BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.

Firstly, I would address my opponents point that a democracy cannot, by definition, be tyrannical. I feel that James Madison, the father of the Constitution, would be an expert on what the habits and patterns of democracy are. After all, the Constitution was document which started and maintained the greatest democracy the world has ever seen! He said, concerning tyranny, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." (The Federalist Papers, 47) Given that statement is true, we may come to the conclusion that a democracy may become a tyranny of many over a few. In a true democracy, minority rights will be stomped upon by an abusive majority. This is simply the natural thing for those in power to do when left unchecked. Such as in a democracy where civil disobedience is prohibited. This leads to a second point. You state that a majority is always right when it comes to a democracy, and that disobeying the will of the majority is wrong. Do you then believe that a majority of people can condemn a minority to unjust laws? Say the vast number of heterosexuals determining that those who are homosexual should be incarcerated. Would this determination by the almighty majority be a just one? And were it truly unjust, would it be wrong to attempt to abolish that injustice, even if it is against the will of the majority? I would also point out that if minorities do not stand up against the majorities, they will undeniably be denied some of their rights. I believe in the right to rule being vested in the will of the majority, so long as the rights of the minorities are also protected. In result of this belief I also believe, as Martin Luther King said, "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." It is the most effective way to represent the oppressed minorities in a democracy. Indeed, if every person absolutely obeyed the will of the majority, there would always be oppressed factions. I hope that my meager words have been constructed in a fashion in which they have made their point. I hope the opponent and judges will honestly view my opinion. Thank you as well for providing such wonderful competition in this controversial topic.
Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.

Tadeusz, it's a pleasure. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence said, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." It is from this framework I wish to build my argument. Democracy is unique because of it's capability to change to match the needs of the people. The error in this situation, however, is that a true democracy is constituted of a largely complacent citizenry. People will not tolerate oppression, if they know it exists, but if those few who know of its existence are not permitted to act on what they know and believe, change for better or worse will not occur. If change does not occur, society stagnates. A stagnant society is always the first to decay. For that reason, people should be able to civilly disobey their governments as a potential catalyst for change. Things such as the Declaration of Independence, Southern Secession, and Rosa Parks where all acts of civil disobedience which I believe are morally justified. As far as the morality goes, I believe in a hierarchy of morals. We can all agree that it is better to lie than to murder, and though neither are right, if you were left with a choice between two evils the moral choice would be that which is the least evil. Given that assumption, I derive that a government which is unjustly treating it's citizens (be it through unrepresented taxation, slavery, or lack of civil rights) is of greater evil than following the laws it prescribes. Though it is moral to follow the law of the land, if that law or the government which created that law is unjust or violating higher morals, it becomes totally moral to disobey them. Indeed, it is more moral to disobey an immoral government than it is to obey said government. Thank you, and I solicit a affirmative ballot.
Adoption agency should prioritize the infertile couples

I will be clear on my argument. I will NOT argue that homosexuals should get prioritized adoption privileges because I think that homosexuals should not even be an option for adoption. However, my argument will be that infertile couples should not necessarily have first priority but be equal in the group. I am currently going through the adoption and foster process, my wife and I are not sure if we can have kids or not but want adopt a child as well. The reason we want to, is we can provide a safe home and environment for a child that is in need. In sum, getting them out of the system or away from families that do not have the ability to care for their child for any reason. The number of children that need to be adopted are tremendous, meaning there are more kids that need to be adopted than families willing to take them. Therefore, most families that go through the adoption process (which is long and tedious, took us 1 year) have a significant chance of getting a child quickly. Here is the issue, you can select the type of child you want! So if thee families are putting they want a child under 12 months that is Caucasian and female with no drug exposure or molestation...... there chances are slim and it will take a long time because so many people want that type of child. If the family changes the focus to different race or possible a child that is delayed due to drugs (will be normal and functioning just not where the child should be at) there chances would increase significantly. My point is that they currently are a priority as everyone that wants to adopt is but their requirements for a child limits their options. My opponent: How do you know that the infertile families are currently not a priority? If they are not who is?
Adoption agency should prioritize the infertile couples

Beacause of some special reasons,now infertility has became a big problem.For those couples,they face more pressures from thier families and themselves.Recently there caused a great argument on whether the infertile couples should have priority adoptions.In my opinion,I think adoption agency should prioritize the infertile couples. Firstl,for those children who are adopted,they are lucky,they shake off a bad life.Infertile couples will take them as thier own children,give them more care and love.On the countrary,the couples can also get more from children.They are longing for children,and thier dreams for sevral years will come true.And it will make them more harder in thier works.Because they have new aims,they must try thier bests to make thier children have a better life. Secondly,if they can adopt a child,it can not only alleviate the relationship between husband and wife,but aslo can reduce conflicts.At last but not least,it is a perfect idea for our whole society,because we all emphasized the harmonious developments of society.If we use this policy,it can ruduce the divorce rate,bring happiness to the families and make them more stable.It is a better choice for both of them. We must make our efforts to do so,care for those orphans and infertile couples,and achieve the social harmony and stability.So I think it is necessary for adoption agency to prioritize the infertile couples.
AAN Tour: Voluntary Abortion should be legal

IntroductionThis debate is part of the Adopt-a-Noob Tournament.ResolutionPro's contention is that Voluntary Abortion should be legal.DefinitionsVoluntary Abortion: The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. [1][2] Legal:permitted by law. [3]Rules• Round 1 is for establishing the debate, acceptance and pleasantries only.• 8k characters max. per round• 4 rounds• 72 hrs• Select Winner Voting• Judges: Ragnar, Mikal, Blade-of-Truth, phantom, YYW, Bladerunner060, and rross.• 2 Week Voting Period (Please don't take that long judges!) Sources1. http://www.medterms.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Some people think you are bad for this website

"well i have many friends on here that dont want me off... take my friend kati for an example she is trying to help me because she does not want me off. I dont think I should be band for being a kid"Yes, but some people hate you, therefore I win the debate.Thett asked to be mentioned implying he hates you. A list of people that want you banned, hate you, or possibly hate you.thett3the bombzaradialkid1dustpeltTUFI have proven some people hate or might think your bad for the site as they call you a troll, a spammer, or call for your ban. As some people think your bad for the site I win this debate.VOTE PARA MI!
Some people think you are bad for this website

extend arguments"well that is just lovley to know i have haterz but whatever. .. . i think i should not be banned i mean im just a kid i want to have some fun"your not even arguing the resolution, I have proved that at least 1 person dislikes you on this site, this debate is not about banishment. So, prove nobody has you. As this isn't the resolution I urge voters tignore her argument.
Some people think you are bad for this website

you should not be banned in my eyes, but some people think your bad for the website. C1: Your recent debate You firstly, as proven in the past debate, you made 3 spam debates. [1] Then you called him foolish. [1] Then you trold that debate. [1] C2: OVERALL DEBATE HISTORY RESOLUTION/SPAM DEBATES "IDk I just wanna debate" [2] yes that was a resolution. "I am awesome" [3] yep that too and then "docter pepper", yes spelled "docter". [4] C2: Other Mega flame war here. [5] Tuf said he wants you banned. [6] 1 duspelt wants you gone. [1] the bomb got irritated with you. [6] 1duspelt thinks you can't debate. [7] she cussed out koopin :( [8] alkid hates her too [9] Conclusion: have named people that think shes bad for the website and have provided reasons why they hate her. VOTE PRO [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://www.debate.org... [6] http://www.debate.org... [7] http://www.debate.org... [8] http://www.debate.org... [9] http://www.debate.org...
dogs

Dogs are simply not the best pet to have. yes they are loving beautiful animals but they cannot and will not ever be the best. Best is defined as most excellently or suitably; with most advantage or success: my opponent has yet to find any data on this topic. Also you keep stating opinions, these are not facts you are stating, of course a good dog will be good that why its called a good dog but that good dog might not good to another because it is an opinion. but what is a fact is that dog bites occur every 75 seconds in the United States. Each day, over 1,000 citizens need emergency medical care to treat these injuries. (. http://www.dogsbite.org...) To me that not very good dog because that 1152 bites a day and 420480 dog bites a year. .. that sounds like a really good dog. .. not.
dogs

Thank you I did mean best. I see what you mean however adopting a child is also very expensive or owning a cat even the up keep on a bird costs, so lets drop that I don't think its about the money. The facts are correct I am not saying they aren't but they are very general, any dog can be mean just like anything else but if you train them right they are in some ways better than any human friend, always there for you never asking for favors, just your affection and maybe some people food. A good dog will be loyal to you until its death, a good dog can guard your house and if need be can fight back. Many dogs are kid friendly and they provide joy and love. That's why there the best!
dogs

first off I think you might have mean't best instead of bed. first off my argument is still the same as the last. 38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012. Annual data from 2012 shows that 50% (19) of the victims were adults, 21-years and older, and the other half were children, ages 8-years and younger. Of the total children killed by dogs in 2012, 79% (15) were ages 2-years and younger. (http://www.dogsbite.org...) Now i'm not saying dogs are not amazing animals to have as pet all I'm saying is they are not the best pets to own economically and for health reasons. Economically dogs cost- $20 per month ($240 per year) for a premium food such as Science Diet, Iams, or Pro Plan (costs based on 40 lb. bags of food, 20 lbs. consumed per month) $10 per month ($120 per year) for various dog treats $80 - $100 for annual vaccinations and heartworm checks $40 - $65 for a year's supply of heartworm prevention $70+ for flea/tick prevention $20+ for each grooming session $14 - $50 per night for boarding the pet, or having a pet sitter come in during your vacations $50 - $150 for toys and miscellaneous items (this can go much higher!) $50 - $150 for a crate Obedience training (highly recommended!) - $120 for an 8 week program. Some programs offer discounts for rescued pets. Fencing - Actual or Electronic can cost hundreds or thousands. Older dogs often have more medical expenses (just like people!) (http://www.flagpets.com...) While Hamsters thrive best in open-air cages which run from $30-$50. Pine or cedar litter can cause respiratory problems, so hamster owners use either Aspen shavings that run about $3.50 per bag, or Carefresh -- a recycled newspaper product priced around $5, to line the cage bottom. Hamsters will pick a specific corner of the cage to use for droppings, which should be spot cleaned daily. The entire bedding material should be changed out once a week for a monthly cost of $14-$20. The Humane Society website gives tips on hamster care. Basic hamster food mix runs $5-$6 per 2-pound bag, which should last about a month. Water bottles cost around $2. Carriers for outings run $10-$16. Hamsters exercise at night and may run several miles on rotating wheels that cost $4 to $20 (http://pets.costhelper.com...) for my last argument in this round im going to state what the best pet to have for economical and health reason the best pet to have is a pet rock the are free to get as are everywhere and rocks have only killed people in the wild not when they have been tamed. they also live forever is left unharmed. the only cost to you is the outfits you pick for it and the bath on a rare occasion. thank you for this debate topic i look forward to the rest of the rounds
Free Hat!

In Conclusion, My opponent had a legal argument to present, but did not do so. He claims my client, Hat McCoullogh, is a bad person. He may be drawn bad, but he is not a person under the law; therefore, my argument stands. My opponent never showed that Hat committed a crime at all under our justice system. I presented ample evidence that he could not be found guilty of murder as the State cannot meet its burden. My opponent presented no rebuttal to the fact that Hat is not a person, nor are his victims human beings under the Model Penal Code murder statute. As Pro, I showed Hat could not be found guilty of the crime of murder and should be released from prison immediately. I also urge voters to watch the episode as it presents a fantastic satire of the causes many take on without regard to the consequences. That aside, this resolution is affirmed in full form and I urge a vote for Pro. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod. P.S. My opponent had a legal argument, a weak one, but still he could have fought. Please see Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. . . . After leaving his response, DDO user Sherlockmethod walks away, removing his skin to show he is of the race self proclaimed as Crab People. "They look like crabs and talk like people". Snip Snip.
Free Hat!

"The trial already happened." Correct, you informed us in the first round that Hat is a convicted murderer. If he was convicted then a trail took place and he was found guilty. No problems here. "[H]e is in jail" Correct again. "[Y]ou have to prove that he should be released, not that he should never have been sent to jail in the first place." I did. I showed with very clear statutory authority that Mr. McCoullogh was tried, found guilty, and jailed in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Because his Constitutional rights were violated he should be released from prison. The U.S. Constitution applies as Pro stipulated in his opening round that I must prove Hat should be released using our justice system. Con offered no rebuttal concerning the bedrock issue here, which is simply, Hat is not a person under the law, his victims are not human beings under the law; therefore, he cannot be found guilty of murder as the State cannot prove every element of the crime. I need not offer any further points as I have shown why Hat should be released, and Con has not offered any evidence to say otherwise. Con should cut Hat some slack here, remember: "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way" Jessica Rabbit.
Free Hat!

The trial already happened. He is in jail, and you have to prove that he should be released, not that he should never have been sent to jail in the first place. That trial was very, very good, but does not do anything because in the world of South Park, he is in prison for life. He plead guilty, there was enough evidence to send him to jail, and he is there. He said he did it in self-defense, but a grown man can easily overpower a baby. The only line he spoke in the episode was "Kill the babies, rape the virgins!" Does this sound like a man that should be freed from jail? I certainly don't think so. He still wants to kill babies. This is a sick man, and he needs to be kept away from society in either an asylum or jail. Since he is in jail, he should stay there.
Free Hat!

U.S. v Hat McCollough Court of Appeals (The instigator did not specify a jurisdiction. Since our "justice system" must be used, I will choose the Model Penal Code as the binding authority for this matter.) Comes now the defendant, by counsel Sherlockmethod: If it pleases the Court, I come to you following a travesty of justice. Hat McCollough was sentenced to prison for the murder of twenty three children in violation of the US Constitution. This crime is no crime at all. According to In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, the prosecution must persuade the factfinder "beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged." EVERY fact. The Model penal code offers this definition of murder: Section 210.2 Murder (1)A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. According to the Model Penal Code, a human being is: Section 210.0 (1)"human being" means a person who has been born and is alive. Section 210.0 provides the definitions for articles 210-213 so it is controlling. Members of the Court, Hat McCollough was never born and is not alive. He is a drawing, animated, but still a drawing. The state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a human being. If the Court erroneously finds Hat McCollough to be a person then I submit to this learned panel that the "infants and toddlers" in question are not human beings either. Mr. McCollough cannot be said to be a murderer when the drawings in question are not human beings. The state cannot meet its burden, and no reasonable jury can conclude otherwise without violating the US Constitution itself. This Court should … must find the state did not meet its burden, nor can it, and dismiss this case altogether. Thank You.
Free Hat!

Hat McCullough is a convicted murderer of twenty-three toddlers and babies. He admits to doing so in self defense. My opponent has to prove, using our justice system, that Hat should be freed. You can't say that it is good because it reduces the population or other arguments like it because it doesn't get him out of jail. Don't free Hat. By the way, this happens to be from an episode of South Park so please don't go looking for a real toddler murderer with a large following because you won't find one (I hope).
Should Puerto Rico become the 51st state

First of all, the mainland US had its own problem. It has 17 trillion dollars of debt, health care problem, etc. Therefore, giving Puerto Rico 20,000,000 a year would make US bankrupt. It's Pert Rico's fault that they have $70 billion dollars (Or more) debt. They sell bonds carelessly,so why should US mainland help them when they brought the crisis to themselves? Also, "The unemployment rate won't go down, it would go up" Isn't the lower the unemployment rate is, the better? Unless I am misunderstanding something here? "Independence would make them poorer" The 1998 showed that 50% of the Puerto Rico want nothing changed.
Should Puerto Rico become the 51st state

If Puerto Rico became a state, some people worry that it will be hard for them to learn English. Learning English would benefit them in many ways. They would be able to achieve higher ranking jobs and earn more money to feed their families. It would be hard in the beginning but would benefit them in the long run. New Mexico is a bilingual state but a state regardless. Puerto Rico is all ready bilingual language wont be much of a barrier. If it is, interpreters can be hired to translate languages. It costs approximately $2,700 for a certificate to interpret. Since some Puerto Ricans cant speak, interpreters would increase the jobs available for Puerto Ricans. Because of this, the unemployment rate won"t go down, it would go up. If any Puerto Ricans don't approve of our current president, by the time they join us, it will be time to elect a new president. It would be a great way to celebrate them joining the US by them voting as American citizens. If Puerto Rico joined the US they would become part of a strong nation and make us stronger. They might be able to convince the US to trade with other countries. They could put their new spot in congress to good use. if they became independent they are already in poverty. Independence would make them poorer. Their debt is almost 70 billion