BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens

Round 1 is for opening arguments and all other round are for rebuttals. The Belgian UFO wave was most likely extraterrestrials (aliens). Please see the article in Wikipedia detailing the facts. (http://www.google.com...) If anyone has a more logical explanation I'd love to debate it. These things were traveling at speeds that would be deadly to any human had there been humans aboard, were tracked on radar and seen by thousands, so we know there were real objects in the sky that night; these things sped away whenever a radar locked on them so they had the technology to detect our scanning system, and the lights formed an equilateral triangle. Despite their speed there was no sonic boom. Nothing in nature, and nothing built by man, is known to have the characteristics that would produce all the effects noted that night in April 1990, when they appeared in the sky.
Lying is Unconstitutional

Pro has cited a webpage discussing 1st amendment jurisprudence with respect to defamatory lies. This does little more than to show than defamatory lies are not protected by the 1st amendment. That defamatory lies are not protected by the 1st amendment is not disputed here. I agree with Pro that those types of lies are not protected by the 1st amendment. However, that does not mean that lying is unconstitutional. My response to this is the same as it was before - Just because an activity is not protected by the constitution doesn't mean that the activity is unconstitutional.Pro argues that "the false element remains unconstitutional", that "lying is almost always morally negative and in many areas can lead to injustice", and that "lying is counter to the spirit of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional".I do not think Pro understands what it means for something to be unconstitutional. For something to be unconstitutional, it must be prohibited by the constitution. See these definitions:"not allowed or not legal according to the constitution (=set of official rules or principles) of a particular country or organization"http://www.macmillandictionary.com..."In violation of the requirements of the constitution of a nation or state."https://www.ahdictionary.com...I'm aware of no definition, and Pro has cited no authority, indicating that "the spirit of the constitution" is what matters. Pro has not supported this claim. It should not be taken seriously, and, beyond that, Pro has not shown that lying per se is contrary to the spirit of the constitution. The constitution appears to be silent on that issue.
Lying is Unconstitutional

I found this: - 1964 Supreme Court Ruling: "The Court extended First Amendment protection to false statements of fact in a defamation suit." "The Court suggested that, while false statements contribute nothing of value to political discourse, they need protection to allow ""breathing room"" for statements that are true. Without this protection, the Court noted, true statements might not be made either out of a fear that the speaker could be later proven wrong, or that a biased jury might find the statements to be untrue even when they are not." "While the Court's majority refused to extend protection to deliberate lies, three justices would have gone further and held that public officials and public affairs can be discussed ""with impunity."" "Justices Black and Douglas argued that the power of government to use any law to impose damages is ""precisely nil."" Justice Goldberg agreed, suggesting that the defense of a public official against ""deliberate misstatements"" was "counterargument and education." Here: - http://law2.umkc.edu... Of note are the following: - 1.The Court refused to extend protection to deliberate lies. 2.Less deliberate lies, while still lies, should be tolerated because insisting on the whole truth, all the time, might inhibit discourse and, on balance, result in a less just outcome. 3.The dissenting judges suggested that, in the absence of legal protection, lies could be exposed by counterargument. At least in this case, it seems that the Supreme Court did consider lying (deliberate lies) to be a form of speech that was not protected under the first amendment. I would argue that in the case of statements involving less deliberate lies, the elements of the statement that are false are only covered in order to protect those elements that are not false and that the false element remains unconstitutional. The dissenting Judges were rallying around the idealistic, and rather unrealistic, notion that the "truth will out", even without their assistance. Lying is almost always morally negative and in many arenas can lead to injustice. The only justification for tolerating it is expediency. As such, although not specifically prohibited by the first amendment, lying is counter to the spirit of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
Lying is Unconstitutional

Pro's assertion that the 1st amendment doesn't protect lying is irrelevant to whether or not lying is unconstitutional. The 1st amendment doesn't protect a lot of things (e.g. buying gasoline), but that doesn't mean that those things are unconstitutional. For something to be unconstitutional, it must be prohibited to the constitution.Pro's example of lying in a debate doesn't help him because the 1st amendment does not restrict the actions of private citizens in a debate setting. Rather, the 1st amendment restricts the actions of the government, specifically law-making. ("Congress shall make no law [...]") (Note: The restriction also applies to state legislatures through the due process clause of the 14th amendment per Gitlow v. New York https://scholar.google.com...)
Lying is Unconstitutional

I suggest that there are many things not specifically prohibited by the constitution that are, none the less, counter to it in either letter or spirit. The first amendment would be a trivial matter if all it did was protect words. I suggest that it also protects the thoughts and ideas behind the words. It protects them even if they are misguided, but to protect them if they are lies would be against the intent of the first amendment. Say party A puts forward a worthy idea and party B counters it with an out-and out lie. Given time to investigate, their audience will discover the truth, but in haste they accept B"s argument and act on it. A"s argument has been negated, he might as well not have made it. The lie prevented an outcome that free speech should have allowed. The lie negated free speech, defeated the intent of the first amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
Lying is Unconstitutional

There is nothing in the constitution that makes lying unconstitutional. Pro focuses on the 1st amendment, which reads as follows:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.This amendment protects the freedom of speech. The 1st amendment does not prohibit specific forms of speech, such as lying.
Lying is Unconstitutional

The first amendment to the United States Constitution establishes a right to free speech. You can say what you like no matter how unpopular, inflammatory, offensive or untrue. However, there may be consequences, in the case of slander for instance, if your words have a damaging effect. Things may be said that, even as a nation, we would rather were left unspoken, but we tolerate such utterances so as not to compromise this important right. As with many things, with freedom comes responsibility and it is my belief that the responsibility associated with the 1st Amendment is to always speak the truth. Speech is often inconsequential, at times it may be informative, educational, inspirational, but in the absence of truth it is at best misleading and at worst manipulative. Free speech is not about words it is about ideas and the truth and when lies are spread the truth is debased. You can certainly express an opinion or feeling that you believe, that may not be true, as long as you do not try to pass it off as the truth, but lying to advance your cause is unconstitutional.
Texas should secede from the U.S.

Constitution Still MattersFirst of all, this opinion of spying, torture, or taxes is not representitive of what the constitution nor the issue of Texas sucession. All that I noted was that the constitution has nothing in it about it, but that the precedence of the Civil War, and a supreme court ruling trump. My opponent strays away from the argument, and futrthermore, does not counter that legally, Texas has no basis for sucession. This is a concession by my opponentTexas Would Be Decimated by the US Army Even if in theory Texas were to leave through violent means, which is the only way at this point, Texas would be trying to fight the top funded military in the world. That would inevitably end in disaster. Why Would the US Allow For them to Leave?Lets consider the repurcissions on the US without Texas:1) loss of tax revenue .. my opponent conceeds here2) loss of economic activity3) inflexability of transport -- If Texas is an independant state it would require anyone going in/out inbetween Mexico and the US a passport...crossing for trucking would be nearly impossible. Border patrol would be chaos. 4) US Dollar; if Texas is independant, like any independant country it needs it's own currency...which wouldnt be worth much! Killing the texas economy. Unless it assumes that the US would allow Texas to use it's currency..though why it would allow this after point 1 is beyond me. Finally, my Opponents Greivances are More Against Certain Public Policy Than Texas Sucession.My opponent talks about gun rights, taxation, and homosexuality to justify his position for Texas to leave... LOLwut? While he may disagree with those public policies, those are vastly different than the situation of Texas sucession. They have nothing to do with the question of Texas being able to leave the union. My Opponents Claims Are BaselessFor instance he seems to dream of Texas as this utopic society that just works..but this isn't true. For instance, the state in Texas does not allow for womens tampons in office, and Texas also continues to utilize the death penalty. How this isn't a gross violation of civil rights is beyond me; clearly this is not the utopia my opponent is looking for. Thank you--The Hitchslap.
Texas should secede from the U.S.

I feel like it doesn't really matter what is and what isn't constitutional anymore. The USA is spying on all of us and torturing people for information, so, leaving the USA might be the best thing for Texas. The US is stealing from it's citizens with taxes, and by seceding, Texas would eliminate all taxes, and they wouldn't try to steal our guns from us. What will happen when the US (inevitably) takes away guns from it's citizens, and a lunatic gets a hold of one and shoots up a school? If Texas seceded, everyone would have a gun, and lunatics would be too scared to use their violence towards us. I also feel like celebrities pretty much run this nation now, along with the government, so with the attraction for them in Texas, that will lead to a major problem. Hollywood will be under water in 50-100 years, and by seceding, celebrities will leave California and come to Texas. Once Texas takes in the movie and music industry, they'll be making billions of dollars a year, leading to a balanced budget. By seceding Texas will be a successful, safe, tax-free nation. A nation that will last many years after America has fallen.
Texas should secede from the U.S.

I couldn't resist this topic, being from Canada where not too long ago Quebec tried to succeed unilaterally. I am American, and it still baffles my mind that they tried to succeed. So alright here goes... The question here is not if Texas would survive on it's own, but rather, can Texas LEGALLY succeed from the Union ... Texas Succession Would Be Unconstitutional! In the court case of Texas V White, the supreme court ruled that indeed Texas never succeeded, and in fact succession would have been unconstitutional. -http://en.wikipedia.org... This is not what the Founding Fathers Wanted! As was noted earlier, the founding fathers wanted to bring about a "more perfect union", and these choice of wordings makes any attempts at leaving in a legal manner null-and-void. Drake, Selena Gomez, and the Kardashians Have Nothing to do with this Debate...pretty straight foreward. This is not an argument for texas succession, this is just a footnote of pop culture which is irrelevant,the question this individual raised was can Texas succession occur in a legal manner. This adds nothing to the debate Finally, my Oppponents Subjective Opinions Have No Bearing of Texas Succession...homosexuality also has nothing to do with this debate. Your views on gays is for another topic. Not this one, and it bothers me sir that you openly espouce a hatred for a minority to emphasize your own views. For more information watch the CPG Grey Video. http://www.youtube.com...due to the video's contetnt, and the fact that my opponent has allowed for a 10k character limit, I think I shall stop my arguments here and turn it over to my opponent, less I get accused of circumventing the DDO character limit. Thank you--The Hitchslap.
Texas should secede from the U.S.

Texas is a lively state, and brings in more money for the U.S. than any other state. Rick Perry has been a great governor, and the only reason he didn't become the president is because God wanted Texas to secede with him leading it. With all the Mexican labor in Texas it doesn't cost a lot of money to get things done, as the real citizens can go take real jobs while the immigrants work for minimum wage cleaning and cooking. Also, with cities like Houston, Austin and Dallas, celebrities love to go to Texas, like Matthew McConaughey, Drake, Selena Gomez, Klohe Kardashian etc. And with the republican leadership they'd be keeping all the dirt and filth from entering Texas that the United States seems to want to allow in (I mean homosexuals).
Texas should secede from the U.S.

Okay, I'm convinced at this point my opponent is simply trying to troll me and is no longer willing to take this debate seriously. Which is disappointing, as I was waiting for a formable foe to fight with. I shall repeat: none of this has to do with the legal ability of Texas being able to leave the Union. As such, I shall wait until my opponeent puts forth an argument pertaining to this and only this. Till then do not waste my time. Thank you
Texas should secede from the U.S.

No Country for Old Men, Apollo 13, Boys Don't Cry. All filmed in, wait for it, Texas. Did you know that Texas generates $120 million each year from movies? They make another $95 million from music. Also, 87.5% of statistics are made up. My point is, Texas makes money from the entertainment industry. Each year Texas generates $141 million from the Patrick Swayze fund, a charity organization Swayze started before his death. Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have both promised to donate a large portion of their net worth to Texas after they pass. Texas makes tons of money, taxes will not be an issue, making the citizen even happier than they are now. By seceding the suicide rates in Texas are expected to drop a rapid 72% by 2050. They already have the lowest suicide rate in the nation. Also, by seceding, this would allow Roman Polanski to come back to Hollywood, which will be located in Texas, and film movies with A-list actors such as Bradley Pitt, Rob Down J. and Brad Cooper. Also, the final words JFK ever heard were "Texas loves you."
The U.S. is not prepared for the next terrorist attack which will kill or injure 10 or more people

The U.S. is already preparedThe reactionary events aren't the preparation. They are what creates the preparation. The United States has a shield that deters attacks that says: "If you attack us, we are going to either continue attacking or start attacking you back, and we will do so with hundredfold vengeance."My point is that the U.S. has that shield. I think teh intervention history of the United States is a preparatory shield of its own.What is prepared?So your first complaint about preparedness is that the SWAT and police equipment is worse than those of threatening attackers and some terrorists. Based on this, teachers getting armed with handguns and stuff like that won't do anything for preparedness. If the SWAT and police equipment is worse, then the handguns are definitely useless. Based on your first example, to be prepared every 'responsible adult' should carry military grade weapons. That's impossible. And handguns are useless because handguns are worse than SWAT and police stuff. SWAT and police stuff in turn are worse than military grade and terrorist stuff, based on what you said in the first place.We can't possibly 'prepare' every single vulnerable part of the U.S.How many buildings do we have in the U.S.? My guess is that we have millions. There is about 10 million kilometers of land in the U.S. with people spread all over it. We literally do not have the resources or capital to fund 'preparing' every spot or even every facet of populated areas. Our economy would collapse. Congress will not pass such a stupid bill. We are as prepared as we can get.So basically, the handgun suggestion doesn't make sense since the problem you were talking about is that of lacking weapon technology of SWAT and police when compared to that of military & terrorists.The U.S. already has a layter of preparation and I think it is enough.Plus, it's impossible to really be prepared.
The U.S. is not prepared for the next terrorist attack which will kill or injure 10 or more people

The examples you gave are reactions to events, which is not "prepared" and forward thinking. Most of our schools have no better security and are still easily accessed. After 9/11 they decided to reinforce cockpits, added security etc. things Israel had been doing since the 70's. Recall the Olympic park bombing in Atlanta and yet what measures (reactions) came from that? I would say none, hence the Boston marathon. How many sleeper cells have entered the U.S. through our southern border? What have we done to stop this? These people are ready and willing to die in order to kill us too, bombing is a set back at best not a deterrent. Why where (and probably in most places still are) the police so horribly unprepared? Are the police receiving updated and better training for such possible events? I would say no as not a single source has report such. However I will admit that Texas (I believe) is arming their teachers with guns that fire non lethal bullets. If that was country wide that would be prepared based on a reaction, however that is not the case. Even recently the news are reports of new ways terrorist may get bomb making materials onto planes without detection. Does anyone think they weren't already trying years ago? After the Oklahoma bombing, barriers were placed by Federal buildings to prevent a similar event, but not schools and hospitals. Why? Do you call that prepared? Has the cabin access to planes been re-evaluated? If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
The U.S. is not prepared for the next terrorist attack which will kill or injure 10 or more people

The U.S. is already prepared.The U.S. has shown time and again its willingness to respond quickly and terribly to acts of war or 'terrorsim' in its territories. During WW2, the U.S. has largely stayed out of the war until Japan attempted that strategic bombing on Pearl Harbor to dissuade the U.S. from effectively interfering with Japanese conquest. Sadly for the Japanese, this attack was just what the United States needed to justify a war of attrition on Japan. That single strike, a strategic misplay by the Japanese, had the U.S. putting millions of dollars and hoards of troops, fighters, and subs into the Pacific arena along with the dropping of two entire atomic bombs on Japan's city's.The terrorism act of 9/11 was very similar in that those trying to dominate the middle eastern stage were trying to dissuade the Americans from interfering since the United States really has had a long history of intervention in country after country, conflict after conflict. Guess what happened? President George Bush easily attained Congress's war declaration and the U.S. The attack on the twin towers was just what the U.S. needed to justify directing trillions into annual war operations. The world trade center was damaged and a number of people died, but that is nothing compared to the terrible retribution the U.S. visited onto the Middle Eastern radicals.The U.S. is already prepared. No sane terrorist strategist would attack American soil because every single act of terror on American soil meant thousandfold comeuppance from the largest military power in the world. The United States far outspends all other nations in terms of military, even a country that is mostly military such as North Korea has spent less than the United States. Think about that.What is prepared to you?Howd do we know when we are prepared enough? Military gear is expensive, and we don't have either the support or the funds to pay for military level protection in all areas of the United States. We've already spent trillions on the military. We're in a debt of about 20 trillion dollars. When does preparedness outstrip practical application of preparedness? I think based on your standard on comparing our SWAT gear with military gear, the U.S. can never be prepared enough. There will always be some part of the United States that is vulnerable to attack. That's why I say that we are as prepared as we can probably be.
The U.S. is not prepared for the next terrorist attack which will kill or injure 10 or more people

In in wake of what happened in Paris and similar past events, the U.S. is not prepared to prevent or adequately respond to a similar event on U.S. soil. "Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn said that Border Patrol officers have told her illegals of 75 different nationalities have been arrested after crossing the Rio Grande." http://www.Newsmax.com... We do not have adequate border control. We celebrate in large groups where people can come and go freely. (Boston marathon) While these where not terrorist http://en.wikipedia.org... "The ineffectiveness of the standard police patrol pistols and shotguns in penetrating the robbers' body armor led to a trend in the United States (including cities such as Miami) toward arming selected police patrol officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower such as semi-automatic 5.56 mm AR-15 type rifles. SWAT teams, whose close quarters battle weaponry usually consisted of submachine guns that fired pistol cartridges such as the Heckler & Koch MP5, began supplementing them with AR-15-based assault rifles and carbines."The ineffectiveness of the standard police patrol pistols and shotguns in penetrating the robbers' body armor led to a trend in the United States (including cities such as Miami) toward arming selected police patrol officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower such as semi-automatic 5.56 mm AR-15 type rifles. SWAT teams, whose close quarters battle weaponry usually consisted of submachine guns that fired pistol cartridges such as the Heckler & Koch MP5, began supplementing them with AR-15-based assault rifles and carbines.http://en.wikipedia.org...