BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be legal

Ask yourself this: Is marriage an institution of the church or the state? Marriage is part of church. When you get married you make a commientment to god and a oath. Rebuttal 1: First of all the Catholic Church should have soveirgenty. Second of all the United States was built by founding fathers who believed in God and God had a lot of to do with everything around us. Second of all the church should not influence what the legislative but I just suggest that. This is a free society but their is boundarys. If this is just mainly free then everything should be legal then shouldn't it? We make laws to maintain order and to keep society going on the right direction. Rebuttal 2: Homosexual couples could not have a baby anyways so they have to adopt. And having kids in need wouldn't happen if boneheaded people who have kids do not care for them, who cant support them and decided to have sex and etc. There is no tests or studies but that is just science, you do not need to do it. Just ask people with gay parents. I know a few that i dont really talk to much but they seem misearable. They are gothic, and those lost souls out there. I feel bad for them. And a man is what protects the child and a woman is what natures it. BTW... I am a social conservative-republican and I hope you the party has shifted in recent years.
Gay Marriage should be legal

In a FREE society, things go far past what people should do, and are represented by what they can do. And yes... Republican... I hold the values and principles the Republican Party were founded on... But you wouldn't know those would you? You just know what you're told, while i've majored in History and Political Science. I've also been a Republican all my life, am a active member of my local party, and already have everything set up for me to be a delegate at the RNC. Now, back on my marriage subject... Ask yourself this: Is marriage an institution of the church or the state? Some will say both, but most if not all will say that is a spiritual union and contract deriving from god and church. The state's contractual involvement is limited to property and children. The two arguments given by anti-gay marriage individuals involve both contracts. Argument 1: God is strictly against Homosexual behavior and marriage, thus gay marriage should be outlawed. Argument 2: The children of homosexual marriages would be confused and suffer. Rebuttal 1: As an institution of the church it is a church's decision weather or not a marriage should be allowed within that church and that church alone. Banning gay marriage at the state or federal level is no different of a situation than legislation being passed that forces churches to marry homosexuals. Both outsource church choice and both further destroy church sovereignty. The state also has a duty to acknowledge any contract made by any two individuals or group of individuals as long as all parties agree to that contract and no party was coerced into that contract. In a truly free society, two individuals could make a contract to fight to the death that would bar the victor of criminal repercussions… But sadly we live in so such society. Also, the bible involves mans relationship with god and not mans influence on man. Christians are supposed to be a shining light for people and not their tyrannical moral enforcement. If a person or a group of people decide to go against god's will and get married or marry homosexuals… They have that god given right to do so… Rebuttal 2: This is possibly the silliest argument ever… First of all, children are much smarter that we give them credit for and often accept situations long before stubborn adults will. Second, you will find that homosexual couples adopt and take care of mentally disabled children more often than heterosexual couples. A solution to a very sad problem? And last there are no studies whatsoever proving that children of homosexual parents end up being somehow scarred. It is simply unproven fear propaganda. BTW... Real republicans don't support Taxes like the National Retail Sales Tax or the Flat Tax... mostly because it is the closest thing to a progressive tax you can get to without having a progressive tax... It is socialist, and communist. The true Republican position isn't one tax or the other, it is no tax. Also, True republicans, are not for Social Programs and Social Security, nor are they for war... Because War is the Health of the State, and this party was founded in strong Anti-statist ideas...
I will lose this debate.

Ha, yeshh. I am also a goofy goober. But for me it is a lose-lose situation. If the votes say that I win then I lose the argument. If the votes say I loose then I win the debate. The only way you can win is if we tie. I know, it is complicated, but it makes sense in a weird way. i have mispelt wordz as well AND bad grammer. I WONT HOLD MY SELF TO GOOD CONDUCT ETHER!!!! YOU POOOPY HEADR.... this will be interesting.
I will lose this debate.

Seems like either a very crafty way to win a debate for the Pro but I shall have fun with this nonetheless... I accept this debate because I believe you will win this debate. How do I know? Because I have already decided to forfeit the next 2 rounds....... If i forfeit then i will have no arguments and you would win. If you to decide to forfeit each round as well, then the result would be a tie but you still would not lose the debate Im a goofy goober yeah :)
Convicted criminals should all be chipped

Since the recidivism rate for paroled criminals is 87%, we should implant micro chips in all criminals before being released from jail. This way when they commit a crime again, we can speed up the court process by being able to show through GPS that yes that person was there during the crime, also bail bondsman would not be needed as we could locate the criminal right away with a simple Ipad or laptop. Jails do not rehabilitate criminals, it's just a place for criminals to get together and scheme up new criminal plans and make new contacts for when they get out. We put criminals in jail to get them away from the rest of society but after they serve their time they are back to their same ways again. By micro chipping the criminal we can at least round them up a lot faster, just like how we chip our cats and dogs if they get lost. I think this is a great idea, if you don't agree tell me why
We need school uniforms

Opinion: Uniforms should not be allowed in the AISE. Source #1: Students will focus in class and they won"t be interrupted by what others are wearing. Facts: Normal clothes interrupt students and they will concentrate on their clothes than on their learning Source #2: Students will get better grades and they will be successful Facts: Uniforms makes students look unique Source #3: It is easy to know students belong to which school from their uniforms Facts: Uniforms are helpful Opinion: Uniforms aren"t comfortable Source #1: Most people think they are baggy and they don"t feel comfortable in the uniforms Facts: Uniforms don"t let kids express their taste in clothes Source #2 Fashion changes every year but uniforms stay the same Facts: If we have uniforms, the models and the colors are the choice of the school administration not us. Source #3: Each school has its own set of uniforms, different colors and models. Facts: Uniforms save time Opinion: It takes no time to get ready for school in the morning when one is wearing a uniform Source #1: Uniforms don"t change and are bought at the start of the year Facts: Uniform shops are open before school starts and students buy a stock that will last for the full year Source #2: Some items of the uniform can be worn more than once Facts: Jackets and pullovers don"t have to be washed every day Source #3: Uniforms save a lot of time for students as they do not have to choose among different items Facts: More time is spent on choosing what to wear during the weekend and holidays
We need school uniforms

1.School Uniforms give children a sense of unity with other students because they all are wearing the same clothes and representing the same school. 2.School uniforms may lower the cases of bullying within schools. In many cases kids are picked on because of the clothes they wear, how they look, or in some cases the materialistic belongings they may or may not have. If all students wear the same thing it would be very hard almost impossible to make fun of someone who is wearing the same thing as you. 3.In lower income communities uniforms could be a good idea because parents wouldn't have to worry about buying brand name clothing for their children and children wouldn't feel pressured to have brand name items to fit in because everyone would have the same clothing as they did. 4. It would diminish peer pressure in regards to having certain brands and would encourage unity. 5. It would allow students to get ready for school faster in the morning because they don't have to worry about what they have to wear. 6. Puts more focus on school work, kids don't have to worry about being trendy, or fashionable or envy the child next to them that has the new popular sneaker they can focus in class on school work and not other distractions such as peers clothing or belongings.
parents don't understand their teenage children

Mia came back from school on as hot July day ,dripping with sweat. she enters the house rushes to her room puts her bag in one corner and her socks and shoes in another and lies down on her bed to catch her breath. her mother comes barging in and says,'you get up and clean up your room at once!' I am also a teenager and have faced the most common teenage problem, clashing understanding with parents. almost every teen I have ever met says that their parents can't understand them or maybe they don't even try to. well, in either of the cases only the teens suffer as it the most important and challenging period of their lives. with the above given example we all can relate maybe it was a long time ago but it was there.
Should we implement a Plastic ban

A plastic ban would be beneficial. More than 300 million tons of plastic are manufactured in the US each year (http://www.answers.com...), which means more than 800,000 tons of plastic are produced on average in one day. Only 10 percent of the plastic is recycled. We have no way to control where all the plastic goes, and, even if we did, we would have no way of getting rid of it, as it can take over 450-1000 years to decompose (https://www.thebalancesmb.com...). I would propose a plan that suggests the US produces 2/3 as much plastic by 2030 (and completely ban plastic bags), then look at what to do then. Notice I am not suggesting a full-on ban, as that would be crazy in some ways. Besides, this ban would also be beneficial to the petroleum industry, as one of the main things petroleum is used for is producing plastic. I know this is a short and perhaps weak argument, but I hope to convince some people of the pros of a plastic ban.
the iphone is better then the droid

Well first off i would like to start by saying i agree with my opponets definitin of better point 1= the droid has a battery life which exceds that of thephone by 1.4 hours. point 2 the iphone cannot muliti task ad the droid can point 3 the droid has a 5.0 megapixel camera while the iphone only has a 3.0 point 4 there are many types of droids to chose from. the droid x has the largest screen out of all the iphones and the droid 2 has a slideing keyboard i thank you for reading and am anticipateing you attacks
the iphone is better then the droid

Greetings fellow debaters and perusers of debates. This is my first debate since the transition to Juggle, so please forgive any rich text errors I make to the formatting. First, I would like to thank shrek65 for starting this debate and allowing me to accept. According to the conditions laid by shrek65, I will begin my argument for the fact that iPhone is in fact, better then the Verizon Droid. 1) bet·ter adj. Comparative of good. 1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality. 2. More useful, suitable, or desirable ____________________________________________________________________ First Point: - The memory capabilities of the iPhone compared to the Droid are 2 and 4 fold larger. ____________________________________________________________________ The Apple iPhone comes normally with a standard factory on-board memory with either 16GB (Gigabytes) or 32 GB. The Droid however, only comes in 8GB, and even with the expandable storage that the Droid offers can still not compare to the iPhone as the total memory once expanded is still only 24GB, less than the iPhone's on-board memory of 32 GB [1 (iPhone) & 2 (Droid)] ____________________________________________________________________ Second Point: - The extras on the iPhone severly hinder the ability of the Droid and its capabilities. ____________________________________________________________________ The Apple iPhone "App Store" allows users to download Applications (Apps) for entertainment purposes, utility purposes or just for organizing for business, leisure, or other need. While the Droid has a similar store, the Android Market, it is only limited to a measly 65,000 available apps. While the App Store, has a wide variety of Apps, in excess of 250,000 available apps. Another capability the iPhone has over the Droid is its ability to make video calls, whereas the Droid still lacks the ability despite having a higher resolution camera. ___________________________________________________________________ I await my opponent's rebuttal so that I may expanse my arguments, and best of luck to you Shrek65. Thank you for reading.
Most Important Battle in History

THE BATTLE OF SALAMIS The Battle of Salamis was without a doubt the most important battle in Western History. The Battle of Salamis was a naval battle between Persia and The Greek city states. Salamis is an island in the Saronic Gulf near Athens and the battle was fought between the straits of Salamis and the mainland. The battle was a part of the ongoing Greco-Persian War. Before the Battle of Salamis, the war was going very poorly for the Greeks. The Greeks had a heroic last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, but they were ultimately defeated. The naval battle of Artesium also ended in a crushing defeat for the Greeks. The Athenians had recognized that if something didn’t change soon, the Persians would overrun and conquer Greece. Famous Athenian general Themistocles brought the Athenian navy to Salamis to engage the Persians one last time in hope of acquiring a crushing victory that might change the course of the war. Greek Forces: 366 – 378 ships Persian Forces: 600 – 800 ships The Persian forces were led by their king Xerxes who was looking forward to a decisive victory, the death blow to the Greeks. He brought his fleet forward and decided to blockade the exit to the straits. Themistocles saw that the move to blockade the strait was a tactical error, considering the amount of ships the Persian had. The sheer number of ships in the small strait led to an inability to manoeuvre the Persian ships properly. The Greek ships formed a single line and sailed into the strait, wreaking massive damage upon the Persian navy. The Greeks lost a total of around 40 ships while the Persians lost over 300. King Xerxes was shocked as he watched his navy be annihilated. The Battle of Salamis was the turning point in the war. He took the majority of his army back to Asia and left the incompetent Mardonius in charge of his remaining force. A year later the remaining Persian army was trumped by the Greeks. The Persians made no further attempts to conquer Greece and conquered Greek lands rebelled against their Persian overlords. Lands such as Thrace, the Aegean Islands, and Macedon freed themselves from the iron grip of Persia. King Xerxes lost all the land he and his father had gained. IMPACT OF THE BATTLE OF SALAMIS The Battle of Salamis was one of the most important battles in Western history. If King Xerxes’s navy wasn’t crushed and he hadn’t taken his army back to Asia, Athens and the rest would have undoubtedly been crushed. If Athens was captured again (it was captured in the First Greco-Persian War), the growth of Western Civilization would have been completely stinted and the course of world history changed. Many ideals of the Western world such as rights, democracy, philosophy, and science were based came from the Greeks. Had the Persians conquered Greece, the Greek culture and ways of life may have been completely crushed, just like in other Persian-occupied areas near mainland Greece. Had this occurred, the course of history would be forever altered and Western civilization possibly non-existent. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...
A man is a Bundle of Emotion

Without emotions, we would be nothing. Emotions are our very core, our drive to achieve, and our passion to excel. Fear. Anger. Sadness. Joy. Love. Disgust. Pride...Without these, we would have no strength. We would not even have ideas, as we would have no wants. We would have no goals, as the feelings of joy and pride that come from achieving those goals would be unattainable. Without the fear of dying, we would have no drive to live. Without anger, there would be no drive to defend ourselves when we're wronged. Without sadness, and disgust, we would not even know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. Without emotion, we could not experience love. We would be nothing. We would be lost.But we are not nothing! We have a drive to live, and to fight for own well being! We know joy! We know pride! We know love! It pushes us forward, and makes us want for more! And so we have ideas. Ideas to make for happier lives. Better lives! Because emotions are life! The very essence of life! They guide us, and we are better off for it!
A man is a Bundle of Emotion

The man is surrounded by multiple ideas that help him to live life beautifully and successful as well in the hustling and bustling world. The man having no idea is called stupid and foolhardy and wicked. He gets no respect and no attention even from the family persons what to say about others in the society. All the time man keeps on thinking and thinking either about his personal life or about family, society, profession, the country etc. he has no time to show emotions towards others. It is no exaggeration to say that in modern world of hurries and worries we don"t know what"s being cooked in neighbors" kitchen. If someone dies in the neighborhood the news we get when we get the formal invitation final rituals. Not only this, we hurriedly pass through the road and see someone died in accident, but we have no time for showing emotions for the fellow. We take it granted that such cases occur regularly. Just remember how we pass through crushing the lamed or disabled person sitting at pathways and footpaths. We even cry slangs on these pathetic fellows. Ideas have made the man to feel proud of his race. It is ideas that have led to climb the skyward mountains, to dive bottomless oceans and fly immeasurable spaces. Emotions beget fears and out of fear such adventurous tasks are impossible. Ideas have brought man from primitive and nomadic stage to a civilized and cultured stage. We have the mechanical facilities that makes the life go smooth and comfortable. Today we boast of high skyscrapers and magnificent buildings, today we boast on sophisticated transportation and info-technology. That is all possible from the grand ideas not frail emotions. Just imagine what we would have been if we had seen emotions and emotions. Emotions make a man weak and a man nothing to do. Emotions are fantasy while ideas are the fact. And everyone knows that fantasy are cheaters
LD Jan/Feb Resolution: U.S. Submitting to an International Court

Alright Crystallize and covering some last issues.... Value: National Security, the Definition my opponent gives is "giving each his due" this in no way protects National Security. National Security is Needed in order to protect the rights of American Citizens which are paramount in U.S policy. Even under Justice I better uphold with my case by ensuring that Americans are given their Due, Protection and rights. Criterion: Realist Pragmatism, This Fits into both my opponents Moral Standpoint in this debate round, as well as my Practical one. So here is how how this weighs out. Whoever has proven the most practical consequences FOR the U.S best upholds Realist Pragmatism. I will show how the NEG outweighs AFF 1. Global Instability-Joining the ICC would mean endangering our troops oversees on peacekeeping or relief missions, such as sudan or Iraq. This mass Withdrawal or Prosecution or U.S troops means Instability in these regions that we have troops, the ICC cannot compensate as it does not have the reach of the U.S or the Hard Power. 2. Abuse- Because this court is self-determinant it is an outlet for abuse. It is Unchecked as I brought up in my NC, and is thus a political danger to the U.S and its Citizens. 3. Lack of Deterrence: ICC does not deter Crimes, Infact submitting would lower the deterrence. This Makes it Anti-Pragmatic to join the ICC. Even if we accept my opponents claim that military deterrence is less moral than the court, it is more effective at giving out Justice, which is the core of my opponents case. 4. The Scooter Libby case(even if it was a CAH) should not be prosecuted by the ICC. The President pardoned him, this is a Constitutional Power guaranteed to the President, and an IGO should not interfere because it would then be destroying the U.S legal system and Denying popular sovereignty. I Urge Negation