BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Our rights exist in every individual and come at no one else's expense

Our rights are inalienable. Inalienable means cannot be transferred nor surrendered except by the person who possesses them. These rights exist in each individual and impose no obligation on others. Life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness Recently, I've been seeing and hearing things that constitute as a total travesty in interpretation. For example, I've been seeing signs saying, "Housing is a Right" in the same breadth as "Save Rent Control." Housing is a right? Not in that context it isn't. They will argue that the right to life includes the right to things necessary to survive: food, clothing, and housing, for example. Now, the argument "Housing is a Right" per se isn't so off, but the way they apply it is. Let me explain: The right to life means all individuals have a right to sustain their life through their own efforts, and no one is allowed to stop anyone else from doing that. In other words, I have the right to earn my food, clothes, and house myself, and no one can forcibly stop me or take those things from me. But here's where their interpretation is way off: They interpret the right to life to mean that my neighbors have to feed, clothe, and house me. If that were the case, then our inalienable right to liberty and property wouldn't exist. If my desire for something imposed a legal obligation on other people, they would have no choice in their lives, and would have no liberty and no right to their property. They would be my slaves
The C.I.S are the goods guys following and during the events of The Clone Wars (Star Wars)

I would like to debate that the Confederacy Of Independent Systems (C. I. S) were actually the good guys during the events of the Clone Wars and that the Republic was actually the side representing a more evil and corrupt faction. My opponent must know what the ideologies behind both the C. I. S and The Republic and have a good amount of knowledge on Star Wars Lore and is taking the side of either the Republic or another faction that existed during The Clone Wars.
the ideals of our founding fathers should not be the basis for how contemporary america is run.

so my opponent practically conceded. we agree on the resolution (the constitution should be rewritten) and the fact that i worded the topic of debate differently than how i had intended. however i stated that i was up for the challenge and chose to stand by the original topic that i had created. my opponent then advised me to word the topic of debate how i actually meant it... which i did, because i said that i will stand by the original topic of debate. then he went on to points "b" and "c" which were basically advising me to be careful how i word future debates. meanwhile, i'm still not sure what the point of this is because i already stated I STICK BY MY ORIGINAL TOPIC. my opponent wrote, "thus the resolution, 'Some of our founding fathers ideals.....' would probably not be taken, except my someone who was pretty sure they would lose." right, but i didn't say SOME of our founding father's ideals. HE said that. look at the topic: i said the ideals of our founding fathers. my opponent was right in round 1 when he said the topic had implied that i meant ALL of their ideals since i did not clarify otherwise. so i stuck by that. what is the point of all this then? in round 2 my opponent offered nothing of substance other then to point out, "that SOME ideals, such as human rights, and personal freedoms stay consistent throughout memorable history. 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' I think these three listed as the inalienable rights of man have not changed over time." right... which is why i said earlier that those rights along with the bill of rights probably would not change much if at all. but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be brought up to discussion and a vote.
the ideals of our founding fathers should not be the basis for how contemporary america is run.

I will stand by my counter advocacy that ""Some ideals of our forefathers have become outdated and should not be the basis for contemporary American society." As far as the what you apparently intended this topic to mean goes, I would agree with you. In fact, I don't see how someone could disagree with you. Times change, people change, everything that worked 250 years ago isn't going to flawlessly work now. If it was we might as well just bag our democratic system, set a rigid principle rubric and never change. However this does not change the fact that SOME ideals, such as human rights, and personal freedoms stay consistent throughout memorable history. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think these three listed as the inalienable rights of man have not changed over time. So I guess my conclusion of this round would be a few things: a. Word your resolution in the exact manner which you mean it, followed by your actual speech. b. Vague resolutions usually will not be taken except on semantics. For instance if you say, "its possible the sky will turn red" no one is going to want to take it for the simple fact that its impossible to advocate against such a possibility. c. Thus the resolution, "Some of our founding fathers ideals....." would probably not be taken, except my someone who was pretty sure they would lose.
the ideals of our founding fathers should not be the basis for how contemporary america is run.

Haha, I find myself in firm negation of the topic above. Let us begin with a study into the topic itself. "our founding fathers" as my opponent has mentioned mean the men who helped to create this country. "should not" the opposite of "should be" in other words my opponent is arguing from an extreme. "the basis"- foundation. "the ideals of"- in this case the ideals is modifying founding fathers. Thus "the ideals" are all the ideals our founding fathers had. In other words my opponent argues that none of the ideals our founding fathers had should be used as a basis for how this country is run. Therefor I am going to be presenting the bill of rights. As these are all ideals of our founding fathers: 1. First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, press, and to peaceably assemble; right to petition. 2. Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms. 3. Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops. 4. Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. 5. Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. 6. Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel. 7. Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. 8. Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. 9. Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. 10. Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people. Those would be the first ten amendments (as copied from Wiki, yay Wiki!) these are the ideals of our forefathers. My opponent is urging that they should not be the basis of contemporary America. If my opponent truly feels none of these amendments should be followed then I urge him/her to show why all 10 should not be followed. Furthermore my opponent makes a few strange statements such as, "republicans are essentially governmental libertarians. however they want to impose the judeo-christian beliefs of our founding fathers into the law. this type of governmental imposition is what our founding fathers were trying to avoid." Apparently in this passage my opponent disagrees with republicans and then cites the founding fathers as a reference. This is an example of my opponent apparently agreeing with an ideal that the founding fathers had. So while I do agree that some of the founding fathers ideals should not be the basis of contemporary society I cannot see where all of them should not be. Thus I advocate: "Some ideals of our forefathers have become outdated and should not be the basis for contemporary American society." Thanks.
the ideals of our founding fathers should not be the basis for how contemporary america is run.

Hmmm..... Most of everything I offered in my last argument was simple advise to my opponent. In some way he construed this to mean that I had conceded the debate, I disagree. In round 2, my opponent states that he agrees with the original topic of debate and goes on to state, "i will state now that i do not agree that ANY (are you happy?) ideals of the founding fathers should be the basis for how contemporary america is run." Thus in my round 2 I disagree with the line, "However this does not change the fact that SOME ideals, such as human rights, and personal freedoms stay consistent throughout memorable history. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think these three listed as the inalienable rights of man have not changed over time." These are some of the ideals of our founding fathers, thus my opponent must advocate that none of them should be the basis for contemporary society. Instead in his round 3 he quite clearly states, "right... which is why i said earlier that those rights along with the bill of rights probably would not change much if at all. but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be brought up to discussion and a vote." Which is perfectly fine, they can be brought up for discussion in vote. This does not change the fact that these ideals of our founding fathers should still be the basis of contemporary society. My opponent admits this when he states that they would probably not change much if at all. Thus I stand in firm negation of the resolution with my counter proposal, "Some ideals of our forefathers have become outdated and should not be the basis for contemporary American society. " Thank you.
in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr

Rebuttal on first claim: what is the bad side of them in the different schools? i don't see enough evidence to support your claim Rebuttal on second claim: what does test scores have to do with being economically mixed? i don't see your point here. Rebuttal on third claim: what about the other grade levels? not just elementary. Do they benefit? i don't see evidence supporting "everyone" kids in higher grade levels qualify as "everyone" too.
in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr

Rebuttal #1: Claim one is not true because your evidence isn"t valid. You said that the government is trying to make parents appeal to judges, but you didn"t say why that was bad. And you also said that parents appealing to judges can help the children by showing the judge that they "care" about their child"s education and it "could help their case at court" Rebuttal #2: Claim two doesn"t have enough evidence because you said parent should have control over where the children should go (which would be the local school with the most social comfortability) but you said schools with the most social comfortability could lead the children "slacking off" Rebuttal #3: claim three isn"t true because your evidence isn"t valid. You claim that charter schools are the best way to fixing education, but there are right and wrong kids for these charter schools. But you never said that all of the "right" kids are going to these charter schools. Also from data found, charter schools don"t do anything but waste more money.
in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr

Answer to question 1: Parents appealing to judges regarding their child"s education might not make it easier for them to go to the school they want but it will show they care about their child"s education and could help their case at court. Answer to question 2: Charter schools don"t solve the problem completely. For some students will perform better to charter schools while others perform better in public schools. Answer to question 3: There is never a right or wrong child for charter schools. Every child is trying to get the same education. The only difference is the ones willing to work and the ones who aren"t. Parents think putting their kids in a charter school makes a difference but in reality it doesn"t because they want to get their kids away from the "bad kids" but the parents of the "bad kids" are thinking the same way so in the end the all end up together. Answer to question 4: Schools with the best social comfortably doesn"t always mean it"s the best type of schools. Kids getting too comfortable could lead to them slacking off on their school work.
in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr

1. Yes being a mixed school can help test scores rise but just because you're a mixed school doesn't mean that your test scores will rise a lot 2. To get into a charter school, it's a lottery and I don't know why, maybe if they aren't applying or if they aren't just getting in but the ESL students aren't going to these charter schools 3. All the poor kids live in poor neighborhoods so there school doesn't get enough money. That being said they're at a disadvantage because they don't get the proper equipment and their education isn't as good
in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr

Questions: 1)Wouldn"t parents appealing to judges make it easier for their children to go to a better school for a better education 2)Are charter schools really the answer to the problem? Do they really help? 3)Are all of the right students going to these charter schools? 4)Do schools with the most social comfortability have the best education for students?
in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr

Claim A: when the government gets involved, bad things happen. -the government is making parents from all races appeal to federal judges to step shifting children, from school to school like pieces of a game board. Schooling should be left up to the communities since they are the ones attending the schools not the government. Claim B: parents should be allowed to make decisions about where to send their kids. -Black parents file a lawsuit against Boston school committee. The parents argued that school committee policies have resulted in the de jure racial segregation of students in Boston public schools and violated the racial imbalance act and their fourteenth amendment. Everyone can receive the same education that being said should be able to attend the school more socially comfortable for them. Claim C: we are already doing things to improve education for individual students in RI. -providence does not need to create a plan to encourage greater economic integration because we have charter schools that are single most cost-efficient way to help. Charter schools give students the opportunity to choose what type of learning they style thinks best fits them. They might be similar to public schools but they have their own special things to offer a student.
in order to improve education in RI, should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic intergr

A.Charter schools have not been a good plan to create equality in RI -All the richer people in central falls go to the charter schools leaving all the poor people in the public school. Also charter schools haven"t taken any esl students. B.Students should be mixed economically just like they were mixed racially by the courts -Cranston east, which is a more mixed racially has better test scores than central who aren"t mixed as good. Schools with a better mix of students tend to have higher test scores and graduation rates. Also the Supreme Court Brown v Board of education desegregated schools by race C.Everyone benefits when rich and poor are mixed Other districts have higher property values. When students with low income from Montgomery county went to wealthier elementary schools they performed better than when they were in ones with higher concentrations of poverty.
Yogi Berra is better than Johnny Bench

Home stretch, last round for both of us. My opponent said last round, "Im done". Now I'm not sure if he gave up. Nevertheless, I will continue to support the fact that Yogi Berra is better than Johnny Bench. Defense: Johnny Bench's career fielding percentage is .990. Yogi Berra's career fielding percentage is .989, just one point lower. Meanwhile, the league fielding percentage for both players were an identical .987 for catchers. So, there isn't much of a difference between the two in fielding percentage. Bench does have a higher range factor per 9 innings (6.27 to 6.00) and a higher range factor per game (5.8 to 5.61), but the league range factor was higher in Bench's era than Berra's. Much higher. The league for Berra only made 5.58 plays per 9 innings and 5.45 plays per game. However, Bench's era made a whopping 6.42 plays per 9 innings and 6.41 plays per game. Bench has a lower range factor than the league while Berra's was higher. So, arguably, Berra is a better defensive catcher than Bench. At the very least, he is just as good. Offense: Berra was a better batter. His batting average is 18 points higher, his OPS 13 points higher. While it is true that Bench played in a bit of a more pitcher's era, Berra's era was more competitive because there were less teams. So all stats are non-misleading. Berra put .269 runs on the scoreboard for every plate appearance while Bench put up only .240. Using a stat called Runs Created which was created by Bill James, it shows Berra is better. Berra created 1265 runs using 5630 outs. Bench created 1239 runs using 5955 outs. Berra creates 6 runs per 27 outs, Bench creates 5.6. Bench struck out 1278 times in 8674 plate appearances Berra struck out just 414 times in 8359 plate appearances. So, Bench struck out 14.733 times per 100 plate appearances while Berra struck out just 4.953 times per 100 plate appearances. Some people think that strikeouts are useless and are no different from other outs. However, it is better to put the ball into play than strikeout, because: 1) You move runners up and create a chance of errors. 2) To put bat on ball means that you have skill. It is easier to strikeout than groundout. While groundballs and flyouts create a chance of the double play, that cannot be held against Berra. In his career, Berra grounded out into 146 double plays. Bench grounded out into 201 double plays. Berra reached benchmark numbers just as well as Bench. Bench mark stat, #of times Berra did it, #of times Bench did it 20 home runs, 11,11 100 RBIs, 5,6 90 RBIs, 9,7 100 Runs, 1,1 90 Runs, 4,2 Batted .300, 3,0 OPS of .900, 2,2 So, Berra is a better batter than Bench. In Conclusion, Berra is a better batter than Bench and is good enough defensively that he is better than Johnny Bench. I want to thank my opponent for a nice debate and he did a good job. Thanks for all the viewers who read this debate and of course, VOTE PRO. Sources: 1) http://m.bbref.com... 2) http://m.bbref.com... 3) http://m.bbref.com... 4) http://m.bbref.com...
Yogi Berra is better than Johnny Bench

My opponent forgot the different eras each player lived in. Yogi Berra played in1946-1965 while Johnny Bench played in 1967-1983. The most amount of teams in the MLB when Yogi Berra played was 16 which hails in comparison to Johnny Bench who played against 16 teams in 1960, than played against 24 teams in 1970, and 26 teams in 1980. This is important because Johnny had to play against tougher competition than Yogi. If we look at the numbers for hitting Johnny Bench lead the league in RBI three times (1970,1972,1974) and in Home runs twice (1970,1972) and in Total Bases once (1974). While Yogi Berra never lead the league in any batting categories. The numbers are so close that it is a real push for either,but when you keep in mind the era difference Johnny Bench as more impressive numbers compared to the competition. Johnny Bench played three years after age 32 and at age 33 we had an injury that affected him for the remainder of his career. While Yogi Berra played 6 years after age 32 and didn't have a shortage of games played until he was 37 that still means he had 5 years to get a gold glove, but didn't. Yogi was a great player in his time, but his time was easier than Johnny Bench's if we take in mind the different era's and the different level of competition. Yogi was great, but Johnny was greater. sources http://www.baseball-reference.com... http://www.baseball-reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Yogi Berra is better than Johnny Bench

Nice quick round from my opponent and I thank you for that. Now it is time for me to start my arguments. My opponent divided Berra's and Bench's stats by amount of years played. That is a terrible idea. While it is true that Berra played 19 seasons and Bench only 17, Bench played his entire career after 1961, which is the first major league expansion. Bench had a chance to play 162 games every season, while Berra could only play 154 games a season except for his last 3 seasons. As a result, Bench actually played more games (2158-2120), had more plate appearances (8674-8359), and more at bats (7658-7555). So, if we average it out for 162 games played per season, the results would be a little bit different. Stat, Berra, Bench Home runs, 27, 29 Rbis, 109, 103 Runs, 90, 82 Batting Average, .285, .267 On base percentage, .348, .342 Slugging Percentage, .482, .476 So, in fact Berra is a better batter than Bench. My opponent was correct when he/she stated that Bench won the Gold Glove Award 10 times while Berra ended up with a fantastic result of zero. However, Berra is at an artificial disadvantage. The Gold Glove was started in 1957, with the AL getting its own award rather than the whole major league in 1958. By 1957, Yogi Berra was already 32 years old. Being a catcher is a hard job. It is the most grueling position on the field. Hall of Fame Catcher, Bill Dickey said it best when he wondered, "why would anyone put on a faceguard, chest protector and shin guards in the middle of the summer?" Gary Carter, another Hall of Fame Catcher tells reporters how tough being a catcher is. Carter had reportedly 9 surgeries to the knees. The point being, playing as a catcher is hard. Very hard. By the time the Gold Glove started, Berra was too old. Yes, he was "only" 32, but to put that in perspective, Johnny Bench didn't win a SINGLE Gold Glove after the age of 32. I'm not saying that it is impossible to win the Gold Glove Award at and after the age of 32, I'm simply saying that it is very difficult to do so. Berra was a fine catcher. He was a team leader, great when working with pitchers and an insanely clutch hitter. He put more runs on the board than Bench and his defense is underrated because he does not have a Gold Glove. He is the best catcher of all time and better than Johnny Bench. Sources: 1) http://m.bbref.com... 2) http://m.bbref.com... 3) "Home Plate Don't Move-Baseball's best quips and quotes"
Yogi Berra is better than Johnny Bench

Yogi Berra is a great player so it Johnny Bench while there numbers are similar they lie a little. Yogi Berra played for 19 years while Johnny Bench played for 17 years. So if we take the numbers below and average them out per year they would look more like this. Stats Home Runs RBI Runs BA OBP Slugging (per year rounding) Johnny Bench 23 81 64 .267 .342 .476 Yogi Berra 19 75 62 .285 .348 .482 The number are pretty split and even. The biggest reason why Bench is better than Yogi Berra is because of Defense Golden Glove is given to the best defensive player at his position. Bench won this award 10 times. Yogi won it 0 times. Yogi was great and would love to have him on my team, but Bench was the greatest. Sources https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.baseball-almanac.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.baseball-almanac.com...