BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bring back the Pledge of Allegiance in school

My opponent does not care who votes which way. I propose that this question she wishes to argue might be better placed in a poll or opinion then. In a debate, the two sides argue to prove a point. But my opponent's points are entirely anecdotal with no way of verifying them while I have used counter-anecdotes as well as evidence. My opponent dropped all my points, including that 43 states require schools by law to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (students have the option in some states). Therefore the pledge cannot be 'gone' from schools and thus the resolution is invalid. Now, my opponent provides two instances where no one said the pledge. Both cities are in Iowa. According to my source 1 from last round, Iowa is one of the seven states with no laws regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. "No laws" are the operative words. My opponent claims that no one there is "allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance." This would mean that there is a law preventing them. However, I have shown that Iowa has no such law, and as I have provided a source and my opponent has not, my argument stands. Additionally, my opponent's argument is false. I took the liberty of pulling up the agenda of the Community School District in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Right there, number 4 on the agenda, is the Pledge of Allegiance [1]. Clearly it still exists in Iowa and this disproves my opponent's claim. I would also point out the improbability of a state in the United States banning the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in schools. This strikes me as incredibly unlikely. I would like to thank my opponent for providing this opportunity to debate. For all of the above reasons, please vote CON in this debate! [1]. http://www.council-bluffs.k12.ia.us...
Bring back the Pledge of Allegiance in school

First of all, the parameters of this debate are unclear. Is my opponent referring to elementary school children, middle school, high school, etc? There are many diverse types of schooling and, as the PRO position in this resolution, it is my opponent's burden of proof to define her applications. My opponent's entire argument in anecdotal. I could provide a counter-anecdote. In my school, there were flags in every classroom, and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited every day. Nobody was forced to say it, but it was always said over the announcements, and everyone would stand respectfully whether or not they said the pledge. However, anecdotes are not sufficient evidence, and if I fail to provide any additional evidence, then our stories cancel each other out. However, this leaves me with the advantage, as PRO would have then failed to prove that the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer allowed in schools. In fact, I aim to prove that it is. In 43 states, schools are required to have students say the Pledge of Allegiance [1], as reported by the Education Commission of the States. This does not mean that the students are required to say it - that exists in only 6 states. And rightfully so. After all, it is both ironic and inexcusable to use coercion to dictate the children say the Pledge of Allegiance to a symbol of liberty. Liberty forced upon someone is not liberty. Students have the right to say the pledge, and they also have the right to not say the pledge. Regardless, I have proven that the pledge still exists in schools, and thus my opponent's resolution is false. I will concede that pledge has become a topic of controversy. Many feel offended because of the phrase, "Under God," which connotes, if not the Christian God, then at least one from the Abrahamic religions. Atheists and other minority religious groups feel - correctly - that they should have the right to refrain from participating in something that counters their beliefs, especially as the phrase was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954 during the height of the Red Scare [2]. But atheists and others should have the right to say or not say the pledge as they like. Freedom means exactly that. I look forward to my opponent's arguments in Round 3 and remind you to vote CON! [1] http://undergod.procon.org... [2] http://www.ushistory.org...
Bring back the Pledge of Allegiance in school

Okay, so here I am sitting in my homeroom to start the day, and when the first bell rang, no Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, there is not even a flag in our classrooms anymore. We are not allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools anymore, because it may offend people. But here in America, there is no reason that an American should be offended by our pledge. If they don't like it... they can go somewhere where they won't be offended any longer. We should at least have the option to recite the pledge.
Bring back the Pledge of Allegiance in school

When I was in elementary school we started every day with the Pledge of Allegiance. Now in high school, my first grade sister doesn't even know what the pledge is. As American's, we should all be able to vow for our country out of loyalty and respect. So I would like for my opponent to give logical reasoning as to why we should not recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. The first round is acceptance. The next two are for debates. Thank you and good luck:)
Allow refugees into the United States

Pro has failed to rebute the fact that there is no accurate vetting process in place, as a result of an accurate vetting process being impossible to achieve. (1)Saudi was not the founder of ISIS, ISIS claimed to be a group revolting the president of Syria, Bushar al-Assad. ISIS recieved donatios from wealthy individuals from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. They are continuing actions radically, as they control oil fields. Pro does not comprehend the fact that actions would have likely been taken by Russia, had it not been for us. It is not our responsibility to care for those seeking help from terrorist-infested countries, from a political and economic standpoint, when we cannot afford to bring our own veterans home safely. Pro also fails to recognize that while he claims that people are strongly opposed to increasing taxes, bringing in thousands more would do nothing but increase these so-called complaints and violence. (1) Source- http://www.bbc.com...
Allow refugees into the United States

Con states that ther eis no vetting process because the information is hard to get. Lack of foresight on USA's part when going to war means they have to take in the refugees with little information as a price. Next time do your research before going to war and if you think USA didn't know about ISIS before the war you are wrong. Saudi was the founder of ISIS and it alerted USA when ISIS turned on them so do not be confused, USA knew what it was risking when it went to war and now is whining that it has to pay the price. As for the attack of Con on Syria stating that "Syria is practically dominated by ISIS and they have no formal government." I would like to remind Con that there was a formal government in Syria and ISIS was nowhere near dominating it prior to USA's assistance of rebels and drone strikes. Veterans not being properly sheltered or fed is due to people whining about paying tax, every time Obama wishes to increase taxation to perhaps provide care for veterans and the poor, people whine and moan about the government taking their money so he is scared to do this in case of a violent riot like there was when the original Obamacare plan came out. The logic is that if you go to war for moral reasons, you must pay the moral price.
Allow refugees into the United States

I think that although there are actual refugees seeking help and shelter, we cannot take the chance. Some claim that we have a vetting process that will not allow for terrorists to enter the country as refugees. False, where do you expect to get accurate information on these "refugees," from the Syrian "government." Syria is practically dominated by ISIS and they have no formal government. Not to mention that veterans coming home from war right now are not properly sheltered nor fed. What would be the logic in letting more people take up space?
Allow refugees into the United States

You are correct that ISIS didn't form as a result of USA's actions, but you are incorrect that USA's choice to attack Assad's army wasn't the sole cause of ISIS's sudden growth and power spurt. On top of weakening Assad's army the very fact that the big bad America is the one getting involved only adds to the ability of ISIS to radicalise people in protest against USA's constant nosiness and arrogance to force nations to run the way it wants them to be run (meaning run by easily palpable imbeciles rather than hardheaded dictators). As for your argument of 'why take the chance of one of hte refugees being a terrorist posing as one' I can simply reply 'why be so inhumane as to let these people drown in the sea at USa's border or to send them back to Syria when they are there as a result of the actions your nation chose to do?
Allow refugees into the United States

Well said, however; i believe that because of our human nature to get involved in conflct, that someone would have gotten involved in the middle east sooner or later. ISIS is not a result of the United States getting involved. It's a result of radical pieces of crap. To think that out of said 10,000 refugees, none would be members of ISIS or terrorists, is absurd to me. Why take an unnecessary chance like this?
Allow refugees into the United States

The reason the war in Syria began was that USA had an issue with the extent to which Assad was abusing his people, when he began with chemical weapons then USA lost its temper and began sending drones and funding the rebels (I'm pretty sure they were funding the rebels beforehand but were having Saudi do it and giving the money to Saudi to give to the rebels but that's another story). Anyway, since the entire war began due to USA, regardless of if they are on the 'good' or 'bad' side, it was also their fault due to lack of research and foresight that ISIS/ISIL began gaining power. You see, Assad and Putin were the main leaders whose armies were intimidating ISIS beforehand, since Assad's army is being heavily weakened by USA's efforts, ISIS saw an opportunity to terrorize Syria's populace and took it. Assad's army is too afraid to attack ISIS head on because they fear that will give the rebels and USA the perfect opportunity to topple them so the entire terrorism of the people is now due to what USA did. Since the entire war began for moralistic reasons, it is also sensible that the moral duty to take care of those who have now been terrorized as a result of the war be taken care of. Not all refugees are coming because of ISIS, some have simply had their villages either blown up or left in fear of that happening. It's unfair to expect European nations to harbor all the refugees because of something USA did.
I'm Dirty Dan

‘I agree so I think this is a stalemate because I can't prove I am dirty and you can't prove I'm not. Dang sorry for wasting your time’Well I wish it were that simple but as PRO and as the one making the claim in this debate you had the burden to prove your claim which you didn’t satisfy. You had made an assertion and had provided a link to back it up but since I have shown that your evidence is not strong enough to support it and also since you have made a concession, you have failed to uphold the resolution.
Capitalism or Socialism

Capitalism: Means of production are privately owned businesses are not regulated.Socialism: The government controls the means of production.(for capitalism)Capitalism is not only the more effective choice but also the moral one. People are allowed to run their businesses how they want and hire who they want. Citizens can work for whoever they want and cannot rely on stolen money for help. When businesses are allowed to operate freely they grow and hire more people and pay them more. When a business fails it is at the fault of the owner, and another business will take its place. Prices are driven down by competition and people take part in mutual transactions in which they buy a good or service from a business which then uses the money to continue to expand. Low taxes mean more money in the hands of the citizens which will be invested into businesses which will continue to expand.Socialism: Socialism does not work and it is also immoral. As I see it people work and then all of their money is redistributed. This is immoral and does not work. If I make 100,000 dollars and someone makes 50,000 it is wrong for the government to force me to pay this guy money. There is not a limited amount of wealth. Me making more money does not mean I took it from the other guy. It just means I was more productive. The work I did was more valuable than his and I was paid more for it. I should not be punished for this. Socialism also does not work. Economics is all about incentives. If I make very little money but get lots of money from the government why should I work? Other people will still be working and I'll just receive their money. So I will stop providing and just stop working. And If I am rich and making millions of dollars but it is all being taken away by the government why would I keep working? At the very least I would not work as hard, and not run by business effectively producing less money. And let's say the government says you have to work. This would not change the morality of socialism, in fact it would make it worse. It also would not encourage people to work well. And they still receive benefits from the hard workers.Socialism can be different in that the government controls all businesses. This is perhaps even worse. In capitalism, you pay your employees according to their productivity levels. But in Socialism, you would pay them all the same. If not the same the government would pay them a lot more than they deserved. This would destroy the business, as you can't just pay people as much as they want. It is like with the minimum wage. The government would never pay their employees the minimum wage. That would not make any sense. They would focus on paying their employees and not expanding the business to make money to hire more people and pay people more. (Here is the URL to a story that shows the morality of Socialism but applied to everything, not just income and wealth: http://www.tnellen.com...)
Death Penalty

"You stated that cost..."I stated that I do not wish to debate American law as I am not an expert on it. Maybe i should have made that clearer. On top of this, you mentioned how the cost in certain parts of the earth is cheaper than life imprisonment. This is because of a multitude of things such as culture difference, worse criminal systems, etc. but most importantly, you specifically said "The Death Penalty in America", so I require justification in why we should make the law system worse in order to satisfy the need for killing others. The second point, I think, is whether the people will escape and be able to recommit the crime, or commit a crime inside. These problems can be addressed in a multitude of other ways, and it would still be cheaper than enacting Capital punishment. A lot of people who are put in prison for the most egregious crimes are put into solitary confinement in supermax prisons. "one can deny that it does not deter crime" I am not denying it. 88% of experts agree. It is a poor way to deter crime.(P.S I would use more depth, but my entire cache of my argument draft disappeared, and I had 10 minutes to draft this up. This is just to say I am not dropping arguments, simply lacking the time. If you would prefer, I will write this up as a longer version in a forum.)
Death Penalty

You stated that cost is outrageously unreachable in America yet in later point you mentioned you would rather not just see this as a issue in America it is in fact that certain parts of the earth the cost is as much in fact it is quite reasonable to change one view point from one point of the world to another is not very reasonable. Secondly one those not have to leave a prison to once again commit a crime one could kill ones inmate or multiple inmates for that mater and suffer no consequence as they would already be in jail for life in the same way that life could have been saved it would put ease on people minds to know that said menace is no longer on the streets. Secondly there is no neccesary proof claiming them insane if they lawfully know what they are doing and whether it is right or wrong then they are liable for arrest despite any other problems. there is a difference in the murder committed the condemned has violated the social contract in for which he must pay if one violates ones contract one must answer as it is the governments and or justices system to appropriately respond to said matter as defined by the social contract. In the same way it is not biased as the victims are only exercising rights they have while the responsible has committed a crime and hence forth is being stripped of certain rights. one can deny that it does not deter crime but one must realize that it is only planned murder's whom get the death penalty having stated this it would be nessecary for one to understand that to kill another person is to face the consequences it is a permanent mind barrier for all future murderers. http://cheee.wordpress.com... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......; http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
Death Penalty

The Death Penalty in America is neccesary as criminal justice has 4 theories of punishment: Deterrence, retribution, isolation, and rehabilitation. The death penalty is primarily retribution but also serves as deterrence. It is a permanent mind barrier that helps prevent future crimes of the same nature. It is as well a proven fact that people cannot commit a crime past their death. If the people whom are charged guilty are not dealt with accordingly they run the chance of endangering others life's. This would be a meaningless death as it could have been avoided statistics state criminals often go down the same destructive path they first traveled trough.
Women Waring tube tops should be band!!!!!!

As of the last round my opponent has insulted my intelligence and claimed that I don't understand either his arguments or what this debate is about. Not only is this ineffective advocacy on his part, but it should warrant a loss in conduct when you vote. Furthermore my opponent has completely dropped my prior arguments. Women deserve to have their freedom of expression protected and my opponent would have you scrap that on a baseless fear that they may get hurt.
Women Waring tube tops should be band!!!!!!

My opponent has me all wrong as we all know a lot of people male and female support my debate and no i don't think that women are our property please forgive my opponent for he dose not know what he speaks. He is just living in a deniable state of mind what i am saying is that we need to protect women as independents to protect their women hood and their person. so yes u should vote so vote for me so that my opponent can understand what this debate is truly about and thats the protection of females and other people alike!!!!!!!
Women Waring tube tops should be band!!!!!!

My opponent's language speaks to his position's illegitimacy. He says 'our women' and speaks of protecting them as though they were children. While I agree that the safety of any individual is important (not just women) I also agree that a person's safety is in his or her own hands. I never said that I don't care about the safety of Women and for my opponent to assert as such is to put words in my mouth; reject this and let my opponent know this is not okay through the vehicle of your vote. Next I allude to my opponent's language as a reason his position is illegitimate; he makes Women out to be property instead of free agents capable of protecting themselves. The undermines my most basic argument of freedom to express oneself. Potential harms don't negate the right to express oneself, and fear that a Woman's safety may be compromised because she chooses to wear revealing clothing is not a compelling argument to violate her rights. Finally I ask you to consider the implications of negation; what are we saying about men when we assume they're rape any woman wearing revealing clothing? The answer, is not much. We propagate the absurd idea of rape culture and unjustly violate mens' rights. I ask for a vote in affirmation.
Women Waring tube tops should be band!!!!!!

I would like to make it known that due to my opponent misspelling the resolution, it would be incredibly easy to make a semantic argument and assume my opponent was speaking about a musical band; if I am mistaken in the assumption that Con has simply misspelled the resolution then I ask that they notify me of my error in the next round. However due to the context of Con's argument I will assume they've simply made a grammatical error. It should also be noted (at least by the context of my opponent's opening arguments) that Con is actually in favor of the resolution while I am meant to oppose the resolution. That said I ask that the voters pay not mind to whom is Pro and whom is Con as they seem to be transposed. Again, if I am mistaken in this regard I kindly ask Con to inform me of my error in the following round. That said my argument will be a very simple one; that denying a woman the right to wear a specific type of clothing infringes on her freedom of expression. Fear of potential harms that may come by committing a certain action is not a compelling reason to vote in favor of restricting essential rights. If I really wanted to I could argue that exercising the right of free speech may mean one is killed for offending one in their vicinity. We know this is unlikely but it is still very much so possible; to assume that we should take away or limit this right based on potential harms is absurd. The same concept is true for the freedom to dress however one wishes. That said, my opponent's rape argument should not be accepted as a reason to make tube tops illegal as the women who choose to wear this type of clothing are aware of the risks present in wearing such clothing. To deprive them of their rights knowing they have the capacity and logical faculties to be aware of this risk is unjust. Please vote for me!
Women Waring tube tops should be band!!!!!!

I think that any woman who wares a tube top in the summer should no longer be allowed. If you stop and think about it, what would stop a rapist or a sick pervert to either approach a female from the front or the back to pull her tube top down thus exposing her breast to molest and rape her. I think that women are putting themselves at a greater risk of being attacked just by wearing a tube top in public during the summer. If anyone agrees please reply back thank you.