BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should convert to the Metric system

I agree with many things in your last points, but converting to the metric system would prove to be more than an easier way to calculate things. First off, having to teach the metric system to every school in the U.S is not just a boring experience for the students, it's a waste of money and class time. From 4th-8th grade, we spend around a month of first semester science class studying a system we don't use. That month could be spent learning other science-related things. The biggest issue with having to learn it in school is money. The U.S government has to dish out money for 1 month of lessons for something we unfortunately never use. According to U.S governmentspending.com, we spent 149 billion dollars on education last year. If we say JUST .1% of that is for teaching the metric system, that equals 149 MILION DOLLARS PER YEAR in metric system education cost. Teach it for 100 years, and we're looking at nearly 15 billion dollars. That completely dwarfs the 365 million fee to switch over. But the advantages of using only the metric system stretch far beyond having to fund and sit through two measurement lessons instead of one. Because only two other nations use this system, any business or cooperation that does anything with a foreign country has to convert whatever they are planning to sell or make. I know somebody that works for a business that also distributes their products to Canada. Instead of only having to make on size of the product, they have to make two separate ones, which wastes time and money, the two things a business can't afford to loose. Lastly, when a cooperation has to convert everything from our old system to the superior metric, human error is bound to happen. This was certainly the case when a 330 million dollar NASA Mars Rover blew up the second it entered the Martian Atmosphere. 330 million dollars wasted because of our system, when it costs just about that to change it. After all, changing to be metric system would only cost us .01% of our total government spending, which is a ten-thousandth of the total government spending. Let's just thing about it this way, would you want a computer with no outlets toconnect other things to it without using time-sucking, expensive, annoying, and irrelevant adapters? Well the U.S customary system is that computer. It needs an adapter (converting) to connect almost any other county to it.
The United States should convert to the Metric system

Learning two systems of measurements isn't all that hard. If anything, it makes us smarter. Putting everything in 10 is helpful but is not worth 368 million dollars just to save a little time when we could instead do a simple calculation. At school, they drill us endlessly on the metric system every year in science so we know it just as well as the American Standard system. so when we go to other countries, it's no big deal because we are already great at the metric system. We DO use the metric system though. On every packaged food or drink there is a metric label as well as a US standard label and most of us understand them both. So why would we go through all that trouble to change every single road sign in America when we can understand both US standard and the metric system. It's completely unnecessary. I'm not gonna lie, I think the metric system is much much easier, but it is not worth 368 million dollars to change it.
The United States should convert to the Metric system

I disagree to the fullest extent. The U.S should convert to the metric system due to all of the overwhelming positives it will bring to our nation. First of all, the metric system is obviously the easier system to use. Since everything is in 10, it would be much easier to convert things in everyday life. Also, kids would have a much easier time learning the metric system vs the customary system. But wait, because every other country besides two others uses the metric system, school children also have to learn the metric system too! We are forcing are youth to learn two measurement systems, but only using the harder of the two for everyday use. Stepping aside from the irony, using the metric system would help us do everything overseas better. Whether it is trading with another country, working on a science experiment with another country, or touring another country, you wouldn't have to convert everything from customary. And it really isn't that economically taxing as it may seem. According to Wikipedia, it would only cost 368 million dollars to convert to the metric system, which is nothing compared to the 718 billion dollars we spend on our military a year. With the economy and convenience considered, we should convert to the metric system. Every kid knows it anyway.
Humans are bad. The Constitution is good. Deal with it.

"- They couldn't have. They were human." --We are the worldwide superpower and global economic leader. I believe they did get it right. "- Apply OV1. - Apply OV2." --They're called liberals. Step foot on your typical university and you will see what I'm talking about. "- Government is set up by the Constitution. GG, auto-loss." --The framers desired less government. Government is too big now. "Please give me your exact interpretation of the Constitution" --Read my 2nd round argument. "What is this referring to?" --Re-distribution of wealth. "LOLLOLOOLOLOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLL" --You're right, liberals don't know what hard work is. That's why they want the government to send them a welfare check at the expense of someone else. "Please give warrants that all success can be derived from the Constitution." --Without the Constitution, what guideline would we, as Americans, live by? "Don't bring religion into this. There is no correlation." --Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy. "Christianity is not absolutely moral. I think we saw this well enough with Moses ordering mass killings, rules like stoning people to death if they work on Sundays, and other things like the Inquisition." --That's Old Testament...or Jewish text. Christianity is New Testament. "Since when did Democracy and the Constitution lead to Capitalism???" --Why are you discussing capitalism? "Summarization on why you can already vote CON:" --Haha, wow you really want that victory! Does debate.org give your life meaning? "- Perhaps you should cite and quote them so they have some weight in the debate." --YOU'RE the one that made the claim that we don't know the intentions of the founding fathers. I suggested you go read the Federalist Papers. Now you want me to do the work for you. No. "Proof please thank you have a nice day." --Read the Declaration of Independence. "And what moral and joyous times they were indeed, slaughtering natives." --At least there weren't marches in the street celebrating the slaughtering of unborn babies. People also realized why wars were fought and why freedom is valued. "I thought pride was a sin." --You don't believe in patriotism? "No there isn't." --Then why do you go to school? Why do you get a job? Why are you still living? "And everything IS permitted. That means God is not. GG." --No, everything is NOT permitted. That's why we have laws.
gay marriage

Let's recap. Con only provided two contentions. The first was that, if you support gay marriage, you're a "faggot. " I rebutted this, and she didn't counter-rebut. Then she plagiarized from a piece on natural law, but failed to account for an objective basis for marriage such that it can only exist between a man and a woman, and I pointed out that marriage has meant different thinks throughout history. Moreover, Con forfeited the last round, so my contentions on utilitarianism and the separation of church and state, coupled with my earlier remarks about subjective, private morality between consenting adults, went unrebuted.
gay marriage

First, everything Con just wrote was plagiarized from this link (http://www.scribd.com...) save for his last remark about grammar, which frankly doesn't make any sense. He never cited this page nor quoted from it, so this should merit a loss. Nevertheless, I will respond to it. Con claims that marriage is rooted in human nature and governed by natural law. He provides no evidence for this claim. In fact, marriage was rooted in property and the maintenance of power, and even biblical marriage was polygamous. He goes on to say, essentially, that gay marriage is morally wrong and people know this. However, he fails to establish an objective basis for wrong. Moreover, if morality is subjective and private, and Con has given us no reason to think that it isn't, marriage is a private relationship between consenting adults, meaning that the government should have no say in prohibiting gay marriage. It would Contention 1: Utilitarianism If we were to legalize gay marriage, as many states have already done, it would not negatively bear on anyone's life. Rather, it would merely improve the lives of a large group of people. Thus the utilitarian solution, i.e., the one that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering, is to legalize gay marriage. Contention 2: Religious objections are irrelevant Virtually every argument against gay marriage that I've seen is an extension of biblical doctrine. Looking beside the fact that Jesus never commented on homosexuality, we have legal precedent already in place which strictly forbids the intermingling of religion and politics.
gay marriage

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. How is that Grammar buddy?
gay marriage

I accept, with only 5 minutes and 3,000 characters. This should be interesting. My goal, of course, is to defend gay marriage, whereas my adversary must oppose it. However, his opening statement is not only poorly structured grammatically, but nothing more than a personal attack. Moreover, "faggot" is a derogatory slang used to disparage gay people. This, of course, is not an argument from Con. He cannot merely say that, without any evidence of course, that anyone who supports X policy is Y. I, for instance, am not gay, yet I support gay marriage. Moreover, even if this were true, it hardly provides a case against gay marriage. I only have a minute left, so I'm going to cut my arguments short for one and expand on my points in the next round.
Gay Marriage

"My opponent therefore must argue that governmental recognition of same sex marriage is justified and necessary. "That is exactly what I intend to do. I will do this in two parts: Civil Rights and Benefits of Marriage. In "Civil Rights" I will show that denying same-sex marriage is a violation of civil rights. In "Benefits of Marriage" I will explain some of the benefits of marriage, thus giving another reason why the government should equally recognize same-sex marriage. CIVIL RIGHTSP1: People should not be denied their civil rights. P2: Gay marriage is a civil right. C1: Therefore, people should not be denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. People should not be denied their civil rights. Civil rights- Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community [1]. Basically, civil rights are rights that are gained by belonging to a certain society. If civil rights are not upheld, the fair nature of democracy is threatened. Gay Marriage is a Civil Right. Marriage is a right that is granted by societies, therefore marriage is a civil right. But is same sex marriage also a civil right? The definition of marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other [2]. Obviously, same sex marriages can participate in this act. Therefore, same sex marriage is a right granted by a society, a civil right. Therefore, people should not be denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. BENEFITS OF MARRIAGEThere are numerous benefits for marriages that are recognized by law. These include:Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, government benefits, employment benefits, medical benefits, death benefits, family benefits, housing benefits, and consumer benefits [3]. My opponent must prove why these benefits should not also be granted to same sex couples. There are additional benefits of marriage beyond governmental benefits:P1: "Children benefit from two-parent families" [4]. P2: "Married parents 'ten times more likely to stay together" [5]. C2: Therefore, the children of same-sex couples will benefit from same sex marriage being legalized. CONCLUSIONIn this round I have demonstrated:1. Marriage should not be denied on the basis of sexual orientation.2. There are legal benefits for homosexual marriages that should be extended to same-sex couples.3. Legalizing gay marriage will benefit same-sex families. I have fulfilled my BoP. Over to you, Con. Sources:[1]- . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[2]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]- . http://www.nolo.com...[4]- . http://parenting.families.com... #[5]- . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Gay Marriage

I just have one brief observation, however. Marriage is a ceremony whereby individuals publicly declare their commitment to one another in terms of a sexual and family relationship. These unions are already legal; unlike Iran, the United States does not actively prevent homosexuals from making such commitments and does not prevent homosexual relationships from occurring. My opponent therefore must argue that governmental recognition of same sex marriage is justified and necessary, and my burden is to prove that the government should not recognize these unions. I need not advocate transforming the United States into an Iran-type state; I simply need to advocate the status quo since he is advocating a departure from the status quo.
Gay Marriage

Resolved: On balance, the reasons to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States outweigh any reasons not to do so.Definitions:Same-sex marriage- A legal union between two people of the same sex affirming their commitment to each other and their relationship. Legal- Allowed by law.Rules:1. First round is for acceptance.2. Drops count as concessions.3. Abusive arguments shall not be counted.4. No new arguments in the last round.The BoP is shared.Good luck!
Homosexual Behavior Is Wrong.

I find my counterpart's behavior a little disappointing. I stated that the reason Christianity was to be preferred over other religions was because of what the evidence I gave inferred. It seems my counterpart simply ignored it. My counterpart brings up details from the Mosaic law like dietary restrictions. I addressed that when I said that we didn't live by the law I was only mentioning that verse to give us insight into what God meant by the word homosexual. Frankly I interpret my counterpart's attitude as rank disrespect. It seems that he didn't even bother to read my argument. Then he didn't do us the courtesy of even posting an argument to this website, instead he gives us a link to an old post of his at a different site and assumed that that would due. To say that my counterpart has been obnoxious so far would be to understate things. At this point I'd like to share some philosophical reasons for staying away from the homosexual lifestyle. It's reasonably obvious that mens and womens bodies are complemantary in a way that mens bodies aren't to other mens. The number of adaptations mens and womens bodies have to accomadate each other is astonishing. (1)(2) This documentary is superb. I highly recommend you take the time to view it. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com... Think of it this way; imagine you are an alien from a planet circling Alpha Century. Your species doesn't reproduce sexually so it's a totally foreign concept to you. You arrive on planet earth and put on your high tech invisibility suit. You follow humans around and study them and their bodies and behavior. Given that homosexuality is relatively rare in the population, would there be anything that you observed about human anatomy or human sexual behavior that would lead you to think that there was even such a thing as homosexuality? Let alone that it was normal and healthy. If you did see it you would think the couple was nuts! What I'm saying is that the only reason we aren't shocked and repulsed by it is because we have been brainwashed and conditioned to accept it.
Homosexual Behavior Is Wrong.

I don't want to go into a long and tedious argument about the existence of God, but it is interesting that you elevate Christianity (and to a lesser extent, the other Abrahamic religions) to this privileged position of having overarching moral authority over matters of sexual conduct.There are innumerable religions that do not condemn homosexuality that are every bit as implausible as Christianity. They include but are not limited to:BuddhismHinduismJainismSikhismConfucianismTaoismWiccaSatanismShintoUnitarian UniversalismHellenic PaganismVoodooMost Native American ReligionsNorse ReligionPastafarianismFurthermore, if we are going by what the Bible forbids, perhaps I should provide examples of other things prohibited by the Bible.Several meats, notably pork and rabbit (Leviticus 11:4)Shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)Fat and blood (Leviticus 3:17)Women not covering their heads (Leviticus 10:6)Clothes with multiple fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)Cutting hair on the back and sides of the head (Leviticus 19:27)Shaving (Leviticus 19:27)Tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)Diversified gardening (Leviticus 19:19)Mixing breeds of animals (Leviticus 19:19)Communion wine (Leviticus 10:9)Working on Sundays (Leviticus 23:3)Intercourse when a woman is menstruating (Leviticus 18:19)Owning land (Leviticus 25:23)I assume you also believe these acts are morally reprehensible too, since the Bible is God's word, and it would be hypocritical to follow one part of it and not the others.Anyway, there is nothing to suggest that because something is written in the Bible, that makes it true or even moral. There is an entire article here that shows God's condoning of all sorts of vile things such as slavery, genocide and bigotry.http://www.religioustolerance.org...To conclude the round, I shall say that this round has been completely useless in the debate, as it frames a debate on a universal issue within Christian parameters, and the Bible does not apply to non-Christians. I'll allow the argument, and present mine. It can be found on this link.http://www.venganza.org...;
Homosexual Behavior Is Wrong.

I would like to make it clear I do not wish harm nor harbor ill will toward those who have same sex attraction or who act on it. I do not support the illegalization of same sex sexual activity. I DO think that same sex sexual activity is evil and state it unambiguously. I view other forms of sexual sin as being equally evil. We should not call any form of evil an alternative lifestyle, love, a relationship, or any other term that normalizes or legitimizes that form of evil. I believe it is vital for us in the Western World to regain our sanity on this matter. I'd like to remind the readers of the debate of the reasons same sex sexual activity or "homosexual behavior" is evil.
The war in Afghanistan was justified.

I am not sure if I support this position, but I would like to debate it anyway. After 9/11, it was obvious that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was a threat to our national security and it did not look like they would sit around and negotiate with us. The Taliban also worsened the life of Afghanistan's citizens, so it was also a moral thing to do. The war in Afghanistan was justified and it would have been dangerous and wrong not to invade.
The black community needs to change their current behavior trend

Sorry I was occupied with something else. But i will heed your words and i will not give any more arguments. I will just like to add that in order for a community or system to thrive it first has to create a history. Be that good or bad it is still a history from which things can be learnt. If an outside force intervenes and re-addresses the situation as they see fit will be depending on that power to continue them on that path. Vote CON!! :)
The black community needs to change their current behavior trend

Well dude, you left me in a tough spot. This is my last chance to rebut your arguments, and I don't have any new ones to rebut. So instead, I will just provide a few pieces of food for thought for you and any other readers: As I have stated so far in my arguments, the black community is in a rough situation today, both economically and socially. I am sure we all agree that something must change, whether that be how America treats them, or how they treat themselves. I made a strong case that it is not their situation that is in the way of success, but rather the 'victim' mindset, which can be so damaging. I am not alone in believing this. Prominent figures in the black community, most notably Dr. Ben Carson, have experienced this for themselves. He however made the choice to set his mind to it, and change his fate. He did just that, and look at where he is today: making medical history as overseer of the pediatric unit at John Hopkins, and first surgeon ever to separate conjoined twins at the head. Thank you for the debate, and please do not bring up any new arguments in the last round as I will not be able to rebut them. If you, or any reader has any question or comment regarding my stances on this, or any other issue, please message me an I would be glad to respond. Bye for now, and always remember....MURICA!!!