BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Confederate Flag is a Symbol of Racism

I would like to clarify that "The Confederate Flag" I am referring to is the modern adaptation of one of the confederate battle flags that has come to symbolize the confederacy so note while reading this as my opponent or audience member that all references to the "Confederate flag" are referencing the modern adapted battle flag. Respected opponent and valued audience members I would like to begin my debate by diving into the confederacy and factually rooting the Confederacy to it's undeniable fight for the sub-human act of slavery and establish that it's cause was one connected directly to atrocious racism that had become the lifestyle of the south. If we view the Confederate States of America Constitutional for Provisional Government we see Sec. 7. (1) The importation of African negroes from any foreign country other than the slave-holding States of the United States, Is hereby forbidden; and Congress are required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. (2) The Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of this Confederacy. (3) A slave in one State escaping to another, Shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom said slave may belong by the executive authority of the State in which such slave shall be found, And in case of any abduction or forcible rescue, Full compensation, Including the value of the slave and all costs and expenses, Shall be made to the party, By the State in which such abduction or rescue shall take place. Also examining individual states articles of secession it's easy to see that in Georgia's article of secession they claim that for the Republican party " It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. " and refer to slaves as "They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). " Of course every states Article of Secession mentions slavery at least a few times in giving the reason for their secession making it clear that their secession and defense of the Southern way of life was indeed related to the fight for slavery. Through proving that the Confederate States of America was indeed defending it's Southern lifestyle in the name of slavery it become clear that all battles where the Confederate flag was flown was indeed flown upon fields where blood was being shed in defense of a despicable racist attitude of the South. While many interpret the flag differently I see not how they do this for it appears to be out of plain ignorance that this flag can not be referencing racism. The so called "Southern Heritage" it is representing are ancestors whom for betrayed the United States and fought for slavery so I challenge my opponent and ask how can a flag flown over battles and charges of men dying for the racist cause of slavery not be a symbol of racism when flown today.
If girls can give titty twisters or "purple nurples" to guys, then guys should be able to do it back

okay i didnt go into your trap guys nipples are a sexual part but no one thinks of it that way if a guy hits a guy the guy can do it back and no one will freak out if a girl hits a guy that guy cant hit her back because they way the sexes are treated dont make guys rights the same as girls rights regarding physical contact so yeah it would be considered something sexual for girl and guy not guy on guy
If girls can give titty twisters or "purple nurples" to guys, then guys should be able to do it back

noobasvior, i would like to start of by thanking you for saving "noobs" Second, you have stepped right into my trap - Guys' nipples are sex organs as well and should be protected till the guys consention People should agree with me plus, they get to touch you, lets touch them, FREE FEEL also, if this act is passed, girls will do it less and less to avoid being felt and the co ed purple nurple rate will go down substantially therefore bettering the world with less purple nipples I rest my case
If girls can give titty twisters or "purple nurples" to guys, then guys should be able to do it back

girls have the ability to do things to guys that guys cant do girls purple nurples involve the chest area for guys that doesnt have the connotation as anything sexual but for a girls chest its treated as a sexual part of a womans body so if some random person were to see two guys doing it it wouldnt be a big deal if it was a guy doing it to a girl it would seem quite awkward and as a sexual act im pretty much saying that stuff that is supposed to be innocent that gives the appearance to something sexual should be avoided because the general public doesnt approve of sexual acts that are public i agree with you that girls shouldnt do that but its because we have certain things that separate the sexes
If girls can give titty twisters or "purple nurples" to guys, then guys should be able to do it back

The old saying "what goes around comes around" should be applied to this situation as girls take liberty in touching another man's nipple but yell and scream at you for even thinkning of getting them back I have never purple nurpled a girl but i feel it is only fair "Dont do to another person what you dont want them to do to you" - The Golden rule I rest my case...
The Death Penalty should be legal in all US states.

The pro speaker has brought up the concern of cost and space for inmates. But this really is not a issue. There was about 3000 people on death row in 2013(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). That seems sizable but how about we compare it to something else... How about the 2.2 million people already incarcerated in America (http://www.sentencingproject.org...). If we get rid of the death penalty, that will cause a .13% increase in inmates...hardly causing a problem with space or cost. For those that desire death, I thought those people were to be punished. Why would we listen to a criminal? Sounds a bit soft. But I see prison as more than punishment but also about rehabilitation, which the death penalty does not do.
The Death Penalty should be legal in all US states.

I noticed some of the commenters talking about jail life and how it would be less expensive to put prisoners in jail. However, if we put all prisoners in jail, then we would need more space. Thus, we would need more jails, more workers, more food for the prisoners, etc. We would end up paying more money to contain the criminals in jail. I am not saying that we should kill criminals. Although, there are criminals who would rather die and be executed. For instance, in 2002, Michael Passaro was executed for the death of his daughter Maggie. However, Passaro pleaded guilty to murder in 2000 and requested " and received " the death penalty. He isn't the only one who wanted to be executed. Between 1993 and 2002, 75 volunteered for death thanjail
The Death Penalty should be legal in all US states.

I accept this debate and will be against the death penalty in all states. We must weigh both sides and see which is a better choice. My main problem with the death penalty is the cost. Defense costs for death penalty trials in Kansas averaged about $400,000 per case, compared to $100,000 per case when the death penalty was not sought. (Kansas Judicial Council, 2014). Simply put, the death penalty cost more than if you put them in prison for life. It makes no sense to peruse the death penalty which is one of the reason that states are stopping it themselves because of the cost of the trials and poison used to kill the criminal.
The Death Penalty should be legal in all US states.

For some, the death penalty could be less worse than jail. The death penalty is only used when absolutely needed, and sometimes it is the only rational/moral option. Even if a criminal was released from the death penalty/jail, it would be very hard for them to make a living. The death penalty can be painless. The death penalty provides disclosure for victims. If the death penalty is not in use, then America will end up spending more money trying to contain criminals from the outside world. Many lives could be saved by each execution of a guilty killer.
K-12 schools should ban junk food sales.

Hmmm. Removing vending machines and replacing the foods in them with healthier options are different things entirely, so in my opinion you're deviating from your side of the debate a little by making that suggestion. It's not a terrible idea of course, I would welcome it, but that would seem to be a concession on your part because the vending machines would stay, which is what I'm supposed to be arguing for! :) Let's stick with the "banning fizzy drinks" argument, because I don't agree with that part at least. Studies show that caffeine, rather than being really bad for the children's learning process, can actually benefit them in a few important ways, in memory, concentration and energy. An example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... I think you have a way to go to justify the removal of fizzy drinks. As for checking lunches, who gets to decide what is "healthy enough"? The idea does not seem workable, and forcing children to eat certain foods and drinks is not the way to go. "Giving out healthy balanced meals at school will help the kids to stop wanting to eat foods like french fries, chicken patties, cookies and other junk food like that." I don't agree with this at all, if anything once they leave a place where these things are banned the first thing they are going to buy at their local shop is fizzy drinks and sweets. Healthier food alternatives are not a bad idea, but again, these subjects should be up to the parents and the children in secondary schools are certainly old enough to have a say in their dietary choices too. By all means give children healthy options, but banning the foods they like is going to cause far more problems than it solves.
K-12 schools should ban junk food sales.

This debate is about how I believe we should remove vending machines and the junk food they sell in the lunch room because it is unhealthy. The vending machines should be filled with healthy snacks and bars, the drinking machines can be filled with waters, gatorades, vitamin drinks or protein drinks. They can still make money off of the vending machine but the kids will also being get a plus side to the new change also. If we make a change at school where kids are at for at least 8 hours a day, five days a week then they can still making a change when they are at home for the rest of the hours. Giving out healthy balanced meals at school will help the kids to stop wanting to eat foods like french fries, chicken patties, cookies and other junk food like that. I don't believe students should be able to drink fizzy drinks during school, the lunches should we checked to make sure it is healthy enough for students.
K-12 schools should ban junk food sales.

Many elementary school, middle school and high school all have vending machines, soda machines that are filled with chips, pretzels, chocolate and caffeine filled drinks. Also the food they sell during lunches are also very unhealthy. All of this is really bad for the students and even the teachers. I believe we should start getting rid of these vending machines, they are not helping out the student with learning better. It will be more beneficial effect on the student if we can get rid of all of them. The population of obesity keeps getting higher and higher every year, and if we take a stand and try to help students while their in school it will help them when they are out of school.
K-12 schools should ban junk food sales.

I agree with the fact segregate in your example of banning boys and girls from being in the same high school. I just believe if we try to make a stand and get rid of the fats and bad drinks we could help children learn at a young age to limit themselves to these types of food. Then that can help them when they get older to stay away because it's bad for you and very unhealthy with all of the calories and sugar it has in them. Doing this is just an important step closer to tackling the nation's childhood obesity epidemic. By setting standards for the food and drinks that is served and sold in cafeterias and vending machines, we can make sure our children have the opportunity for a healthy start in their young life.
K-12 schools should ban junk food sales.

I am not denying that fizzy drinks have more calories than water, but so does orange juice! So does a piece of healthy fruit. At the very best due to its caloric content fizzy drinks could be considered a very small contributing factor to obesity. Do you know what the biggest contributing factor is? Food! ;) To put it more precisely, excess is the problem. Banning fizzy drinks does not stop the problem of excess, it merely forces children to comply rather than teach them to be responsible about their own dietary habits. Once they are out of school, those restrictions disappear, and the bad habits of excess return in abundance. It reminds me a little bit about the problem of teen pregnancy. The biggest cause of teen pregnancy is contact with boys, very close contact. By your reasoning, we should segregate the schools and separate the girls from the boys. That would cause less teen pregnancy, wouldn't it? Or would it make it even more desirable to seek the company of boys once school ends? I suspect the latter, but in either case, teaching the kids about sex is a far better method than banning boys, as boys, like caffeine sodas, are fine when approached sensibly, without excess, and the understanding of correct behavior at the correct time. As for the effects of caffeine, if caffeine and sugar were as bad as you make it sound, we should ban the substances altogether! I strongly doubt that is the case, and as a childhood fizzy drink consumer myself, I can say none of those adverse affects were present in me in noticeable or significant degrees.
K-12 schools should ban junk food sales.

Regular soda consumption significantly increases a person's risk of obesity, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA). "We drink soda like water," said Harold Goldstein of the Center for Public Health Advocacy, which also took part in the study. "But unlike water, soda serves up a whopping 17 teaspoons of sugar in every 20-ounce serving." Soda has a lot of caffeine in it even though it tends to wake up the body, which makes you more alert. Drinking large amounts of caffeine can cause nervousness, sweating, testiness, upset stomach, anxiety and insomnia. With all of the sugar in the drink it can make you hyperactive and can cause fuzzy thinking.
K-12 schools should ban junk food sales.

Sorry, but you seem to be repeating what has already been said. You have not shown that fizzy drinks at school lead to obesity, or that forcibly preventing students from drinking them is a viable solution to that problem. You have also not shown that any of these ideas are workable, or that they are ample compensation for the problems your suggestion will cause. You have also failed to address the learning advantages of caffeine intake, with memory and concentration improvement, or shown that the converse is true, that it interferes with the child's ability to learn. I do not think you have made your case here.
K-12 schools should ban junk food sales.

Poor eating habits developed at an early age that lead to a unhealthy lifestyle which can lead to real health consequences. School is where the children spend most of their time at, and if we change the way they eat at school it could help them to do the same when they are out or at home. As the role of the government because Nearly 300,000 people die each year from complications associated with being obese or overweight. They should take the role to help solve these problems, starting with children at school. As the government they have an responsibility to help our society to promote good nutrition and healthy eating so we can try to stop children to becoming obese.
The Earth is Flat

The world is flat. The reason being is that the world has been seen from outer space. We have plenty of evidence that the world is round that I shouldn't have to mention. Google Earth is one and all of the photographs and videotapes taken in space. Something else that proves that the world is round is you cannot fall of the edge of the Earth when you are sailing. We have covered this many years ago and unless you have fallen off of Earth or anyone else has, the world is round, not flat.
Rape Is A Good Thing: Guns And Violence Have Nothing To Do With Rape

Rape is a horrible thing for any man to do to any woman (or another man for that matter). It's certainly not acceptable or natural to do, the fact that men are quite capable of controlling themselves and can sexually pleasure themselves with mastrubation (jacking off) instead of sex is evidence of rape not being natural or mandatory for men to do. Rape is very traumatizing to the victim which is another reason it is not natural, nobody in their right mind would do this to another person, especially a physically weaker person. Rape victims describe their trauma as being life-long and they often require counseling to help them recover, rape victims also have very high rates of suicide compared to the average rate. What about the victim becoming pregnant? How emotionally painful it must be to have to get your rapist's child aborted. Now, guns and violence do not cause rape. Neither do short skirts, alcohol, porn, religion, or TV/music cause rape. Only rapists cause rape, people need to be held accountable for their actions instead of us pointing fingers at everything but them. Rape is certainly not a good thing, it's simply evil and not acceptable because of the pain it inflicts on the victim.
Rape Is A Good Thing: Guns And Violence Have Nothing To Do With Rape

Guns and Violence have nothing to do with Rape. Rape is only when a guy decides (without asking) to have sex with a female volunteer forcefully (normal) and protectively (making sure that the female volunteer doesn't fight it). What if somebody asks me "Well, Bryan what if the rapist brings a gun out during rape or when the woman fights it? prove to me that it has nothing to do with guns!" I would say, No! That analogy is irrelevant and random, When someone forcefully has sex with a female volunteer, that has nothing to do with guns or violence. Raping someone has nothing to do with guns or violence. It's not even about guns and violence at all. I've proven that rape is a good thing if you just let it happen: "Rape Is A Good Thing If You Just Let It Happen. If a man wants to have sex with you forcefully and protectively; if you just let it happen, you will be alright (sometimes, its tough love) those are 2 wills for each other if you fight the rape, that is against the man's will if you just let it happen, you'll feel sexually delighted If your parent tells you "You should be ashamed of yourself" your parent is against your will Ignore people who tell you "You should be ashamed of yourself" those people are against your will, Not the Rapist, and Not Yourself" Link: www.debate.org/debates/Rape-Is-A-Good-Thing/1/
There is a problem with the American education system

I do not think the problem is with our educational system so much as it is with the people in the educational system. Although I think the schools could do a few things better, for the most part, all the tools needed to succeed are available in schools across the country. In general, I would think our school systems are not much different then other school systems around the world. If this is the case, then I would think it boils down to the differences in students and not so much the system itself. I'm open to this argument because I really do not have a lot of knowledge on the subject. So if you can provide me with some evidence for your claim you might be able to swing me over to your side. Maybe my assumptions are wrong but that will be for you to point out.
There is a problem with the American education system

We as a nation have invested the most money on our education, yet we are lagging behind the international community. We claim that it is a money issue but I think that it is an issue with the way our system is set up. We have too may one and done systems in place that they are crowding out good, traditional forms of education. Too many good programs cancel eachother out and cause chaos. This is not a round meant for evidence but rather for philophy. I believe education is important and will always believe that it is important. The first step to solving a problem is admitting it exists.
How does a person rationally know reality from nothing

Humans love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know reality from nothing. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what human can give me a rational way humans know truth from fiction?And please do not respond if you have responded before or if you admit you have no way of rationally know reality from nothing, or if you believe you make up your own reality, or if all you have is "common knowledge", for using your brain relies on your education and instincts, which begs the question of how you know your shool was right . Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your common knowledge, you lose the debate because Vice Regent is always right.if you respond in violation of this work of debate literature art, you automatically lose the debate
capitalism is evil, and must be destroyed

Ok, I will go through Pro's arguments one at a time. First, my argument about working hard applied to individual people. For example, if Bill Gates works hard, he will earn more money than if he slacks off and makes mistakes. This argument was not about different people like comparing Bill Gates to the average person. Second, Pro completely ignored my argument about contribution to society. Bill Gates has done far more for our society and economy than the average person, therefore he makes far more money than the average person. Because of this, it is fair that Bill Gates makes more money. Third, there is no reason that your money would be stollen in a Capitalistic system but not in a Communist system. Fourth, Pro gives no justification for sharing everything, other than "were all a family". He says that because we are all human then we should be able to have whatever we need, wether or not we worked for it or deserved it. This is not true because you cannot make a lot of money without making a significant contribution to society. Finally, Communist China really isn't that great of a place. I agree that, as a country, they produce tons of products and have a strong economy, but this is at the expense of the people. Communist China exemplifies all the problems that Pro claims are wrong with Communism. In China, the people are worked very hard and paid very little. No matter how hard they work, they have very little chance of improving their life at all. For example, in Communist China 71.6% of the citizens live on less than $5 per day, whereas in Capitalist America only 16% of people are in poverty. [1][2] If the results of Communism are extreme poverty without hope for a better life, then I'm staying in a Capitalist America. For all these reasons, Capitalism will always be superior to Communism. It is the most natural economic system and has put the US on top of the world. Capitalism shall never die! Vote Con! 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Republic_of_China 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...