BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education is stealing constitutional rights

I propose to you, ladies and gentlemen, that no matter how hard you fight it, high schools and below are trying to allieviate from us the basic human rights in which our founding fathers worked so hard to uphold. Now I, as a freshman in my class, have already come to realise that my freedom of speech, press, and religion. I am not granted the right to worship freely in school but, by God himself, I will. I am not allowed to write a scandal of a teacher and yet I shall if one might occur. And by all that is just, If an INjustice occurs, you can bet whatever dignity the school system hasn't sucked out of you I shall try and fight it. Merriam webster defines as follows Main Entry: 1conï¿½stiï¿½tuï¿½tionï¿½al Pronunciation: \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ Function: adjective Date: 1682 1 : relating to, inherent in, or affecting the constitution If we are no longer given our constitutional rights, what has the school system done to us? Taken our dignity and our rights. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this resolution.
Education is stealing constitutional rights

"If something is "just" then it's not stealing." Are you telling me stealing in order to survive is not just? Who among us would not take a loaf of bread if it were our only option? Review the case of the fictional character, Robin Hood. "Take from the rich, give to the needy." Was he not just in giving things that others needed by taking from people who had an abundance of it? Teachers would have no more need to be taught "sensitivity," as my opponent so blatantly shrews about his words,than I would have to to disregard the disestablishmentarianism, or seperation of church and state. an`ti`dis`es`tab`lish`men`taï¿½ri`an`ism (ăn`tė`dĭs`ĕs`tăb`lĭsh`men`tï¿½rï¿½ė`ăn`ĭz'm) n. 1. the doctrine or political position that opposes the withdrawal of state recognition of an established church; - used especially concerning the Anglican Church in England. Opposed to disestablishmentarianism. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... This is what I am arguing. Religion is not our only constitutional right, as well my friend. In fact, next time you find yourself in a high school for whatever reason, attempt to refute a teachers point on pronunciation, even if you are right, she (though rare, or he) will still have the right to send you to ISS for insubordination. "Insubordination is classified as a Level II offense, unacceptable conduct, which is punishable by, among other things, in-school suspension." http://www.counsel.nysed.gov... Therefore, not only have you been arguing against only ONE of my points, but you have also neglected to understand, religious freedom would only ensure prayer time in school which can be exercised at breaks, requiring no premeditated time. Although often unenforced, it is still against school regulation to pray at any part of the campus of a public school.
Education is stealing constitutional rights

I see two major flaws with your refutation. 1) The original topic was "Education is stealing constitutional rights" not "Are educational institutions just in stealing constitutional rights" Therefore, your arguement has proven flawed. Since you failed to refute any of my points, there is no need for defense. 2) Only certain religions, icluding Muslim, would thereby be expensive for certain ritualistic practises, and while inconvinienced, schools accomodate even that. But when a Christian student talks of Jesus, it is a downright abomination to the school system. I have once been sent to ISS (In school suspension, for those who don't know) for preaching the word of God, even though it's in my faith to do so! Muslims are allowed spots of prayer facing Mekkah, footbaths, and other such conviniences for their religion. In sumation, the opposing party has not given any points relevant to the presiding resolution, therefore, I strongly urge NEG to speak on behalf of the resolution set in place for him. Thank you.
Premarital Sex

Thank you for your response. Your experience means nothing here unless proven by more than one source. I will not accept theoretical statements like, "What would happen if..." Because it is easily countered by, "What if when you wait for the right time after marriage and find out it is the best sex ever?"http://www.leaderu.com... Marriage should mean more than sex and how you preform in bed. It is traditionally two becoming one. Love is a lot different then lust. http://www.yourtango.com... There are many cures for erectile dysfunction. http://www.everydayhealth.com... "Testing the water" before marriage is wrong for many reasons. There are many consequences caused from premarital sex. http://iosrjournals.org... 1.Neurological Problems When having sex, both man and women produce hormones that affect the brain. Dopamine a chemical compared to heroin is released affecting the brains ability to remember. Another chemical that is released mainly in the women is Oxytocin. Known as a bonding hormone, this is linked to mothers ability to die for their child. So when having sex the bonding hormone is released making the women bonded to him or her emotionally. Men on the other hand produce vasopressin also known as the "monogamy hormone". It has the same affect on the male. He is bonded to her emotionally. http://www.charismanews.com... 2. Higher risk of STDs Obviously when you have sex more than a few times with different people, you have a much higher risk of STDs. With premarital sex no one can be sure that your sweetheart hasn't been sweet with another. 3. Social Problems Regret is a finding for many people have had premarital sex. This may lead to loss of self respect, loss of others respect, poor academic performance, depression, corruption of character and a list of social problems for both men and women. http://iosrjournals.org... I look forward to your response.
Premarital Sex

First, I will say with experience. Lack of intercourse with your partner can lead to detrimental results. What would happen when you finally get into bed with your spouse....and things just do not work so well? Did you know you can get an annulment due to impotency? Yup. If the male can not get it up, and you can actually get down.....that is grounds for an annulment. http://www.divorcenet.com... Also, what if your partner is just horrible in bed? Wouldn't you like to actually know everything about them before marriage? Dedicating your life to one peron is tough. Espeicially when you cannot test the water before hand. Also. Leave religion out of this. Religion will simply muddy the waters. If you'd like a discussion on religion later, we can do so.
Premarital Sex

This is a retaliatory debate. http://www.debate.org... Pro has to prove why premarital sex is right while I prove the opposite. Definitions. Premarital: occurring or existing before marriage https://www.google.ca... Sex: (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse. https://www.google.ca... Round Structure: R1 Make your arguments. R2-4: Arguments/Rebuttals R5: Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones.
Alcohol Should be Banned

Before I lay out my second point, I want to rebut all the points that you had stated earlier. THE RIGHT SELF-ANATOMY Your explanation about this point is totally misleading. How can you say that getting drunk only harms the individual himself? I'm sure that you weren't thinking out of the box when you wrote about this point. It's quite surprise that you never heard any news about women being rapped by drunk men, children being abused by their drunk parents and so much more. According to Alcoholic. Victorious. org, drunk people was involved in at least 34% of cases of all murders. Therefore, what you said just now is totally untrue. You also said something about 'should it be illegal for people not to eat regularly/should it be illegal for people not to be at their energetic peak'. I don't think that the motion that we are debating for now has anything to do with eating regularly or energetic peak. But if you still insist that they have something to do with the motion, I'll say that you can have your energetic peak by doing something other than drinking alcohol. You also said "If people know the dangers of alcohol consumption and persist in consuming the substance, then that is their choice and they will be held accountable all the same. " While banning alcohol is the wisest choice, why do you want to wait the dangers of alcohol happened and made the responsible persont held in prison? You just make everything complicated! NOT ALL DANGEROUS THINGS ARE BANNED The example that you gave - sport, is totally laughable. I admit that sport sometimes can bring injuries and death. But it does not making people drunk and lost their minds like alcohol! You should know the difference between sport and alcohol. HISTORICALLY, ALCOHOL BANS HAVE FAILED I know that if alcohol is banned, people who worked with alcohol company would lose their job. But we are in modern world now! A lot of better jobs are available, so why still want to stick with alcohol? On the other hand, even when the authorities declined the alcohol bans, we can try it all over again until they accept it. We shouldn't lose hope for something that will make our society safe! ! Now that I have finished my rebuttal, I want to present my second point. A NUMBER OF BABIES BORN ANNUALLY WITH PROBLEMS RELATED TO ALCOHOL For your information, 2.9% of 1000 live births have fetal alcohol syndrome. Which means that the babies are 'damaged' but still alive. This situation can make their future shattered to pieces! Do you want our next generation that will somehow rule the world have alcohol syndrome? ! I leave this question for you to answer. Now that I have finished rebutting and presenting my point, I'm looking forward to get a response from you.
Alcohol Should be Banned

Yes, alcohol is harmful, and quite frankly toxic, but these are not sufficient reasons to enforce a ban. I will briefly outline some reasons to keep alcohol legal and I will expand upon them in future rounds if need be. The right to self-autonomy This is my main issue with an alcohol ban. Basically, if what you are doing does not harm or have an excessive negative impact on society or individuals, you should have the right to do that. In all honesty, getting drunk only harms the individual. Sure, the individual might act harmfully with the help of his or her intoxication, but the laws are not lax in regards to alcohol and the person will be charged accordingly. To put this in perspective, should it be illegal for people not to eat regularly? - in other words, should it be illegal for people to not be at their energetic peak? Whilst not at their energetic peak, people can become lazy and make bad decisions. Non-negotiably, people should have information readily available about the dangers of alcohol (perhaps even have to prove that they are informed). If people know the dangers of alcohol consumption and persist in consuming the substance, then that is their choice and they will be held accountable all the same. Not all dangerous things are banned Sport can be very dangerous -- a great majority of injuries come from sport, and even death is sometimes a part. Why then do we have sport? Sport, whilst somewhat dangerous in some disciplines, can bring great entertainment and pleasure to many, many people. Again, anyone who participates in sport would almost invariably know the risk of playing. Similarly, alcohol can bring an entertainment and or pleasure value to the table (occasionally via a waiter or waitress). Historically, alcohol bans have failed The alcohol ban that begun in 1920 was repealed due to its unpopularity in 1933. I'm not sure what kind of Democracy would have legislation that does not favour the (clear) majority's opinion[1]. Besides, "prior to 1920, and the institution of the Volstead Act, approximately fourteen percent of federal, state and local tax revenue was derived from alcohol commerce. " [2] Also, “the restart of beer production allowed thousands of workers to find jobs again"[3]. As you can see, there is also an economic burden in this sense. [1] Peck, Garrett (2011). Prohibition in Washington, D. C. : How Dry We Weren't. Charleston, SC: The History Press. pp. 12­­­5–133. [2]Davis, Marni, "Jews And Booze: Becoming American In The Age Of Prohibition," New York University Press, 2012, p. 191 [3] New York Times, 50,000 barrels ready in St Louis, March 23rd 1933
Alcohol Should be Banned

I, as the affirmative, proprosed that alcohol should be banned. Before I begin, let me define the meaning of alcohol. According to Health Check Systems. com, alcohol or ethyl alcohol (ethanol), refers to the intoxicating ingredient found in wine, beer and hard liquor. May I begin with my first point. The consumption of alcohol damages health. Based on U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, for the short-term effects, alcohol causes difficulty of walking, blurred vision, slurred speech, slow reaction times and impaired memory. While the long-term effects are diseases such as liver diseases, heart attack and stroke. The most dangerous effect of alcohol is death. Therefore, I strongly support that alcohol should be banned. I'll present my second point in the second round.
The US should not ban the use of armed drones

Thank you for your response. While effective, US armed drones are not humane and should not be used by the government. Contention 1: Drones kill innocent civilians Drones save USA lives, but can the same be said for civilians living in the said country? In fact, a study done by Stanford Law school says that the amount of high level targets killed as a percentage of total deaths is a minuscule 2%.(1) So, the success rate of drones is just not high enough to use them in the way we do. While drones save lives here, they kill the very people we are trying to help! The amount of deaths by drone attack in the last year was over 2,500.(1) So, we killed 2,500 innocent people, while only killing 50 targets? That is an awful ratio that cannot be allowed to continue happening. Contention 2: Drones are less accurate than Humans A drone fires where it is instructed to, however, things change between the time the order is given and the time it is carried out. What if the target escaped, killing only innocent people? The drone would still fire, while the human soldier would not fire after receiving word of the change. The humans are highly trained professionals, and there are more than one, making it even harder to mess up. The drone, however, is a computer with no brain that follows its programming. (2) When judging the use of drones, ask yourself, "Can we leave this delicate task up to a chip in a plane?" The answer to that is simple no., Contention 3: Drones are illegal under international war law Drones, who have long been questioned by Americans and the UN alike, are illegal under war law. The law of war allows killing only when consistent with four key principles: military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity, as stated by the current US Military Law of War Deskbook. (3) Most people knowledgeable of the law say that drones violate that rule whenever there is probable cause of civilian death, but the US claims they take "all possible precautions" when planing a strike. In a report by NYU, (2) US officials rarely mention civilian casualties by US drone strikes. When they do, they generally offer extremely low estimates in the "single digits". This is untrue, and illegal. A recent article in the New York Times explained the White House"s low estimates by revealing that the Obama administration considers "all military-age males [killed] in a strike zone" to be "attackers". This is also against the law, and cannot be allowed to continue happening. Good luck to my opponent in round 2. 1. http://www.cnn.com... 2. http://livingunderdrones.org... 3. http://www.counterpunch.org...
The US should not ban the use of armed drones

Ban- Officially or legally prohibit Drone- A pilotless aircraft operated by remote control Good Evening to my opponent! Round One is for acceptance and clarification of said debate. Round 2 is specifically for construction of cases. Round 3 is for clash. Round 4 is for rebuttal and closing comments.Rules: No debater shall be disrespected in any way. No religion shall take part of this debate. Philosophies have almost nothing to do with this debate, and should remain outside of this debate.
Sniperjake1994 is a conservative.

I hope you learned your lesson, I urge you to debate on topics that are not as childish as this, but I do hope also we can have a truly fun a good debate. Please extend my arguments. VOTES Conduct: Whilst not rude, a concession removes all good conduct and defaults the the person who won for two key reasons: A) A concession implies all votes to the winner. B) It kills debatibilty and is thus bad spirited. Also he didn't address my arguments which is essence wasted my time. So CON Arguments: My last speeches arguments were not attacked and quality wise I warranted mine, he failed to do so. Once again CON Spelling and Grammar: We can call this a tie, but according to a concession all votes ought to go to me. CON or a Tie either will suffice. Sources: My opponent left none I proved my arguments with valid sources. Finally, Con. Thank you for reading (voters) and starting this debate (opponent).
Sniperjake1994 is a conservative.

Thank you sir for accepting this, I'm still rusty from not debating for months. So bear with me, thanks. 1. Counter evidence: I'm true to what I have on my profile. Example: I am 15/sophomore. 2. But he still leans more to the right than the middle. We both agree in 87% of the issues. And I've taken tests that show I am conservative and because we agree alot then he is also more of a conservative. B) His ideology states: CONSERVATIVE. And I've posted a comment/question on his profile. 3. Alright! Someone believes Bush wasn't a failure. The wars are somewhat justified too. a) Bush is a conservative and he supports Bush therefore he is a conservative. b) Claims can be backed by facts. Therefore Sniperjake1994 is a conservative.
Sniperjake1994 is a conservative.

I negate. "Because his profile says so." The key reason presented by the PRO is woefully inconclusive, their is no guarantee that one individuals put on their profile is 100% fact. And I actually have evidence to prove otherwise, I am not 19 years old, as my profile says, rather I am 14. I am not from West Palm Beach, rather Palm Beach. And most untrue of all was my intent in joining this website, it was not to network it was to pick up girls. So because we can not verify the audacious claim of the PRO we must drop it on face. "He is against gay marriage, abortion, and gun bans." He is also a fan of medical marijuana, drug legalization, social security, social programs. So we can conclude two things: A) His views are varied, under the big issues column it divides his opinion into 51.72 Agree and 48.28 Disagree this would lead one to conclude that rather than being a conservative he is an independent. B) We don't know the accuracy of these claims, so he could actually be a 100% liberal, but we just don't know because there is no way to authenticate these statements. so once again we can not infer that he is a conservative so we can negate. "He is also pro for President Bush, War in Afghanistan, and War in Iran." I personally feel that President Bush was not a complete failure, the War in Afghanistan serves some purpose, and the War in Iran was started on good intentions. But what separates us is I am a liberal. the conclusion we draw from this is once again two fold: A) These stances are not only conservative, so they ought not be attributed as such. B) We once again cannot verify any of these statements as fact, rather just claims. So once again we can safely see that their is not conclusive evidence to support the argument that Sniperjake1994 is a conservative "These are characteristics of a conservative. Therefore because he believes in these he is a conservative." I'll answer this with a quote, "Jut because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, does not make it a duck.". There has never been evidence presented in this round to support the PRO's arguments so they are unable to fulfill the burden of proof, and thus we can see the resolution has been proved false. To authenticate the arguments brought up we can look to Sniperjake1994's profile: at http://www.debate.org...
domestico violence against women should prevented by addressing male's psychological attitude

it's really hard to debate without facing serious argumentation's. this debate should be conducted in completely different fashion. it's not a simple comparison of personal thought it requires to inform himself in depth about the topic. improve the knowledge about the problem you 'La be going to speak about. my opponent ,contrarily to my suggestion in the second round, went on asserting his own idea about the problem. he completely missed the intimate significance of the discussion. he kept on by arguing on the difference between the sexes. I tried to persuade him to focus on the main idea that concerns the attitude of male to beat women. I tried to put him attention on some aspect of the problem. he insisted asserting that males are as much as victims as females. that is not the point. it could be an interesting topic of other debate. the issue to debate on is how to break down the domestic violence against women. I'm very disappointed for the fashion my opponent faced the debate. I have always thought that debate.org is a high cultural level site where to discuss different opinion.
domestico violence against women should prevented by addressing male's psychological attitude

So, if we're talking about stopping domestic violence in which women are victims, then here's a statement. MALE'S PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTITUDE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Instead of blaming men for this, how about we blame the small percentage of men who do abuse their partners? MY opponent has insinuated that all men have an attitude that makes them more likely to abuse women, this is false because (1). Not all men have this attitude, and that is fact, and (2). This is a very feminist-like argument for female supremacy. Instead of blaming males' psychological attitude, blame bad peoples' psychological attitude! There is nothing to show that men have something wrong with them. The psychological trait of abusers is not equal to the psychological trait of men, as shown by the previous statistics [1,2] that this trait is in women almost as often.
domestico violence against women should prevented by addressing male's psychological attitude

Here's a shocker for you: Women are just as abusive men. Across the board almost all of the statistics are close to even. 1 in 4 men are abused by an intimate partner in their lifetime, not a far mark from the 1 in 3 for the women [1]. 1 in 7 men have been severely abused by an intimate partner, also not far from 1 in 5 for the women [1]. Even more shocking, more than 40% of abuse victims are male [2]. The problem is not that men are aggressive, it is that bad people are aggressive, regardless of gender. [1] http://ncadv.org... [2] https://www.theguardian.com...
domestico violence against women should prevented by addressing male's psychological attitude

it's well know that high percentage of women suffer from domestic violence. many studies has been conducted trying to focus on the causes of this violence. all these studies identified the risk factors in the attitude of male to maintain power and control. but the conventional approach to this problem is to punish Male's violence once the abuses already occurred. from my point of view it should be more useful to intervene by applying a psychological analysis to male who are usually at high risk to exert violence against women. just because it's better to prevent than to care.