BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum (a first amendment case)

Thanks for the rebuttal. My opponent mentioned that Summum is "weird". I would like to make it clear that this is not a part of my case. Justice Antonin Scalia said this "I suppose it depends on what the Government speech consists of, what it is the Government is saying about the Ten Commandments. If the Government is saying the Ten Commandments are the word of God that's one thing, and if the Government is saying the Ten Commandments are an important part of our national heritage, that's something else." I affirm the implied statement here, which is that "something else" is something legal. <http://www.supremecourtus.gov...; Furthermore, the case in this debate, the one that the Supreme court will hear, does not regard the establishment clause. Summum's case regards their free speech to display the Aphorisms in a public place. The government owns the ten commandments monument, it was given by a private organization, but it is the speech of the government. Pleasant Grove Attorney Jay Sekulow cited the ten commandments on display in the supreme court as an example of public display (by the government) of religious content. Justice Ginsburg argued that this was in the context of many other examples of legal code. The ten commandments on display in Pioneer Park are similarly in the context of 15 other historical monuments. My opponent lists documents that he says are "more relevant to legal development than the ten commandments". The park is more centered on the social development of the region when it was first settled then legal development. (Also, I think there is a strong basis for argument that the ten commandments are at least as relevant to legal development as the Magna Carta, Hammurabi's Code, and the US constitution, etc.) My opponent presumably refers to Mathew 6 in the New Testament ( http://www.biblegateway.com...) when he says that the supposed Christians are hypocrites. This is irrelevant. Jesus was referring to showing off devotion to God in order to be thought religious. This case sets the precedent that the existence of religious content in something that a government displays in public makes it inappropriate. My opponent is of the opinion that Pleasant Grove City Utah is obviously just promoting their religion. The ten commandments on display has no evangelistic value, nor are monuments called for in the Christian faith. The city has other reasons. Siding with Summum says that principled political correctness trumps relevance as far as what a government is allowed to display. Also, rejecting Summum's claim to a right to display the Aphorisms is in a public park is not a violation of the free speech clause in the first amendment. The government did not build the park as an open forum for expression, nor are the ten commandments meant as a means of religious expression. They serve a themed purpose, one that the Aphorisms do not fit into.
Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum (a first amendment case)

If my opponent or any readers is not familiar with this case, they may cut and paste this link and pick their sources. <http://www.google.com...; I side with Pleasant Grove City, and pick the con label because the current ruling (from the 10th circuit in the US court of appeals) sides with Summum. The case concerns the right of Pleasant Grove City to display the ten commandments in a public area (Pioneer Park), while denying Summum their request to have their 7 aphorisms on display in the park. I will devote a paragraph to make sure everything is clear. For all intents and purposes in this debate, there are 2 options: 1) Pleasant Grove City must display the aphorisms of Summum or take down the ten commandments, and 2) Pleasant Grove City may display the ten commandments and not the aphorisms. I side with 2 and my opponent must side with 1. Good Luck and thank you to my opponent for accepting. My points: 1) The 7 aphorisms proposed by Summum lack relevance to the park. The ten commandments were an important part of the ideas adhered to by the pioneers referenced in the park's name. They are a part of the character of the park, representing the ideas that it is trying to portray. Summum was incorporated in Utah in 1975 <http://www.summum.us...;. This comes far after the period of time that is the focus of the park. 2) A city selecting which monuments it will erect in a public park does not constitute "abridging the freedom of speech" (1st Amendment, Bill of Rights). A monument's religious value does not inhibit its historical and artistic value. The religious value is not the expressed focus of the monument. There are thousands of religions the size of Summum. Pleasant Grove need not to chose between leaving its park open to all of their monuments or taking down the monument it selected for the park. 3) The first amendment states that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Erecting a monument hardly constitutes making a law respecting Christianity. The city may decide what is best for the park, and what monuments are acceptable. Bill of rights can be accessed here: <http://www.archives.gov...;
Mental Healthcare

I accept this challenge. Thank you to my opponent. I take psychiatric medications to relate to atypical and typical anti psychotics as these are primarily related to diabetes in psychiatry I believe.As it is three rounds I will start with a brief rebuttal of my opponents points so far. "Psychiatric medications are entirely experimental causing many side effects including diseases such as diabetes." I would agree that some anti psychotics do have an increased risk of diabetes though lifestyle is still the most significant factor (1). Psychiatric medications are in no way experimental though, the testing process is robust and the evidence for the drugs benefits over placebo is blind tested. Only then is a license issued for human use. (2) "For continued visits and more profits practitioners trick patients into false diagnoses and detrimental labels." I can't believe you really mean that. Doctors swear a Hippocratic oath and spend years training to help people. This sounds quite paranoid. Please provide some evidence. "Mental health care aims to take advantage of those unfortunate enough not to have power, money, respect, and/or love" This is quite insulting to the dedicated staff teams that often go above & beyond to help people. Evidence this please or apologise. "All alleged mentally ill patients would completely rid every so-called condition or disease through receiving more of the previously stated objects." I strongly disagree and believe you would cause immense suffering and harm by depriving people of medications. Lots of patients would find their condition intolerable. Again please evidence this or concede the point. "I suggest resources be allocated to replace treatments". You are suggesting we don't treat people and just give them some cash and hope for the best? "As soon as possible, in the coming years, all current standards must be abolished." You have yet to give one good reason why your argument makes any rational sense. Thank you & I look forwards to my opponents response on this emotive topic. (1) http://www.medscape.org... (2)US http://www.fda.gov... UK http://www.mhra.gov.uk...
Mental Healthcare

Psychiatric medications are entirely experimental causing many side effects including diseases such as diabetes. For continued visits and more profits practitioners trick patients into false diagnoses and detrimental labels. Mental health care aims to take advantage of those unfortunate enough not to have power, money, respect, and/or love. All alleged mentally ill patients would completely rid every so-called condition or disease through receiving more of the previously stated objects. I suggest resources be allocated to replace treatments. As soon as possible, in the coming years, all current standards must be abolished.
Gay marriage should remain illegal everywhere

As Con/against, your aim is to provide reasons as to why gay marriage should be legal (hence, the burden of proof is on you). As Pro/for, my job will be to rebuke your claims, but I will also provide arguments that you must successfully rebut. We're not arguing about a relationship between two people of the same gender, we're talking about a legal contract that recognizes the two as together. Issues involving 'the right to raise children' are expected to be brought up despite not being necessarily involved in every marriage. To avoid any confusion, please ask any questions in the comments section. Please jump straight into argument once you accept (no acceptance round) as you're the one who has to start this debate. I look forward to your acceptance.
Giving Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai was a mistake.

Indeed you are agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously, which is amusing. A hero she is because she has inspired millions of other people around the world to fight for their rights. Malala inspired the teenagers all over the globe and taught them to stand against any injustice and voice what is right. From now on, if any girl as young as Malala comes out of her house and demands for what is right, what is justice, Malala might be the greatest inspiration behind it. And that is what makes Malala a hero. Because that's what heroes do, they inspire people. Malala is a hero not only in her own country, not only in the middle east, also throughout the world. That's why, I'm saying she truly is a hero. But, being such kind of hero does NOT necessarily mean that you deserve a Nobel in Peace. Why? Because, Nobel Peace Prizes have been given to people with far more higher sacrifices. Take Nelson Mandela, he passed 27 years of his life in jail. Finally when he got the prize, that was the best honor and recognition the world can provide for what he did his whole life. Nobel prize is not about the money. Its about the honor and recognition. Now just think about Malala. She was already recognized by the world. She was in the spotlight from the beginning. In case of her, though she is a hero who can inspire millions other, what she did is only to write in a blog of an international newspaper about her daily life and the problems she faced. She didn't come down on the road to shout for women's right, she didn't go to jail, she wasn't even active for a very long time, perhaps because she didn't get the chance to. That's why instead of giving her the Nobel we should support her and let her fight more for her cause. And finally at the end, when its time, we could hand out the Nobel to her thanking her for she had done enough. But, this didn't happen. We've given it already! You also agreed that, "A hero she is not to the extent of winning the Nobel Prize." Yes! I am also saying that she doesn't deserve the prize for this exact reason! Again, you said she can spend the money for her cause because she needs money. Well that is true. But, hasn't she got enough financial support? [1] Should we give Nobel to those whoever needs financial support for any cause? Is Nobel prize should be considered as a prize for money? Malala also got the greater political support from all around the world. So, if helping her financially is the main reason of giving her the Nobel, then surely it was a mistake. For the Nobel is far more dignified and honored prize. What you said may spark another argument - will Malala get corrupted getting so much money? I am not going into that discussion, because that is not the point. Malala has NOT contributed more to world peace than any of the 1000s of others. There are people like Jadav Payeng and Dashrath Manjhi who have done unbelievable wonders. Hope you will now agree with me that giving Malala the prize was indeed a mistake!
Giving Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai was a mistake.

I am trying to prove that your argument is wrong is I am con or against what you argue. Thus, I am stating the exact opposite of what you state. I am arguing that she is indeed not a hero and she defnitley doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize as other people in the world who do so much more get ignored and don't win these prizes. She is not a hero. Simply getting shot by extremists for standing up against them does not make you an international hero that deserves such a prize. A hero she is, but not to the extent of winning the Nobel Prize. Imagine what she will do with the money once she wins it, oh wait - she already did! Guess what? Most of the money she will keep for herself while the rest of it will be given to those girls that need the education. See what happens when you give someone too much money - corruption! I know that I am agreeing with and disagreeing with your argument simultaneously, but if that is what you are doing, so will I. Except I will agree with what you disagree, and disagree with what you agree with. With that being said, I will also state why she does deserve it, and it outweighs the corrupt ways she will spend the money. Yes, she may have not deserved it, but now with the money that she received with the prize, she can now finally achieve her ultimate goals. To help girls receive a high education, to help girls have more rights and freedoms in a culture where it is male dominant, and to help woman follow in her foot-steps. With that money, she can help girls learn in school by funding their education, paying for the school supplies, and possibly even build new schools and hire new teachers. As with her other goals, they also require some financial assistance in order for it to be made possible. Let's be honest here, in order to do anything in today's modern society, you need the money. Doesn't matter where you live, doesn't matter where you come from, or who you come from. It applies to the whole world and is different from the past where many goals and desires could be satisfied without money (which I find pretty sad and pathetic). Even if she does use the money for corruption, like I said earlier, alot of that money can still be used for her goals. And the money included with the Nobel Prize is actually pretty damn high; so high that you probably don't even have to work and you can start early retirement just off of winning that prize. Even if you still need to work, you only need to work a little bit until you are set for the rest of your life. So although she will become corrupt and use most of the money herself (happens with everybody), that small amount is still enough to help those girls and women in her country and the Middle East.
Giving Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai was a mistake.

You don't seem to have any specific point to challenge this argument. I NEVER said she is NOT a hero. I said she is. She is a hero in the eyes of every little girl in her country, every girl in the whole world for what she did, for her courage. She was only a teenager and she got shot for her activity. Shame on the Taliban! There is no question of whether she is a hero. Of course she is and I don't deny it. But, had she really done enough for a prize as prestigious as the Nobel? You are also agreeing with me in that that the Nobel Prize can be mistake. You said yourself that Barack Obama didn't deserve the prize. I quote you, "So if a faker like Obama can get it, then she can too." Are you saying it is usual for the Nobel Peace Prize committee to nominate wrong people and give the prize to them? And we should just blindly accept their decisions? Yes, there are thousands other Malalas who are also struggling for the same causes - fighting for women's education, for free movement, freedom of speech. Malala is just one of them. The reality is the others do not get highlighted or get a good press coverage everyday as Malala. The only extraordinary thing for Malala is getting shot by the Taliban. Perhaps we should give her the chance to fight more for the cause. What I am saying is giving the prize to Malala was a mistake. You are definitely agreeing with me on this context. Then what is your stand in this debate? What is your point of argument?
Giving Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai was a mistake.

You say that she is not a hero, yet in the eyes of many girls that are in the Middle East and many feminists, she is indeed a hero. I know that it's mainly about quality and not quantity, but many got her attention after she was shot by the Taliban and after she wrote a blog for the BBC like you said. Again, what these actions may seem insignificant for somebody to be a hero may be otherwise for other people. Also, take note that there have been other people out there that have received the Nobel prize but also turned out to be a big mistake as well. Take Barack Obama for instance. He won a Nobel Prize, but did he really deserve that prize? What did he do that made him unique and more peaceful than other presidents? What he did was the exact opposite, considering now that he has been involved with many Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Iraq, both whom have an extreme hatred for because of the many violent actions he committed against those people. So if a faker like Obama (I know the NSA is watching us right now) can get it, then she can too. At the end of the day, it's not up to us to determine whether or not she is a hero. It is actually up to the decisions, opinions, and the judgments of the people that give out the Nobel Prizes, okay? So even though there are many like her and possibly people who do even better than her, those Nobel Prize givers gave the prize to her and not them simply beause they did not get enough fame or international attention. Sorry, my friend, that's the way this cruel world works...
Giving Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai was a mistake.

Malala Yousafzai is a hero. She deserves all kinds of admiration for what she did in Pakistan to promote women's education.Malala is one of many other people who fight for rights everyday. She first came to light by writing on a blog for BBC. [1] She got the whole world's attention when she was shot by the Talibans. She has won various prizes and since then and she is currently living in the Britain which might be "permanent". [2]Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to her is a mistake because she has not done enough compared to the other heros, like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, who also won the prize. Malala was only begining the race, while the other winners of the Peace Prize fought long enough to get the final reconization and spotlight around the world. The Prize given is merely as a tool to support her for further struggle for the cause, (what she already got) which is not finished yet. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...;[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Ability Tracking In Elementary Schools

Don't know why you just repeated your first statement. Meh, I'll do this anyway. Not all kids think the same way, so they should attend classes the best suit them. It's not fair if a kid fails his/her assignment because they take longer to grasp a subject than the other kids. They're not stupid they just learn a different way. That is why I believe ability tracking in elementary schools and all grades is ultimately a good thing for students.
This Debate Will Receive the Most Views of Any Debate on DDO Before Voting Period Begins

Well, the current debate I am engaged in only has 34,640 views. However, this debate (http://www.debate.org...) has 82,010 views. So, my opponent seemed to have forfeited, but I still feel like this was a worthy win for pulling this off. It seems all I had to do was obtain views for any debate that already had more views than this one, so I knew I had the advantage going in this because I knew my opponent was going to have to work much harder to gain the views necessary for this debate. Thus, the resolution has been negated.
This Debate Will Receive the Most Views of Any Debate on DDO Before Voting Period Begins

The first two rounds I posted weren't arguments, they were just me making silly comments and trolling for fun. Now, if you said every round I had to post a link, then I would have lost. However, you just said every argument, and this is my first actual argument. Now, you said that I would forfeit if I didn't post a link refuting you, well here is a link (and remember, you said I had to post one every argument not every round, and this is my first argument). This debate we are engaged in currently has been viewed 17,013 times. However, here is a debate with 27,189 views:http://www.debate.org...So, since I am and will be posting a link every argument (which doesn't necessarily mean every round, because my opponent didn't specifiy this) I am winning the debate so far, because the link I provided takes you to a debate with more views.PS. Every round from now on from me will be an argument.
This Debate Will Receive the Most Views of Any Debate on DDO Before Voting Period Begins

I know a lot of people are tired of these kinds of debates (there is already one in question in the challenge period), so I thought I would change things up a bit. The resolution is that this debate will receive the most views of any debate on DDO before voting period. Each argument, my opponent must post one debate that has more views than this debate. If not, I win. The definitions are: Views: The number that is in the box "Open Debate" (in challenge period, will change as it goes through the different spaces. It will be X number of views, not X number of people who view. Voting Period Begins: The second my opponent posts his Round 4 argument, the moment that this debate transitions from debating period to voting period. Rules: 1. A forfeit of any kind (computer or otherwise. This is defined as when my opponent does not post a link refuting me) results in the other person getting all 7 points of each individual vote. 2. This debate will have 4 rounds with 24 hours to post each argument, so this will have no more than a week to be available. I want to break the viewing record!