BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Unconstitutional

Thank you Con for your intelligent response. I want to point out that Con has conceded my definition of 'commerce'. Also, he described my quotation as 'deeply misleading,' but failed to argue exactly how or why. Con claims that "Title VII of the Act deliberately claims to apply to nothing but [entities engaged in commerce]"; that's true, but that doesn't mean that Title VII applies to commerce itself. When read carefully, Con should realize that his quote doesn't justify the application of Title VII to commerce itself. Entities engaged in commerce, and commerce itself, are two very different things. Since the discretion that employers exercise when hiring someone is not an entity engaged in commerce, but commerce itself, Con's argument is invalid. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not claim (directly or indirectly) that Title VII is restricted in application to cases where intrastate commerce (Commerce among the several States) is involved. This implies that it can be applied in cases where intrastate commerce is not involved at all; in fact, case precedent establishes this conclusion. Examples of such cases include:Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 US 241 - Supreme Court 1964Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 US 57 - Supreme Court 1986 In summary, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in both theory and in practice, regulates employer-employee relations in cases where no intrastate commerce is involved. According to Con, it derives this authority from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution; however, it has been conceded that 'commerce' in that context only applies to intrastate commerce. Thus, the Act has no Constitutional authority to regulate employee-employer relations where intrastate commerce is not involved. I have a problem with Con's disregard for Hamilton's opinion in the context of this debate. The writings of Hamilton (and others) in the Federalist Papers are an important resource for making sense of these semantics, and the most important source for understanding the Constitution. (1) I also have a problem with Con's interpretation of the quote he provided. I agree that Hamilton wanted power over commerce to be "in the national depository."; this obviously means that Hamilton intended for the federal government to have authority over commerce. However, Hamilton was clear about what this authority over commerce would not affect; namely, "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State" and "the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature". His reason for excluding these things is also mentioned in The Federalist #17: "those things, [...] which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of [the federal government.]" This proves that Hamilton didn't want the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce.I thank Con for this interesting debate :D(1) http://www.bu.edu...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Unconstitutional

"The definition of 'commerce' as described in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is irrelevant because the definition of 'commerce' is not subject to redefining at the whim of those who wrote the Act."The problem with PRO's argument here is that the definition of commerce contained with the Act does not 'redefine' the meaning in the Constitution at all. Rather, the whole point of mentioning this definition is that it is essentially the same definition contained in the Constitution. Since Title VII of the Act deliberately claims to apply to nothing but those entities (those engaged in commerce, ie businesses, and only businesses with 25 or more employees at that) that the Constitution grants it the explicit right to regulate, it is clearly constitutional. Let us accept PRO's definition of Commerce offered in this round: "[i]ntercourse, exchange of one thing for another, interchange of anything; trade; traffick." Now why is it obvious that hiring and firing employees is covered by this definition? Because the act of employment IS trade! The employee provides his labor - in return for this, he receives remuneration. It is the exchange of one thing for another. The provision of services, as well as goods, constitutes trade, [1] and the worker is clearly providing a service to the employer. Consider the case of a barber. If an individual barber contracts with a customer to provide him with a haircut, and the customer pays him for it, is that not an act of trade? Clearly it is. How then is it possible that the exact same transaction NOT be an act of trade merely because it goes through an intermediary (the owner of the barbershop) who collects the money from the customer and passes some of it on as wages? Therefore, by PRO's own definition, employer-employee relations are commerce, and as such are an area where Federal intervention is entirely constitutional.As for the Hamilton quote, your selective quotation is deeply misleading. From the same source:"The regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition. Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository."[2]Hamilton states precisely that power over commerce ought to be lodged "In the national depository." Given this, it cannot be seriously argued that by "Private justice between citizens of the same state," which is what Hamilton says is not the proper province of the Federal Government, extends to commercial matters. Even if it did, Hamilton's opinion is not the Constitution. The power of Congress to regulate commerce is, as Mr. Justice Clark [3] states, 'Broad and Sweeping.'[1]http://www.wto.org...;[2]http://xroads.virginia.edu...;[3]http://supreme.justia.com...;
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Unconstitutional

Con argues that the authority for Congress to regulate employer-employee relations comes from this excerpt from the Commerce Clause in the Constitution:"[Congress shall have the power to] regulate Commerce [...] among the several States" (1)However, the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government power to interfere with local affairs. Alexander Hamilton implied as much in The Federalist #17: "The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State [...] are [...] to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be [affected by the Commerce Clause]." (3)(4) It's obvious that employer-employee relations in the same state are local affairs and cannot be defined as "Commerce among the several States." The definition of 'commerce' as described in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is irrelevant because the definition of 'commerce' is not subject to redefining at the whim of those who wrote the Act; it is known exactly what the writers of the Commerce Clause meant by the word 'commerce': "[i]ntercourse, exchange of one thing for another, interchange of anything; trade; traffick." (2)I contend that the discretion exercised by employers when hiring and/or firing employees is not contained in the previously noted definition of 'commerce', so the federal government has no authority to restrict it. This renders the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional; at least in part, which is sufficient for me to win this debate.I await my opponent's rebuttal.(1) http://www.archives.gov...(2) http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com...(3) http://www.lewrockwell.com...(4) http://www.constitution.org...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Unconstitutional

OK. Since Pro has kept his opening argument to under 2000 characters, I will try to restrain my usual wordiness as much as possible while still doing actual analysis. The ability for Congress to regulate employer-employee relations comes from section eight of article one of the Constitution, what is commonly known as the Commerce Clause - Congress shall have the power:The 1964 Act is explicit in specifying that its provisions define an employer as someone involved in an "Industry affecting commerce," therefore by the terms of the act itself, this section only applies to those engaged in commerce. [2] Furthermore, it goes on to define commerce as "Trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States; or between a State and any place outside thereof; or within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States; or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof." In other words, the definition used in the act for it to apply to a business requires, in so many words, said business to be engaged in precisely the kind of activity to which the Commerce Clause applies. In so far as a business is not involved in trade "Among the several states," the law explicitly does not apply to it. The language of Constitution and Act is essentially the same. [1]http://www.usconstitution.net...[2] http://www.ourdocuments.gov...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Unconstitutional

Thank you for your acceptance, and I feel that we are in agreement. I had previously assumed I had the burden of proof; after all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has already been judged constitutional by SCOTUS, so I figured it was obvious. Remember, voters, I need only to prove that any one part of the act is unconstitutional for me to win this debate. I argue that section 703(a)2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional because it tries to give the federal government power to regulate relations between employers and their employees. "SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-- (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or" [1] The Constitution does not specifically give the federal government this authority (to regulate employer/employee relations), but does not prohibit the individual States from doing so. Thus, according to the 10th Amendment, the States have this power, and not the federal government. "Amendment X 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." [2] In summary, because the Act tries to give the federal government authority it cannot have according to the Constitution, I argue that it is unconstitutional. [1] http://www.ourdocuments.gov... [2] http://www.archives.gov...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Unconstitutional

OK, given the thought experiment setup of us being Justices attempting to convince a third justice to vote with us, PRO must explain on what grounds the plaintiff is arguing the law to be unconstitutional.PRO has BoP. This makes most sense given how the SCOTUS works - to declare a statue unconstitutional, the Court must be sure that it cannot be justified under the constitution. It is not enough to prove that the constitution CAN be read in such a way as to render the Act unconstitutional - he must prove that this is the correct, or only, way to interpret the constitution. On a related note, given the wording of the resolution, I will not be arguing for severability - if PRO is able to prove conclusively that any part of the act is unconstitutional, he wins.Just for the sake of completeness, although I do not expect it to be an issue in this debate, I am assuming that 'unconstitutional' is defined as at variance with or not permitted by a constitution with the constitution in question being that of the United States. Definition comes from the World English Dictionary.
Conservation for all animals.

"When we logic and reason we are superior intellectual beings. For that reason we are dangerous.""Superiority" is arbitrary and is not the right word here. Also, I do not see how the ability of using logic and reason causes one to be dangerous, as opposed to one who cannot. This remains unproven."As a consequence while we increase more homes are required to be built and nature has to be swiped out to become a human colony, while animals have less space and have the need to migrate to even more desolate regions(most important factor).Not a good idea at all."Why isn't it a good idea? "Its still happening, so that shows an act of careless selfishness because simply it doesn't seem to affect him. In the other animal society everyone is doing something. They mainly help themselves but through and act of unconsciousness are also helping their group. They do not feel weakness when doing a task, they simply do it, something we do not do but instead think if we should do it. "And the point is...?"An animal takes what it needs for himself, a human takes everything he can get from them until they are nearly extinct."If we were to assume that this is true, what conclusion do you infer from this!? The actual objective of the rant isn't clear at all."If one person kills another person that is a 1st degree crime, but if a human kills an animal(Tiger) its still illegal but it has less strike.(Same justice for death) of course if an animal kills a human its because the person did something he was not meant to do. An infant has the right to eat because he cannot find his own. An animal can find his own but thanks to us every time is harder so they should have the same opportunities of finding food as we have our own portions.(Same food distribution). So I am saying that life rights apply."Okay. There is no argument being made here. I don't get it. So do you think that the killing of an animal should be punished equally to the killing a human? What are these "life rights" based on? Where are you getting this from? ---My opponent is ranting and isn't really forming a uniform argument... Uhh.
Conservation for all animals.

Very well, who are we. When we logic and reason we are superior intellectual beings. For that reason we are dangerous. We over think the situations and create new conflicts that shouldn't have existed for example: Creating the politics that with the sucession of time becomes corrupt. We are in fact different from the animals but in many ways we still act as them. Reproduction: Mainly its primary objective is "Survival of the species". Animals do this a we humans do. But still we cant control our number. Their is not a worldwide birth control so we simply keep growing. If a certain animal had everything he needed he would increase vastly in number and if they had a whole continent to themselves they would fill it as we do, which is bad when there is so many.Food shortage comes with violence and many other problems.We now know that in this aspect we are the same to them and by not being able to control it, (because of politics and other factors) we show no special attributes of us humans in this case. As a consequence while we increase more homes are required to be built and nature has to be swiped out to become a human colony, while animals have less space and have the need to migrate to even more desolate regions(most important factor).Not a good idea at all. With that I explain a part of who we are.(Society could work with less people now that new systems of life exsit. Life is better than befor but how could it be with less persons.There would be more resources and opportunities to us and the animals.) Yes we are part of a society as you say. As a swarm of animals are part of a flock. If a person does not help to contribute in small tasks such as recycling then no one cares what he did. So all the residual plastic or other bad wastes burn (Not always but in many cases yes) The atmosphere is affected and the North and South Poles Melt to an unnormal heat. Its still happening, so that shows an act of careless selfishness because simply it doesn't seem to affect him. In the other animal society everyone is doing something. They mainly help themselves but through and act of unconsciousness are also helping their group. They do not feel weakness when doing a task, they simply do it, something we do not do but instead think if we should do it. That also makes them less selfish than we are. An animal takes what it needs for himself, a human takes everything he can get from them until they are nearly extinct. I could have made an misunderstanding in the rights value. Better consider life rights. If one person kills another person that is a 1st degree crime, but if a human kills an animal(Tiger) its still illegal but it has less strike.(Same justice for death) of course if an animal kills a human its because the person did something he was not meant to do. An infant has the right to eat because he cannot find his own. An animal can find his own but thanks to us every time is harder so they should have the same opportunities of finding food as we have our own portions.(Same food distribution). So I am saying that life rights apply.
Conservation for all animals.

(NOTE: Throughout this debate, non-human animals will simply be referred to as "animals," while homo sapien sapiens will be referred to as "humans.")Opponent Premise 1: "Every living being who [sic] habitat's [sic] earth is unique and special."(Definitions:Unique: (n) existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristicsSpecial: (n) of a distinct or particular kind or character [First definitions, respectively, on dictionary.com])So, let us accept this as a valid premise.Opponent Premise 2: "We are not special in who we are but how we think."The human thought processing mechanism can be considered a part of who we are. This is a very vague statement. What defines "who are are"? This wasn't clarified. "If we think with this so called reason we would realize that being selfish is not only denying your help to society but to the other species that habitat this world."Well, selfishness does not necessarily deny help to society, since an individual is part of society. Furthermore, a person with selfish motives can, without a doubt, contribute to (i.e., help) society. But okay, sure... The opponent explained what "selfishness" means.Note that the opponent did not really prove that selfishness is inherently bad."Animals should have the same rights as humans because they are just as valuable as we are, we belong the same, we are different from animals."And this is the key problem with the opponent's argument (or rant.) This claim is built off of the unproven premise that animals and humans are equally valuable. The opponent never substantiates his seemingly arbitrary value system that he uses to uphold his argument. "Animals should have the same rights as humans because they are just as valuable as we are, we belong the same, we are different from animals. We once looked like one. Humans are special but stop being when we spread like a disease or virus eliminating every other different being in earth, by reducing their habitat destroying natural regions such as forests, jungles only to care about our own we should leave the animals with space of their own expanding and creating new natural reserves."This part of the opponent's argument really perplexes me. It does not justify the claim that humans and animals are equally valuable or have the same rights. Humans evolved from non-human animals, yes--but who implied that the non-human animals that humans evolved from had the same value as modern-day humans? And then the opponent seems to claim that humans stop being "special" when adversely affect animals. Based on my prior definition of "special" (or any formal definition, for that matter), I do not see how that precludes humanity from being special, or unique. ---In conclusion, the opponent's rant is built on the premise that humans and animals should have the same rights and should be valued equally. This claim is not substantiated, and therefore, the opponent has not met his burden of proof.As an aside (just for kicks), since animals should have the "same rights" as humans, should snails be allowed to vote in elections?
Conservation for all animals.

We most of all should realize that earth was not meant to be ours but instead a turn of events made us be here. Every living being who habitat's earth is unique and special. We are not special in who we are but how we think. If we think with this so called reason we would realize that being selfish is not only denying your help to society but to the other species that habitat this world. It is such selfishness that we do not care if they are endangered. WE JUST CARE ABOUT NOT MAKING IT EXTINCT. Animals should have the same rights as humans because they are just as valuable as we are, we belong the same, we are different from animals. We once looked like one. Humans are special but stop being when we spread like a disease or virus eliminating every other different being in earth, by reducing their habitat destroying natural regions such as forests, jungles only to care about our own we should leave the animals with space of their own expanding and creating new natural reserves. You may have the need to destroy because we are so many but that is a different topic. we are no more worth than we think they are. We seldom care about them so we should space time for them.
Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation

BOP lies with pro. First round for acceptance only. No new arguments in last round.Hey Capitalistslave!I'm so sorry but I set the debating character limit to 2000, incorrectly believing it would mean the limit was 2000 words without looking properly (I know its pretty dumb). Hence I'm restarting the debate with a 10 000 character limit.I hope that's ok with you!Also to clarify: Higher Education: education beyond secondary level/education provided by a college/university.Outdated: No longer current. https://www.merriam-webster.com... https://www.merriam-webster.com...Millennial generation: A person reaching young adulthood in the early 21st century. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... Further clarification:When I say, higher education is outdated - I’m not talking about the experience of university, but rather the actual education that we receive from university itself. Hence arguments arguing that the friends that you make/parties you go to/clubs you join/connections you build is worthwhile etc. is irrelevant.
Marajuana should be legalized

Who is to say that marijuana smokers cannot be violent? Marijuana impairs judgement on all levels. While we see the "lovable stoner", who is to say that said person would not pick up a bat and beat someone to death due to their impaired mental state? Marijuana is known to kill brain cells. With the majority of marijuana smokers in their teens and early 20's, this is a disturbing trend. Young people need to keep their minds sharp. There are far too many students flunking out of school these days, marijuana might be to blame.
weed

No I thank you for reading my last one weed is not a drug, a dug has at least one or two side affect that are bad for you. My ref? Go grab a bottle and read the warning label. weed? The only bad one is the panic attack. Make it legal and 80/cent of it will be gone, The rest is for those pron to panic attacks and those that smoke medical and hydro. Now the ones that suffer panic attack can still benefit weed. how you might ask? Easy if they can learn how to meditate they may be3 able to divert there thout process over time and over come there fear or what ever that may course the attack. Why do I think this okay here my thinking. Okay read any thing about meditatoun........ Good you done? Yeas okay, know weed help amplifies or strengthen ones ability to focus the mind in ways that may help them open doors that one may not have ether whys have access to. 2 http://answers.yahoo.com... that is about them weed is a tool t6hat can be treated like a drug but a lot of what inside the plant are already inside of are body.