BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

As the affirmation in this debate, I will be giving the reasons as to why Andrew Jackson should be removed from the twenty dollar bill. The burden of proof is on the affirmation in this debate; I must prove why he should be removed from the twenty-dollar bill. Contention One: Indian Removal Andrew Jackson was a firm supporter of Indian removal policies; policies that took Native American tribes from the land they had lived on for centuries, often moving them west, thousands of miles away. Indian removal was a major Jackson policy, running through the entirety of his tenure as President. Jackson mentioned Indian removal in seven of his annual addresses to Congress (he made eight in total) [1], using language that made his policies sound voluntary and would allow for peaceful movement. This, however, was not seen in action. Under Jackson's administration, in 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, allowing Jackson to negotiate removal treaties with the Native American nations. This act eventually led to the forced, westward migration of natives [2]. This in turn led to the Trail of Tears, an infamous period where thousands of Natives (believed to be about four thousand) died [3]. Since Jackson's policies led not only to the mass removal of people from their homeland, but thousands dead as well, Jackson should not be on the twenty-dollar bill. Contention Two: Slavery The Jackson administration was not only supportive of Native American removal, but supportive of slavery as well. In fact, one of the main reasons behind Indian removal was to have land for slavery [2]. Jackson was a well-known member of the Democratic Party, which at the time was known for its pro-slavery stance. Jackson denounced abolitionists as "monsters" and asked for Congress to prohibit abolitionist documents from circulating in the South, after a violent episode in Charleston [4]. Perhaps the biggest connection Jackson had to slavery was a personal one; Jackson was a major owner of slaves, totaling at 150 at the time of his death. Had it not been for slavery, then Jackson would not have made his wealth [5]. Because Jackson not only removed Indians for the expansion of slavery, but condemned abolitionists and contributed to the practice of slavery himself, he should not be on the twenty-dollar bill. In conclusion, Andrew Jackson should not be on the twenty-dollar bill due to horrific contributions to the practices of Indian removal and slavery, encouraging and allowing for the expansion of both. I strongly urge a ballot in affirmation of the resolution. Sources: [1] http://www.synaptic.bc.ca... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.u-s-history.com... [4] http://www.presidentprofiles.com... [5] http://www.thehermitage.com...
Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

Andrew Jackson should NOT be removed from the 20$ bill for the following six reasons. (1) Andrew Jackson was a pioneer. Andrew Jackson rose from the slums of a Scotch Irish settlement to become president of the United States, showing that anybody in America, no matter social or economic class, can become somebody of importance. (2) Andrew Jackson redefined democracy. Jacksonian democracy brought in a new age of politics that is still in use today. Before this kind of democracy, mostly rich, stereotypical white men participated in politics. (3) Andrew Jackson strongly supported the common man. Andrew Jackson was the first man to be elected by ordinary people as supposed to rich aristocrats, and Jackson continued to fight against big government and support the middle class. (4) Andrew Jackson reduced the national debt to zero. Andrew Jackson paid off all the debt from the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and all of America's other debts. This feat has never been accomplished before, and has not been accomplished since. (5) Andrew Jackson empowered the executive branch. Jackson made the presidency strong, and created executive privileges that helped many other presidents accomplish what they needed to do. (6) Andrew Jackson was a war hero. Jackson fought bravely in the War of 1812 and helped defeat the British. In conclusion, Andrew Jackson was a great man. He contains all of the necessary traits that other people on bills have, and is totally deserving of being the face of our nation.
The argument from morality is not a valid argument for the existence of (a) god(s)

===Definitions=== The argument from morality is argued in several forms, however the gist of the position could be summed up as follows (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): P1: Moral normativity is best explained through the existence of authoritative moral rules. P2: Authoritative moral rules must be promulgated and enforced by an appropriate moral authority. P3: The only appropriate moral authority is God. C: Thus, given that there is moral normativity, there is a God.[1] God(s) will be defined in the traditional theistic meaning, where God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. An argument is valid "when the conclusion is entailed by, or logically follows from, the premises."[2] A valid argument may be contrasted with a sound argument. An argument is sound when it is "valid and all its premises are true."[2] For the moral argument to be valid, I must only show that IF the premises are all true, THEN the conclusion is logically necessitated. ===Argument=== Premise 1: An argument is valid IFF its premises (if true) necessitate its conclusion.-- From the definition of a valid argument Premise 2: The premises of the moral argument necessitate its conclusion IFF they are true. Conclusion: The moral argument is valid. As can be seen, this argument is clearly valid. Considering the definition of a valid argument, the validity of this argument would be shown if the two premises on which it is composed are shown to be true. On the soundness of my argument, the moral argument itself can be shown rather intuitively to be valid. IF authoritative moral rules best explain moral normativity, and authoritative moral rules entail an appropriate moral authority, and God is the only appropriate moral authority, THEN God exists. Whether all these premises are sound or not is still a matter or debate of course and is not the proper subject matter of the resolution. ===Sources=== [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.jimpryor.net...
Torture should never be used for the purpose of extracting information.

Well, in the final round, I think A, B, and D have been about beaten to death, I still don't think you got what I was saying on point C. You said that the U.S constitution only applies to U.S citizens, ans while that may be true, although there's a fuzzy line, there is also the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. signed, and I believe that article 3 gives protection to POW's, etc. I hope you don't bring out the argument that terrorist nations didn't sign, which is irrelevant, or that the terrorists are "illegal enemy combatants", which is just a designation created essentially for the purpose of skirting the Geneva convention, and actually has no legal definition, probably to keep a nice, fuzzy layer of confusion between what the Bush Administration wants and the Geneva convention. About the China thing, there are a lot of ways of dealing with that, and I don't believe that that scenario is an urgent, life threatening one, and is in fact a scenario that could be in a way beneficial, as the Chinese officials could tail the man and find out his connections, break the chain of intelligence gathering, and then nab the guy after the threat has been neutralized. In summation, my argument rests on the following points. A) Torture is very inhumane B) Torture is not a reliable method of producing information C) Torture is forbidden by international agreements D) Torture is not necessary, whether there is a "ticking time bomb" (highly unlikely) or a mole in a government agency (more likely)
Torture should never be used for the purpose of extracting information.

First of all, I will use the definition of torture given by the UN, which is as follows. "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." This means that torture is torture even when it does not cause permanent physical harm, the definition that the Bush administration subscribes to. Not only is torture inhumane, degrading, and mentally and physically harmful to the people being tortured, it has negative psychological effects on the torturers as well, and is not useful in getting accurate information. Consistent studies and real world occurrences have shown that those under torture will say anything to avoid more torture, and often they will say what their interrogator wants to hear. For example, the accusations before the current U.S. war in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium were based on statements from a man who was waterboarded, and turned out to be false. The most common argument for torture, which shows up almost anytime I argue about it, is "What if a terrorist has information about (your doomsday scenario here) that could save thousands of lives?" This argument is flawed in that it is unrealistic; A) first of all, it is impossible to tell whether a person has the requisite information to prevent the plot, B)secondly, if a person is really devoted enough to kill thousands of people, torture would only harden their resolve to not speak until the plot was completed, or give false information C) third, in order to catch a terrorist with knowledge of a plot, a police agency would already have to know that a plot existed, have knowledge of the terrorist cell attempting the plot, and know where some of the terrorists were going to be in order to arrest them. If a police force already has this much information, and was able to catch at least one terrorist, it seems highly improbable that the agency either has not already foiled the plan or should have enough information to stop the attack. D) Many people talk about this scenario, yet it has never once happened! There has never been a case where there was a known large-scale plot and a person with knowledge of said plot in custody. Anyone who believes torture should ever be used to extract information, I wait for your response.
Torture should never be used for the purpose of extracting information.

With all due respect, the reason why A B and D were beaten to death was because my stance was correct. As far as C goes, the point is simple, terror-plot-busting takes some time to happen, and it works much like working on a jigsaw puzzle. An informant here leads to a capture there, some torture there leads to a hide out here... My point is torture cannot be off the table when dealing with stopping international terrorism. The ratification of the Geneva Conventions by a government does not somehow physically bar that nation from torturing people for information. Now I certainly think that it is even more reprehensible to torture soldiers of other nations for information, and had the resolution read, "Torture should never be used for the purpose of extracting information from enemy soldiers" I would have a terrible time going against it. But alas, it does not. The designation of people who potentially have highly valuable information doesn't matter. The fact is that the organization holding those people should not be barred from going to extreme measures, torture, to get life saving intelligence. Sure you can deal with leaks in lots of ways, but the revelation of nuclear secrets to a rival country IS A DIRE THREAT to that nation's security. Imagine if we were in a cold war with china,(which we probably will be in 10-20 years) for us to know where and how they keep their bombs would make a first strike by the United States a viable option. Sure the PRC could try tailing the man first, I didn't say they couldn't. But if tailing him doesn't work, they need to get him, and also find out who the traitor is in their military. I agree that torture is inhumane, I agree with you that we haven't learned of many instances of torture yielding information, sure many countries have said they won't do it to soldiers, BUT!! TORTURE CANNOT BE RULED OUT IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES!!! If a government needs to deal with a terrorist threat rapidly, they should not hesitate for a moment to go after suspects and, if they don't cooperate, torture them to try to stop an attack. If someone is leaking top secret information from your government, it would be unjustifiably irresponsible to not work hard to ensure that you're not being destroyed from within. To condemn a method of intelligence gathering for all time, as this resolution does, is absurd. My point is, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN TOMORROW. WE NEED TO HAVE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE FOR PROTECTING OUR NATION Once again, I am not advocating torture become a commonly used method of intelligence gathering, but to throw it out for all time would be a terrible dis-service for any organization that is to protect a group of people that entrust said organization with their rights. Vote CON if this debate has shown you why the absolutist resolution cannot be applied to this world. Or you could vote con if you thought I just debated better, it doesn't matter to me. :) Thank you surfride for the debate, it was quite fun, and I look forward to debating you again.
A United States of Africa exists.

Contention 1: Sovereignty The United States of Africa does need these things to exist. The reaoning behind it is that my opponents uses the word United. These nations are not united, but are in a Union. In a Union the states are together, but are highly separeate much like the US under the Articles of Confederations. There basically was no Union at all. Contention 2: Territory 1) These boarders may be recognized (except for Morrocco), but what's to say a classroom at a school from having a recognized boundry? You look into a room and you know that the room belongs to Mr. Smith. 2) My opponent is highly incorrect. I was merely stating that the AU needed to have territory intergrity. I never stated that the US had this. I have stated that this is one of the African Union's own policies and it recognizes that it's not a state. My opponent's water drop theory is highly incorrect as his argument is basically saying. I own my property, a bird landed on my property, and I own the bird. This is completely false. Just because there is a grouping does not make it a United States of Africa. Contention 3: Population Refuted in my last contention Contention 4: US of Africa In order for my opponent to win this debate he must prove that the United States of Africa exist, but you see the tricky part here is the fact that he has included of Africa. This means that all African states must be members. Morrocco, an African state, is not a member. Thus showing how Africa is not United. In conclusion, we can see that there is no United States of Africa. The AU is not a state and does not meet the requirements and I have shown in this debate that Africa is not United. I have also shown how my opponent's symbolism is highly incorrect.
A United States of Africa exists.

Contention 1: SovereigntyI never said that the AU doesn't exist. I only said it wasn't a state due to the fact that it's not sovereign. These other entities exist, butthey are only organizations not actually states.Contention 2: TerritoryThe United States has territory as it has recognized boundaries. The Territory integrity is stating that they will not provoke reolutions in other nations or invade other nation's for land.Contention 3: PopulationMy opponent concedes here and this is highly important. In order for the 'United States of Africa' to exist that my opponent is talking about, it must be a state, not an organization. Contention 4: United States of AfricaNo this is my opponent's greatest mistake here. He states that the United States of Africa exists. This means that Africa is completely united under such an organization, but this is incorrect based on the fact that Morocco left due to disputes with another nation that the AU would not take care of. Here showing that they are not United. When you also add into the account that my opponent dropped my argument on Sovereignty and that the AU does not have any authority over the states that are in the AU this shows that they are not United as they are all guided by their own nation's goals. Thus meaningn that the United States of Africa does not exist.
A United States of Africa exists.

Quotes from Con are italicized and underlined.My opponent's contention are based on the premise that the United States of Africa is itself a state. A United States of Africa CONSISTS of states, nobody says it is a state in itself.When water drops are united the result is, say, a lake. The lake is not a water drop but it does exist and consists of water drops. Now replace 'water drops' with 'states' and the word 'lake' with 'United States of Africa'. In order for a this United States of Africa to exist it must have sovereignty. By this logic the African Union does not exist because it does not have sovereignty, neither does the European Union, or ASEAN, or even the United Nations because none of them have sovereignty but they still exist. I do not have sovereignty, but I still exist. This means that the African Union mustn't do anything to gain territory [to have territorial integrity]So since the United States of America gained vast territory in the past 238 years, it must not have territorial integrity either. Based on my opponents arguments, the United States of America has no territory. Another trait that a state must have is a population. How many people live as citizens under the African Union? Not one. So this is another point that shows that the African Union is not a state. Ok African Union (United States of Africa) is not a state. But it does exist.
A United States of Africa exists.

A State needs 4 things to exist. Government, Territory, Sovereignty, and Population. In order for the African Union to meet the 'A United States of Africa Exists' then it must meet these 4 traits.Contention 1: TerritoryIf you take a look at the African Union page you can see that their 2nd objective (quoted in contention 2) of Territorial integrity means that it will not cause seccionist movements and/or territorial changes. (https://www.princeton.edu...) This means that the African Union mustn't do anything to gain territory. Also if you see that it promotes territorial changes with only apply to nation states that are apart of the African Union. Thus showing the African Union does not have territory. Contention 2: Sovereignty In order for a this United States of Africa to exist it must have sovereignty. This means that there is no higher power it reports to and no buffers in the way, but unfortunately this is not true. The nation of Morocco has left the African Union over disputes about the territory of Western Sahara. (http://www.thebrenthurstfoundation.org...) If the African Union were a state then it would not have been able to let Morocco leave as it is illegal. I bring you the White V. Texas Court Case. Yes, I understand that it is for the United States of America, but it still has parallels and is relevant to this debate. They found that the Articles of Confederations bonded together the states and when the Constitution was written it only strengthened it. "To form a more perfect Union." Comes to mind. To make things better if you visit the African Union website and view their objectives and you read bullet point two here. "To defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States" (http://www.au.int...)This shows that the African Union does not have power over the member nations in the African Union and thus cannot be a state. If you observe state right, one can find that international laws and treaties do not supersede that of a state's Constitution and/or law. Thus showing another point to where the African Union does not have Sovereignty. (http://www.sweetliberty.org...)Contention 3: PopulationAnother trait that a state must have is a population. How many people live as citizens under the African Union? Not one. So this is another point that shows that the African Union is not a state.
A United States of Africa exists.

P(Premise)1 - The African union exists and the African union is in AfricaP2 - The African union is unitedP3 - The African union is made up of statesA1 - Therefore a United States of Africa does existP1 - The African Union exists and the African union is in AfricaNot much to defend here, this is common knowledge (and common sense). The African union has its own website[1] and its own flag[2]. The fact that the African union is in Africa should be self evident in the name. P2 - The African Union is UnitedThere is obviously some level of unity between members of the union. If there was no unity between members, they would not be part of the union (for eg. Morrocco, damn secessionists! )P3 - The African Union is made up of StatesAs defined in round 1, a state is a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. An example of such a state would be the State of Israel. Israel may not be in Africa however, I mentioned Israel so that you, dear reader, know exactly what I mean by the word 'state'. Ethiopia, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Egypt, Mali etc are also states by this defenition and they are all members of the African Union. Since all 3 premises are true, the logical conclusion is that a United States of Africa does indeed exist. I hand the debate to Con to make his opening arguments and rebuttals. Sources:[1]. http://www.au.int...;[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...;
A United States of Africa exists.

Looking at the resolution and my stance you might think I am crazy. Maybe I am(:P), but I am convinced that a United States of Africa does indeed exist, and I have the BoP. Round 1 is acceptance only, if con argues in round 1 (which I doubt is even possible) then he will have the leave round 4 blank to avoid losing conduct. Defenitions[1]:Africa:"The second-largest continent, a southward projection of the Old World land mass divided roughly in two by the equator and surrounded by sea except where the Isthmus of Suez joins it to Asia."State: "A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government"United: "Joined together politically, for a common purpose, or by common feelings"Sources:[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;