BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
was the civil war over slavery

I do agree that President Lincoln didn't fully agree with abolishing slavery, but Lincoln wasn't the person who wanted to secede from the South The South was the one who wanted to secede.. Reading words from the vice president of the Confederate States of America he says: "The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions"African slavery as it exists among us"the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Yea, you didn"t read that wrong. That is the Vice President of the Confederacy stating point blank that the only cause for secession was the institution of slavery. Also, why are you bringing Lincoln in your argument? The south declared secession from the North in December 24, 1860. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, and by then 7 states had already seceded...
was the civil war over slavery

Ok the documents you have got a good point to them but i want to start out this round with Lincoln and his way ins on the Civil War since he claims that the war was over slavery AFTER the war itself came to a close. Lincoln has wrote down in a letter to generals and other government officials that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would. of course you might want a source to look this up Presidential LIncoln by John Forbes Ludlow. now that ,that is out of the way i have another reason but it can be very contriversal and i thought it should be brought up since we are in a debate. Did Abraham Lincoln own slaves and the answer is yes he did even though history books say he didnt and as i know he lied and everyone dose say that he never told a lie and you know that is impossible. he has told many lies in his life and this is one of his biggest lies. and as a final statement from all kinds of people the victor tells the story which give a raising eyebrow to was the war over slavery or wasnt it
was the civil war over slavery

Hello. Good luck on this debate. First of i would suggest that you should read the secession documents. The word "slave" or "slavery" appears 35 times in the Georgia secession document. It appears 7 times in the Mississippi document. It is in the South Carolina document 18 times. Texas 22 times. Alabama 1 time (but domestic institution also appears which is a euphemism for slavery). And so on. In some cases you need to read the resolutions of the secession conventions--Arkansas March 20, 1861 for example. Slavery is front and center. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net... South Carolina pretty much destroyed the idea that the Civil War was over states' rights in its declaration. The state said that several northern states "have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them." They were very upset about this because these states' laws often allowed slaves to stay as freemen if within their territories. Okay, so the Civil War was about states' rights, unless that state didn't agree with the institution of slavery? Right. But oh, Mississippi. They're a little bit off hinge nowadays, but back in the day, they were straight forward with their beliefs. Their declaration literally says that they're leaving the Union because their "position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." It's a bit long to post the whole declaration here, but seriously, go read it. They literally say that slaves are necessary because only Africans can handle the type of heat experienced through work in the South. Ah, and the good old Peach State: Georgia. They wrote a lengthy declaration and actually cited numerous sources (something unheard of in the conservative party of today), but it all broke down to "leave our slaves alone!" One reason Georgia left is because a provision in "the Constitution [that] requires them [Northern states] to surrender fugitives from labor." Georgia, not one to not go all out, also said "Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals [runaway slaves] who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us." That's right: runaway slaves were criminals and Georgia was mad that the North wasn't returning them. In fact, go ahead and read Georgia's declaration as well. It's a bit longer, but there's literally not three sentences that go by without mentioning slavery as a cause for secession. There are my first parts of my side.
was the civil war over slavery

i believe that the Civil War was not over slavery it was over sates rights and taxes. my first argument will be short as the start of a normal debate. Slavery is one of the biggest issues in the civil war. i start this debate to show it isn't about slavery. now to get started the Union and Confederacy were only fighting because the north had invaded the southern states. the south during the war had only 6% of slave owners and the slaves were shipped to the US under the United States flag. So i have one question how was the war over slavery when the south barley had slaves and the north had more and brought them here in the first place.
Smoking is good for you

You ignored what I said in the last round: < > Definition of "you" 2. one; anyone; people in general: a tiny animal you can't even see. "you." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 14 Jan. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com...;. Emphasis on "people in general." The topic of the debate is not that smoking can be good in certain circumstances. The topic of the debate is whether smoking is good in general. These are two different points. Thus, only because you have shown that smoking can be good in special circumstances does not mean it is good in general, which I have shown is precisely the topic of the debate. "the fact that i was able to have positive affects that my opponent agreed to should be enough to win me the round" NOT!
Smoking is good for you

"i'd just like to say that all my opponent did was rebut my argument" (2) That's right. I crushed your Round 1 argument. "and never presented any evidence that supported smoking being bad" (3) First of all, the opposite of "smoking is good" is "smoking is not good," and not that "smoking is bad" (it could be neutral for all I care.) In addition, I showed that smoking is bad because it raises your blood pressure and your heart rate. Furthermore, I did provide evidence. I also gave instructions to an experiment that can be performed to verify my claim. Since I showed that my argument is correct, it should be considered so unless you refute it. (To lay it out plainly, that means I win this point.) Obesity ------------ It is true that smoking suppresses the appetite, and it does help people lose weight. Models sometimes smoke cigarettes in order to lose weight. It is true that there are high obesity rates in the U.S. So? What about it? You did not make a point... Are you saying that smoking is good because it is an effective way to eradicate obesity in the U.S.? Are you saying that smoking is good because it is an effective solution for individuals to lose weight? Dementia ------------- "There is also scientific evidence to support that smoking helps stop a numberous variety of dimentias..." (4) You are correct. Smoking can be beneficial in certain cases. In addition, marijuana can help people with glaucoma. However, this does not prove your point, as I will proceed to explain. The title of this debate says "Smoking is good for you." Although it is understood that you do not mean ME personally, it is understood by the statement that smoking is *generally* good for people. Because the consumers you picked for this argument are the exception rather than the rule, whether smoking or not is good for this particular audience does not prove your position on the topic of the debate (i.e. "smoking is good for you"). Good luck (you're gonna need it lol)
Smoking is good for you

(Again, dont really believe in this, but judge based on the arguments) First off, i'd just like to say that all my opponent did was rebut my argument and never presented any evidence that supported smoking being bad. In the last couple years the obesity epidemic in the US and the western world has being a serious problem. Studies have shown that smokers tend to be slimmer than others, Jodi Flaws at the university of maryland school of medicine "In many studies, you often find smokers are slimmer. We've certainly seen it in our studies......Some people think it's due to certain chemicals in cigarettes somehow making them burn more calories, but others believe it suppresses appetite. It may well be both." There is also scientific evidence to support that smoking helps stop a numberous variety of dimentias (a severe impairment or loss of intellectual capacity and personality integration, due to the loss of or damage to neurons in the brain.)"Many dementias go hand-in-hand with a loss of chemical receptors in the brain that just happen to be stimulated by nicotine. Smoking seems to bolster these receptors, and smokers have more of them." (Guardian Unlimited New Media) The studies show that smokers may have more to lose before they start losing their minds. "It does seem that nicotine has a preventative effect" says Roger Bullock, a specialist in dementia and director of the Kingshill Research Centre in Swindon.
Smoking is good for you

Hey stevster. Thanks for starting the debate. I will have a lot of fun ripping your argument apart. Smoking does not calm people down. Your heart rate actually goes up right after you start smoking a cigarette. See http://thescooponsmoking.org... You can verify this by performing the experiment of measuring a friend's heart rate before and after smoking a cigarette. It also happens to increase your blood pressure. See http://thescooponsmoking.org... You can also perform an analogous experiment for this. Since the physical effects of smoking are stimulative, there is no reason to believe that smoking calms you down. There is also no reason to believe that smoking does "wonders for a person's mental and emotional state." "Further more, the sort of badass connatation that smoking has allows some people to feel good about themselves which is always a plus." (1) This is just a plus (as you admitted) and is thus not sufficient to prove your point. In addition, the badass connotation is generally present only in an atmosphere where smoking is condoned.
Smoking is good for you

(First off dont take this too seriously.... its basically a joke but it'll be fun debating it) Smoking alot of the times is good because it calms people down. As we all know, life is very stressful and a cigarette or some weed will often do wonders for a person's mental and emotional state. Further more, the sort of badass connatation that smoking has allows some people to feel good about themselves which is always a plus.
no gun control in america

Well this is the last round. I really have to mention that the name of the debate is: no gun control in America. And I would like to answer to my question in that way: If there is a criminal with a rifle at your head, would it be safe to pull out a gun? Probably not, the criminal wouldn't risk his life, and would shoot. Agree with the sentence that Children get their hands on guns because of irresponsible adults, not on their own. But the government could ban that. Imagine an irresponsible killer child. If there would a ban. The country could get more gun-free or at least the storage's of firearms could get smaller, and there isn't a unrealistic wall. The 39.6%+ guns that criminals are getting are from families/friends... The limitations or bans would reduce crime for 1/3 at least. And mass shootings in schools would be eliminated. Next, I don't get what are ;true US Americans;, this could probably mean the Americans in the movies. And there are no problems with liberals. The right of owning firearms is dangerous, and taking it away would make our lives safer. What's more important? A useless and dangerous right or a individualistic life? From the first round I meant that the police officers or troopers could be more effective, if there would be special social security laws. Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective: The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons. ;A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. For voters I recommend reading the links, and vote wisely. Think twice about it, liberals will try to make our live better and more modern, meanwhile the conservatives will try to keep the old traditions. Freedom is to live and do what you want. And not traditions, religion and have morals. All 4 round sources: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov... http://dailycaller.com... http://www.ontheissues.org... http://www.usnews.com... http://www.gallup.com... http://www.feinstein.senate.gov... http://www.lawforkids.org... and some facts from http://en.wikipedia.org... plus some basic social liberal and common sense.
no gun control in america

I'll start this round by saying that as I mentioned in the previous round, there is in fact regulations in place. I can not buy a RPG tomorrow, as there is no real purpose for it (protection, hunting, range) in the everyday world. These regulations currently in place are fair, but that is all that there should be. Children get their hands on guns because of irresponsible adults, not on their own. The uses of guns owned legally that you listed are very legitimate uses for a gun, and in no way is that an argument for banning them. I agree that your question may seem silly, it really is. How can a gun protect you from a criminal if there are more criminals? The answer is that most criminals act alone, as I proved in previous rounds (only 3% of gun-related deaths are due to gang violence). That question has proved to be completely useless in your debate. Moving on, you stated the the country can become gun free. We both agreed that criminals don"t acquire their guns legally, so what would making the rest of the country gun free (completely unrealistic and impossible, by the way) do to stop crime? Since you obviously are oblivious to how the world works, I"ll answer that for you as well. It would only encourage criminals, since they would know that wherever they chose to go there would be no one with protection against them. This is basic logic. A city in the country Georgia made a law about 15 years ago requiring every household to have a gun. In that time, crime has dropped almost 90%. I am not saying we should ever go this extreme, I am just saying why would we ever do the opposite. I"ll also ask you a question, do you think it takes longer to call 911 and wait for the police to arrive or to pull out a gun. Even you are smart enough to figure that one out. There is just no logic behind your entire debate. I have time and time again proved your simple-minded arguments to be just plain stupid. The 2nd Amendment is here to stay because of real Americans like myself who are smart enough to know about politics in the real world and stand up for ourselves against liberals like yourself who want the government to do everything for you. I can only hope the majority of Americans still feel the same way and are willing to fight for their freedoms just as I am. Please look at the many facts I have presented you throughout this debate and I urge you to reconsider your own opinion. I know that those of you who truly care about our country will logically think this issue over, before siding with myself, instead of acting off your feelings and opinions alone. Think of the lives that you could help save by standing up for the 2nd Amendment before liberals like my opponent take our rights away.
no gun control in america

Well the problems of firearms or weapon ownership is that everyone can be in danger if there are no limitations or bans of firearms. I would like to point out that the name of this debate is No gun controls, this could lead to mass danger. I'm more a sceptic and a social democrat, but I didn't know that the left in average wants more stricter gun control. Of course the most (if not almostly all) people mainly families wants guns only because of the same thing: Criminals are gaining their guns from illegal sources. So many families wants a gun only because of the protection against these murders or criminals. Well this isn't a complete solution. Because if families are being attacked, than they are usually attacked by a gang, that owns more weapons and criminals. The Firearms control (that has to be even bigger, but me personally, I would like to ban weapons) would stop primarily the mass killing in schools, that are being shoot down by psyhopats. Secondary the country would soon get gun-free, and the only way for a criminal to gain it would be hard. Third, families would get safer because the attackings would get rarer. Also the strict gun control in Great Britain has a higher number of crime per capita because people live in a smaller area and are more compressed. But anyway Canada, the most of EU, Australia and New Zealand have a low percentage of murders and crime, partly because of the gun controls. A very large factor that is the problem of the US is the high Gini, inequality causes people to join criminals, gangs, meanwhile the other problem is overpopulation and depression. The families still can report weird activity to police. Meanwhile our privacy is at the minimum,so police should track and haunt down criminals, terrorist and the Illuminati. I think that a lower Gini, more stricter gun control, ban of drugs and a bigger education with psychological test would bring a bigger safety to the society and a happier life. Of course firearms could be used by jobs that include these weapons, but not be owned and always pyhologicaly tested. The firearm industry has to be regulated anyway. Sources are being revaled in the final round.
The Christian Bible Supports Socialism and/or Communism

Hi Poiesis!1) For my first point, two major Socialist ideals are the ideas of welfare and redistribution. In other words, giving money to the poor, so that they can buy food, medicine, a place to live, clothes, and other essentials, as well as actually giving them these things so they don't need to be bought. The Bible, specifically the New Testament, overwhelmingly supports welfare. The following Bible passages are examples of this:2 Corinthians 8:13-15 "For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”"Luke 3:11 "And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”"Matthew 19:21 "Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”"Galatians 6:2 "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."These passages show us that the Bible (specifically Jesus) was in support of the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.2) Next, lets look at another Socialist view, the seperation of church and state. Ironically, the Bible supports this. (Sorry this is so long, it doesn't make as much sense if you shorten it)Matthew 22:15-22 "Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away."For those that are confused, Caesar is the title given to the emperor of Rome, which controlled the region at that time. This passage shows that Jesus considered government and the church seperate entities, although not phrased in that way.3) A third Socialist ideal is the idea of equality, and that all people are equal.Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Yes, it is supposed to be Christ Jesus, not Jesus Christ. Not sure why though...)John 13:16 "Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him."Can't wait for my oppenents argument. :)
The Christian Bible Supports Socialism and/or Communism

I'm definitely disappointed. My opponent instigated this challenge yet failed to follow through with it. He failed to meet his burden of proof, and he failed to discredit my position. I provided more then enough information to refute his opening statement, and there was more than enough time for him to respond with an argument of his own. We must consider the possibility that there simply was not an effective response to the information which I provided. I feel that anyone who reads this will undoubtedly vote in my favor. Thank you for your time.