BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The line, "One nation under God," should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

I understand your points of view in this debate. So I say let this be a respectful debate, nothing I say should be directed personal. Now you say the pledge of allegiance should be changed. This is most directed to schools. You think that atheist children should not have to say "under god". But the pledge of allegiance is not required to say in school. If a student does not want to he or she does not have to say the pledge of allegiance. The pledge is totally optional. Plus the pledge is not focused on the Christian God. It is simply to honor and to pay your respects to the soldiers of the United States. You also say its time for us to keep our religions secret, and worship in private. But you saying that is the same as a preacher preaching. You are spreading your belief. So by eliminating the ability to spread your beliefs and thoughts you are eliminating your own argument. It sounds as if you are trying to eliminate the freedom of religion, or the freedom of speech. You can't say its time for us to lose god because you don't think there is a god, and I'm not saying you can't say there is no god. If you don't have a religion that's fine. You have the right to do that. I know that most the time a preacher is trying to help you. I'm not saying all preachers never do anything bad, but that for most of them their sole reason of preaching is to help you. But if you have your own thoughts and your own mindset than all you have to say is that you have no religion and that you do not want to be preached to. Then if they don't leave you alone call the police for a public disturbance. So if you think that public preaching should not be allowed, than your stepping on your own tail. We have as just as much a right to keep "in god we trust". As we do to lose it. It is a right and amendment to keep it on there. Though I personally don't see a point of keeping it or losing it. Its just currency, its not a religious item, people don't use it as a tool for worshiping. People use it as currency as its meant to be used as. I personally don't see the problem in either the pledge or the currency of this nation. Nothing is directed towards "god" in either one of these matters. I don't see either one of these as preaches.
The line, "One nation under God," should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

The phrase, "One nation under God," and, "In God we trust," was not always affiliated with the United States. Ever since these terms have been added to our Pledge and our currency, there have been numerous attempts to take it out and it has stirred up controversy in this nation. Why? -Because it doesn't support the views of every American citizen. The United States of America is not a Christian nation, nor should it even be considered a theistic nation, but a collection of peoples with various different beliefs, religions and opinions, in the same way it is a collection of various different races, and not specifically one, and we should not therefore coin this country as anything signifying one general consensus. Not everyone believes in God, and saying, "In God we trust," on our currency does not protect this nation from school shootings or terrorist attacks. God has no room in this country; the most devoted of "God" in this country; the most zealous are the ones who abuse their rights and picket the funerals of our war veterans; the ones who are proud to kill in the name of God, whether it be Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, etc. Humanity is growing up and it's time to keep our personal theistic beliefs to ourselves and pray in our closets, and on fox news.
Obama is an idiot.

Pro supports his resolution by providing two phrases from Obama’s healthcare speech: “Obama says his plan will prohibit health insurance carriers from turning down an applicant because of any pre-existing condition.” It will. What is your point? “Obama also says that everyone who does not have health insurance will be required to buy a policy.” That’s kind of the idea. Pro then states that we should take these two examples and apply them to a living, breathing human being. Ok. According to these two statements the result will be that every living breathing human being will have health care coverage. This does not make Obama an idiot.
Obama is an idiot.

Torture though it was, I sat through the entire Obama ("We need to pass health care legislation now or Americans will die!") speech to a joint session of Congress. Although one could easily write a few hundred paragraphs of criticism, it's worth just a few to focus on one item that proves Obama is an idiot. Obama says his plan will prohibit health insurance carriers from turning down an applicant because of any pre-existing condition. Obama also says that everyone who does not have health insurance will be required to buy a policy. Leaving aside the fact that forcing anyone to buy something he or she does not want to buy is clearly unconstitutional, let's take the above two "Obama rules" and apply them to a living, breathing (albeit fictional) American. You know how it will turn out. Obama is crazy, and that therefore implies he is an idiot. (BTW DEMOCRATS ALWAYS RUIN THE FUN!!)
ties are becoming a less important item of clothing

I'll be offering one major point of contention, which is as follows: 1. Ties becoming less popular increases their importance. To begin my case I'd like to accept everything my opponent states about the use of ties diminishing, and would like to add an additional source to prove that the use of ties is decreasing [1]. That being said, this does not mean that ties are becoming less important. To the contrary, the rarer ties become, the more important they become. If men were to only wear ties in certain instances, that would make these instances stand out, highlighting their importance. For example, most extremely formal events are known as black-tie events. This adds an elite aura to the event, making it seem more important. The rarer and more elite the tie becomes, the more importance it will gain. Thank you.
ties are becoming a less important item of clothing

These days men wear ties less and less often. Years ago men regularly wore a tie. Back in the 1950s my grandparents would always wear their best clothes on a Sunday for no other reason than the fact it was Sunday which nowadays sounds absolutely ridiculous. Often these days at events such as family parties or in church the older men will be wearing a shirt and tie while the younger men are more likely to be wearing a shirt without a tie. Men working in offices without a tie is also a more common sight now than it used to be and we see men with no tie more often on television. School uniforms are also less likely to include a tie these days. I believe that as our society becomes more casual and laidback we will see more professional men like doctors, teachers and even politicians wearing shirts with an open top button and no tie. Traditional church weddings are less common than in years gone by a I believe that in the not to distant future more and more men will chose to get married without a tie( I actually think less people will bother getting married at all in the future but thats another topic). I don't think the tie will disappear entirely within my lifetime(I'm 26) and I don't really want it to either. There will always be some men who like to wear a tie or feel its right to do so in some situations. I would still strongly advise any man attending a job interview to wear a tie as it will hugely increase their chances of getting the job. But overall the tie has become a less common and important item of clothing than it was in the past and this trend is likely to continue http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
maybe is a powerfull word when there is no answer

Vi, I give up. PLEASE TRY TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT. POINTS perhaps; possibly. This is the google definition [1] of maybe. When you don't know, it is possible that the thing may be possible, or perhaps happen. Maybe is not a 'powerfull[sic]' word when you don't know as it can be used in a number of non 'powerfull' cases. 1.) Google definition.
Governments are inherently immoral and illegitimate

Thank you for accepting my challenge. Based on your response, it seems you are arguing that a government's legitimacy comes from the people. If that is the case, then every law passed in Nazi Germany was legitimate and should have been obeyed and enforced. The reality is that the actions of the Nazis were unjustified, even if they claimed to just be "following orders", and that their laws were immoral. Furthermore, if you believe that the people being oppressed by the Nazis, or any other tyrannical regime for that matter, had the right to resist the imposition of those laws, then you can't also claim that people give their governments legitimacy, because that is to claim that the Nazis had the right to enforce their immoral laws because they obtained power through democratic elections. You can also make the argument that there is a difference between having the legal right to do something and the moral right to do something, but in the end, one has to outweigh the other, making the one that has been outweighed irrelevent. For example: You can argue that the Nazis had the legal right to enforce their laws, because they legally obtained the power to pass laws, but that they did not have the moral right to enforce their laws, since their laws were immoral. Which is more important? Having the legal right or moral right to do something? To me, there is no such thing as a "legal" right, because words on paper can't give me the right to do whatever I want. If it's immoral, I don't have the right to do it, even if some words called "law" pretend to give me that right. This is why I always emphasize that morality supersedes the law. There is no reason to obey the law simply because it is "the law", as not all laws are good. I also have some recommended reading on the Social Contract that further address the topic of what can or can't make governments legitimate. https://steemit.com... https://steemit.com... Here is a quote from the second article by Larken Rose: "Viewing the U.S. Constitution as being at all like a "contract" makes exactly no sense. To state the obvious, a contract is a formal agreement between (at least) two parties. By definition, one cannot be contractually bound by a "contract" that he never agreed to, and in fact had nothing at all to do with. For example, I can"t just decide to sign a contract on your behalf, and pretend that that makes you obligated to do something. " Please feel free to correct me if I didn't understand your arguments well!
Governments are inherently immoral and illegitimate

The argument is in the title, but I will elaborate:Throughout the debate, it is important to focus on the definition of government, not just its actions. Here is how I define the concept of government:A rightful ruling class. Of course this is an oxymoron, because no one (or any group of people) has the right to rule, or control, another's life, which is why I believe governments are illegitimate. They don't have the supposed right to rule, even if they call their commands "laws".
Backpacks are better than purses.

I thought this would be a fun topic. A backpack or a purse should not relect who you are as a person. I personally could care less what people think about me and whether or not I am taken seriously. You have proposed that purses are better as they are more "fashionable" and help one to be taken more seriously. They are better to take to the theatre, etc. But backpacks are better overall. Better defined as more advantageous or effective. I don't care about fashion therefore purses do not benefit me. I guess it depends on which world you want to be taken seriously in. "Backpacks are associated with students, travelers, and hikers. None of which are very serious things to be doing (like going to an orchestra or going to work or dinner). " I must inject here that before you go to the dinner or orchestra you need money which comes from work. And you actually state that work is a serious thing to be doing. But most jobs require an education which means you must become a STUDENT first. I personally would prefer studying, traveling and hiking so a backpack would be a better alternative. If I took a purse hiking I would not be taken "seriously" by the other hikers. A backpack is more convenient as I can wear the backpack on my back of course, leaving my hands free. You state that "Research shows that people are more likely to hire, promote and do business with us if we look the part. " I want a career in marine biology, archaelogy or as a tour guide at the Grand Canyon. .. so uh will a purse help me get these kind of jobs? "By the same token, presenting a less-than-professional image can prevent you from accomplishing your career goals. " I'm so disapointed to find out that I will not accomplish my goal of becoming a writer because I just wear jeans, tshirt and a backpack. Darn, I never got the memo stating that I had to dress up and carry a purse to meet that goal! Backpacks are better because their purpose is more effective. .. to carry more items with less discomfort. Like I state before, you can carry things on your back, leaving your arms free to get more "serious" work accomplished! Thanks again! !
Backpacks are better than purses.

I am a woman who doesn't carry a purse. I think they are frivolous and a waste of money. Many women carry purses as a fashion statement and spend more on a new purse than their car payment (ex. Coach brand). I say just use a backpack. They are more practical and you can carry books around which will give you something to pass time if you get stuck somewhere. Plus you don't need a closet full to match your outfits. One for all works just fine!
Competition to Create the Most Useless Superpower

Mmmm, a fellow intellectual. 4. The ability to summon and light yourself on fire (like the human torch) at will but without any fire immunity. 5. You can see into the future with perfect perception and coherence but only by 2 seconds. 6. You have the ability to change the color of anything in the entire world to any color you can think of, but only to your own self and your own eyes, nobody else can see any of the color changes you have made.
Competition to Create the Most Useless Superpower

Please clearly state the superpower you have created and be sure to explain why it is the most useless superpower. You can make a cool superpower but put extreme limitations on it that make it useless. (Examples: levitation but only a centimeter off the ground, etc.) Each argument limited to 3 superpowers with explanations each. Judging is based on whoever can come up with the wittiest, funniest and most useless superpower. I will start my argument here. (No rebuttals) 1. The ability to turn invisible, but only when nobody is looking. 2. You have perfect hindsight. Meaning, you always know exactly what you SHOULD have done years after you do something. 3. You know exactly how to solve every single societal issue but you are physically incapable to express any of the solutions.
An amendment should created to abolish flag desecration

Hey :), thank you for replying so promptly, and I hope there is no hard feelings between us. I conclude this debate by answering your question. Flag desecration should not be allowed in my opinion because, while I do not mind the pledge of allegiance being not required, I do mind burning the flag. The stars and stripes is a treasured symbol of our heritage, a flag is the symbol of a nation. If you burn the flag, you burn your heritage to ashes. You destroy the values your fathers stood for, by burning the American flag to ashes. In burning the flag, you also give the United States of America a very bad name on the ledger of other nations. I rest my case here, and I want to thank you again for starting this debate with me. I had a good time, and I hope there is no hard feelings between us.
An amendment should created to abolish flag desecration

" I personally believe that an amednment would be constutional. Flag desecration is a terrible crime and must be stopped. " Do you also think the it would be constitutional for the government to suppress our freedom of speech? It's not, but not only that, your opinion is irrelevant. The amendment would be unconstitutional, and it is clearly laid out the in the first amendment. "You should wave the flag with pride, not burn it. The flag is not sacred like religion, but a sacred symbol of our past and our future. You should not be allowed to destroy it for any reason whatsoever." While i agree with this statement, I am not in control of other peoples lives. I don't dictate their actions. If they want to burn a flag, I will be silently judging them, along with a crowd of people who will also be judging them. The flag overall is still a symbol of freedom. If I watch a flag burn, personally I actually feel strength. I feel that even though the flag is now ashes, the flag still represents diversity. "Flag burning isn't a peaceful protest under the first amendment. It is rather, a violent show of contempt for America and its values." Like I proved in the supreme court cases I cited, flag burning is peaceful. So long as no one is injured, there is not an issue. Even if someone is hurt, the flag burner would not get in trouble for burning the flag. The punishment would depend on whether or not what happened was an accident. Texas v. Johnson "It shows that you hate America's laws, and its flag accordingly. The flag is not to be burned at all, as it shows extreme contempt for America. Therefore, this amendment must be created." Flag burning does not show contempt for America. If someone wanted to show contempt for America, they would commit terrorism. The flag is a symbol, therefore burning a symbol is protected under the 1st amendment. Also, you never answered my question, "If it is not mandatory to salute the flag, or stand for the pledge of allegiance, then why should people not be allowed to desecrate it?" If you don't answer this question this time around, I will be forced to assume you just have no idea how to answer this question. Thanks
An amendment should created to abolish flag desecration

Hi :). I am sorry for feeling like a stupid idiot, and I once again thank you for initiating this debate. I personally believe that an amednment would be constutional. Flag desecration is a terrible crime and must be stopped. If you live in America, you are bound to its flag and laws. You should wave the flag with pride, not burn it. The flag is not sacred like religion, but a sacred symbol of our past and our future. You should not be allowed to destroy it for any reason whatsoever. Flag burning isn't a peaceful protest under the first amendment. It is rather, a violent show of contempt for America and its values. It shows that you hate America's laws, and its flag accordingly. The flag is not to be burned at all, as it shows extreme contempt for America. Therefore, this amendment must be created.
An amendment should created to abolish flag desecration

"The American flag has been trampled repeatedly and burned throughout our 239 years as the USA. If an amendment to the US Constitution is passed prohibiting it, then this could easily cease. A good way to do it would be to place security guards around every American flag, or allow citizens to carry arms to break up any flag burning rallies." Also, this would not cease description, only public desecration. If I burn a flag in my basement, who will know but me? And did you really just state that security guards should protect all flags? The FMAA states they create 100 million flags a year. Theres 300 american citizens. Even if the FMAA has only been making flags for one year, which it has not, there would still not be enough guards to protect the flag. Also, you want to arm citizens to protect a flag? Who would pay for these arms? The government? Bad idea! "Flags are sacred property of the United States of America, and should be treated as such. It does not violate free speech, or freedom of religion to arrest someone that is burning the flag of your country. If you live in America, you should fly the stars and stripes proudly, regardless of your beliefs. It does not matter whether you are Christian, Jew, Sikh, Muslim, Hindu or a different religion like Wicca, you should fly the flag of your native country with pride. " To say something is sacred, would infer it is almost religious, which is ironic, considering almost every religion says emoting about idols. Also, I have a question: If it is not mandatory to salute the flag, or stand for the pledge of allegiance, then why should people not be allowed to desecrate it? I of course don't like desecration of the American flag, and I would never do it, but it is symbolic. "Those that do not like America, what it stands for and its flag can leave. They should not be allowed to stay here and burn our flag and show their displeasure for a country that they moved to! Therefore, an amendment to the United States Constitution should be created to stop people who are not proud to be Americans from desecrating what we hold dear and treasure. I would like to thank Con once again for starting this debate, and I look forward to the next arguments." They shouldn't be allowed to stay? Now were talking deportation. What if they are "native" to America? Most of the time, the flag isn;t even burned to protest America. It is to protest American issues. Which would get your attention? A poster board, or a burning American flag? Also, you dropped my constitutionality argument, so I am assuming you agree that said amendment would be unconstitutional. Thanks
An amendment should created to abolish flag desecration

I do not believe that flag desecration is right at all, and laws should be made against it. The American flag has been trampled repeatedly and burned throughout our 239 years as the USA. If an amendment to the US Constitution is passed prohibiting it, then this could easily cease. A good way to do it would be to place security guards around every American flag, or allow citizens to carry arms to break up any flag burning rallies. Flags are sacred property of the United States of America, and should be treated as such. It does not violate free speech, or freedom of religion to arrest someone that is burning the flag of your country. If you live in America, you should fly the stars and stripes proudly, regardless of your beliefs. It does not matter whether you are Christian, Jew, Sikh, Muslim, Hindu or a different religion like Wicca, you should fly the flag of your native country with pride. Those that do not like America, what it stands for and its flag can leave. They should not be allowed to stay here and burn our flag and show their displeasure for a country that they moved to! Therefore, an amendment to the United States Constitution should be created to stop people who are not proud to be Americans from desecrating what we hold dear and treasure.