BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An amendment should created to abolish flag desecration

I do not believe that flag burning is justifiable, however, the first amendment is a part of the bill of rights, and it should therefore be honored in this debate. Alright, to begin, I will define desecration as: "to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously" http://www.merriam-webster.com... I will also define Symbolic Speech: "Symbolic speech is a legal term in United States law used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it." https://www.google.com... I will also cite the first Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." However, the important part of my argument is the, "or abridging the freedom of speech". The supreme court is the supreme law of the land. If your freedoms are violated, and the supreme court is interested, they may hear your case. The supreme court defines whether punishing an action is constitutional or unconstitutional. In this instance, flag desecration, as despised as it may be, is technically symbolic speech. Symbolic speech has been repeatedly protected under the 1st amendment, which is obvious. The real issue is where do we lose our basic American rights. At the end f the day, the flag is a symbol. I am paraphrasing a justice when I say, A flag is merely a symbol. We give it value and meaning. When a person burns the flag, it becomes even more of a national symbol. The flag rose and fell, similarly to all the brave troops which the flag now falls in the footsteps of. Now, lets analyze the landmark case, Texas v. Johnson. Johnson burned a flag after Reagan was voted into office. He was arrested for desecration. He appealed to the supreme court, and because he acted within his 1st amendment right, Texas punishing him was a violation of his first amendment rights. To persecute someone for flag burning is just as un-American as the act itself. At the end of the day, the flag only means what it means because we give it meaning. Whether it's a pile of ashes, or a waving flag, it represents our country to a certain degree. Thanks http://law2.umkc.edu...
abortionist tiller should have been shot... from a prolife perspective

"sure theres some negativity applied to muslims. .. but as a wahole ppls better sense is they arent nearly all bad" So much of Pro's final post is unreadable. Best I can tell Pro agree suiside bombers have hurt the world's view of Muslims. Pro fails to ague that my comparison between Muslim terrorist hurting the Muslim cause and pro-life terrorist hurting the pro-life cause is invalid. As a result Pro has far from proved that "abortionist tiller should have been shot. .. from a prolife perspective" It is my view that murdering doctors, advocating for the murdering of doctors, and failing to denounce those who advocate for the murdering of doctors is detrimental to the pro-life movement. As such Dr. Tiller should NOT have been shot. .. from a pro-life perspective.
abortionist tiller should have been shot... from a prolife perspective

sure theres some negativity applied to muslims... but as a wahole ppls better sense is they arent nearly all bad maybe two year old arent connrctrd to the mom but at third trimester etc that makes no difference. she had plenty of time to abort earlier on. a third trimester and newborn are essentially only different by location only. sure we can make exceptions for he life of th mother... abd go after those who do it for triviak reasons or illegally per development as tiler etc did. the two year old hypo then is effectively exactly the same. ur failure to see that is y u are missin the point, losin this debate. if some1 is more than likely a murderer and just didnt meet reasonable doubt or some technicality got them off.... they r stll law breakers and murderers. if OJ simpson suddenly admits murders but technicality says hes been tried already... ts only technicality and man law that are violated we can still take justice i our own hands and what if a amurderer is about to strike agai> it might not be an immenient death as defese of others usually reqires but its close enough when theres so much certaity of the pending deaths someone would be bad if they were defending two year olds to use that hypo? u know thats absurd too. ur only problem is u think an umbilical cord suddenly changes things. i disagree, and if u can see why, u aca see why ur argumetns sound absurd to me and how it wouldnt change m mind at all. id focs on how two year olds are different if u wanted to make progress... but all ull establish are technicalities that meann nothing
abortionist tiller should have been shot... from a prolife perspective

as a practical matter most prolife people arent tiller killers etc..... so wed be wiping out a bad guy and reducing abortions while overall maintaining credibility. just crazy people we can say. even though its one of the sanest things we could do. you havent answered... do we use politics and law if people were out killing two year olds generally legally but sometimes illegally? even if those avenues arent working? even if we can save some lives by killing the killers? say no cause of credibility? i showed witess testimony from his own workers and how he changed the measurements to determine viability... that means he did it illegally. what more do we need? it migght not have wroked in corut but who cares? if its obv ious enuff to all otherwise, lets take justice into our own hands. maybe theres loopholes or politics not getting him to be convicted etc. we have plenty of evidemce, and a bottmline that some abortions will not occur with his demise. i cannot find teh article but there was one that said him speceficialy dying caused some abortions to not occur. his clinic closed too. i night guess 50 saved? who knows. 1 saved is enough i dont know why your hypo has anything to do with here. do we kill a fetus if it saves many lives? this isnt a rote lives saved bottomline analysiss. tiller was a bad guy did them for trivial reasons and often illegally and without heart as Jessicas story above shows.(the prolife clinic next to his had a 90% success rate. tiller wouldnt recommend they go there first etc. he was in it for money, pure and simple. sure there might have been some rigteous thought about some of his work but clearly it couldnt have been that way all the time if he wasnt advocating reductions in abortion im not against fixing social problems that cause abortions. but that dont mean we cant kill tiller etc too. remember im not advocating all doctors just tiller, maybe carhart, and a select few. im still waiting for you to address my 2 year old hypo, and pretend like your argumetnts against me could with any credibiluty be used in the 2 year old situation.
Resolved: The United States Should Abolish the Death Penalty

Select winner. 2k. I am going to literally copy and paste Roy's stuff cause it fits well. "The death penalty, i.e. capital punishment, is "execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense." [1. http://www.merriam-webster.com......] Currently 32 states and the Federal government have a death penalty. [2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......]. ... In this debate I will argue that a death penalty should be maintained as part of the U.S. system of justice, and my opponent will argue that the death penalty should be abolished. I will argue that the death penalty should be limited to use for the most heinous crimes and that suitable provisions should be made to ensure those accused are well-represented by legal counsel. My opponent will argue that the death penalty should not be an available punishment under any circumstances. The first round is for acceptance, definitions, and clarification only. The [Con] case will be presented at the start of Round 2. DDO site rules apply to this debate. The first round is for acceptance only. All arguments and source citations must be made within the character limits of the debate. All words not specifically defined are defined by the ordinary dictionary definition that best fits the context. No new arguments may be made by Con in the last round of the debate, because Pro has no debate round left to rebut them. I'm looking forward to a good debate." BOP split. No new arguments last round. Ima also just add Bsh's rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round; R1 is just for acceptance 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions 8. The BOP is Shared; Con must argue that DP should not be abolished, Pro must argue that it should be abolished 9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
21 should be the legal driving age around the world.

smoking, drinking age isn't connected with the driving. So, you are wrong, because in the age of 18 person can do everything. Furthermore, it's the age when you go to the university. It will be more useful when you go to the university by your own car not by public transport, if you can afford to buy a car. Taken on the whole, 18 can be an age of driving, it is up to you how to drive. Stastically, there are not many accidents which happened by youth drivers. Moreover, I don't see there problems with 18 years old drivers.
21 should be the legal driving age around the world.

Yes, I comprehend you but we never eradicate corruption because of its beginning starts from government. These all hotly-debated considerations about 21 age license system have its own reasons. For example a great myriad of rules concerning 18 age access were changed up on 21 such as betting offices, sales of alcohol, tabacco, deals with casino. Honestly speaking, I can go on with these samples because these changes were done with the help of psychologist's developments when they had proven that in 18 person is not prepared for an adult life.
21 should be the legal driving age around the world.

Yeah, I can agree with you to some extent. Nevertheless, we can solve this problem. It doesn't mean that we should give youth driving licence in 21, if the accidents happen due to not following rules. If we want to improve this aspect, firstly, the government should take attention over the states which give licence. Secondly, there is corruption as you've mentioned, we should fight with this and everything will be ok. Lastly, all things which i've mentioned are up to the government and making policies.
can emotional abuse truly be overcome

Your first argument already starts by changing the original question. The original question was "Can emotional abuse truly be overcome", not "Can every single effect of the person be fixed", which is a loaded question. Of course, the first question is true. You can overcome many traumatising events in your life with simple counselling and a lot of affection. This, as well as avoiding discussing and moping about the traumatising event, can lead to a full recovery. http://www.focusonthefamily.com... http://www.martinvcohen.com... Not every single effect can be fixed though, as this would null the very definition of emotional abuse and trauma. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.overcoming.co.uk...
Adolf Hitler was an Intelligent Individual

My opponent has not responded to my refutations from last round. I correctly showed that Hitler certainnly fits the definition of 'intelligent' which my opponent and I agreed upon. My opponent simply reiterate that Hitler was not a good military strategist, obviously Einstein and Newton would most certainly fail as well as they were intelligent but in different ways, and then brings another point that Hitler was not a good politician. Again, have Newton run for president and we'll see how well he does. Looking to my opponent's first source from R4 we see some mistakes made by Hitler but also some success which my opponent conveniently left out of this debate. I will list them below. From http://vanrcook.tripod.com... -Ability to assemble and control a group of talented and ruthless individuals - Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, Bormann, and Speer - for his top echelon. These men were the German leaders of World War 2. They were very capable but don't turn your back on them! -Successful use of bullying and bluffing techniques to seize Austria and Czechoslovakia without a fight. -Adoption of blitzkrieg techniques, with the highly mobile Panzer divisions, to quickly conquer Poland, France, and other Western European countries. More conventional leaders would have used conventional trench warfare techniques and a World War I type stalemate might have occurred. Hitler was able to come to power over and control a large group of people, took Austria and Czechoslovakia with ease, and adopted the blitzkrieg techniqie which allowed him to take over several European countries. My opponent has not refuted my reasoning from R3 and I have shown more intelligent attributes of Hitler from my opponent's own source. For these reasons I urge a a Pro vote.
Adolf Hitler was an Intelligent Individual

**I apologize, but due to time constraints and some things that came up I was not able to fully complete this round of the debate. I will have to end with a very brief closer** I thank my opponent for his response and will now make my final arguments and refutations. Firstly, as this is the final round of the debate, I will seek to prove how Hitler was not intelligent in reference to the definitions my opponent mentioned in his round 3 argument. This will blend nicely with the arguments I was previously developing in other rounds. 1. "Intelligence is defined as the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, and comprehend complex ideas" Hitler clearly lost the ability to reason of the course of his tenure as chancellor of Germany. The many mistakes that he made were evidence of this. Militarily speaking, he had little to no ability to solve said problems mentioned, as I said in my third round argument. Just because he thought he was able to plan and (barely) do the things provided in the definition previously mentioned doesn't mean he did them correctly. The fact that he almost single-handedly "guided" Germany to so many defeats in a War he supposedly thought he was able to win is evidence that, just because he is seemingly intelligent due to some of the things he did, his failures highlight the bad side of all of his aspects. His lack of intelligence is easily noticeable due to the fact that he experienced numerous failures during his life - whether they were strategic, diplomatic, or personal [1]. He did not "seize" power of Germany - I demonstrated this in my second round argument. His "plans" were near-sighted and were mostly all failures. "REASONED that it was caused by the Jews"? His reasoning was insane - and he probably was as well [2]. Planning means nothing if the plan is flawed or incorrectly applied to the situation at hand. I apologize for my briefness, but I believe I have accurately demonstrated as to why Hitler was unintelligent. Hitler wasn't intelligent - he was just a lucky person who didn't realize luck could run out. I urge a Con vote while I thank my opponent for this debate and for all the viewers who read our arguments. [1] http://vanrcook.tripod.com... [2] http://www.freeinfosociety.com...
Adolf Hitler was an Intelligent Individual

I apologize to my opponent for last rounds forfeit. I honestly thought I still had a whole day to respond. Anyways I will try to salvage the rest of the debate here and refute my opponent's arguments. In response to my opponent's quote at the beginning of R3 I will respond by stating that military intelligence is not the only type of intelligence. Our agreed upon definition of intelligence regards it as more than mere book learning or academic skill. Intelligence is defined as the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, and comprehend complex ideas. All of these things were donr by Hitler. An example of his intelligence would be that he saw the state of his country and REASONED that it was caused by the Jews. He then PLANNED to exterminate them and other religious and racial minorities. Extermination, genocide, and world domination were his PLAN to SOLVE the problems which were affecting Germany at the time. Also all of these are examples of THINKING ABSTRACTLY. And an example of learning from experience would be that Hitler learned that he would not make it as an artist and therefore set his oratory and political skills to seizing power of Germany. To my opponent's examples of the battle of Dunkirk, the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's declaration of war on the U.S., I again state that military intelligence is only a single type of intelligence. I have adequately shown above that Hitler was an intelligent person, albeit in different areas than one would expect of a military and political leader. My opponent must concede that Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein while incredibly intelligent would not fare so well in a military venture. My opponent has so far only shown that Hitler was not a good military leader which I will happily concede. I must ask how the U.S. would fare if Isaac Newton were put in charge of American forces during WW2 instead of Eisenhower. I await my opponent's response.
Adolf Hitler was an Intelligent Individual

I would like to expand on my opponent's definition of 'intelligent' if that would be okay. The definition which my opponent provided is a bit vague and I wish to provide a definition which is a bit more specific. Intelligence: A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do[1] This is all I have for this round and as such I will send the debate back to my opponent and await his opening arguments. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Adolf Hitler was an Intelligent Individual

The purpose of this debate is to argue whether or not, overall, from an intellectual standpoint, Adolf Hitler was an intelligent individual. I am arguing the Con side in this debate. I will start with defining some of the terms mentioned in this first round exposition and that are at the core of this debate: 1. Adolf Hitler "(1889–1945), German leader , born in Austria; chancellor of Germany 1933–45. He cofounded the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party in 1919 and came to prominence through his powers of oratory. He wrote Mein Kampf (1925), an exposition of his political ideas, while in prison. He established the totalitarian Third Reich in 1933. His expansionist foreign policy precipitated World War II, while his fanatical anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust." [1] 2. Intelligent "Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level:" [2] These two terms serve as the general points of contention of this debate. I will present my argument as to why Hitler was not an intelligent individual in round 2, following Pro's acceptance of this debate. I would request that the first round of this debate is used solely for the definition of vocabulary and acceptance of this debate, and not for argument presentation. This is why I made the debate four rounds instead of three. I await my opponent's acceptance and wish them, whomever they are, best of luck! [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Gay Marriage

Audience, I am deeply disappointed in my opponents second debate. She has proved herself to be a plagiarist by copying and pasting her text. Her whole argument can be found at the follow websites: http://www.bidstrup.com... http://www.nexopia.com... http://living.oneindia.in... I will not answer my opponents argument seeing that it is not her words. Though I will continue to make my point. I will talk about the financial part of allowing gay marriage. 1. Social security taxes will be increased, or the benefits will decrease. The reason for this is because the United States government pays widows and widowers social security called survivor support benefits. The government will have to pay more money for all the homosexuals whose partner died. 2. Income taxes will be increased. Income taxes will be enlarged to make up for the matrimony tax benefits given to homosexual couples and to pay for the social costs resulting from the increase in illegitimacy. 3. Medical insurance premiums will rise. The more STDs, the more money it cost to get them treated. This will cost tax payers even more money to pay for health bills. Medical premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples. The reason my debate is so short is that I realize that there is no need to post more seeing that my opponent has already ruined this debate. Audience, even if you do not agree with me, it is obvious to vote con. (1). http://www.myfoxdfw.com... (2). http://teresacentric.com... (3). http://education.yahoo.com...
Gay Marriage

Seeing that it is my opponents second debate, I will keep my arguments short and simple. Marriage, the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc… There are many ways of looking at the cons of gay matrimony. I will go through the three key points, diseases, financial, and ethics. For my opening argument I would like to state the dangers of same sex intercourse. There is already an extremely high rate of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. When AIDS first became identified and known, it was found that the majority of sufferers had homosexual sex. AIDS is a infection of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus. Transmission of this virus can exchange between mother and baby during pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or other exposure to one of the above bodily fluids. Although treatments for AIDS and HIV can slow the course of the disease, there is currently no vaccine or cure. AIDS can result in death. There is also a higher risk in getting other STDs such as Gonorrhea, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, Syphilis, and Amebiases Elaborated. Allowing gay marriage will encourage people, including minors, to experiment homosexual sex. They will realize that since everyone else is alright with it, even encourages it then it is okay. This will make STDs spread across the country even quicker. An STD can enter someone's system by just having intercourse once. (1). . http://www.home60515.com... (2). . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). . http://www.cdc.gov... (4). . http://dictionary.reference.com...