BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Democracy is best upheld through strict seperation of church and state

This will be a typical LD debate, so therefore technically the Aff should go first, then I shall go next. I'll first start with two definations. 1. Strict - exact or precise (dictionary.com) 2. Democracy - A government by the people served by the will of the majority of the people (Webster's) This is the entire seperation is general. Nothing specific. It is broad but it's for the seperation in general, not one one on "under God" in the pledge, however if that's an example you want to use, go for it ;)
Resolved: Democracy is best upheld through strict seperation of church and state

Oops Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
College Athletes should get paid

What exactly do you mean? Please add more info on that. Thanks. Speaking of info... http://star.txstate.edu... College athletes who already receive scholarship money should not be paid by the university to play sports. It would be unfair to other students if the university paid athletes to play college sports, although many may disagree. Scholarships granted to student athletes cover tuition, fees, room, board and textbooks, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association website. Some athletes receive scholarships that cover only a portion of these expenses, but many still receive exceedingly more aid than the average student. The average value of a full, in-state public school scholarship is $15,000 a year, according to the website. The scholarships awarded to outstanding student athletes are valuable in countless ways. Without them, many would not be able to pursue their academic or athletic goals. The individuals who receive these scholarships are exceptionally talented and work very hard to earn the money awarded to them. Despite this, the fact still remains many student athletes have everything provided for them in college, giving them a distinct advantage over their peers. The experience of playing on a college team itself is valuable, working much like an unpaid internship for other students. For non-athlete students, however, the experiences of unpaid internships do not come along with a full-ride scholarship. In a way, college athletes are already getting paid. Universities should never have to shell out even more finances just to satisfy their athletes. Many athletes argue that because they do not have time to get a job, they should be paid by the university and have extra money to go out with friends or afford new clothes. However, many college students are broke and deal with these inconveniences on a daily basis. Not being able to afford things is a way of life in college. Furthermore, the jobs most students do find pay minimum wage and cannot sustain constant trips to the mall. The average college student eats frozen dinners and Ramen noodles for breakfast, lunch and dinner, not expensive restaurant food. The wages average students earn from their low-income jobs mostly go towards rent, tuition and groceries"expenses many college athletes on full-ride scholarships never have to worry about. Additionally, if universities paid college athletes, it would make the disparity between large and small university athletic teams even greater. Larger schools with more revenue such like University of Texas would essentially be able to buy out the best players for their teams, putting smaller universities at a greater disadvantage. College sports and the athletes who participate in them should not be centered on money. Athletes should focus on their passion for whatever sport they play, and be grateful they can receive the aid they do. If universities started paying college athletes, it would be grossly unfair to the peers who w
Debating is for losers!

Good afternoon. Since the topic is so simple, I'll just cut right to the chase. I apologize in advance if this seems unorganized. My opponent advocates that debaters must be losers. His "evidence" for this is that when he went to high school, the debaters sat at the loser table. The main problem with this line of thought is that he says "WHEN I WENT TO High school." He is basing his conclusion off of an occurrence which he claims concerns himself. The goal of the instigator in this round should be to prove that "debaters are losers" rather than "the debaters at his school were losers". I could provide more reasons for why his reasoning is absurd, but since he made this a one round debate (and with such a weak opening argument), this response should be sufficient. To the voters: My opponent is essentially calling all of you losers since you signed up to a debating website. My opponent also contradicts himself by claiming that he is a cool kid while having signed up to a debate forum. Finally (and most importantly), my opponent presents no valid evidence in support of the resolution he set up. I would also like to remind you that "Lawyers" are well known for pulling in heaping amounts of cash, despite that their job is to "debate." Surely such a successful career would imply one to be a "winner." Thank you!
Resolved: Polygamy in the United States should be legal.

Polygamy should not be legal in the United States. While it is certainly true that as an institution there is nobody harmed when the process is conducted by consenting adults. However, often the institution of plural marriage is taken as polygyny with men marrying multiple women often the little girls in the town are divvied up by the older men. While this isn't necessarily the outcome of all plural marriage it would be giving sanction to this exact process. In practice one must realize that it would fail and lead to a number of terrible side effects. Another obvious problem arising from this is that of harm to men. Men are more often the losers in plural societies. It is often said that all the good men are either married or gay, if the former were not a determent then successful, handsome, rich men could marry several women and as a result there will be several unsuccessful, ugly, poor men who will have significantly. Even mediocre men would have a significantly harder task of finding mates if successful men were more than happy to marry scores of attractive women. This leaves, at the bottom, a large number of men who are easy targets for compelling messages. In fact, this is the life blood of terrorism. Men who stand no chance at getting real women can be compelled to kill themselves in search for spiritual sexual relations. Further this, in turn leads to a number sexist policies where women are covered and treated more like property. I fully understand that these examples are not indicative of the modern 21st century plural marriage you envision. And it very well might lead to women not being divorced by their husbands when they decide to marry their 20-something secretaries because they simply marry them too. However, the societal problems which arise when policies are implemented which damage large tracts of the population (especially those already prone to violence) are not worth this little experiment. There may nominally be benefits to women even those only in singular relationships. With more women moving further up the food chain (as it were, I understand the obvious underlying sexism of this terminology) there would be more available successful men still available who would otherwise be "good men who would have been married". However, the societal ills do not occur because women have better opportunity to be thought of as chattel, rather they arise from great swaths of single men at the bottom. We have empirically tried polygamous societies in the past, and there's a reason they only still exist in the most religiously repressed societies, they are terrible. It may help if you want an army of men to go to war, but other than that it is simply a recipe for disaster. The proposed argument of benefits therefore is a failure as the polygamous societies of yesteryear have been failures. Societies are better with single marriages.
Resolved: Polygamy in the United States should be legal.

Please don't take this debate if you are brand new to this site. Please don't take this debate if you feel you might not have the time to complete it. Please don't take this debate if you're not sure you can beat me. Please don't take this debate if you're going to argue that there are objective truths and this is one of them under god the father above. (You will abhor my responses to said argument and I WILL beat you.) Please take a good thirty minutes to consider if you really want to take this debate after you first learn of it's existence. Having said all of that my position in this round is obviously for polygamy. My argument is that it is vastly more beneficial than our current system of single marriages. Your turn, have fun. ~.^
The US Government Can Keep An Eye On Everyone

My opponent's second and final round is comprised mostly of various definition of freedom. Which is fine and dandy but it has nothing to do with the resolution.The bulk of my opponent's argument says this:"Social Security is not keeping an eye of everyone, social security is for the benefit of the citizen, not the Government. And you really need to look your facts, the CIA, IRS, and NSA are all intelligence services that act to find information outside of the states." First of all, Social Security is not looking at anyone because it is a monetary retirement supplement... as for the others. The NSA and the IRS are very much active inside the United States and while the CIA's main goal is international intelligence, they have the capability to keep an eye on us. That's what the resolution is about. To keep an eye on - 1. To watch over attentively; mind. 2. To watch closely or carefully [1]The resolution merely says the government can watch over us attentively or mind us. Which they can. They have every capability and there is new evidence to suggest that they do just that. Throwing out definitions of freedom does not negate the fact that the government has this ability, whether they use it or not is not part of this debate.There are dozens of government satellites above us. They can collect our data. They have been keeping tabs on our phone. It is entirely possible that the government CAN keep an eye on us. [2]Con has made no real moves to negate the resolution and I have shown that there the government can indeed keep an eye on us. Thank you.[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The US Government Can Keep An Eye On Everyone

We don't have an eye watching us 24/7 whether the FBI and Police are there or not. They investigate suspicious crimes, but the average American isn't a criminal. Social Security is not keeping an eye of everyone, social security is for the benefit of the citizen, not the Government. And you really need to look your facts, the CIA, IRS, and NSA are all intelligence services that act to find information outside of the states. WE CAN ACT AS WE WANT "without hindrance or restraint." We can't commit crimes, and criminals have to be watched by the government. We are free, no one can deny that, therefore we can act as we want without hindrance or restraint. America is By the People and For the People. Not for the Government. The less Government, the more freedom, this is why the Government can't keep an eye on us, AND THEY DON'T Also, you are blandly stating my correct and researched definition wrong, give me proof that it is wrong. Freedom: The quality or state of being free: as A: The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action (we can protest, we can have sex, we can say whatever we want about whoever we want, and we can announce it. We also have free trade.) B: the liberation of slavery or restraint form the power of another (we are free, we are liberated from the power of Britain, we fought so we wouldn't be watched 24/7, so the government can't do it to us) http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now prove all three one, instead of fail on proving one. -Good Luck A Second Time, You Obviously Didn't Use The Original Good Luck I Gave You
The US Government Can Keep An Eye On Everyone

The resolution states: The US Government Can Keep An Eye On EveryoneSince no definition of everyone was given, I will provide one.Everyone: all people within the United StatesNow, I must show that this is true.First of all I want to point out that Con's argument is a jumbled mess. It makes no moves to affirm the resolution. Secondly, I want to say that the Constitution gives us some freedoms but that it also conflicts with Con's definition of Freedom provided.We cannot act as we want "without hindrance or restraint". We have laws that prevent us from doing just that. So Con's arguments are a jumbled contradiction.Now onto the resolution...The US Government CAN Keep An Eye on EveryoneThis is indeed true, the US government through the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS and local police forces could indeed keep an eye on everyone. The infrastructure, power and means is there. Via satellites, cell phone trackers, police patrols etc the government easily could "keep an eye", meaning they merely have a diligent watch, on everyone.A recent article says that via meta data the government could keep tabs on everyone's movements by using their cell services. [1]The technology and reach of these government agencies do indeed have the ability to merely keep an eye on everyone.Con can try to negate this but the data coming out of the government now and the recent news stories shows that indeed they have the power to keep an eye on us.[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com...
The US Government Can Keep An Eye On Everyone

This Is America In America, We Are Free. If we are not free, then we are violating the constitution. This is why I am against hate crimes, we have the right to hate who we want. So if we are kept in line by the government, we aren't really free are we? I am not accusing the government of anything. Freedom: The power or right to act, think, and speak as one wants without hindrance or restraint. - https://www.google.com... Having the government on our hinds 24/7 is hindrance. -Good Luck
Resolved:we shouldn't retreat from the war on terror

Ok so i must argue that we should retreat? well then i will seeing how the war on terror has done nothing and leaving will do nothing iraq is over and already has established their government and will no turn back to the enemy. Secondly I would argue that the war on terror as i defined and you originally did not is not the conflict with iraq now who's fault is it for not defining things in the first round? Since i defined them first i will argue that we should use my definition should be used, and other points against your definition. Seeing how i defined terror and you have not i believe my definition is correct as well as the war on terror is against terrorist well my case was that terrorist could be anyone even in your own country. However you decided to look over that, and you say its a fallacy to say the war was over oil? It makes logical sense to say it was for oil, we moved into a country with oil took over their government turn it into a democracy and killed their leader and now they owe us i mean come on; yeah it was for oil. Where's your proof that the government has not a effective military? And my point is you will never eradicate terrorist ever. You would have to kill off the human race to do this.
Resolved:we shouldn't retreat from the war on terror

Several logical fallacies immediately stand out in my opponent's argument. First, the war on terror is generally accepted as the war on terrorism, not on general fear. A terrorist is one who uses violence and/or threats to intimidate/kill citizens of the attacked nation. Al Qaeda, Hamas, et al. The definition of both the war on terror and terrorism/terrorist should be widely understood. the argument that the war on terror is for oil is not worthy of consideration. The second point is that we are not arguing whether or not we should have entered the war, but whether, now involved in it, we should retreat. That fact should be plain because I expressly stated that our debate was about whether we should retreat from the war on terror. The argument that we shouldn't have become involved is a red herring and is not germane to our debate. Many of the politicians who now oppose the war originally voted for it, but again we are not arguing that. However, if we, currently enmeshed in the war, decide to remove our troops without finalizing the conflict and before the country's own government, military, and police are sufficiently strong to preserve the peace, the lives our our dead servicemen will have been ended for nothing. This is because the terrorist organizations will immediately return to the country. This is common sense. If you do not eradicate the enemy, and if you subsequently retreat, the enemy will regain power. Thus, we should not retreat from the war on terror.
Resolved:we shouldn't retreat from the war on terror

My case is a simple one, the fact is that instead of fighting a war on a front thats not ours is not justified especially since no WMD's were not found. The entire war was for oil, and nothing else any excuse to fight over it. Might i also add the 9/11 bombing, was done by people from another country i have heard Afgan, not Iraq; however lets move to more important matters on this thing we call terror. So let me ask whats this terror and how exactly do we fight it? I shall define some terms here: 1.Terror : the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons). 2.War : the waging of armed conflict against an enemy Arguments : 1. This terror what is it? How do why fight terror? terror is a feeling, people fear this causes terror. So might I add the reason to start a war and keep it going is because people fear them? I clearly object, seeing how the cold war had both sides fearing for their lives then we must say the Russians where terrorist. Then we might say our creep next door neighbor scares you, cause you some fear and distress every time you go get the news paper, and he's walking his 2 inch ankle biter . Then we must wage war on him, for he is a terrorist; if he scares you then he's a terrorist and my opponent says we should wage war on him. Terrorist can be anyone , your scary dad, uncle, friend or anything other and they might not scare and cause you fear but what about others? 2. A war is to needed but a defense, since we been in this "war" what have we gained but body bags of our soldiers? Tell me because i have not seen anything gain actually i seen a great loss, everyone so eager to have their rights taken away with the signing of the patriot act, and the war that clashed forward onto a country which was found innocent of what they were accused of possessing no WMD's was found, none. Yet we invaded their country, stayed their for years, enforce our own government upon them. Invading peoples homes, now who seems like terrorist. 3. The simple fact is no war is needed and was never needed, we needed defense. Not the stripping of rights, or war, but better protection a little more security thats all.
Resolved:we shouldn't retreat from the war on terror

The war on terror is a much needed defense of American safety and those who advise retreating are advocating a policy that would ensure that our servicemen and women would have died in vain. The Taliban, etc. would simply retake the country, soon reverting it to its former state and rapidly attacking the US with increased fervor. This has been proved in history with the Barbary Coast pirates, whom the US appeased for years until the Marines whooped up on the early terrorists. The only way to stop the terrorists is to wipe them out, not flee in terror.
Sources

The resolution is "sources" and the Pro's argument is that he can post more sources then I can.He has 10 sources total so I must post more sources to win...[1] E. L. James's "50 shades of Grey: A closer examination of the submissive nature of women in relationships" 2011[2] J.K. Rowlings "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Guantanamo Bay: A Documentary on former prisoners of the secret US prison" 2005[3] Hermen Melville's "Move my Dick: The tell all story of why Santorum wanted to ban porn because he couldnt figure out how to clear his internet history" 2010[4] J. R. R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings: How Larry King somehow got married 8 times to 7 women despite looking like a salami that was left out in the sun for way too long" 1940[5] Dan Browns "The Lost Symbol: Commissioner Gordon's struggle to communicate with Batman after losing the Bat Symbol in a game of strip poker" 1977[6] C. S. Lewis's "The Lion, The Witch, and coming out of the Wardrobe: The relationship between Gingrich, Bachmann, and Santorum (respectively) during the GOP Primary" - 2012[7] Harper Lee's "To Kill A motherf*cking mockingbird: Samuel Jacksons lesser known movie about dealing with birds on a plane" - 1999[8] Margret Mitchell's "Gone with the wind: A story about the likeability of Mitt Romney" - 1996[9] Suzanne Collins's "The Hunger Games: What its like to grow up in Africa" - 2005[10] Alex Comfort "The Joy of Sex" an actual book called the joy of sex - 1972I am unable to cite more sources. I have 10, the con also has 10, thus I ask voters to make this debate A TIE