BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Americans should be forced to wear name tags that say their name and weight.

"People would schedule appointments with their county weight center. each person would have a set date to come, and name tags would be made on the spot. After a few months, the U.S will put the law into action the punishes those who do not wear the name tags. Simple, no? If the IRS can mail every single American their stimulus check and succeed, this is almost guaranteed to succeed, as mail is not involved." Not everyone can get the message. There are so many homeless people that cannot get mail and wouldn't be able to get appointments. "I suggest reading citation four. Public humiliation works. And it will change those who are going out in public, as they now have a badge of shame. It's like the government is telling everyone who looks at them that they are fat and unhealthy." Aren't they already humiliated enough just by being overweight? The people who are just a bit overweight and "unhealthy" might not even be at risk according to a very recent study. http://www.webmd.com... Many obese people don't ever go out in public anyways, and if they do go out, they are already under enough pressure to lose weight.
Americans should be forced to wear name tags that say their name and weight.

All right, where to begin? First of all, thank you for accepting my debate. I shall now dissect my opponents arguments. "The idea wouldn't really go with with a lot of people most likely." The lack of proof negates this argument. Not to mention, there are lots of things in life that people don't like. Sometimes you just have to suck it up for the greater good. "Getting every single American citizen to wear a name tag would be pretty hard. It would take a while for everyone to actually get one and many people would never get one." People would schedule appointments with their county weight center. each person would have a set date to come, and name tags would be made on the spot. After a few months, the U.S will put the law into action the punishes those who do not wear the name tags. Simple, no? If the IRS can mail every single American their stimulus check and succeed, this is almost guaranteed to succeed, as mail is not involved. "There would be so many protests against it. A person's weight is there own business. There first and last name should also be their own business to give out to whomever they choose." But don't you think the fate of the public is more important than some people being embarrassed? I'd rather save countless lives. It would be selfish to say that this is an invasion of privacy. "Some people might be so embarrassed that they would just stay inside alone all the time. Others might for eating disorders because they feel so terrible about their weight." It is to be expected. But it will help American society on a whole, and if we can help even one person, it's better than never passing the bill. The casualties will be worth the ultimate reward of a healthier and more prosperous society. "Overweight people already have enough problems going out in public and that is a good enough reason for a lot of them go lose weight, but adding a name tag with their weight won't change much for a lot of them if they are already okay going out in public." I suggest reading citation four. Public humiliation works. And it will change those who are going out in public, as they now have a badge of shame. It's like the government is telling everyone who looks at them that they are fat and unhealthy. Overall, good effort, Con.
Americans should be forced to wear name tags that say their name and weight.

The idea wouldn't really go with with a lot of people most likely. Getting every single American citizen to wear a name tag would be pretty hard. It would take a while for everyone to actually get one and many people would never get one. There would be so many protests against it. A person's weight is there own business. There first and last name should also be their own business to give out to whomever they choose. Some people might be so embarrassed that they would just stay inside alone all the time. Others might for eating disorders because they feel so terrible about their weight. Overweight people already have enough problems going out in public and that is a good enough reason for a lot of them go lose weight, but adding a name tag with their weight won't change much for a lot of them if they are already okay going out in public.
Americans should be forced to wear name tags that say their name and weight.

First of all, I shall describe my proposed name tags. These name tags will have the persons name on it, first and last, along with their weight below it in bold font that is larger than the persons name. The color of the font of the persons weight will be either green, if the doctor describes their weight as healthy, or in red, if the doctor describes their weight as unhealthy. Healthiness or unhealthiness will be measured by the persons body fat percentage, not by the persons weight, as that can prove to be unreliable, as some of the weight may be in muscle or fat. People will be required to have their name tags renewed every six months by a government run facility. (Think of the DMV, but more embarrassing.) Why would I want this to go into affect? A) 97 million adults in America are obese. (1) Obesity can cause health complications. (2) It would be wise to try and reduce obesity so Americans can live longer. And it has been shown, that not only does public humiliation cause the victim to change their ways, but it also sets an example for those who could become victims. (3) Ergo, this is an effective way of saving lives. And you know, saving lives is like, good and stuff. B) It's good for the economy! Fat people cost us some serious money, as you can see here. (4) The obese cost us 22 million dollars alone in heart disease. C) It would create jobs. While not many, whenever a new business pops up, (in this case the weight center, as I shall refer to them) people need to be hired to run and manage it. And if each community needs a weight center, people are going to be hired in every state to manage them. Let's give ourselves the low low estimate of ten people working each center. There are 3,141 counties in the U.S. If each county has a weight center, that's 31,410 jobs! I thank whomever accepts this argument.
Presidential Debate

Hi my name is Allan-Michael Lannan(13) and I am running for president for the Constitution Party. Before I state my platform I'll state my running mate. My running mate is Virgil Goode http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com....(For those of you who don't know his debate here's the link http://debate.org...)1) Pro Life (under all curcumstances)2) Disagrees with all forms of Gun Control3) With draw troops from Afghanistan.4) Audit the Federal Reserve5) Cut back on Federal Spending6) Against minimum wage7) No citizenship for anchor babies and illegal citizens8) Against free trade.9) Against Labor Unions10) Supports a right to work society.11) Against gay marriage.12) Supports the Flatt Tax.13) Agaist drug and prostitution leagalization.14) Supports the death penalty15) Supports buisness and farmer subsidations.16) Against government regulation of healthy and fatty foods.
America spends too much time on our politicians personal lives and not enough on the issues.

Your analogy about hiring is apt, but consider this. People who have the power to hire and fire can make up their own mind about who they want to do the job. They look at the applicants' resumes, find out what they can about them, interview them and finally offer them a job, or don't call back. Imagine that we, the people, are the people with hire and fire power over the politicians. We need to know what kind of people they are; Are they personable? Are they competent? Do they have the experience and qualifications for the job? Are they nic people? We need to know about transgressions in their past, and whether they're likely to commit them again. This is not "sticking to my morals," it's legitimate interest. Politicians, unlike movie stars and other celebrities, are directly responsible to us, the people who elected them. We want, nay, need to know about them. We are not going to elect a dark horse, and we are not going to tolerate politicians who do things we don't want them to do. Adultery and other personal transgressions, as well as more public blunders, fall under that heading, don't you think? By the way, you're dead wrong about Clinton. He was not prosecuted for adultery, he was prosecuted for lying under oath about it. And for the record, he was impeached, but not driven from office. People think it means the same thing. Your Clinton hero-worship can't blind you to the fact that he LIED. You may be willing to pass over adultery, but lying under oath about personal doings? I assume you mean "bribes," not "brides." If a politician takes bribes, he's taking money for favors. If he's taking brides, he's Warren Jeffs. I think we have a little disagreement about the definition of the word "personal." In this sense, I think it means anything done personally, especially in private or secret, illegal or not. You think it means anything done personally, especially in private or secret UNLESS it's illegal. While I agree that if an action is illegal, it is always illegal, if a politician does something illegal secretly, it's "personal" first, and illegal after. You say Americans "spend too much time" on politicians' personal lives. You say that unless something is illegal, it is the politicians' business and not ours, the people who elected them. But how do we find out if they've done anything illegal unless we "spend time" on their personal lives. Are you suggesting that their privacy is so sacrosanct that people should not investigate politicians, not for fear that they might uncover something nasty, but that they might NOT? An altogether wrongheaded way of doing things. In conclusion, while I don't know if I approve of the media spouting triumphantly over the sordid wrongs of politicians, I believe the people have a right to know what their leaders are doing. It is almost as important, in fact, as paying attention to the issues. Who dictates our response to the issues? The politicians. Therefore, we should scrutinize what they do PERSONALLY to find out whether we are being well represented. Thank you for an excellent debate. BeatTheDevil.
America spends too much time on our politicians personal lives and not enough on the issues.

While you may want to stick to your morals and pass judgement on others using your morals, I want you and everyone reading to stop and think about what they're doing. Adultery is not illegal, immoral it may be but not illegal. How would you feel if you went for a job interview and was denied the position because who would-be boss tells you that since you cheated in your wife we don't feel we can trust you to package meat or file papers. While we need to trust our politicains, what we should trust them with is their job, we need to stay out of their personal lives (unless what they are doing is illegal) and let them concentrate on their duties. You spoke of the distractions that arise from adultry. But what about the distractions from the media and the country when their is constant media attention on you, your spouse, mistress, and not you job. Bill Clinton's presidency was catergorized as scandalous because he had an affair. They had a trial because he couldn't keep his zipper up, when he was (at least I think) not doing a bad job running the country. No war and no deficiet sounds like and improvement from what we've got now. But we just couldn't handle our president having an affair because it ruined the country...not. Like I said, persoanl lives is one thing and illegal is another. If a politicain is taking "brides" or is involved with other illicit activities then its not private its public. Police get involved and some freedoms one would normally have are taken away. This is not private because the society that one lives in decided what one did is unacceptable and punishment should be renderd. No such law exists in America. Why then should we devote any time to such an issue? For some people in America; tatoos, pre marital sex, and staying out after sunset is wrong. But it isn't illegal and it doesn't affect our politicains as much as the unwarrented attention given to it.
America spends too much time on our politicians personal lives and not enough on the issues.

What did we elect our politicians for? To be good father figures or to run the country, state, or town and make it a better place? Yes we may have voted them into office but we voted them into office based on their merits as a leader and not by what they do in the bedroom. If it happens to be a case such as Larry Craig were he is soliciting gay sex illegally in a public place when he denies them basic civil liberties or Spitzer who was busting prostitution rings and paying them for sex at the same time then by all means investigate; because what they did was ILLEGAL. To respond to your question of whether these men's actions "strike you as the actions of a trustworthy man, of a man fit to be elected to the country's highest office?" I answer yes. As stated previously the only two presidents that didn't have affairs since WWII were Nixon and Bush Jr. Look how "trustworthy" they turned out. Both had some of the lowest approval ratings in American history and both were under investigation for illegal activities during their terms in office. FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Carter (i think), Bush Sr., Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Among the list above are some of the best presidents in the last 70 years and all had affairs. I think it would be better for the country if we stopped worrying about the sex lives of our politicians and using that to judge them when clearly the trend has been the opposite. As you stated, some people pay attention to the issues. But if you watched CNN or MSNBC and tried to find coverage of the invasion of Georgia, you would be blocked by a wall of John Edwards, the ad by Paris Hilton, and Obama's vacation. If people are more interested in the issues it certainly doesn't show on the actual news programs. Now lets take your example of dividing people up into "public" and "private" and fill in the blanks. What someone BELIEVES in private like a certain religion or opinions then it affects their public life. But what a person DOES in private usually doesn't affect their public life. If a politician plays an instrument they won't give tax breaks to everyone who buys a guitar this year. Affairs are the same way, they are legal so their is nothing technically wrong with them according to the law so how does that affect public life? Do people that have affairs get tax breaks, laws written especially for them, exceptions from the draft? No, so why do we need to know who our politicians are with. Fun Fact: Republicans are happier with their sex lives than Democrats, but Democrats sex lives are more interesting according to a poll from a magazine (I think time, you can google it). Just found that interesting.
America spends too much time on our politicians personal lives and not enough on the issues.

With all the terrible things going on around us; wars, the failing economy, civil rights, education, rising health care prices, soon unaffordable gasoline with no sign of substantial alternative fuels, some of the worst living conditions for children in the industrialized world, ethnic genocide, some of the highest crime rates in the modern world, epidemics of disease that could have and should have been prevented, the largest stratification of wealth besides the oil barons of the middle east, deteriorating farmland, corruption, urbanization and over population, housing and credit problems, and extreme apathy towards it all. Look at the recent news in the media today; Mcgreevey, Spitzer, Larry Craig, David Vitter, and now Edwards. In France their president died and the wife and mistress were sitting together at the funeral. Why do the people of America choose to follow a "moral" standard while the country is run into the ground. Look at the presidents since WWII, all but two had affairs. Nixon and Bush 2 if I remember correctly are the only ones who didn't have an affair. Nixon was the instigator behind the Watergate scandal and Bush was a alcoholic who snorted cocaine and can't run anything from a company to a country to even a mountain bike without crashing. Russia invaded Georgia today (the country not our state) but most people haven't heard about it because we're to concerned with John Edward's penis. Did I mention that Georgia has a large oil pipeline that runs into Turkey which, if affected could increase our gas prices? That Georgia is one of our allies and by defending them we defy Russia? No, most people don't because an otherwise brilliant politician had an affair.
WB Hulk vs Jauggermaut

Hello, Instigator. I will now be explaining about why Juggernauts are stronger. First of all, Juggernaut is real.Second of all, there's a cool Juggernaut vehicle, other than the French car.Juggernauts are real. Once again, my opponent spelled Juggernaut wrong. Also the source I put earlier was an official military website. Readers, I will put up my source, AGAIN: http://www.juggernautdefense.com...Also, the source he put up was just Google which is not a source. http://www.google.com......andhttp://images.wikia.com......(doesn't even exist)First of all, my opponent had said (put) a bad word which is forbidden in Debate.org. Also, I had a military website that states that there Juggernauts are real. He also had a source from answers.yahoo.com. That website is not a great source. In Yahoo Answers, anyone could post untrue things up. Just because it was in Call of Duty, doesn't mean it's fake. Most things and guns ( in Call of Duty) are real. He also that there is a French car called Jauggernaut. First of all, according to google, "Jauggernaut" doesn't even exist which proves that you spelled Juggernaut wrong, the whole debate. Google states that: Showing results for juggernautSearch instead for jauggernaut Second of all there's a cool vehicle called Juggernaut http://www.google.com...1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:75&tx=121&ty=49 There is such thing as Hulk vehicle which is pretty embarrasing:http://www.google.com...I won this debate because my opponent spelled Juggernaut wrong the whole time. Also, on his 3rd speech he never talked about Hulk.So, for all these reasons, judges, please vote for me!Hulk Lover---- You Lost!!!
WB Hulk vs Jauggermaut

Since you have resorted to trolling I am down with that1st jauggernauts are also fictional characters2nd A jauggernaut is a french car and the comic book character but since you have resorted to trolling I choose the car the creators of marvel which are very rich will smash the car to pieces I win JAUGGERNAUT'S ARE NOT REALhttp://www.google.com......(character)&docid=vmHiUi-BUHoiyM&imgurl=http://images.wikia.com... YOU YOUR SELF SAY IT IS A CHARACTER.AND YOUR LINK SHOWS A CALL OF DUTY CHARACTER WHICH IS ALSO DEFINED FICTIONALJAUGGERNAUTS'S ARE IMPOSSIBLEThe Juggernaut is a ridiculous fictional unit. Even if such armor could be built to stop a .50-caliber round to the head, the kinetic energy would at least render the wearer unconscious. I hate those damn things.http://answers.yahoo.com...And here is the car named jauggernaut that I will usehttp://upload.wikimedia.org...YOU LOSE
WB Hulk vs Jauggermaut

Hello, Instigator, the Hulk fan. Resolved, Juggernaut is more awesome ( stronger) than WB Hulk Hulk is animation in comic books . Juggernaut is actually real. Juggernaut is a thickly- armored man ( in military) with a machine gun or a riot shield ( a great shield, indeed). If the Juggernaut kills all the creators of Hulk, the world of Hulk will be demolished. Source of the Juggernaut: http://www.juggernautdefense.com... A picture: http://www.google.com...(character)&docid=vmHiUi-BUHoiyM&imgurl=http://images.wikia.com... and... http://www.google.com... vs. http://www.google.com... The Incredible Hulk ends up in the Pool! According to the website right above. So for all these reason, vote Con!!!
Gay Marriage should be allowed

Like I said it should be beacuse it doesn't affect anyone. I have a friend(male)who was raised by lesbian parents, and he he has become successful. Just beacuse they don't follow the traditional parent role does not make them bad parents just different. So what if the parents encourage their children to be gay, more homosexuality can lead to less overpopulation. Also, your argument against the can fill the void also applies to straight adopted parents. You also claim, that i would support allowing gay parents to sexually abuse their children, beacuse that would not be allowed. Also you claim the purpose of marriage is to have a family, but if a man and a woman who were incapable or didn't want to have a family would you consider them a determine to society. And if the change of definition doesn't interfere with heterosexual marriage than it doesn't affect heterosexuals. Okay fine, now that homosexuals can marry the rest of us have to change the definition of a word, not a big deal. Another thing is the bible refers to a Christian government, according to separation of church and state that is invalid. Also your using the bible in your argument, to prove a point that a group people should be allowed to have sex but not be allowed to marry, therefore sex before marriage. I can't really say why it 'oughtta be done, beacuse I am against it, but if someone wants to burn in hell its not my problem.
Gay Marriage should be allowed

When I say anyone I am referring to humans, not God. I use God and the bible to guide my life, but I have many atheists friends, with diffrent personal "rule-books," for lack of a better term. You haven't really given me much to rebuttal, and I made my opening/main argument in round 1, so I end here, until you show how you claim it affects me, or something else I can rebuttal. (I I took offense easily I wouldn't go to a website made for people to disagree with me)
Gay Marriage should be allowed

Hey, I'm new too so this should be on fair grounds. I am going to take the position that gay marriage should not be allowed. Just so you know, I am not Christian but I have studied the Bible for the last 3 years. Since you are claiming to be a Christian, I will use the Bible as one of my chief resources. You are saying that it does not affect you in any way if someone is gay, but I will use this pivotal point against you to show that it actually does affect you. By the way, I agree with you saying that it is not anyone's job to tell people what to do with their lives. I absolutely agree, but now you tell me if God is just anyone? and whether or not He is qualified to tell people what to do. Since this is the first round, I do not want to get into exposing my arguments as that seems traditional as to what I can see from other debates so I'll save the bulk of it for later. (By the way, please do not take offense as to anything I say. But since you have revealed that you are Christian, I will appeal to the explicit and implicit obligations of what that means.
Gay Marriage should be allowed

Ok I am new so I don't really no the specifics of this website, but here's my opening argument: I believe we should allow gay marriage beacuse it doesn't affect straight people. I am Christian, I oppose gayness, but I am willing to let other people do it, beacuse it really doesn't affect me. Most Western countries have agreed to a seperation of church and state, so if God won't allow gay people into heaven, then that's not the governments job, the government shouldn't be responsible for playing god. The argument that gays spread AIDS is dumb, beacuse heterosexuals have AIDS, and if only homosexuals had AIDS, then it wouldn't be a problem for heterosexuals. It is not anyone's job to tell people what to do with their lives, and if someone wants to do something that doesn't hurt anyone, we shouldn't stop them. That being said, we shouldn't force churches to marry gays ethier, as that is a violation of freedom of religion.