BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed

You are correct in your assumptions of which I was referring to. 1. The USA PATRIOT ACT Section 215 has been found to be in violation of the 4th amendment by the ACLU and should be repealed. I apologize for the broad wording I have used in round one but I was expecting someone with a general knowledge that only knows of this particular section. I will be more specific in the following rounds. https://www.aclu.org... 2. Section 1022 and 1021 of the NDAA have been found in violation of the constitution because it allows government agencies and our military forces to indefinitely detain American citizens on US soil or foreign without evidence or due process. Ron Paul has been one of the key political figures opposing 1021 and 1022. This bill is voted on and passed with flying colors every time its comes up and these two provisions were thrown in knowing full well the entire bill would still be passed despite two needles in a haystack. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... The NDAA section 1021 and 1022 do in fact expand the governments power by expanding who can be targeted. By creating a broader range of people that can be detained it is an increase in their power. To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the claimed powers is a fallacy. "Broadly, the AUMF gave Bush the power to, "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" Notice how they tie everything to the events of 911. Obama has made no such claim when speaking of the assassination of Anwar. The AUMF was specific to the events of 911 including people which Anwar was never rumored to have any connection. If the AUMF were all they needed to commit such acts the two sections we spoke of would be useless. Section 1021 and 1022 were not claimed to be the basis of his decisions because they were the creation of the Bush administration thus taking some of the pressure off of his latest provisions to the NDAA. In short it was a political tactic used to make oneself look better. Taken from your source "this Court grants plaintiffs" motion and permanently enjoins enforcement of " 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA " Repealing these sections would simply be the start of a governmental renovation so to speak because it would not be possible to repeal the entirety of unconstitutional laws at once. Seeking cooperation from state governments would be a great way to start. The administration has been losing support for its tactics and are under a great deal of scrutiny for their actions. I did not state that we should
Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed

2. Again if the 2012 was not useful in expanding the presidents power it would never have come into existence. They simply do not create laws like this that will have no benefit to their power. Removing the legality would make it harder for the president to justify illegal activities. Claimed powers are indeed a problem because the president can and has quite often lately gone outside the proper process under "claimed authority" and there is literally nothing people can do about it. Removing the 2012 NDAA would not be a one fix all but claiming that it would be of no benefit in simply false. The claim that it would fix everything was never made, only that it should be repealed. We have to examine every questionable method used by politicians and eliminate them accordingly. The bottom line is this, repealing the 2012 NDAA and the Patriot Act would have a more positive effect than leaving them in place. 3. In the recent Boston bombing, the city was in a de facto state of martial law. The military and local law enforcement locked down the city and conducted warrantless searches of peoples homes. The government used the word "terrorist" and local law enforcement was more than willing not only to cooperate but assist in the illegal searches. The Boston bombing was proof that local law enforcement will go along with illegal activities conducted by the government under the premise of catching "terrorists". When the president uses the NDAA it is to track down supposed terrorists so why should we believe that local governments only going to go along with the hunt for "terrorists" once? They were eager to catch the suspect. If the federal government wanted to avoid any trouble with local governments they would appeal to them the same way they did in Boston. People tend to see the hunt for terrorists as a justified cause but when a gun ban was attempted they seen it as stepping over the lines and an attack on their constitutional rights. People do not see potential terrorists as having the same rights as a law abiding citizen and this is the type of tactic the president would most likely use to avoid any conflicts. http://www.youtube.com... Regarding the car example: Making it legal is exactly what expanded the presidents power. If there were no laws enforcing his claimed power executing such actions would become more difficult. While my opponent has stated that repealing the 2012 NDAA would be of no benefit he has failed to offer any clear alternative. The more the president is able to have these laws enacted to legalize any actions taken the more difficult it is going to be for the American people to undue. The federal government is gaining power by an order of magnitude and eliminating laws that are not in the best interest of the American people is the first step to hindering their power. As I stated before repealing these laws is not going to be a one fix all because no such fix exists. Any action the American people take is going to take time and persistence to be truly effective.
Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed

1. That is otherwise known as a concession, and I agree. 2. This requires a brief explanation of the difference between "statutory authority" and "claimed authority" If the President has "statutory authority" then he is acting within the limits of a specific law, and the law is narrowly read to give him that authority. If the President has "claimed authority" then he is acting only on his word. He could cite the AUMF, NDAA, Article 2 of the Constitution, or the Mona Lisa for that matter, all that is required is that he "claims" he has authority. Repealing the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA will do nothing, as I have already said, to affect his claimed authority. In reality, his claimed authority is all that matters if he executes an American citizen with it. He already has. The only reason the 2012 NDAA was put into place was because it is a legislative "fix" for the power both recent Presidents have already used. It makes legal now what the Executive branch has been doing for years. Repealing it only removes the veneer of legality, it will not, cannot, and does not affect the claimed powers. 3. Whether or not the Federal government declares the use of these provisions, they will be taking a BIG risk every time they use the military to indefinitely detain a person on U.S. Soil. They will want to mitigate that risk as much as possible, and advise local governments on their actions...and to turn a blind eye to them. If state and local governments refuse to turn a blind eye to the unlawful detention of a person by the military, it will cripple the federal government's ability to utilize military detention powers. Federal agents will not risk a firefight with even a lone police department saying "NO." My opponent is close when they attempt to provide a real-world analogy for the difference between the AUMF and the 2012 NDAA. However, this: "Imagine the AUMF is the engine of a car, it gives the car the power it needs to move so these two provisions are like adding a turbo to the car. It enhances the speed of the car but without the turbo the car would still work. It is merely an addition to a pre-existing power source." is incorrect. The President, whether Bush or Obama, claiming he has the power to detain/torture/execute an American citizen is what gives the car a turbo boost, because that is what the Executive branch exercised to boost the car/execute and detain American citizens. The 2012 NDAA is just Congress making the boost engine street-legal. Finally, to my opponents last argument. Repealing the provisions of the 2012 NDAA will not slow the Federal government down. It just takes the "street-legal" sticker off the boost engine, while the American people, Guantanamo bay detainees, and citizens abroad still get fried. To believe that the government would pause something as soon as it is illegal, unfortunately requires a great bit of naivete.
private schools are better than public

what do you mean by more opportunities. There is no opportunity to study if we compare it with the opportunity of private schools. According to mY EXPERIENCE even though i studied for ten years in public school there was no opportunity to HAVE better educatiuon than PRIVATE one. it was great school for me even though i studed there for ten month i got the education that i needed. becouse there all teachers are qualified and more advanced technologies such as computers or multimedia boards and so on..............
The validity of the Miller-Urey Theory

If your argument is that organic molecules is all that is required for the Miller-Urey experiment to be valid, then you are doing great. However, since the same things were not created in the corrected atmospheres, it is still invalid. The only organic compound that could be made from the corrected atmospheres is embalming fluid, which is a mix of cyanide and formaldehyde, as well as some other inert chemicals. embalming fluid is not enough to prove its validity. It is what would be the most prevalent secondary mixture in there, but it is a far cry from the possibility of life or even prelife. Also, the validity of the miller-urey theory rests on the possibility of life forming from it. The possibility of it occurring is similar to the chances of a tornado rolling through a junkyard and randomly putting together a fully functional Boeing 747 fully equipped with a black box. It just doesn't happen.
The validity of the Miller-Urey Theory

Reading the debate Giuocob was involved in titled "Evolution is fact," I noticed that he cited the Miller-Urey experiment and referred to it as proven fact. Actually, Miller used the wrong atmosphere model. The atmosphere model modern evolutionists say was around at the time of the development of the first cell was actually a mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, methane, and sulfur dioxide. The current Biology textbooks (Mcgraw-Hill's "Life", or the same company's "Biology, 8th Ed") state that when this new model is used in the Miller-Urey experiment, "Biological compounds are created." The textbook provided no description of these compounds, so I went through the school (Santa Fe Community College, Florida) repository of journals and scientific publications and found out that these compounds were ACTUALLY a mixture of cyanide and formaldehyde, both of which, while biological in source and nature, are hazardous for any protein/carbon based lifeforms. Formaldehyde is so dangerous that if a lab were to have it, it would come with a whole different set of handling materials, from the beakers to the droppers, because formaldehyde destroys proteins. Now, The Biology (8th Ed) I have states that electrical storms were commonplace moreso than now on the early earth, thus the Miller Urey experiment would be repeated hundreds or thousands of times in that atmosphere, meaning that formaldehyde and cyanide would be commonplace. Assuming that this cell were to form, then it would be quickly destroyed by the formaldehyde, which, being heavier than water, would make even the bottom of the ocean uninhabitable to cellular organisms. With all that taken into account, before even considering the impossibillities of life coming from the amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiment, how can one consider it as even plausible in an argument that evolution is fact?
Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking

This is my first debate, but ill try my best. I agree to an extent but no i do not think that it should be taking out completely. Checking makes the game fun if done correctly. Hockey is a contact sport and should be treated as such. However we could take steps to make it safer. Such as better equipment. but to me, taking checking away would be like taking tackling away from football. It wouldn't feel the same.
Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking

From high school to college to the NHL, hockey always allows "Body checking." This is an action that involves a player colliding with an opposing player to stop his motion of going forward. This can lead to numerous injuries from players hitting one another or colliding with the surface of the ice that is just as hard as concrete. Body Contact does not mean "no contact." There will be legal body contact within the rules in Hockey. For example, lightly brushing by an opponent. These legal body contact shall not be penalized.
Bringing Backpacks To And From Class

Valid argument, but I must disagree. While it would be much more convenient for students to be able to carry their backpacks to and from class, there is much danger in that. Imagine the possibilities it could give any student whom wishes to kill people. One could easily conceal a pistol or most other forms of weapons inside any backpack. Not to mention, drugs. I hope this little debate gives you a taste of the website! Have fun debating!
Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, regardless of sexal orientation

I now see what you meant in your resolution. I took 'regardless' as 'without regard to' and believed that you meant it should have no place in this debate. Next time, if you could make it more clear, this debate would have actually been debated. Sexual orientation is basically 'gay marriage,' so it would have be clearer if you stated that. Unfortunately, I feel the same way as you do about gay marriage, so I most likely will not debate you for this reason and also because I don't think I can put up a good Opposition fight. :P Anyways, since it is the final round, I don't have much place to refute my opponent's points, and plus, I wasn't sure about the resolution. Therefore, it's up to the audience to vote... somehow. Thank you, socialpinko and readers.
Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, regardless of sexal orientation

I accept your terms that we only debate about marriage in the United States and the age o consent be 17. My resolution says that anyone of age should be able to be married regardless of sexual orientation. So there is no reason why arguments 1 and 5 should be thrown out. My resolution states that sexual orientation should not come into the equation. However, this clearly happens so it is only natural that I should argue against it. I will begin with a definition of marriage. Marriage: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally. http://marriage.about.com... I propose that the definition of marriage does not include specifications on the sex of the individuals partaking. Marriage is about two people that want to legally bind themselves together. It does not matter if there is one guy and one girl or two guys or two girls. Marriage is about love and commitment and not sexual orientation. Not allowing two people to marry on the basis of their sexual orientation is discrimination. I may use this argument because my resolution is that sexual orientation should not factor in the decision to allow two individuals to marry. It however is and I am arguing against it. No one will argue that discrimination is not wrong. laws have been passed that protect people form being discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation. You cannot be prohibited from marrying because you are black or asian, so why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference when it comes to marriage? Marriage binds two individuals together both economically and legally. So to be married is to provide a more stable environment for any children that two individuals may care for. If two people have a kid but are not married, there is no laws deciding that one parent may see the child if the couple breaks up. Marriage brings the law into the matter thus making the lives of the couple and their child more stable in the process. There is no reason why a couple should be prohibited from having this kind of security.
Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, regardless of sexal orientation

Thank you, socialpinko, for starting this debate. I will be negating the resolution, "Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, regardless of sex[u]al orientation." I would like to limit this debate to correspond only for the United States and I would like to set the age of consent to 17 because it is the average age for most US states. Refutations First of all, as the resolution is titled, "...regardless of sex[u]al orientation," all arguments my opponent has about sexual orientation can be ignored. This includes contentions #1 and #5. After a quick scan of your arguments, I realize that these are only statements and that this is solely the opening round. So, I ask you, my opponent, to expand on these in Round 2 so that I may more effectively refute them. I will present my refutations and arguments in Round 2, as well. That's it for this short round. Hope to hear back soon.
Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, regardless of sexal orientation

My argument as pro will be that anyone of age should be allowed to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation. Marriage: the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities Sexual orientation: the clear, persistent desire of a person for affiliation with one sex rather than the other My argument will go as follows: -Not allowing two people to marry each other solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is discrimination and is inherently wrong, just as it it wrong to discriminate on the basis of race or gender. -Marriage is about two people making a commitment to each other and not about what their sexual preference is or whether or not they want to have kids. -Marriage provides a more stable environment for couples who do choose to raise children. -Marriage is a civil right for consenting adults that is taken for granted everyday by straight couples. -Prohibition of marriage based on sexual orientation is the same thing as the laws passed before that prohibited interracial marriage.
Resolved: Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Undermines Our National Security

For the second round I would like to provide a brief road map. I will be going down my opponent"s case point-by-point and then, if I have characters, rebuilding my own. The first thing I would like to address is my opponent"s first point. He stated that our national security is stronger than ever. This is obviously. A military physiologist at Harvard University has stated," We as Americans are not prepared. The highest state of alertness we have ever been at is right after 9/11. We boosted our troops and we were ready to fight. Now we are winding down a war. This means our security will now be at an all time low." As you can see the security is not, as my opponent stated "high" but instead low. We may have the troops but we do not have the will. The combined force of all of the Middle Eastern armies is just under that of our own military. Thus rendering his evidence useless. Next I move into his second point. He states, "The commerce chokehold on Iran is getting tighter and better each day." This is clearly not true. As you can see from the Missouri State Debate Paradigm on the Iranian Nuclear Program page, it clearly states that Iran is enriching its Uranium instead of being restricted it is being enriched. If you follow the Paradigm then his evidence is invalid. This is why i urge a pro ballot in the debate. My opponent"s argument is clearly invalid because of these points and I would encourage an affirmative ballot in today"s debate. I would now like to switch over to a more important topic, continuing to build up my case. A new point as arisen showing that our Middle East policies are slowly destroying our security. Drone attacks on the Middle East are killing terrorist. Now my thought were "Hey, this is a good thing, why bring it up in the pro case." Well it is also killing civilians. In fact it is hilling 60% Iran civilians, 18% terrorist 2% American Civilians. As you saw in my last speech, winning the hearts and mind of civilians is one of our main priorities. Killing them only causes support for the opposition. It is because of these points and many more that I urge a pro ballot in today"s debate. Thank you.
Resolved: Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Undermines Our National Security

I will present 3 Contentions to show why policy in the middle east does NOT undermine our national security. Contention 1: Our National Security is as strong as ever and prepared for anything. Sub point A: Active Personnel defense. With 1.5 Million active troops, the 2nd most in the world [1], We are prepared for personnel from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and Syria as we have more troops then the 4 of them combined, Thus we will be prepared for Land warfare. However, people know that isn"t the only terrorism method in the modern world, which brings me to my second subpoint. SubpointB: CyberTerrorism With cyber squads in each of the 56 field offices of the FBI , with more than 1,000 specially trained agents, Cyberterriorism defense systems are online and working. The system has worked so well that to date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack. [2] By defending and discouraging cyber-terrorism, we have made our country safer and better. This uptrend has not been only applied to direct terrorist-combatics, which brings me to my second point: Contention 2: The commerce chokehold on Iran is getting tighter and better each day. Sub point A: Energy Dependence According to a spectator.org article dated 12/14/2012, "America is the faster-growing producer of oil and natural gas in the world" [3]. With more then 30 billion barrels of oil accessible in the U.S, our energy independence is growing each day, meaning less money to Iran and the Arab Spring. With less dependence on foreign oil, this means Iraq won"t get key materials with the money, which brings me to my second subpoint. Sub point B: Uranium Sanctions A recent Report by the Carnegie Endowment for International peace fount that the chemical and biological weapons capabilities of Iraq were "Overestimated" and "systematically misrepresented"[4]. With The uranium sanctions in effect, Iraq"s weapons program is getting weaker and weaker by the day which in turn brings me to my next contention. Contention 3 Violence is Decreasing, not increasing. Subpoint A: A democratic approach is supported and endorsed. Studies show that 1.2 the world and climbing is turning to democracy [5] . The Iranian Green revolution, a radical following, failed, showing that the public is becoming more educated against radical regimes. With more and more countries turning to Democracy, the middle east situation is turning for the better. As for the violent elements, this brings me to my next and final subpoint Subpoint B: Key people and figures of the radical regimes are being eliminated. In an article on November 8th [6], The Commander and troops of those responsible to the US embassy strike in Sana were killed. With other key people dying, like Osama Bin Laden, Fahd Al Quso, Mohammed Saeed al Umda, and Abdul Mun"im Salim, the U.S is getting safer from these regimes, proving the con side of : Resolved: Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Undermines Our National Security. I urge a con ballot in today"s debate.