BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "International Community" is a sick joke, as is all .gov.

"I am all against sniffing bath salts, 100%."So you now agree with the government."Wish I had more mental energy to dispute your other points, whatever they are,"My opponent has chosen not to contest my points. ... That the sheer difficulty of reading them, which would again fall to the failed education (home schooling?).Debating tip... Reading the opposing arguments, really helps differentiate yourself from those whose minds are warped by the inhalation of bath salts, something you are "100%" opposed. "Which country has a representative that truly represents the well being of the majority of the worlds citizens, in a balanced way at the UN? Your country?"Yes, my country, the United States of America. "The U.S. contributes more to the UN than any other country -- 22 percent of the regular UN budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget" [4], which considering the number of nation countries is a massive amount."a supreme majority of the actors in the UN administration live lives of luxury, that is a fact."While improving the quality of life around the world, such the the non-contested genocide point from the previous round, and little things like cutting international child mortality in half, eradicating smallpox and nearly polio, serious efforts against HIV/AIDS (you're not really in favor of the spread of such are you?) [5]."the UN inspired idea of an 'International Community' is a psychopathic vision of greatness dictated upon us all."An idea that has prevented so many genocides, and improved quality of life for all, I think I'd have to take bath salts to understand why someone would call such a "psychopathic vision of greatness." Yes the United Nations has not lowered the wealthy and middle classes to poverty to make everyone equal as some would like, but those who desire such are likely psychopaths as many of the early communist leaders were such as the handsome Che Guevara [6].Sources:[4] http://www.betterworldcampaign.org...[5] http://www.un.org...[6] http://www.therealcuba.com...
The "International Community" is a sick joke, as is all .gov.

I am all against sniffing bath salts, 100%. Wish I had more mental energy to dispute your other points, whatever they are, but time is too short for me to muddle through in order to gain rank. Think about the statement and tell me what exactly is so great in all countries that are UN member states, I dare you. Which country has a representative that truly represents the well being of the majority of the worlds citizens, in a balanced way at the UN? Your country? Mine? Certainly a majority of the members do not, but a supreme majority of the actors in the UN administration live lives of luxury, that is a fact. When was the last time the UN had a unclean person on the podium? Never? Most likely. When the majority of all countries citizens live in poverty, then the UN inspired idea of an "International Community" is a psychopathic vision of greatness dictated upon us all. Disprove that, please.
The "International Community" is a sick joke, as is all .gov.

Not sure if you are speaking of .gov websites, or due to some failing in education do not know how to spell government. If it is an intentional abbreviation, the period should go on the end, not the beginning; meaning the failed education still stands.To say the international community is a sick joke, also suggests a lack of education. There have been less genocides thanks to their efforts, which is saying something grand considering how over exposed any today are thanks to freedom of information in the digital age, whereas before they were fairly easy to cover up; the Armenian Genocide which the Holocaust was modeled after is still openly denied [1]."anyone that tells you what to think, and how to live, it is incredibly obvious that all of our leaders are tyrants."Please don't snort bath salts, or if it's too late, cease snorting bath salts. There, by Max's logic I am a tyrant.The Nora D. Volkow, M.D. the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse is also opposed to this harmful behavior, noting that bath salts have "been linked to an alarming number of ER visits across the country" [2].Snorting bath salts is related to complete breakdowns of sanity, tied to several cases of cannibalism [3].I await your case for why discouraging the snorting is bath salts, and raising awareness of the consequences of them, is in fact a sick joke.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.drugabuse.gov...[3] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Tobacco taxes ought to be illeagelized

I am sorry that I was unable to respond last round, so this round I will try best to clarify and defend my points. Contention 1-Constitutionality While I appreciate my opponet's respect for the constitution, I believe that he is a little bit behind the times. Since when does the federal government follow the constitution? If they did, then why do we have such things as Guantanomo Bay, where terror suspects are held without a trial? The point is, the constitution is a joke! And since all power the states' have are simply the powers that the federal government has agreed to grant them, I don't see anything wrong with the Feds changing their minds. === Fairness === *My opponent still hasn't answered the question "if it is okay to tax cigarettes, can the government also tax ice cream, hamburges, and french fries? "* It wasn't retorical, It was suppose to be answered. Whateva! I give up on this debate!
Tobacco taxes ought to be illeagelized

Contention 1-: It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to illegalize special taxes on tobacco. I would like to point to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 [1]. It lists all powers of Congress. Congress does not have the power to make local or state taxes illegal. There is also Article 1, Section 10 [2]. This lists the powers forbidden from the states. Special taxes on specific products are not forbidden from the states. Finally, there is Amendment 10 [3]: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " The power to illegalize a tax is not delegated to the United States, nor is it prohibited to the states. Therefore, only the states have the power to illegalize special taxes as they see fit. Congress lacks the power to illegalize special taxes. Therefore, it cannot and should not pass law to illegalize special taxes. Contention 1+: Tobacco tax is unfair. There is nothing illegal about discriminating against certain products by the state. The smokers do not have to pay the tax; by all means, they should quit, as it would help their health and their wallets. Additionally, this money going to the government then goes to programs to help people quit, which overall helps tobacco addicts. Contention 2+: The government should not make citizens' health decisions. The government is not making any health decisions for anybody. It is merely taxing a specific product that it finds worthy of more taxes. Plus, if people stop smoking, it's for their own good. Contention 3+: Tobacco taxes stunt economic growth. Healthier people can do more for the economy. Therefore, the people who quit smoking stop spending their money on cigarettes and start spending their money on other things. Essentially, my opponent's argument about the harm to the tobacco industry is the broken window fallacy, in which the money would instead be diverted to other things that former cigarette smokers originally forgot, like rent. As for McDonalds, people need to eat. People do not need to smoke, and anybody who does needs help. This help can be provided by government. In conclusion, my opponent's proposition is completely unconstitutional and violates the sovereign rights of the states, and therefore should not be put into action. 1. . http://www.usconstitution.net... 2. . http://www.usconstitution.net... 3. . http://www.usconstitution.net...
Tobacco taxes ought to be illeagelized

=== Resolution === Special taxes put upon the sale of a tobacco product, outside of sales tax, ought to be illegalized by the government. === Definitions === Special taxes-any tax that is imposed on the purchase of a tobacco product, but not levied on other products. Sales tax is not a "special tax". Tobacco Product-any product that was manafactured using tobacco. This includes, but is not limited too: cigarettes, cigars, "snuff", etc. Illegalized by the government-the federal government ought to pass a law which makes it illegal for a state or local government to levy a tax on tobacco products **Note: Definitions are rules, not contentions. Do not accept the debate if you do not agree with/don't like the definitions **Note: I do not wish to argue semantics, I would like to argue at the issues at hand. === Arguments === 1) Tobacco tax is unfair. Tobacco tax specifically targets one segment of the population (smokers) and charges them extra taxes. Also, most smokers are poorer than the average American, this puts extra financial strain on their already stretched budgets. This is quite unfair, what the government is essentialy saying is "we don't like you smoking, so we're gonna make it expensive". Which brings me to my next point: 2) Since when is it the government's job to make a citizen's personal health decisions? What's next? Is the government going to start mandating that everyone have at least 60 minutes of intensive exercise everyday? I understand that smoking is quite unhealthy, but that doesn't mean it should be subjected to a tax. Ice cream, french fries, and doughnuts are also unhealthy, but they are not taxed. Why not? The government ought to respect the citizens' right to make personal decisions for themsleves and the right to not be penalized with taxes for making a perfectly legal decision. The tobacco tax is almost like a fine. 3) Tobacco taxes stunt economic growth. This tax unfairly puts strain on tabacco sellers and manafacturers. Which is unfair. I understand that tobacco is quite unhealthy, but so are hamburgers, and I don't see McDonalds getting a tax hike anytime soon. The government cannot play favorites. I thank whoever accepts this debate.
Tobacco taxes ought to be illeagelized

My opponent has apparently conceded, so I will just end this with a final note on the Constitution. My opponent claims that because the federal government DOES not follow the Constitution, it therefore SHOULD not follow the constitution. What the fed has corrupted itself into in no way reflects what the federal government should do. My opponent calls the Constitution, a document of limited government written by some of the most brilliant men in the current era, a joke. The only joke about it is how the fed stopped following it, an act which should not have occured. My opponent finally claims that the state only has the powers granted to them by the federal government, making the federal government appear to be some omnipotent entity that only lets states have rights. This is absurd. The fed dirives its powers from the states, not the other way around. The states got together to write a Constitution to grant limited power to a central government.
Should teens have iPhone before they are a teen

I will be making 3 rguments, one is emergencies, and the second one is that a Phone can be educational, the other one is that it is useful, and I will make my plan. The plan is that you can lock some apps with a special app. I will explain more of this later, and I will go onto this later. I will not go on my rebuttalsDefinitionsPhones: a telephone [1]Okay, lets think of what IPhones have. They have calling, texting, music, games, educational games, internet, etc. Argument 1: EmergenciesAs I said in my definitons phones have calling. Lets think of one example. You are lost in the city. You don't know where things are. Well, that is a bummer when you go to your home. You can't call the police, your mom, or look at the maps to see where you are. There are many reasons to have a phone, and it is to be safe. A phone can make you call people when you don't know where you are, and come get them, texting also. You can look at a map in your phone. Con might say that you can buy a map, but then be realistic. Almost no one or know where gives or sells the things that looks like a GPS. However, you have everything in a phone. That is why you need a phone, for safety and emergencies. Argument 2: EducationalMy opponent says that it can distrupt learning, certaintly, but that will be mentioned in the counterplan. My argument is that phones can be educational. As I said in the definitions, there is the Internet. Also there are educational games. Phones have lots of info. in them, so they are educational, making teens who need to learn good. Argument 3: UsefulAlmost everything in a phone is useful. You can search many links at the Internet, play brain games, search in dictionaries. There are much more benefits of actually having a phone. Because phones are very useful, children should have it before they are a teen. Counterplan 1: LockThere is finally a app in google play where you can download it and pick certain games with password. So this makes them not play, and if the parents let them, the parents can unlock the code. This is a useful way, and good way so that they don't play games, and they are safe with a phone. Sources[1] . https://www.google.co.kr...Thank
Should teens have iPhone before they are a teen

The reason they shouldn't have phone before the age of 18 is because kids and teens get to reliant on there phones and technology to help them with there every day needs even though they don't. It also can disrupt their education and disrupt others who are trying to learn. They text in class instead of listening to the teacher. They use the phone to call and text people instead of actually socializing and interacting with actual people.
Donald Trump

I begin with an asinine assertion because for the purposes of this debate I prefer to behave as asininely as possible because a civilized debate cannot be conducted near conservatives. They do not believe in cold hard logic and they don't understand that trickle down economies are the worst possible kind of economy there is. Our symbol might be that of a donkey, but you're the real asses. I've talked about Trump so many times that I've gotten bored of it. I'll keep going, though. I enjoy seeing how you respond to facts. Also, I like how you make finding a job sound easy for homeless people. If it was that easy, there wouldn't be any homeless people. there are, so evidently something is wrong with our current system. Hmm. that's irrelevant. Let's move on. I'm being immature, I am, but I've got to spice up this bland debate somehow, give it a few kickers and some zing. We should not threaten ISIS. If we remain neutral, and don't acknowledge their existence, they'll turn their attention elsewhere. If we say we're going to nuke them, they will try to nuke us. If an atomic bomb is fired at you, would you want to hide under a table, or stand up and try to fight it? Seriously, it's a well placed metaphor. It might seem hard for your first-grade level mind to comprehend, but peace is a better option than war. I'd prefer to stay peaceful with ISIS, not threaten them so they blow us all to kingdom come. ISIS hasn't been murdering Americans for years. Very few members of ISIS even live here in America. Most shootings are done by Americans. You're interpreting this as a case of black and white, you repulsive bigot. It's not. We're just as evil in their eyes as they are in ours. Instead of threatening them with warfare, we could point out that killing people isn't nice and try to sway them over to our side with reason. If nothing works, THEN we might go extreme. But they are the smallest threat to America right now. They're a little ragtag team of weirdos out in a desert, in the middle of nowhere. We don't need to worry about them. Your mind has been stirred up by the fearmongering put in play by the media. You believe in chemtrails too, don't you? I know I'm engaging in several logical fallacies right now. I'd rather be correct than win. Trump wants to put up a wall that stops Mexicans from entering. That's racist. He's a racist person. he hates China. Chinese people are nice. He's racist. I h a t e t r u m p ! You evil fiend.
Donald Trump

I will begin with a list of the most notable accomplishments of the Trump administration, then I will address my opponent's premises. First and foremost is the destruction of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. (1) for years, President Obama referred to the issue of ISIS as a generational problem. However, after President Trump took office and freed our military and our generals to take the fight to ISIS in full force, ISIS' power was broken in mere months. while the greater struggle for an ideological victory may be ongoing, the destruction of those entrenched in their dogma and ideology is a necessary and crucial step. Next is economics, while it would be erroneous to suggest that the market has not taken a hit in recent days, it's imperative that an observer regards the market not in terms of mere points but in terms of proportionality. When one analyzes the current market trends, it's paramount that we realize that the market dropping a thousand points is largely insignificant compared to the increase since President Trump took office. While the President does find himself in a precarious situation regarding market drops, it's not yet a cause for significant concern. moreover, the new tax bill has caused an increase in monetary gains across the income spectrum in the form of increased wages, copious bonuses, among other upturns. Now in regard to my opponents assertions, it is counterfactual to suggest that the President has imposed any objectively racist policy since taking office over a year ago. the policy proposals often misconstrued as racist are that of his hawkish immigration proposals. Firstly, securing the border is not a racist policy. Enforcing our laws is a necessary and just action. When man establishes a government, they lay it's foundation in certain principles and organize its powers in such a way that will best secure their happiness and security. That, of course, by virtue of the inherent contract between citizen and government, entails the enforcement of laws laid in the foundation of said principles. The exercise of sovereignty in enforcing borders is the ultimate expression of these laws and principles and is in no way indicative of the disdain towards certain peoples or ethnicities. In regard to the allegation of misogyny, while I imagine my opponent and I are in agreement about the inexcusable conduct of the President in regard to certain instances prior to becoming President, it cannot be denied that the president has upheld the principle of meritocracy by employing numerous women within his administration. A true misogynist would not allow women into these high positions. If my opponent should require elaboration into the list of women within the administration, I would be more than happy to provide one. (1) https://www.theguardian.com...
Donald Trump

trump is a racist and a mysogynist. he hates women. His reign of terror is a detriment to the country. He insulted both China and Russia during his State of the Union speech, even though they're our allies, he threatened Kim Jong Un with atomic war so we're all going to die and if we don't impeach him soon North Korea is going to blow us all to the sky and you sick republicans will be laughing up the other end of your sleeve. That's all I have to say. Judges, make sure your votes are fair and unbiased. I might lose, I know, but I shouldn't have debated this.
Donald Trump

First, I've already addressed why Trump has not imposed any racist policy, therefore, showing that this is not a racist administration. second, I've already made my position clear on his treatment of women, but he has shown to uphold meritocracy in that regard. Next, he likely won't be kicked out in 2020 because 1. the candidates Dems are looking at are god awful, 2. they keep backing themselves into corners and repudiating their own issues like they did at the state of the union address. 3. they continue to filibuster any government spending plan causing not one but two government shutdowns which have harmed their public image. 4. They continue to press intersectionality instead of taking fiscal responsibility from Republicans after that terrible bill they are passing showing the incompetence of both senate parties while reflecting positively on the president. I would be optimistic about the midterm elections if I were you, but not 2020. My opponent concludes with a nice little poem but no arguments. My entire last post was dropped.
Donald Trump

Oh, heck. Why did I ever accept this dumb thing? Trump is a racist, and a mysogynist, and Hillary should have won, and come 2020 the little demon is going to be kicked out. Trump is a dump. Kick him in the rump. Barack and Michelle are super duper swell. Trump's hands are tiny, his voice is whiny. Bill and Hill, we need you still. I suppose I lose, but I'm getting bored.
We do not need the Federal Reserve

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with anything you say. Also, YOU have the burden of proof, which you failed to prove anything and had no arguments, except "one person said so." Here is a quote of the role the federal reserve has: "The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded." (1) (1) https://www.federalreserveeducation.org...
We do not need the Federal Reserve

You haven't established anything- but let's assume it were true, Mike Maloney is a very experienced economist who predicted the 2008 crisis 1 month befre it happened, and he said we don't need a Federal Reserve. You see where ths can go? Throughout this debate you have provided no good reason why we should have a central bnk at all and thus I win. Claiming that the Federal Reserve creates stablity is just nonsense, and you are yet to prove it. What would the Fed keep the economy stable from anyway? Economic Crisis do not happen, they are caused, most times by some bank or banker.
We do not need the Federal Reserve

Let me go over my credentials in this topic: I used to be the CEO of Stock Predictions, an online financial consulting firm. I also was their lead economist. I could predict the market better than anyone else at the company, thusly leading to my big promotion. I passed the ACTs in 7th grade and plan on taking it again for fun this year. I am currently publishing an irrational number I call Minus 8. I am also creating entire postulates. Now that it is established that I am a qualified mathematician and economist, let's go over some things: 1) It is the Federal Reserve's job to keep the economy stable. 2) None of those disasters had to do with the Federal Reserve, except when they fixed those crises. 3) They did have a Central Bank during the 1907 crisis. The most important note: 4) Almost all of the crises were really caused by CORPORATE BANKS, and not a Central Bank.