BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If you are prolife (Abortion) then wouldn't you be against the dealth penalty? Pro(Agr) Con(Disag)

If one claims to be pro-life in terms with Abortion then wouldn't you be pro life for everything (i.e. death penalty)? When asked a question about Abortion, which I am against, I considered that I was pro life, but when I thought in depth of what it means to be pro life I thought: Would I be against the death penalty also, since it's the act or killing a human for a crime they've committed (not word-by-word definition)?
Minumium wage is wrong and is bad

But it costs the empolers so they cant pay as much. Its a negative feedback loop. Bachman said so. So did forbes. Why not just make the minimum $50? It would eleminate poverty. "Supporters of raising the minimum cite poorly done studies by agenda driven "research" groups that allege to show that raising the minimum doesn"t harm employment. This defines common sense and is not supported by good academic research. The Law of Demand always works: the higher the price of anything, the less that will be taken, and this includes labor." http://www.forbes.com... More proof in there Yes the first amendment has restrictions. You cant yell fire in a crouded theater. But the supreme court has never said anything about restircting it with the minimum wage! It doesn't make threats or anything or treason.
Minumium wage is wrong and is bad

This gives me an opportunity to address one of the myths that seems to be connected to the minimum wage. .. which is that it kills jobs and retards employment. I will also discuss whether or not it violates the First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble, to petition for redress of grievances, to determine one's own spiritual path and press freedoms. Being only a three round debate, I think that I should provide a brief overview in this round of my position. Overview:Limiting the amount of poverty in the US with a minimum wage helps to protect the health of consumer base, which businesspersons need in order to maintain profits. A healthy minimum wage also helps to protect taxpayers, who must subsidize businesses that pay their employees too little to survive on without welfare. Finally, the minimum wage has been raised many times since its inception, but never has been accompanied by the mass job losses that have always been predicted. It's hard to see how the First Amendment can be used as an argument against the minimum wage. CON states that the inability of an employer to say "I will pay you X" to a worker is an infringement on the free speech rights of that employer. However, the First Amendment has many restrictions that are already established by the Supreme Court as reasonable. These restrictions include laws against treason, threats, libel. counterfeiting and fraud. It seems that entering into illegal contracts would also apply as reasonale restrictions. I look forward to a good debate!
Minumium wage is wrong and is bad

The minimum wage is bad for many reasons. Here's my best two 1. It kills jobs. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachman Bachman is a very credible polition. She wouldn't have stated this if she haden't done intesensive research in the subject, 2. It violates the constitution, First amendemnt say 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 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Making a wage minuimum would spit on the first amendment. Because a boss can't freely say "I'm going to pay you X amount" His speech is restricted to a certain amount, not whatever amount he wants.
It Isn't Wrong to Stay Seated for the National Anthem.

This country was founded on rebelling against Britain, not for the sake of rebelling, but because our fundamental values conflicted with those of Great Britain. Advocating against patriotism and respect for the country does not have to be considered a bad thing, however, advocating against patriotism is advocating for the dissolution of this nation, or a change in its fundamental values. The meaning of a symbol has everything to do with the masses. You would not theoretically protest the government in North Korea using an American flag, you would use symbols that are meaningful to the people who you are trying to convince. IF your intention is to bring attention to a subject, don't use imagery that would alienate your audience. In this way, it hurts your cause which thus makes it nonsensical to do so. Pro claims to be unpatriotic. However, pro fails to demonstrate why this is the case, i.e. which fundamental values of American society that he so vehemently disagrees with. Pro has turned this argument into a personal one. For that, I have no defense. I cannot tell you what your values are, I can only observe the impact specific actions have upon a society. Something 'wrong' to him is simply whatever matches his values. Throughout this debate, I have given multiple perspectives on the impact of kneeling before the national anthem. Since Pro has not brought up any further points I thus conclude my argument.
It Isn't Wrong to Stay Seated for the National Anthem.

Expecting anyone who disagrees with this country to move makes little since. This country was founded on rebelling against Britain, on a very act of being disloyal, this is simply a fact. Even if that wasn't true, in my case I come from a military family most of which is very loyal to the US, and the idea of moving assumes one has loyalty to another country. It is unreasonable to want someone to pack up and move leaving behind there entire life just because they do not agree with this country, nor choose to be loyal to it. The meaning of a symbol has nothing to do with the masses but rather the interpretation is up to the individual. In North Korea the american flag is taught to symbolize violent pigs. Even if you were visiting the country of North Korea, I doubt you would change your views of the flag. Not everyone views the flag as a symbol of unity, I sure know I don't, and for me to stand for that flag, and for the anthem would be a lie and I would feel like a dishonest fool. This debate is two things, relating to philosophy and sports, both of which require opinions to even exist. Both of our opinions matter. The early civil rights groups had their right to use the flag as they wished. They may have chosen to respect and cherish this country, but that doesn't and shouldn't dictate how others show discontent. They might of disagreed with the country but they still held loyalty to it and that's okay. Others don't have that same loyalty and that is okay as well, not everyone has to. The football players may or may not have loyalty to this country, but their point is that they don't believe the country is unified, so they don't want to pretend it is. Not standing for the flag is about as non violent of a protest as you can get, they are hurting no one and nothing, at it's most basic they are not standing up. Just like a countries most basic is a line someone drew in the sand, and at a flag's most basic it is a piece of cloth. Being unpatriotic is not wrong. Disagreeing with your countries values is not wrong. Choosing to not be loyal is not wrong. Sitting down is not wrong. So what could be wrong? For me my loyalty lies to God alone, and I plan to keep it that way. I look forward to the vote. Fin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now of course some of my debate, especially before this round was likely worked up, but let me put it into context as to why. Family and "friends" were complaining about people not standing to the flag on Facebook, saying it's disrespectful to veterans and dead soldiers to not stand for the flag. They probably were not thinking of this, but my father died in Iraq, in saying that they were accusing me of being disrespectful to my own dead father and it is just messed up that I have to hear that idea and be accused of that.
It Isn't Wrong to Stay Seated for the National Anthem.

Pro has brought up his own personal feelings as an argument. I have no way of refuting his arguments because they lack reasoning and are simply opinion based. That being said, Pro's opinions do not matter, and nor do mine. What makes the flag a symbol of unity is not because of the opinion's of two different people, but instead the opinions of the majority of the country. I cannot wave a nazi flag outside and claim that to me it is an icon of peace and love and expect no backlash in return. The only thing that matters here is the effect on the population and society as a whole. People are patriotic because they love their country and the values. To say you are unpatriotic does not only mean you have no loyalty for your countries, but also means you have content for the country's values. IF that is the case, move somewhere else. Patriotism is not blind love for your country, but instead is love for the values of the country, and hope that the conditions may be further improved. Look at the civil rights movement from the sixties. These brave men and women raised the flag high. This didnt mean they thought that this country was perfect; they meant it as a symbol of the values of this country. These people used the flag as a symbol of unity. They did not burn the flag or disrespect the flag. These people were obviously not content with the state of the country, but they did not show discontent by disrespecting patriotic symbols. They used these symbols to their advantage and as support for their cause.
It Isn't Wrong to Stay Seated for the National Anthem.

Why to you is it a symbol of unity? To me it is a symbol of loyalty to the country itself, of which no one should have to be. If someone doesn't want to rise for the flag, it simply shows discontent with the state of the country, and is better than feeling like a lying fraud by standing. Even in the case of sports, no player should feel his personal choice to show discontent is rude. I have not stood for the flag since I was four or five, and I would continue to not stand for the flag regardless of my future employment. For a sports player, the game is their platform and life, they have just as much moral right to express their views in life as any other. There is nothing wrong with being unpatriotic, to say so means that having no loyalty for your country is bad, but if a country has given someone no reason in their mind to be loyal, why is that ever wrong? Loyalty is something meant to be hard won, not something given because of place of birth. This very country was founded on a moment of disloyalty. The act cannot be completely useless, here we are talking about it aren't we? Not standing for the anthem was meant to get people talking and be noticed and that protest seems to of been working so far. I believe instead of getting mad at someone for choosing not to stand up, we should be willing to hear why even if we don't agree.
It Isn't Wrong to Stay Seated for the National Anthem.

In this argument, I will only be arguing the ethical and moral stance of standing for the national anthem. Although the disrespect for our anthem is repulsive to me, obviously people have the legal right to do what they choose when our national anthem plays. MY argument will revolve around two main points: The national anthem creates unnecessary division in an already divided country. Taking a stand against the national anthem is counterproductive The national anthem is a symbol of unity in this greatly divided country. With the rise of extreme partisanship recently, there are not many symbols left that demonstrates unity. Sports have also been a symbol of unity in America. Almost every subject in the U.S. has been unnecessarily politicized, however, traditionally sports have been a place for unity. Although everyone have their favorite sports team, there has been nothing political about tossing a ball around while people from all over the political spectrum can come together to root for their favorite team. The recent events have both politicized sports and the national anthem, tearing us apart further in this time of division. Kneeling during the national anthem is either a political statement or an unpatriotic display; neither of which is defensible. Politicizing the national anthem is wholly unnecessary. There are many opportunities to demonstrate your political views, however having a single point of unification is necessary to hold the country together. These recent events have torn this point in half. Kneeling during the national anthem is an active stance against unity, even though you make it seem as a insignificant act. I may expand on this second argument later if necessary. However it is thus: It is paradoxical to take a stance against a symbol that represents your freedom to take a stance against anything you choose. Because of this, it is hard for people to take your stance seriously when you disrespect the symbols of democracy and freedom. It's hard for people to look past the act of disrespecting the flag and anthem and see your message which makes the whole action meaningless.
Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution

Evolution is not as established or concrete as "1+1=2" and although there is a vast amount of evidence supporting it, evolution is just credible as creationism. Most of evolution is but a theory as to how the universe came to be when most of it"s evidence comes from Carbon-14 dating; it is it not a precise method of calculations due to it"s limitations. "Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years." (http://www.answersingenesis.org...). With such claims as to the Pre-historic era and the Jurassic period, which are dated to be millions of years ago, how are scientists emanating these allegations as to how the world began and has been going about this whole time? Therefore evolution in fact is not at you say "1+1=2". You quoted that " (only 0.15% of scientists accept creationism) and through your citation, it revealed that these "scientists" are but engineers and computer scientists. "However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.)." At the end of the day creationism is but a theory and a belief pertaining to its evidences found just as much as evolution, yet laws like the separation of church and state stigmatize this topic due to its "paradoxical" complex that leads people to believe that all religion is absurd in science. Creationists do not want to replace evolution with creationism in schools, "Not all creationists argue against scientific evidence. Some simply prefer to believe that God had a part in it rather than not knowing. They don"t belittle scientific theory or try to argue against it, they simply want to believe that the large unknown force that caused all life, as we know it was a deity of some kind."
Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution

Creationism, as is commonly pushed by theists, should not be taught in schools along side evolution for one simple reason; creationism (at least Young Earth Creationism) is false. Evolution is true. Think about it this way, would we teach 1 + 1 = 3 "alongside" 1 + 1 = 2? No. Why? Because 1 + 1 = 3 is false, and 1 + 1 = 2 is true. Would we teach that the 41st President of the United States is George Washington "alongside" teaching that it is George Bush? No. Why? Because George Washington being the 41st president is false, and George Bush being the 41st President is true. Similarly, we shouldn't teach Creationism "alongside" Evolution, because Creationism is myth, and Evolution is rooted in scientific evidence. Teaching Creationism alongside with Evolution is like teaching that there existed fairies 65 million years ago along with dinosaurs. Basically, we should not be confusing kids and teaching them things that are wrong (or things we have no good evidence for). I don't want my daughter to learn 1 + 1 = 3 along with 1 + 1 = 2. That is just horrible education. Because Creationism contradicts Evolution, and Evolution is most likley true (only 0.15% of scientists accept creationism [http://www.talkorigins.org...], which is still less than the percentage of Historians who accept that the Holocaust was a hoax!). Would we teach that the Holocaust didn't happen, along side the view that it did happen to our children? Of course not, that is insanity! So, we shouldn't teach something like Creationism, over something scientifically backed up like Evolution. The only polls that count are the polls regarding what the experts say. The public is basically ignorant to scientific matters, so even if support of evolution is low with them, who cares? They aren't the experts...
Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution

Creationism in the United State's school systems is not only frowned upon but also abrogated which begs the question of where this nation"s point of view stands. It seems that double standards and hypocrisy tend to bestow feelings of confusion for the citizens here in America where the very pledge of allegiance mentions not only "god", but also the creator of the world. So why is creationism so low and inferior compared to the concept of evolution? Various opinions bring up strong points but at the end of the day both ideas are rehashed from a hundred year war in the school systems in America. Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the wants and needs of the many out weigh the wants and needs of the few and according to a poll of several thousand Americans, twenty percent believed that only evolution should be taught in schools, and sixteen percent believed that only creationism should be taught. The remainder supported the notion of teaching both: evolution in the science class, and creation in class.
DDO should NOT ban profanity.

Resolved: DDO should NOT ban profanity. DDO- Debate.org (this lovely website we all love so much) to “ban”- make illegal or otherwise preclude/prevent on the forums, in debates or otherwise. Profanity- see definition above Introduction: This is a very simple (practically a joke, but not really) debate. Almost every member in one way or another has used profanity at on point or another. I’m tired of pretending like it isn’t ok. Are you? Argument 1 S1-P1) In order for something to be banned on DDO, the banned activity must cause harm to DDO members. S1-P2) Profanity does not cause harm to DDO members. S1-C) Profanity should not be banned on DDO. Argument 2 S2-P1) In order for something to be banned, the banned activity must not infringe on the spirit of the free exercise of ideas on DDO. S2-P2) Banning profanity infringes on the spirit of the free exercise of ideas on DDO. S2-C) Profanity should not be banned on DDO. Argument 3 S3-P1) If something is banned on DDO, it must be enforceable without undermining the members of the DDO community. S3-P2) Enforcing the banning of profanity undermines the members of the DDO community. S3-C) Profanity should not be banned on DDO. The inevitable conclusion: DDO should not ban profanity.
DDO should NOT ban profanity.

DDO Rules apply. Round 1) Acceptance.Round 2) Opening Arguments.Round 3) Rebuttal to Opening Arguments (i.e. round 2)Round 4) Response to reubttal and Closing Arguments.Stipulations:Profanity for the purposes of this debate shall be limited to "swear" or "curse" words commonly understood to be offensive in the English language including (but not limited to) a**, b****, c***, d***, f***, h***, p*** and etc. including all derivitives of the aforementioned list and combinations therein. Profanity for the purposes of this debate shall not include obscene material, as proscribed by the legal definition of obscenity, persuant to Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). http://scholar.google.com...Arguments should apply to and in no way be interpreted to have effect beyond DDO.Arguments should avoid speculative reasoning.
For- Ssjb vs Con- Ssj4

I have to admit, ssb is incredibly powerful (and canon), but alas, I must fight for what is not right, ssj4. Now, ssj4 is raw power. This is portrayed in his instinctive, beastly transformation. He is closely resembling to an ape because it shows how much potential this form has. SSj4 has a multiplier of 10 times as much power as ssj3. ssj3 has 400 times the power base form does. Taking this into account, 400 times 10 is 4,000 times the strength of base form. which is incredibly powerful. While flying to Namek, Goku trained in 100 times Earth's gravity, which means he was jumping around while weighing around 15000-20000 lbs. Similarly, when Goku was training for the tournament at the beginning of the Buu saga, he was able to (with difficulty) lift 40 tons in his base form, when South Kai changed the weights. Now, imagine several years in the future, about 20 or so worth of training. Goku in base form has surpassed his ssj3 state with ease.
The Confederate Flag should be allowed on school property to repersent Herigate

Pro's arguments from ignorance continue, even when he is posting his concluding remarks. For example: His argument that he can legally post his flag all over the back of his pickup truck has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. The question isn't one of legality (clearly if the school board condemns an act - it's not legal), nor if pickup trucks should be bedecked with racist propaganda. The issue at hand, the very issue my opponent raised (and apparently forgot) is whether or not confederate flags should fly on school property. I have already raised every concern which one reasonably can, and I'd like to chime in that my opponent clearly knew them before the start of this debate. I will restate my basic premise one more time: Freedom of speech isn't absolute. There are many, many things which will get you thrown out of campus, expelled, and possibly jailed. For example: Stating what one would do to another student with their shotgun, these days would at a bare minimum get you banned from campus for life, and possibly land you a nice vacation at the local county jail for a few weeks. The idea that one's personal version of "heritage" somehow trumps the history of racism, race violence, and segregation - all of which are represented by the confederate flag - is absolutely ludicrous. If we were to follow my opponent's advice, there would be absolutely no limitations on anything anyone can wear, say, do, to each other in full view of every classmate, teacher, and parent. And believe me - there are plenty of "funny" things to choose from: Sexism, Racism, Antisemitism, and so on. The fact is, every school has a dress code. Every school has a code of conduct. Every school places a minimum required level of civility in front of every student. If you can't follow it, stay out. Schools time and time again have shown that they can (legally) permanently expel students for breaking this social contract. And we all know that this is necessary. People like my opponent would show up with flags one day, offensive T-Shirts the next, combat boots and shaved heads the day after that, printed images of bombs strapped to their bodies the day after that, and by Friday the entire school would be reduced to a campus of fist fights, lawsuits, and PTA meetings. The primary goal of school is education. Unfortunately for my opponent, making a mockery of 150 years of slavery, segregation, and racial unrest by calling it "heritage" isn't going to make that possible. Vote what you know is right - VOTE CON. It's common sense, and common decency.