BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The UK should become a Federal Republic.

Argument 1: It still won't be over because Irish people, Scottish people, Welsh people, and English people will still want to be "free" of each other. Like the song you posted, the Irish have been trying to gain independence for 800 years, sock don't think they'll ever quit until Ireland is one country, without any other British influence. I 100% believe it can work . They have been living under the same kingdom for most of history, and right now, not even a majority of Scots want independence. What must secessionists don't realize, is that many Scottish industrys are reliant on Welsh and English companies. That is why the movement has gained little educated support. Argument 2: I agree with you for the most part, but a confederation would work towards giving the states and people many more rights, and federalism would be like the US, but the government is much too powerful there, so federalism will not give as many rights to the people as a confederation will. Federalism does not have to mimic the US. Currently 25 countrys, comprising 40% of the population, are federal entities. Many are very successful, like Canada and Sweden. I want to inform the audience what confederalism actually is. It is an outdated system, that has not been used for 200 years. It involves breaking up a country into seperate states, and making them pledge military allegiance. Within weeks of the US using confederalism under the articles of confederation, mass riots broke out. It is just not a reliable form of governance in the modern age. Confederalism was actually only popular in the Roman era, when tribes would form confederations, but I believe the US was the only western country to try it. . http://www.forumfed.org...http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... I ask the audience to think carefully, as my opponent hasd brought the BOP on himself by introducing a new proposal.
Rick Santorum

Just because the domain name has .org in it doesn't make it reliable, anyone can get a .org domain name. Faith doesn't require proof. The Bible also says that if you get divorced, the woman should be stoned, It says you shouldn't mix fabrics, It says you shouldn't eat shell fish, It says you says you shouldn't boil goat milk. If God is real, then he is unwilling, he is a failure, He doesn't want to help against evil, He made us, then blamed us for what we do. Well, he made us, If he can see things before they happen, why wouldn't he see all the terrible things that happen and prevent them? Cluster migraine are worse then child birth, Therefore I do know the pain woman go through. Rick Santorum constantly changes his mind on opinions. Just because they find supposed pieces from Noah's ark, doesn't prove that God exists. It just proves people believe in him. God is a fantasy.
Rick Santorum

"http://www.allabouthistory.org...... this is a biased christian website, not reliable information from actual historians." First of all it is a reliable source because it's .org. Second of all you haven't argued on my arguments which tells me you can't defend your statement. You haven't mentioned anything about separation of church and state. I have proof that God is real, by giving the source that they found Noah's ark. It is true because it mentions it in the Bible, and it's exact measurement as it's written in the Bible. Do you have proof that God doesn't exist? You also haven't defended your point of how the founding fathers were atheists. I have proof of many of the quotes that the founding fathers said, and every single one mentions God. From the previous round you said this; "I have cluster migraines, also called suicide headaches. They can be worse than child birth, I know what the pain feels like." What does this have to do with abortion, and to prove my point you have never given birth to a child therefore you don't know the pain. Turning back to Rick Sanctorum which you are avoiding. He is a good conservative, his visions of what he want's to do makes perfect sense. He backs up his evidence. He has a great way of explaining his point in such a way that it changes peoples minds. Keep in mind you wanted to debate on Rick Sanctorum and everything he is for. But to point your arguments out; you haven't really talked about his views on what Rick stands. Instead you are focusing on defending the stuff that you believe is wrong.
Rick Santorum

Just because many people believe in something, doesn't make it real. Many people believe in Father Christmas, Does that make him real? It doesn't prove that there is a God, it just proves that people believe in. http://www.allabouthistory.org... this is a biased christian website, not reliable information from actual historians. You can't deny the fact that america is not a christian nation, as I stated last time "The words "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. It was written in 1892. "In God we trust" was added to coins in 1864 and added to paper currency in 1957, replacing "E pluribus unum". The only thing mentioned in the constitution states that the government shall make no law favouriting a religion."
Rick Santorum

"Many founding fathers criticized religion and God, some where even atheists. Some examples are; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine and many more." This is wrong. http://christianity.about.com... "There is no God now, and yet we have religion." (where is the proof) This is proof that God exists. (You can't argue against the news.) http://www.foxnews.com... This is also proof from discovery channel. http://www.arkdiscovery.com...'s_ark.htm Back to the subject of Rick Santorum. Rick Sanctorum is a conservative like me. He believes the same things and issues I believe in. Here is a life history of Rick Santorum. http://www.archives.com... This is a a website that proves your point is wrong; that religion and state should be seperate. (read it before you comment the next argument) http://www.allabouthistory.org...
Rick Santorum

The words "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. It was written in 1892. "In God we trust" was added to coins in 1864 and added to paper currency in 1957, replacing "E pluribus unum". The only thing mentioned in the constitution states that the government shall make no law favouriting a religion. The american government has an archaic control technique that persists even to this day, and is a prime example of how religion hypocritically melds with government. Many founding fathers criticized religion and God, some where even atheists. Some examples are; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine and many more. If you were raped, I guarantee you wouldn't want to have the child. You wouldn't want to go through that pain of child birth. I have cluster migraines, also called suicide headaches. They can be worse than child birth, I know what the pain feels like. There is no God now, and yet we have religion.
Rick Santorum

You obviously don't know your history. The founding fathers found this country on religion. This country began with God being the center. They are trying to separate church and state. But they are supposed to be together. Without God wouldn't have have what we have now. There wouldn't be such thing as religion here. Why do you think they use a bible to swear for people to tell the truth? Because its church and state. Here is a website that talks about separation of state and church in the 1700's which was the start of United States. http://www.christianity.com... Abortion is wrong too. If your mom aborted you you wouldn't be right here debating me. There are alternatives if you want to get pregnant. Or have sex with a guy. You need to understand that There is life in that girls womb, not something to take lightly. i give thumbs up to all those girls who decide to give birth to their baby and give it to the orphanage. That's the right thing to do. Every living thing has a right to life no matter how small or developed it's still a life. Abortion is murder. I will defend others on other rounds because there are 5 rounds.
Rick Santorum

How dare you think you have to right to take away someone else's freedom to do something just because you don't personally agree with it. Religion and state were never suppose to be joined, NEVER!. Lets review the constitution shall we, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Right there. So if they were to mix religion and government, What religion? Only the religion you support? If they merged all the religions, they would all contradict each other. Many people don't believe in any god at all. The government cannot be biased, and yet they still continue to do so. What if someone is raped? Is that girl forced against her will, something that wasn't her fault anyway, to go through all of that pain. How are we suppose to support all of this kids. Look at orphanages in America, they terrible. Why do you think the SPCA spays all of their adopted and saved animals? So that more won't end up like them. Humans are the most over populated species on Earth. Also, at least learn to spell the theory you deny. Its warming, not "worming". What about your God? Do you have any evidence for that? No, you don't. Global warming has much evidence, So does evolution, and there is many science behind those, and non behind God, and yet you still wan't everyone to accept that as fact without applying any real science to it. Saying God exists because of 2500 book is ridiculous, thats like saying the force is real because Star Wars said it was. Also, the Bible has been reinterpreted over the years, countless times.
Rick Santorum

All the stuff he is doing is great. I'm glad he want's to outlaw porn. I think it's wrong. Wan't to watch porn, find yourself a girlfriend who could care less what you do to her. Religion and State were supposed to be together when this country first began. There is no separation of church and state. Abortion is not radical either. If a girl doesn't want a baby then don't get in bed with a guy and have sex. It's just that simple. You have no right taking away a baby's life just because of your own irresponsibility. Same with birth control, it ties in very well with abortion. Don't have sex and you don't need all these things, and if you do have sex and get pregnant at least give the baby to an orphanage where parents can adopt them that they can't have children of their own, like my parents they adopted me because they couldn't have kids of their own. Global worming is a myth. Do you remember that huge snow storm we had? Well that's when we needed the global worming and guess what, it wasn't there. Humans cannot control the weather only God can. There is no way we can stop rain, snow, sleet, and other weather conditions. It has never been proven. Even scientists themselves say its not possible. Al gore paid them to keep their mouth shut. This is a website of some proof. http://news.investors.com...
Schools kill creativity

Let the reader know that my opponent has not touched on my contention at all, leaving it standing. Thus, you should vote negative. It was Pro's burden to give examples of how schools kill creativity. All he states is that our system is monotonous, and throughout the whole debate gives no sources or proper refutations. My opponents tries arguing in round 3 that one system of education isn't enough for millions of diverse students; this, however, is refuted by my independent high school contention. Each student enrolls in the plethora of classes that best suit their own creative needs. My opponent even says "...in showing some new approaches to the problems..." I have done this with independent high schools. These are schools located in high numbers across many countries, and they help creativity grow like it's a plant and they are miracle grow. Since I, as Con, have shown schools that promote creativity without objection from Pro, I win this debate Thank You. I urge a Con vote.
Schools kill creativity

My opponent said "These classes can be taken online as well, giving the student a better atmosphere to learn in, creating more creativity." It is not a matter of place where are you creating, but how well your product is accepted. For example, as I mentioned in short story, creating something that doesn't exist and isn't approved by society is automatically declined. Why we do not organize schools by the Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence? Do you really think that one system of education is enough for millions of students, which are all different as a persons, to show their full potential? The challenge is discovering how to create environments where creativity is generated with enthusiasm and purpose. Creativity is its own reward. We can not measure it or give marks from 1 to 10 for it. Creativity isn't about upgrading thinks, or in our case knowledge but in showing some new approaches to the problems or new points of view which can help to overwhelm existing issues. Thanks.
Schools kill creativity

I would like to start by saying that my opponent has not refuted my contention at all, and it stands. My opponent keeps arguing that the system is linear and has no way to create creativity, but these are merely his opinions. He has not shown a poll, source, or otherwise that would support his case, only what he thinks. Keep in mind that it is the burden of Pro's to show how schools kill creativity. His only claims are that since they force them to work from a curriculum, that it stifles the creativity. How? Just because someone is in a math class, doesn't mean it can't be creative. It's up to the teacher to implement ways to make it creative. I, and I am sure many of the reader's, have had teachers that make things much more fun to learn about through a much more creative medium; taking walks on a nice day and doing class outside is an example. While my opponent has given nothing to base his opinions off of, I have given a point that schools extend creativity, which wasn't refuted.
Schools kill creativity

Thanks to PartamRuhem for agreeing to debate me on this topic. For the start, I would like to tell one interesting story. During the class, while teacher was talking about lecture, one girl from the back of the class was drawing. When teacher asked her what she was drawing, she relied "God". Teacher was surprised and said "But nobody knows how God looks like". In some point of view, it is correct as nobody has ever seen him, but for the girls imagination, it was silly, so she replied "Then, they will now find out". What I want to say is that, schools are limiting our imagination, and whatever do not fit in the previous shapes, is considered as wrong. There are numerous examples of geniuses being taken as fools just because their opinions were unknown before and people by theirs nature are afraid of unknown. Our system education is linear and focused not on developing variety of opinions but on standardization. I've obviously made a mistake limiting argument to 1000 Characters.
Schools kill creativity

I thank the instigator. Good luck Independent high schools Independent high schools are offered in a variety of locations, giving students access to an independent learning style. The student is motivated by his or her own interests, not by the assignments of the teacher. This sparks creativity, for they must come up with new ways to challenge themselves. Also, the range of independent study courses is vast; students won't be learning only the subjects the school wants them to, as my opponent states, but a large variety of preferred topics. These classes can be taken online as well, giving the student a better atmosphere to learn in, creating more creativity. "Artists, dancers, athletes, and actors have all benefited from an independent study high school" (1) Not only can you enroll in an independent high school, but you can take independent courses in any high school. Being that this is a school type, and it offers creativity, I successfully negate the resolution.
Schools kill creativity

The system of education is still operating like in industrial age, creating new generations of workers without their own point of view or without will to change anything. Schools automatically align subjects by order of importance, not concerning predispositions of students and the result is 5 math classes per week and 1 class of art or music. Over the time, this schedule is pressing individual affinities back, not leaving time to develop any skills which are not required for work in system.
today is my birthday therefore i should win a debate

Today was a PD day (no school). I stayed home, a couple siblings are returning from foreign countries tomorrow, I have no homework, going to play some video games, then have a really fun tournament I'm going to. Furthermore, today I'm turning 18 (we have the same birthday! ). Happy Birthday to me (and you)! It is clear that since it is my birthday too, voters should not vote for pro purely because it is his birthday. However, my day/week is clearly more special, so don't ruin it voters!
Should the U.N. Monitor Civil Rights in Non-Member Nations

Natural LawRather than attacking the John Locke analysis about how the United Nations has an obligation to protect the human rights of individuals who are being harmed because individuals have an obligation and a right to enforce natural law while in a state of nature, my opponent simply rehashes his argument that the UN has no right. Insofar as he never addresses the natural law argument that states that not only does the UN have a right to demolish dictators, but that it actually has an obligation to do so, you can extend my natural law argument across the flow and vote Pro. The impact is that since the international arena is in a state of nature, other nations, which act through the United Nations, will be interfering in oppressive regimes and protecting the people.He then tells you that we should not just sit around and do nothing. Turn this immediately because it buttresses my position entirely. He is conceding in this round that we should not just let the events play out, but he is not offering any alternative to the UN's action. I am fulfilling this burden to act through the United Nations; he is not fulfilling the burden at all. Insofar as this is true, there is no compelling reason to negate because we have no mechanism by which to fulfill our natural law obligations in the Con world, while we do have a mechanism in the Pro world. His next argument is that some oppressive leaders may be popular with the people. The fact of the matter is that this is irrelevant in our obligations to protect the rights of the people. Hitler was certainly popular in Nazi Germany, but that did not mean that the Allies should not have intervened to end the Holocaust (note: I know that that is not why the Allies invaded. I am saying that hypothetically, even if they were not at war with Nazi Germany, they should still have invaded in order to end the Holocaust.) Just because the majority of people may find an malicious leader popular does not mean that the rights of the minority do not matter. As I explained in my last speech, human rights transcend the state, and the state was created to protect human rights, so the rights of all must be protected. He also claims that the UN should wait for the people to request aid. Since the UN is a body that includes representatives of nations, and not of the general populace, there is no way that this can actually occur. In addition, oppresive regimes are not going to permit any hypothetical representatives to ask the United Nations for aid. All this is doing is preventing the UN from protecting human rights, which is something that he agrees needs to be done. For all these reasons, I advocate a Pro ballot. Thank you.
Should the U.N. Monitor Civil Rights in Non-Member Nations

I agree with the statement that we shouldn't just sit around and do nothing, but I don't see why the U.N. would interfere without the request by the people. My problem with the U.N. is that they seem to feel like they have control of the world even though there was no one who gave them this right. They feel like they know what is right or wrong even though many people throughout the world believe that their God is the only one who truly knows what is right or wrong. So I question why the U.N. police the world. You also brought up oppressing leaders. Let's remember that whether a leader is oppressive or not is purely a matter of opinion. So therefore leaders that may seem oppressive might be more popular with their people than we think they are and we think that these leaders are oppressive. Then the U.N. takes action on an oppressive leader who is not oppressive if you know what I mean. P.S. The human rights counsel for the U.N. is actually 47 nations.
Should the U.N. Monitor Civil Rights in Non-Member Nations

Human RightsHuman rights are inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone. This means that everyone is entitled to these rights regardless of which nations they belong to. Just societies must respect the fact that rights are inherently valuable because citizens create the state to protect their rights. When the government fails to respect the rights of its people, the people have the right and obligation to overthrow the government and establish a new nation. Suppose, however, that the people are unable to protect their rights because the government is unjust, and they are physically unable to revolt. They need to have a mechanism with which their rights can be protected against the aggressors. The United Nation serves this function. By keeping watch over the human rights situations in nonmember nations, it ensures that the rights of all are being protected. Why does this matter?My opponent makes the claim that nobody gives the United Nation the right to protect our human rights. The problem with this analysis is that in an anarchical region, according to philosopher John Locke, people have the right to enforce natural law and protect the rights of those who are being unjustly harmed. The international arena is in a state of nature because there is no overarching world government that can protect the rights of all people. This specifically means that the UN has a natural right to protect the rights of individuals whose rights are being dismantled in nonmember nations. He also claims that individual nations should be able to decide to grant human rights based on what people want. If the individual nations actually did that, this would not be problem. The fact of the matter is that the governments in oppressive nations are violating the rights of the people without their consent. The people are not choosing to have their rights harmed by an oppressive regime; rather, the state is arbitrarily deciding to demolish their rights. The UN is monitoring the situation in order to promote the sovereignty of the people, while the actual states care little for that. His final argument is that 200 people are deciding the future of billions, and this is stupid. The problem with this analysis is that even fewer people are deciding the fates of those billions in nations that violate human rights. In Nazi Germany and the USSR, one dictator was making these ridiculous decisions. Second, this is an unwarranted argument. He has no proof that the 200 people are making a poor decision when they are attempting to protect the rights of all.