BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Civil War Was Caused By Slavery

Of the states that seceded, Four drafted statements to explain why. All of them say it was about slavery: https://www. Battlefields. Org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states GEORGIA "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, Present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. " MISSISSIPPI "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, It is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. " SOUTH CAROLINA "We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, For years past, To fulfill their constitutional obligations, And we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. The Constitution of the United States, In its fourth Article, Provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, Under the laws thereof, Escaping into another, Shall, In consequence of any law or regulation therein, Be discharged from such service or labor, But shall be delivered up, On claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. "" TEXAS "The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, By solemn legislative enactments, Have deliberately, Directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, And laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, Designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions. . . "
The Civil War Was Caused By Slavery

To start off my argument about how slavery wasn't the reason for the civil war I just want to state that there were northern slave states, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, And Missouri. That alone makes the claim that the civil war was started by slavery and the north didn't want slavery complete hypocrisy. My next statement will be that president Lincoln's primary intention was not to stop slavery, But to keep the union together. His "primary" objective only switched to slavery a year into the war after the north was losing and they were losing funding for the army and had to get overseas funding. I lastly want to say that the disproportionate rate of northerners versus southerners was high, And because of this, The north made the 3/5 rule, Making every 5 slaves worth 3 votes. If the civil war was started by slavery, Why would the north allow this to be passed, When all this rule did was encourage slave owners to just buy more slaves. I rest my case.
There doesn't exist a religion that believes in lying to promote it's believes, except Christianity.

My opponent has resorted to libel and slander rather than argumentation. I took the time to research this subject, despite Pro's rudeness to me in Round 2, and in return Pro falsely accuses me of plagiarism. It is a thoroughly lazy person, and an extremely poor debater, who would rather insult and lie about his opponent than form even a simple argument. At the least, Pro could admit that he is unprepared for the topic and forfeit gracefully. His behavior in this debate says much about his character.
Democracy should apply to businesses

I will argue that businesses should be democratically controlled. My opponent will argue they shouldn't be. Rules of debate1) Be civil, no ad hominem, personal attacks, insults2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for argument. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument even between us since I am not using round 1 for argument.3) The last round of debate should just be rebuttal to your opponent's arguments and/or conclusion. No new arguments in this round. Definitions:Democracy: Control of a group or organization through voting by all of the members of that group or organization, or through voting for representatives of the members.Business: an organizational entity involved in the provision of goods and services to consumers
The House Would not Allow any Donation to the poor

As con, i would say that : This House Would still Allow Donation to the poor as in the current situation. My purpose in this debate is to stick in today`s current situation to gain society stabillity. Definition : Donation : Voluntary material or non material, physical or non physical tat given to another person without any huesitation. Society Stabillity : Ideals that shows that current society maybe is not the best condition, but is a good cindition to livevfor then by changing it. Poor : man, public organizations, orphanage, workers, homeless, etc that in the condition in NEED. Issue : A rules from some country. A country like Indonesia. The government create a rules to fine the people that do a donation to the poor on the street (homeless). The government think that maybe if he do so, it would decrease the percentage of the homeless on the street. In fact, the rules have been exists for 2,5 years and still doesn't make any progress. the homeless are still there, and their quantity rising every month. Some other cases, show that the government of some dictator country in on of nation in Asia continent. They punish people who donate foods to some Buddhist monk. Etc.. To gain this purposes, i would giving 3 Arguments. 1. Prove why the poor may receive donation A. Characteristic of human B. People in Need 2. Prove why it's okay to donate to the poor 3. Prove why this motion worth being Debate for 1A. The reason why the poor may receieve donation is not listed in any rules in this world. It just based on the basic natural characteristic of human, care. This natural characteristics would be differ in each person. But still, a small power of care or a work to do it would gain hapiness for both sides. If they have already happy, the do-ers probably would do another donation to another people other than the poor, maybe the need. So i think, it will gain this stabillity of the society. 1B. The person or organization that worth to get the donation are the one who was in need. The question is why we allow to give something to the need? Because it's optional to donate based on the donator's heart. No one's have any obligation to make them stop donating. Because it's the right for every people to do what they desire too, at some point, the right need to be protected by government because it's a good practical thing to do. 2. It's Okay to donate to the poor because donate does not make you poor. It's a good thing. It's your right. No one can oppose this thing even for a government. If Government do so, he already collide with the main law of human right, that every people have a right to express their own life in a good thing as the fartest limit. 3. It worth to being debate for because it's engage the poor and the problem in the society.
cell phone use good or bad state your debate

Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response.
States are fundamentally immoral

Pro's entire argument is based upon the idea that one immoral act makes the entire concept of a state immoral itself. Concepts can't be immoral this statement makes no sense. ...one immoral act does not make you immoralYes it does. If you lie to your friend you are a liar . One act of murder makes you a murder. If you consider either of things to be immoral, then by doing them you are immoral.The state itself is the philosophical conception which I am defending here. philosophical conception ??? Very ambigious. Morever, these sort of actions are not inherent within a state; that is, by nature, immoral violence is not encoded in the DNA of a state. I'm not sure what you mean by ...these sorts of actions. Or nature, or encoded in the DNA. What, then, could be the alternative to the state? The state of nature. I cannot agree that the opposite of the state is a "state of nature." How about an alternative to a violent state being one that is non-violent? The central role of the government, then, is to enforce the social contract and to punish those who go against it.What social contract? Show me where I signed this? Was this contract forced upon me at birth? Can children enter into binding contracts? What if the other party to this "contract" doesn't fullfill it's side of the bargin, do I have any legal recourse? I have a better "contract" witth my cell phone company than I do with the government. Pro begins by claiming that nonviolence is preferable to violence. This is, of course, generally true.Thank you for agreeing with me. American interests and, by extension, the rights of its citizens. Please define american interests. Please define rights, please define citizens. Entire paragraph is meaningless. Engagement within led to economic gains, the protection of allies, and the rise of peace. Please define engagement. protection and "rise of peace."However, this is not indicative of the state; the state specifically provides against this sort of brutality in its laws.declaring one thing illegal does not shield one from the consequences of one's actions. If only one such incidence had transpired in all of history then I would be loath to continue with my argument; however, these sorts of abuses happen all the time and are indicative of both an individuals actions and that of the entity represented. Pro's BOP is to show that, by its nature, the state is immoral. Not that some states can do immoral things. Straw man, I never argued that states are immoral "by its nature." You've totally convoluted my argument. If one does immoral things, one is immoral. My argument stands.
States are fundamentally immoral

Firstly, I did assume that nonviolence is universally preferable to violence and I believe that to be true and generally accepted. For example, can you imagine a society where children were encouraged to settle disputes with murder instead of dialogue? If I need $10 would you prefer I ask you to lend it to me or stick a gun to your head and threaten you. The examples are endless, and the answers are clearly the later in all cases. I challenge you to give me a single example in civilian life where violence is preferable to non-violence.Your idea of pre-emption is a straw man because while you might be able to demonstrate that pre-emptive strike could be “advantageous,” this is not the same as being moral and you have walked off the map at this point.Furthermore, I didn't say that in order to be immoral violence must be used against another state or "engage in offensive warfare." I didn't use the word warfare, I said "The government often uses violence offensively." If the government resorts to any violence (self-defense excluded) including on it's own territory and against it's own people then it is immoral. Has switzerland ever used violence other than for self defense against it's own citizens? I'm sure like all states it does daily, but here's just one example to prove my point has.http://www.swissinfo.ch...Lastly, Max Weber defines states as having a monopoly on violence in a geographical area, if this is accepted then by definition states not only use violence but derive their very legitimacy by holding a monopoly on it. Regardless of Max Weber, the reality is in all instances only the state claims the right to use force and does so with impunity. My argument holds.
States are fundamentally immoral

Let's be clear on what Pro is arguing. Pro is stating that the concept of a state is fundamentally immoral; that is, all states and governments are immoral. Thus, to win this round, all I must do is demonstrate that, at least in one instance, a state is not immoral. I do not really have much work to do, then, because Pro's own resolution frames my argument. Pro claims, "The government often uses violence offensively, therefore, the government is immoral." Firstly, Pro has not done any work proving violence is immoral in this fashion; in fact, under a utilitarian calculus, it is often advantageous to execute pre-emptive strikes, etc. Secondly, not all governments do this. A fundamental part of the state is not offensive violence. For instance, Switzerland remains perpetually neutral, never engaging in offenseive warfare. Thus, I have negated the resolution with a simple counterexample. Remember, Pro has the BOP in the round and, until the arguments Pro has put forth are better warranted, I will refrain from extensive constructives and rebuttals. I look forward to future argumentation.
In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote

Since I'll try to make this debate as close to LD as possible, I'll go straight to voting issues. There are 3 reasons why you should vote Affirmative/Pro: First, the values based debate. The Affirmative upholds both structures. Looking at my opponents structure. The Affirmative better achieves justice for a simple reason. He never defines what justice is so you can look at my Rawlsian definition which is maximizing rights. I better achieve his VC because the only way to maximize fairness is when fairness is due. Once a felon returns to society, they ought to regain their right to vote because it is fair. Now, lets look to my value structure. My value of a democratic society is better achieved on my side because of my VC. To better achieve a dem. society is through maximizing participation which is clearly done by the affirmative. Second, since the meaning and context of my Contention I was never refuted gives clear evidence for a aff. vote. Why? Simple. It is directly inherent to the resolution because the resolution implies democratic ideals. Democratic ideals are built on the idea of contesting values within society. Third, my opponents case never negates the resolution because the obligation of the neg is not to prove the resolution categorically false, as he was trying to do, but prove the resolution within the affirmative context untrue. Since he does not do this at all, i.e. he never proves why felons who return to society ought to retain the right to vote, you cannot negate because he has not proved the resolution untrue within an affirmative contextual world. For these reasons you can affirm.
An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist

My modem's kaputt for now, so I can't post my case or upload to Dropbox. Apparently 3G works fine, even if it's highway robbery. I can link you to shrib.com/zarroette , since I usually write my cases there. However: the case isn't 100% done, and more importantly is editable by everyone. I've got an offline copy in case the shrib one gets messed up. I will post a Dropbox copy as soon as possible. My sincere apologies. It's the best I can do.
Fbdgbgh

The movie "Un Homme Et Un Femme" is, indeed, a wonderful movie. It has received rather decent reviews on both IMDB (7.7/10) and Rotten Tomatoes (77% positive reviews). This movie has also received two Oscar awards [1]: - Best Writing, Story, and Screenplay (1967) - Best Foreign Language Film (1967) On top of this, it received two nominations for: - Best Actress in a Leading Role (1967) - Best Director (1967) When we examine the Golden Globe awards of 1967, this film received two more awards and three other nominations: - Best Foreign-Language Film (Won) - Best Motion Picture Actress in a Drama (Won) - Best Motion Picture Director (Nomination) - Best Original Score - Best Original Score in a Motion Picture It has also won nine other awards from various other organizations: - Best Foreign Actress (BAFTA in 1968) - Best Foreign Language Film (Blue Ribbon Awards in 1967) - OCIC Award (Cannes Film Festival in 1966) - Grand Prize (Cannes Film Festival in 1966) - Best Foreign Film (Cinema Writers Circle Award - Spain in 1967) - Best Foreign Performer (Fotogramas de Plata in 1967) - Best Foreign Director (Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists in 1967) - Best Foreign Actress (Mexico Cinema Journalists in 1968) - Top Foreign Film (National Board of Review, USA in 1967) Using these as my opening arguments, I stand affirmitive to the resolution. I hope my opponent returns for their opening remarks/rebuttals. Source: [1] http://www.imdb.com...
naturaly curly hair is better to have over naturally straight hair

I will just present my arguments and not rebut yours until the third round. Straight hair is much better than curly hair. If for some reason you are bored of straight hair, you can easily put in a few boppy pins into your hair and it will soon become curly. It is a quite simple process. It is better than curly hair because if a curly haired person wants to make their hair straight, they will have to iron it. "The American Academy of Dermatology states that side-effects of altering the hair with heat eventually results in damage to the outer cuticle--dry ends, flyaways, dulling and breaking that gives your hair a thin, shaggy appearance."http://www.livestrong.com...A naturally curly haired person could easily damage their hair by trying to change their hairstyle.Here is an article on 9 reasons why straight hair is awesome. I will share some of the more important reasons.http://www.magforwomen.com..."1. If you have straight hair, you do not have to worry about the way you want to wear your hair. You can just comb it through, leave it open and you get a simple yet sexy look.2. Styling straight hair is less expensive than styling curly hair. The problem is that curly hair needs to be straightened before any styling can be done with it. So, if you have straight hair, then you save up on the extra straightening that curly hair needs to get.3. Curly hair has a tendency of becoming rough and dry during winters. It then tends to become brittle, develops split ends and breaks off randomly. If you have straight hair, then no such damage is going to occur until you show severe neglect. 4. Straight hair will always be in fashion while curly hair will move in and out." It is also fairly obvious that straight hair is downright sexy and amazing, as shown below.http://trendfashionews.com...http://1.bp.blogspot.com...http://en.korea.com... Thank you,SeelTheMan
naturaly curly hair is better to have over naturally straight hair

Please let who has better pictures be a factor of whom get sources points voters.So curly hair is better than straight hair. Straight hair gets boring after a while. While curls can easily be changed to a wave,or more velumptuous curls. Curly hair is much more versatile naturally than naturally straight hair. Naturally curly hair can easily be straightened with a flat iorn. While to make naturally straight hair curly( witch is really hard to do because straight hair tends to not like to hold a curl) You need to spend hours under rollers and hair dryers, and lots of hairspray. Not to mention that it wont last that long.Personally I think people with curly hair looks more interesting than being straight and like every one else......so did these interviewers......http://abcnews.go.com...Also people with curly hair can be seen as fun ,adventurous, and sexy. While straight hair may look sexy on the right person but generally it just means your not too diverse of a person. Look at these people,curly hair won 4-2 ......http://www.dailymakeover.com...Personally I think curly red heads are the hottest things in existence.....lolbut anyway here's some pictures......http://browse.deviantart.com...http://www.hotbeautyhealth.com...http://cdn.blogs.sheknows.com...http://media.photobucket.com...http://www.beautifulhairstyles.com...
naturaly curly hair is better to have over naturally straight hair

So it seems a major part of this debate has been how each side alters their hair to the other. Well my opponent assumes that all people with curly hair straighten their hair . This isn't true. People with curly hair are very proud of their hair. .. .. . http://ilovemyhair.bigcartel.com...http://www.youtube.com...Yes I'm aware that some straighten their hair, But a smart person who knows how to use a iron wont damage their hair. Damage only happens if you leave the iron on the strand your straightening for way to long and you end up with these plate looking things. SAme can happen to those with straight hair. since this argument can be used for both sides, it really isn't an effective argument. And my opponent asks. .. .. "Why would someone with naturally straight hair need to use a straight iron? ". .. .. its called frizz, Its called waking up out of bed and your hair looks like birds have been playing in it. Maybe you just had sex and its messed up. So yes people with naturally straight hair use straight irons. My opponent says also that'd is much less expensive to style straight hair. Well it really depends on what were doing here. Since my opponent has confirmed that straight head do go to curly styles at time lets consider that. Since straight hair tends not to curl well stylist have to do alot to style the hair effectively to make it hold the curl. So the bill is going to be up there. Now if a curly head wanted to change up ere style alittle bit all it takes depending on how curly your hair is, is conditioner, gel, jam, and a comb and a shower head. .. .lol. .So in my case i have shown that there are many types of naturally curly hair styles. .wavy, kinky, milky curls,tight curls, loose curls, etc. .. .. WHile the only naturally straight hair style is straight. Straight hair styles have no volume while curly styles scream volume. Naturally straight hair has less diversity than a person with naturally curly hair. So I believe I have effectively defeated my opponents points while my points still stand. .. .. .Straight hair gets boring while curly hair has more diversity,Curly hair isn't boring while straight hair will get boring after a while,Curly hair adds definition to beauty,Picture sources. http://browse.deviantart.com......http://www.hotbeautyhealth.com......http://cdn.blogs.sheknows.com......http://media.photobucket.com......http://www.beautifulhairstyles.com......http://static2.bigstockphoto.com......http://static2.bigstockphoto.com......http://www.bing.com......http://www.naturallycurly.com......http://ia.media-imdb.com......http://www.beautyofnewyork.com......http://www.everything4hair.com......http://0.tqn.com......http://media.photobucket.com......other sources. http://www.livestrong.com......http://www.magforwomen.com......http://www.youtube.com...http://ilovemyhair.bigcartel.com...
The USFG should ban abortion

Full Resolution: The USFG should ban abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Both sides make their casesRound 3: Pro rebuts Con's case and vice versaRound 4: Both sides defend their original arguments from Round 2Definitionsabortion - the intentional killing of a human fetusUSFG - short for United States Federal GovernmentLooking forward to a great debate
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

I really liked this topic so I wanted to see if there was anyone out there who still wanted to debate it. For the voters, here is the LD round breakdown: ROUND 1: Con-states rules Pro-Case ROUND 2: Con-case/rebuttal Pro-rebuttal/defence ROUND 3: Con-rebuttal/defence/crystallization Pro-rebuttal/defence/crystallization If you accept this debate please post your case in round 1 and we will continue. Good luck to whoever accepts.