BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized.

Rebuttal 1: My opponent pulls up a point without a reasoning in his first contention and nothing really to defend it, so it makes it very simple to attack it. For one thing, he states that the Bible condemns gay marriage because it condemns homosexuality, which is a pretty reasonable enough syllogism, but he doesn't explain why the Bible is something we all should adhere to. This text is only really applicable to members of the Christian faith and something only they believe in rather than the entire global society as a whole. In addition, he doesn't show to explain why this is the best source for morality nor the best source for standards as to how we should live our lives. I could explain in depth as to why we shouldn't go to the Bible for any said standards, including that there are several segments within the Bible promoting the subordination of women, violence against people of other religions, and other actions that we consider to be morally irrelevant or morally wrong. I won't place these quotations in this rebuttal considering that I am limited on time, but I'll place them later on this argument. Furthermore, if my opponent is willing to put up a Biblical argument in this debate, he'd better be prepared to answer to the other things he is implicitly promoting by using the Bible as a standard. Rebuttal 2: Again, a point without a reasoning. What my opponent explains is that schools are going to teach about homosexuals in their curriculum at some level, but he doesn't explain why this is particularly a bad thing in any way. Why is it a bad thing to explain to children that homosexuals exist and should have their respect? Why is it a bad thing for children to learn about the history about homosexuals in the United States or anywhere else, including the homosexual rights movement of the 1970s, beginning after the Stonewall Riots of 1968? All of this, of course, runs under the implication that gay marriage has any correlation, let alone causation, between it and instruction of gay society. Vermont, Iowa, New York, and Connecticut also have gay marriage legal and do not enforce this instruction. Canada has gay marriage legal everywhere, and to my knowledge, they do not enforce this instruction. Some places in Europe actually have gay marriage, and also to my knowledge doesn't enforce this instruction. Not only does my evidence have no reasoning in this Contention but no evidence for its strong correlation either other than just California (which outlawed gay marriage, by the way, with Prop 8 in 2007 and still enforced instruction of homosexuals afterwards), and a Massachusetts federal decision.
Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized.

Firstly, I will present my arguments and refute each of my opponents arguments next roundResolved: Gay marriage should be legalized. Contention 1: Gay marriage goes against the Bible's will. [1]There have been numerous instances where the bible has credited gay marriage as immoral. Leviticus 18:22 (ESV) 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. This identifies homosexuality as an abomination. Romans 1:26–27 (ESV) 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless. This declares homosexual actions and desires to be shameful and unnatural.1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV) 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,This states homosexuality is unrighteous. Contention 2: Gay marriage will have a negative impact on education. [2]"But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculum's there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction. "I will refute each of my opponents point's next round.
Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized.

Since my opponent provided no definitions, I now will. Gay is defined as (in the context of this debate) of, relating to, or used by homosexuals gay rights movement> gay bar>. Marriage is defined as a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage marriage>. Obviously we will be using the latter definition as it fits the context of the debate. Legalized is defined as : to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to. Good luck.
To prevent aircraft hijacking, everyone should be naked

As both PRO and the instigator, my opponent bears the burden of proof. She has not met that burden. Therefore, the default vote goes to me. Here are some quick objections I think of as I read the resolution: 1) Many people would feel embarrassed. Those people would no longer want to fly anymore. This would hurt the transportation business. 2) Stripping everyone would not prevent aircraft hijacking. Terrorists will always find a way. What we need to do is to pull out of the middle east; not strip everyone! 3) Some religions (e.g. Islam) prohibit public nudity. Therefore, the resolution discriminates against some religion people.
A Debate On The Electoral College

Resolution: The Electoral College system in the United States of America should remain as the system of choosing our president. Definition: The presidential electors who meet after the citizens vote for president and cast ballots for the president and vice president. Each state is granted the same number of electors as it has senators (see United States Senate) and representatives combined. These electors, rather than the public, actually elect the president and the vice president. The Founding Fathers assumed that electors would exercise discretion and not necessarily be bound by the popular vote, but the rise of political parties undermined this assumption. Electors are now pledged in advance to vote for the candidate of their party, and nearly always do so. Thus, the vote of the Electoral College is largely a formality. http://dictionary.reference.com... Contention 1: The Electoral College makes votes unheard. 1A: In four elections, a candidate won the Electoral Vote without winning the Popular vote.(http://www.270towin.com... Go to 2000 and check election facts.) This means the candidate with the popular vote did not win, making the votes unheard. 1B: The U.S. census The official U.S. census is taken every ten years. This decides the number of representatives and thus, electors. This leaves no compensation for a sharp rise or drop in population, leading to overepresentation and underrepresentation. 1C: The Tie Situation In the event no candidate has a majority of the Electoral Votes, The House of Representatives decides the president. This happened in the 1800 election and led to trickery and bribery, with a highly partasian battle. (http://www.u-s-history.com...) Contention 2: Overrepresentation and Underrepresentation In Wyoming citizens have more inffluence on the Electoral College by a margain of 4 to 1 (http://www.fairvote.org...) this leads to cititzens in certain states have more "power" than others. I thank in advance whoever takes this debate and say, Good Luck.
All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

Good for you that you know what “require” means. But you keep on offering contradictory statements, like you said, “my proposal is not meant to be enforced.” Clearly you do not understand policy debate. No one is contending with the benefits of your proposal, the focus is on the practicability. It’s clear that you want ALL STUDENTS in the US be required to learn another language(you were not even clear what language is that and why that language), imagine that! All students? Worst, you want to oblige parents to do the same. Your proposal seems to be impossible to be applied to all students. My job is not to discredit learning another language, because nobody can say that it is not good, but to attack your proposal at its core- practicability. "From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English." More specifically Spanish and French since those are the most important commonly spoken languages in the Americas besides English. And because of their similarities to the English language, those are the easiest languages to learn for native English speakers. For example, Why would a child learn Latin if it's of no use and rarely spoken? Whereas Spanish is spoken by over 400 million people. This isn't bias, it's just practical. --->That’s bias. On the other hand English is spoken by almost all people in the world. Reasons you failed: 1. You’re very inconsistent with your arguments as first you said that your proposal is not meant to be enforced but you said that you’re aware what “require” means. This is a policy debate, you’re very contradictory.2. Nobody argues that learning other language is harmful, what is being contested is your idealistic proposal of requiring all students to be taught another language(you said Spanish). That’s so expensive and such a hassle.3. You want Spanish to be taught simply because you said that it is spoken by almost 400 million people. But it is very insignificant to American students. 4. You are mistaken when you said that other countries are doing your proposal of requiring all students to learn other language. No! They are not requiring all students. Only few institutions do that, because it is unreasonable to require all students to learn a difficult thing without so much use to them.5. I am here to criticize your proposal not give evidence against learning another language as there is no disadvantage of learning it aside from the difficulty.6. Not because other institutions are teaching other language in the US that is already feasible to the entire schools in the US.7. Your proposal failed to stand on the practicability!
All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

When you say that you do not expect your proposal to be enforced means that you don’t really understand policy debate. Your statement contradicts your understanding of what practicability means. Flaws of your proposal:1. You failed to define what “require” means.2. You should have explained the steps or mechanism on how your proposal is possible, not simply focusing on the benefits of learning new language, because no one in this planet will say that it is harmful. Regarding this, you should focus more on the practicability not on the advantages.3. You assume that because other institutions in the United States teach other language that it is already feasible to the entire educational institutions throughout the country, and worst that you even require all students. I don’t think that’s possible to apply to the entire country.4. You cited countries like Philippines where people can speak many languages- English, Spanish, and Filipino. But the Philippines does not have a policy requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language. It just happened that they are able to speak English because it is the lingua franca of the world. Also, they can speak Spanish because the Philippines was colonized by Spain for over 333 years. So your comparison with those people in other countries that they can speak many languages is just immaterial.5. You did not even clarify what language should be taught to students. This is where everything will fail because you cannot just any language you think is popular because that would create bias against other languages. Yeah! But the word “require” demand supervision of a the proposal. By just giving them tools or materials so that they can learn at home destroys the idea of having it required. In reality, you cannot really require students learn hence you will not know what they will be doing at home because of lack of monitoring from teachers or even parents. Wow! You even presented videos of the benefit of teaching new language to students. Your Proposal is not possible because you’re requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language. You used words, “require” and “all students” in this debate, thus you should present how can this be possible. All you just did was to specify some schools that are already teaching other language, but it does not mean that it is applicable to all students in the United states. Your example is just no representative enough. You offered a weak example to pursue your claim. I will repeat this again: “No body is contending that learning new language is harmful, what I am criticizing is the practicability of your proposal.” I would rather encourage students to learn new language on their own, without requiring the schools and parents to do it because it just so hassle and impossible. With this, you failed to properly follow the parameters of this debate. You completely fail to understand the terms of this debate
All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

You stated, “Let me initiate my rebuttal by stating that the practicability of my proposal is very much possible. I just don't expect it to be reinforced, at least not as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot and will not happen.” Obviously, with your statement you do not understand what practicability means. It means that a debate proposal should be possible or enforceable in real world. You’re very ambivalent with what you are saying that your proposal is possible but cannot be enforced. We are having policy debate here so you should assume that your proposal must be enforceable, well that should clear because it’s basic debating. Also you said, “Your comparison of encouraging bilingual education and going to outer space is a very inaccurate one.” I am not comparing the two, but I was just trying to point out that you’re understanding of the practicability of the proposal is weak. Learning other language is very important and no one is contending that it is not, but you’re medium on how children should learn other language is very impractical, and this is what I am attacking. First, you want to be require the school and the family to teach all children another language. This is unlikely to happen. You use the word “require” which means that your proposal must be enforced and supervised, but how can it be possible? Is it possible? These are questions which you failed to discuss in this debate. All you did was to discuss the benefit of learning other language which I am not even contending. Second, you are saying that your proposal is not meant to be enforced. But this is policy debate, you have to assume that it must be enforceable even if it is not. This is the meaning of practicability which you disregarded.
All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

Let me initiate my rebuttal by stating that the practicability of my proposal is very much possible. I just don't expect it to be reinforced, at least not as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot and will not happen. Your comparison of encouraging bilingual education and going to outer space is a very inaccurate one. One does not need to go to outer space to learn about outer space. Just as one does not need to live in another country to learn languages. For your information, there are plenty of countries where the majority of the population is multilingual due to the immersion of bicultural and bilingual education. For example... The official main language of Spain is Castilian Spanish. It is spoken all over the country being the native language of 89% of all Spaniards. However, there are about three other official languages of Spain as well as a few other lesser known languages that are spoken by over half of the Spanish population. Catalan is the main local language of the Catalan region, but Spanish is taught in schools as a main language. Galician and Basque are spoken in Northern Spain but everyone there also speaks Spanish. Spain is a multilingual nation. http://spanish.about.com... There are two official main languages of the Hong Kong province of China. English and Cantonese Chinese. Both are taught in schools and both are spoken locally. Many people of Hong Kong also speak Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Hindi and Vietnamese. The people of Taiwan not only speak Mandarin Chinese as an official language, but they also speak Taiwanese Hokkien locally and at home. Many of them also speak English, Mongolian, Cantonese and Korean as well. There are more fluent English speakers in China than in the United States. http://gohongkong.about.com... In the Philippines, there are between 125 to 175 languages spoken in each region. But almost everyone in the Philippines can speak English, Spanish or Tagalog. Bilingualism is not only taken very seriously in Spain, Southeast Asia but most countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and even South America. Even in North America, Canada has two official main languages, English and French. Both are taught in Canadian schools and French is spoken in the Province of Quebec. So based on the this information, my proposal in regards to teaching bilingualism to children is very possible and should be reinforced. I await your response.
All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

Of course sir, we are not going to enforce that. But for your information, you should be aware of the practicability case of the debate. You should not only focus on the necessity and benefits, but also the practicability. For example, there is a proposal that all men should be required to go to outer space because it would enhance their understanding about the universe. Yes this proposal sounds good, but does it sound practical? NO! Just like your proposal, it has good intentions but not so possible. I am not saying that learning other languages is not important, but what I’m saying is that requiring ALL CHILDREN to learn another language is not so possible. Let them learn it by themselves if they want, without requiring it at home or at school. Your stated, “Only speaking English in a global society will only get you so far, especially if you want to work or travel internationally. Learning more than one language is important and clearly beneficial.” However, it is impossible for me or anyone to contend that learning other language is not beneficial, but I can only contend that practicability of your proposal. Your proposal is not very possible.
All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

Thank you for accepting my challenge. Before I initiate my rebuttal please take note that, the points I made in my argument are not meant to be enforced, it is simply just a proposal. In my opinion, children should be exposed to more languages because it is beneficial for children to learn more languages in a global society. Despite English being the "standard language of the world", learning more languages is still essential and highly recommended when applying for jobs and enlisting in the military. The reality is that many employers look for workers with proficient language abilities, more specifically for jobs that require one to travel to foreign countries. Learning a language is less of hassle if children are exposed to them early on in childhood development. You claim "With due respect to you Sir, your own feeling with the insufficiency of language learning does not mean that you"re right" Well, with all do respect to you sir, what I feel has actually been proven by experts in linguistics, child development, communication and neurology. Children are more inapt to learn more languages because their brains retain certain information much quicker and holds on to that information much longer than adults. This is why exposing children to languages early on is important, because as you get older, learning languages becomes more of a chore and less of an adaptability. "Experts say that kids should begin to learn a foreign language from a young age; the younger, the better." A child is born with the ability to learn any language in the world and adults should take advantage of this ability before it becomes more challenging for the child to adapt to new or foreign languages. Sources are provided below. Only speaking English in a global society will only get you so far, especially if you want to work or travel internationally. Learning more than one language is important and clearly beneficial. http://www.parents.com... http://www.forbes.com... I patiently await your response.
All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

Specifically, you required that all children in the United States be taught other language aside from English at home or at school. Honestly, I admire your proposal but that is so impractical and unlikely to happen. *With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States. Nobody is contending the importance of communication to globalization, but you have forgotten that English is the standard language of the world, hence, knowing that language is enough to be able to communicate around the world, without having the hassle to understand difficult languages. *I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home) With due respect to you Sir, your own feeling with the insufficiency of language learning does not mean that you’re right, because you’re obliged to give solid evidence that you are correct. You did not provide any evidence with your statement above, but you just listened to your gut feeling without any support. *If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well. How can you possibly implement your proposal? You said you would require language learning at home, but how can this even be possible? Lastly, you have to provide evidence first so that I can refute that with another evidence, because anyway, the status quo is working then why fix it?
All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States. I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home). If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well. From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English. If you disagree with my suggestion, please explain why exactly you do. Your argument must be logical and if necessary, please provide evidence to support your claims.