BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Amending the Bill of Rights

I thank you for your response, although I would like to point out that no questions proposed to you in the previous round were answered. In addition none of the points I made a case for were addressed. I apologize if they were not clearly enough stated. I will attempt to restate my questions simply, in a list form and clarify what you have pinned me with saying and supporting. Questions 1.) Do you agree or disagree according to the constitution (Article 5) WE are able to amend things, ANYTHING as WE the people see fit? 2.) If the solution to gun violence came in the form of an amendment (not that it necessarily will), you are stating you are 100% closed to that option? 3.) Where in the constitution does it state all amendments are changeable except the first ten? There were more questions stated in my argument but we will start here. Clarification 1.) You are making the false assumption that I have already clarified in my first round argument that I wish to strip everyone of all rights such as freedom of speech, press, and right to bear arms. This assumption is wrong and as stated above is NOT my stance. My argument is ONLY that the bill of rights legally CAN be changed if needed. For example if we find a solution to gun violence we CAN make an amendment to improve the current 2nd amendment. We CAN make changes to the bill of rights if NEEDED but SHOULD NOT amend if changes are NOT NEEDED. It is unconstitutional to state we are unable to freely amend as WE see fit. 2.) Soldiers NEED assault weapons in the battle field. That is completely irrelevant to this debate and never once did I state or imply SOLDIERS should be sent into the battle field without assault weapons. If you wish to debate gun control laws more extensively and my personal opinion to that solution, I would be more than happy to debate it in a different debate for that specific subject. For now let's not stray to far from this subject. I apologize I encouraged that straying from the subject. 3.) I believe in the social contract theory upon which this nation is built, but I also believe WE the people still control this republic. WE the people have the power and if any rights are taken away or amendments made it is by OUR own hand.
Amending the Bill of Rights

Couldn't the military make due without assault rifles? Shouldn't they just work on diplomacy? You are willing to send kids to potentially die in the name of protecting freedom, only to have them come home(if they survive) to be told that they can't use anything like hat they have been trained to use for the protection of their own families? What do you need free speech for? We can't say things that are dangerous, it is also illegal to use guns to harm other people. Why do you need to have the internet to share your views? Why do we need television networks? Isn't the government capable enough of telling what we need to know? You're okay with trusting them with your protection, why not give up the rest of your rights? You can already be arrested without charges as a "suspected terrorist." They won't give you a lawyer or a trial. It's all in the name of national security, so it's l right. ...until it affects you, right? Forget about a revolution to stop tyranny. Tyranny is happening already when our RIGHTS are taken away. You need to understand that it is important to have rights, because they are not given to us by government, and we shouldn't be letting them take them away.
Amending the Bill of Rights

To say amending one thing in the constitution sets a standard to amend anything with ANY reason (even invalid ones) is completely off mark. Does a change in treatment that is NOT working for a specific cancer constitute a change away from treatments that ARE working to alternatives that are not? I want to be clear that I do not we believe we have reached a solution to avoid gun violence just through gun control laws and understand laws of this sort have been ineffective in the past but if we do find the solution and it requires an amended second amendment to be passed are you stating you would oppose it? What about the changes in RIGHTS extended to black citizens and women? If RIGHTS can not change do you think that original rights extended to white males ONLY should have never been extended to others? It is sad that we now live in a world that creates its own definitions and facts. The word amend itself means to CHANGE for the better, to ALTER by legal procedure or to REMOVE faults or errors. Your argument that my stance is to change the Bill of Rights as a whole, as it stands, is completely off base and has no validity. My argument is simply that AMENDMENTS are changes that WE the people are able to make to OUR constitution. They are NOT set in stone, not one of them. It is unconstitutional to state that we are unable as a people to make changes if need be following the amendment process specified in ARTICLE V of the constitution. Understanding this it is easily understood that your stance that the bill of rights CAN NOT be amended is entirely incorrect. You would be better to say it SHOULD NOT be amended IF it is a change for the worse that will strip the people of their freedom, but what if it is an improvement? I am a gun owner myself and value the second amendment dearly. I do not believe that by limiting assault weapons you are in any way losing your second amendment right to be armed. You speak as if guns are outlawed completely and that your right has been revoked. Does he first amendment guarantee us complete FREEDOM of speech and press? No. As Americans we are aware that this right is extended to a certain extent but that extent is not enumerated in the original bill of rights. Why is it limited? For the safety it provides against threats, defamation and slander etc. Tell me, what do you personally need an assault rifle for, honestly? Does your bolt action rifle not do the trick for hunting? Does your shotgun not take care of home defense? And does your low ammunition clip handgun not suffice for target practice? I am willing to predict that the thought just now crossed your mind is that if there were a need for a revolution we would not be able to arm ourselves to regain freedom, but is that really the case? Wouldn't the armed forces stand to protect us? Would all military dissent? Would you be able to do nothing with the current guns that you have? Remember the rag tag patriots that won our freedom with limited resources and PLEASE have a little faith in the current citizens of the Union democrat, republican or independent.
Amending the Bill of Rights

You say that amendments are not set in stone, and that is true for most of them. However, the Bill of Rights is a list of RIGHTS. You can't decide that rights are no longer rights. If you want to change the 2nd Amendment, then why not the 1st? Why don't we just get rid of your ability to post anything online. Your argument is that we should change the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter what your reasons are because if you say it's okay to change one of them(for whatever reason), then it will be okay to change any of them...for whatever reason.
MW3 Is The Best COD

well not really much of a debate Was going to go into detail but pro concedes a lot of points A) She states that nuketown was the best map ever , so that already goes in my favor B) She never actually states why MW3 is better Noted this is her BOP and she has to show *why* mw3 is better. Not building a case about why it is better does not affirm the BOP and she has failed at this debate. Theoretically I don't have to do anything as she built not case , and she affirmed that black ops had one of the best maps in the history of call of duty. She has already refuted her own argument. ill give on contention just to solidify this and make it quick 1) More Competitive Mechanics In everything I play, I like to do MLG style things. I play competitive and Black ops appealed to this. The Famas was the primary weapon 90 percent of the time and with light weight and quick draw, the game turned into a fast paced shoot of on certain maps. IT made you think on your feed, shoot faster, and aim faster while improving and requiring more skill than most modern warfare where you can sit in a bush and just chill. The maps were condensed and it was harder to camp thus impacting the gampeplay Thanks pro for being chill but always remember to make a case for what you are debating :)
MW3 Is The Best COD

Wow, honestly, I thought you were going to say MW2 was the best. Well, I myself don't play the campaigns, but one thing I do agree on is that the campaign was hella bada$$. I loved the concept, etc. But, if I remember correctly, the campaign was a bit much when it came to effects. Bombs would constantly go off around you and other characters yelling a lot. Not to mention, your mates weren't much aware of there surroundings and took a long time to react to current events. Oh, and don't forget about the RC car thingy. That was way too over powered and that is one of the elements of multiplayer I will never forget. One thing I very much disliked was the maps. Just like MW3, the maps were huge (maybe that's just me). I will share my opinion on why MW3 is the best later. Although, zombies was quite enjoyable. I personally am not into zombies but I loved how you could protect the important figures. I think the best map on BO2 that was remade is, Nuketown! That was one of the best ever maps in COD history. Also one thing I thought was unnecessary, was the deaths of characters that were not needed. Like when that guy jumps out of the chopper for no reason to "sacrifice" himself. Or when that one guy Sergi or whatever it was held the door open and when everyone slid through, they shot him right after. Plus a lot of illogical scenes. Like when something appears out of no where or when I or someone else is immune to certain stuff like tear gas and flashes, etc. Plus some of the campaign was unoriginal. And for the guns, there were some really OP guns (machine gun). I mean the concept of JFK being in there was cool...but killing him was a bit much...Plus I wish there were more jump scares and fast. Sometimes there are fights in the campaign from no where and it's not fast enough and unnecessary.
Metal takes more skill than Rap

But my opponent has listed a few rap artist/groups that use instruments. I personally am not a fan of these bands but I respect their talent and contributions to music they made. But I challenge you to find a metal band that does not use instruments. I would also like to say that even though a hip hop artist/group might use instruments they most likely, but not always will be more simple than a metal bands would be. Pro: "Hip hop artist also preform with little to no energy" Con: "I guess the simplest way to refute this is by providing examples of energetic hip hop performances, see vids. " If you are referring to the videos you posted on the comments section I will say they had great soul and emotion but I saw little energy within these performances. Also in metal the bands almost always make up original music on there own. Hip hop artist often sample songs to make there songs. This is a huge reason that metal takes more skill because it needs more creativity. I know there are also many hip hop artist that make their own beats and music but there are also many that do use samples.
Metal takes more skill than Rap

Thank you Con. But I believe the definition of metal to be so obvious that it requires very little definition but for those who do not know we are going to go by this http://en.wikipedia.org... and any other sub-genres listed there. For Hip-Hop/Rap http://en.wikipedia.org... and any other sub-genres listed there. The quote he listed from KRS-One who in my opinion is a very skilled and influential rapper is an opinion not a fact therefore not relevant. Many hip-hop artist have senseless lyrics that do not deal with anything and is just worldly bragging such as http://www.azlyrics.com... As you will notice these lyrics are not well thought out at all as my opponent stated hip-hop lyrics are more thought out and better than rock/metal lyrics. This is not true which I will prove with http://www.lyricsmania.com... In this song he is describing how he may look happy and feel well but in reality he is just hiding it all inside. My opponent then states that hip-hop has more and better rhythm then metal which I will now provide a list of just a few melodic metal songs http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... yes I know the last one is a cover but it is still metal is it not? He then says turntable DJ's need more manual dexterity than any position in a metal band I will counter this with http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... listen to the drums in this song http://www.youtube.com... all real http://www.youtube.com... yet again listen to the drums He also says that rappers require more vocal talent than metal musicians due to the music being based upon the voice. This is a horrible claim to make considering nearly every rap musician today uses the auto-tune effect on their voice either more noticeable such as T-Pain http://www.youtube.com... Or less noticeable such as Lil Wayne http://www.youtube.com... These musicians do not posses the vocal talents of http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... I challenge my opponent to find a rapper/rap group with as much talent as any of these but for my final argument Find a rapper/rap group that preforms with so much energy that they get the crowd to do this http://www.youtube.com... Thank you I conclude my argument on that note and wait for my opponent to respond.
Metal takes more skill than Rap

I am here to argue that metal and all of it's sub-genres takes more skill than rap and all of it's sub-genres. As a avid listener of all music and literally all music I feel I have a better opinion on this than others do. I listen to all genres of metal, all genres of punk, all genres of rap, all genres of classic rock, and a little bit of country. My opponent may choose to start debating now or wait for round 2.
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

Learning experience for Nat quals Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Economic Stimulus Act of 2008-The bill provides temporary tax incentives for businesses to make investments in their companies so that we create new jobs this year. The bill provides individual tax relief in the form of tax rebates. These rebates will amount to as much as $600 for individuals and $1,200 for married couples, with additional rebates for families with children. It was signed into action by George Bush on Feb. 13, 2008. Mitigate-To become milder Economic slowdowns-When the economy begins slow its economic growth, e.g. jobs, consumer products. Con.1 Tax rebates Vs. Tax reductions Back in 2001, we had the same type of idea proposed by Bush, to give rebates to the economy to stimulate the economy, but what you must understand is this idea did not work until tax reductions across the board. According to Brian M. Riedl, "Tax cuts vs. tax rebates," Washington Times, January 16, 2008. " • Critics contend that rebates "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. • But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy (and even money borrowed from foreigners reduces net exports). • No new spending power is created; it is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Take the 2001 tax rebates, for example: • Washington borrowed billions from the capital markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. • Predictably, consumer spending temporarily rose, and capital/investment spending temporarily fell by a corresponding amount. • This simple transfer of existing wealth did not encourage productive behavior; the economy remained stagnant through 2001 and much of 2002. It was not until the 2003 tax cuts -- which instead cut tax rates for workers and investors -- which the economy finally and immediately recovered: • In the previous 18 months, businesses investment had plummeted, the stock market had dropped 18 percent, and the economy had lost 616,000 jobs. • In the 18 months after the 2003 tax rate reductions, business investment surged, the stock market leaped 32 percent, and the economy created 5.3 million new jobs; overall economic growth doubled. ", What this means is that even though the rebates will go in, because the Government has to take money to give money, it does not do anything. You have to have tax reductions plus tax rebates, to get anything done. It won't mitigate the problem; because we did the same thing last time and nothing happened until we added tax reductions to the money we were giving. So, basically it won't do anything, but add to our debt, which will cause inflation, and yes, won't stop the slowdowns. Please somebody debate this who want to debate it.
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

First off the con wants to cry abuse but as i said i do have to prove significant mitigation, because if it was the burden of the Pro to prove the complete and successfull mitigation then that is also abusive so it goes both ways. second the resolution does not say successfull mitigation or what the creators were planning so the aff does not have to prove either. also on the argument that i have to prove it will meet what the creators wanted, there is absolutely no way to get into the creators head and say, od they want complete mitigation, or hey they want any mitigation at all so this argument falls. also the neg syas that i have to prove the expectation have to come true with proof from evidence. i dont know about you but i cant get evidence from the future. then my opponent goes on to agree with me by saying yes there is mitigation but yoou havent proven what the advocaates wanted. this is non topical because no where in the resolution does it say anything about what the advocates want or fufilling their fantasies. any argument the con makes about this should be disregarded. the housing market was just recently devastated by the sub prime lenders and we are feeling the effects of it now and we are acting to fix it. like i said the act has provision to increase the amount able to be borrowed in moderate loans which have lower interest rates. what this means is people will be more willing to start buying houses again. if you look at the debate you will notice that the Pro clearly wins for a couple reasons. the first of which is that the Con is arguing off topic and trying to stray the debate away from the facts. Dont let the negative do this. the second reason why the negative loses is because the only way he can attack my points is by stating the same nonsense over and over, which tells me that he knows im right. these facts still stand: 1)the 2001 act boosted the economy and that was only a fraction the size of this one. 2)the direct implimitation of money in this way will ultimately create jobs and raise the GDP. 3)it treats the causes and not the symptoms. these are the facts do not let the Con stray you away from them vote aff
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

No you have to prove successful mitigation, meaning the expectatons of the act come true with prove from evidence, you have not proven this, because what are the expectation, you said a 100 billion dollar injection causes 700,000 jobs, but it is a 150 billion dollar act, so you are advocating lower than expectations of the bill. Get your facts right, why because if you do not look to this definition then the aff can just say hey If one person spends 1 dollar that is mitigation to the economic slowdowns. It's abusive. "Now my first argument is not there to prove that there was a successful mitigation but to just say that under the most extreme of conditions that a stimulus act still has a positive impact. the facts don't lie and they clearly state that there was a mitigation of economic slowdown.", Yes a mitigation, but do you have prove that the act is doing what the advocates said it was going to do. YOu have given no evidence to what the advocates of the bill said it would do. You don't win, by just proving some mitigation, you have to prove a successful mitigation. "My question to you is will the success of this act be from consumer spending." Now this answer is two fold. The success of the economic stimulus act will come from multiple facets of the actual act. The main factor is yes consumer spending but as said in my third point it is also investment., yes but do you know that 110 billion dollars of a 150 billion dollar act is going to spending. So if it is half of 110 billion dollars, then that is just wasted money. The housing market has had a downturn over a span since 1955 actually, the debt continued in the housing market and guess who get s hurt by the housing market banks and people that get faulty loans, like sub prime. So debt continues and when the banks aren't happy in a economy, nobody is happy. Yes, but like you said, shoulda, coulda, woulda, no evidence to prove otherwise or to prove what would have happened without 9/11. Vote NEg.
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

The Con claims that i as the affirmative have to prove a successful mitigation but however if we look at the resolution "That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year." we do not see any talk of a full and successful mitigation but we do see that the affirmative only has to prove that it is mitigated. i will concede that i as the Pro must prove that it mitigates the slowing economy significantly enough to convince those who are voting. also the resolution does it state anywhere that the Pro must show the intentions of the creators or to prove that it meets there standards or expectations. Now my first argument is not there to prove that there was a successful mitigation but to just say that under the most extreme of conditions that a stimulus act still has a positive impact. the facts don't lie and they clearly state that there was a mitigation of economic slowdown. "My question to you is will the success of this act be from consumer spending." Now this answer is two fold. The success of the economic stimulus act will come from multiple facets of the actual act. The main factor is yes consumer spending but as said in my third point it is also investment. My third point my opponent tried to refute by claiming the recession is caused by the housing market. as i said earlier in the point the causes for an economic slowdown are a raise in interest rates, consumer spending decreasing, unemployment, a fall in government funding, and a lack of business investment. however i will take your claim with some seriousness, but the economic stimulus act does have provisions to help the housing market. there was a change in the interest rates and sub prime loans that the banks are allowed to give out and it raised the amount available in moderate loans with fixed rates. Con states that there was going to be a recession before 2001 and this may be true however if the stimulus act would have happened without the devastation that 9/11 brought on the economy it would have been far more effective. by simply stating that it would have happened only proves that the powers to be or the creators of such legislation think that this type of stimulus act will be effective. The Con now claims that whether or not 9/11 would have happened it would have had the same effect but yet there is no way to predict this and should be discarded.