BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
First Amendment

I am going to rebut my opponent's final points, and I will then reaffirm my points, proving why I feel that I have won this debate. Since the legality of the 1st amendment has been covered, I want to go to a few points made by Pro; My opponent has said that the founding fathers have made the 1st amendment in order to assure that the desire to speak would not be infringed upon. What my opponent has failed to reconcile, however, is the more dark parts of this debate. I must say, weren't present at the times of out founding fathers. (Internet age issues. .. I'm sure we can tell what I mean) These issues, including the inadvertent threat of violence, is problematic in the sense that they are potentially endangering the other party's well-being, but since the 1st amendment protects them, there can be no action taken. I am not referring to blatant threats, since the constitution states that blatant threats are not within the juris-protection of the government. When my opponent mentioned my mention of the use of silencing orders by repressive regimes who claim to have expressive liberties, my opponent viewed this as a means to undermine a possible society in the US without the 1st amendment. This simply isn't true, because as my opponent has said, the US is an economic superpower, and wouldn't tarnish the financial reputation of the country. none of the regimes who I mentioned are superpowers by any social/financial means, cancelling the possibility for ulterior comparison. Now, I would like to finally state my conclusion. The first amendment has been overpassed by many generations, with the use of widespread technology allowing for more types of "expression" that the founding fathers could imagine. I am NOT calling for a ban on the freedom of expression, however I am calling for the repeal of the 1st amendment in order for the replacement of a more modern system, one that takes threats, and other issues, more individually focused, in order to actually protect the modern rights of ALL citizens. Thanks to my opponent, once, again, this has been a great debate, and amazing points were made! Also, the arguments I made do not necessarily reflect my actual opinions.
First Amendment

In the first paragraph, he says that I have made no further arguments past my opening statement. That is true. He didn't make an argument in Round 1, so I didn't make one in Round 2 to make things balanced. This isn't really important, but I thought I might point it out anyways. In the next few paragraphs, he gives arguments on whether it *could* be banned, but this debate is about whether it *should* be banned. Also, it is not inconceivable to me that the First Amendment be repealed, as I am aware that it could happen under the U.S. Constitution. In the biggest paragraph is where the good part of this debate is. Now, the culture does not work because of the First Amendment, it works because all people feel the desire to speak. The founding fathers knew this, and added the First Amendment to the Constitution as an assurance. Yes, most of society would respect the right of free speech without the First Amendment. But the key word there is "most". Some people wouldn't care, and some already don't care. In the second half of the third sentence in the big paragraph, my opponent says "However, there sure were accounts of people being arrested and/or harassed because of it." This sentence was HUGE to me. If so many people ignored the First Amendment, and STILL many people disrespected the freedom of speech, then A LOT more would disrespect it, if The First Amendment wasn't there for the Supreme Court to make rulings on. That being said, society still would probably function. Probably, anyways. You see, before the freedom of speech was thought of in England, citizens would never say anything bad about the King, or else. And they accepted it that way! Who's to say that won't repeat if the First Amendment is taken away? Now, my opponent will probably argue that today is different, because it has been thought of now. As for that, throughout history we have seen people being too accepting of injustices (I'm not saying protesters don't exist). The already mentioned subjects of the King in Middle Ages England, Democrats is the 1800s who accepted slavery, and many more. Also in the big paragraph, he states that we would be held to the same standard of the rest of the U.N. We could leave the U.N., and the U.N. is full of diplomats who won't do a lot of action, even if we banned free speech and stayed in. We could very easily leave the International standards just like that. Now, he will probably argue that the international standards apply to all countries, U.N. or not. As for that, the U.S. is an economic superpower, the U.N. STILL couldn't do very much. It is your turn now, for the final argument, Overnight. This has been a good debate. Over and out.
First Amendment

Since my opponent has made no arguments past his/her opening statement, I will start with my contentions. I am going to debate with the point of view that a case for a repeal of the first amendment IS plausible, it does not actually reflect my personal beliefs, though. Other than that, thanks for this debate! First, I would like to pose a fascinating question, What is a constitution? Is it simply a manifest of subtle legal provisions, or a whole greater than the sum of its many parts? For my opponent, it is inconceivable that the 1st Amendment be repealed, since it represents the American ideal of freedom. Article V of the Constitution gives a detailed description as to how the it would be amended, also listing two elements that could never be. The 1st Amendment isn't one of them, opening the door for this discussion. I am in no way undermining the ideals of this nation that are inextricably woven into the fabric of the constitution, however I must say that depending on the interpretation of the Constitution as a whole, it certainly is possible. I would also like to say that the 1st Amendment has also become a cultural norm as we live in the 21st century. As a proud citizen of the United States, I feel thoroughly safe in the fact that I will not be arrested or harmed for even debating this, for example. But that is not due to the 1st Amendment's assurance that I'm safe. Many of the world's most repressive orders have included just as liberal freedoms the 1st amendment gives, however there sure were accounts of people being arrested and/or harassed because of it. My sense of security (and probably most people's) comes from the nation's society and culture, which shows continual respect towards the practical freedom of expression. Now, I am almost certain that my opponent will counter by saying that I am wrong, and the culture only works BECAUSE of the 1st Amendment. He/she may also say that without the Freedom of expression, the culture would not consist of respect towards that amendment. To counter, I will argue that today, our actions as the United States (The only country I am arguing for) are constantly under scrutiny by the international community. Take Amnesty International as an example. If we were to ignore the freedom of speech, with or without the 1st amendment, we would still be held to the same standards set forth by the U. N and the rest of the International community.
Agnosticism is a real belief.

First of all, it's fine to "spread your beliefs" but when you won't leave me alone about it, then it's a problem. I understand what you're saying, but if there is proof then there's no reason for me to not believe. If God were to have a problem with that then I guess I'll deal with it then. But I don't find there being proof during my lifetime so I guess I'll die with faith in nothing. Proof is something that a lot of people rely on. I'm not the only one. Proof is something that runs our world. Without it there wouldn't be math or science. We would know nothing. God is no different.
Agnosticism is a real belief.

"if it ever turned out there would be proof of him then I would of course believe in him. But I need proof not faith" God without faith, interesting idea. IF we knew for sure the is a God, than every thing we would do would not be from free will. Additionally would not God want a person who believe in HIm when given no direct evidence, Taking a leap of faith. "but I never tell someone that their wrong because their Christian, why do I have to be harassed by Christians?" Why do christian harass you? very simple that think you are being apathetic. off-topic, but is it not a normal human response to spread our beliefs? i.e. The Cold War.
The Electoral College Should Distribute Votes Proportionally

I will be arguing for, instead of maintaining the current system, to completely abolish the electoral college, make the president elected by the popular vote, and change the system from First past the post voting to instant-runoff voting. I don't believe any definitions need to be provided for, other than perhaps I should define instant-runoff voting in case you do not know what it is:Instant run-off voting is a type of ranked preference voting in which instant run-offs occur between candidates. In the process, whoever comes in last in votes, they are removed from the process in an instant run-off, and their votes get transfered over to the voters' second choice. This process repeats until some candidate has a majority of votes.
The Electoral College Should Distribute Votes Proportionally

IntroductionI will be advocating that the Electoral College in the United States should distribute their votes proportionate to the amount of people who voted for each candidate in the state.Rules of DebateDebate StructureRound 1:Rules and acceptanceRound 2: Opening Arguments (Constructive)Round 3: Second ConstructiveRound 4: Con's Rebuttal and Closing. Pro must not post anything in this round due to the BoP.Round 5: Pro's Rebuttal and Closing. Con must not post anything in this round due to the BoP.(Constructive: New arguments and rebuttals)(Rebuttal: No new arguments, only rebuttals. If the debater brings up a new argument in the rebuttals they automatically lose.)Burden of ProofThe BoP will rest on Pro. Pro must prove that changing the Electoral College in the US will benefit the country in order to win. Con does not need to prove that the current system is better, but that the proposed system is worse or won't work.OtherFiat is in effect. In the debate we will assume that the bill will pass through the law-approving process. The debate will not be about whether or not it will pass, just about its effects.Do not accept the debate if you doubt that you will be able to post on all rounds. Due to the Forfeit glitch on Debate.org, it's not just an inconvenience, it makes us physically unable to continue the debate.Please, be serious about this debate.If any of the rules are broken by either debater, that debater immediately loses.For voters, please try to remain unbiased. Also, please include a descriptive RFD so we know why you voted like you did. No vague or unreasonable votes, please.Debate SettingsArgument Time: 72 HoursVoting: 7 Points, OpenVoting Period: 2 WeeksI'm looking forward to a great debate!
The Electoral College Should Distribute Votes Proportionally

Well, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say here since I already responded to pro's round 3 arguments, and pro did not post anything else in round 4. I suppose I'll just re-affirm some things I said before:As stated before, albeit small, there is still a chance under pro's proposed system that the loser of the popular vote can still win the electoral college because of small states being over-represented and large states being under-represented still under pro's proposed system. With the electoral college, it doesn't seem to be protecting us at all, as pointed out, and it seems less likely that 538 people will get the right president in than tens of millions. In addition, it would be easier to bribe tens of people, than tens of millions to alter the outcome of the election. The idea of one person one vote is violated with the electoral college, and would still be violated with pro's proposed plan, as small states will be more represented than large states. It would seem that it may not be a value of American people to be in favor of small states having more power, since majority want to abolish the electoral college, and want to limits the senate's power. I believe that summarized my previous arguments, and will end here.
Lyrical Challenge

== Background == Hip-Hop lyricists have touched upon all sorts of things -- poverty, love, violence, etc. This debate will demonstrate a lyricist's ability to be creative regarding a particular subject on command, and emphasize their versatility by deviating from conventional and monotonous topics. == Debate Function == Thank you in advance to whomever accepts this debate. In Round 1, Con must present a topic narrow enough to be of specific focus or emphasis, but broad enough to allow leeway on the debater's approach to the topic. For example, I might give my opponent the topic "Islam." In their verse, they may take a serious, sarcastic, humorous or concerned approach among others. They might rap about the mosque controversy, wars in the Middle East, Islamophobia or hell even a satirical description of "towel heads." The direction is limitless; however, staying relatively on point to the given topic is paramount to voting standards. In Round 2, I will present a verse(s) on the topic Con assigned me in R1. I will also give Con a topic. Con will give me a new topic and so on and so forth until each of us have submitted 3 rounds of lyrics. In Round 5, I will explain why I should win -- i.e. better lyrics, better approach to the topic, creativity, complexity, etc. and Con will do the same in their final round explaining why they should win. Any possible conflict about assigned topics should be reasonably resolved in the Comments Section of the debate (hopefully this won't be an issue). For the most part, a debater is expected to be ready for anything, however, if an unfeasible challenge ensues they can bring it up in the debate itself and see how it pans out with voters in the end.
Lyrical Challenge

Gah, I hardly know anything about the Middle East, so this was kind of tricky. I've had a burst of inspiration tonight (inspiration or desperation? :D) and wrote most of this in one go. Anyway, I'm not really happy with it, but I've got no more time. I regret not rhyming Middle East with Angry Beast... Anyway, here it is: "What can I say about Peace in the Middle East?" I think Peace in the Middle East is Unlikely, Just one horrible, long string of conflict, See, From in the day of the second Ramesses, With the Battle of Kadesh, one thousand BC The Hittite and the Egyptian Armies, Fought for control of the Mediterranean Sea. Next came the first Persian Empire, Their need to conquer was dire, Xerxes the First, he invaded the Greeks, Got their supplies cut off and were forced to retreat, Alexander the Great, he conquering the Area, It seems likely now that he died of Malaria The Romans came next, a shadow of a thousand years, Killing, maiming, torturing, a flowing river of tears. The birthplace of Religion, good old Christianity, Child crusades to purge the region of insanity, Pointless death and the loss of Man's humanity, That why the Pope is the target of my profanity. Don't forget Judaism and Islam, Never doing good, only bringing about harm, Thinking about it, struggling to remain calm, Another Australian troop dead in Afghanistan. Fighting a war they shouldn't be involved in, Someone please call that Privates next of kin, He died looking for Osama Bin Ladin, The whole war plan should be thrown in the bin. Fighting for Oil on scorched Soil, this whole subject makes my blood Boil. Men in Suits cause Turmoil, Warfare, No-one Cares, don't see, the consequence, theres no defence. Got no tolerance for nonsense or stupidity so don't talk to me about pity or ask me to join some committee of bullsh!t and hypocrites. The whole damn situation is such a pity, I wish I could bring all the good people home to my city, I'd forget all the fear and propaganda, They could forget about war and all the sand I- -‘d teach them a bit about our way of life, away from the death and the constant strife. Share of smoke of the old peace pipe, And re-enact every good stereotype, I don't think it will happen, there's just too much prejudice While their women are wearing that offensive head-dress The fear of terrorism, leads to pessimism, distrust, we must, tackle problems, not slow, not fast, look past, our history, before we, make judgements, treat anyone with dissent, or hatred, it's been said, to break bread, use YOUR head, think of the dead and lie in the bed that you've made. YOUR NEXT RAP TOPIC: DIGITAL PIRACY LAWS
Lyrical Challenge

Unfortunately I overbooked myself and wasn't able to dedicate much time (at all) to this round considering I'm doing like 10 other debates. .. blegh. .. so by my own admission this is a less than stellar example of my skillz. Lucky you, tvellalott! :P == TOPIC 1: OBESITY EPIDEMIC == Sweeties with obesity in these cities sleep peacefully And seize diabetes - a shitty disease so easily They're pleased to appease, you see and teased about treats Like they got treaties with Wheaties; they're champions of eats It's rampant, not fun - like they wanna die young They run to succumb to the drugs on their tongue Don't matter where from: a billion suffer worldwide Not bluffing - 16's the new average girl's size I tell no lies - And this knowledge's epistemic The size of those thighs confirm an epidemic It's blatant, it's flagrant - every day I see the same sh! t This girl got mad I was saying it; told her to hit the pavement Get out of her mom's basement even if she becomes a vagrant Said she can't make the payments but I guess that's why she's heinous Still she asked me if I'd date it and I said I'd consider it Then I caved in and ate it; guess that's why I'm a b! tter bitch I like getting high - not girls with high blood pressure Still I didn't wanna upset her so I chilled and undressed her Invested in a crane just so I could suspend her But when she ingested a train I just couldn't defend her Arrest her if you can but she tends to dodge away Looking like a sumo wrestler when she dons lingerie To top it off she did me dirty but I let bygones be bygones And got her a size 30 skirt that I left for her to try on And it was tight. .. tighter than skinny jeans on Santa You gotta be Braves to get with this girl like you're from Atlanta Her snatch was like a Hot Pocket - crusty and cheesey She's busty but that dusty vagina made me queasy That b! tch, it wasn't easy - needed a bridge for the abyss Started my voyage in July and finished it on Christmas I never refuse a challenge - I hate to lose, I'll get it right But an extra thick chick makes me lose my appetite Those hoes are so slow but they need to get to fasting Eat something like Atkins featured by celebrity has-beens Go with Slim Fast if you wanna try it bad: a trim a-ss Don't want the diet fads then b! tch just hit the gym mats Cuz this is a problem - silly fat folks, we got em That's why I don't want em like Bill to Hilly Rodham So call this a warning but a tirade's my goal Cuz the only fatties I like are the kind that I roll == CON'S TOPIC 1 == Peace in the Middle East
Yes the Confederate flag is racist

Firstly I'd like to apologize for the delay, Sunday is a very busy for me.Now, your arguments so far have all been about the ethics of slavery and what the flag is seen as by you. However, that is not what you are debating with my about. This debate is about whether the confederate flag is racist.Given the fact that the flag is an inanimate object and is incapable of emotions and ideas, I can only assume that you mean your title to be read as "Does the confederate flag represent racism?"None of the arguments you have presented have given evidence in support of your side. You have mentioned that the confederate flag represents the Confederates, and that they were fighting to preserve slavery, but this is an invalid argument for your side because you are debating whether the flag represents racism, not whether the people flying the flag were racist, as everyone can agree that they were. My argument is that the flag does not represent racism, as it began as the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Saying that the confederate flag is racist is exactly the same as saying that the Swastika is racist. "The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix. Until the Nazis used this symbol, the swastika was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck."(1)The Nazis twisted this meaning for the world by taking it as their symbol and then by doing horrible things to the Jews in and around Germany. However, this does not change what the Swastika originally represented, no matter how many people today are dead set in believing that the Swastika means racism against Jews etc. This is exactly the same case for the confederate flag. It had an originally harmless meaning, but because of the actions of the people that flew it, that meaning got twisted into what many people see it as today. But this doesn't change the actual meaning of the flag.Oh, and a side note, my black friends who read your comments about them are in full disagreement with you, and aren't offended by anyone flying the confederate flag unless that person has come into contact with them and actually expressed racism. I wish you luck, and I thank you for having this debate with me and being patient with my slow replies. (1)http://history1900s.about.com...
Yes the Confederate flag is racist

Yes there is a lot of information that is being put out by Confederate sympathizer. That particular site, is following the tenets of the Lost Cause Agenda so well, that I can almost predict what they are going to say before I scroll down and read more. The other site I have been on at least deviated some from it but this site follows it to the T they could stand to be a little more original with their lies. Try looking up the "The Lost Cause Agenda of the South/Confederacy" and see how it sounds similar. Neo Confederates have countless websites. The thing is when faced with facts it all crumbles, and they get pretty upset when you expose the truth, you will be called racist , N-Word, Al Sharpton, Liberal, Jew, all kinds of things. They don't seem to realize that the Confederates reason for fighting in the Civil War is nothing that has to be guessed about or, made up. They don't seem to understand that the words and the intentions of the Confederates were well documented and really is not as trivial as they try to make it. They can't say that the North made it up either because you can go to just about any Confederate state, (not sure about all of them but I know South Carolina for sure), where you can actually see those documents for yourself, signed by CSA officials of the 1800s and they will even tell you.