BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

Rules of debate: 1. Censor all vulgar vocabulary with pound (*) better yet, try not to cuss at all. 2. Mention nothing of gay marriage. It is off topic and too minor for this debate. 3. Be Clear, be fair First Argument: First I will state my thesis: 1. Hate Crimes 2. Gun Control 3. Banning sodas (why the heck would you do that??!?) 1. Hate Crimes The metal band Threshold has a song called, Return Of The Thought Police. It does explaining on this subject. If you are going to say that if you do a crime, and you hate the person you committed the crime against, then you get extra penalty. You would put in jail for three years for murder, instead of two, because the person that you commit the crime against, stole your girlfriend. So therefore this person's life is based on something as trivial as girlfriends (in a political view, girlfriends will help your life). Soon that will turn into corruption of the Judicial branch. People will get high amounts of pay for inventing memory changing system. When one is made, the Judicial branch starts wiping memory. The Judicial branch will wipe the very memory of freedom, the very memory of the constitution. Then America will be a army of mindless bodies doing the very wishes of the Judge. 2. Gun Control Gun control is too quick of an act. It is the people killing, not the guns. As a matter of fact, it will take away the self defense part. Gun control actually threatens personal safety. Robbers and criminals still have weapons. But guns, who the people depend on, will not be in anyone's hands. Therefore the people cannot defend against themselves. Guns are a safety measure. If you are going to ban guns, because they can kill people, you might as well ban silverware, cloth, trophies, medicine, writing utensils, matches, and even food and drink. All of those can kill people in some sort of way. 3. Banning Sodas: I think most people like sprite, or coke, or Pepsi. Bloomberg tried to ban those. This is America, in America there is freedom. The freedom to call someone an idiot, the freedom to throw chairs on the ground, the freedom to grill pork, the freedom to paint. That is a violation of freedom. America is based off of freedoms. It is proud to be a country of freedoms. All three apply. We have the right to drink soda, we have the right to use rifles, and we have the right to hate. The Democrats are messing with these things they must not touch. This, smacks everything of communism.
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

First off, how can I tell my opponent straight in the face why people would vote for Obama when this is over the Internet. Second, I'm not reading your articles because you're not even arguing anymore; you're just citing websites without tying them into a legible argument. Third, I don't need to say why people should vote for Obama. This debate is to see if the democrats have communist views or don't care about the U.S. Constitution. Also, never comment in another debate of mine again about this. I consider that an invasion of privacy and rude. You've been reported for harassment. I would never dare to take this debate into yours; respect my debates as well. To conclude, the Democrats are not an evil political group. Neither are the Republicans. Just because a Democrat brings up a new law that clashes with the constitution does not mean they don't respect it. The Democrats are just trying to pass laws that they think will make a difference, same as the Republicans. I don't feel that the Democrats have communist views based on the information given by my opponent. His three points simply do not work together to make a strong argument. To Flipbook, I apologize if this debate got a little heated. I do not think that you believe in legalizing ak47s. Frankly, I'm debating for the sake of debating, and if this is what you believe in I cannot change it. But I do not think you make a compelling enough argument. Good luck on your future debates. I apologize
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

???? ????????????? My opponent thinks that I want to legalize AK47's! He thinks I'm a little kid! He is talking like a Nationalist My opponent thinks that he can get a free ticket out of racism, for calling me racist! In my last argument, I listed a plain source, which he plainly, did not read. He thinks he can get away from that. Next time, if you were to actually read my sources and try to counter them, your slim chances of winning would grow a "little bit." Hate crimes: The wrong in hate crimes have already been explained. Then, I listed a source (which he did not counter, or even read) saying why it is a Democratic view. I would prefer if I actually were able to debate someone with some actual skill. Why hate crimes is a Democratic View: http://www.osce.org... http://www.canadafreepress.com... http://www.frc.org...-- Now I want you to actually read these sites and counter them. Gun Control Why gun control is bad: http://www.veteranstoday.com... http://www.studymode.com... http://www.presstv.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.nytimes.com... I wan't you to counter these sites also. Racism: Why not to vote for Obama: http://www.policymic.com... Now after reading that article, tell me straight at the face, why people would vote for Obama.
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

First, I don't really understand why my opponent is getting all fired up like this. This is a debate, not a public temper tantrum. Hate CrimesIt's clear that my opponent believes more in the Republicans. Many Republicans believe that there is no such thing as a hate crime. Listen, it's fine if my opponent believes in the Republican side. I'm with the Democrats here; hate crimes do exist. It's impossible to argue that if an ethnic group is targeted by a group they should get extra years to their sentences. My opponent is extremely prejudice against gays and blacks, which was shown earlier in a multiple of his comments. He thinks that the gay marriage topic is minor and that people voted for Obama just because they didn't want to be seen as racist. So my opponent proved that the Democrats believe that hate crimes exist? Awesome. Doesn't change the fact that hate crimes are a major problem throughout the world that threaten many groups of people. No one should ever EVER be targeted for their religion, creed, or color anywhere. That's not communist or unconstitutional. CommunismNo, communism is not bad inherently. It just doesn't work. Human greed counters communism and causes it to eventually fall like in the USSR. We do have the right to personal property. I do not think that gives us the right to have a mg42 mounted machine gun in our living room. We were given the right to bear arms in the constitution to defend ourselves. Handguns and simple shotguns are fine, but not a 50 caliber sniper rifle.Gun ControlI covered some of this last paragraph. "If I don't cover this we all know you're a bad debater"? Have I really riled my opponent to the point he has to challenge me like a little child? I read your article. I think that your article brings up some good points about the right to bear arms, but again, we're not talking about a ban of guns. We're talking about restricting heavy duty arms. This country will never disband all of our arms, but there's a difference between having a handgun for self defense and an Ak47 with teflon tips.Banning SodaI didn't even mention Bloomberg last round. To my opponent, I would recommend you calm down and talk to me like a normal human being instead of a child. I don't think you gain points on here for screaming at me.
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

My opponent is a hypocrite! He says that I don't use the English language, while he is saying that I am saying, that I am accusing the Democrats of commiting hate crimes. Also, his very own "reliable source" said more on the subject of Communism. He skipped the part saying no private property. Hate Crimes Hate crimes are perfectly well a Democratic principle. "Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the Federal Hate Crimes Law..." //thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/senate-democrats-attach-hate-crimes-law-to-defense-bill/ This proves that Democrats support hate crimes. Another point: "A hate crime is a crime motivated by intolerance towards a certain group within society." Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights http://www.osce.org... This also proves that Democrats support hate crimes. COMMUNISM "Communism also requires that all means of production be controlled by the state" http://www.howstuffworks.com... Also shuts your own point down!!! So now we know the truth! That Communism is bad! Another Point from your own site! "a theory advocating elimination of private property" "a totalitarian form of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state owned means of production" -http://www.merriam-webster.com... We have the right to private property, we have the right to produce what we want, and trade it freely, without authority looking down on our actions. Gun Control Guns are essential to humanity. Read This Article, its in my pure argument. If you don't try to counter it, we all know you are a bad debater. http://www.realclearpolitics.com... Why do we need gun control in the first place, the save more lives then they kill. Banning Sodas Just because Bloomberg is a Independent, doesn't mean he is going to do an act against the freedoms of America. That shows he is not completely Independent. I am sure he has done Republican-based things before.
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

I refuse to argue with my opponent in an immature fashion. I'll let his basic misunderstanding of the basic English language be his undoing. Hate crimes are against the freedoms of Americans, but the democrats do not cause hate crimes. Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, can commit a hate crime.Hate CrimesI refuse to admit any party affiliation simply because I do not have one. Hate crimes are not a democratic belief, and my opponent has failed to give me any evidence. Please show our readers an article that can prove your point. Communism "Communists believe that everyone will get the same amount of money of food." http://www.howstuffworks.com... Here is a link to an article about what communism really is about. My opponent's argument would benefit from a clear definition.ImmigrationHow are 'they' getting power hungry and corrupt? How will they use 'their own trap'? Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over illegal immigration for a long time with no clear results. I believe that the Democrats are not trying to get the illegal immigrants citizenship because of votes. The worry is that if we kick every illegal immigrant out of America many lives will be ruined and the job market will be unstable. Gun ControlI understand how easy it is for criminals to get guns. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't ban high ordinance weapons. A strict crackdown on the black market and harsher regulation on guns would do wonders on the crime element. Banning SodasA ban of sodas is not communist in the slightest. It is an issue of health and government vs freedom. In closing, I would like to ask my opponent a question of my own. First consider two statements that you have said:2. Mention nothing of gay marriage. It is off topic and too minor for this debate. I am not racist because I am voting for a black person. In fact, they are being racist by voting for a black person, because he is black.It sounds like someone is trying to cover up some serious bias towards these two groups. I challenge the integrity of a man who say these things. To say that people voted for Obama because he is black proves he is a racist and a bigot.I would also like to apologize to the readers if I've become too aggressive in my arguments, but it is ignorance like this that brings down this country. The only thing my opponent has cited is a song. Wow. Please write back soon so we can continue the next round.To my opponent, I have linked up two sites to help you. The first is a dictionary to help him define his words more accurately. The second is a guide on how to use basic English. Enjoy : )http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.grammarly.com...
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

Hate crimes are against the freedoms of America, they are against the Constitution and against the Bill Of Rights. They ruin the lives of people. Hate Crimes My opponent will not understand that I am merely using Threshold's quotes to emphasize the point he clearly mistakes as "bizarre." It is a perfect statement. My opponent thinks I am a hothead for even mentioning Threshold, he obviously doesn't know how to take things personal. It is putting on an embarrassing show Mr. SaintMichaelDemocrat. This is not protecting our Bill of Rights right. What has Obama done, but made us pay for the seniors and spend on... I don't even know! Hate crimes are a Democratic belief, so much for that point. Original Communism Point Communists believe that everyone will get the same amount of money of food. The Democrats are almost trying to become like China, and take away our freedoms. Immigration The Democrats want to give the illegals citizenship. That will have us lose our dirty work guys, but of course the Democrats will get more votes! And they will continue using their own trap. The latter Democrats have done nothing for us, except by a military standpoint. They are getting power hungry and corrupt. Gun Control Banning guns will not do anything good. My opponent is saying that the robbers have to use bow and arrows, because I mentioned them. Truth is, he doesn't understand how easy it is for robbers to get guns. So it will illegalize guns as a self defense weapon, but won't stop the illegal transport of guns through the border. If they can stop that, they probably can stop about anything. AND IF THE COULD, THEY STILL WONT!!!!!!!!!! Gun control will do no help, only harm. Banning Sodas "So bottom line? THIS ENTIRE POINT DOES NOT APPLY TO DEMOCRATS!!!" -Saintmichael If you see above, this guy thinks I am talking about Bloomberg himself, in truth, I am talking about his point. This thing is his Democrat part coming out. My opponent just won't realize the corruption of the Democrats now!
Mario Lemieux is the greatest player to have played in the NHL

Gretzky won 9 MVP, that is a fact. Even if he won half of it, that still would be more than Lemieux. But did Lemieux really deserved his 3 MVP, or was it biased opinion. It is foolish to say than playing a full season of 82 games, plus playoffs, plus practices, plus travel, is easier than resting two and a half years and come back a bit rusty. Lemieux won a lot of things, but Gretzky won more, and they both did it with a team. Yes, playing more does make a player better, consistency is an important factor in determining who's the best. Are you really telling me that Lemieux was good at defense? Even though he had the body for it, Mario rarely used it, especially in the defensive zone. Mario never was good at defense, everyone will agree with that, so what you say Gretzky lacked, Mario never had it, you are wrong all the way on that matter. So it's obvious, you have to go with the greatest numbers, the greatest accomplishments, the greatest awards, the greatest consistency, the Great One, Wayne Gretzky.
Mario Lemieux is the greatest player to have played in the NHL

I did not say it is not important. You stated that winning the MVP was the strongest argument in support of Gretzky and I disagree. There is fact and then there is opinion. Winning the MVP is based not only on opinion, but on biased opinion. Every man and woman holds bias, and those same men and women vote for who they feel to be the best player. Even if Lemieux did not miss those seasons due to cancer and numerous other injuries, to say that coming out of retirement is not as hard as staying in the league without retirement is very foolish. To stay in the game and play the game keeps on not only in shape, but keeps a player from becoming rusty and out of sync with the game. When a player misses even a week from the game, it takes that player multiple games to get back into shape. Lemieux won two Stanley Cups, an Olympic Gold Medal, the MVP three times, the Art Ross Trophy six times, the Conn Smythe Trophy twice, and many more. You give me the number of times he played in the playoffs and the cups and medals he won, but those are team awards. That is not take anything away from Gretzky, but he did those with a team. Gretzky should not be penalized for playing that much, but playing more does not make somebody better. You are right, I saw something you did not. Lemieux was a play who would score points in the offensive zone, but while Gretzky was known for being able to avoid checks, Lemieux was able to give them. I am not asking for who had a more accomplished career, I am asking for who was a better player. If one wants to talk about scoring points and winning, why not throw in a Mike Bossy or in this case, Wayne Gretzky. While blessed with amazing vision, intelligence, and offensive abilities, Gretzky lacked the physical ability to get back on defense and help out on the other side of the ice. Overall, the numbers do not lie and Gretzky had a better career with scoring, but the fact of the matter is that Gretzky lacked the defensive abilities the Lemieux had. I am not asking for the better scorer, I am asking for the better hockey player, and that is Mario Lemieux.
Mario Lemieux is the greatest player to have played in the NHL

Your last paragraph lacks of seriousness, the MVP is not important? I know it's not always the best candidate that wins, there must be some mistakes here and there, but do you really think hockey experts who voted for the Hart were wrong nine times? I won't argue that Lemieux had the ability to put up points similar to Gretzky, but you can't seriously say that 1.883 ppg during 915 games is better than 1.921 ppg during 1487 games, at this Gretzky wins at both ends. I won't agree it's harder to perform coming from retirement, it's the opposite, Gretzky never had that two and a half years to rest his body like Lemieux did. Gretzky played for 20 straight years and only missed 97 regular season games, he also played in 208 playoffs games, and add to that four Canada Cups, a World Cup and the Olympics. So why Gretzky should be penalized for playing that much? I just think it's another fact that puts him over Lemieux. I don't recall Lemieux being a physical player, sure he was gifted with a big body and he had a clear advantage over his peers (something Gretzky didn't have but overcame with his intelligence and his passion for the game), maybe you saw something I did not, to me it's more like an assumption you made. And don't waste your time talking about Lemieux's injuries, it actually diminishes his overall greatness.
Mario Lemieux is the greatest player to have played in the NHL

You are right in that the health issues do not make Lemieux a better player, but those are nothing more than a little background information to give an idea of what was overcome to still play at such a high level as he did. And since both Lemieux and Getzky suffered from severe back problems, you can void the injury out for both and that still leaves Lemieux with a spinal disc herniation, cancer, and tendinitis of a hip-flexor. What a player delivers on the ice does make him the better hockey player, and what Lemieux brought to the ice was a scoring touch that kept pace with that of Gretzky as well as the ability to take a player such as Gretzky out of a play and sometimes a game by using the physicality which Gretzky could not. Your "thinking" that "if Gretzky kept a higher points per game average despite playing 600 more games, it's a plus for the Great One, not the opposite, it's definitely harder to keep a pace the more you play." is nothing more than an assumption. The facts are there and they show that Lemieux had both the ability to put up points similar to Gretzky's as well as get involved on defense and take the other team's scorer out of the play. My assumption is that it for Lemieux to not only miss hundreds of games with multiple career-threatening injuies, but retire twice and then come back and put up points of the same magnitude as he did before retirement is better and harder than Gretzky's playing until age 39 with one injury he suffered after becoming the all-time scoring leader. After one looks at Gretzky's statistics after the one injury it is quite clear to the viewer that he was never the same while Lemieux could still play with the same intensity and skill before his injuries. I feel as though your claim that his being voted M.V.P. nine times as his best feat is not as important as you think it is. Voting, in both sports and in politics does not always end with the best candidate winning. What you are saying, and this is assuming that the votes are not rigged, is that the best candidate always wins which is not true. Voting is based on popularity and therefore does not result in the best available candidate for a position, but the most popular or flashy player, in this case, running[or in this case, skating] for a position.
Mario Lemieux is the greatest player to have played in the NHL

A list of health issues should not make Mario a better player, these things are part of being a professional athlete and a hockey player should be judged by how he delivers on the ice, not on how he could be if this or that. As a matter of fact, I think that if Gretzky kept a higher points per game average despite playing 600 more games, it's a plus for the Great One, not the opposite, it's definitely harder to keep a pace the more you play. And, by the way, if you're talking about injuries you should also mention Gretzky's career threatening herniated disc he suffered at the middle of his career. And even though Gretzky owns most of the records in the NHL, I don't think it's a stronger argument than the number of times he was voted the most valuable player on his team. He won it 9 times, that's the most ever on any professional sport.
Mario Lemieux is the greatest player to have played in the NHL

Many look at Wayne Gretzky as the greatest player in the NHL, and while he averaged 1.921 points per game and holds the all-time record for points per game, goals, assists, etc., I then take a look at Mario Lemieux, who averaged 1.883 points per game in his career. Aside from this, he played in close to 600 games less than Gretzky, many of which were missed during the prime of his career. Through his career, Lemieux suffered from spinal disc herniation, Hodgkin's lymphoma, chronic tendinitis of a hip-flexor muscle, and chronic back pain so severe that others had to tie his skates. Though being slowed down during his prime by numerous injuries and eventually calling it a career due to irregular heartbeats caused by atrial fibrillation, Lemieux could not only put up points at the same pace as Gretzky, totaling at 1723, but at six feet, four inches, weighing pounds, he brought the physical aspect to the game that Gretzky could not.