BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Senate should be dissolved

Assuming we are to keep the republic form of democracy, that is, representative democracy, it is important that each individual withhin the system maintains equal and proportional power by their vote and the vote of their representative. My opening arguement is as simple as this: the senate disparates power between individuals in favor of arbitrary geographic lines. An individual from Wyoming has more power over the federal government than an individual from California does as a result of the senate. This defies the purpose and parameters of a democracy. As such, the senate should be dissolved.
The United States Senate should be dissolved

This is intended to be a broader philosophical debate on the effects of an institution that expresses power disproportionally to individuals in favor of geographic areas (the senate). It will be assumed and not stressed that the pro position would displace the hypothetical lost power of the senate into the house, but the merits of doing so aren't for debate unless con argues that there would be a strong impracticality of dissolving the senate (by any possible means, since 'shifting all congressional powers to the house' isn't the only possible solution). Finally, this isn't a constitutional debate. The pro argument is won by demonstrating that undesirable effects of the senate's structure outweighs any desirable effects and should therefor, be dissolved as a political body in the United States. The con argument is won by doing precisely the opposite. The burden of proof lies equally on both sides.
Homework is immoral on a deep level.

Thank you for taking the trouble to reinstating this debate, I will hear post my original opening argument simply for reference: "I am aware that most will dismiss arguments such as this (especially those without children) as the complaining of a child, but please take my arguments seriously. School is difficult enough already (especially, for me, currently taking college credit classes in the eighth grade); It is the constant source of everyday stress for a child. Eight hours a day, 5 days a week, 9 months a year it is very demanding. From an idealistic standpoint (though I have particular distaste for idealism), it educates the population whether they like it or not. I can see the necessity for school Homework, however, is disgusting. In my opinion, when a child returns home, they should genuinely return home, they should have the ability to dissatatch from the stresses of the world that is school. They can't though. It looms over them all day. There are things to be learned from having a personal life outside of school. It makes it difficult for them to do things as a family." I will now respond to your new opening argument: I understand that there is not enough time in school and thus propose that we are taught in school, for about 2 more hours. We can be released at 5:00 and then not have any homework, and life would be so much easier. I would honestly prefer this. I can understand that on the college level it may be necessary. But today, they are giving homework to first graders. WHY?! Why should anyone at that age be compelled to use his free time doing silly, pointless assignments? And now, ALAS!, they are giving students homework over THE SUMMER! We do not have ANY breaks, not ever until we are out of college. Do you no how many 800-word essays I had to write over the summer?! 5! 5 long essays in the short three month period that is supposed to be my summer "break" whatever that means. Here, I debate you, and thus learn many things. I am learning much more, right now, than I almost ever would do on one of those silly assignments. But Alas!, I am right now writing out this debate, and taking away time that I could be doing homework. TO WHAT END?
Homework is immoral on a deep level.

Hey Harlan, I apologize for being unable to post on the first debate. I've been swamped with school and homework lately and just haven't had time. I am very interested in this topic and I look forward to debating it with you. My opening topic is in response to your original opening statement. Feel free just to repost your original opening statement and add a response to mine. I was once in your shoes Harlan. I completely hated homework. It was trivial to me. I would get the same grades in a class whether or not I did the homework. I hated the fact that I went to school for 8 hours a day just to come home and do another 2-3 hours of homework every night. I disagreed so much with homework that I even called in to a local AM radio show when they were on the topic of homework to voice my opinion. Then came high school and college. My whole opinion of the system reversed. For once in my life I realized what the point of homework was and how beneficial it was to understanding and reinforcing the material that was learned in class. The average high school class is 45 minutes long. In that time you take 5 minutes to organize the class and the rest teaching. In that 40 minutes of teaching it is impossible to reinforce the topics introduced enough to embed them in the minds of the students. That is where homework comes in. Homework reinforces the work that was taught in class and allows the child to fully absorb the information that was presented to them. In college, homework is essential. Without it most of the student population would be lost in translation. Sitting in a lecture hall of 400 students listening to an a professor talk in a monotonic voice doesn't allow anyone to learn anything, it mearly provides a guideline of what needs to be studied and what homework needs to be done to learn the material. Is homework immoral in some cases? Yes. Homework is immoral when it is assigned just to give a student homework and not to reinforce material that was presented earlier in the day. In this case homework interferes with a childs outside of school development as well as time spent socializing and interacting with peers and family members.
Evolution is more credible than Creationism

Macroevolution, as my opponent says, is one species evolving into another. He says it isn't credible, and impossible to conceive how one species can evolve into another. I point out, that evolution doesn't happen in a few years, it happens over millions of years. At some point, so many changes can be caused by microevolution that after a few millions of years, the species has in fact, evolved into something else. My opponent has agreed that microevolution is a fact, and I ask him, can macroevolution not be microevolution over a long period of time? After looking at . http://creation.com..., they try to disprove the nebular hypothesis by saying that it's not possible that all of the change could've occurred by asteroid collisions. But, the likelihood of an asteroid hitting a planet in between the time span of millions of years is still greater, and makes more sense, than the idea of God. The creationist standpoint according to my opponent is:Creationist: God formed earth on Day one of creation, and then He populated it during the next five days. (The Bible, Genesis)There is no evidence of this, nothing close to it has been observed, and there isn't even a hypothetical theory that can explain how such a thing could occur. How can one being create the Earth, and then populate it during the next five days, my opponent cannot provide an answer to this, because there is none. My opponent said:"In addition to the fact that creation and a designer deity would solve all the problems brought up in Subpoint 2, there is also a point that warrants mentioning. That point is: All design needs a designer. Think about this logically for a moment. No one looks at Mount Rushmore and says "amazing that years of eroding would do that". No, everything that has intelligent design must, by definition, have an intelligent designer behind it. When we look at our universe, from things large as a planet to small as a cell, we see intelligent design. " This also, isn't any evidence of creationism. "All design needs a designer" isn't evidence of creationism. "A designer deity would solve all the problems brought up in subpoint 2. " However, there is absolutely no evidence for this, I can make up a theory that a clown wearing a tophat created the Earth in 2 hours, just because that "solves all the problems," doesn't mean it's a theory that can be taken seriously. There is no example of creationism that has been observed by humans. As my opponent said in round 1, Evolution has no grounds. It is a theory. And we cannot give credit to such things. Evolution clearly has more grounds than creationism, microevolution has been observed, and macroevolution is the result of microevolution over a large amount of time. The theory of Creationism on the other hand, hasn't been observed, or explained, and in the end, it just doesn't make sense, the only source of Creationism is the Bible, and the Bible cannot be considered a credible source.
Evolution is more credible than Creationism

And I agree with the definitions stated in the previous round. My opponent states that microevolution, “Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms”, is fact. But macroevolution isn’t. The definition of macroevolution is the large-scale pattern of change over time that has resulted from the operation of micro evolutionary mechanisms. Macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. So the difference between them is of time and scale. Macroevolution can occur with the gradual compounding of small changes. An example of this is Homo habilis, which is thought to be the first species of Homo. It developed from the Australopithecus, it had smaller molars, and a 50% larger brain capacity than its predecessor. Homo habilis later developed into Homo erectus. More small changes occurred, Homo erectus had a cranial capacity that was great than that of Homo habilis, and the frontal lobe of the brain was not as sloped. They were slender, with long arms and legs, and stood up straight. Small changes like these are what led up to Homo sapiens. All of these small changes gave these species an advantage over the other ones, and they were more likely to survive and reproduce. You can’t say that Homo sapiens and Australopithecus are still the same species. Lastly, I’d like to remind that this debate isn’t about definitively proving either evolution or creationism, but showing which one’s more credible. My opponent, in the previous round, provided no evidence on the validity of creationism.
Evolution is more credible than Creationism

Before we get into the meat of the round, I would like to define a few terms to ensure that we are all debating on the same page: EVOLUTION - the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (Oxford Dictionaries) CREATIONISM - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. (Oxford Dictionaries) CREDIBLE - Able to be believed; convincing (Oxford Dictionaries) So basically, whoever is able to provide more evidence for their side and can convince our audience should win this round. I ask my opponent to agree or disagree with my definitions in his next round. With all that said, let's dive into my arguments. ARGUMENT ONE: MICRO EVOLUTION IS A FACT. I can agree with my opponent that those moths in his previous speech did exist. I looked it up. I agree. However, this is not evidence for evolution. As a creationist, I believe that all different animals and plants were always that animal and plants. A dog will always be a dog. A monkey will always be a monkey. A human will always be a human. My opponent's argument showed no evidence for one species evolving into another. It showed evidence for one species evolving into. .. the same exact species. Those moths were still moths. This is an example of MICRO evolution. Let's use Oxford Dictionaries again. Oxford Dictionaries defines "micro evolution" as: "Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms". This is a fact. I do not argue with that. But this is NOT what we are arguing about. ARGUMENT TWO: MACRO EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT My opponent argues that all species evolves from one single organism. That one species can evolve into another. This is not a fact. this is an unproven theory. I cannot give any examples of macro evolution because there are none. I urge my opponent in the next round to show at least one example of MACRO evolution. I will not, however, accept examples of MICRO evolution. that is not what we are arguing about. In conclusion, as a creationist, I still believe in micro evolution, this is a fact. I do not, however, believe in macro evolution. this is an unproven theory. The resolution asks: Is Evolution or Creationism more Credible? The answer is clear. Evolution has no grounds. It is a theory. And we cannot give credit to such things.
Evolution is more credible than Creationism

Evolution is fact. Fact in science, as described by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent," One means of evolution is *natural selection*. Organisms with favourable traits are more likely to reproduce. An example of this are day flying moths, which at first were had light coloured skin, and there were a few dark skinned moths. At first the light skinned moths had a better chance at surviving and reproducing because they were camouflaged against the white colour of the nearby trees, which made it harder for birds to see them. But when factories were built, it caused pollution, which made the nearby trees turn black. And now, the dark skinned moths camouflaged against the trees, and the light skinned moths stood out, causing more of them to be eaten by birds. More dark skinned moths reproduced, and they became the majority. But after there were controls put against pollution, the lighter skinned moths again had the advantage, and now they're more common than the dark skinned moths. The other example is one of *artificial selection*. In which humans selectively breed animals based on certain qualities, such as appearance, usefulness etc. An example of this is dogs, which were at first wolves. When humans and wolves first encountered, The wolves would go after the food the humans brought, so they wouldn't have to hunt for themselves. And the humans defended themselves using fire. Some wolves, became submissive, and became the human's pets. The reproduction of these submissive wolves was manipulated by humans, based on their looks, and behaviour. Which is why now, there are so many breeds of dogs, which didn't exist before.
Gay Marriage Should be legal

CONTENTION ONE: PLAGIARISMPro has plagiarized Pro's entire argument [1]. This is grounds for a full forfeit. CONTENTION TWO: GAY MARRIAGE ASSIMILATES AND DESTROYS GAY CULTUREAs ProCon.org states, "The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. .... As ... Badgett ... summarizes, "marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture,"" [1].We would not be okay with destroying the culture of any other minority. Why should gays be different?CONTENTION THREE: MARRIAGE IS BAD, GAY MARRIAGE INCREASES MARRIAGESAs ProCon.org states, "Ettelbrick ... wrote ... "Marriage runs contrary to ... the validation of many forms of relationships." The ... Gay Liberation Front ... said ... "[M]arriage as one of the most insidious .... microcosm[s] of oppression,”" [1].Marriage is oppression. Gay marriage is oppression. Banning gay marriage helps start a ban of all marriage.REFERENCES[1] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...;
Gay Marriage Should be legal

Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples. [40] The Human Rights Campaign Foundation states that many same-sex couples "want the right to legally marry [and] honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer..." Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [6] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple.
Why America lost its title as The United States of America

1. What do you mean we've lost our title? Last time I checked we're still called the United States of America. 2. What the heck does immigration or Arizona for that matter have to do with the name of our country? America was founded on immigration, from all countries(. http://www.suite101.com...), and America was named after Amerigo Vespucci (. http://library.thinkquest.org...) who happened to be an explorer/immigrant himself. 3. You are not clear in what you are trying to say. You don't want immigration but you want it? (please clarify) Now to the pro.
Why America lost its title as The United States of America

The reason that we lost this above title, is the fact that because of the segregation of Arizona. I do believe that Arizona should check papers without reason. at the same time we cant have people from another country over running ours, taking our benifits, and expecting us to take up the culture they CHOOSE to leave. this isnt just Mexicans, but many different cultures and people. im not racisist i just want them to have citizenship and a good job. So because of segregation against Arizona we have forgot our title.
Why America lost its title as The United States of America

First, by saying "it hurts business" I have no idea what you mean. Second, if it is people from other states then your tourism business still isn't hurt because it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. My point on boycotting is that you have no proof that people boycotting(if they do) hurt the economy. In your second paragraph, you state the fact tat clashing ethnicities cause crime rates to rise. This is proving my point because we need to remove the unnecessary illegals to prevent unnecessary clash. Finally, this whole round has been pointless for my opponent because he has STILL failed to prove that Arizona is being separated from the rest of the US, which is the whole point of this debate.
Why America lost its title as The United States of America

yes it hurts business, but so do illegal immigrants. I would say that most people in Arizona don't vacation there too much, so assume that your profit is from people visiting from other states. I apologize if this makes no understanding to you, boycotting affects the economy of Arizona. immigration hurts it also because while trying to be fair when it comes to other ethnicity's (walmart for an example) By hurting Arizona and such, it builds up resentment (if you know what I mean) tourism isn't just the sights, but the cities. crime can start because of a misunderstanding between two ethnicity's and make the crime and danger rate rise. I thank you for this debate. and look forward to the next reply.
Why America lost its title as The United States of America

First of all, you never mention where this business is so I'll just assume it's in Arizona. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say you supported the laws? If this is true, then you are contradicting yourself by saying that the laws area bad thing because they hurt business. You provide no sources for the 75% loss of business argument, and, in case you haven't noticed, businesses are going bankrupt all over the US, not just in Arizona. This example doesn't tie to the original topic, and you sill haven't shown me how we are separating Arizona from the US. If you own a tourism business you won't be hurt by the laws because illegal immigrants aren't going to be seeing the sights, but rather trying to find a job in an unstable economy.
Why America lost its title as The United States of America

think of your self as an owner of a tourism business, your doing good and you increase enough money to but more and more things, but all of a sudden you lose 75% of your planned business, could you manage? with all the places and things you have to continuosly pay for? No America DID NOT lose its title, but it isnt acting any bit like it is. 4/10 Americans is enough to make a tremendous change. How do you plan to hold on to your business?
Why America lost its title as The United States of America

First off, my opponent failed to put forth any arguments against my points and only said, "its ridiculous that you don't understand this". Since no refutations were made, he must either agree with me or forfeit this round. Secondly, if I don't understand this, then attack my points, point out what it is that I don't understand. Lastly, I don't think it is I who doesn't understand, but rather my opponent. If you believe in something you should have a reason or evidence to do so. If I don't like Obama, I have to have reasons. I can't just not like him for no reason whatsoever. My opponent believes that Arizona is being separated, but has no reasons, no evidence to back up what he believes in. I now turn to the affirmative.
Why America lost its title as The United States of America

First of all, you are lacking specifics such as the number of governors, and which ones, who you claim are telling people to boycott Arizona. Second, you don't say how many people are boycotting. You also say the boycotting isn't fair. Boycotting is strictly a voluntary, individual right guaranteed to citizens by the constitution. Also, while we're speaking of boycott, I think you have the wrong concept. A boycott is a form of protest which involves voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a service. What service are people abstaining from? Next up is the fact that the amount of people who you say are "boycotting" Arizona is too insignificant to matter. According to a recent survey, 6 in 10 Americans support the law.