BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92

1. I am "working within the system" and supporting Ron Paul for president on the Republican Party ticket. How is that NOT "working within the system"? But yes, if he chooses to run as a third-party or independent candidate, I will vote for him in that capacity, just as 10% of the white male population voted against slavery and for Martin Van Buren in 1848. Did this NOT help bring about slavery's ultimate demise? I think it did. The Founding Fathers did not work "within the system" when they seceded from the British Empire. Ron Paul's candidacy may be the last hope for the "system," and after that, other avenues may need to be explored. 2. The parties are the same, as I've illustrated. What is the difference between the parties on fiat money creation? Zero. This is the engine of big government, and they're both 100% on board. Historically, the dominant factions in American politics have been a Hamiltionian centralist party (the Federalists, the Whigs, the early Republicans), and a Jeffersonian "state's rights" party (the original Jeffersonian Republicans, the Jacksonian Democrats, parts of the post-Civil War Democratic Party). But beginning with William Jennings Bryan's ascendenscy over Grover Cleveland, and then Wilson's election in 1912, there have been two Hamiltonian factions with very little difference between the two. I will not vote for a fiat-money candidate bought and paid for by the Wall Street bankers. 3. Is everybody but Paul corrupt? That depends on your definition. Some of the others may not know they're corrupt -- they may not understand the nature of central banking, etc. But yes, everyone who buys into and politically profits from the fiat-money counterfeiters is corrupt. Just look at the top contributors of all the major candidates, except Paul. They are investment banks. You think "Islam" is the greatest danger to the country -- this blinds you to the ongoing theft being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve System. If you fail to grasp the importance of this issue, then you can inflate the tiny differences between the two parties. But if you recognize that monopolistic control of the money supply and debasement of the currency trump everything else, then you would see that Ron Paul is the only candidate worth voting for. It just so happens that he's right on all the other issues, too. I need to address something you said in Round 2: You think Ron Paul wants to put himself in charge and do things "by fiat"? Nothing could be further from the truth! Virtually every president since Lincoln has expanded the power of the presidency. Ron Paul would be the first since Grover Cleveland (the best president ever, by the way) to actively work to REDUCE the power of the executive branch and return it to the Congress, the states, and the people. But he would use the power of the veto to slash spending and taxes, and he would use his power as commander in chief to end U.S. imperialism. These are things the Constitution empowers him to do.
Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92

You didnt address the point about having to work WITHIN the system that we have now in order to effect actual changes rather than having your opinion, and laong with a few thousand others , throwing away a protest vote, and then going back to being ineffective from your narrow minded and self-righteous perspective, the parties are the same This could not be further from the truth But now I change tact It could be argued that there will be more liberals and democrats that would vote for Paul if he runs 3rd party and as far as your points go is everybody EXCEPT Ron Paul corrupt ? Is HE ALONE , like JESUS H CHRIST, the ONLY one who is pure as the wind driven snow? I dont supppose I really understand your fervor for this average man which good but not that unusual ideas? and do you really think Paul will get millions of votes as a 3rd party? This should be a fun year to watch cheers
Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92

I just read today that Mr Paul is NOT ruling out running as a thrid party candidate Hot off the presses http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... When Tim Russert of NBC's 'Meet the Press' asked the Texas congressman if he'd consider an independent bid, he replied: "I have no intention of doing that." When pressed by Russert to state unequivocally that he would not, Paul demurred. "I deserve one weasel wiggle now and then, Tim!" Paul lost to Phil Gramm in the 1984 Texas Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Four years later, he ran for president as the Libertarian Party nominee. The Republican presidential contender — who has an intensely loyal national following — is pulling in record fundraising sums, prompting speculation that he may continue his White House bid even if he does not fare well among Republican primary voters. Paul is currently averaging single-digit showings in most recent surveys of GOP voters nationally and in early-voting states. Now this is obviously in part wishful thinking by the evil Clinton News Network, which shamelessly shills for democraps and demonizes republicans- they hope they can get another Clinton in with 43% by running a 3rd party that will get alot of votes (ie 10% ) - thinking since he running now as an (R) OF COURSE he will siphon more (R) votes I think that is correct The question is- will he garner more liberal or conservative votes? More republican or democrat? Will he run as a libertarian? Now , Clsmooth, I know YOU would vote for him no matter what (you even said you would write him in rather than vote for Thompson) that being said, the damage that results from democrats being in charge is SO enormous, ESPECIALLY the corrupt Clintons, that I think anyone foolish enough to fall for this ploy again has to have their head examined Clsmooth- want to take this on?
The United States Of America Was Not Founded On Christian Principles.

The Constitution is, in no way, Specifically based upon Christian values. Christian is reffered to as anything within the Catholic/Protestant churches and therefore, are limited to the teaches hence. In the following two contentions I will attempt to Prove that The USA was not founded on Christian Principles. 1> There is a difference between basic human morals and Christian Principles. A)Anyone can have the basic influence of fear when it comes to something immoral or indecent and is given through consequence. Therefore, to say that Christian Principles are involved when laws have been set in writing about things such as killing or stealing since Hamurabi's time is illogical. B> Human morals are often set in place due to what society is contributing and are irreligiously set unles set about within a Christian home. 2> The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity. A)This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments. B)Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence: C)Thomas Paine once wrote in "The age of Reason", "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." From: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY) Therefore, I amend to you that, through preexisting morals and the lack of Christian Founding Fathers, America was not Founded on Christian Principles.
Public school should be done away with.

This country absolutely needs public education. To start off, if tax dollars are invested into public schools, it is done so as an investment. The more educated that the population is, the more we will have higher paying jobs, which in turn will lead to more tax dollars raised, and less people needing government assistance for basic living necessities. As far as private schools filling the gaps, as it is, we are already living under high socioeconomic inequality. Removing public education would only widen the gap because I am sure not everyone would be able to afford private school. If they couldn't afford it, parents could educate the children themselves, but in some cases, the lack the education or knowledge would not permit it. In addition to this, many households nowadays are dual income, which would also make it really difficult for parents to educate children themselves. To make things worse, by removing public schools in their entirety, you would successfully remove thousands, if not millions of employment opportunities from the job market, thus cut down tax revenue even further.
Public school should be done away with.

Parents should be 100% responsible for the education of their children. No tax dollars should go to education at all. Public school should be eliminated and private schools can fill in the gaps. Then if they get shot up people can sue the school and close it down. Why is education even taken care of by the government? Is food given out at state sponsored health clinics?Oh that's right, they "educate" your kids so they can brainwash them into mindless drones, like you...lol. END PUBLIC SCHOOL!!
sean hannity is americas superhero

" well without things having to be so literal, i still claim sean hannity is americas super hero for all the reasons above. " Unfortunately, debate resolutions have exact (literal) meanings. So, a situation without that fact is irrelevant :). " My opponent just argues me on how he is not a superhero because he has no powers. " Incorrect. He has plenty of powers, it's just that none of them are SUPERHUMAN powers. " Of course there is no such thing as real people with super powers and my opponent knows this. however he keeps arguing the same thing." And you keep arguing things irrelevant to the resolution. " Obviously since that its impossible for sean hannity to actually have super powers, i still hold claim to my beginning arguments. My opponent knew what was meant by the resolution and is now arguing, rather absurd points. (no offence) " The only thing that can be "meant by a resolution" is what the words in the resolution mean. You can have different intentions, but the fact that the words don't match them is your failure, not mine. When a resolution is absurd, the points in relation to it are also absurd :)
sean hannity is americas superhero

well without things having to be so literal, i still claim sean hannity is americas super hero for all the reasons above. My opponent just argues me on how he is not a superhero because he has no powers. Of course there is no such thing as real people with super powers and my opponent knows this. however he keeps arguing the same thing. Obviously since that its impossible for sean hannity to actually have super powers, i still hold claim to my beginning arguments. My opponent knew what was meant by the resolution and is now arguing, rather absurd points. (no offence)
sean hannity is americas superhero

"i am talking about REAL heroes here." *Ragnar checks the resolution.* "sean hannity is americas superhero" Hmm... I see superhero, I don't see anything about REAL heroes... Does anyone else see anything about real heroes in the resolution? " Every one has their own personal super heroes in their life, such as perents, or inspiring people etc. Sean hannity i feel is doing america a favor every day when he brings inspiration the peoples minds. By arguing with people he helps them better see their mistakes and helps input change into their lives.' I argue with people. That's not superhuman, that's just human. Heroic or no, it's definitely not superheroic. " Sean hannity is a saint among the people of our country. " Why are you insulting the man by comparing him to a bunch of people who died for myths (the "saints")? Especially when you wish to prove his superheroism, which, it happens, you are failing at remarkably? " these are all his 'super powers'" *Looks* Nope, no superpowers here. Human powers, sure. Nothing super. Not even duper!
sean hannity is americas superhero

i am talking about REAL heroes here. the people who make life better all around the world. Every one has their own personal super heroes in their life, such as perents, or inspiring people etc. Sean hannity i feel is doing america a favor every day when he brings inspiration the peoples minds. By arguing with people he helps them better see their mistakes and helps input change into their lives. Sean hannity is a saint among the people of our country. these are all his 'super powers'
sean hannity is americas superhero

"Dictionary: superhero (sū'pər-hï¿½r'ō) pronunciation Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary n., pl. -roes. A figure, especially in a comic strip or cartoon, endowed with superhuman powers and usually portrayed as fighting evil or crime." "A superhero (sometimes rendered super-hero or super hero) is a fictional character "of unprecedented physical prowess dedicated to acts of derring-do in the public interest" http://en.wikipedia.org... Please display Sean hannity's superhuman powers, and/or fictional status. Furthermore, America already has a superhero. http://en.wikipedia.org... So he would be but one of plural American superheroes were a superhero. The resolution implies singularity. *yawns*
cell phones should be allowed in school

His rebuttal to my argumentative framework is by restating the resolution, the framework I give you simply provides us the means to evaluate arguments upholding or negating said resolution - he asserts we should take arguments as at-face points automatically linking in to the resolution, whereas I give you sound logical reasoning for why we only evaluate certain types of arguments. Mango juice being tasty, and cell phones falling into mango juice making it undrinkable is not a sufficient reason to negate the resolution, just as arguments that do not have impact to how a student learns are not sufficient reason to affirm or negate. The calculator point can be dropped. Cell phones provide a rudimentary calculator and most, if not all schools provide calculators in math class that are 100x (not an overestimation) more advanced. K, so there's four points floating about in the round. 1. Emergencies. He fails to rebut my refutation to this point, so you can assume this point is dropped and no longer supports an affirmative ballot. 2. Distractions. Same as before, this point was never addressed. Now since he never links into my framework, nor does he adequately refute it we're going to assume that framework still stands (otherwise we can't really evaluate this debate). At that point, this contention provides clear link to how cell phones hinder the ability to teach, and the negative (by advocating they should not be allowed) gives you direct benefits, while the affirmative never counters these points. At that point, the Con is winning quantitatively. 3. Cheating. He attacks this point... but not with good reasoning. I say that they know the answer to the test, but their retention of answers that are not memorized but rather acquired via text message and then copied onto a sheet of paper is minimal, if any retention exists at all. Moreover, cheating provides no adequate means of fixing a student's problem areas, a point i outlined originally that was never addressed. 4. Easier access to internet. 1 - This doesn't link into the argumentative framework. 2 - Same logic as the calculator point; the internet on cell phones is rudimentary, providing no real benefit. 3 - Moreover if you can have a cell phone AND pay for internet access on that phone, the 9.95 for the first three months Vonage deal seems to be within your grasp. 4 - It distracts from school by providing another incentive not to pay attention, meaning that you teach kids better without phones because of this point. 5 - It encourages cheating, carry across the harms of cheating I outline earlier. The Con presents 3 clear harms of cell phones, and how they impact to the framework of teaching students. The pro gives you 3 incoherent reasons that either do not impact or provide negative impacts to affirming. This debate having drawn to a close, I see no clear ballot accept a Con one. Thanks.
cell phones should be allowed in school

First et me point out that debate says cell phones should be allowed in school. But today most cell phones have calculators in them so since they do the cell phones would not hinder them from learning. But in turn help them learn. Because the debate is about cell phones should be allowed in school my points did help my argument. My opponent disagrees. Why because he knows it is relevant. the Debate is cell phone should be allowed in school not cell phone stop kids from learning. so my opponent is at fault not me. I must argue why they should be allowed, and i shall. 1. they help kids learn lets take cheating. If they cheat with the phone they still learn. How you may ask. The kid that cheated now knows the answer. So he knows something he did not before. So now he has learned something new. 2. Easier acces to internet Paying for computers and internet for 1000 kids is not cheap. If they have a cell phone most have the ablitiy to go online. So in turn helping the school and its students. so i have shown why they should be allowed in school.
cell phones should be allowed in school

Let me first show that you do have a right to use your cell phone. Say you bring in your new calculator into school. You are allowed to use it right. Same thing with cell phones Since you bought it you have the right to use it where ever you want just like that calculator. So since I showed this my opponents contention 3 does not matter. because it must be both a right and must be hindering the institutions. 1. in an emergency a cell phone used by a student would be quicker then the school calling. As you know there are a large number of students in a school. They can go everywhere. The faculty is a much smaller amount. So obvioulys if an emergency began to happen the students would know first. If they had their cell phone then they can call the authorities and have the problem dealt with.
cell phones should be allowed in school

I negate, "Cell phones should be allowed in school." The reasoning is as follows: 1. Schools are not democratic institutions or governments. They are institutions designed with a specific purpose (just like hospitals, the military etc) and thus they must fulfill those purposes. If a hospital gave patients more liberties but it hindered their ability to save lives, obviously we'd defer to what saves the most lives / what allows them to achieve their goal better. Actions that hinder their progress cannot be allowed, unless it violates their rights. Which leads me to... 2. The right to use a cell phone is not: - A constitutionally guaranteed right. You have the right to own one, just not the right to use one on school grounds. - A human right. Obviously. From the previous two we conclude: 3. Since the USE of cell phones isn't a preordained right, their use can only be measured in whether it hinders the institutions ability to perform it's goal (to teach students.) If that is so, you automatically negate. Obviously from the previous two we draw that schools are empowered to disallow cell phone use, the debate is focused on whether that use is a hindrance or not. So: A)Cell phones hinder the ability to teach through distracting students by spreading communication. Just as if you're perusing the wonderful website debate.org during class, having sex with your girlfriend, playing basketball, or in some other way diverting your attention away from the designated task and towards and alternative your ability to intake information suffers. I do not see what I am not looking at; I only see what I'm focused on. By distracting students they hinder the ability to teach, thus schools are empowered to disallow their use. B)Cell phones revolutionize cheating by adding a human element. Prewritten notes are only as good as the person writing them (i.e. the idiot who NEEDS to cheat.) Human communication allows smarter delinquents to cheat with the dumber ones, artificially inflating scores (so less help is allocated to the students who actually need it), and providing an escape route that means students don't need to actually learn the material. If you don't know where your problem areas are, your teachers don't know and your parents don't know then obviously you can't fix those problems; thus, you don't learn.
Teachers not uderstanding students learning style.should

Well, okay then... My opponent has not actually debated at all in the round. He stated his point, restated it, and then said he wants to impliment it without actually stating arguments in the first place. Therefore, every argument I have stated in the round is counted as true as they were all dropped. So it's pretty much accepted that public schools cannot uphold the resolution, and that it's actually needed for students to be pushed. So yeah, vote neg.