BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America.

Apparently, we are going to have to pull out the dictionary, but I love a good semantics argument. My opponent claims that to use the word "secede" requires a government to withdraw from another government. However, this is not the case. Merriam-Webster [1] defines "secede" as "to withdraw from an organization (as a religious communion or political party or federation)." Nothing in this definition implies that a government must be the subject of the verb "secede." My opponent already agrees that the people of Texas can be part of the federation known as the United States. Therefore, it stands to reason that they can secede from such a federation, as the definition implies. Ultimately, my opponent's attempt at semantics fails in that he makes up a definition of secession that he does not back up in the slightest. My opponent chooses to call me out for "not provid[ing] one shred of evidence even attempting to prove [my] side of the debate," but that's only because I have not yet had the chance to respond to my opponent's arguments. It is only natural that I have a chance to respond to any argument before it is assumed that I have not held up my burden in this debate. In conclusion, the resolution of this debate is not an "inherent contradiction," as my opponent claims, because in order to postulate that the resolution is contradictory, my opponent made up his own definition of secession, not backed by any sources or dictionaries, which must yield to the established definition of Merriam-Webster. The resolution holds, and remains affirmed. Mr. Jack Nixon, your attempt at semantics may have failed, but good luck in providing a different argument against the resolution. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Illuminati Existance Debate

Okay, so I have absolutely no experience in the art of "debate", and I'm not even sure if this is qualified as a debatable topic. But hearing about the Illuminati has really been bothering me for the past month. I'm sorta of using this as a way of venting. So, I guess you can call this a "practice debate" if you will. Con is for the Illuminati not existing, and Pro is for the Illuminati existing. Uh, I'll let my opponent start with the first argument.
Immigration Fence

"ah, but the fence prevents ILLEGAL immigrants. key word, ILLEGAL." Again. No one has the right to make that law. "The fence does not restrict immigrants from coming to america Legally. " If all immigration were legalized, the fence would restrict nothing whatsoever. "It benefits them more than anyone. The Fence is simply to enforce a national law, and it does a decent job." If by "decent job" you mean "Very little effect for massive amounts of money." "However, as long as immigrants are coming into the country illegally, they are not protected by the rights offered by the US Constitution." I am not speaking of legal privileges, I am speaking of the human right to liberty. " And to those who day that "America is a country built by Immigrants" please remember one thing; all of them were documented. " This is unsourced. "Have you ever heard of Ellis Island? Over 90% of the Immigrants of the 1900's passed through " First-- if you don't document people you don't know whether it's only 10 percent that didnt, obviously, and again this meaningless assertion is unsourced. Second, 90 percent is not "all." " Disease! Undocumented workers rise bringing disease to the country. " Documents are not a vaccine, and US citizens travelling and bringing diseases by airline after a vacation. is far more likely than some impovershed Mexican managing to make a harsh journey that's generally on foot when ill. In case you haven't noticed, dangerous diseases are hard to travel with when one lacks airplanes and the like. Do you propose setting up checkpoints outside every farm to make sure no diseases escape? No? Then you're making a distinction that makes no sense. "An immigration fence with tighter border security can reduce these risks" No. It can't. Certainly not in a cost effective manner. Again, far more likely that an American will come home with an exotic disease (For one thing, they travel farther!) "If Mexico is such a terrible place, then how come the people who want to move here are not willing to take a test and become citizens?" I don't believe there are many who wouldn't prepare for and take such a test. Unfortunately, most people who want to move here aren't permitted to! It's called an immigration quota, an artifact of a time when the US's leaders wanted to ensure that the number of people with dark skin didn't go up too fast. That artifact, not some unscientific theory of disease or some economic fallacy, is the prima mover behind the immigration laws you propose to step up enforcment of (in a costly and ineffective manner).
Immigration Fence

ah, but the fence prevents ILLEGAL immigrants. key word, ILLEGAL. The fence does not restrict immigrants from coming to america Legally. Even the migrant farm workers in California often have Green Cards so that they can work in america. People like that have every right to pass through the fence with no worries. However, as long as immigrants are coming into the country illegally, they are not protected by the rights offered by the US Constitution. It benefits them more than anyone. The Fence is simply to enforce a national law, and it does a decent job. Border security is necessary. And to those who day that "America is a country built by Immigrants" please remember one thing; all of them were documented. Have you ever heard of Ellis Island? Over 90% of the Immigrants of the 1900's passed through and were documented and medically evaluated. Which brings me to my next point; Disease! Undocumented workers rise bringing disease to the country. It could be something as simple as an influenza outbreak in the community that they move to, or it could become a national epidemic of some unkown and new disease! An immigration fence with tighter border security can reduce these risks by reducing illegal immigration. If Mexico is such a terrible place, then how come the people who want to move here are not willing to take a test and become citizens? (or even documented workers from abroad)?
Immigration Fence

Firstly: Neither you nor anyone else has the right to bar immigration to the United States of America (that is, essentially, to contribute to the imprisonment of Mexicans in Mexico against their will). No one has ever acquired such vast property rights. If you wish to keep an immigrant off your property, build a fence around your yard, with your money, not around things you do not own with money you do not own. Second-- That is a huge distance to place a fence over. And the harder the fence is to get over, the more expensive the materials will be (if it isn't hard it's pointless). Considering how immigration is an economic benefit, you're essentially paying a million dollars to prevent people from offering you more dollars yet.
Advanced math should NOT be taught in schools

I definitely agree that children should be able to add, subtact, multiply, divide, and have basic problem solving skills. What I DON'T agree with is the teaching of all levels of algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus. A great deal of the topics covered in those classes are not applicable to real life. Think of the last time you used the Quadratic Formula...you probably haven't used that since your Junior year of high school. The things being taught are completely irrelevant and a waste of time. I really don't see any other position on this topic, despite the fact that I am normally open-minded. I'm irritated by the fact that these types of mathematics are being taught because I feel as though students could benefit much more from a class that the students can take into the real world with them, such as more accounting/financing/money managment classes. Obviously one should have the mathematical abilities to balance their checkbook and to pay their bills, but graphing inverse functions and finding the area of a circle are completely unnecessary to survive in the "adult" world. I also think schools should insert more life skills classes into the curriculum. I believe those skills classes should range from something simple like learning first aid, how to cook a meal at home instead of going to McDonalds, and childcare, to more advanced things such as how to fix something that is malfunctioning on a car, how to jump start the car, or even vocational classes such a woodshop and metal working. I truly believe any of the classes that I have just listed would be time better spent than teaching complicated math.
Should teachers have to pay for class decorations from their personal paycheck

I believe that the teachers classroom budget should be funded by the government that places rules on the learning environment. Personally, i listen to teachers saying that they have to spend hundreds of their own dollars on a classroom to teach and entertain children. I am NOT saying that a teacher cant use their budget to purchase the class a treat for say, all A's on a test or something like that. I'm talking about posters, pictures, calculators, and deco paper.
Should teachers have to pay for class decorations from their personal paycheck

I am arguing that teachers should spend their own money on classroom decorations. Ok, so your definition of classroom decorations is "posters, pictures, calculators, and deco paper". To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen paper cost 100 dollars. Second, if the teacher is too cheap to buy even these meager things to decorate their room, THEN DON'T. I'ts as simple as that. There is not a law that says you have to decorate your room, if you do not want to pay the 20 dollars to decorate than don't. Next you say "I am NOT saying that a teacher cant use their budget to purchase the class a treat for say, all A's on a test". I am not really getting this statement that you are trying to make. Are you insinuating that the kids can buy an A on their test? I would like to bring up my own point next. When a teacher decorates a room, if she takes care of the decorations she does not have to buy them again. So it is a one time fee. The teacher only needs to pay 20 dollars once. I don't see the point in arguing that, once again extending my point above, if a teacher doesn't even want to pay 20 dollars to decorate a room, either don't or just stop teaching, because if you don't want to pay 20 dollars chances are you dont want to pay for the books or the pens or the supplies. If the kids don't have supplies how will they learn? Your plan is to have to government pay for these. Seriously? You want the government to pay 20 dollars to decorate a room so a teacher does not have to?
Sampling (in music) is not theft

I hope it is a good one. To begin with, I would like to point out that my opponent is contradicting himself. He is trying to limit the scope of his claim so much that almost any argument can be made against the Con. He says let's not discuss the legality of the issue, but his definition specifies "without permission or legal right". He then goes on to say that he is not referring to a "few special cases, rather the vast majority of instances of sampling and the way in which it is generally carried out". Either way, let's debate. As far as not discussing legal definitions, it is these that dictate the morality, or lack thereof, when referring to sampling. If a producer uses another person's voice in a composition without permission, they are guilty of copyright infringement on the musical work of that person, legally. Morally, they are undermining the work of that person, and failing to recognize and pay for that work. The producer will likely benefit from this theft in that he/she will likely sell his/her product and make a profit. Legally and morally, the original recorder and owner of the voice should be compensated per copyright and royalty laws. The same goes for a musical composition or section thereof. It is impossible to morally justify failing to give someone else credit for their work while benefiting from that work yourself. I think this is a simple concept to grasp. The author, composer, producer, artist, etc. of a recording has a legal and moral right to his/her work. The scope of those rights are outlined in several contracts between the artist, producer, composer, recording studio, engineer, record label, etc. The use of any portion of a particular recording by any outside parties without permission or legal right is prohibited for the protection of said individuals in said contract. As a member of ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) I understand first hand what it means to not be recognized for your work, and I know what it's like to have this work stolen from you. My opponent is arguing, basically, that all the works of every artist, composer, publisher, etc. are public domain and free for everyone to use without repercussion. I am arguing that there are methods in place that would prevent you from wronging another individual and underappreciating their work while stealing it from them- you can ask for permission to use the work, or you can purchase portions of the work, rights to portions of the work, etc. from organizations like ASCAP and EMI. Because these methods are in place, it just makes the Pro's argument sound all the more immoral. I await my opponent's response. Thank you.
Sampling (in music) is not theft

To clarify, here are some definitions: (I use the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th edition revised) 'sampling: 2. the technique of digitally encoding music or sound and re-using it as part of a composition or recording. ' [I point out that I would also include the rare examples of purely analogue sourced and recorded material in early sampling, but since the late 80s virtually all samples are digitally encoded at some stage in the process, the format of audio is hardly relevant to this debate however] 'theft: the action or crime of stealing. '- 'steal: 1. take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it - dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as your own. ' As I have stated that in this debate we are concerned with the moral and not the legal definitions, for our purposes these last two should of course be read as: 'theft: the action of stealing. '- 'steal: 1. take (something) without permission and without intending to return it. - dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as your own. ' I would also like to point out that in my opinion there are extremely rare circumstances where sampling CAN qualify as moral theft. To make my position clearer: I am talking about neither all sampling nor a few special cases as being morally justifiable (not theft). Instead I mean the vast majority of instances of sampling and the way in which it is generally carried out are not theft. Although I am Pro - sampling is not theft, as I am making a negative claim (against the popular assertion that sampling is in fact moral theft) I will let my opponent present his case first and explain how sampling is theft. I hope my rambling pedantry has not left anyone confused as to my basic position. Thankyou.
The Kalam Cosmological argument for God can be logically interpreted as false

Rebutting my opponent's refutations of my argument:My opponent made no refutations to rebut. Re-Hashing/ Continuing my case:The only thing that backs up the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is intuition. For example: An exe began to exist therefore it had a cause, this is intuition.The problem with that example: Nothing began to exist when the axe was created.I'm going to assign a number to a specific "thing" to demonstrate my point further. Lets say there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 1 and 2 are put together, 2 and 4 are put together, 5 and 6 are put together, and all 6 things are tied together by 7. Now imagine that you deemed all 7 things together as one "The invention"...Nothing actually began to exist when "The invention" was made, because "The invention" is just a rearrangement of pre-existing things. Re-cap:Our intuition isn't based on things beginning to exist, it is based on things that already exist changing form or being rearranged.More reasons why Premise 1 is a fallacy:P1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument also commits the fallacy of stating that a set of things inherits the characteristics of the individual parts thereof. This is to say that they are stating that because things within the Universe have causes, the Universe too must have a cause. The argument, when depicted as a syllogism would be as follows: Things within the Universe require causation. Therefore, the Universe requires external causation. This is obviously fallacious. Things that happen inside the universe, cannot be evidence of what theoretically happens outside of it.Syllogism depicting the above pointP1: All examples of causes are synonymous with nature in the universeP2: All known causes are observed to be forces of nature which act on matter/ rearrangements of matter that precede their effect in time.P3: There is no reason to believe a cause can exist without forces of nature, matter, and time existing. P4: Forces of nature, matter, and time can only exist if the universe exists.P5: If the universe doesn't exist, then there is no reason to believe a cause can exist.Conclusion: If one premie is baseless, then the whole argument can be considered baseless. Since there are clear fallacious flaws in the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which tries to make the claim that it is absolute logical truth), then the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be logically interpreted as false as an argument that portrays to be absolute logical truth.
We should support the free flow of information act (aka shield law)

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME AND DEBATE THIS PLEASE The press plays an important role in our society, informing us about our government and our world. But as citizens, we also have important responsibilities to our government. For instance, with rare exception, all citizens have a responsibility to provide evidence or give testimony to help solve crimes. "Privileges" not to provide evidence or testimony undermine our efforts to investigate serious crimes by putting certain types of evidence off-limits. A federal shield law would provide exactly that kind of privilege. Because it could prohibit law-enforcement officials from obtaining critical evidence in important cases and because it gives special treatment to journalists"treatment that other citizens do not enjoy"it is bad policy. It is also unnecessary. At the Justice Department, we have stringent internal guidelines that prevent us from subpoenaing evidence from the press, except in rare circumstances. To issue a press subpoena, we must first exhaust all other means to get that same information. Next, we must show the information is essential to help solve a serious crime. We apply these guidelines in a careful and thoughtful manner. In the last 14 years, we have issued only 12 subpoenas to the media seeking confidential source information. We only ask for this information when we truly need it and when we cannot get the evidence elsewhere. For these reasons, a federal shield law for journalists is both bad policy and unnecessary.
Obama's drone attacks on al-Qaeda operatives are helping the war on terror.

This next argument by myself will be short as you can see I have been no material to argue against by my opponent. The case I will be making in this round is that the drone war can never hope to achieve it's aim. The aim of the Obama administration is to try and kill as many al-Qaeda officials as possible (regardless of the civilian cost) and then hope that this will weaken the organisation. This doesn't not work. In fact it is growing. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... The U. S attacks are just fueling the propaganda machine and those who were passively anti-west are now joining because of the daily attacks their villages receive. Something that the U. S are yet to grasp, is that al-Qaeda are not just a terrorist group; they are an idea. Throughout the middle east, their ideology is spread. The U. S needs to understand that if they are to try and deal with al-Qaeda, they need a different strategy to the one they currently have. Trying to blow up the leaders, is not a strategy; it is desperation. Fighting an ideology with a war is just not a sustainable or achievable aim. The drones do not help the war on terror. They fuel terror. The U. S tries to rationalize al-Qaeda by portraying them as some sort of army but in truth it is only a couple of hundred people who they are trying to kill with these drone strikes. The real danger that they are faced with, and the pressing issue that they need to address, is the anti-west sentiment that is spreading, due to these drone attacks. This is how al-Qaeda are growing and if the U. S are to try and address this, they need to see that the drone attacks are proving to be a liability. To Conclude: I have shown you in both of my arguments that the drone wars are having catastrophic effects in the middle east and are making the problems they were designed to solve, even worse.
Obama's drone attacks on al-Qaeda operatives are helping the war on terror.

I will be arguing that the Drone attacks carried out by the Obama administration have not helped what they aim to achieve and that they are fueling anti-west hatred in the middle east. My partner must argue that they are a good idea and that they make America a safer place and that the civilian death toll when the strikes have failed is not high enough to stop the attacks. 1st round is acceptance only and the next two rounds are for points. Let the debate begin!
The U.N. should ban frankfurter.

There are three macro nutrients. and they are fat, protein and carbs. The last is not actually good for you. Carbs are converted into glucose and are stored as adipose tissue (fat) on your body; the process requires insulin which is tissue damaging. The best thing to eat is fat and protein, and meat is both of these things. But it also contains vital micro nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals. Meat, especially that of herbivores, and when cooked lightly (blood rare steaks, for example) is a complete food. It has everything you need flourish. It is not only better than starvation, it is better than any other food available. Fiber is not even good for you. Mark's daily apple has a particular cogent critique. You can't even digest it. Why exactly do I want to scrape up my insides? If I'm that desperate to take a dump, I'll drink a cup of coffee thanks. http://www.marksdailyapple.com... As for 'beta-carotene' (the vegetable pre-cursor to vitamin a) I will see your beta-carotene, and raise you beef liver. http://philmaffetone.com... It's a myth that you can get vitamins from plants. You cannot. But beef liver is teaming in Vitamin A, in fact it's got so much that you should only eat maybe 2 ounces a month (or eat every other month) for fear of Vitamin A toxicity (liver is gross anyway so no problem there). The health benefits of anti-oxidants have been exaggerated. You are really going to regurgitate these whole 'war on fat' myths? Then why has the war on fat and the high carb diets which accompanied it coincided with rapidly increasing obesity rates? It's just one big fat coincidence? I don't think so. An explorer named Vilhjalmur Stefansson lived with the inuit for a year. The tribe he was with ate a diet of rare, fatty, red meat. They all had perfect cardiovascular health. see : http://highsteaks.com... It is impossible to eat too much fat, if you eat more than your body can use it simply gets excreted. There is no mechanism for dietary fat to be stored as fat. Eating animal fat is perfectly healthy, we've been doing it for millions of years and our bodies are very well adapted to it. What you have to watch out for are processed foods, carbs and sugar. Stick to fat and protein and you will lose weight, feel incredible and be healthy.