BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should School Employees Recieve Firearms Training

First, I must ask Con if they infer that I do not care about the safety of the children. I don't believe that is so, but I can see how others may get that impression from their wording. To clarify, I have a younger sister who is approximately 18 years younger than I am, and, while not the same as a child, gives me a window into which I can understand how passionately parents try to protect their children. That said, I still insist that I am attempting to have this debate without emotional appeals. (On that note, I ask Con for a declaration clarifying their intent.) Agreed, a school is a place for education. Yet to assume that teachers, principals or any other hired security couldn't keep their firearms out of the hands of someone without facts is based only on that assumption. Police, security etc wear their guns openly in crowded situations and yet incredibly rarely are they disarmed. They lack the knowledge of their peers, and therefore are unlikely to see an attack coming. Teachers and school administrators are already trained for warning signs of violence and bullying, adding training to be aware of firearms would be simple. This, of course, assumes that a teacher in every classroom wears their weapon openly, which is not a solution I've ever heard or advocate. The school shooting tragedies we have seen involved either the shooter buying the guns themselves or stealing them from parents or other relatives. This includes schools that already have armed security, and Con's projection has never happened. Finally, Con's argument about CCW holders is a bit confusing to me, and I'm sorry if I misunderstand. If I do understand it, Con argues that I advocate expanding CCW holding for employees in any crowded situation. On a personal level, I do, within reason. However, that is a different debate, and I'd be glad to have it later. As for bullied children being the source of the violence, this is a red herring. Though it is a source of some of the most egregious mass shootings, it is far more likely to lead to suicide. This is also tragic, but on a smaller scale. Again, I must stress that, according to my knowledge and Google search, Con's fear of a child overpowering an armed adult, taking their gun and killing others, has never happened. I'm open to revise my argument if Con can show occurrences of this in a school, but as of now I can't see that as a valid argument, merely conjecture.
Should School Employees Recieve Firearms Training

A school is a place for education, and putting guns in school would disrupt any students ability to enjoy learning. Having someone with a gun in school would make people more anxious or worried about what might happen. Plus, guns are the problem in the first place, so why would you give a school one more thing to deal with other than what schools were built for. Who's to say that kids can't play around or teachers can't get upset. Most kids don't think about consequences when they do something, so take that into consideration. I'm going to go a little off topic here but it is to make a point. Most people by now have heard of the bullying problem that we have in the United States, it is bad to the extent that there is now a movie about it. 77% of students in the U.S. have admitted to being bullied (http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...), so what happens when 1 child out of however hundred million that's having a problem takes the gun and decides to either take their life or someone else's? Kids can be very unstable at times, and that's one reason why they're at school. Protection of people in general is something we all want regardless, but if you want guns to be in schools for the protection of people, it seems ridiculous that you wouldn't rather show an employee of a more populated area how to shoot a gun, say an employee from a workplace or public area? If say 90 per 8 million (deaths to licensed concealed weapons carriers) is a viable trade, then why wouldn't you take a chance to lower it by protecting more people at a time. Pro, in your first argument you did not mention kids being a reason that you wanted guns in school, so I have to assume you are bias because of your mother being in a school environment. I have nothing against that, but if that's the main reason you want to make kids and teachers worry about being attacked or harmed everyday they go to school, I can understand.
The best way to hold a government to account is to implement a constitution.

There are lots of ways to keep governments accountable. By itself, Supporting "a constitution" as the "best" way is to "hold to account" "a government" is hard: --does the quality of the constitution matter? --does it matter who writes the constitution? Or how it is written? --does it matter what type of government the constitution governs (ie Democracy, Socialist, Theocracy, Etc. )? --does it matter how big the populace of the government? --how do I know what accountable looks like? --how do you measure "best"? Low cost, Low crime, High morale, Least involvement by the population, Etc, Etc? Beyond the basic difficulty of your task, You have gone several steps farther toward impossible: --you say an unwritten constitution counts (what's the value of an unwritten constitution? ) --you confound the terms "constitution, " "rules, " and "laws" I recommend you start by focusing the scope of your argument to something beginning to look manageable. Then you need to spend a good deal of time defining all the terms we'll need. But, Hey, I'm flexible. I'll take whatever you give me. Good luck on your first debate!
Random stuff

sad lol my story: It was 2020 and the United States HAD to go to war with Canada. President Queer wanted to expand Alaskan territory into Yukon territory. So, he sent secretly sent the half of the military including vehicles to Alaska to prepare for war. Its crazy how Prime Minister Uglyfaggeo literally had a meeting with Mr. Queer last week over The Mexican immigrants. Prime Minister Uglyfaggeo said in an interview that he trusts America, but that didn't last long. 2 days after that interview, President Queer hired 5 gunmen to make congress declare war. sadly, they hung him from a roller coaster 17 minutes after he told the American people about the war and the Canada government. 11 minutes after congress died, that son of a gun president dropped Tadadaada on Ottawa to make it official. Tadadaada is an Atomic Bomb. Simutaniously, the military in Alaska raided Yukon and terrorized the people there. The remaining military back home invaded Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Many Americans were scared and started enlisting in the army after Mr. Queer sent a nuke to New York pinning it on the Canadians. I was a fool for believing that idiot and enlisted in the military. I joined Phantom Squad immediately after 3 months of training. Just a month before this crazy stuff went down, I went to Canada for a 3 day trip, Now I'm invading it. At Fort Turnup, Michigan, General Sluto gave us our first assignment. Our Job was to capture some Guy named Emil who was in an underground bunker with his own little army. When we flew into Ottawa, it was devastating. Citizens fighting soldiers, soldiers fighting for the prime minister, and a destroyed city. We landed across the street from Quarry Park. It was turning night so we had to move fast. As we entered Quarry Park, we tried looking for the entrance into the bunker but couldn't find it. I them leaned against a tree which opened up mysteriously. Since it was dark in there, my team and I turned on our night vision goggles and equipped silencers for our Bushmaster ACR. When we entered the bunker, we heard chatter coming from the left. They were talking about sending Emil to an exfil for pick up. I shot the guy on the left as my comrade got the other one. We continued down the corridor. At the end of the corridor was a huge bullet proof door most likely holding Emil. Next to the door was a vent leading into the chamber. My two team mates, Parvert and Luzer went in the vent while Frazer and I went through the door. We flash banged the enemy and quickly shot everyone except Emil. I accidentally shot Emil after a Boeing plane went down above us. As we were escorting the HVT (High Valued Target) out of the bunker, Jesus struck the Earth killing everyone except me because I was wearing a Flak Jacket. :) THE END......................................................................................................
Random stuff

Interesting story round... It all started when Canada and Brazil made the finals of the 2196 FIFA World Cup. The score was tied 1 - 1 after John from Canada scored a header at the 7th minute into the game then F"na from Brazil scored on a free kick at the injury time before half time. The clock was ticking down and 5 minutes were left till it went into over time. And so it did. Canada and Brazil were going back and forth attacking, defending, receiving yellow cars and red cards. But at the end the ball either missed narrowly or was blocked. One time, brazil shot - it was a sure goal - but their own team block their shot giving Canada hope to survive. Then it happened, Canada received a red card and Brazil received a penalty kick. F"na was taking the kick. He shot at the mid left of the net but miraculously, the ball curved 249 degrees and went past Brazil goal line for the corner kick. 8 seconds left, Canada took the corner kick then emil 1 (that's me) bicycle kicked the ball just slightly of the goalie's head and won the World Cup for the first time. After they, received the trophy, the Canadian players (except me) were shot, killed and all of the sudden the world blew up and I was the only person to live. That is how humanity ended (except for me).
Random stuff

Lets start with the boring story round... One upon a time, a guy was riding his horse. He was riding fast and then he was riding slow. He was drinking tea with his horse. He was playing with his horse. Then his horse grew up. So did the guy. They grew together as buddies. They married and had kids. Then their kids, kids married, then their kids, kids married, then their kids, kids married, then their kids, kids married, then their kids, kids married, then their kids, kids married, then their kids. kids married, then their kids, kid married. But everyone die because Earth blew up because overpopulation of horses and humans, then they happily died for ever. The end.... (lets see yours)
Because he was born in Canada, Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States

Saying, "not everyone that acquires citizenship via naturalization at birth is a natural born citizen," does not make that assertion true. It is in fact blatant nonsense. There would need to be explicit language stating that in certain circumstances (such as being born outside of the country) those who gain citizenship at birth are not natural born citizens. Otherwise the plain sense meaning of the language is that those who receive citizenship at birth are natural born citizens. Congress can change who receives citizenship at birth. They expand or decrease who is born into citizenship. What they cannot and have not done is change the meaning of "natural born citizen." A natural born citizen is one who receives citizenship at birth. To change this requirement for the presidency would require a constitutional amendment, which obviously has not happened. In quoting Blackwell Pro appears to be taking English law and reasoning when helpful to his case, but rejecting it when detrimental to his case. Ultimately though it is unimportant. English law can be helpful for interpreting American law, but it is not American law. The American constitution states that to be president someone must be a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is someone who gained his or her citizenship at birth, and we have no strong reason to interpret the words as anything other than their plain meaning. Ted Cruz gained his citizenship at birth. He is, by definition, a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to be president.
Because he was born in Canada, Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States

Our disagreement seems to be about what makes a natural born citizen. Pro"s argument is that a natural born citizen must be born within the bounds of the United States, while I contend that being born to parents who are American citizens makes that person a natural born citizen. First let me point out that the plain sense meaning of a "natural born citizen" is that the person is a citizen at birth instead of becoming a citizen later in life. There is no question that a person born to American parents is an American citizen at birth, regardless of where that person was born. So Pro is arguing against the plain sense meaning of the language. Pro will need to provide indisputable evidence that the intended meaning is something other than the plain sense meaning of the words. Since Pro brings up English Common Law, I will point out that William Blackstone"s work Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II is often considered an authority on the topic. Blackstone wrote, "any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council" that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council." http://www.constitution.org... Note the explicit statement of "unless bon to English parents." So Blackstone points out that being born to English parents qualifies a person as a natural born citizen of England under English law. Beyond this, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" commented on this. While recognizing that a person born within the borders of a country would have the strongest ties to the nation Madison said, "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage;" http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu... So the plain sense meaning of the words, the reliance on English law, and the Father of the Constitution all point to idea that a natural born citizen is one who is a citizen at birth. That includes anyone born to American parents regardless of their location, such as Ted Cruz.
Because he was born in Canada, Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States

We agree that Ted's mother is a citizen, and by all reports a natural born citizen. We agree on the qualifications for president, including that the President is required to be a "natural born citizen. The reference you make to "Harvard Law Review" is, instead, a reference to the informal blog maintained by the Harvard Law Review. The Clement/Katyal post actually appears on the Harvard Law Review Forum. [There is some possibility that, we the HLR a human person, your argumentative assertion of it would constitute a pro hominem, which, as you know, is a logical fallacy. A thing is so, or it is not. It logic is not buttressed by invocation of a person of particularly stellar reputation.] The Clement/Katyal post contains several errors, miscalculations, and erroneous conclusions. Those are identified with particular detail here: http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com.... Of most important concern is the error made by Clement/Katyal regarding reliance on English Statutory Law as well as English Common Law to provide meaning to the Constitution. The thirteen States, upon independence, enacted Reception Statutes, or by state constitution or judicial decision, to adopt ENGLISH COMMON LAW as the rule of decision in legal matters. English Statutory Law (a frequent source of irritation in the relation between the colonies and Parliament (Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Townsend Act, Quartering Acts) was not received. Moreover, the Supreme Court, while regularly evaluating the language of the Constitution through the lens of English Common Law, has not likewise relied on English Statutory Law. Clement/Katyal, however, need English Statutory Law for their task. English Statutory Law included provisions enacted by Parliament making persons born outside the realm natural born, in order to insure hereditary succession to titles and property precisely because ENGLISH COMMON LAW excluded from natural born status any person born outside the realm. Congress, in the 1790 Naturalization Act, attempted, like Parliament, to impose overseas citizenship, and has done so subsequently in other versions of the Naturalization Act. Congress cannot enact a law except by the authority granted in the Constitution. It is a Legislative Body of limited and defined power. So, to successfully make persons born outside the boundaries of the United States "natural born citizens," Congress would have to have a ground in the Constitution. What ground in the Constitution allows Congress to change the meaning of constitutional language? None. What ground of the Constitution might Congress assert as the ground for such a provision of law? The Naturalization Power. What is the Naturalization Power of Congress? That Clause, US Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8, Congress has power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization." If Congress is employing the Naturalization Power to inflate "natural born citizen" with sufficient space to make foreign born children of citizens, then these are Naturalized citizens, not natural born citizens.
Because he was born in Canada, Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States

This looked like an easy win, so I thought I would take it. Ted Cruz"s mother, Eleanor Wilson Cruz, was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She is a natural born American citizen. http://www.salon.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... According to Article II of the US constitution, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;" https://www.law.cornell.edu... According to the Harvard Law Review, "All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time." http://harvardlawreview.org... A person is US citizen at birth if he or she "had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of [his or her] birth." http://www.uscis.gov... So: 1. Only a natural born citizen may be president of the USA. 2. A natural born citizen is someone who was citizen from birth. 3. A person is a citizen at birth if either or both of his or her parents where citizens at the time of his or her birth. 4. Ted Cruz"s mother was a citizen at the time of his birth. Therefore: 5. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president of the USA.
Because he was born in Canada, Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States

1. Only a natural born citizen may serve as president. 2. No separate provision of the Constitution defines the phrase "natural born citizen." 3. The 13 States that created the central government by their ratification of the Constitution adopted English Common Law for the decision of legal questions. 4. The Supreme Court has said that reference should be had to English common law in understanding the language and principles of the Constitution. 5. Under English Common Law one had to be born in the territorial boundaries of England to be considered natural born; thus, in the 13 independent States and in the general government that they created, one had to be born within the territorial boundaries of the independent States or the subsequent Union, to be considered a Natural born citizen. 6. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. 7. Ted Cruz is ineligible to be elected President
what is the funniest yo mamma joke.

Yo momma's so big, that they had to change "One size fit's all" to "One size fits most" Yo momma's so big, when she went to the airport and said she wanted to fly they stamped Goodyear on her and sent her out to the runway. Yo momma's so big, when I fingered her I lost a watch and two rings! Yo momma's so big, when she goes in the water at the beach she changes the tide. Yo momma's so big, when she stands up the sun goes out.
what is the funniest yo mamma joke.

Yo mama's so stupid she climbed over a glass wall to see what was on the other side. Yo mama's so stupid she tripped over a cordless phone. Yo mama's so stupid that when the computer said press any key to continue, she smashed it because she couldn't find the "any" key. Enjoy again! And all these jokes are pulled from my brain...no plagiarism involved.
what is the funniest yo mamma joke.

Yo momma's so ugly when she walks down the street in September, people say "Dang, is it Halloween already?" Yo momma's like a TV, even a 2 year old could turn her on. Yo momma's like 7-Eleven... open all night, hot to go, and for 89 cents you can get a slurpy. http://insults.net...
what is the funniest yo mamma joke.

I will post 2 or 3 jokes at a time because I have so many funny ones in my bag. Yo mama's so fat that when she went to the beach she was the only one who got a tan! Yo mama's so fat that when she wore a jacket with an X on it a helicopter tried to land on her back! Yo mama's so ugly that when she entered an ugly competetion she was told, "Sorry! No professionals!" Hope you enjoy!