BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a US federal court.

Whilst there have been many terrorists trialled in the federal court, few have been responsible for such a highly publicized attack as 9/11. The trial of the man responsible for the attack would also garner media attention. Whilst you claim that media attention for court cases has had no discernible effects in the past, I would argue this statement to be untrue. Political influence and personal bias present in the jury and judge would undoubtedly affect the outcome. With the widespread Islamic-hatred propagated in the West by the media, such preconceptions in those involved in the case are unavoidable. I would argue that the trial would best be suited by being resolved in the international criminal court. This court is the most suitable for such a case as it is arguable that the effects of 9/11, while taking in place in the USA, had a detrimental effect on an international scale. Hence it is logical that the case should take place in the international criminal court.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a US federal court.

The Administration has recently come under heavy fire because of wishes to try terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the notorious self-proclaimed mastermind behind the events of 9/11, in a United States federal court in New York. Critics claim that justice would be better served through trial by military tribunal. The Affirmative posits that such critics are misguided in their analysis and that the infamous terrorist should be tried in a federal court. Most criticisms of a federal trial for KSM are actually thinly veiled attacks upon the federal courts system itself. However, even these criticisms miss the mark. Military tribunal has been suggested as a way of making sure that KSM does not use the trial as a soapbox for radical Islamic or anti-US views. However, neither federal or military courts allow broadcasts or recordings during the trial, and in both instances the media is only informed through press releases after the trial. Others claim to attack KSM's federal trial on the grounds of national security. They claim that classified information is at risk under federal courts. However, legislation passed during the peak of the Cold War allows classified information to be withheld, substituting redacted summaries given to defense lawyers with defense clearances. Such actions are regularly taken when dealing with issues of national security, including terrorism cases. Finally, there is ultimately no basis to any suggestion that a military tribunal would somehow increase the chances of conviction or result in harsher punishments. Indeed, past experience would indicate the exact opposite. Most critics of the Obama Administration's desire to try KSM in a federal court completely ignore the 170 terrorists tried under federal law during the Bush administration. A prominent example is Zacharias Moussaoui. The federal courts have a long and established history of dealing with terrorists. On the other hand, military tribunals have a long and established history of being incredibly confusing. I will be frank: if someone were to ask me today what the exact differences between a federal and military tribunal were, I would have no response. If I were to ask Bill O'Reilly, FOX News commentator and prominent critic of a KSM federal trial, he would likely be unable to elaborate as well. Such confusion is by no means unwarranted. The very concept of a military tribunal has been challenged by the Supreme Court multiple times. Unfortunately, however, such confusion can also be seen in the very lawyers working within the tribunal system. Only three terrorists have been tried under tribunal since 9/11. Of the three, two are currently walking the streets. Salim Hamdan served a mere five months while David Hicks got off on a plea bargain. Ultimately those who claim that military tribunals are the best choice in the KSM trial are unaware of the precedent set by hundreds of terror trials undergone by the Bush Administration. This precedent clearly indicates that a federal trial is the best option.
junk food should be banned

Thank you for posting your argument. Remember you have just allowed me 15 minutes to post each round. You have said that Junk Food should be banned. This means that you believe Valentine Chocolates, Halloween trickier treating, and Christmas cookies should all be banned. There would be an uproar of citizens everywhere you turn. Some peole would argue that it is taking away from their free will to eat. Do you really think we should give the government power over the things we eat? Banning junk food would also close down many businesses. There is the ice cream businesses such as Mayfield inc, Great Value inc, and Eddies inc. Shutting these down wold cause major job losses. We are already struggling with today's economy. The last thing we need right now is more unemployed. Also, the world is already stressed, why should we take away the pleasures of food? You say that we should ban junk food because people are over weight. What about the other people who are normal in weight who every once in a while want to eat something sweet? Also, if it were banned then people would start making and selling junk food illegally. This would lead to more arrests, which would fill up many prisons. The government must pay to house and feed criminals. This would cost the world a great deal of money. I look forward to an argument. Thank you. Sources: (1). http://www.mayfielddairy.com... (2). http://www.nasdaq.com...
junk food should be banned

My opponent says something should be banned and then says that I should start. He needs to realize that in a debate Pro must go first. I will use this round to simply list definitions. DEFINITIONS: =============== Junk food: Food, as potato chips or candy, that is high in calories but of little nutritional value. Banned: To prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict I await his real argument. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com...
"Don't ask. Don't tell" policy should be changed for the military

Recently there has been an up-roar about the issue of men and woman "coming out" while in the military. But there is a Don't ask don't tell policy, I believe that this policy should stay set in the military because of the fact that it's noone's business and it private and confedential to the person who is gay/les. They have the right to stay who they are looked at to be. Yes the other person may feel uncomfortable if they knew, but it wouldnt matter. They are not allowed to have relationships with another and you already get to know them and become friends with the before they want to tell so what makes the difference nothing changes for you, their personality isn't going to change and they arent going to change as a person it's the person (you) whose hearing and how you react to it (which makes no difference). But again why should they care. The Don't ask Dont tell should be able to stay because of pivacy, interactions with the same or opposite sex (of being treated fairly), and the fact that they have the right to be in the military no matter their interests in the same sex. For these reasons i stand Neg in the dont ask dont tell policy should be changed.
Gay marriage

Contention 1. Homosexuality is a sin in virtually every religion. It is common knowledge that most religions in the world do not support a homosexual marriage. In fact, 53% of people do not support homosexual marriage (1). Legally allowing homosexual marriage is offensive to religious organizations and anyone who does not support homosexual marriage which is a larger part of the population. Contention 2. Legalizing homosexual marriage weakens the definition and respect for marriage. Currently, within the United States, there is a 50% divorce rate (2) this already weakens the definition and respect for marriage. A law allowing gay marriage would speed this deterioration by increasing the number of "non-serious" marriages, friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution within the United States and is deteriorating. A law allowing homosexual marriage would only speed this deterioration. Contention 3. This will further weaken traditional family values essential to society. Society is strong if there is a strong core family unit. In the United States this core family unit of a man, women, and children has sustained the United States through two world wars, the Great Depression, and terrorist attacks. Society begins to break down when this family unit breaks down, such as in the United States. Introducing a new "form" of family would would only complicate and deteriorate society. Contention 4. This provides a slippery slope in the legality of marriage. The question asked here is what comes next? Tradition dictates that a marriage is between a man and a women, biologically this makes perfect sense as only a man and women can procreate. Gay rights activists claim that gay marriage should be legalized because it hurts nobody but, this can start a chain reaction which destroys the institution of marriage. You see their logic can be applied anywhere. Why can't someone marry their dog? It doesn't hurt anyone. Or why not their parents or brother/sister? It doesn't hurt anyone. This may seem absurd and obviously a significant portion of the United States would not support it but, that does not matter. All that is needed is a single judge to rule it correct and then apply the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Just look at the ruling California judges made about the Pledge of Allegiance (3). It does not matter what the public believes in this case. Contention 5. The gay lifestyle should not be encouraged because studies show it leads to lower life expectancy. Studies show that homosexuals have, on average, life expectancies 20 years lower then the rest of the population. In 1997 and 2005, two separate studies confirmed this hypothesis. Respectively the groups conducting the studies were published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and Psychological Reports respectively (4).
Gay marriage

R1. Religious beliefs No, I state that a majority of Americans are part of a religion. That these religions do not support gay marriage. Therefore, it is offensive to those people to pass a law which violates these beliefs. As for the poll, "majorities of Democrats and young people support the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage, fewer than 4 in 10 Republicans and older Americans agree. Republicans in particular seem fixed in their opinions; there was no change at all in their support level this year, while independents' and Democrats' support jumped by double-digit margins." (Your 1 source). Even so "Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 5-8, 2011, with a random sample of 1,018 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia." Only about 1,000 people are representing the views of 400 million? How does that work? In reality, this poll just tells us that 540 people support gay marriage and 458 people do not. R2. Weakens the definition and respect for marriage a. If they are just as committed wouldn't that mean 50% of gay marriages would end in divorce? b. Legalizing gay marriage affects society, therefore, it affects heterosexual people. c. So if they are less committed why should it be legalized? strengthening the American family =/= strengthening the respect and definition of marriage. R3. Family values Fine, marriage can change. But, it still can "complicate and deteriorate society." R4. Slippery Slope. According to your own logic, it is someones right to be able to marry inter-specially. So something that MIGHT happen still CAN hurt marriage. In practice, it could happen. R5. Gay health This point is where most of the argumentation has been revolved around. Once again, these reports I cited, were solely based upon natural causes (not suicide, not murder, nothing unnatural.) So yes, the gay lifestyle = less life expectancy. I say the government should not sponsor something which causes more death. a. Marriage may or may not have fixed it in one isolated area of Cambridge. b. How would allowing people to get married stop hate-crimes? It would not. The abuse would continue. c. your argument is irrelevant as it is a lifestyle which causes lower life expectancy. You state that straight people who have cancer should not be able to marry. But, cancer is not caused by a single lifestyle, I mean everybody can get cancer. My argument is not saying that unhealthy people should not marry; my argument is the government should not sponsor a lifestyle which in 3 separate studies has been proven to have detrimental effects on people's life expectancy.
Gay marriage

R1. Religion. Yes it is. S1. Religion is part of society. S2. People are part of society S3. People are part of religions S4. Religions do not approve of gay marriage. C. A majority of people would not agree to Gay marriage because it violates their religious beliefs. Theocracy or not has nothing to do with it. If the Catholic Church has no say in marriage then how can they marry people? R2. Legalizing gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage. I never talk about tradition. I talk about how the institution itself is weakened due to divorce and that changing what marriage is further weakens the institution. I never stated that what marriage means would change just that the institution itself is deteriorating. R3. Family values Even if it is beneficial within society. It is ever refuted that it would complicate society. Complicated society leads to a deteriorating society. Polygamy and 100 kids are considered abnormal because society decided to change what the definition of a traditional marriage is. Traditional =/= the past. Maybe it helps the family but, it does not help society as a whole. R4. slippery slope No matter how unlikely it is still a possibility. R5. Gay Health Three separate studies confirmed the initial hypothesis. Here: http://www.freerepublic.com... Gay's die younger. Not from bullying. Even if only 2% are from lesbians that does not mean the findings are invalid. So gay's still die younger.
Who is the best mixed martial arts fighter pound for pound? Anderson Silva

Even though Silva could beat St. Pierre in JuJitzu, he would still lose on the ground. Even though St. Pierre isn't the greatest grappeler, he still has some hard punches and hammerfists on the ground. If St. Pierre would be stupid enough to grapple with Silva, then the tides start to turn, but otherwise, St. Pierre is still a harder puncher, and a faster opponenet than Silva. Overall, St. Pierre over Silva
Who is the best mixed martial arts fighter pound for pound? Anderson Silva

With a mixed martial arts record of 16-4, I currently believe that Anderson "The Spider" Silva is the best MMA fighter around pound for pound. After loosing his first fight to Luiz Azeredo, he went on to go on a win streak that spanned three organizations (Meca, SHOOTO, and Pride Fighting Championships). He has defeated the likes of Jeremy Horn, Lee Murray, Jorge Rivera, Chris Leben, and of course, Rich Franklin. With pin point striking accuracy and a black belt in Brazzilian Jujutsu, he is a well rounded fighter.
Illegal Immigration / A good thing for America

I shall like to state that all claims made of any data, including California's GDP shall be considered false unless cited/sourced.Firstly, the number of illegal immigrants increases the denominator (Non-American term referring to 'denumerator') because the denominator is the population. If you increase the denominator it reduces GDP making your point redundant.You make the brash statement "GDP is an inaccurate measure of a country's economy." without any sourced evidence to prove this or support it your claim can be considered false since you never offered an alternative manner to measure an economy.I have torn your debate apart, and shall do so more if you so wish.
Illegal Immigration / A good thing for America

Great way to end your argument "I'm not American," Well if you're not American then how can you possibly have an accurate idea of the pros and cons of illegal immigration. With that being said,let's proceed to address your argument: *Let me begin by defining GDP (You do not seem to have a clear understanding of the concept): The value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given year divided by the average (or mid-year) population for the same year. First of all the GDP is an inaccurate measure of a country's economy. By using the total "Documented" population of the United States, the GDP is inaccurate. However claims that Illegal immigration lower the country's GDP are not right. If you know anything about math you know that if you increase the numerator by a greater factor than the denumerator, you will get a higher GDP in this case. Illegal immigration helps the country's GDP in 3 ways: 1. Cheap labor helps reduce the costs of products in the U.S. 2. Immigrants as consumers help the market. 3.Immigrants contribute to the tax system, money which will they never have the chance to collect. For example, California has received up to 52 Billion dollars in taxes from "Undocumented Individuals". Money which can be used to build better schools, highways, etc. All of which in terms lead to more jobs and growth of the economy.
: According to the Constitution the South committed treason in the Civil War

Rebuttals Declaration of War Pro claims that the southern states declared war on the north; in actuality a declaration of war was never issued. The Civil War began at Ft. Sumter. The CSA claimed that Ft. Sumter belonged to the south, because it was on southern territory, but the Union claimed it belonged to the north because it was on Federal land. The CSA offered to pay for the forts, but Lincoln rejected the proposal because it would mean recognizing the States’ right to secede. The south laid siege to the fort in order to force the union army to surrender the fort peacefully. When Lincoln heard that the Fort was low on rations, he sent supplies to the Fort, which eventually led to the bombardment of Ft. Sumter. Declaring one’s secession from the Union is not a declaration of war, it is a declaration of independence. Joining the Confederacy The states did not join the confederacy until after they seceded. The following are the dates of admission to the confederacy; South Carolina: Feb. 8, 1861 Mississippi: Feb. 8, 1861 Florida: Feb. 8, 1861 Alabama: Feb. 8, 1861 Georgia: Feb. 8, 1861 Louisiana: Feb. 8, 1861 Texas: March. 2, 1861 Virginia: May 7, 1861 Arkansas: May 18, 1861 North Carolina: May 21, 1861 Tennessee: July 2, 1861 Missouri: Nov. 28, 1861 Kentucky: Dec. 10, 1861 General Robert E. Lee actually denounced the confederacy until Virginia seceded. In one letter he wrote: “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation.”[1] Lincoln offered to make Robert E Lee a commander of the Union forces, but Lee declined because Virginia was on the road to secession, and he did not want to fight his own state. Lee wrote: “I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army in the field, stating as candidly and courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in the invasion of the Southern States.” [2] 1.) http://www.pbs.org... 2.) http://leearchive.wlu.edu...
: According to the Constitution the South committed treason in the Civil War

South Carolina on 20 December 1860. Mississippi on 9 January 1861. Florida on 10 January 1861. Alabama on 11 January 1861. Georgia on 19 January 1861. Louisiana on 26 January 1861. Texas on 1 February 1861. Virginia on 17 April 1861. Arkansas on 6 May 1861. North Carolina on 20 May 1861. Tennessee on 8 June 1861. These are the states and dates that they succeeded from the union and joined the confederacy. The civil war began on April 12th 1861, all states listed above fought on side of confederacy from beginning of civil war. The states of Virginia, Arkansas, North Caroline, and Tennessee all committed treason by declaring war on the United States before they succeeded. They then joined the confederacy, by these states joining the confederacy we can say that some confederate states committed treason. since the resolution is that the south, not confederacy, committed treason i proven this to be true. Because of how the resolution is written i do not have to prove the entire entity of the confederacy committed treason. I only have to prove that part of it did, which i did.
: According to the Constitution the South committed treason in the Civil War

1.) Treason is a State crime not a Federal Crime The US constitution clearly states that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them”; “them” being plural. [1] Article 4 section to also reads “A Person charged in any State with Treason… who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.”[1] Therefore states have jurisdiction over Treason cases, because Treason is a crime against the Member States not the Union State. This is why Article 2 Section 4 states that “The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”[1] If the definition of treason is waging war against the federal government, then the Commander-in-chief can’t commit treason. A person commits treason when they take up arms against their own state, not when they take up arms to defend their State from the Federal Government. 2.) Secession Just as a citizen has a right to renounce their citizenship, so does a state have a right to renounce their ties to the union. After a state secedes the citizens of that state are no longer citizens of the United States. Because they are not US citizens they cannot be traitors. By renouncing their ties to the United States, they had effectively renounced their US citizenship. After the Civil War the union recognized that the South was no longer citizens, and so they required that the south naturalize back into the US by taking a loyalty oath. Some people were ineligible to take the oath, such as political leaders and officers above the rank of colonel, and therefore could not regain citizenship. [2] 3.) Due Process In the US you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Article 3 section 3 of the US constitution states that “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” [1] Unless there were 2 witnesses testifying in open court, or the suspected traitor gave a confession in open court, they cannot be deemed a traitor. Unless their case was brought before an open court, they cannot be deemed “traitors”. 1.) http://www.archives.gov... 2.) http://www.phuhs.org...
: According to the Constitution the South committed treason in the Civil War

Resolution: According to the Constitution South committed treason in the Civil WarDefintions: Treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Rules:1. )Supreme Court cases are not an arguement, they can only serve as a source2. ) No Ad Hominem Attacks3. ) Dismissed arguements will be considered dropped4. )