BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Britain should not have a Royal Family.

Although the royal family may create income through tourism, this does not benefit the tax payers who are yearly paying for the royal family. Also, the royal family themselves are not appealing to tourists, it is the history and architecture of buildings, such as Buckingham Palace, that are encouraging tourists. I agree that the Royal Family are a symbol of Britain, however, are they British themselves? The answer to this, is no. In fact, the BRITISH Royal Family are actually of German heritage. Another symbol of Britain is democracy, the will to vote and choose who rules the country. However, the royal family strongly goes against this. We, as the people of Britain did not choose forward royal family, we were just given one. I admit, in the past, monarch's and the royal family have been of great use, although today, are they really necessary? Source: http://oliverjamesopinion.com...
Britain should not have a Royal Family.

I am also a British person, so it will be good to discuss this from an even perspective :) There are multiple reasons why Britain should keep the monarchy: Constitution The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, which means that the Queen is the head is state. She also has the ability to dissolve parliament or prevent legislation, so if the British government were to become corrupt then the British public could appeal to the Queen (who is politically neutral) to dissolve parliament, prevent corrupt legislation, and prevent the further corruption of the government. She then can call a general election to select a fresh government. It is also important that the head of state is essentially politically neutral, as otherwise he/she would have their role influenced by political allegiances, party ideologies and parliamentary bickering. Therefore the UK should keep the monarchy as a safeguard against the corruption of government and to ensure we have a politically neutral head of state. Economic reasons The royal family is also good in a monetary sense: it raises millions for charity and brings in tons of tourism revenue. Culture The monarchy gives Britain a sense of culture and national identity. When people think of Britain, they tend to think of the Royal family. If we lost the monarchy we would lose part of our national identity. Also, the idea of a family as the head of state supports the ideal of family life. Response to my opponent My opponent brings up the scandals caused by Prince Harry's shenanigans, and how they cast Britain in a bad light. Yet this is not a problem exclusive to monarchies, politicians often have scandals. For example, the family of US President Kennedy have had numerous scandals over the years. To summarise, even if we abolished the monarchy, this would not prevent scandals from happening. Furthermore, these scandals do not seem to mitigate the international view of the royal family. 61% of Americans approve of the Queen and 71% think that the monarchy is good for Britain.
Britain should not have a Royal Family.

As a British resident myself, I believe that the British royal family is a waste of time, money and publicity. My first reason, is that the British Royal family brings shame and unwanted attention to Britain. In July 2012, on a holiday to Los Vegas, Prince Harry was photographed naked, during a round of strip poker. After being questioned about this photos, Prince Harry refused to comment, showing his lack of respect for the country. This cast unwanted and unnecessary attention onto Britain. However, this is not the only instances of Prince Harry thoughtless actions. In 2005, at a fancy dress party, the future king's brother wore an arm band with a nazi swastika imprinted on it. This repulsive action again portrayed Britain in a negative light. Source: http://m.usmagazine.com......
Strengthened local government and a weaker federal government

You make some very good points, however, I would like to clarify my definition of strong and weak. Strong meaning powerful in influence, authority, resources, or means of prevailing or succeeding. Weak meaning not having much political strength, governing power, or authority. So you say, " all law making to the local governments, so the federal government wouldn't have a final say in things" So does that leave the federal government essentially to be a peacekeeper? Although the idea of compromising might sound promising, there are many situations and laws that could not be made into a compromise. For some laws, it is either legal or illegal. You also say, "state and city governments should be able to enter into treaties with other cities and states/provinces from other countries, or to enter into a treaty with that country." This is a link of all the different departments and sections of America's federal government. https://en.wikipedia.org... There are far too many things for each and every state to have a department of each. In America there are 50 states, if each state can interact with foreign affairs then that would be 50 foreign affairs and hundreds of sub departments for just one country. With a stronger federal department, the country can have just one foreign affair department rather than hundreds. Although having local governments allows for the adjustment of laws and specific needs to be met, the local government should be weaker than the federal government. The federal government is able to unify and handle departments that would be too much for each state/province to have. Thank you for debating this with me.
Strengthened local government and a weaker federal government

Thank you for clarification. However, when you say " the federal government would resolve disputes between the more local government", do you mean that the federal government has the final say? If so, then would this not give more strength to the federal government? When you say, " Every thing else, I believe should be up to local governments." What is everything else? Also if the federal government has control of the military and interacts with foreign affairs. Then what power does the local government have? The local government may be able to create laws that are different between provinces or states, but if the federal government has the final say then wouldn't that make the federal government stronger. I will also focus a little more on America for this debate. Having a federal government that is weaker than the local government, can cause division and chaos among the states. If the local governments are stronger than the federal government then there is nothing to keep the local governments unified and could easily decide to branch off from the country itself. But with a stronger federal government then, as the Constitution of America says, "In all our deliberation on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union . . ." http://legal-planet.org... Consolidation meaning the action or process of combining a number of things into a single more effective or coherent whole. A stronger federal government that has control over all the local governments is able to keep things as a whole. Whereas a weaker government would not be able to unify the local governments. In America, the states do have the ability to create their own laws that may differ from other states, however, congress, "becomes "the supreme Law of the Land," regardless of opposition by the states." So in this example, the local governments do have some power, however, the federal government is stronger because it has the final say. http://legal-planet.org... To add, I believe in having local governments that do have some power, however, I believe that the federal government should be stronger. I am not saying that there shouldn't be local governments at all, just much weaker local governments.
Strengthened local government and a weaker federal government

By a strengthened local government, I mean that the local government will have control over majority of laws. The federal government, in my opinion, has only a few places where it should have stronger control: the military, as the federal government is much better at maintaining a military than local governments would be. Then I would say the federal government would resolve disputes between the more local government, whether it be between provinces or states, depending on what system the nation uses. Then foreign policy is the only other area where I believe the federal government should be the final authority. Every thing else, I believe should be up to local governments. Does that clarify it enough for you? And by natural, I mean it logically makes sense. Local governments, as I pointed out before, will be able to address problems the populace have. Every area is different in terms of problems they face, so for a federal government to use a blanket solution to a problem, it will not be effective for everyone since many nations are diverse. I admit, some nations are small a strong federal government is probably fine. I'm not only referring to America for this argument, but I do refer to nations with populations that have varying opinions among the people and a diverse amount of problems among local populace. Some nations are so small, that a strong federal government probably is appropriate. I refer to larger countries such as America, China, India, Russia, Indonesia, etc. However, since I am American, I may be focusing a little more on America for this debate.
Strengthened local government and a weaker federal government

Before we begin, I would like to clarify and understand your argument better. Since strong/weak, large/small are very relative terms, could you define what you mean by a "Strengthened local government and a weaker federal government." When referring to strengthened local government, do you mean that the local government has more control over the laws in that area than the federal government does? What exactly makes them stronger or weaker? In addition, to this where are the lines drawn to decide how much power the local and federal government should have? Towards the end of a paragraph it says, "It's just natural for people to be more satisfied with local government." Could you define natural for me and point out how exactly it is natural? Are you saying that it is natural for ALL people to be satisfied with the local government? Also, just to clarify, are you only referring to America for this argument? I am very excited to debate this with you.
Strengthened local government and a weaker federal government

I'm doing this debate again since the last person forfeited. I'll just copy and paste what I said in the first round from the last one. The primary reason I oppose a large federal government, is because it provides the least amount of satisfaction among the people. When local governments are empowered, and federal government is weak, there is more happiness among the people. I'll demonstrate why through this example: Suppose country A has 20% of the people who are extremely right-wing, then 15% of people who are moderately right-wing, 20% who are slightly right-wing, 10% who are moderate, 25% who are slightly left-wing, 5% who are moderately left-wing, and 5% who are extremely left-wing. For a republic, if the federal government is doing all of the important policies, you will have more or less a slightly right-wing government based on those percentages. In other words, only 20% of the people are satisfied with the government. However, since demographics are often different among each city, and it tends to be the case that cities tend to be much more conservative or liberal(and rarely have the same ideological make-up of the nation as a whole), they can implement the same policies, and with each city doing their own policies, more people will be satisfied. It's just natural for people to be more satisfied with local government. A statistic that is also worth mentioning is that 72% of Americans trust their local(city) governments, while only 62% trust state government( www.gallup.com/poll/176846/americans-trust-local-government-state.aspx ) and 19% trust the federal government ( http://www.npr.org... ) I would argue the reason they trust their local governments more is because they are more likely to know the people in office. Therefore, since you're more likely to know the person in office, they are more likely to know each individuals' needs and desires and better fulfill them than someone in the federal government would. I'll leave it at this for now.
no more hesitation targets of women, children, elderly

One in four elderly own a gun.[1] One in four women own a gun.[1] The issue is beyond gun ownership. Knife ownership combined with felonious intent is enough for an officer to shoot. It would probably be safe to say 100% of the above own a meat cleaver. As for Aggravated Assault offenders, the numbers support my position.[2] Also, the position you are taking supports discrimination. It's true that most Aggravated Assault cases are men who have not entered middle age. However, it is profiling to practice only on men. [1] http://www.gallup.com... [2] http://www.fbi.gov...
no more hesitation targets of women, children, elderly

what are the percentages of women and children, elderly that were involved in these aggravated assaults? Were they holding guns like depicted in the NMH targets? So what your'e saying is aggravated assault is why we need LEOs to be desensitized to the least likely to be a threat or that it is the reason why officers are being killed or injured by little old ladies or mommies at the park?
no more hesitation targets of women, children, elderly

LETargets.com has put up a facebook page with an explanation as to why they removed their "no more hesitation" targets from their website from public view. The targets, once exposed through media to the populace drew much distaste from the public who regard them as sinister. Some LEOs (law enforcement agencies) contend they need to have them to be desentized against a threat. Other officers report that they find them disgusting. The images of these paper targets for sale include a pregant women in a residential home nursery, a young boy standing beside a tree, an elderly woman in her kitchen in a purple bathrobe, a young mother holding her daughter's hand at the park but a gun in the other hand, an elderly gentleman in his backyard with a shotgun, and a few other similar scenarios. The FBI has a database on LEOKAs (law enforcement officers killed in action) which also provides specifics about the assailants, including gender. However, it does not include stats for offenders under 12 years of age, perhaps because of a lack of. Of 77 deaths to officers by gun, 2 of the assailants were women. None were elderly. If your'e not familiar with the targets and the controversy, review the provided links to the facebook page and the archived web page of LETargets before the content was removed (from view, not sale to law enforcement agencies). Should these targets be banned from use because they might desentize officers into shooting innocent civilians that they imagine have gun, simply by the suggestion that these people are a threat? http://www.fbi.gov... http://web.archive.org... &searchcatcontect=%7e010000%7e010100%7e010101.2 https://www.facebook.com... https://www.facebook.com...
Rock music is more inspiring than other types of music

This shouldn't even have to be argued, saying this is completely unethical. Ok, let's say that you're a fan of rock, maybe because that's all you've been subjected to, or maybe because it hits you better than other genres of music, and maybe you think, that yes, it might actually be more inspiring than other genres. Did you begin to think of the fact that some of the best music, isn't heard by us? Did you begin to think of all the songs, artists, and albums that could impact you far beyond anything that has ever affected you in the past? Anyway, saying that any music is better than any other music in ANY field, is wrong. Some people can't stand rock because it gives them headaches. Some people may only like rock, but that doesn't mean that it's better than any other kind of music, this is a horrible topic in my opinion.
Rock music is more inspiring than other types of music

Never Give In Song by Black Veil Brides Lyrics A reason, a victim, A shadow vacant in the sky. You yearn for what's missing, Your power hidden in the night. An angel a demon, (a demon!) The parts you play on lonesome nights. The damage, inflicted, The pain and lust they leave behind. Never give in, Never back down, Never give in! We're soldiers, in season, We can bring change before we die. Through tails of their beatings, To feel what lies beneath our eyes. Never give in, Never back down, Never give in, Never back down, When your life feels lost, (Fight against all odds!) Never give in, (Never back down!). Never give in, Never back down, Never give in, Never back down, When your life feels lost, (Fight against all odds!) Never give in, (Never back down!). Google Play
The invasion of Afghanistan is justifiable.

I would also like to eventually thank any voters who vote for me in this debate. Now my points: 1) After the 9/11 attacks the U. S. was fully justified to attack Afghanistan because it was an act of self-defence. There was viable proof that Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 plot, therefore the attack was justified. 2) Besides harboring several terrorists, Afghanistan was ruled by a government that was radically dangerous to our own national security. The Taliban were known oppressors of their people and it was in our place to help them. 3) bin Laden is a necessary evil to eradicate that justifies the invasion. Therefore the war is justifiable Thank you.
India: Environmental Protection vs. Economic Development.

Resolved: Prioritizing Environmental protection over economic development is in the best interest of the people of IndiaMy Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.Definitions - Prioritizing: To designate as more important. - Economic development: Pertaining to the overall economic health of the country. GDP, GDP per Capita, Unemployment, Labor Participation, etc. - Environmental Protection: Pertaining to the maintenance, protection, and rebuilding of the natural environment of India. - Best Interest: the action that is in the best interest will yield the highest net benefits - People of India: The citizens of the country of India.
Ronald Reagan's Administration was one of he most successful

You claim that my arguments had few defenses, I think you might want to read it again because I countered every one of your points with facts. Reagans economics were not zero-sum as were no other presidents, I'm not sure where you came up with that because it is usually applied to international relations. You can not make an argument that Reagans foriegn policy was not a zero sum, his sdministration relieved the tension between the USSR and the U.S by dissintegratig a bi-polar system. Im extremely bothered that you didn't back ANY of your elitist statements with facts. With all due respect Im not sure you are qualified to calculate the sum of money needed by the U.S during the cold war to win it. Reagan was acting in the best interest of the U.S using the top military advisors, winning the war with out firing a shot. FYI, While the United states may have had fewer missiles, have you ever heard the phrase quality not quantity? We had more power in our arsenal and the Soviets knew that, we also had a range of weapons that the USSR could not recreate technologically.We have the strongest military in the world due largely to Reagan, even though Clinton had a field day cutting spending for it. You claim that the only good thing that Reagan did was give the rich more money. Im sorry but this is a horrible argument because it was corporate America that was responsiblee for the massive surge of jobs during his administration. Your argument goes all over the place, but you then carry on about Reagan working with our enimies. You have to understand that while, YES they may be our enimies now, in the 1980's they were not. They were actually working with us to give us important intelligence information. You cant predict who is going to go crazy, just look at Bill Clinton with Osama Bin Laden. Im sure if he had had the insight to know what he was capable of in 2001 he would have accepted sudans offer of arrest. However, we know what the outcome is today. My point about Communism was that it has never been reached at its purest form because some where along the line corruption takes over. This was to emphasize your point that "eh, the wall would have fallen on its own". Would Nazi Germany have fallen on its own? In reality I have countered every one of your arguments. Reagan had a superior forieng policy and will be marked in history as a president who brought economic growth to the United states, as well a providing jobs for Americans. He had traditional moral values, which was a big part of his successes in office, I mean come on, thats more than we can say about Clinton.
Ronald Reagan's Administration was one of he most successful

Ronald Reagan's administration was a crucial turning point in American history. He created millions of new jobs, cut taxes, inflation droped, The stock market grew, and he brought an end to the cold war, winning a zero sum game, and returinig the international system back to uni-polar alignmnet. While eliist yuppies were busy degradig him in the media he was busy growing the economy and repairing the United states from the wounds left behind from the carter administration. He was known as the Great communicator, but will be rememberd as the mas who re-shaped America.
Legalization of Marijuana

My opponent is wrong for saying that the violence with Mexican Cartel is due to Marijuana not being legal. That has nothing to do with it. It has to do witht he fact that these Mexicans will do anything for the sake of gettig their hads on drugs. Secondly, the moey the U.S. is spending on the war ion drugs is with Mexico, not for the (war on Drugs) that could happen in our own backyard, if we legalized Marjuana. This country has too much debt to deal with, and yet there are people like my oppoenet who seem to think that legalzing Marijuana will casue no harm and will not lead to our own war on drugs. My oppoenent obviously needs to consult with the CDC and the FDA who will prove the crisis that will occur if Marijuana is legalized in this country.