BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THBT smoking should be illegal

I am very sorry that Con did not find the rules and not follow the directions. However, voters should think about this. Anyways, we changed it into1. Acceptance2. Contentions3. Rebuttal4. Conclusion Rebuttals1. In Con's first argument was that Privacy, and Right to Choose, we should ban smoking because then we will get less harm for pollution, because fast foods, do NOT give a harm to the environment and also it gives us less harm when we just eat fast-foods and not do smoking. Also tobacco ISN'T only for smoking so those 1.6 million jobs can not be for smoking such as tobacco chewing. Even if we illegalize it then still farmers can make different ways to use tobacco, or just can grow other crops that are healthy such as potatoes, carrots. Also tobacco takes up space. Farmers use many of their land to put tobacco, and it takes up many space, so it isn't a benefit to the farmers who bought the land, and who bought the tobacco. Also you did not finish your argument.2. In Con's arguments of benefits, there is way more bad problems, then benefits. First you destroy your health, like you lungs, and your kidney to reduce risk of the Parkinson Disease which is not common and there are other ways that you can solve the Parkinson Disease. Yes, long time ago tobacco was useful, but these days, there is other ways to digest food without using tobacco. Also even if it removes plaque, it is also because of tobacco3. WE are just banning tobacco, not like-alighting, so please read the resolution. Sourceshttps://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.mayoclinic.org...
THBT smoking should be illegal

1. I will go on my first argument which is that it decreases populationSmoking affects human lives in many different ways. First is that it is unhealty which I will say in my next arguments and second it is baf air which makes pollution. First I will tell you about the unhealthy things about smoking. First, it destroys your lungs. Imagine this. What if you were trying to smell and breath in the pollution out of a car and also smoke out of a fire. That is the same as smoking. I will give you a picture of your lungs. There will be those white things on you lungs with is basically bad things that might kill you. Many people die because of this.I will say my second reason for the population is that it destroys the enviornments. Because we will breath the bad air if we breath bad air then are lungs will be like the picture above. Also don't blame about cars. Smoking makes almost the same amount of pollution. Also do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is bad for the lungs and will make cancer.2. Very easy to dieNow I will explain more about it. First It is bad for your lungs. In the pictures above, do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is the bad thing that goes in your body and make you not breath with the white things in your lungs. Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It’s linked with an increased risk of these cancers: Lung Larynx (voice box) Oral cavity (mouth, tongue, and lips) Nose and sinuses Pharynx (throat) Esophagus (tube connecting the throat to the stomach) Stomach Pancreas Cervix Kidney Bladder Ovary (a type called mucinous ovarian cancer) Colorectum (the colon and/or the rectum) Acute myeloid leukemia That is a lot from smoking. Also you die fast if you smoke.3. Expensive CostWell, this isn't a matter a lot but the cost just gets higher and higher. Smoking puts a financial burden on society. According to the CDC, this burden continues to rise, with approximately $193 billion spent annually in the United States---$97 billion from lost productivity and $96 billion due to smoking-related health care costs, respectively. The Society of Actuaries reported in 2006, which is the latest data available, that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. around $10 billion a year: about $5 billion in medical costs associated with secondhand smoke and $4.6 billion in lost wages---youth exposure was not included in these costs.Also many people think you need smoking for stress. However there are ways to reduce stress. Sourceshttp://idebate.org...http://www.livestrong.com...http://www.historyandheadlines.com...http://www.mirror.co.uk...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.heart.org...http://www.beautyprog.com...http://www.webmd.com...
The United States of America should not prohibit burning the American Flag

This probably the shortest rebutall I have ever written on this site.C1: Your arguments are based on appeal to emotion. If you are going to say it should be illegal besides protest, you should explain why. Just because Nudity is banned, doesn't mean its a good reason to ban Flag Burning. I have already established that is uncontitutional, which means it goes against the 1st ammendment. You haven't really explained why Flag Burning should be given an exception in certain cases.My arguments still stand.
The United States of America should not prohibit burning the American Flag

C1: Flag burning only constitutes free speech when it is used for protest, not when done for other reasons, such as helping to start a fire or just for the fun of it. It may not be illegal, but it should be when not done in the form of a protest. C2: Again, flag burning should have the same laws apply to it as public nudity does. (ex. flag burning would be illegal except in the form of a protest. https://malegislature.gov...
The United States of America should not prohibit burning the American Flag

RebutallsC1Con, you technically already conceded a huge point. Flag Burning is covered in the constitution. In Texas v. Johnson, the judges already ruled that flag burning constitutes "symbolic speech". It doesn't specify specific circumstances where it is illegal, therefore we must assume it is for all cases.(2)C2You commit a huge fallacy. Simply saying Nudity is allowed in certain circumstances isn't a good argument. Nudity is illegal due to public indecency laws. There are no such law for flag burning, therefore it is incorrect to make such comparison. You make another comparisons to disturbing funerals. Before I fully refute this, I would like to you give me a source which states that.1:https://en.wikipedia.org...2:http://www.uscourts.gov...
The United States of America should not prohibit burning the American Flag

Contention 1 Rebuttal- Flag burning CAN be used as a form of free speech. Even then, it is still reprehensible, but it is protected by the Bill of Rights. However, when it is not used as a form of speech or protest, the constitution does not protect it. (ex."Hey! Look! An American Flag! Let's burn it!"). I am aware that this isn't what happens in all or even most scenarios, but Con presumably means that flag burning shouldn't be banned under any circumstances. Nudity is prohibited except in the form of protest, but it is still banned, just with an exception. This proves contention 1, and 2, to be utterly invalid. Contention 2 Rebuttal- Refer to contention 1 rebuttal. Contention 3- Disturbing funerals is against the law, because it is against people's morals, and because death is a tragedy, and not a joke.This is especially true for the deaths of American soldiers, who, not to sound like a redneck but it is true, fought for our freedom.
The United States of America should not prohibit burning the American Flag

Thank you for accepting Con.I would just like to mention I do not support burning our flag. Its disrespectful and there are many more ways of protesting. But I still think we should have the freedom to do it. After all, that's what America was built on.Why Flag Burning should not be bannedC1: Its unconstitutionalFlag burning is protected by the 1st Ammendment in the constitution. The 1st ammendment states that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" Since flag burning can be used as a form of free speech, it would be unconstitutional to ban it.C2: It can be used as a form of protestFlag burning can be a way of protesting against the government for some policies it has set. For example, many protesters were burning flags to protest U.S involvement in Vietnam. Whether or not it actually made a difference, it could have, and protesters should have the right to do it.C3: Your morals cannot dictate what others should believe inI understand why people are against it, and I agree. Its disrespectful, and is unnessary. But what your morals are cannot dictate what others want to do. If people want to burn the flag, they can, but they will be condemned by many. Banning this would only go against what our founding fathers believed in, Freedom and Liberty.Over to you Con.
The United States of America should not prohibit burning the American Flag

The United States of America should not ban burning the American Flag in their countryI as Pro will argue for not banning the burning of the American Flag Con, will argue it needs to be banned.No K'sBOP is sharedGood luckDefintiions United States of Americaa republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminousstates, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North America, andHawaii in the N Pacific. Conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq.mi. (7,827,982 sq. km); with Alaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi.(9,363,166 sq. km). BanningTo prohibit (an action) or forbid the use of (something), especially by official decreeBurningSetting on fireAmerican FlagOfficial Flag of the United States of America
US Schools don't teach students important information

RebuttalsR1. As far as employment goes...The source of your argument, http://money.usnews.com..., only predicts which jobs will be receiving the most employees. Game development wasn't in any of the lists, yet it doesn't look like it's going dry."Historians generally receive a Master's degree before they enter the job market. Once employed, Historians can expect to earn an average of $56,000 per year throughout their career. In addition, over the coming 10 years Historians will see fairly rapid growth within their industry. They should experience a 7.8% rate of growth during this time period."http://www.studentscholarships.org...I say history is not going dry, and I've got sources to back it up.R2. Learning from the past won't be needed"History is not going to repeat itself in our ever changing world. Situations and conflicts from the past don't have an influence in the modern world."It's not the influence of historical mistakes that we should worry about; It's making them again."The Titanic was known as the unsinkable ship, specifically designed to make the long journey to America with no possible chance of sinking. But one night, the ship crew ignored warnings of icebergs in their path and went onward. The ship hit an iceberg and scraped the entire right side, causing the boat to sink and killed 1,517 people." http://www.businessinsider.com..."The Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico in 2000 started as a prescribed fire which spread due to high winds and drought conditions. The flames burned for more than a month, destroyed close to 48,000 acres, and left more than 400 families without homes." http://www.businessinsider.com..."On a practice flight in Guam, America's most expensive jet was destroyed when faulty sensors caused it to pitch up on takeoff, stall and crash, according to the Air Force. The B-2 stealth bomber, one of 21 in existence at the time, cost $1.4 billion." http://www.businessinsider.com...Some of these were announced on the news, so our current generation is aware of these mistakes. However, if our future generations ignore to study the history, these mistakes can reoccur much more often than it should, if at all.That concludes this round. I am eager to read my opponent's arguments.
US Schools don't teach students important information

This wasn't how I was hoping the debate would go out. As far as employment goes...In the near future jobs in tech related fields are going to boom while history jobs are going dry. This shows where the jobs will be in 2020 and many other websites show the same statisticshttp://money.usnews.com... Learning from the past won't be neededHistory is not going to repeat itself in our ever changing world. Situations and conflicts from the past don't have an influence in the modern world. When it comes to war, we try to make the best decision, but we will still think the old right is right today. Someone disagrees with every decision made. Considering that the future warfare will be cyber, many of this "history" won't be needed anyway.
US Schools don't teach students important information

ResolutionOur current American schools teach students very important information. My opponent agrees that math, english, and science are important. So, my only job here is to prove the importance of history.BoP is shared.ProposalsArgument 1 - Many Job Opportunities With HistoryHistory is a basic component of many jobs. Learning history to an advanced level will provide you with many job opportunities."Among the jobs you can consider are: advertising executive, analyst, archivist, broadcaster, campaign worker, consultant, congressional aide, editor, foreign service officer, foundation staffer, information specialist, intelligence agent, journalist, legal assistant, lobbyist, personnel manager, public relations staffer, researcher, teacher . . . the list can be almost endless. More specifically, though, with your degree in history you can be an educator, researcher, communicator or editor, information manager, advocate, or even a businessperson." https://www.historians.org...Some students become interested in history. If they continue to learn history in college, they can take a part in one of the history-related jobs aforementioned. Not only will they have something they can make money off, but they'll enjoy it as well.Argument 2 - Learning from Previous Cultural Mistakes"It's important because if it isn't studied, how can we learn from our mistakes? And it can also give answers to some very basic questions, for example: Why did some cultures become much more advanced several hundreds or thousands year before others? Why are some countries much richer than others today? But by studying history you will also learn source criticism which is very important nowadays when it is very easy to find and create information." http://www.ted.com...Without history classes amongst our schools, the number of historical researchers will diminish, slowing down the growth of our technology. It may even go as far as stopping the growth of our technology.I've got more to offer in my favor. But I'll leave it at that. I am eager to read my opponent's response.
US Schools don't teach students important information

It's time schools stop focusing on how egyptians wrapped dead bodies and start focusing on recent history and the furute. It's time for kids to learn things like CPR and how to change a tire. Art and Music should be optional while technology should be manditory. The world is consently devoloping around software and systems like HTML, Java, and other codes that will be absolutely crutial for the poeple of the future. The educational system needs to be reformed and built around sience, technology, engineering, math and english.
Racism in America will eventually end

I can definitely see where you're coming from. It IS human nature to blame our problems on others (including races). However, you can't deny the numbers and facts. While human nature is something to consider, our human nature used to be gather as much food as humanly possible and try to run from the hyenas. Humans have been known to change and grow throughout the ages, and that can be seen right now. In the Civil War, essentially everyone was racist. The North wouldn't let it's black soldier division's own any gear that wasn't broken our breaking. But we don't see ANYTHING as blatant as that today. the closest thing to that today was the video on facebook of the four black kids beating up a special needs white trump supporter, and that wasn't anything compared to yesteryear. Yes, Racism is alive, but it is definitely on it's last legs. Look at the facts.
Racism in America will eventually end

Racism comes from hate and fear and people are going to continue to hate and fear each other because that is human nature. For example if a Asian guy has more than a black guy he's gonna wonder why he doesn't have as much. The guy isn't going to blame himself so he gonna have set in his mind that this Asian guy is better off and has more because he's Asian. Eventually he'll get tired of his condition and blame Asian people for his condition his jealousy will become hate and then he will be racist.
Racism in America will eventually end

Let start off with with it's great to be debating with you today. Secondly, NO! Yes, racism is a difficult thing to completely kill, but it is in NO WAY as bad as you make it out to be! That police officer crap on the news is just leftist media trying to be an over all douche to rest of America by spreading lies. Yes, there are some real racists out there. But the amount has went from a majority to a minority in a little less than 100 years. while that sounds like a lot, America is still a VERY young country in the world.(200 yrs). 100 yrs is chump change compared to South Africa and others. But we can't have any TRUE racists in public any more, for fear of threats and screaming at them. This shows the INSANE progress America has, and will continue to make.
Racism in America will eventually end

Racism won't end because people can't understand other walks of life. For example a white man will never understand what it's like to be a black man much life a woman can't understand what it's like to be a man. This creates a lack of reliability between races and cultures and when people don't understand something they fear it. look how people react to Islam for example. A few extremist attacks happen and then they think that there Arab neighbor is the next Osama bin laden. They can't understand or relate to Islam, so they fear what they fear what is unknown and the equation for racism is fear + power = racism that is why when a white police officer shoots a unarmed minority it is racism. because the police officer has the power and is afraid the minority will do something rash. Racism can only end when people see people like how they see themselves other wise it will continue.
Pink (Pro) vs. Purple (Con)

For my concluding statements, I will start by addressing a few statements made by my opponent in their final paragraph. As it is the last round, I will not bring in any new arguments except to address the new criticism of my point about a some of the positive associations of the color purple. Firstly, I would like to clarify that I never claimed purple was used more in more marketing, only that it had more applications and utility in marketing. Pink is indeed a wonderful color and is associated with a couple good things like youth and breast cancer awareness. As I pointed out earlier however, breast cancer awareness campaigns are generally overstated in their claims to having a positive effect. Additionally, the argument mad by Pro that, " the moment I see purple, I don"t think of the Purple Heart, or any such awareness symbols. " Is purely anecdotal and still doesn't address which is actually more effective in producing positive results in society. Having addressed all rebuttals made by my opponent, the entirety of my argument stands. I urge a vote in negation, in favor of the color purple over pink for my reasons stated. The color pink (despite have a couple positive uses) has a net negative effect on society while purple has many positive psychological effects and cultural associations with absolutely no negative effects mentioned by my opponent.
Pink (Pro) vs. Purple (Con)

I did not choose Purple, I simply accepted the invite as given but will do my best to debate on behalf of the color purple. Obviously this is a debate with subjective resolution and so therefore must be judged based on the number and weight of points rather than actually successfully upholding an objectively relevant value. Pro made an opening statement in round 1 so out of courtesy I limit myself to accepting the debate and stating the Con's core argument. Con asserts that purple is superior to pink because of the observable harms of the color pink and the many positive uses of the color Purple in marketing, emotional adjustment, political adjustment, and color psychology in general. I look forward to a positive and light hearted debate.
The Holy Trinity is one God, but has three persons.

Your first analogy is crazy. An apple is apple irregardless of whether you have the ability to taste it, or the ability to see it, or the ability to smell it. Your senses do not make the apple what it is. The apple's structure, irregardless of whether you can see it, makes it an apple. God is God based on His attributes, that is, His timelessness, His power, being the creator of the universe, not based on the actions of the persons of God. Jesus could not be God, but God would still be God, and the same goes for the Holy Spirit. With your analogy, you make it seem like Jesus is a third of God, the Father is a third of God, and that the Holy Spirit is a third of God, but this is untrue with the orthodox view of the Trinity. The Trinity states that each of them are fully God and that they fully share the essence of God. Your analogy fails. I never said that the Bible absolutely does not point to a Trinity, I just said that one could interpret the verses to state something different than the Trinity, admit that the Bible is in error, or that it propagates something totally illogical. If you are to take that verse and says that Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God, you are saying that there are three Gods. The Father is doing one thing, and is distinct from the Son who is doing another thing, and is distinct from the Spirit, who is doing another thing, they are all distinct beings performing distinct tasks, and if you are to assert that they are all God, you are asserting that there are three distinct Gods. "Whatever other types of lives you may have"-You cannot even think of a third type. Your analogy fails again. "Life" here is just used as a word to describe the things I do, it is different than an essence. The Trinity states that there are three persons who are one in ESSENCE, not simply TITLE. Your analogy is not sufficient to explain the entirety of the Trinity. Face it, the Trinity is known as a mystery of God because the human mind cannot comprehend it in it's entirety. It is impossible to imagine THREE BEINGS, at the SAME time, being DISTINCT from one another, doing completely DIFFERENT things, as being ONE ITEM. The Trinity may state that it propagates one God, but when you actually trying to imagine the Trinity in action, three gods come to mind. And again, the Trinity does not state that each person shares a PART of God. The Trinity states that they are each one God at the same time, and that they each are fully that God. With your analogies you trap yourself in heresies that the early church tried to put to rest years ago (See Council of Nicea, Council of Chalcedon, etc.) Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention in round one: Three separate beings can carry out one plan, like any team of three members. Just because The Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit carried out the same plan does not automatically make them all one God. They can easily be said to be three gods who worked together, and when you think of them being distinct from each other, and doing different tasks at the same time, it's just human nature to see three gods working together for one goal.