BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Britain should retain its Constitutional Monarchy.

The British monarchy is simply a group figurehead in the eyes of the majority of the world population. They serve no role to society and therefore the British Monarchy and it"s constitutional monarchy. First I will address some of the oppositions arguments, the opposition argued that there is nothing to gain from abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic. There is no statement in the topic that the England and the British Empire have to become a republic; they could become any form of political government that might not necessarily be a monarchy. The suggestion that the government will become a "republic" simply is not a true statement. The opposition argued that the monarchy could act as a focal point of the British Empire in times of sorrow or celebration. The monarchy can in times of sorrow be a point of resignation and can indicate a lack of equality between higher and lower class. This I believe actually separates the population further. The opposition also argued that a monarchy makes a country more prosperous. This is not because of the monarchy"s influence towards the shape of the country, but rather the background, and in many cases, the colonization by the British Empire. I also question if a monarchy enhances growth. A monarchy it self doesn"t enhance growth, the country and it"s politicians enhance the growth of the country. The opposition also argued that The Monarchy does a lot for the international image of the UK. The overall image of the monarchy creates the sense of in-equality between the classes of citizens. This can only diminish the image of England for world. As to my first argument, the monarchy creates an in-equality between citizens and the upper-class and hereditary monarchy. If there is a monarchy, whether it be in power or not, it create a in-equality between citizens and the upper-class. This could create feelings of indignation and/or hatred towards upper class, and therefore public instability. Therefore we should abolish the monarchy to minimize possible public instability. As to my second argument, the monarchy has no right to be a public figurehead and therefore should be abolished, as there is no point or right for them to rule. The monarchy are a fake hereditary line that has not earn the right to rule, except for the winning a war and overthrowing the previous monarchy. It would be much better for an independent, voted in, politician to rule as it would allow for greater choice of the public and less influence from the monarchy. The monarchy is a hereditary line that has not right to rule and creates public instability.
Britain should retain its Constitutional Monarchy.

The British Monarchy is the most famous in the world. For centuries, it has been at the heart of British life with support at its highest levels for decades at the current time (an estimated 80% of Britons support the Monarchy).Despite how it's presented, the Monarchy remains one of the most beneficial institutions in the UK. To start with, it offers an apolitical Head of State who can unite the nation in celebration, represent our grief in times of sorrow and act as a focal point for national loyalty - irrespective of one's political leanings.Let us also take time to consider the alternatives. If Britain were to abolish the Monarchy and become a republic, what would it gain? Nothing, is the answer - but we would lose a lot! For one, we would be politicising the office of head of state (it's impossible to have a 'non-partisan president', by their very nature, presidents are divisive figures precisely because they had to compete for office), we'd also lose the tremendous tourism benefit the Monarchy brings to the UK!Monarchy is presented by some as an old-fashioned institution, stopping the growth of nations. Just because something's old, doesn't mean it's not still useful! It's also worth noting, that a study of the most prosperous countries in the world in 2013 placed 8 monarchies in its top 10 - if anything, it seems to show Monarchy enhances a country's growth!The Monarchy does a lot for the international image of the UK, ask any country's citizens what they think of The Queen and they're often very keen to praise her steadfastness and dedication to the country. Ask them about a president's (or even our own Prime Minister's) qualities and the best you're likely to get is an ambivalent response.And, quite simply, in the words of the late Baroness Thatcher, "Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians."
Britain should retain its Constitutional Monarchy.

In conclusion, the Monarchy represents something much more than any president could ever represent. It is both a direct link to history and at the same time, a direct link with the people.The affection the Monarchy retains with the British people if phenomenal. In 2012, 1.2 million people lined the River Thames in the pouring rain just to catch a glimpse of The Queen and the Royal Family. Many people say the Monarchy's dying out, but I disagree - in these uncertain times, when trust in politicians is at an all time low and when more than ever we need someone to embody and represent the true meaning of Britishness, we have that in The Queen.In some countries, they favour flags, anthems and animals as national symbols. Ours, however, is a living, breathing Monarch and this is another thing that is so appealing about Monarchy - it binds the country together - and everyone can unite behind The Queen, regardless of which political party you support.Presidents come and go and politics change, but one thing that remains constant, both in the affection she holds and the steadfastness she demonstrates, is that of The Queen. And for those reasons, Long may she reign!
Don"t "Support the Troops"

you r the werst kind of American. You're lack of sipport for our troops is diskusting, and this kind of trectchery should be hung. Okay, I can't keep typing like that, and for those confused, that was a bit of a joke. I can fully appreciate the position that our Instigator has taken up, but I am confident that in the course of our short exchange, I will be able to demonstrate why 'bumbpersticker' patriotism is in fact a good thing. We as Americans don't to 'moderation' very well. Pretty much all of preferences and choices get put into black and white (red vs blue/dem vs Rep/lib vs con) dichotomy. We can't even just buy and support sensibly a gaming console! We have it ingrained, culturally that you can't just like something to like something, your choice represents your very fiber of person, and judgement would come from being a Bud or Miller drinker. The one thing that we do agree on, though, would be our fighting men and women. They embody what our country was founded on. Those whom would volunteer, fight and die to ensure our way of life (no matter how screwed up it is, some times) is protected. That is a purity that rings true even in the most contrived of simple statements, and it doesn't take much personal investment to understand why, considering our manic tastes in decisions. In the opening statements presented by our Instigator, he demonstrates exactly why some one SHOULD support the troops: "A couple of months ago, Congress debated whether to it was sound from an economic perspective. This made me even more cynical, especially from my own party, the Republican Party". It now falls to us as informed and patriotic Americans that those whom would consider debating this are put to pasture for not following even the most simple of statements that it fits on a bumper sticker: support the troops. That kind of simplicity sticks around. That is the kind of 'sound bite', and in the good way, that every American can rally behind, and vote on without a guilty conscience, or worry that some how their moral fiber is judged differently than their personal views on Coke or Pepsi. That kind of simple patriotism, I think, is the kind we need; the kind that doesn't take a re-actionary knee jerk event to get in gear. Thank you for a challenging subject.
Don"t "Support the Troops"

Don’t “Support the Troops” Two essential points to note before accepting the debate: First: I am a vet and generally support US military policy Bracketed comments below non-essential you can skip to Second [I wanted to state that before I got some gung-ho Rambo type character whose only use of an assault weapon is to kill bambee and animals that any real hunter would use a bow on. I did not want a “well if you don’t support the troops you support terrorists argument.” Let me say I have supported a couple dozen, a couple dozen of dead ones we used as shrapnel shields on occasion. Hell, their good listeners too. I should apologize for the morbid sense of humor, don’t let it influence the argument that follows] Second: Why is “Support the Troops” in quotations? To be clear, I am against support bumper-sticker patriotism. It will help if you read my first round argument given below to get an idea of what I mean specifically. This is important to read I would think before accepting the other side. So I want to make clear from the outset, I am not anti-US military. Quite the opposite, I served. However, I cannot stand the people that come up to me and other veterans I know and say “thank you for your service” or when I see in rural towns “support the troops” or something like that because all I can think is could someone surpass the absolute meaninglessness of that statement. Most people I do understand just say this kind of thing reflexively and they are trying to be nice but the pro-military chest thumping, flag waving, and dick waving only last with any real meaning at the beginning, not when the war winds down. Personally, I had insurance through my wife’s business when I returned home from Iraq so I was in dire need of VA care. But I know a lot of guys missing eyes, large portions of their face, legs, genitals and some have been treated well under the VA but the real issue is VA funding. A couple of months ago, Congress debated whether to it was sound from an economic perspective. This made me even more cynical, especially from my own party, the Republican Party. I would like to see Mitch McConnell and his staff thrown into combat, lose some limbs and then find out their congressional healthcare was inadequately funded and would include long wait times like I’ve witness occur with some of my buddies. In my opinion, people should buy bumper stickers that say F’ the Troops with a member of Al Qaeda urinating on American flag. If enough people bought those stickers, veterans might actually see support for veterans and not just for a war. Rules BOP is 50/50 I know some people don’t like only two rounds but I prefer it plus I allowed the maximum characters permitted.
Do Internet and Social Networking cause more good than harm

This is a great argument. But please make it more than 1 round. :It's stressful. 2:It reduces productivity. 3:It costs money -- and it going to start costing much more as sites find new ways to monetize. 4:It has become noise and clutter, not communication. 5:It reduces creativity. 6:It's no longer real. Quote from http://www.huffingtonpost.com... "Do you really have 87,000 "followers" on Twitter who respond when you suggest they take action? Do you even have 500 close "connections" on LinkedIn who would take your call tomorrow? How many of your 18,237 "friends" on Facebook would recognize your name if they saw it on a billboard?" http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... Social networks are being used as a weapon against people. "Over 80 percent of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the most popular form of technology and a common medium for cyber bullying About half of young people have experienced some form of cyber bullying, and 10 to 20 percent experience it regularly" https://www.dosomething.org... 1: Nearly 43% of kids have been bullied online. 1 in 4 has had it happen more than once. 2: 70% of students report seeing frequent bullying online. Filling up your friends' Facebook feeds with positive posts instead of negative ones can boost school-wide morale. Start a Facebook page for students to submit positive acts they see in school to promote a culture of positivity on and offline. Sign up for Positivity Page. 3: Over 80% of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the most common medium for cyber bullying. 4: 68% of teens agree that cyber bullying is a serious problem. 5: 81% of young people think bullying online is easier to get away with than bullying in person. 6: 90% of teens who have seen social-media bullying say they have ignored it. 84% have seen others tell cyber bullies to stop. 7: Only 1 in 10 victims will inform a parent or trusted adult of their abuse. 8: Girls are about twice as likely as boys to be victims and perpetrators of cyber bullying. 9: About 58% of kids admit someone has said mean or hurtful things to them online. More than 4 out 10 say it has happened more than once. 10: Bullying victims are 2 to 9 times more likely to consider committing suicide. 11: About 75% of students admit they have visited a website bashing another student. Sources Here is a site if you wish to add to this. http://www.debate.org... sources: http://www.debate.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://www.dosomething.org...
Feminism is Not Helpful in our Society

I thank albina for letting me debate her in her first debate! I accept the debate. Before I pass the round to Pro I shall set some definitions so we find common ground: Feminism: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities :The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes :organized activity in support of women's rights and interests (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Helpful: of service or assistance : useful (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) our: of or relating to us or ourselves or ourself especially as possessors or possessor, agents or agent, or objects or object of an action (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Society: a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) (We can do another definition of society if you wish-I'm only assuming this is the definition you meant in the context of the debate. There's just so many!) Rules: Pro's BoP is to affirm the resolution by proving that Feminism is Not Helpful in our Society. Con's BoP is to negate the resolution by proving that Feminism is Helpful in our Society. With that, let the debate begin!
The Leben

I figured if these groups are going to continue, might as well join in so,WELCOME TO THE LEBEN.For this group, to show yourself as a member, change your profile picture to the one I have.http://www.debate.org... beliefs of this group are,To uphold the right to lifeProlifeAnti EuthanasiaAnti Death PenaltyBesides these, members are encouraged to have any veiws what so ever, and to debate over even the core beliefs within the group to sharpen skills. Members are required to follow and uphold DDO's rules and terms of use.If one chooses to accept this debate, it will be over the usefulness of any groups on this site, and con will be against any groups existing on this site.You can still join if you agree with at least three core values of four, but under that circumstance you need to challenge me to a debate on the area of disagreement. Benefits to the Leben include I will accept any debate I am challenged to by members even if I disagree with the position, and I am willing to judge debates as I have voting privileges. Once we have at least four members we will start hosting tournaments and will hold elections to determine the leader.
Convert the penny!!!

For those interested, Professor Raymond Lombra from Pennsylvania State University published an analysis on the economic effects of eliminating the penny. The article is entitled "Eliminating the penny from the U.S. coinage system: An economic analysis." This article was published in the Eastern Economic Journal, 2001, vol. 27, pages 433-442. Here is a link to the article for those that wish to read it: http://findarticles.com... In this article he shows that the rounding tax is not a myth, contrary to what my opponent has claimed. He furthermore demonstrates that it would be an economic disaster. And unlike the article by Robert Whaples, this one appears in a peer-reviewed journal. In almost any field, a peer-reviewed article is given much more credence than an article that is not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, he describes the methods and provides data. This is something that is conspicuously absent from Whaples' article. The penny must be kept!
Convert the penny!!!

So, we agree making the penny costs the government money. Your only objection is the rounding tax argument. But, the rounding tax is a myth. Robert Whalpes, an economist at Wake Forest, studied almost a half a million transactions and found that the number of times consumers would lose change, is equal to the amount of times they would gain change. We can see this logically as well. When I buy something, there is an equal chance that it comes out to any random amount of change. So, over the course of multiple transactions, the gains and losses even out. So, without the rounding tax, there are no plausible issues with converting the penny. We don't have the $3 billion cost to consumers, but we do lose the $150 million per year cost of manufacturing our nuisance coins.
Convert the penny!!!

The proposal to eliminate the penny has been a major issue ever since its cost of production exceeded its value. You claim that it currently costs 1.3 cents to make a penny. The numbers I've seen were a bit lower, stating that it costs around 1.23 cents. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the penny's cost of production does indeed exceed its value. The negative seignoirage value does cost the government money in terms of producing the penny. However, the economy is not solely, nor even mainly based on the cost of producing legal tender. The economic consequences of eliminating the penny would be disastrous, and in comparison to the possible and probable effects on the economy, the loss of $150 million in production is a minor one. The elimination of the penny would consequently make the lowest possible unit of currency 5 cents. This would lead to an adverse effect on consumers. When a purchase is made and the sales tax added, the final number would not be rounded up to the penny, but rather the nickel. This leads to a negative effect on consumers. This "rounding tax" as many economists call it, would lead to a cost of approximately $3 billion over the course of five years according to some numbers. This is much higher than the $750 million lost to producing a coin with a negative seignoirage value for a time span of five years. The penny must be retained for the good of the overall economy. The cost of production is minor compared to the consequences.
Convert the penny!!!

The United States Government should stop produce current Jefferson nickels and replace them by making Lincoln pennies worth 5 cents and cease a $.01 piece of currency. Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel. Seignoirage allows the government to profit off of minting currency, but only when the coin costs less to produce than its value. For instance, the $20 bill costs about 4 cents to make. Due to the negative seignoirage value, the creation of nickels and pennies adds to the federal deficit by a considerable amount. We produced over 7 billion pennies and 1 billion nickels, COSTING the government and taxpayers over $150 million. By stopping the production of Jefferson nickels and substituting them with Lincoln pennies, the cost of the new Lincoln nickels drops 6 cents and halts the production of approximately 6 billion coins, greatly reducing cost. I'm happy to address further concerns in the next round.
If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

Dovewing5, you make some excellent points. Some people are so consumed with life, pre-occupited with their own affairs, barely managing to get by that we can't expect everyone to actively make the world around them better. But it's still the responsibility of those that have the excess time to think about these matters, the money and quality of life to get out into the world to help others to convince these people that they should create unnecessary burden on others, that they should help others when the opportunity presents itself in a matter that wont overburden them, but that will uplift the people around them that seriously need it. Chariatableness, nieghborliness reinforces a sense of mutual caring in a community; it reinforces social bonds and reduces combativeness.A community made up of people that look after each other, that promotes mutual joy among all its members is one that will be more civil, more comfortable, and experience less violent. Why retaliate against somone in your neighborhood physically when they genuinely want to be your friend and help you in your time of need?Yeah, creating a world where Justice, equality, fairness are applied, opportunities are given, everyone is educated, diseases are annihilated, and violent conflict is eliminated requires everyone to contribute a part, but in a way that will benefit them and the community, not hinder them or rob of daily vital resources.The truth is it benefits everyone to be kinder, more nieghborly, more chariatable because optimizes mutual joy, peace, and civil comfort. Things like public anger and outbursts, individual withdrawal (from a community), outright greed and unfriendliness increases mistrusts, combativeness, crime, and violence - and this effects the mood of a community, nation in negative way.It benefits all of us to promote the better aspects of human behaivor, such as Equality under the Law, Civil Rights, access to a great education and to good healthcare, and to encourage neighborliness and charity. Not doing so promises to many problems!