BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government should make it a legal requirement to wear flip-flops.

R & C.1. The government cannot ban something that does not impact the lives of others. The “dangers” of shoes, boots, etc. . . are too miniscule for flip flops to be mandatory This one should be pretty obvious. You cannot ban something that has almost no impact on society. Looking over my opponent’s arguments, he gives no data if shoe/boot wearing people will impact the economy or population largely enough to be banned. In fact, my opponent’s logic implies that everything with a potential threat should be banned. My opponent has provided no data in regards to the number of deaths shoes/boots cause. In fact using my opponent’s logic, cars, trucks, knives, forks, clothes, houses, sofas, chairs, and humans should be banned. Logical inconsistency here? I think so. . . I mean, even flip flops should be banned because they possess some degree of threat! A baby could suck on the flip flop and harm himself! R & C.2. Flip flops are no better than shoes Here is a picture to show what harms flip flops can do. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com...Unlike sturdy shoes, flip-flops aren't good for extensive walking because they offer no arch support, heel cushioning, or shock absorption, according to the American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA). Wearers can suffer foot pain due to lack of arch support, tendinitis, and even sprained ankles if they trip. (1) The Auburn team videotaped 39 flip-flop-wearing volunteers and noticed how they scrunched their toes to keep the flip-flip on the foot while the heel lifted in the air. This motion stretches the plantar fascia, the connective tissue that runs from heel to toe, causing inflammation, pain along the sole, heel spurs and tired feet in general. (2)R.3 Running is irrelevant Running is in fact a whole another story. Most of my opponent’s argument revolves around running which is irrelevant to flip flops. Yes, you would probably wear shoes when you run, however everyone wearing shoes does not mean everyone runs. Every shoe wearing person does not run. If my opponent would like to go more into running, I would be happy to do so. However, it is best if that is for another debate. However the point that i was trying to make is that people who like to run would wear shoes. That is another reason why flip flops should not be mandatory. So, I assume according to my opponent running should be banned as well. (Despite its numerous beneficial outcomes 3)Sources:1. . http://www.webmd.com...2.http://www.livescience.com...3.http://www.runnersworld.com...
The government should make it a legal requirement to wear flip-flops.

Flip flops: A type of loose rubber sandal http://www.merriam-webster.com... Requirement: something that is needed or that must be done http://www.merriam-webster.com... People have rights to wear what they want, and other types of footwear (shoes, boots) do not harm the public. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to mandate someone to wear something despite the fact nothing beneficial will occur. In fact, in cold weathers it may be uncomfortable to wear flip flops. Or, when you are running, the flip flops may fall out your foot. In harsh conditions, many areas have a requirement of no flip flops There is no logical reason to have flip flops a legal requirement. In fact, "requiring" the person to wear flip flops is a contradiction to the term itself.
Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

I was hoping to have a real online LD debate complete with values, criterions and contentions. Pro=Affirmative and Con=Negative. I'm taking the first round so that we can follow the official format (Aff-Neg-Aff-Neg-Aff). The beginning of the 2nd speeches for both sides will be used as cross-ex and can only be 7-8 questions long. Each side must answer these questions in the following speech. Let the round begin...
Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

I believe I added too much information in my other two debates. I am going to narrow my points as to why evolution cannot account for morality without basing it on Biblical Creation. 1. Evolutionists have no logical reason to believe in any sort of moral imperative within their own worldview. 2. In the evolution worldview, Right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain " the result of time and chance. If the concepts of right and wrong are to be meaningful, Evolution cannot be true. 3. Right and wrong are Christian concepts that go back to Genesis. By attempting to be moral, Therefore, The evolutionist is being irrational, For he must borrow biblical concepts that are contrary to his worldview. 4. The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3). All things belong to God (Ps. 24:1), And thus God has the right to make the rules. So an absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview. But if the Bible were not true, If human beings were merely the outworking of millions of years of mindless chemical processes, Then why should we hold to a universal code of behavior?
Eurpean Nations Are The Biggest Hypocrites

There was a time when europeans ruled the planet like gods we had ships and guns and technology while the rest of the world lived in tents, Why do you think we were able to rule rule over you? Think, We ruled over you enslaved you had you pick our cotton and tomatoes and shine our shoes. . Was that because we were stupid and lazy? Look at africa today people eating each other slavery famine, And you blame the white men. Thats the problem not that a race is inferior but its been conned by radicals that they are owed something, If you blame everyone but yourself for the mess you got yourself in, You deserve everythng you get. Again look at the Asians, As soon as they got rid of us, They went to work fixing up their society, Instead of crying and demanding freee stuff the way lazy helpless people do. . are you disabled? Retarded? Mental? If not youcan help yourself, Welfare is for crippled people who can't help themselves. . Asian work hard and made great societies. Look at Ireland, Thanks to the English Ireland was once Europes poorest most backwards place, Once they got rid of the British they went to work getting revenge on the British, The best revenge they say in Irleand is living well. Now Irleand is on top due to the hard work of the Iirsh people and good economic policy. . Stop blameing all your problems on others get off your fat lzy butt and help yourself. . people are getting sick of the blame game. If you are weak you oppress yourself. You should be embrassed that yor ancestors were so stupid and weak europeans found it so easy to conquer them. . Like is a struggle for survival. If your are weak you will die. . Stop crying like a spoiled 6 year old and work to make you lives and society better you have no one to blame but yourself if you allow others to domonate you. . So stop of being weak and stupid and get your act together. . The asians did. . I admire them because thye don't blame anyone they just work hard and create wealth. . Singapore in 1965 was so poor half of their children were manourished 50 years later look them! Richer than almost every European nation and yes europeans are now very lazy and decadent. . But the reason they ruled the world was once they were not lazy people don't conquer the world, Lazy people get conquered
Eurpean Nations Are The Biggest Hypocrites

Well, I wasn't going to take this debate in that direction, But it's clear that my Neanderthal sub-human opponent is perfectly proving my point. Your ridiculous claim of modern medicine, Cell phones & internet displays your low IQ. Without (ancient medicine) there would be no modern medicine. That same modern medicine (opioids) is what's wiping your a** out right about now. . . Europeans wouldn't even be alive today if it weren't for Africans & their medicines. . . Remember the Dark Ages? Nahhh, You won't talk about that because Europeans were dying of their own self-made diseases. The reason for being in the Dark Ages come from your nasty living habits & everyone is aware of what you people do with animals. Savages? Google beastiality & see who/what pops up. Hmmm. Internet & computers? Tell me the names of those Black engineers who played a role in the "founding" of these technologies. . . Better yet, Give me the name of the African country that provides the minerals for cell phones to operate? Math? Mathematics came from "Ancient Kemet Africa, " which predates all Europeans. Ever wonder why it's called Kemetic Science? Naked & living in a cave? Do you really want to go there since you guys did originate from actual caves. Tell me about the Rhesus monkey since you share the same DNA as it & it's documented. In conclusion, You claim that Asians surpassed Europeans due to hard work. My question is, "when have Europeans ever worked hard? " At this point, I'm pretty sure you're figuring out that you're outclassed on every level. P. S. You claim to know it all, But you can't write one complete sentence thanks to all those misspelled words.
Eurpean Nations Are The Biggest Hypocrites

Europeans have commited many crimes sins and mistakes, They are the cradle of modern science, We are the reason you savages have modern medicine call phones and the internet, HOW DARE YOU! All your ideas of fairness and equality where do they come from? European philosophers. . Without youd be naked and living in a cave. . The world was a fuedal hell hole before we bagan to change things. . We did mistreat you thats like when a man kicks a dog its wrong but you don't let the dog be in charge. . Because cruel or not the man has the brain. . And it s the same we may be cruel at times and we should no be but we have the brains you are absoluely nothig without us nothing, Except if you are an asian, Asians are smart, I admire asians they work hard and are good at math. . Better tha us in amny ways but europeans are stil the most creative race. . Europeans have the good ideas smart asians can perfect them. . Asians don't complain and whine they work very hard and in many ways have surpassed europeans due to their own hard work. . And hats off to them. . If your not an asian maybe you culture might leanr from them not europeans we tend to be over sexed and lazy. Now. Se asians as a model of a model minority
I believe that we should keep out all immagrants

Banning immigration would be terrible for our economy, as well as our standards. To begin, I will define "Immigration". Immigration: "the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country." At one point, we were all immigrants. Are we supposed to ban Canadian immigrants? European ones? There is no way to ban immigration. Typically, when people migrate, it's to search for a better life. I'm not saying we need to open our borders, but we shouldn't close them down either. Thanks
Hillary for prison 2016.

I have linked to all of the Emails and will do so once more[1]. She was shown discussing the Qatari royal family, information about them, and future plans for foreign relations[2,4]. She was having a conversation in a confidential Email about using deaths in Haiti to get "good PR."[3] She also mishandled something dealing with Egyptian internal politics full of information gained from inside sources that we managed to get in the highest ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood. The phrase "extremely sensitive," is used several times within this Email[5]! It had extremely valuable information and now they are probably looking for a mole. She has put the lives of very useful operatives in danger! The same can be said of the governments of Israel, Iran, Syria, and Turkey[6]. This is a very small sample of what shows up under Confidential[7]. Now if you look up top secret[8] things become even more troubling. She accuses the right wing of being a massive conspiracy more than once[9,10]. There is discussion of taking advantage of the fact that the Yemeni King is willing to claim that American air strikes are his own country's doing[11]. Any of this should have been enough to cause her serious political and legal harm, so all if it should do it without a doubt. I only gave a small sample and invite both my opponent and all of those reading this to examine the links for themselves. 1. https://wikileaks.org... 2. https://wikileaks.org... 3. https://wikileaks.org... 4. https://wikileaks.org... 5. https://wikileaks.org... 6. https://wikileaks.org... 7. https://wikileaks.org... 8. https://wikileaks.org... 9. https://wikileaks.org... 10. https://wikileaks.org... 11. https://wikileaks.org...
Hillary for prison 2016.

"Criminal sanctions include capital punishment, imprisonment, corporal punishment, banishment, house arrest, community supervision, fines, restitution, and community service." [0]"and on the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be imposed on an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure." [1]Yes, prison can be one of the punishments for this crime. Yet, there is so many others, including capital punishment, corporal punishment, banishment, house arrest, community supervision, fines, restitution, and community service. I agree that she shouldn't just get a slap on the wrist. Yet, I disagree that prison is the correct punishment. I don't know how sensitive these emails were. If there were sensitive enough the situation would warrant execution. Otherwise fines and community service seems adequate punishment. Thanks for the debate.0. http://what-when-how.com...1. https://www.whitehouse.gov...
Hillary for prison 2016.

Had you read the executive order you would see that section four very clearly states that those who slip up could be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions[1]. A criminal sanction can legally mean anything from probation to execution[2]! A civil sanction can lead to having one's license to practice something revoked[2]! At the very least, and I do by all means the very least, she should no longer be allowed to view information at these levels of classification, which would render her useless as a president, since they have to look at confidential information pretty regularly, and even decide to refuse to share it with the other two branches in some circumstances[3]. But this is not a statement as to why you should not vote for Hillary Clinton, just something I found to be an interesting aside. But calling "civil, criminal, and administrative sanctions" just fines would surely be a grossly improper statement. It could mean just fines, but it could mean a lot more[2]. It is up for interpretation, hugely, which I find odd in an Executive Order, but alas the vagueness stands! Thousands of Emails were left unprotected, several of which containing highly sensitive information[4]. That should definitely be on the higher end of whatever spectrum those sanctions allow for, and I am against execution as I assume you to be as well, so I suggest prison. 1. https://www.whitehouse.gov... 2. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://www.encyclopedia.com... 4. https://wikileaks.org...
Hillary for prison 2016.

I will be arguing for the legal arguments for which Hillary Clinton should be put in prison, and gladly taking upon myself the burden of proof. My reason for Hillary Clinton to deserve imprisonment is that she is extremely negligent[1,2], often leading in a risk of harm to Americans or to the leaking of sensitive information that could harm millions by starting a war. As is the right thing to do when suggesting someone be sent to prison, I am going to show the laws. Executive Order 13526[3] is the first one. Under section 4 it covers the circumstances under which a person may learn about confidential material. One of the prerequisites is a class on how to properly safeguard the classified information. It also states that this training warns them of the consequences of losing information or failing to protect it. Using a private server is not secure enough for this kind of information, and it had not been since 2005[4,5]. The director of the FBI tried her and came to the conclusion that this was simply "extremely careless[6]." The executive order I cited prior stated that people also could be tried when it was done unintentionally[3]. Another expert, a former Attorney General, feels that intent should not have been the only thing upon which they were judging as to whether or not she had broken any classification laws[7]. While intent is definitely mentioned in the classification laws[8], as is "gross negligence." 1. http://dictionary.law.com... 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu... 3. https://www.whitehouse.gov... 4. http://www.factcheck.org... 5. http://www.factcheck.org... 6. http://www.nytimes.com... 7. http://www.breitbart.com... 8. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
I will convert you to being a catholic

I reject his statement and ask people to vote on this debate. Pro did not put any arguments of his own. He copy and pasted a link, meaning he expects me to go through several articles and dismiss them somehow with only 8,000 characters. 1. Another fallacy, this one being the Bare Assertion that I promote evolution... 2. Poor grammar... 3. Never said a word about how his god was somehow superior... 4. Of the three links, none of them proved that god was real. 5. He challenged me, and failed to even scratch the surface of his burden of proof. Grammar: "Meanie" Conduct: "Meanie"... He also committed several bare assertion fallacies. Arguments: Never proved anything. Only asked questions. Copy and Pasted links refuting evolution, which was not essential to my argument. He made MANY logical fallacies. And finally, the sources: He said that this source: http://www.theguardian.com... Would prove god exists. It was a website regarding evolution. I would not deem that reliable. Seven Points please.
I will convert you to being a catholic

I don't know. I'd rather say that than admit that a Skywizard did it without giving any evidence whatsoever. You have failed in proving why a god is the best and/or only explanation for this. You also are failing utterly in proving it is YOUR god who has done this. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... You also assumed I thought that I believed in the theories you presented. This is why you challenged me? To ask two questions?
The Argument from Logic

Thank you, popculturepooka, for sharing my passion on this subject and debating with me. Though the exact premises have yet to be divulged to us, my opponent has chosen to use some version of the argument from logic. He will be trying to defend its soundness throughout the course of the debate while I shall be trying to refute it.I accept all of the terms and rules of this debate and I am looking forward to it. What a coincidence I had been recently thinking about what an interesting argument this is since I first saw it used in another debate by another member a few days ago. This should indeed be quite fun.
The Argument from Logic

I thank DakotaKrafick for being a willing and eager participant in this debate on God's existence. I will be using a less commonly used argument for God's existence; Con (DakotaKrafick) will be arguing against it. My burden of proof is to show that the argument I propound is sound; Con's burden of proof is to show that it is not.By "logic" I simply mean the laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle.RulesRound 1 is for definitions, clarifications, questions, change of terms, etc.Rounds 2 - 4 will be used for argumentation.No semantics! Have fun! :D
Men are Discriminated Against in the United States

Round 3: RebuttalsIntroductionMy opponent is correct; women have faced discrimination throughout history. Emphasis must be placed on the word history however, because discrimination against women is a thing of the past. Each point following this paragraph will be a rebuttal of my opponent's corresponding example.Example 1The claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men with comparable jobs is false. This statistic, first used by President Obama, is the median male wage compared to the median female wage. This number, contrary to my opponent's claim, has nothing to do with profession.The median, or middle, wage gap is far higher than the mean wage gap, though a small gap (around 12 cents) still exists for two reasons:1. On average, men work longer hours than women. As the 77 cents statistic deals with total yearly earnings and not hourly pay, the supposed wage gap is stretched.2. Women are more likely to sacrifice wages for greater benefits (such as longer maternity leaves) [1].Graph 1Though men earn more money than women, women are more likely to be employed, with an unemployment rate of 6.5% (compared to 7.5% for men) [2]. Furthermore, women are less likely to lose there jobs then men, who are 2.6 times more likely to be let go [3]. As I have demonstrated, pay is not the only indication of equality in the workplace. Though women paid slightly less than men, they also receive greater benefits, and are far less likely to be fired.Example 2My opponent's research is correct in regards to the number of women in senior positions within companies. He explains this gap by vaguely stating that "women are more greatly discriminated against than men are". However, there is a reason for this.Women have only very recently matched male attendance in college, and these graduates have only recently entered the workforce, whereas men used to dominate the workplace. It takes years to climb the corporate ladder, whether you are a man or a woman. The only person discriminating against these graduates is father time.Example 3Women, as my opponent suggests, are held to unrealistic standards, but so are men. The difference, however, is that emphasis is placed on muscle rather than weight. Thus, rather than starving themselves, boys excersize for unhealthy periods of time and participate in dangerous sports, such as football and boxing.Most students cannot live up to these standards. Because of the constant pressure of athleticism and the crushing standards men and boys are held to, the ratio of male to female suicides is four to one [4].ConclusionThe wage and leadership gap is not a result of discrimination, but of fudged figures and erroneous assumptions. As my arguments have shown, male discrimination is real and prevalent, while reports of misogyny in business and society are exaggerated.