BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gay marriage

I would appreciate if you accepted this debate Resolution homosexuals should be able to marry contention 1- not only is not allowing gays a violation of the so proposed ideology of america being equal but it is also preposterous on the idea that if homosexuals want to be miserable in a marriage then let them "we the people of the united states are endowed with three unalienable rights the right to liberty, freedom, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" does this not imply or state that men can pursue other men or marry other men if this makes them happy and if everyone has these unalienable right's does this not say or imply that we're equal observation1- what are straight men and women afraid of? that gays will have a better long lasting marriage and won't fall or crumble when shaken (any homesexuals marriage) contention2- how can the goverment decide if gay marriage is wrong or right for reasons not known to me the goverment banned gay marriage and the equal rights amendment is still in debate today if the goverment decides on what is right and wrong then it's not working for the people anymore it is becoming tyranicle and taking away the people's choice to what they want and when gay supporters support gay rights they are supporting gay marriage whether they are aware of this or not many gay supporters must be straight because there are more straight men then gay men in the U.S. so it would be impossible if only gay's supported gay rights and hope that congress passes ERA (equal rights amendment). contention3- By cristianity or any religion opposed to gay marriage says it is wrong and god sorry God doesn't approve well then I say to you why did god create them if god is the creater of all and everything. also a question does the bible (or God or you) approve of brothers and sisters having sex and reproducing? It is the burden of the Neg. to prove that gay marriages are wrong and immoral the resolution she not be interpreted on anything and no assumptions should be made as to what the resolution means It is clear and doesn't need explaining. homosexuals-having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Whether crocs are good

Just as my opponent has done, I will make my responses to her arguments in accordance with the numbers. 1) Why would any sane person wear shoes with a quality similar to plastic to go hiking? And this "better" ventilation that my opponent mentions in the Crocs actually prove detrimental if a person is crazy enough to wear them to go hiking. The holes in the Crocs let sand and other deposits seep through into the shoe, so that when you are finished hiking, you end up with a shoe full of sand, dirt, and whatnot. To my opponent- ask yourself this: why don't you see people going hiking in Crocs everyday? Why do people wear Nikes when going hiking? It's because it's the better choice, those shoes were made for the outdoors, whereas Crocs are something like flip-flops and are not made for the outdoors. And the money issue had no similarity to the customer satisfaction. I could buy an amazing TV for $100,000, enjoy it, but still feel like I got ripped off nevertheless. Moreover, this is one customer. If I brought a failed product and boasted its quality, would that make the product good again? Point is, the Crocs aren't worth their quality. With a quality similar to a mix of rubber and plastic, they aren't worth the $30 you pay for them. 2)As I stated above, Crocs are ill-fitted to use for hiking. My opponent has failed to prove this point otherwise. Crocs are not worth the money you pay for them. And secondly, my opponent's second point can be used against her. Why would you do laundry in hard Crocs? Why not do them in soft slippers designed to be worn at times like doing the laundry? 3) I must agree to the comparison rate that my opponent pointed out. But other shoes like Nikes or Converse have even lower injury rates. Why not go with the shoes the have no injury rates at all? And the alternatives issue. Just because I wore them to the beach, doesn't make them fashionable. I am no famous idol or celebrity. Why should people look to me to decide whether or not shoes are fashionable? The alternatives I point out are the shoes that do better than the Crocs. It is because Crocs are ugly and ill-designed that we should go with the alternatives in the first place. Otherwise, what's the point? Lastly, the fad issue. We all know what fads are. And let's face it, the Crocs fad is done and over with. When a fad is in existence, I must agree with my opponent in that everyone must get one, but THE CROCS FAD IS DONE AND OVER WITH. After the fad is dead and non-existent, people seldom return to it. Seriously though, how many people still thinks Crocs are fashionable today? Take a look at these websites for professional opinion on Crocs, and don't look at me. I'm no fashion expert, I just state what I believe. . http://racked.com... . http://www.boston.com... . http://www.collegian.psu.edu... For all the reasons listed above, I have my side of the debate on Crocs.
Whether crocs are good

I would like to start off my arguments by refuting my opponent's customer testimony about the Crocs. First off, this story does not seem plausible, because I have owned and worn Crocs before. Even when I would go to the beach in them, sand would seep through into the Crocs because off the ill-fashioned design with the many holes around the shoes. My shoes would be filled with sand after every few steps. Seeing how this is, how can it be possible for a person to hike 30 miles in Crocs and not get sand, dirt, grass and other deposits into his/her Crocs? Secondly, I mean this in no offense to anyone, but what kind of sane person would choose Crocs as the suitable footwear for hiking? A pair of Nikes or hiking boots deems plausible for such a situation. And this customer probably got ripped off, as I know of no one that would spend $30 for a pair of plastic shoes with holes in them. $30 is well enough to buy you a pair of nice tennis shoes, which is obviously the most suitable choice for hiking. Also, to prove my opponent wrong about her information about how Crocs are good for you, in many cases, Crocs have proven to be detrimental to people of young age. In fact, the National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (a consumer safety group) have reported over 40 cases in when young children have been injured because of the Crocs. One such example of this is a young five year old girl who broke her toe as a result of wearing the Crocs to ride up an escalator. Additionally, there are obviously many shoes out there specially designed to eliminate all plantar pain and there are even pads you can insert into your tennis shoes to eliminate odor and sweat, among other things. Seeing as there are other alternatives, why would you choose the unfashionable Crocs? When my opponent stated that Crocs made people happier and therefore their happiness spreads, do you really think this is the case? We go through many different events each day and experience many wonderful emotions, and does the miniscule amount of happiness created by Crocs, if any at all, really compare to the other things that make us happy each and every day? The answer is no. And as for the Crocs themselves, get over them. Crocs may have been the "thing" some time, but now, it is all just a silly little fad. Are they really "fashionable? " Do you think shoes with holes all over them are fashionable? This, again, is just a silly fad, and if you seriously love and adore Crocs, then they should only be worn at home and not in public. For all the reasons listed above, this is why Crocs are bad.
Whether crocs are good

1) My opponent fails to realize that whether you wear socks or not, the deposits still get in there. Who would willingly hike or continue going about business with a shoe full of dirt/sand? Even if it does not touch your feet, the fact is that it's still very uncomfortable to walk on bunches of dirt. Since my opponent has failed to disprove this fact, we must assume it is true, and no one wants to walk with their shoes full of dirt. And plus, you would get nasty sock stains along with the discomfort. Secondly, about the boasting of the failed product, that's the whole point. Just because one customer (let's refer to the one my opponent mentioned) boasts of a product's quality and excellence, that does not change the quality nor the product itself. And she has failed to provide me with any other evidence of customer satisfaction besides this one customer versus the, as she stated in her previous argument, nearly millions of other people who wear Crocs. My TV scenario was an example in reference to the Crocs and how they are not worth their price. 2) Crocs are ill-fitted for hiking. My opponent has failed to rebut my points about the bad choice of Crocs for hiking but keeps repeatedly mentioning this one customer. And I have already proved why that customer is wrong. There are other choices of shoes that can be used virtually anywhere too. Take sandals for example. Same as the Crocs, but more fashionable, and WAY better in quality. 3) My opponent states, "Why not go with the shoes with no injury rates at all? Well, first, they are bound to have injuries; every product comes with risks. ." she contradicts herself twice in this sentence. Additionally, I have already proved that Crocs also have injury rates. And I am not a fashion expert. That is why I have provided my opponent with a list of other websites to refer to. My opponent has no right to be talking in the fact that I have two people, because at least that is one more than what she has provided me. She keeps boasting of the "millions of people who enjoy Crocs" yet only provided us with evidence of one. To sum it up, Crocs are a bad fashion choice and a bad shoe overall. They are ill-designed and are not worth the money. I have disproved all of my opponent's points and supported my own side.
Whether crocs are good

Thanks for replying. 1) As I said before, just wear socks! Also, about the TV, how is this relevant to Crocs? And secondly, if you bought a failed product, why in the world would you boast its quality? It doesn't make sense. And, again, it isn't at all similar to plastic and rubber. You can't say bacteria is similar to humans because they are both living, right? 2)Crocs are not ill fitted for hiking. Take for example the person I mentioned earlier. She walked through streams, snow, and rocks, but ended up with no blisters or stinky shoes. And to answer your question, Crocs are not "hard" as you put them; you are contradicting yourself. Before, you said the Crocs' cushioney material caused injuries; now you are referring to them as hard? And lastly, I was just pointing out the various ways Crocs can be used. The can be used virtually anywhere, unlike soft slippers... 3) Why not go with the shoes with no injury rates at all? Well, first, they are bound to have injuries; every product comes with risks. And secondly, they aren't comfortable doing various things; while the Crocs can be used virtually anywhere. The alternative issue: I have already refuted your alternative suggestions, and I was only using you as an example because you have been contradicting yourself. Lastly, if you aren't any fashion expert, then should you really be telling me whether or not Crocs are fashionable? Also, even if they aren't fashionable, they are better then a lot of shoes. For all the reasons above, my arguments are superior and the fact my opponent agreed with me on most of the things proves my case is better. Also, she failed to answer many of my questions and contradicts herself.Vote affirmative. P.S. I checked out your links-- they don't really say how crocs are ugly..., and they are personal opinions- about two of them. There are millions of buyers who like crocs and think they are fashionable-- what does two people have against Crocs?And finally, the last website says how Crocs are plastic. They certainly don't know what they're talking about, so are you using them as a source? It also mentioned how Crocs could be used for gardening. Why, thank you for building my case!
Flag burning amendment

yes i did say it freedom of speech of is a form of expression , i did not say expression through actions. speaking, writing, printing is a form of expression. Burning the flag is disrespectful, unlawful, and goes against our virtues. Also i would like to add that just cause i didnt provide sources doesnt mean its untrue, i highly doubt you would click on each link, its irrelevant and a waste of our time. i stand by my opinion and thank you for your time to debate this topic.
Flag burning amendment

//Refutations\ I said that the flag is symbolic of our virtues as well as our military and so forth. But that is all it is, symbolism. I have been arguing that it is merely symbolic the entire time. I have not changed my argument at all. Here we get to the fun part, my opponent previously, in round 3, conceded that free speech entailed expressions: "I agree that freedom of speech entails expression but here is the contradiction.." thus there is a contradiction in my opponent's own argument. My opponent said in this round: "the amendment does not support nonverbal speech, therefore burning of the flag is non-verbal so it is not protected under this amendment" but here is the problem, my opponent conceded that free speech entails expression and if we look to Princeton's definition of expression: "expression without words; "tears are an expression of grief"; "the pulse is a reflection of the heart's condition"" [1] we can see that because the amendment protects free speech and free speech entails expression and expression can be non-verbal, the amendment protects non-verbal expression. In response to the quote by Sen. Grassley, so what? He can argue what ever he wants but that doesn't make it so. My opponent has conceded that free speech entails expression therefore the first amendment protects the right to burn the flag. Here my opponent makes a major mistake, he is quoting the Declaration of the Rights of Man which was a French Declaration, not an American one! The quote that is used is directly out of article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man.[2] So as we can see, quoting this proves nothing about the right to burn the American flag. We can ignore this definition because a)I previously provided a definition in my first speech and it has went uncontested and b) my opponent has conceded that freedom of speech entails expression therefore this definition is pointless. //Overview\ My opponent conceded a major part saying that freedom of speech entails expression and I provide a definition of expression from Princeton that says that it is non-verbal expression so we can obviously see that it is protected under the first amendment. Also, my opponent has provided no sources for anything and thus we must take all quotes, definitions and so forth with a grain of salt whereas, if we look to my speeches, I provide sources for all things that require them. Thusly, I await Pro's responses. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://www.hrcr.org...
Flag burning amendment

response: I am not just arguing a contradiction, i was simply stating how opponents argument is contradicting their idea of " fundamental virtues of our society. Also my opponent said that the flag is not just symbolic of our virtues, but the militia. Then you stated that the flag is merely symbolic, so im unclear where you stand on that point. so lets focus on the important argument and that is whether or not its violating human rights. -But to get back to the main argument of freedom of speech/expression i would like to prove that the amendment does not support nonverbal speech, therefore burning of the flag is non-verbal so it is not protected under this amendment. So making an amendment to protect the flag does not violate the human rights. As Sen. Chuck Grassley said in supporting the Vitter proposal, "if you read the debate in 1790 the First Amendment was NOT written to protect nonverbal speech . . . . [W]e want to make sure we get the Constitution back to its original intent before the Supreme Court screwed it up" Also the Declaration provides this quote for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that: "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but SHALL be responsible for such ABUSES of this freedom as shall be defined by law." [6] Definition: Freedom of speech; is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech". Now this proves my argument that freedom of speech and expression is for verbal speech or any act seeking, recieving and imparting info or ideas, which would be acts such as printing,writing,speaking. This does not protect the right to act out violently or express hate through desecrating items such as the flag.
Flag burning amendment

//I don't know what this is xD\ So here my opponent conceded that free speech is also expression so therefore if we stop people from burning the flag we are violating their First Amendment right and this has to be flowed across the round because, as we shall see, the only thing my opponent is arguing is a contradiction. //We are honoring the "fundamental virtues of our society" by allowing people to use their freedom of expression to burn the flag, but the flag IS the ultimate representation of those virtues. SO heres my question, Why would we allow people to burn our flag if it symbolizes our freedom, our country, and those fundamental virtues? Is thtat not literally going against our virtues?// Answer: The flag is not just symbolic of our virtues but it is seen worldwide and it represents American military hegemony which everyone doesn't agree with. But one very important thing that must be said is that the flag is merely symbolic, passing the amendment will actually take away our rights and thus the flag is not symbolic of anything anymore. For the flag to even have symbolism, the right to freedom of expression must remain intact, if it isn't then the flag itself doesn't represent our virtues. So the restate, the flag is merely a representation of the actual rights that are being taken away. If they are taken away the flag won't represent anything anymore so if we really want to respect our virtues you mustn't take away our rights. //Overview\ So my opponent entirely dropped the soldier argument thus conceding that burning the flag is exercising our rights which they are protecting and us exercising rights is honoring their commitment. Nextly, my opponent has not addressed the fact that they must argue against freedom of speech which is a very important voting issue. Lastly, my argument about freedom of expression still stands and thus I await Pro's responses.
Flag burning amendment

I agree that freedom of speech entails expression but here is the contradiction.. We are honoring the "fundamental virtues of our society" by allowing people to use their freedom of expression to burn the flag, but the flag IS the ultimate representation of those virtues. SO heres my question, Why would we allow people to burn our flag if it symbolizes our freedom, our country, and those fundamental virtues? Is thtat not literally going against our virtues? The Flag is much more than cloth; It is a symbols of a country's past, hardships, ideals, aspirations, and identity. To attack a flag is to attack these very symbols.
Flag burning amendment

//Defending\ I think my opponent fails to see what I am arguing. I am saying that making an amendment saying that people cannot burn the flag is going against American virtues, not the actual burning. Next my opponent is arguing that freedom of speech and that of expression are different but this is just no true. As the New York Institute for Special Education says: "(also known as "free speech") The right of a person to speak or publish statements freely without fear of punishment. Free expression is vital to democratic government." [1] This clearly shows that freedom of speech and that of expression are one in the same seeing as speech in just a form of expression therefore if you look to my previous definition of flag burning we can see that it is a form of expression and thus is protected under the first amendment. Burning the flag is not disrespecting the soldiers, it is a form of protest. And we are exercising the first amendment right that they are protecting and thus by us exercising it we are glad that they have protected it so as we can see we are not disrespecting the soldiers at all. //Overview\ The main thing that is being stated is that nowhere in the constitution is the "vandalizing" of the flag protected but burning the flag is a form of expression and freedom of expression is promised in the constitution and thus we can see that not letting people burn the flag is going against one of the fundamental virtues of our society. [1] http://www.nyise.org...
Flag burning amendment

Refutations; The main thing my opponent is stating is that the burning tha glad is going against freedom of speech and disecrating american virtues. My argument is that burning or desecrating a flag is an action and vandalizing, not speech, so how is that covered under the First Amendment? If making an amendement to protect the national symbol of our country "desecrating the most fundamental of american virtues" then how isn't burning the flag descrating Americans virtues with the utmost disrespect. We have brave soldiers fighting for our country everyday, risking their lives for all U.S citizens. They look to the flag with pride and see the flag as a symbol of their country. When people burn the flag they are disrespecting our soldiers who we should be thanking, they are disrespecting the country in which they live in. People say that its their right to burn the flag, but in no place is it written that freedom of speech includes vandalizing the american flag.
Flag burning amendment

Roadmap: Definitions, Refutations, Arguments. //Definitions\ Flag burning: "the act of burning a flag, especially the flag of a nation as an act of protest at that nation's activities"[1] Freedom of expression: "Freedom of expression is a principle contained in various human rights documents. Its objective is to ensure that people are able to communicate and express opinions, in public, private, either written or spoken, without the interference of the state or others" [2] //Refutations\ The main thing my opponent is arguing is that because the flag doesn't represent any one party or political ideology it is irrelevant to burn it. Only half of this is true. It is true that the flag doesn't represent any one party but it does represent the American ideology. The flag is recognizable as the symbol of America and regardless of whether it was meant to or not, it is seen as representing the ideologies of America. Thusly, burning the flag is not irrelevant, it is a way of expressing dissent towards US policies or ideologies that we may disagree with. //Arguments\ The first and foremost reason for supporting the right to burn the flag is that our constitution guarantees us the right to freedom of expression and taking that away is truly disrespecting our nation. What we are doing by passing this amendment is desecrating the most fundamental of American virtues and a thing we fought so hard to get. Freedom of speech/expression is a core value of the American republic and without it we cease to be American. So for my opponent to win this debate they must argue against freedom of speech and/or prove it is a bad thing. I await my opponents return. [1] . http://en.wiktionary.org... [2] . http://www.genderit.org...