BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
US flag shirt ban

To begin, I am an American and quite proud to be one. I am very blessed to live in a mostly free country. Now, answer me this. How can someone in the United States of America, a person,or a student in this case, not be able to wear a shirt with his or her own country's flag on it. How can someone make such a decision as to ban a shirt like that, on any day, foreign or American, tradition or holiday? It is a complete disgrace to any American and frankly may them feel almost livid. Men and women have sacrificed their lives, giving up everything for the meaning that behind that flag. Another thing to mention is that why should I have to respect and honor a foreign holiday? Who can tell me when I can a wear a US flag shirt in the United States? It's an absolute shame and should have never happened or even have been considered.
US flag shirt ban

This debate is on whether or not a shirt with the United States flag on it should be banned from schools in the United States. This has happened in a Californian school. If you would like to learn more about this news story, click the link. http://www.cnn.com... 1st round: Acceptance 2nd round: Opening arguments 3rd round: Rebuttal 4th round: Closing arguments I look forward to having this debate and wish good luck to my opponent. Thank you.
US flag shirt ban

"You use the analogy of a convenience store clerk and a robber. That is different in the point that the threat cannot be removed. In the school, suspending the Mexican students, who are the ones starting riots, would eliminate the threat of any violence. By doing so the Americans can freely wear their shirts and embrace the First Amendment and their pride in their country." You don't know which "Mexican" students, would be a threat to start a riot or do something that could turn into a riot. Now you'd be violating the rights of innocent Hispanic students, and doing so in an extremely racist way. "I don't understand why you would say you also agree it is wrong for the school and judges to say they cannot wear it. You basically have just given up. You just admitted I am right." No, I never said the school or judges acted wrong. I was stating that the situation was wrong. The gangs present in the school, the racial tension etc. I wish those things didn't exist, so that the students would be free to wear their shirts. "You refer to anonymous parties possibly being hurt, but don't mention them. I would have liked further explanation of these "parties."" This is just common sense. A massive amount of people fighting would likely cause students trying to avoid the fight get hurt, administrators trying to break up the riot could be hurt and police responding to the situation could get hurt. "Another thing is that the quote you mentioned, it is completely irrelevant to a t-shirt." The point of the quote, was to show that your freedom shouldn't infringe on someone else's freedom. Wearing the t-shirt infringes on other kid's right to have a safe school environment. "Now, I'll leave you with a very famous quote by Edmund Burke. "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." If people do not stand up for what they believe in and give into society, especially something patriotic, then it becomes an absolute shame." This has nothing to do with good or evil. It was a safety concern.
US flag shirt ban

You use the analogy of a convenience store clerk and a robber. That is different in the point that the threat cannot be removed. In the school, suspending the Mexican students, who are the ones starting riots, would eliminate the threat of any violence. By doing so the Americans can freely wear their shirts and embrace the First Amendment and their pride in their country.. I don't understand why you would say you also agree it is wrong for the school and judges to say they cannot wear it. You basically have just given up. You just admitted I am right. You refer to anonymous parties possibly being hurt, but don't mention them. I would have liked further explanation of these "parties." Another thing is that the quote you mentioned, it is completely irrelevant to a t-shirt. Now, I'll leave you with a very famous quote by Edmund Burke. "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." If people do not stand up for what they believe in and give into society, especially something patriotic, then it becomes an absolute shame. In conclusion, I have enjoyed this debate and am glad to have had it. I do know, however, that I will be wearing an American flag t-shirt on Cinco de Mayo my current, which is also my first, year of high school. Thank you.
US flag shirt ban

Right vs Wrong In some situations who's right and who's wrong doesn't matter. The principal doesn't have the time to analyze what who is right or wrong. He has to keep his students safe. In this situation it doesn't matter who's right. All that matters is him keeping the students safe. Imagine working at a convenience store. A person comes in with a gun and demands all the money in the register. What do you do? Do you sit there and explain to him he is in the wrong..... Of course not. You give him the money. When there is a threat of violence the rules change. I agree that it is wrong, that those kids can't wear an American flag shirt, because of the threat of a riot. However, in this situation you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils. First Amendment Banning the American flag in that situation doesn't violate the first amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in Brandenburg vs Ohio that in situations like the the one, the principal faced, that the first amendment doesn't protect those kids. The California school you're referring to was also ruled to have not violated the constitution in an appeals court. Let's not forget there are other parties in this situation not involved, that could get hurt. I'll leave you with a famous quote I think is applicable to this situation. "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins" John B. Finch http://quoteinvestigator.com...
Abortion

I humbly accept your challenge. I am not religious (so no worries there). I am educated (so I will try to be as academic as I can and cite proper sources if you wish). I was once Pro-choice (But have amended my position slightly based on purely scientific and philosophical reasons (specifically: the concepts of Person-hood and Viability & because of philosophical difficulties; deciding or knowing when a human-being becomes a "human-being" during developmental stages. I would also like to point out that, as you have set the table, there is a minor, semi unreasonable request made on your behalf, which is that the "Con" in this debate has the "sole burden of proof" and yet must argue from only a standpoint of "principle" ... Which kind of proof are you speaking of? And subsequently, would it then be unfair to restrict the "Con" in this debate from specific examples? I'm happy to debate the purely moral/ethical dynamics. But then, on the other hand, considering we are dealing with a physical system (abortion), specific examples may be needed by both parties at some point, especially when considering Viability and assigning person-hood, thus, human rights, etc., etc.
Abortion

Resolved: Abortion is, on balance, moral. By accepting this debate, you agree to the following stipulations: you will not use specific religious doctrine(s) to defend your position, you will stay on topic, you will comport yourself civilly, and you will not defend specific examples of abortion, but rather abortion as a principle. Pro has sole burden of proof. I will be arguing the Con on this one, even though I am prochoice. I would just like to be the devil's advocate on this one... Round one is just for acceptance. Round Two will only be for cases (no rebuttals.) Round Three will be for rebuttals. Round Four will be a closing statement capped at 8,000 characters. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting, and I look forward to a great debate. Definitions are below: Abortion - an intervention to remove the embryo or fetus from the womb, thus ending the pregnancy. An abortion necessarily implies that the fetus is unlikely to survive as a result of the procedure. Moral - right; ethical.
The USFG ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

Pro has passed up her only opportunity to clarify what exactly is meant by "reparations". It would be unfair to force me to attack a completely new advocacy when I have only one round left to argue, so the advocacy I attacked in my constructive case should be the one which Pro is bound to. As far as this debate is concerned, reparations are monetary payments to African American citizens aimed at "compensating" for the "past abuse" of slavery. That said, there are a few critical problems with Pro's weird case in favor of reparations. (Note that AE = American exceptionalism). (1) Pro never shows that AE is actually a widespread mindset among Americans. In fact, according to Pew Research Center, only 28% of Americans believe that America "stands above all other countries in the world" [1]. Other polls show that 81% of Americans don't have trust in their own government, and 71% of them disapprove of the general direction in which the country is headed [2][3]. Obviously, AE is not even close to being the majority viewpoint. Pro's framework hinges on the assumption that AE is a pervasive ideology which has "lulled" the country's populace into a destructive state of blind patriotism, and I have revealed that assumption to be patently false. For that reason, Pro's framework fails. (2) Pro doesn't directly link any of her harms to AE. She talks about how America has "double standards" in its foreign policy and how politicians "downplay pressing social issues", but she doesn't empirically demonstrate that those problems are related to AE in any way. All her support comes from fallacious appeals to authority, and as if that weren't bad enough, she doesn't even establish her "authorities" as being authoritative. The problems she brings up are much more likely to just be a result of government incompetency. Prefer this alternative explanation because 1) AE isn't prevalent enough to cause such large harms, 2) the government's low approval ratings suggest incompetency being a major issue with it, and 3) it is just prima facie more plausible than the notion that a mere abstraction could have such heavy real-world consequences. Because Pro doesn't actually prove that AE is harmful, there is no reason to "criticise" it, and therefore her framework fails. (3) Even if her framework holds up (which it doesn't), Pro's case fails. She takes it for granted that reparations will cause people to "rethink American history", with her only "evidence" being an excerpt from an editorial of some sort. Reparations aren't going to have any impact whatsoever on AE. In fact, extend the evidence I presented last round that reparations are just going to perpetuate racist sentiments in society, thus worsening the "pressing social issues" she mentions. Pro's case is refuted on all levels. - [1] http://www.pewresearch.org... [2] http://www.politico.com... [3] http://www.hngn.com...
The USFG ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

There is a severe lack of clarifications in this debate on what exactly is meant by "compensation" and "past abuses". However, for the sake of putting forth an argument this round, I will presume that Pro's advocacy falls in line with most common interpretation of this resolution -- that the USFG should pay African American citizens money in order to compensate for the damage inflicted upon their people by slavery. I'm not putting much effort into this, though, because Pro can easily discard my case next round by just coming up with a different advocacy. (1) Injustice In order to make the payments in question, the USFG would obviously have to use tax revenue, which essentially makes the proposal at hand an act of redistributive justice. This is completely unjust because no Americans alive today had any part in creating or perpetuating the institution of slavery. Affirming the resolution is like trying to console a murder victim's family by throwing the murderer's children in jail -- it results in punishment to people who did nothing to deserve it. (2) Opportunity Cost Even if the amount of money being paid to each African American is negligible (say, $100) there are 41.7 million people identifying as African American in the US, so the total cost would be at least $4 billion. That is a huge amount of money which could be used for plenty of more important uses such as public education reform. One study reveals that every dollar invested in early education results in an 8 dollar return-on-investment for the economy as a whole [1], which benefits *everyone* in society (including African Americans). Using tax revenues on reparations is wasteful due to its opportunity cost. (3) Backlash Government policies aimed at achieving racial "justice" have historically been shown to result in increased racism due to their widely-perceived unfairness. Even policies as mild as affirmative action in college admissions have considerably perpetuated racial prejudice among white people [2]. We can reasonably expect that handing out out tax money to African Americans in order to compensate for ancient atrocities will only demonstrate this effect to an even larger degree. (4) Blame Game The resolution specifies Pro's position as being that the US federal government must be the one paying the reparations. However, slavery was not a "past abuse" committed by the USFG -- it was almost completely carried out by individual States. Throughout American history, the USFG has always been the one doing what it could to to *mitigate* racism: abolishing slavery, giving African American citizens full civic rights, disallowing Jim Crow laws, forcing public schools to integrate, etc. Clearly, if reparations are to be paid at all, they should be paid by individual States rather than the USFG. - 1. http://www.ncsl.org... 2. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu...
The USFG ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

I have flipped a coin, guessed tails, and received tails. I choose to be second speaker (I just don't want to start). By gosh, you chose to be con in this debate. Resolved: The United States federal government ought to pay reparations to African Americans. Definitions: ought- should, based on desirability pay reparations- give compensation for past abuses or give formal apologies or try to make victims' lives better Rules: 1. Give arguments in the first round and pass the last round, saying something along the lines of "no round as agreed upon" 2. No resolutional semantics beyond this point; if you are trying to define a term in the resolution, this is not allowed, just use the common understanding. Other semantics is fine. 3. Quote authors within the text of the debate & no plans/counterplans (since this is essentially a PF debate) 4. Don't be rude Thanks to the first person who wishes to accept, and good luck! Looking forward to an excellent debate on an awesome topic.
Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.

Forgive me for posting this argument close to the deadline. The internet at the motel is absolutely horrible and I have limited time to be online anyway. I will have to make this argument shorter than I wished it to the be and I would appreciate the opportunity to expand on my points later. Main ArgumentI do not believe you have seen CNN's documentaries Weed and Weed 2: Cannabis Madness. I am going to recap the basics for you: Cannabis can be bred in order to have certain traits. Marijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures. Weed as a drug will be destruction. Weed as a medicine can be the last hope. There is the risk of addiction, of course, but when taken in moderation, it can be beneficial. You cannot deny this. Also, in the second CNN documentary, they told how cannabis can be more beneficial than other epilepsy medicines. This cannot be denied. I have a challenge for you: Deny it. Due to limited time to be online, I could not cite the sources in the proper format. Please forgive me. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.

I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ConclusionBoth jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.
Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.

Introduction I would like to start by thanking my opponent for responding. As he has stated that he is back home and can write more sophisticated arguments. I will now begin with mine: Rebuttals Pro has stated that he cannot deny the fact I have kindly placed before him. However, he has also stated that it is a matter of how one interprets the facts. I mostly beg to differ. It is true that you can interpret facts your own way, but only to a certain extent. There happens to be more cons than pros to medicinal marijuana, which stands to prove that I am correct. Pro stated that "[marijuana], when taken in moderation and with caution, can be beneficial for those who desperately need it." It is true, but doctors cannot always know if a patient will have a positive or negative reaction to it. Pro has assumed that I am not aware of the fact that medical marijuana does not have to be smoked. I am indeed aware of this. Moving on, I will talk about how Pro has continued to refer to the fact that these facts all have to do with how you interpret them. Again, this is true, but facts are facts. My opponent has admitted that the facts I gave are undeniable, however has continued to refer to interpretation. Lastly, I will refer to Pro's reference to what I stated about there being different cures to illnesses. He has said that "[f]or many illnesses, there are NO alternative cures." That happens to be false. We just have to find those cures. Conclusion As the viewers can see, I have given plenty of facts towards why it should not be legal to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. My opponent has accepted those facts, however slightly denies them. I will say one thing: Facts are facts and they cannot be denied. This debate is now in the hands of the voters. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to win.
Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.

It will not be an issue. Secondly, I would like to begin with stating my arguments and reasons. Because this is not the round for rebuttals, I will not talk about Pro's main argument until round 3. Arguments Facts about medical marijuana: Medical marijuana can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting, treating HIV/AIDS, and reducing muscle pain (Wikipedia). It can also prevent epilepsy. However, it works "by binding to specific sites in the brain and on the nerves (WEBMD). " All chemicals that bind to the brain are dangerous. Here are it's uses: Improving appetite for people with AIDS Glaucoma Multiple Sclerosis Why it should not be used: According to webmd. com, "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system", "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse", "marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]", and "it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD). " Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes: Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center). As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Other treatments: Anyone who knows as much as I do about biology knows that there are plenty of other ways to cure illnesses. I am sure Pro is aware of this as well. For certain diseases, such as diabetes, people need insulin. Getting insulin used to be difficult. Now, however, we genetically altered a certain bacteria to generate it. Using that knowledge, one can assume that there are other cures to epilepsy, glaucoma, and sclerosis. Conclusion In this round, I have stated the pros and cons to medical marijuana. As Pro, as well as the viewers can see, there are more downsides to it that upsides. The list of cons is longer and the alternative cures are obvious. Here is my conclusion: Using marijuana for medicinal use is unnecessary and should not be done. I patiently await Pro's rebuttals. Thank you. MLA Citations "Medical Cannabis. " Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <. http://en.wikipedia.org...;. "MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD. " WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.webmd.com...;. "Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. " Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.
The bible is immoral

"Rock solid evidence" is quite subjective, in fact, your entire argument is subjective and that is my point." Its not subjective in any way IF and only IF you were to have even in the slightest way were to have looked at the verses AND the videos in which you obviously didn"t AND you have something called a moral compass. So I know that you are as completely immoral as your god. There"s no way that you can circumvent 1. Human sacrifice, 2. Animal sacrifice, 3. War, 4. Genocide and slaughter, 5. Cruelty, barbarity and violence, 6. Deceit treachery, 7. Polygamy, 8. Prostitution 9. Abuse of Women And there"s plenty plenty plenty plenty plenty more from Dossier of Reason that I haven"t gotten into. But you haven"t even made one, not one little teeny tiny bit of effort to circumvent ANYTHING from that list of crap that this god of YOURS that he is guilty of as you have made every effort to do a roundabout, which doesn"t work from this debating corner who knows a lot more about your god, religion and bible than you ---ever--- will. So "I, myself, do not appreciate poorly written and ignored responses to a refute, or poorly written and ignored responses in general." which is entirely your problem. Why should I refute one god damned ANYTHING you have to say you fricken contradictory hypocrite (in which I absolutely did and you just can"t stand it), so no more playing your prostitution, we play in my rule headquarters you refute oh I"d say 3 from each of the categories listed is quite fair you prove that they were moral from your god or don"t even bother posting another argument back to me. K? Oh and btw, Its NOT my job in this debate to prove that YOUR god is moral. The title of this debate is quite simply "The bible is immoral" is which was 100% proved. So "Firstly, you do not offer any sort of substance in your refute of the morality of the text." is a stupid response. Over and out for now and its up to you. I have no reason or rhyme to pay any more attention until you pay attention to what has been previously posed unto you.