BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the Pledge of Allegiance be said daily in public schools? (US)

You are very correct in saying most teenagers do not care for politics and would rather be following a celebrity on twitter than watch the news. However, I will ask how does someone get excited about a celebrity? Typically the celebrity is attractive or has a hit song or some other thing has put them in the focus of teen America. So we must do the same for politics, news, and the world outside social media. You learn to like someone or something by exposure to it not by turning your back on it. This is why young people do not participate in politics they turn their back on it. Now if you are trying to get someone interested in politics what will work better? Giving them exposure to politics or letting them turn their back on it and go back to social media. The same goes for the pledge of allegiance. You will not captivate someone by giving them less exposure to it. If given a moment of silence to reflect on our nation students will use it to cram for a test or finish the homework before a class. Lessening the amount you do something does not make anyone want to do it more often. If you give a kid ice cream once a week the kid will want it more than once week (pardon my bad analogy). Only difference is politics is like an onion in that it takes a lot to get into it and understand everything that is going on in our nation. Like I said though kids won't peal back the layers unless they get more exposure. If anything we need to do something more or change something for the better to captivate people every morning in school. Bottom line I don"t believe giving someone less of something they already don't care about will make them want to do it anymore. Also about a crisis making someone want to participate in politics I will give you a couple of examples of this. After Pearl Harbor the Japanese wanted us to sign a peace treaty in fear. The exact opposite happened we declared war and our populous was livid and wanted revenge. Now keep in mind back then before the bombing we were very opposed to joining any side of the war and many were in favor of isolationism. Same thing after 9/11. We were livid and wanted revenge. I wasn't that old back then but I have seen videos of the sporting events after 9/11 and the unity after these events is incredible. The USA chants send chills through your body. Anyways these events brought the nation together and focused our attention on getting the people who did the horrific things to us. Now the enthusiasm slowly faded down to the level it is today. Lastly about you patriotism class. We already do take U.S. History in high school it is required. How would this "patriotism" class stray from learning about our great history. I believe that class should instill patriotism but people look at it the wrong way. I know from personal experience a good teacher who holds good discussions in a social studies/world cultures/history class makes all the difference in how much I will like the class. In fact that"s what made me love history so much way back when.
Should the Pledge of Allegiance be said daily in public schools? (US)

Thank you for responding, Con. I also would like to reach out and thank you in advance for your service. My rebuttal is simple: Most teenagers don't care for politics, as proven by voter turnout in the recent decades. Introducing a revolutionary leader to unite the masses would not catch their attention. The only reason the younger generation was captivated by the Obama administration was the evident historical significance of his election. The majority of teenagers do not follow policy changes, instead they choose to follow celebrities' Twitter feeds and Instagram accounts. They will not be roused out of their intellectual slumber by a man behind a podium. It is impossible to put the task reawakening our nation on the shoulders of one man. A crisis will not cause them to listen. At this point in the degradation of our society, it would force them into a deeper, self-inflicted wallow of self-pity and inactivity. There would be no uprising or call to arms. The mainstream mass of youth would rather be on their couch snapping selfies than outside aiding the community. A crisis is a situation in which we need people who are prepared to step up and help, not a situation that would teach people the reasoning behind motivation. I move for the amended solution that the Pledge of Allegiance be said just once a week with a brief moment of silence for the fallen, and that students be required to take a patriotism class that teaches them about our nation and the reasons behind patriotic thought.
Should the Pledge of Allegiance be said daily in public schools? (US)

This is a simple discussion. Should the Pledge of Allegiance be said daily in the public school system? I stand for the Con. My reasoning is that the Pledge, now said every day by high school students, is losing meaning among the youth. Constant exposure has caused a dulling of the patriotic feeling a citizen should have. Even yesterday, a student in my classroom chose to talk to the girl next to him instead of recite the Pledge. Even when they are reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, they mumble their way through the lines and hurriedly sit down when it is finished. The Pledge is supposed to instill patriotic fervor in the youth, but now it seems to do the opposite. They do not care for the flag or for the great nation it stands for. Young men and women die for that flag every week. It is a matter of honor to be able to stand and swear oneself in allegiance to the flag. However, this thought is lost to the younger generation. Instead, they see the Pledge of Allegiance as something that interrupts their day. I move for the solution that the Pledge of Allegiance be said just once a week, along with a brief moment of silence for the fallen. I stand by the hypothesis that reduced exposure will renew the sacred nature of the Pledge in the eyes of the youth. Our nation may need to call upon the younger generations if we are thrust into a national crisis. We do not want to find them lacking in patriotism and apathetic to their country's needs if we do.
I will not contradict myself.

Alright. I'll begin by noting that the first contradiction was not adequately answered. Although my opponent suggested that experiences count as evidence, she did not address the fact that the rules say that evidence is irrelevant. I should win for this reason alone. For fun, CONTRADICTION #2: The answer to question number 22 is a contradiction in itself. Answering a yes/no question with "Yes and no" is essentially a contradiction because it has two competing answers. CONTRADICTION #3: Question #24: "Is it stupid to agree with people that you think differently from you? " Answer to #24: "I believe its called agreeing to disagree. " Her answer to #17 presents a contradiction: "if someone. .. starts agreeing with their opponent. .. that's. .. stupidity" First it's stupidity and then it's agreeing to disagree. CONCLUSION: I should win for the first contradiction alone. If you don't like that one, take a look at the last two. They are pretty solid as well.
I will not contradict myself.

21. I am indeed. 22. Yes and no. 23. What a grasp at straws.... Yes. 24. I believe its called agreeing to disagree. 25. Yep. 26. Nope. I was just noting that they were vague. 27. Sure. 28. nope. my username is untitled_entity... nice try though. 29. I like my fish whole. 30. They're opinions, which I guess could be viewed as arguments. Factual experience can count as evidence. In the course of my debating experience, there have been times when an opponent has taken something to heart that wasn't intended to be interpreted as such....Therefore my experience counts as evidence. Sources are irrelevant for this debate, as we are debating an actual issue, and I don't really have anything to prove to you..... Thanks to my opponent for this debate.
I will not contradict myself.

First, let's get the final set of questions out of the way. 21. Are you a lesbian? 22. Do yes/no questions require yes/no answers? 23. Do you not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not like to eat apples? 24. Is it stupid to agree with people that you think differently from you? 25. Can vague questions be good questions? 26. Are vague questions against the rules of this debate? 27. Do you think the Socratic method is valid? 28. Is your username Untitled_entity? 29. Do you like fishsticks? 30. Are your answers to these questions arguments? Alright. I'll go ahead and begin my analysis of your answers to the questions thus far. CONTRADICTION ONE: I think this one is all I should need. Question 14 was "Do you think arguments should be backed with evidence?" You answered, "Yes." Unfortunately, this contradicts the very rules of this debate. Rule #9 states that "sources are irrelevant." You have contradicted yourself by stating that sources should be backed with evidence while at the same time saying they are irrelevant. Furthermore, you have made some arguments as you have answered these questions. For example, by answering question #11, you argued that "Sometimes it cannot be helped if one debater is better than the other." This argument, however, is not backed by evidence. Therefore, I see a contradiction with this answer as well as your answer to question #14. The exact same thing can be said for your answers to #14 and #12 when you said: "One person takes something the other one said personally, when sometimes, the debater did not intend it in a personal manner." There is, however, no evidence provided for this statement either. Therefore, you are contradicting yourself. I'll stop for now as I feel this contradiction is a pretty big one.
I will not contradict myself.

11. I don't quite understand what your asking. I don't know if you mean in regard to the parameters of the debate, or the matching of skill level etc. I will answer it to the best of my ability, though. In regard to parameters : yes In regard to skill set: Sometimes it cannot be helped if one debater is better than the other 12. I feel as though sometimes, during a debate, one person takes something the other one said personally, when sometimes, the debater did not intend it in a personal manner. 13. Again I feel as if this is rather vague. You can argue your position from any point you want to argue it as long as it is relevant to the rules, and the topic. 14. Yes. 15. Yes. 16. Yes. 17. I mean, people do it, if someone suddenly starts agreeing with their opponent in the middle of a debate, that's their stupidity. 18. I don't know much about the likes and and dislikes of Kim Jung Il though, I have heard that he enjoys golf, I enjoy golf as well. So I guess I agree with something Kim Jung Il likes. 19. Depends on the type of debate. Formal debate, like LD, PF, etc., yes. 20. Definitive answers to what?
I will not contradict myself.

I'll wait to point out any contradictions. 11. Do you think debates should be fair? 12. Do you think certain arguments in debates can be abusive to another debater? 13. Do you think some arguments should not be allowed in debates? 14. Do you think arguments should be backed with evidence? 15. Do you think arguments should be backed with reasons? 16. Are you definitely giving your opinions on these answers?? 17. Do you think debaters should be able to change their arguments within a debate? 18. Do you agree with anything Kim Jung Il likes? 19. Do you think debates should have definitive rules? 20. Should debates with definitive rules require definitive answers? I look forward to your answers!
I will not contradict myself.

Thank you Teucer, for accepting. I am not the creator of this concept, WJMelements is. However, I too find these debates quite interesting. 1. Actually, yes. 2. I do not. 3. No, not really. 4. Yes, I do. At sunset especially. 5. Some of what Karl Marx has written, yes. 6. I agree with him on certain topics. 7. To an extent, yes. 8. Yes. 9. No. 10. No.
I will not contradict myself.

Untitled_entity, This seems like a really neat concept. I'll give it my best shot. QUESTIONS: 1. Do you like to eat apples? 2. Do you find Elvis Presley attractive? 3. Are you a neoconservative? 4. Do you enjoy long walks on the beach? 5. Have you read Karl Marx? 6. Do you agree with Karl Marx? 7. Do you like Barack Obama? 8. Do you believe in God? 9. Do you think that War in Iraq was justified? 10. Are you in favor of invading Pakistan? There you go!
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org...... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted herself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted hierself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck.
basic needs are human rights

Let's define human needs as the basic resources (other than money) that a human needs to stay above the poverty line. Fresh water, Electricity, Shelter, Healthcare, Food, Etc. "We functioned that way for years out of scarce resources, In our society they are no longer, And that is why we now have them as rights"I would argue that many resources are still scarce even in the modern world. We're running out of fresh water. Organ transplant waiting lists take years. Power shortages run rampant through developing countries. World hunger is still a thing. Homeless people still exist. This world is marked by scarcity. It's impossible to treat human needs as rights, If those needs can't be met due to limited resources. ---Argument 2People pay for water, Electricity, Shelter, Healthcare*, And food. If these were fundamental human rights then why are we paying for them? Shouldn't fundamental human rights be provided to the public for free?
basic needs are human rights

This is my first debate - and I've chosen a very difficult position to defend. I'll do my best to play devil's advocate. Good luck! The phrase "basic needs are human rights", Seems ethical and sensible at first glance. My aim is to prove that this ideology breaks down under real-world conditions. Let's imagine an alcoholic named Bob. Bob needs a new liver - but is excluded from the transplant list for his alcoholism. Healthcare is a basic human need. Should Bob's needs trump those of other people also waiting for a liver? No. Bob's village is facing food-shortages and is now rationing food supplies. Bob is a big guy, So he feels he deserves extra rations because he's hungrier than other people. Hunger is a fundamental need. Does Bob's hunger mean he should be allowed more food than the others? Does his need outweigh the needs of others? No. Bob didn't pay his energy bill and his heat went out. Not freezing to death is a fundamental need. Should bob get free energy because of this? No. --------- The problem with "Basic needs are human rights" is that it doesn't work when resources run out. It assumes that all human needs can be met without taking anything away from others. These lofty ideals breakdown In a world of scarcity and shortage. I would argue instead that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of an individual. The world limits individual liberties sometimes in order to maximize the well being of society at large. Your personal needs are not a guaranteed human right.
basic needs are human rights

"if you have a surplus of a resource efforts should be made to distribute a prtion of that surprlus back to the needy"What about capitalism? Capitalistic societies believe that every man earns his resources. On the contrary, Communistic societies beleive in spreading reasources and wealth around. I would argue that most developed countries beleive in capitalism. Just because human something OUGHT to be, Doesn't mean it is. --Thanks for reading!
The Ancient Astronaut 'Theory' Has Tangible Evidence

What Is The Evidence That Thrive Relies On To Claim Ancient Astronauts Are Real? The answer to this question is simple: none whatsoever. All of the claims made in Thrive about ancient astronauts are based on the same basic assumption: that ancient peoples couldn"t possibly have built this or that structure, or known about this concept or that concept, and therefore this "proves" that they must have been given these ideas by a superior intelligence. That"s it. That"s all the Thrive movie has to support its claims about ancient astronauts. No evidence at all. Just an assumption followed by a supposition, neither of which are logically or factually supportable. Example: at 18:45 of the film, Foster Gamble, finishing up his talk about the 64-circled "Flower of Life" design, says, "Is it a coincidence that this design appears on two different continents?" We have already seen on this blog that the Thrive movie"s claims about the "Flower of Life" being "burned into the structure of the rock" are false, and that the makers have acknowledged that they are false. Later, trying to link the number 64 with recent discoveries about human DNA, Gamble says of ancient peoples (at 20:02), "But how on earth did they know about it?" This assumption is nothing less than a frontal assault on human intelligence. Mr. Gamble and Mr. Haramein are suggesting that ancient peoples were so stupid, simple-minded and helpless that they couldn"t have come up with anything worthwhile unless that knowledge was given to them by aliens. There is also another incorrect assumption lying behind this one: that knowledge of science and technology in the modern world is always a perfectly linear expansion, that nothing that has ever been known or discovered in human history has ever been lost or forgotten, and that modern understandings of science and engineering are the sina qua non of intelligence. That is to say, if we can"t explain how the Egyptians built a pyramid in terms roughly analogous to understanding of the processes of building the Empire State Building, this precludes the possibility that the pyramids could have been built by humans. Although it appeals to an extraterrestrial designer rather than a divine one, ancient astronaut theories are similar in reasoning (or lack thereof) to young-earth creationism and "Intelligent Design." Right away this should tell you that ancient astronauts are not a rational explanation for the concepts or creations of ancient peoples.
The Ancient Astronaut 'Theory' Has Tangible Evidence

I invite my opponent to come forward if he/she supports the proposition. Well, I am against the so-called 'theory' and I consider it as fringe-science. But I want to hear my opponent's arguments and try to debunk it(if it seems wrong to me). If I agree with the opponent, I will confess that. In the first round, I will not make any comment about the 'theory'. I invite my opponent to show his/her logic in the 1st round. Thank you.
3 P's in a pod.

First of all, the BoP is obviously shared. The system is not inherently good. My opponent must be able to prove that the constitution ought to remain. My opponent is not allowed to simply state that the BoP is on the pro. R1 rules established by pro never state that the contender must clearly state who has the BoP. The BoP is implicitly shared. "If it worked fine so far, it will keep working fine."This is a non-sequiter; a logical fallacy.Furthermore, this would only be a legitimate argument if the constitution had ever worker.But it hasn't.The Alabama Constitution is ineffecient and ineffective and therefore ought be rewritten.The Encumbrence of the Constitution "At 340,136 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world.[1] (The English version of the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length.)"(1)The constitution of Alabama is colossal, and unecissarily so. What many people don't realize about the constitution is that most every piece of legislature made in Alabama requires a state constitution. This is the primary reason why the constitution has become so large. This system is ineffective, because it requires a large amouont of laborious work in order to pass simple legislature.(2)The Constitution and Local AffairsWith the currents design of the Alabama constitution, local matters become a voting point of the whole state. Because all matters put up the vote require a constitutional amendment in Alabama, many affairs that deal only with one county or city. In fact, 75% of all of the 856 amendments affect only one county or city. When voting time rolls around, though (because these laws require a constitutional amendment), voters in Mobile, Alabama could be voting on how much the coroner of Huntsville, Alabama ought to be paid. The inability to create localized legislature effectively is one of the massive weaknesses of the Alabama constitution.(1)(2)SummaryThe constitution of Alabama is ineffecient, and cumbersome. This means that legislation is passed slowly. Local legislation can be affected by non-local voters. The state spends too much money on elections. The constitution must be rewritten.VOTE PRO!Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. "It's a Thick Book" A 45 minute film on constitutional reform in Alabama
3 P's in a pod.

I accept your challenge! I choose to debate a political resolution.The resolution is as follows:"For the Sake of Her People, The Constitution of Alabama Ought to be Replaced"My opponent must take the Con (negating) side on this topic, and I will debate for the Pro (affirming) side of this topic.Definitions"For the Sake of Her People" - Essentially, this statements means that all arguments must be created in order to yield highest net benefits for the people of Alabama.The Constitution of Alabama - The current constitution of Alabama (a state of the U.S.A.) ratified in 1901.Ought - for this debate, what is ought is what will yield the highest net benefits for the people of Alabama.Replace - "to put something new in the place of" (Merriam Webster)
3 P's in a pod.

I challenge my opponent to come up with absolutely any political, philosophical or psychological resolution. They can also dictate which side I take on the resolution.Note: Philosophy does not include religious scripture debates that require specialist knowledge of scriptured texts.It must be given with fully written definitions and must not be a troll debate of any kind.If I can prove the resolution to be too bias to one side, my opponent shall forfeit all 7 points unless they can substantially prove it to be a fair one.This is a twofold debate as there is one attack on the resolution my opponent and another on the side I have been assigned on it, once I accept it.This can get as crazy and as unfair to my side as my opponent wishes insofar as there is a plausible way for me to win it within the constraints of the resolution's wording and the definitions my opponent provided.If specific words are not defined by my opponent, I withhold the right to dictate whatever definition I wish in round 2 and my opponent must accept it. If they post a definition in round one that is sourced to a valid dictionary of some kind (i.e. not Urban dictionary or some other troll dictionary site of that kind) then I am obligated to accept their definitions of key words. Defining connectives and conjunctions is not required, only the key words for the debate that are of significance to the resolution and how to interpret it.Best of luck, opponent.P.S. amending the resolution is illegal.