BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flag burning should be banned.

Okay, so I'm going to skip around a little bit on my arguments. For starters, on your Constitutional argument, I'll agree that the Constitution is just as much as a symbol as the flag as you had mentioned in your last speech. I have two things on this 1. Supreme Court cases can be overturned at later periods if more evidence has been brought up to change the Supreme Court's mind. 2. Since the Constitution is a symbol of America, do you think it right to burn that as a protest? No! The Constitution is a symbol of America, just like the flag, and that is why the government has put it under two inches of bulletproof glass to protect it. That is also why we have restrictions on when the flag may be displayed, to honor a great American symbol. The flag may only be displayed between sunrise and sunset, cannot be placed outside in bad weather, etc. What you don't seem to be understanding is that these laws have been put in place because people that lead our country are so dedicated to what it stands for, that they are willing to give up a minor freedom to honor the most free country on Earth. Another thing is that we will never be 100% free. We will always have to give up freedoms to receive things, such as protection, in return. In every aspect of this country, we are not completely free. As a nation, the United States of America has been giving it's citizens as many freedoms as we possibly can, but if we were all completely free, anarchy would run loose in the streets. Furthermore, never is the Constitution followed to the last exact word. For instance, the Constitution allows for separation of church and state, yet politicians are still influenced by their religion. By now, you must see that this does not come completely down to a legal issue, but mostly a moral issue. If people people are angered, hurt or victimized by this, then it would be okay, but is it still okay? No, although we've been talking legal, it's more a matter of principle and that is what the government is standing up for. Finally, if other methods of protests are better, than flag burning shouldn't be a big deal. However, you mention that people should just be allowed and if they aren't they'll go rushing and buy some flags to burn. This is a completely ridiculous argument for two main reasons 1. Most people will have enough sense not to burn the flag because they know this is morally wrong and 2. When drunk driving became an issue, did people just go out and start drinking while driving? No, of course there are some instances here and there, but people didn't go out of their way to drink and drive. However, this isn't really even an issue in this debate. If flag burning were to be banned, then those people to run out and burn flags would get in trouble, and, as all laws in the past, would eventually become part of our society; something that we just expect. I thank you very much for this debate.
Flag burning should be banned.

Like you said, the flag is a symbol of America. It is also a symbol of our freedom, it is a tribute to those who have fought on behalf of our great nation, it is a symbol to those who have died to give you the right to protest in the first place. If you burn the flag, you not only burn the spirit of our nation, but you dishonor those who have defended your right to say such things. If you think that you are just burning a piece of cloth, you're wrong! You're burning our history. Flag burning was originally done by enemy nations who wanted to threaten and possibly attack the US. Today, terrorists are the main ones to burn the American flag. Do you really want to be associated with terrorists? They burn it because they want to destroy the freedom that we are trying to promote. I'm not necessarily calling you a terrorist, but if you are willing to burn our history, then you might as well leave the country. A true American wouldn't burn the flag after all that has happened to our nation. During trying times, the American Revolution was the creation of the American flag. In the War of 1812, as our National Anthem was being written, all Francis Scott Key could see was the American flag. Even during the Civil War, we managed to preserve the symbol of freedom. It has even endured two world wars. People can ignore books or even the news, but if they are walking by in the streets and see you burning the flag, they can't just ignore that. And thin skin? Are seriously going to advocate that? Like I said, most people associate flag burning with terrorism. If people walk by, they may feel unsafe. Also, it is a disgrace and most people would agree. If you say no victim and truly believe it, you are no true Patriot. There are victims, whether you are willing to acknowledge them or not. But even like you said, this is just to raise awareness. So, what's wrong with picketing? Strikes? Or even just raising awareness through talking with others? Why do you honestly feel the need to burn the symbol of America just to raise awareness. Furthermore, your problems will actually increase with this. If people see you burning a flag, is that going to raise positive or negative attention? You, and anyone who reads this, must see that there are better, more positive and effective means of protesting. Finally, when you said that we have laws against libel and slander, we have them to protect people's reputation. If the US government doesn't stand up for itself, others will see that we just let our citizens do whatever, if we give up one issue, it will lead to another and another until no law exists. Again, you must see that a law banning flag burning is to protect a reputation, the reputation of America. Between true Americans, those who fight for our country, and our government itself, there are victims of this, and thus, it should be illegal.
Flag burning should be banned.

Hi there. I've never debated anyone on this before but we'll see how it goes. 1. "It doesn't hurt anyone and can be an effective method of protest." First of all, it hurts the morale of the American people. Although no one is physically hurt from this, psychologically, it may have tolls on the conscience of people. Secondly, for what kind of protest would it be effective on? Anti-America? If you don't like this country and our ways, then get out and this won't be a problem. You can burn the flag all you want. If you're Anti-Bush, that's fine, but he's still the leader of our country and we must support him. Any protest you want, flag burning isn't a reasonable means of solving anything. 2. "Banning flag-burning violates the first [amendment]." There are limits to any rights we may have. For example, if I were to say "I'm going to kill the President," I would have broken the law because, although I'm guaranteed freedom of speech, saying that is just wrong. That's why we have laws against libel and slander, it violate both freedom of speech and press, but if it's untrue, then it shouldn't be said. If a victim is seen, then yes, it is a crime. 3. "Although burning the flag can be considered disrespectful, that does not mean it should be illegal." Flag burning is extremely disrespectful, but, as with all laws, if there is a victim, there should be a crime. In a perfect world, nobody would be a victim, therefore, we should be striving towards the ultimate goal of a better society. Thus, I stand that flag burning should be banned, should be illegal. I await your rebuttal. Thank you
Anarchism has failed to supply an adequate reason for abolishing the state.

Alright, so, in hindsight, I failed to reach the criteria of the debate, so I will try once again to explain a good reason for Anarchism to reign supreme, then I will reply to my opponent replying to me. Now, the reason I believe in it is that government is slow to act. The system, atleast in the US, where I hail from, is slow to pass any law or act unless it is brought on by an attack on the motherland. Beyond that, government is big and unwieldy. It has many branches and facets. Hundreds of little voices shouting out for democracy, which is reason enough for anyone to want to let it take a hike. Any system that is decided by the members of the system will automatically be slow and will always act in the interest of the majority, or in their opinion of the minority. Now, about your arguments Do I believe that every human being knows right from wrong? Yes. Do I think they will all act on those notions: no. And I don't think it makes me pretentious to believe that a civilian police force would arise. Do I think citizens can defend themselves as well as an armed force? Well, how about this: in the American Revolution, the American forces were mostly unorganized, working with limited ammunition and guns versus a very well equipped British force. What did that teach us? Knowledge of terrain can compensate for formal training. I believe the same would happen again Now, the need for working with criminal families would drop as well. People went to them to obtain objects they couldn't get lawfully. So, eliminate the laws, eliminate lawlessness. That's not much an argument, so I'll move on Anarchism is not a step backwards. It's a blind step forward. It's human interaction at its quintessence. Humans will interact with each other completly by their own merits, and will have to live with the result of that Now, you described governments most important job to be security. Security from what? And natural obligation is fruity wording for doing what's right. Granted, I disown that statement, so nevermind ============================ Conclusion ============================ A strong reason to go to anarchism is to eliminate the middle man of government. It lets people to be free to do what they want, and have to accpet the concequences of their actions. This is how we learn things, as seen when we tried things as kids.
Anarchism has failed to supply an adequate reason for abolishing the state.

Now, the appeal of government-free society is not really about there being no government. It is no established government. It is a state in which all law is upheld by the people in the state without obligation. That they will develop as they see it without being told. Now, in your argument, you said that crime will skyrocket. Do you believe that the owners of property will not protect it? In the beginning, there will be chaos. But from chaos comes order. The owners or property protect it and gang together. Police and citizens will work hand in hand to protect each other, not from law saying so, but out of natural obligation. ========= Conclusion ========= Anarchy is a misunderstood term, seemingly always associated with chaos and destruction. Know that the point of anarchy isn't no law, but self law. For citizens to be able to govern themselves and not be told right and wrong, because they already know it.
Anarchism has failed to supply an adequate reason for abolishing the state.

So for this round, I will first simply define the key terms and concepts. If my opponent has suggestions/revisions, I advise him to say this in the comment sections as to avoid wasting rounds. Then, I will provide a brief argument against anarchism in general. ==================== Definitions ==================== [Anarchism] [. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. " [Abolish] [. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "To do away with; annul. " [State] [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] "A politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character " ==================== Argument against Anarchism ==================== Anarchism, in a purely idealistic sense, is the most preferable system. After all, with maximum freedom and no oppression from the state the concept itself sounds quite appealing. However, pragmatically anarchism is doomed to failure. This is because it is in human nature to generally be selfish. People will hurt others, and this is a problem that will probably never be cured. Conflicts will arise, people will bicker, and crimes will run rampant. This is where the government comes in. Three primary roles of government are security, allocation of resources, and conflict resolution. Of course, you can give or take one of these roles, but the one most would agree on is the first one - security. At a very bare minimum, a country should provide security for it's citizens. This is to instill peace and order and prevent those who wish to do harm to get away with it. So why is anarchism a failed political system? Because pragmatically it has no way to properly or as effectively deal with conflicts as the state can. Criminals can run loose with a much less fear of being caught, meaning crime will skyrocket. Gangs and criminal organizations will become the top dogs in society because they will likely have the greatest power in terms of deadly force. In the end, anarchism reduces humanity to a literal survival of the fittest - a brutish condition that rational humans have long left, and rightfully so. =============== Conclusion =============== The rest should be pretty straightforwards - semantics is not allowed. Basically, I'm saying the rationale for anarchism, whether it be for moral reasons, practical reasons, or a mixture of both is inadequate to justify anarchism. Even if anarchy can be shown to be a coherently ethical political philosophy, it is pragmatically doomed to failure. So even if it can justify the former, without having the latter secured anarchists have yet to supply an adequate reason for abolishing the state. I implore my opponent to offer such a reason.
Faith is Dangerous

My opponent has completely misunderstood the relative comparison that I have brought up. What we need to see here is that if everything is dangerous, then nothing is dangerous unless there is something that is more dangerous than everything else. For example, if everybody was "smart" and had an IQ of 120 then if someone had an IQ of 120, it wouldn't be considered smart, they would just be average. Only when someone's IQ is above 120 will they be considered "smart." Similarly, since human nature is dangerous, and human nature causes the violence done in the name of faith, then faith is in fact no more dangerous than anything else. It is in a sense the "average" of danger. Only when something exceeds the dangers of human nature is it considered "dangerous" such as genocide. Also, my opponent is assuming that all faith is "blind" faith. However, there are many pieces of evidence that are needed to justify a person's beliefs in many cases such as intelligent design. My opponent also failed to respond to the logic that I pointed out which said that many faiths have nothing to do with violence, in fact, Christianity which is the largest religion in the world has a message of non-violence and peac and love. My opponent's claim that faith is dangerous is a sweeping generalization.
Faith is Dangerous

"Human nature is dangerous." I will encourage my opponent to understand that I'm not disagreeing with the fact that human nature is dangerous. However, this debate is regarding the fact that FAITH is dangerous and is used as a tool to incite violence. Faith is indeed the cause of violence. I'll ask my opponent to consider 9-11, the Suni-Shia violence and the acts of blind faith required for one to kill himself (Jim Jones). Blind faith becomes a tool for violence all too often. The reason for it is inherent in what it is. If you blindly believe what you are told, then if you are told to give your kid the kool-aid, or to blow yourself up to get 72 virgins in heaven, you will. The problem with blind faith is that it teaches people to suspend their reasoning skills, and even actively inhibits reasoning skills in order to keep having that blind faith. "To claim that faith is dangerous, or more dangerous"- Again, I'm not saying that faith is MORE dangerous than anything else. I will remind my opponent and the reader that this debate deals purely with the fact that faith is indeed dangerous; not that it's more dangerous than anything else. In round one, my opponent has failed to defend his position; in fact, he supported my claim by saying, "Humans have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years because of faith" which would lead a reasonable person to believe that faith is dangerous. Again, this debate is concerned with the dangers of faith, NOT if it is more or less dangerous when compared to something else.
Faith is Dangerous

Human nature is dangerous. Humans have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years because of faith and not because of faith. Faith may be the justification of the violence and "danger," but it is not the cause of the violence. To claim that faith is dangerous, or more dangerous than the standard of human behavior, is like claiming that diverse cultures are dangeous since cultures are violent and hateful against other cultures simply because they are different. Faith may be the excuse for the violence but humans will find a way to harm each other even when faith isn't involved. Examples: the reign of Stalin, African genocides, World War 1, World War 2, the Cold War (which put the survival of the entire world in "danger")... Also, the Crusades is probably known as one of the worst acts of "faith" committed by the Christians. However, a large part of the Christian message is basically to love your neighbor as yourself, so does it seem like the powerful Christians that started the Crusades did it by "faithfully" serving their God or is it more plausible that they were doing it for their own motives?
Faith is Dangerous

Faith, which is the firm belief in person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary, needs to be challenged because that faith can be very dangerous for the individual or the society which shares the same faith-based idea set. Once faith is adopted, the individual or groups of individuals faithfully believing in the proposed idea or concept (regardless of how ridiculous or absurd their faith is) are more apt to commit atrocities in the name of their faith. That point has been proven over and over again when an individual decides to carry out the ultimate act of faith (dying in the name of their faith). Please understand that when I am speaking of faith, I am speaking of religious faith and not faith in your doctor, faith in your pilot, etc. Other usages, such as faith in your doctor, or faith in the police, have quite different explanations and are not relevant here. Please refer to definition 2: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Assuming the Bible is a Book of Rules, it Teaches Predestination

Since my opponent forfieted his last round I have little to say, however I wouls like to take this time to respond to his claim that Jesus wants everyone in heaven. If this were so, and Jesus did in fact want all people in heaven, first off it would contradict the verse found in Matk that says: Mark 4:10-12--- "And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, 'To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven." '" This is out of the mouth of Jesus that He speaks to some in parables so they do not turn from their sin. He did not want those certain people to be forgiven. But wait, what about that verse in Timothy that explicitly says Jesus wants all men in heaven? Well, this presents us with a biblical contradiction, does it not? The answer is no, it does not. How do I explain it? The explaination is quite simple. In the Bible we have many cases of the word "all" not necessarilly meaning all men on earth, or all possible men in the given situation. Example is as follows. Matthew 3:5-6--- "Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." All obviously does not mean every possible person, as in every steert, ally, house, building, and bathroom was empty. It mean all the people meant to be there. Thus, I think it the only reasonable solution to say that "all" in your verse does not mean every person, but it means all ELECT people. Thats my take. Thanks for the debate! Renzzy
Assuming the Bible is a Book of Rules, it Teaches Predestination

I will allow my opponent to make the first arguments, but I would like to point out that this is simply a debate of doctrine. Not about whether or not the Bible is a rule book. Assuming that the Bile IS in fact a rule book should in no way affect his arguments in this particular debate. Think of it as whether or not the Bible implies predestination if it suits you better. Either way the debate will turn out the same way. I Affirm that the Bible teaches that some people are predestined to Heaven, and some people are predestined to Hell. Thanks! Renzzy
The media isn't liberal

Um...it's three days not three hours. First a correction, the quote I used about journalists and ideology was really by David Broder, sorry. Anyway – to extend on my point about "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Did George Washington ever chop down that cherry tree? Did Paul Revere ride almost 200 miles to warn about the red coats? Did Columbus sail to America to try and prove the world was flat? The answer to all of these questions is no. The cherry tree story is just a story so people would like George Washington more; Paul Revere did ride, but only 19 miles. The real person described in Longfellow's epic poem "Come children and you shall hear, about the midnight ride of Paul Revere" was Israel Bissell, but Paul's name was better for the story. Finally, Aristotle discovered that the world was flat, long before Columbus. So why do we know these stories when they aren't true, because the legend is a better story than the fact. Same goes for the so called liberal media, it's a better story because people just love to bash liberals. Source: Robert Whul, history 101 (hilarious and highly recommended) Patrick Buchanan, one of the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates this half of the twentieth century, said he had balanced coverage of his campaign. He said, "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage – all we could have asked for. For heaven's sake, we kid about the liberal media but every Republican on earth does that." William Kristol - said, "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." About the books by Ann Coulter about liberals and the media, I have just one thing to say. Not only were her books written poorly but also she doesn't seem to have a realistic view of things. She was hired in 1996 by MSNBC with almost no journalistic experience, but she was soon fired after screaming to a disabled Vietnam veteran "People like you caused us to lose the war." In another piece of hers after 9/11, she wrote about Arab nations "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." The fact people like this are hired by news agencies to balance "the liberal bias" just goes to show that there is no bias. But she was nevertheless invited on many television news programs such as Hardball, Today, and Crossfire. About the book Bias – roughly 72 out of 232 pages are devoted to personal attacks. The remaining pages are filled with assertions like "anyone to the right of Lenin is a right winger in the eyes of the media." Source: What Liberal Media by Eric Alterman Lets look at who owns the media, corporations. Corporations (which are overwhelmingly conservative) constantly accuse the media of "corporate censorship." These corporations are only interested in one thing, profit. So do they report the story correctly or do they report whatever they need to get their profit? Remember there is a difference between bias and just bad reporting. Well that's enough for now...your turn, you've got three DAYS.