BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the US government too involved in private business

Well, this could get boring, but here are my arguments: 1. The government should be involved with our so called "private business' because if you have nothing you are planning to do against the government, then why should you hide it? 2. If you're scared about them seeing you in the bathroom, I've got news for you, we all take craps and we all urinate. 3. Whenever they find a terrorist, you won't be complaining then! 4. After 9-11 I don't care if they are trying to see my "private business" like walking to the park, or doing things everyone does like take a dump. 5. When you're out in public, PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU, why does it matter if the government does?
Is the US government too involved in private business

I accept, first i would just like to provide definitions. Private: Belonging to some particular person: private property Involved: Very intricate or complex: an involved reply. Government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. I will let pro make his arguments http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Is the US government too involved in private business

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." -Thomas Jefferson (founding father)I do agree that the government should have little to no regulation on private businessess.This is the format for this debate1. Pro or Con and opening statement2. Facts supporting opening statement 3. Rebuttles and facts supporting rebuttle4. Stating stance on issue once more (with facts or opinions backed by fact)5. Closing statementRules:Sources must be citedMust be factualDo your best on grammarNo profanityDon't bash on opponents opinions, rather state why you think they are wrongYou are representing your party (democratic/republican) so do wellLet the debate... BEGIN!
I will not contradict myself.

As per the rules I will not introduce any new contradictions this round.ContradictionsPro-LifeYou may be pro-life in the sense you oppose abortion, but since you don't support everybody having access to quality healthcare, you are not pro-life in the full sense of the word. Supporting MilitaryWomen soldiers who are raped by our own soldiers cannot get an abortion because they are not permitted. They are forced to have a pregnancy. I don't think that we should dishonor our female soldiers who are putting their lives on the line. I said it was like being raped again (by a self-righteous ideologue.)School VouchersFor some parents, whom may be very poor, and decide to go to a religiously affiliated private school, the funding would come from the pockets of other taxpayers, who may be opposed to funding that school (because of religious reasons) but have to nonetheless. So for some, it would violate a separation of church and state.GovernmentIf there was a very small government, it would not fund scientific and medical institutions. As I said, over 80% of basic science research is funded by the government. Obviously, the private enterprise system would not step in. The N.I.H. pays for the research. I have not seen an infrastructure built by voluntary private enterprises.The purpose of the above paragraph was to show the unlikely correlation with few/no taxes = support in science and medical institutions.Plus, he is pro-government, but wants few/no taxes. My opponent left this contradiction (from R4) unattacked.------Conclusion:-----------My opponent contradicted himself a few times. With the issue of honoring our military, he is for forbidding our female soldiers, who put their lives on the line, from getting an abortion. With the government, he supports the scientific and medical establishments, but does not clearly demonstrate how this would survive with few/no taxes. He also is pro-government, but does want few/no taxes. School vouchers can lead to a violation of church and state. And with Pro-life, he opposes abortion, but is NOT pro-life when it comes to living human people who lack healthcare.VOTE CONTRA
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction Accusations: 1. Pro-Life You may consider my interpretation of "pro-life" to be "narrow," but by Rule #9, I have all the power of defining words and phrases not already defined in the question. 2. Supporting Military I support the troops in that I want them to survive the war. I don't believe they have the right to kill the baby they carry if they are raped, but I don't see why I can't support them while opposing the particular action of abortion. To say that I am "raping" them again by forbidding them from murdering is actually quite insulting. "Supporting" the troops doesn't not mean wanting them to do whatever they want, especially if it involves murder. 3. School Vouchers There are various degrees of separation of church and state [1]. I don't believe that providing funding to religious schools by the choice of the student's parents violates anyone's religious rights, and thus don't support a separation of church and state that bans school vouchers going to religious schools as my opponent would like to imply. 4. Environment My opponent agrees that this is "not exactly a contradiction," so I see no problem here. 5. Government I am in favor of a limited government. Such a government would require much fewer taxes than those required by today's government. While I support many scientific and medical establishments, I believe that they should get by on private investment and donations instead of taxpayer dollars. They would not all cease to exist without government. Thus, I simultaneously support a limitation of government and the scientific and medical establishments. In conclusion, my opponent's supposed "contradictions" involve very limited interpretations of what I think, observing only peculiarities, if even that, in my thinking instead of actual contradictions, even admitting that one of his points is not a contradiction at all. I have not contradicted myself, and I haven't broken any rules. Thus, I am the victor. Vote PRO! 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
I will not contradict myself.

Contradictions So Far: 1. Gay Marriage The Fourteenth Amendment only requires "equal protection of the laws."I believe that marriage itself shouldn't be a legal entity; therefore, neither gay nor straight marriage should be recognized by government. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruling doesn't require government recognition to my current knowledge, and besides, I don't believe that Supreme Court decisions are infallible. Finally, even if the Constitution mandated legalization of gay marriage, I could support an amendment against it while still interpreting the Constitution strictly. 2. Universal Healthcare "Pro-life" indicates opposition to abortion [1], not a desire to maximize the preservation of all life through any means possible. 3. Patriotic I said I'm not a patriot. 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. 4) No. 5) No. 6) Yes. 7) No. 8)Yes. 9) No. 10) That would have to depend on the medical and scientific establishments to which you refer. I support some of them, but not all of them. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
I will not contradict myself.

Contradictions So Far Gay Marriage In R2 Q7 my opponent said that he believes in strict interpretation of the Constitution (Yes). However, he later in R3 Q8 said he doesn't support legalization of Gay Marriage. Under the 14th amendment, Gays and Lesbians have a civil right to marry. It also has been determined by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, the marriage is a fundamental human right. [1] Universal Healthcare My opponent in R2 Q1 said he is Pro-Life. However, in R3 Q2, he said he doesn't support Universal Healthcare. To refute my opponent's refute my opponent's future rebuttal, Universal HC can be carried out by several ways. One way is by a Single-Payer system, or a totally private system with the poor getting coverage (for example, with vouchers). Either way, he does not favor everybody having healthcare, and since a lack of healthcare can in many cases lead to the death of an individual, he is not Pro-Life. A contradiction. Patriotic My opponent in R3 Q4 said he is a patriot. However, in R3 Q10, he said that wants Obama to fail badly as President. It is not patriotic to want your leader to fail. You want what is better for your country, which will obviously need a good President at its head. A clear contradiction. To Voters and PRO: I strongly apologize for my actions in R2 for questions 7 and 8. I forgot to put them in the right format. So, I will re-ask the questions this round in the right format. Please do not take account of my last illegitimate questions then, as I replaced them in this round with Q1 and Q2. -------------New Questions----------------- 1) Do you believe that war is ever justifiable? 2) Do you support school vouchers? 3) Do you support all of our troops that serve our nation? (honorably of course) 4) Do you want to eliminate the Treasury? 5) Do you support the Healthy Forests Initiative? 6) Do you want get rid of nearly all taxes? 7) Do you support the environment? 8) Are you Pro-Government? 9) Do you support a strong infrastructure for the USA to succeed? 10) Do you support the medical and scientific establishments? Sources: [1] http://law2.umkc.edu...
I will not contradict myself.

1) Sort of; I believe that government should protect its subjects' rights, and in doing so punish some immoral actions, but it should not promote any moraity beyond that.2) No.3) Yes.4) No.5) Yes.6) Yes.7) This question is not a Yes/No question; therefore, CON broke Rule #1, and thus automatically lose by Rule #11.8) This question is not a Yes/No question; therefore, CON broke Rule #1, and thus automatically lose by Rule #11.9) Yes.10) Yes.
I will not contradict myself.

--------New Questions-----------1) Do you think the government should promote morality?2) Do you support Universal healthcare?3) Do you support our troops?4) Are you a patriot?5) Do you agree that human life is sacred?6) Will you vote in November?7) What are your views on foreign policy?8) What is your view on school vouchers?9) Do you support regulation of pollution produced by industry?10) Do you want Obama to fail badly as President? (from now onward) I will point out any contradictions next round.
I will not contradict myself.

I will do my best to follow the rules you set forth, and if any misunderstandings occur, I will do my best to justify them. ---------Questions--------------1) Are you Pro-Life?2) Do you support President Reagan?3) What About President Obama?4) Do you think GWB was better with jobs than Obama?5) Do you agree with facts that are PROVEN?6) Do you support separation of church and state?7) Are you for limited Government? (by this I mean do you believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution)8) Do you support the legalization of Gay Marriage?9) Do you believe that if you don't believe in the correct religion you will go to Hell?10) Do you believe in freedom of religion?
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... (using the "classical logic" interpretaion)Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words or phrases in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary or Wikipedia at his own discretion, unless the words or phrases were already defined by CON when the question was asked. If the word or phrase cannot be defined using either source, PRO may use any other appropriate online dictionary, wiki, etc.http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.wikipedia.org...10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.Good luck.
Minecraft is better on the PC then Xbox 360

I have to hand it to you with the servers, but not even them can be easy to connect with friends. some servers could be full or some of them are hard to get into a game if you are not a paid member ( like the nexus, it is so hard to start a hunger games without being booted). And what you don't know is that some servers have many duplicated lobbies where there are different gamemodes where you think you are joining the same game as your friend but your not. It is also hard to have just a normal game of survival with friends.
Minecraft is better on the PC then Xbox 360

This is true and i know that because i have both of them. The PC includes Minecraft servers were you can play wityh other players in Hunger Games, Sky Block, Dwarves V Zombies, Etc" The Xbox does not include this in any of there updates. The Xbox is also not as updated as the computer. You can't pull the "but the PC cost more" they are about the same price and on the Xbox you have to pay for other stuff like skins and texture packs.
Minecraft is better on the PC then Xbox 360

This might be true to veteran minecraft players. But the PC version is very complicated and confusing sometimes. I think that the Xbox version is just enough, not too complicated or hard and the tutorial is easier to understand than the PC and I'm not even sure if there's a tutorial on PC. I love minecraft and play it on Xbox, PC, and PE but I like the Xbox version much more, plus it is hard to connect and play with friends on PC, if you have friends on Xbox that play the game it is much more easier to connect and play.
The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure.

Responsibility- a particular burden or obligation upon one who is responsible. Personally, I have faith in people. Faith that they can do the right thing, and kick bad habit's. There are plenty of addicts in my acquaintance. All of these people aren't bad… but they are selfish. This comes with the territory of letting something take over your life. The last thing that people who are addicted and screaming our for help need, is the American government selling them drugs. Please tell me, what help to the children of a junkie would this be? There are so many homes broken by drugs every single day. As you read this, a child IS being neglected or abused by someone on drugs. Sure, drugs may be fun. People WANT to do them, yet as responsible people we cannot always do what we want. We need to do what is right. Not only by a Christian view, a family view, health view… but an overall view of the big picture. Drugs ruin lives… they should not be legal. We should not allow backwards motion on the war on drugs. The current system is not 100% effective. I would rather help deter the use of drugs instead of aid it. Crime related to drug use would not disappear because drugs are legal. Heart break would not end, because drugs are legal. Our rights are protected by the Constitution. As I said earlier, there are limits to these rights , to insure the rights of those around us.
The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure.

Well, I made a lot of good points, I think, and I am not going to regurgitate them at everyone, because they are long and no one wants to go through that again. If you think she refuted my arguments in my thesis effectively, then cast your vote for her. I will address her main point in round two, which I think reflects a lot of the logic she used against me. "There should be no limit for the enforcement of RESPONSIBILITY". This argument is really bad, I'm sorry. I mean it sounds REALLY GOOD, and I'm sure a lot of you really think it is a great argument and are throwing your fists in the sky in triumph over it, but look at it more closely. What does responsibility mean? It means "what you ought to do". So you are basically saying to me that "There should be no limit for the enforcement of what you ought to do." I'd like to hear your definition of the word, inputted into that sentence, that makes better sense to you. But if you believe that there should be no limit, for what the government thinks it ought to do, or for what your ideologies think ought to be done, then I am sorry.
The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure.

There should be no limit for the enforcement of RESPONSIBILITY. There are limits and restrictions to our freedoms. I can't call an airport, and say I'm going to bomb it because of free speech. Nor, could I carry a concealed weapon without a permit. This is because these precautions protect those free citizens around me who have a right to happiness, and safety. This argument is not only about "family values", this is a serious legal matter effecting the well being and reputation of our country. I would also like to bring to your attention I make it a point not to bring religion into my debates, so please take notice of this. Yes, some people ARE using these drugs presently; but not legally, and endorsed by the U.S. Government. How will this (legalizing drugs) help qwell these bad occurances? Being a victim of intocicated idiocracy yourself I'm suprised you seek to insure it's legal existance. Supporting my counter arguments: 1. The government has a right to stop the use of substances which are known to cause heightened crime, and abuse. What about that doesn't explain why certain laws should impede their use? 2. As I previously stated, autistic citizens did not CHOOSE to be mentally impaired as a leisurely drug user does. Lack of vitamins is not what this debate is about. It's about the government having the right to hinder drug use. I don't personaly remember the 20's... but I hear they were roarin. I honestly have no empathy for people who put substances before their responsibilites. As I said previously... I don't use religion as a leaning point in debates. The government has nothing to do with Jesus, so let's leave the Big Guy out of this one. Of course the drug addict would start using again after being released from prison. His life is ruined because of his decisions? What a wonderfull thing for an addict... a juicy rationalization! How convenient... a REASON to do his drugs, expecially if he could pick them up with the milk and eggs. Benefits of our current system: 1. Insurance rates for drug users would go up, and open a whole new reason to raise premiums. 2. Campaigning corruption from drug lords( which undoubtedly you will say all ready exists) is not legal and if it were, politions will officially be selling out to drug lords. 3. Legalizing drugs will lead to MORE government because of regulation of use, taxes... etc. 4. Think of all the lawsuits if drugs were legalized! We presently don't have to deal with that insanity. (See tobacco industry). 5. Present system keeps more people OFF drugs.
Freedom of the press during wartime

I support freedom of the press in any situation. First this ensures that people know what is happening in the world around them. Second this keeps the government from lying to people to influence their vote. Third it is a constitutional right. Fourth everyone has a right to express their opinion. (This is my first debate so i'm sorry if this has an odd format, since this is more of an opinion sources seem unecessary, and I hope to learn from this thank you).
All Movies Fall Together Within a Single Universe

In this argument I would like to cite movies that contain other real movies and references to their existence as movies because by doing so they tell us they exist is separate universes. She's All That- "I feel just like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. You know, except for the whole hooker thing." American Pie- "Did you see The Little Mermaid on TV yesterday? Ariel, she's so hot!" Mr. Mom- "My wife and I went to the movies the other day, we saw Rocky. While I'm watching it, I'm thinking 'This guy has taken some falls' you know." One Eight Seven- I can't find the quote, but The character C"sar forces Mr. Garfield to play Russian Roulette with him after having watched Deer Hunter. The Heartbreak Kid- "Yeah, and you know why she hates Caddyshack? 'Cause she said that the gopher looked too fake."
All Movies Fall Together Within a Single Universe

I have read about the pixar theory before but I do not believe that it should be cited as evidence because it is after all just a theory that is based on pure speculation. The thought that David Hasselhoff's character can connect Knight Rider and Baywatch may seem air tight, but we can't confuse actors with characters because we often see the same characters being played by different actors in the same series. The following film franchises have had a major character change between installments. James Bond- Bond franchise- Played by Barry Nelson, Bob Holness, Bob Simmons, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, Michael Jayston, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig. Jack Ryan- Jack Ryan Franchise- Played by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Afflek, and Chris Pine Rachel Dawes- Christopher Nolan's Batman Franchise- Played by Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal James Rhodes- Iron Man Franchise- Played by Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle Professor Dumbledore- Harry Potter Franchise- Played by Richard Harris and Michael Gambon I would also like to refrence the new Star Trek franchise which occurs in a universe paralell to that of the original Star Trek's and as it is specified that they don't exist in the same universe the topic of debate is rendered invalid.
All Movies Fall Together Within a Single Universe

For the sake of this debate, I would like to clarify something. When it is stated that all movies fall together in a single universe, this is a hypothesis that I am currently in process of developing. Even in movies in which inter-universal/inter-dimensional travel occurs, I am certain that it all comes back to one single universe. The reasoning behind starting this debate is that I am entirely intrigued to see if my opponent may present a way in which this does not work. Starting in the next round, I shall begin to outline how exactly some movies begin to fit together. The first round, to my opponent, shall be for acceptance. Please do keep in mind, this is very experimental and it shall be a learning experience for all of us.