BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lowlander history should not be celebrated in Scotland

Firstly I would like to challenge your argument "First of all, here's why: one, the Lowlanders today are really Anglo-Saxons and northern English. " I can challenge this by stating like many from west central Scotland I am infect am descendant of families who have travelled back and forth between Scotland and Ireland therefore I can state that this is incorrect. "Two, Scotland, which prides itself on being a peaceful, accepting country, should not allow a portion of Scotland with a brutal history of imperialism, to be counted as Scottish. " Regardless of how we like to view ourselves our history is what it is, some of it is fantastic and other bits not so much. While this is a non historical point, I am pro Scottish independence. This also depends on what you mean by history, how far do you want to go back? I can't argue that all our history is something to be proud of and there are many things which would irritate me over the past, however I think that it would be a shame to disregard the history of the lowlands. One example which might be worth considering would be Robert Burns is from south of Ayr which is classed as lowland.
Lowlander history should not be celebrated in Scotland

I am gonna make the argument. First of all, let me start with a disclaimer. I have nothing against Lowlanders or English in general as a people, but I don't think the brutal history of the Lowlanders should ever be celebrated in Scotland. First of all, here's why: one, the Lowlanders today are really Anglo-Saxons and northern English. Two, Scotland, which prides itself on being a peaceful, accepting country, should not allow a portion of Scotland with a brutal history of imperialism, to be counted as Scottish. "Many of the Klan's founder members were of Scots-Irish heritage, descendants of the Lowland Scots [and northern English] who had been planted in ulster in the 17th century" (http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie...). They were the founders of the Klan basically. "But though the Lowland Scots came to accept the Union, and the Hanoverian succession in 1714, Jacobite resistance continued in the Highlands, culminating in the 1745 rebellion, in which James II's grandson, Charles Edward Stuart, leading an army of Highland clans, captured Edinburgh and marched on London." They were basically the ones who founded the Union, and would later embark on brutal, imperialism.
Prayer/Religion in Public Schools

Well, I suppose I should reply anyway. My opponent's focus was essentially on trying to prove how useless Religion was, and how it shouldn't be required in public schools. My argument has always been that Religion DOES have a place in public schools, as optional clubs where kids can have a positive role model in a safe setting, surrounded by like-minded peers to understand more about their culture, and make some friends. There's nothing wrong with offering kids the choice, I just have a problem with shoving it down their throats.
Prayer/Religion in Public Schools

This was not short at all. This was extraordinarily long x.x and also extremely off topic and insulting to me as your opponent. But then again, you did say you were drunk when you typed this, which I'm forced to take as a suitable explanation. You spent a good portion of the last round attacking religion in and of itself, and veered so far off topic, that I'm inclined to believe you did not even read what I had to write. If you read my response at all, you would know that I support optional religious clubs for kids to participate in. Nothing you said in that last, really long response had anything to do with what I said. It was just a giant strawman. I would very much appreciate it if you debated me sober, because I find this to be an interesting topic of debate. And even though you decided to disrespectfully respond when you weren't at your best, I'll respond to the points I find it necessary to respond to. Your argument is essentially that we should keep religion from public schools because it is useless. However, since there are clubs like "Asian culture club" or "Black culture club", and yes, "Jewish culture club", which happens to be a religious club. Are you saying we should ban all of these since they happen to be "useless" by your definition? Though religion, by your definition, is useless, it has extreme cultural value. I don't see any reason why we should bar students from attending religious clubs in public schools, and am waiting for your argument as to why this is so. Hopefully, you will be sober when you give your answer.
Prayer/Religion in Public Schools

Let me open by saying that I'm an atheist. I believe that prayer and religion should be included in some schools provided there is some method of restriction and control. I understand that many public schools have parts of the schedule where students are free to join a number of clubs or participate in chosen activities, as opposed to always following a pre-set curriculum day after day. In that case, I feel that religious services and clubs should be made available to students, even if for only half an hour a day. Of course, this is purely a matter of choice, more so on the parts of the parents than on the part of the students, mind you. I understand that many parents wish to raise their children to follow their own religion, and I feel it is unfair for those who work full-time and do not have enough free time to add to their children's religious upbringing. Secular public schools bias children's opinion of religion, especially their parents' religion, as antiquated and obsolete. I feel that it would be much more fair to the parents if there were religious clubs in public schools. This way, children can grow to familiarize themselves with a part of their culture at the most important years of their lives, from a good role model, and have something positive to take up their time.
Prayer/Religion in Public Schools

Prayer and religion do not belong in the nation's public schools, K-12. I argue that prayer and religion must stay in the sector of private schools, so that our nation's children and young adults do not grow in an enviornment where they feel they MUST accept religion, instead of making a non-peer pressured, conformist choice based on fear of segregation. Public schools must be treated as grounds for building future Americans with knowledgable minds which are ever growing and actively involved in modern day actitives. I believe that prayer in public schools is a representation of religion attempting to have influence over people in order to make open minds conformed and that religion itself can do nothing to further the education of young people in our country. Supporting Christmas only in a public school is a strech: prayer, religion, classes on religion and the teaching of creationism are not relevant to graduating young adults from our public institutions.
Schools should require uniforms.

I thank bonboncandie for putting this interesting topic up. As Con, I should negate the above resolution "Schools should recquire uniforms". I want to immediately rebut his arguments defending the resolution. His arguments: 1.) ".. will help lessen bullying" - How are school uniforms affect the rate of bullying in school? It has been said that schools from all over the world have implemented this policy so that "everyone looks the same" and thus no one would be picking at each other because of this. I read an article on Yahoo! regarding with this matter, it says, "Will the uniforms bring popularity to an end? Absolutely not. The simple fact that everyone is dressed alike will not make nerds friends with jocks. They will still be less popular because Chess Club is "not cool." However, football is the "coolest." This is why uniforms will absolutely not help with popularity. People still have separate interests, and that is what they get bullied for." also this, "School uniforms bring an end to gang violence." Wrong. Gang violence is not dictated by clothes. True, different gangs do wear different colors. If these gangs cannot see these colors, then they cannot identify who is in the rival gang. However, they don't know these people by their colors. If they know someone is in a certain gang, they will still hate them. Their clothes will not matter." I couldn't agree more to this writer. source: http://voices.yahoo.com... 2.) "..cost less in the long run" "Cost less" is certainly different from "Cost nothing" at all. School uniforms together with the allowance of the child, tuition fees, school supplies and others needed for the school are quite a lot of money involved here. Removing "School Uniforms" in the list will make the parent's loads lighter than before. I await your rebuttals.
Pro-life is an inappropriate term

If a woman was pregnant, whether it be 5, 10, 15, or 20 weeks, and her abusive boyfriend repeatedly punched her in the stomach and killed the baby, he wlould get done for murder or manslaughter. The legal system knows very well that it's a human life. So if this is the case, them abortion is murder, and murder is a crime. Yet arrogant humans beings think they can play God with the lives of unborn babies. This will ultimately lead to hell and eternal damnation. It needs to change.Peace
Pro-life is an inappropriate term

Thanks for accepting the challenge. Sorry it took so long, phone was stuck in airline mode. Regarding the reference to embryos as unborn people..if its not born, its not a person anymore than a presidential candidate is president--maybe it will come to be, maybe it wont. But even if an embryo was perceived as a person, to say that one is 'pro-life' solely because of their stance on that one issue weak if they are also for the death penalty(criminals are definitely people...no interpretation to that)and senseless wars like Iraq. You also say that with legal abortions, society is doomed, what about the societies where women are less valued than embryos? Most of the countries where abortions are illegal seem pretty doomed to me. There is only one exception and that is northern Ireland, but other than that, all of the countries where embryos come first are already seen as doomed by most. Looking forward to reading your response
Pro-life is an inappropriate term

If life begins at conception, then pro-life is perfectly appropriate. Terminating an unborn baby is murder. No woman or doctor should have this right. Why is a woman's right more important than a baby's life? A society that allows unborn babies to be killed in its mother's womb is doomed. Humans are capable of great evil, especially when they can get away with it. Abortion is one of the worst crimes a person can commit.I look forward to my opponents response.
Changing the term from Penalty to Taxes makes the 'fee' a non-issue.

It doesn't matter if you never use the emergency room. Paying the tax insures that you can if you need to. Its just like car insurance. The states make you pay for car insurance even if you have never been in a wreck. The reason is not necessarily to protect you, but to protect others your driving might effect. An emergency room tax would work in the same way. It protects others from the possibility of you using the emergency room and not paying. Whether it is fair or not is another debate. It is definately legal as I have shown with several examples. Thank you for the debate.
Changing the term from Penalty to Taxes makes the 'fee' a non-issue.

Your rare example of a car accident and being incapacitated is not true. Anyone who goes to the emergency room, with or without insurance gets billed. If they have insurance then they may or may not cover a portion of this, the rest is due from the person. Only if that person does not pay will the hospital try collecting government tax dollars as reimbursement. You are making it sound as though the ER is funded by tax payers and that is not even close to the case. What about all those people who never use the ER? I haven't been to the ER in 30+ years of my life. And there are many people just like me who have never been to the ER. They are being forced to pay this "ER Tax" for other people to use the ER. That is still not right. That said, I would like to use your own words against you by saying, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." You have not come close to proving this bill is constitutional. People are being charged a "tax" without getting a good or service in return (for those who never use the ER). There is no constitutional law that supports the government taking money from a private citizen without that citizen getting income or some exchange for that tax. Additionally, there has never been a Tax on an American Citizen which must be paid to stay in good standing with the country. Other taxes (such as on income), are only applied to those who collect income. A person who chooses to no work for a full year, not have money in the bank or the market or buy any goods will NOT have to pay taxes under our law (even if they have millions on dollars in their mattress). This law will mandate that Americans pay taxes without getting anything in return. Also, this bill is arguably unconstitutional because, for the first time in American history, the federal government is trying to impose a law which would mandate a citizen to buy a good from a private industry. Never before has the government forced the people to buy anything from a private group. Your statement saying you are, "...only concerned with the constitutionality of the mandate. Changing the fee to a tax with exemptions for people with private insurance solves that problem as I have already proven." could not be further from the truth. You, nor the white house, proved this bill to be constitutional. For any federal law to be "constitutional," it must meet this minimum standard: 1)It must be within the limited federal powers enumerated in the Constitution 2)It must enjoy the support of the vast majority of "the governed," from which all federal powers are derived 3)It must not infringe upon the individual rights of any citizen 4)It must not infringe upon the rights of any state, protected by the Tenth Amendment 5)It must become law by way of legal legitimate legislative process This Obama Care violates all 5 of these standards. (http://www.worldviewweekend.com...) Thank you for the debate David
Changing the term from Penalty to Taxes makes the 'fee' a non-issue.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The 16th amendment is a ratified part of the constitution and thus law. The original "intent" of the founding fathers is irrelevant. Whether or not you want to get emergency care is not important. If you are hit by a car and incapacitated you will be sent to the emergency room whether you want to be sent or not. They have to treat you. If you can't pay then the tax payers end up footing the bill. This scenario alone explains why an emergency room tax is completely fair. I'm not concerned with Obama keeping his campaign promises. He has broken several already and I'm not crying in my cheerios. A politician breaking a campaign promise is not exactly a shocker. I am only concerned with the constitutionality of the mandate. Changing the fee to a tax with exemptions for people with private insurance solves that problem as I have already proven.
Changing the term from Penalty to Taxes makes the 'fee' a non-issue.

For starters, the constitution itself does not grant the federal government the right to collect income taxes. The 16th amendment was added in the early 1900's (http://en.wikipedia.org...). So these taxes that you have come to know and embrace was actually an addition and not the intent of the founding fathers. Additionally, this point you talk about the 'emergency room' is off base as well. There are people who are healthy, who do not visit doctors, who do not get emergency care, who do not wish to pay extra taxes or fees or penalties and who will not be using the health care system in any way, shape, or form. Those people, under Obama Care, must still pay this "tax". So now you want to tax Americans for a good or service which they don't use? That is no more fair than forcing the American public to purchase insurance from a private company. Either way, Obama will not want to call this 'forced money transfer' as a tax because that would prove him directly breaking his promise of not taxing the middle class. And this tax for using the emergency room would need to be charged on the people who don't actually use the emergency room. So it still is quite a large issue.
Changing the term from Penalty to Taxes makes the 'fee' a non-issue.

When I said changing the wording would make it a non-issue I meant in terms of constitutionality. The government has the right to levy taxes. The government also has the right to grant exemptions from taxes. If the penalty fee was relabeled the Emergency Room tax, and people with private insurance were exempt from this tax then there would be absolutely no constitutional argument against it.
Changing the term from Penalty to Taxes makes the 'fee' a non-issue.

In a recent debate on Obama Care, I made a comment asking, "why it is that the government has the right to dictate people must buy from private companies or pay a penalty just to remain as a good standing citizen in this country." A side comment was made in reply to this by davidwayne saying, "The only problem with this part of the legislation is the use of the word "penalty". Change "penalty" to "tax" and it becomes a non issue. The government certainly has the right to tax people who don't buy private insurance because those people will get free treatment at the emergency room on the tax payer's dime without the insurance. I'm not a huge fan of the mandate, but I will accept it in order to get the other parts of the legislation passed." ---- I find this to be absolutely false. For starters, this is an example of false rhetoric. The 'term' used to define this fee is only rhetoric which may or may not change the average person based on the context in how it is used. No matter the term used, this is a fee which is being charged people who choose not to supply money to private insurance companies as the new Obama Care bill is mandating citizens to do. To be fair, my opponent has said that he is against the mandate (I assume he means the 'fee' not Obama Care in general). But he is wrong by saying that changing the terms makes this a non-issue. It is still a major issue no matter how you split it. He is also wrong as to the reasons why the "penalty" is put in place for those who do not buy into private insurance companies. That said, I will give him a chance to defend himself or to avoid this topic all together by not accepting the debate before I continue. Thank you for listening to the opening remarks and I look forward to hearing your side of things davidwayne.
Abortion

Interesting question. Just because people are going to commit a crime doesn't mean we should make it legal. Also, the fear of the government extending its power beyond making abortion illegal doesn't justify its legality. Furthermore, many of the women who get abortions are young and don't fully understand the consequences of their actions. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. There are 1.5 million American families anting to adopt a child, and there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
Abortion

First of all, thank you for taking the time to debate with me. I do not agree that abortion is murder. A fetus isn't really a human being and therefore it cannot be murder. Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity and is therefore not a human being. Also, Abortion is a safe medical procedure. If abortions were illegal it would only allow for more unsafe procedures to take place. Since abortion is currently legal, there are doctors who can give safe abortions. The vast majority of women have their abortions in the first trimester (88%). Also, women are going to have abortions whether or not they are legal, so at least because they are legal, women are able to get safe abortions with sterilized tools. It is also important to note that the ability of a women to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. If you take away the choice of reproductive rights for women, then what else can the government force women to do. Can the government force you to undergo sterilization or use contraception?
Abortion

I disagree. Aborting a child is by definition murder. Murder is illegal therefore abortion should be illegal. Those who make mistakes should be forced to live with them, and should not have the choice of taking another's life. Furthermore,in response to your argument about sexual violence, most women who receive abortions are not victims of rape. In response to your argument that it protects women, abortion can be very unsafe and people who have them can experience negative psychological effects.
Abortion

While the situations of many unplanned pregnancies might be unfavorable, I still cannot support the legality of abortion. Our country was founded on a set of morals, and it is that set of morals that makes it wrong to take the life of another. While it can be argued that a fetus is not yet a human, it is a life, and if it isn't aborted, it will be come a human. We cannot predict the future, and we therefore cannot predict what kind of life a fetus will have. Thanks for your opinions.
Abortion

Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because it should remain a women's choice of whether or not to give up her child for adoption. Very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies and therefore the children DO become unwanted children. Also, there are negative psychological effects for young girls who give up children for adoptions and then realize later in life that they have children that they have not had a relationship with. It is a myth that the women who have abortions do so for selfish reasons. Rarely the decision to have an abortion is simple, but sometimes it is the only option. Often times women have a lack of money or do not want to bring a child into an unloving , unready family. Others wanted to get pregnant but learn that the babies have serious medical problems and therefore choice abortions. And still others (about 13,000 women each year) have abortions because they have become pregnant as a result of rape. Instead of encouraging making abortion illegal, we should teach young kids how to better use contraceptives to protect them from the beginning of experiencing sexual encounters. Also, teenagers who become mothers often do not have a promising future ahead. They are more likely to leave school, receive inadequate prenantal are, rely on public assistance to raise a child, develop health care problems or end up divorced. All these factors can lead to a negative home environment should the abortion to have never taken place. While I appreciate your opinions, I still stand by mine that it is important that we, as women, have the right to choose whether or not we will have an abortion. While I believe abortion should be the last alternative, it can be a valuable alternative when considering fetuses that have serious medical problems or when the mother is a victim of sexual violence. Thanks for the debate.