BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited.

Resolved: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited. Definitions: In the context of this debate, I am going to define; "Living Document" - A constitutional philosophy that allows for the (re)interpretation of the specific wording contained within the US Constitution or any of its ratified amendments; especially the Bill of Rights; when such a reinterpretation is used to modify the restrictions or limitations inherent in said constitution and amendments to allow for legislation or policy that was not conceived of as necessary at the time of writing. This is intended to allow the Constitution to reflect the times, changing in meaning to mirror public intent. "Ought to prohibited" - Any legislation taken into consideration must be weighed according to the exact wording of the Constitution, in the context in which it was intended (as supported by contemporary accounts of, and other documents published by, the signers of the Constitution and it's supporters); and if legislation is found to, in any way, fail to remain compatible with the Constitution in this way, must be rejected on these grounds alone, regardless of how popular the legislation may be, or how useful it may seem. Contentions: The US Constitution is a beautifully written and conceived document that, while not perfect, is certainly still relevant as a system of governance and guidance. The amendment process was put in place for a reason, and that is to allow this amazing document to reflect the times as they change, while preventing any major shift from it's original intent; balancing change and flexibility with stability and constancy. This does not mean that it is a completely flexible document. In recent years, many of its prohibitions and restrictions have been ignored to allow for popular legislation. If we really believe in the Constitution, we need to adhere by it.
R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited.

The only thing that I can say to you is HOW DARE YOU. How could you use a character attack in such a way. I know I did not do that well in this debate. You must remember I have not debated sense my tournament in March. If you were the debater you claim to be then you would have just plainly said I win not bash me as a debater because you and be both know when I am at my high and have time to really structure a debate I win trophies. That is another thing where the heck was your structure. You had no organisation in your debate it was like a ball of stuff. Again I KNOW I did not do my best in this it is my first time on here and it is hard coming from intercollegiate debate season where you have 20min prep time and go right then and debate not waiting for hours for a response. Next debate we have will be on my terms and my style of structuring a debate. But being a gracious competitor good game. I tap my knuckles on the table for you. If you do not know what that means you really never debated. LOL
R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited.

The one thing I have to say to you and your argument is fallacy. I looked into it at college and my notes and your argument is fallacious. My main point for this is that of the argument that you have given me. You really give no specifics for me to argue. YES you did say that the it was not good to challenge the constitution. However what exactly are you trying to stop the government from changing with amending. You have given me really no room to argue in this matter. I would like to toss this debate and count it as a tie. But I know you very well and I know you will somehow find away to make it look like you did give me room, and you are in the correct. My second thing is that the argument of your which I think is " Making a national ban is unconstitutional." Then you have given me a topic that I could not fight, that no morally sound person can refute. But at no matter if you want to cheat then so bee it. I can say this. When it comes to many laws like the ban on illegal substances, it is state determined. This goes same for drinking age. However the government can say no more money if you go away from the national standard. So changes to the country can be made if all states agree. Now to get back to your resolution. "Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited." Even your own argument goes against your resolution. You are saying change the document, but are saying that without an amendment is unconstitutional. HOW THE HECK is banning mj even going along with the constitution Robert. IT IS STATE REGULATED just like drinking age, just like speed limits. The states decide if it should be done. Again I think we should scrap this debate and let me start one. I know how a real debate needs to start. I have a trophy to prove it.
People younger than 18 should be able to vote in the U.S.

Resolve: "People younger than 18 years old should be able to vote in the United States of America. " I will prove just that. Outline A: Voter Eligibility. B: Taxation without representation is tyranny. C: Purpose of voting D: Every Citizen should have the right to vote A: Voter Eligibility 15th amendment "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. " (1) 19th amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. " (2) 26th amendment "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. "(3) It is curious to me that we live in a society that aggressively favors age discrimination. (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://en.wikipedia.org... (3). http://en.wikipedia.org...) B:Taxation without representation ""No taxation without representation" is a slogan originating during the 1750s and 1760s that summarized a primary grievance of the British colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution. In short, many in those colonies believed that, as they were not directly represented in the distant British Parliament, any laws it passed taxing the colonists (such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act) were illegal under the Bill of Rights 1689, and were a denial of their rights as Englishmen. "(1) As one of the causes of the American revolution, "taxation without representation" was viewed as tyranny. Yet today if you are under the age of 18 and you have a job making money you are required to pay and income tax. Third from the bottom on this link shows those under the age of 18 still pay taxes. (2) This is Tyranny, but would not be if they had representation via voting rights. (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://www.irs.gov... C: The purpose of voting "A man without a vote is a man without protection. " " Lyndon B. Johnson (36th U. S. President)(1) Without the ability to vote how does person protect themselves from the tyranny of others? How does one promote their own interests? (1). http://www.brainyquote.com... D: Every citizen should have the right to vote. When talking about the voting process Hillary Clinton said: "Voting is the most precious right of every citizen". " (1) If taxation without representation is tyranny, and In the United States it is believed that liberty is an unalienable right. (2) It should be a right of every citizen regardless of age to vote and in so doing have representation. (1) . http://www.brainyquote.com... (2). http://www.archives.gov...
Jesus contradicted the old testament, his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

i do kind of like taking the approach that the only reason the law wasn't enforced, was because God specifically forgave that person. God through Jesus forgave that person. when he said let he who is without sin cast the first stone, he was implying that no one there was without sin, except Jesus. Jesus challenges them to not stone her unless they were without sin, as then they would be in the same position as Jesus. but no one could contend they were without sin. that left only Jesus to decide, and he decided to forgive, and admonish her to go and sin no more.
Jesus contradicted the old testament, his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

Oh ok sorry i misunderstood for some reason, my appologize. So to clarify your saying Jesus said they should be put to death for dishonoring their mother and father like when God said to put to death the man in exodus. then you also point to the prostitute and say that she should be stoned but jesus didnt because some unown reason. ok well jesus is making a point to the pharisee that he is being hypocritical of the disciples. Jesus understands the law also as Pro pointed out he said "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."' and same with the prostitute he clearly knew the law that she should be stoned and didnt say she shouldnt be either, but he was making a point to all of them that God is the Judge not them. In the example with moses, God made his decision, i can not say i know why decided that but i have to assume God is Just like the bible says
Jesus contradicted the old testament, his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

"That is MANS law not Gods law but hopefully you have some text to support the claim." i don't see how you say it was man's law. and i don't know why you ask for me to support this. i already showed, that in the OTestament, it was God himself who ordered deaths, and showed one example in particular. also, i showed that it was Jesus himself who acknowledged that it was God himself who commanded it. perhaps Jesus's main message when dealing with "honor your father and mother' point was to highlight their own inconsistencies, and false motivations etc. but, he did acknowledge that it was God who said that stuff. perhaps it wasn't his main point, but it was a point. and for our purposes in this conversation, the substamces matters tremendously in examining his consistencies. con does provide a decent final argument, in that God through Jesus chose to forgive the prostitute. this could be seen as permissible, i guess, if Jesus is God or thereabouts. but, he didn't give them clear indication that the law of the OT shouldn't be followed anymore as a general rule. looking at the passages where he notes it was God's command, and where it was God who commanded it explicitly... we might think that the rule is, that they should continue to stone people, but there is only one 'catch all' if God specifically pardons the person. this would be akin to laws that find guilt in our society, and a president or governor who can act as pardoner. con may have squeaked this one out by a hair. as a christian, i feel obligated to give con's argument the benefit of the doubt. (the last argument, not the first stuff)
Jesus contradicted the old testament, his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

Hello, this is my first debate so if u could help me find the ropes on conduct that would be good but ill just dive in. in your reference to the pharisees bringing up the law im not sure you point, if it is that jesus isnt keeping or forcing the 'traditions' which could be unwritten or written law, therefore he is against the law then i must disagree. That is MANS law not Gods law but hopefully you have some text to support the claim. God had one rule in the beginning which was don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. Adam (AKA : man) added onto the rule telling Eve to also not to touch it. When Eve broke mans law and touched it God did not discipline her. he didnt strike her down because she had not broken his law. The punishment came when he and her ate of the tree. i believe the same applies here. with jesus's answer he quotes Gods law of 'Honor your mother and father' and you left out some key elements of that he's showing the pharisees hypocrisy because they want what could be used to honor your mother and father to be 'devoted to God' whatever that actually means for all we know they could have been using it for personal gain like in the bible where mary pours the ointment on jesus feet and Judas (a tax collector) condemns her for not selling and giving the money to the poor even though he had plans on taking a cut of it. in the same instance jesus tells judas to stop. The text is John 12:3-7 In the same chapter jesus calls on an old testament profit describing what the pharisees are doing ""These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."" and there are the Man's rules i spoke of again. _____________ Now onto moses. The reason it has differed from moses to jesus is because jesus is there for people like that prostitute. Ill explain that in a moment. you point out that the text and actions clearly show she should be stoned and you are correct she should have been stoned but why? Because she broke God's law and we can all agree on that no problem, but jesus being God offers forgiveness to her. that can be proven because the only one there without sin was jesus and he didnt throw the stone. God being love sent his son jesus, and he didnt send him to condemn the world but to save it, that is why he didnt throw the stone and why back in moses before jesus had come to save and forgive us they stoned them. It was not just the crucifixion. If i missed anything let me know or if i was hard to follow help me out a bit.
Jesus contradicted the old testament, his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

Jesus contradicted the old testament, and his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death First we have well established information that stoning was commanded by God. We even have Jesus himself seemingly stating that it was in fact God who ordained it. 'Matthew 15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don"t wash their hands before they eat!" 3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honor your father and mother"[a] and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."' 'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)' ----- But later, we have Jesus saying not to necessarily stone someone who the Law of Moses says should be stoned. John 8:6"76 This they said fto test him, gthat they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, h"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." it could be argued, that Jesus only clarifying the teaching.... that it is the Law to stone people, but only those who are without sin must cast the first stone. The problem, though, is that this is stretching what is actually occurring in the texts. the texts clearly say the woman should be put to death. both the old testament and Jesus himself at one point seemed to say that was the rule, the Law. But Jesus is not going along with that, any more. it could be argued that it would no longer be necessary to put someone to death, after Jesus was put to death himself, by virtue of his work being applied to those sinners put to death. but Jesus was not yet crucified when he said those things. so shouldn't the Law of Moses been applicable? Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not to detract from it. but here, we see what seems to be him detracting from it.
Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

In the last round, I put together a coherent, logical, evidence-based argument. Pro responded with a single link to a website named, "Human Events: Powerful Conservative Voices." Right off the bat, we are facing a biased source (that also is over 4 years old). The source, itself, cites a man named David Archibald as its only source.David Archibald is a proven conspiracy theorist on this topic. One of Pro's own sources from a previous round puts forth an entire list of outrageous claims he's made regarding global warming that have been, time and time again, debunked by scientists: https://goo.gl...Beyond all of that, the article/excerpt's main point is that carbon dioxide levels are too low. Let's look at a few scientific sources that say otherwise:- Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Hits Record High Monthly Average (https://goo.gl...)- CO2 Levels Hit Record High for 30th Year in a Row (https://goo.gl...)- Carbon Dioxide Levels In Earth’s Atmosphere Reach Record High (https://goo.gl...)- Carbon Dioxide Levels In The Atmosphere Hit Record High In 2018 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography)
Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

Cool. WWII/Greenhouse Gasses: https://www.newscientist.com... 0.7 - 0.9"C increase: https://www.sciencedirect.com... It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries.: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.: http://thehill.com... 2.https://www.express.co.uk... A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years." https://www.skepticalscience.com... A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992.": http://www.petitionproject.org... (just one of them)
Individuals Ought to Help Those in Need

PrefaceI have wanted to debate Romanii for some time. As an up-and-coming member, he often undersells his own skills. I think this will be a great debate, and I look forward to a deserving challenge for this, my 70th debate on DDO.TopicIndividuals ought to Help those in NeedDefinitions and TermsIndividuals - specific persons. For example, I am an individual, but the group is not. Corporations and non-human entities shall not be accorded personhood for the sake of this debate.Ought - this indicates moral desirability. For example, if I say, "I ought to go help Grandma with the luggage," I am making a claim as to what is morally desirable, i.e. that helping grandma is the right thing to do. Need - a need is something required to achieve some goalBOPBOP is shared. Pro must show the help ought to be rendered, Con must show help ought not to be rendered.RulesNo forfeitsAll citations must be provided in the text of the debateNo new arguments in the final roundViolation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a 7-point lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CasesR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals and Summary Thanks......in advance to Romanii for accepting :)
Libertarianism

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we would call a false dilemma. Pro bases his entire argument on the thought that a state is either libertarian or authoritarian, and that there is no middle ground. To prove this, he uses a fictional piece of literature that describes a scenario that has never happened in the history of men.Orwell's 1984 wasn't a plea for libertarianism, it was a warning for a totalitarian regime. A threat that was very real in the time it was written. The cold war was at the start of its run and people were terrified of all the possible scenarios that would arise had the USA and the Soviet Union gone to war. One of these scenarios was a division of the world into three large dictatorships. One of which was Oceania, where Ingsoc was introduced as a way to oppress any form of self-expression.Again, this is not an argument for libertarianism. George Orwell himself was a socialist. The problem presented wasn't that the government interfered in the state economy, but rather that it took away all liberty and private property.Let's give some examples of problems that can and will arise if a country's government is completely libertarian, and how it could be solved with government intervention.Minimum- and maximum pricesWhen a company has exclusive rights on the production of one specific medicine, the company can ask incredibly high prices for it. Why? Because people will buy it anyway. The government can solve this problem by introducing maximumprices to counter this. Now one might say "isn't it the government's fault in the first place that this company has these exclusive right? Can't other companies compete and lower the prices?" No, because a medicine is a mere formula that, if not published, will remain a secret to all competitors.Pollution of the earthIn a libertarian government car manifacturers and oil companies will be able to destroy the earth with no resistance. Factories won't build an ventilation system because it's too expensive. Preservation of nature is expensive and it will not happen if the government doesn't make it mandatory. An entrepreneur won't spend thousands of dollars to clean their water and air or stop dumping toxic waste in the sewers if they don't get fined for it. Near-extinct animals will not be protected and risk total extinction.Bad productsFood production companies won't have to abide to rules anymore, so they will put the cheapest most efficient filth in it and lie to the consumer about it. Without laws, businesses will create unsafe goods, they might endager workers and use violence. Why? Because there will be no unionization.Cartels and monopoliesWithout laws preventing it, competiting businesses will work together and raise the prices, so every business will make even more money. A monopoly is a company which has no competitors, and thus raise the prices. Now every product is so incredibly expensive, how can anyone buy them? Because remember, there is no minimum wage and no union, so workers get paid almost nothing.These are some of the countless problems that will arise if a government keeps his hands away from the economy of a nation.