BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the democrtic party is unamerican

Rights outlined in the Constitution are not limited to three. The First amendment lists five. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."(1) This is evidence that It is "American" culture to respect others opinions, even political. The three "rights" pro listed are in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution. Within the Preamble of the Constitution is the statement "Promote the General welfare." (2) This is the "American" ideal that the Democratic party uses to support the idea of welfare programs. The Democratic party was started by U.S. Citizens and is a U.S. political party. Ergo it is American. (1) http://www.law.cornell.edu... (2)http://www.archives.gov...
the democrtic party is unamerican

The idea of our rights is outlined in the constitution. And they are limited to three rights. Life ,liberty , and the pursuit of happiness. Never said we have a right to another man's property. Money is property.An American will stick to those rights. Democrats add a lot of other crap that is not in those rights.Pusuing another man's wealth without his consent for your happiness is stealing. If I want government to force my neighbor to pay my bills, vote democrat.If I want government to force a business to pay more because you do not want to increase skills that are worth more ,vote democrat.If you want government to force people to charge less so you do not want to pay the price, vote democrat.The democrat party is the party of entitlements.And where in the American spirit are we entitled to another man's labor?It is not there in a true American.
the democrtic party is unamerican

I assume Pro means United States of America as there are two continents entitled "America." Pro Says being American "is an idea of personal freedom and personal responsibility. We have these rights. Life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The ideas of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from the political ideology Liberalism. Specifically the ideals listed can be attributed to John Locke an Englishman, not from an American. While these words do appear in the Declaration of Independence, many things are "American" that do not fit these ideals. Slavery was American. Displacement of Native Americans was American. Surely that is not "liberty" or the "pursuit of happiness." Regardless, Democrats are as American as Republicans as both derive from the same ideology. Liberalism is the predominant ideology in the USA. (1) An "American" political party is obviously American. (1) http://www.infobarrel.com...
Parents should disown their homosexual children.

Your entire argument here is based of the assumption that homosexuality is immoral. You have provided no evidence for this. It is blatantly false. Homosexuality may be immoral according to some moral systems, but there's no reason to apply your fucked-up moral system to everyone else. That is immoral. Just let people live their lives. Don't worry about morals and just do what makes you and others happy. It's just basic nihilism. Why is the most important thing reproduction? Like I said, what sets humans apart from animals is that we have empathy. We are capable of rising above our base instincts and trying to help each other, rather than just doing what our genes tell us to. Intelligent people should work to use their intelligence to better the lives of those around them. That should be the primary objective of the human race: To make sure that we are all has happy as possible. It's the only way to possibly measure our success. The most important thing for a population of animals is to grow, but humans are not animals. We are better than that. "If intelligence is only used in the pursuit of equality or any other such nonsense, then the human race will devolve into idiocy". Think about how messed up this is. You're saying the entire purpose of life is to reproduce. No enjoyment, no relationships, nothing. Just f**king and dying. Is this really the world you want? Think about the world you are arguing for. Just generations of miserable people, reproducing as much as possible before being starved to death the minute they can no longer reproduce. That is the absolute degeneration of sentience. According to your logic, that is the world you want. That's your ideal world. Is that what you really want? When I opened up your reply, I expected it to make me angry. That's what the other ones did. But more than anything, this made me sad. I can now see your worldview for what it truly is. I don't know what is going on in your brain. All I know is that it's not good. I can't imagine what must have happened to you, to make you think that life should not be enjoyed, that the true purpose of humanity is to bring ourselves down to the level of animals. You seem like an intelligent person, who knows what you could contribute to society if you were so inclined. You could touch many lives, if you chose to. All I can say is that I hope you make that choice. There's a lot you could do for society. There are many people you could make happier. And, if you tried, you would find that it makes you a lot happier too.
Parents should disown their homosexual children.

People under the age of 18 can not legally consent to sex. Therefore, if somebody under the age of 18 says they are gay, this is false, and no reason for disowning somebody. Ceasing to provide for somebody over the age of 18 is not child abandonment. Plenty of parents kick out their heterosexual children as adults, and nobody blinks an eye. Additionally, I already know that the majority of sexual abuse is committed by heterosexuals. This is because there are more heterosexual people than homosexual people. The claim I was making is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child abusers when compared to their population size. This is because the act of homosexuality is a manifestation of immorality when you hold that reproduction is a moral act, which is the exact moral argument against pedophilia. If it is really true that homosexuality is genetic, then you have just proven my point further. If homosexuals can not make the choice to cease their immoral behavior, then it is clear that they have a genetic predisposition to amoral behavior. Microbes can not think, so it is impossible to return to microbe level thinking. A microbe has no ability to distribute its resources among its offspring depending on their fertility. A human can think, and if we want to see an intelligent future, then intelligent people should think about how to reproduce as efficiently as possible. If intelligence is only used in the pursuit of equality or any other such nonsense, then the human race will devolve into idiocy. The ability for a population to grow is dependent on the level of conservative thinking it engages in (1). Therefore, intelligent populations, such as the population of debate.org, should engage in the maximum level of conservative thinking possible. "But disownment and nonacceptance are risk factors for poverty, STDs, drug abuse, risky behavior, early death, and so much more." This is an example of how liberal thinking leads to less efficient reproduction. The length and quality of your life is irrelevant, as they are subjective measures of success. Everybody will die at some point. It is more prudent for a breeder to measure a life by how many other lives it has produced, and therefore a homosexual will have a score of zero whether they die at the age of 25 or 125. Giving these people resources to produce nothing is a mistake if you want your resources to advance your lineage. If you don't want your resources to advance your lineage, and you are more intelligent than the average person (which I believe that you are), then you are simply contributing to the degeneracy of sentience. There are many environmental issues which we are creating today which we will be unable to solve in the coming years if intelligence trends continue on their same path. Do you really want to see a world in which the human race dies off because it lacks the intellect to solve its problems? 1) https://medium.com...
Parents should disown their homosexual children.

Any resources that you use to feed, educate, or shelter your homosexual progeny are bad investments, being that they are not capable of reproducing your genetics beyond a single generation. These resources should be divided amongst heterosexual children insofar as the resources will increase their chances of reproduction, based on the fact that the evolutionary purpose of reproduction is to produce fertile offspring who will carry on your genetic legacy. Additionally, homosexuality reduces the human life span by about 20 to 30 years on average (1), and is a statistical indicator of poverty (2), making it less likely that they will be in good enough health to provide for you throughout retirement if your reasons for reproduction are solely financial. On a purely moral level, you are the owner of your resources, and therefore you have the supreme moral authority to distribute them how you please. You are a human being, not a charity, and you have no obligation to provide for anybody. Being that you do not benefit in any way by providing for homosexuals, and that you have no moral obligation to do so, why would you do such a thing? 1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2)https://www.usnews.com...
Labor unions hurt the economy!

Wow. It takes much skill to copy and paste. No offense, but your refutations makes no sense (except the one that I broke one of the rules. Didn't see that). Taxes will raise prices of merchandise, but not dramatically, becuase other competing buisnesses would try to stay at a low price. Your refutations about giving more money to schools and teachers, but not having improvement, is not true. After a more substantial pay, the government was able to hire better teachers, resulting in better test scores. If some didn't, that was because they were not able to find good enough teachers, or it was the student's fault. Unions didn't mess up GM and Chrysler; it was because they couldn't sell enough cars! That's it! Even if you're saying that because of minimum wage, they had to spend so much money, look at Toyota! Look at Honda! GM and Chrysler had a bad reputation in the first place because their cars weren't properly made. You keep on saying how job unions are bad, how they effect the economy badly, but what could we do without them? Car companies, food companies, shoe companies, all of the need job unions to make things. How could we live without teachers, firemen, and policemen? Millions of jobs in the country would be lost! Yes, labor unions hurt the economy, BUT ONLY WHEN THE UNIONS FAIL. We need unions to pay most of our taxes, since they gain lots of money, they also have to pay lots of taxes. Without them, our taxes would be many times higher to maintain secuirity, welfare, transportation, etc.
Labor unions hurt the economy!

To be truthful, this is a silly arguement, because it is so obvious, but I will be nevertheless happy to have this debate, no matter how easy. Labor unions absolutely do not hurt the economy. Labor unions are essential! Teachers, policemen, workers, farmers, all of them are required to sustain a good economy! Even though we pay them money for work, we gain more money than what they earn. Hence, if a person picked, delivered, and sold 30 apples, each for a dollar, the whole money earned would be 30 dollars. We would give the person around 3 dollars, and keep the money for other uses. A small percentage would go to the government, as tax. I cannot believe I am discussing something so simple, but here are my reasons, and I would like to see you try and refute them!
Grammar: In writing, items in lists should not be separated by commas.

"I think that in that case you could say I went to Sweden with George who is a dentist and a chef."Yes, but then you would have to expect the writer to check every time he uses commas for potential ambiguity, which is very inconvenient. This could completely be avoided if something other than commas were used. "If we would use ["]and["] all the time, this might happen a lot more often because commas take up less space."Well, I never said we would have to replace the commas with "and." Hypothetically, we could come up with a brand new grammatical symbol that is even small than the comma... The amount of space the replacement would take up is not an issue. The reason that commas cause ambiguity in itemized lists is the fact that it has multiple functions in grammar, which, in some contexts, may conflict and lead people to derive multiple meanings from a sentence. Grammatical rules are often formed to avoid ambiguity. For example, note the difference between "Let's eat grandma!" vs. "Let's eat, grandma!" The comma is included in order to avoid a double-meaning. By using commas to separate items in lists, we are inviting ambiguity, while is something that grammatical rules try to avoid. Hence, commas should be replaced with something else in itemized lists. Thank you to the readers and the opponent. 'Twas a fun one.
Grammar: In writing, items in lists should not be separated by commas.

I think that in that case you could say I went to Sweden with George who is a dentist and a chef.This should already clear things up. But commas are handy in other cases. You might have had the problem that a text had one word to mutch to fit on one paper. If we would use and all the time, this might happen a lot more often because commas take up less space.
Grammar: In writing, items in lists should not be separated by commas.

Commas used to separate items in lists can lead to serious ambiguity. Let's refer to my previous example: "They went to Sweden with George, a dentist, and a chef."There is ambiguity here. Are there three people in this list... or am I listing two people and simply indicating the fact that George is a dentist? Okay, option #2:"They went to Sweden with George, a dentist and a chef."Still ambiguous. Now the reader wonders if I'm listing three people or if I'm simply describing George as a dentist and a chef... So what do we do? Here's a solution:"They went to Sweden with George and a dentist and a chef."Should we have to judge whether we should use commas in our lists on a case-by-case basis? No. That just makes things too complicated. We should stop using commas in lists in order to avoid potential ambiguity and instead use "and" between every item... or maybe use another symbol, such as the semicolon, that would allow us to avoid making such misinterpretations come about. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's refutation.
Grammar: In writing, items in lists should not be separated by commas.

Pro: In writing, items in lists should not be separated by commas. Con: The opposite view. What I mean: "They went to Sweden with George, a dentist, and a chef." My argument is that commas should not be used to separate items in a list such as this and should be replaced by something else (e.g., "and.")Thank you. Limit the first argument to introductions, definitions, and terms of debate.
Guns to Teachers

The reason I gave only my opinion, is because debate.org is not like a live face to face debate. I'll try something different next time, but I used that as a bit of an introduction. This is my first round in Debate.org, but not my first round in debate. Anyway, Response- A good guy with a gun won't work, because how hard is it for the police to tell the difference? A shooter in these school shooting situations will most likely be wearing clothes similar to the civilians in the area, the shooter in Florida wore his school shirt. The police in the area will be looking for a person in the building with a gun. They can't just ask kindly if someone's the shooter, or if they're a good guy with a gun, because you can't give the shooter another chance. The bonus for the teacher won't be effective, because of the hike in insurance rates. If these people volunteer for their children, yes, they should have compensation. But how are insurance providers going to respond to that? Their customer has become a bigger target to a possible shooter, and as I've mentioned in the last argument, friendly fire by the police. And lastly, how much more responsibility should we give our teachers? They have to keep track of (Depending on the school) 20-30 kids. And now, they have to keep and use weapons. They have to keep the gun locked up, and even if it's locked up in a case, there's still a chance that someone could steal that gun. That case will be more of a liability than a help, because in a shooter situation, getting the gun out of the case and getting it ready will take a while. The Florida Shooting lasted about 6-7 minutes. And even if it's a concealed carry, it's even easier to obtain the weapon. References- https://www.nytimes.com... https://youtu.be... (A crude representation, but the best I could find.)
Guns to Teachers

This has been a tricky issue as some people feel it contradicts their morals and values. Nevertheless, I"ll be defending the view that teachers are able to have/carry guns with them for protection during class. Please note, I"m currently typing this from my phone because I"m in Lubbock, Tx for a robotics competition. If you have any questions please post them in the comments and I"ll respond ASAP. Rebuttal I"m going to make this quite short and simple: where is the evidence that supports your claims? You give your opinion sure, but anybody with a second in debate knows that"s not going to fly. There whole case is subject to scrutiny until evidence is provided. Opening claims Some school districts have been allowing staff (teachers) to carry weapons with them for self defense and for protection for years. [1] This especially applies to Texas school districts; for instance, districts in Dallas and LISD have started to allow school officials to carry weapons. Students have reported that they "feel safer" in school and during class teachings. Theres a new program called "gurdian", where teachers can get training to handle weapons such as pistols. One superintendent reported saying, "We'll do whatever's necessary to protect our kids and staff. " [2] Sources: 1. . https://www.google.com... 2. Ibid
SILVER IS THE ANSWER

Ok SCHMUCK "mr synthesizer" or whatever LIES you put forth YOU ARE A preundergrad SCHMUCK WITH NO SCIENCE TO back you up FOOL Read this SCIENTIFICALLY REVIEWED PEER REIVEWED ARTICLE SHOWING THE UNBELIEVABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF SILVER IONS MURDERING e cOLI then get back to me SCHMUCK http://aem.asm.org...... from http://en.wikipedia.org...... reference # 8 FOOL IDIOT SCHMUCK GET A LIFE AND LEARN then MAYBE you can argue with the MASTER SOLARMAN COLLOIDAL SILVER IS THE ANSWER TO PATHOGEN DESTRUCTIONB KIDS! NEVER GET A COLD AGAIN! I HAVENT HAD ONE IN 15 YEARS NONE OF MY KIDS HAVE EVER HAD ONE- EVEN THOUGH ALL THEIR FRIENDS CONSTANTLY GET SICK AND HAVE HORRIBLE TIMES WITH ILLNESS LISTEN TO ME - NOT THESE PREUNDERGRAD SCHMUCK KIDS OR SUFFER OR SUFFER HEAR ME ? I HOPE YOU DO SOLARMAN
Peace on Earth

Ok so your points about "peace on earth" was literally 0. Peace on earth means:No violence,only peace. No threats,only peace. But if you turn on the television or read the news,what do you see: https://www.hrw.org... https://www.google.com.sg... http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com... https://www.google.com.sg... https://www.google.com.sg... I"ll stop right there. World peace? Sure its possible but now? Question for my opponent: Just read those few articles. Does that look like peace to you?
Social Democracy

Again i don't know what your point is. are you trying to say that social democratic countries are to peaceful? and mentioning the outlaw of the h jab in France, although I'm not in favor of this. the reason why this created such a controversy is because of France's Muslim population and that France is known to be a full complete democracy, Saudi Arabia on the other hand is a dictatorship ruled by a monarch; the freedom index shows that it is an authoritarian state where religion is instituted within its own government. i don't agree with both countries decisions since progress will only happen when the state leaves alone religion and doesn't have any ties to religion. Again before you applied that Hitler and Stalin were social democrats or it would seem, which they weren't. Another thing is is that im not sure what your point is about taking military action in the middle east. if in case your saying that you want to engage in a complete nuclear strike on the middle east then i think you really don't understand what would happen. All conservatives and libertarians alike don't want to go to war never mind nuclear war. If you really think that detonating nuclear weapons over the middle east is a good idea, then you really don't know enough of whats going to understand this debate So far we shifted from me trying to redefine what a dictatorship is to trying and trying to explain why its not a good idea to start a nuclear holocaust on the Muslim population. And let me remind you of who else has nuclear weapons. Russia and China both of which have ICBM's and thermonuclear weapons and will not stand for a nuclear genocide on the Muslims.
Social Democracy

My opponent is confused. they have dropped all arguments. They only thing they mention is that certain European nations are democratic but not dictatorships. Dictatorships are not democracies in the first place. Aside from this, a major flaw of European nation is that they are far too nice to nasty people. When France outlawed hijab its own people began rioting and screaming in outrage, but when Saudi Arabia outlawed western clothing and lack of Hijab, no one batted an eyelid. Europe is often condemned by the less democratic Muslims for being rude to Muslims but they are actually so ridiculously overly polite and scared of engaging in full blow nuking on these Jihadis that they, as a whole, as considered the cowards of this world.
Social Democracy

I'm really confused what your argument is are your trying to say that every democratic country is corrupt to the point where every election is rigged ? Social democracy Personality? Please make sure your grammar is at least acceptable. And as a correction Stalin was the leader of the single party Marxist state which is completely different. I'm not sure if you truly understand social democracy. Most forms of social democracy are in multiple political parties in shared power among other parties. They are not dictatorships like you think. Canada, Sweden, Norway, France has social democratic parties in power and yet they are not dictatorships. Also please when you write up your argument actually make it readable and coherent.
Social Democracy

Social Democracy tell you to think that because Hitler voted in democratically he is good personality!! Is a lie! He toast Jews like they pita bread and try to take over world like Genghis Khan on acid! Social Democracy tell you to think that always majority being happy is good thing but sometimes making majority suffer is good thing because in words of great Rihanna (look at song for evidence that the speak this words) CHAIN AND WHIP EXCITE ME! http://www.youtube.com... There is two types of Social Democratic personality! The one who count the ballot with honesty because they won the vote or the one who fake winning the vote anyway! This the way Social Democracy train you to be, Stalin do it, Hitler do it and all other pinnacle of democracy do it throughout historically! Think that 'we vote and give majority what they want and good will happen' is like to think that 'give three men a boner better than just my husband' oh no you get divorce because of this! Wow okay, Social democracy worst thing since the flu!