stopped guantanimo bay so we get no more information. He is also appointing czars in office, hes trying to make us communist. Who doesnt know that. We should appoint Glenn Beck In office also, but thats another arguement. Any refute?
Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Con

I will be talking about what it comes down to. In my introduction, it talks about how the House of Rep. (Republican controlled) voted on a 390-33 vote, and the Senate (Democratic controlled) voted on a 98-0 vote. This proves that both parties wanted to keep Section 4 of the VRA. Now on to the standard. Since there was no refutation nor was there a standard going against my standard, we will be using constitutionality as the weighing mechanism in today's round. Now on to C1: Southern Racism is alive. Like my evidence has stated there is 2400 discriminatory voting changes and they were blocked by section 4. There is still southern racism and we need to keep section 4 to contain it. I have refuted the oppositon's refutation to this by showing a card from a state not in the VRA and how they gave free voter IDs out to people. This shows that the other states are different because they are not doing discriminatory voting laws. Also, the opposition said that section 5 is not topical, but it is. Like I said in my impact, section 4 and section 5 is linked together. Section 4 is the guidelines and Section 5 is the punishments. Without section 4, section 5 is useless. Now on to C4: The VRA protects the 14th and 15th amendment. Since our standard is the weighing mechanism for today's round, we have proven we uphold the resolution because we have shown it is constitutional because it protects the 14th and 15th amendment. The opposition refutes it by saying it is not proper legislation, but I have proven it is proper since my C1 says that there was 2400 discriminatory voting changes which was blocked by Section 4. Also, I have proven it is constitutional because the 15th amendment trumps the 10th amendment which proves that there is no aspect of Section 4 of the VRA that is unconstitutional. For these reasons I strongly urge a negative ballot.
Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Con

I also forgot an important rule: You CANNOT bring up new points or evidence in round 4. So first let's look to my opponents framework, where he claims "Southern states need to get approval before changing the way elections are held. " Now what you can assume from that, and what my opponent is assuming is that it is only the 9 covered Southern states who are passing voter ID laws, but laws have been passed in 10 other non-covered states. So you can drop that right there. So now lets move on to his first contention where he claims that Southern racism is still alive. So look to his impact where he says that Section 5 is useless. Not only is that outside of the resolution, as it is section 4 of the VRA, but if you don't buy that, then look to where he says that these states are likely to succeed, which is right, these states, AND the other non-covered states, which is why it was unconstitutional. Because section 4 did not cover the states that are now discriminating. States like Massachusetts, and Connecticut. And why are these states not covered under section 4? Because the coverage formula of section is outdated! So you can drop his 1st contention and flip it to PRO. So now lets move on to his second contention, where he says that new voter ID laws will be passed. And he brings up Texas, and how it will deplete minority voter turnout, however in the 2013 elections, where the new Texas voter ID laws were being enacted, the voter turnout increased dramatically in the whole states, and greatly increased in minority-majority counties. He also then uses the other 4 states, but those are all hypotheticals. So then you can drop his impact, that minorities are not able to vote, because with the new laws their turnout has gone up. So you can drop his second contention. . http://www.cnn.com... Then look to his 3rd contention: He claims that gerrymandering will happen, and has happened, but that simply cannot be true because gerrymandering happens every 10 years. So it last happened in 2010, and will not happen again until 2020, and SCOTUS' decision came in 2013, so gerrymandering HAS NOT HAPPENED since section 4 of the VRA was struck down. And if you don't buy that, then gerrymandering is not a constitutional violation, and has happened for several years when section 4 was still in law. So you're going to drop his 3rd contention. Now go to his 4th contention where he claims that congress had the power to enforce legislation, but the full 14th and 15th amendments state that congress has the power to enforce PROPER legislation, which I have proven in my case and in my rebuttal that section 4 was not PROPER legislation, so you have to drop his 4th contention. For these reason I urge a PRO ballot. To my opponent I have a few questions: 1. How has gerrymandering happened since June 2013 if the census, and redistricting occurs at the start of the century? 2. If the PRO can prove that the new voter ID laws are not discriminatory, do I win this debate? Why or Why not? 3. How has section 4 passed strict scrutiny?
Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Con

I will be telling everyone why I have won today's round. On to the 1st reason: C1: I have shown that there was 2400 discriminatory voting changes and how Section 4 of the VRA blocked them. This proves there is still southern racism and that Section 4 of the VRA can solve the racism. My second reason is: C4: Section 4 of the VRA protects the 14th and 15th amendment. The standard of today's debate was upholding the resolution and it clearly does uphold the 14th and 15th amendment as my evidence states. I have also refuted what the opposition said about how it is not proper because my C1 clearly states that it is proper because we can see this huge number of discrimintory voting changes and how Section 4 of the VRA solves for it. Now on the world of the affirmation and the world of the negation. In the world of the affirmation people assume that racism will stay the same so we don't have to worry about it. Its like throwing away your umbrella just because you're not wet. Another analogy that we can use is a water bottle. The water is racism and the water cap is Section 4 of the VRA. If we take off the cap or Section 4 of the VRA, the water or racism will spill out. Also, the world of the affirmation will not be protecting minorities because as we have said before, there will be no way to protect them or no safeguard at all. In the world of the negation, there is Section 4 to protect the minorities and the minorities can vote and have their say. Also we will be upholding the 14th and 15th amendment because we are protecting voting rights. This is important because our standard was upholding the constitution and I have upheld it. For these reasons, I strongly urge an negative ballot.