BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The national motto of the United States should be changed (Two)

I sincerely apologise for the lateness of my reply, and also for the incorrect Founding Fathers remarks on my behalf. I attribute that to my faulty knowledge of American history, but I do not use that as as an excuse. I am very sorry. My use of the Aronow decision was not to counter the ruling made by Justice Black, as I understood the Court of Appeals is a lower court. However, Justice Black ruling was this: "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion" Your definition of a motto was either "a short saying, a verse or maxim, or a quotation," not a piece of legislation. 1. The motto does not violate the Establishment Clause as the Supreme Court interpreted it in the first sentence. The second sentence prohibits the forcing of belief or disbelief in any religion. 1. The motto doesn't force any religion. Many American citizens are atheists. They have not been forced to believe in any religion, especially not by the motto. 2. Even if I was to concede that the motto forces anything, it would be a belief in a God, not a religion. While this is arguably a technicality, it still stands that a specific religion is not forced at all. The fact that the Supreme Court has failed to hear a case regarding this matter only leads us to one thing; precisely that. That the Supreme Court has failed to hear a case on this matter. Until the Supreme Court hears a similar case or hears an appeal, the ruling of a lower court (a ruling made by valid, learned judges) will suffice. The Aronow decision was an example of how judges do not see the motto as a violation of the constitution. The Gaylor decision is another: "After making [inquiries], we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase "In God we trust," would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion." (Gaylor vs USA, 10th Cir. 1996) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro has stated that any legislation passed is representative of the people. While this is true, the legislation passed that made the national motto "In God We Trust," did not force anyone to believe in any religion. While one could argue it forced belief in a God, it most definitely does not force religion. Any American atheist will attest to that. The motto is "In God We Trust," not "In Catholicism We Trust" or "In Judaism We Trust." It does not force religion on a literal sense. In a legal sense, the motto is valid. Con has shown you in Aronow and Gaylor and many other court cases that judges do not believe that the motto violates the Establishment Clause. On literal levels and on the highest legal levels possible, Con has proved that "In God We Trust" is not in violation of the Establishment Clause, and should not be changed for this reason.
Screening people who obtain social assitance from the government

A tedious, be necessary task is the chore of definitions. The premise, which reads. .. "This debate is argueing for the right to screen any family, people or persons obtaining welfare from the government. The screening will be for everything from illegal by DownloadNSave" href="? id=26299">drug use to internet and tv. ". .. I understand to represent a debate over whether or not state governments should investigate matters such as whether or not recipients of taxpayer funds are engaged in any of the following nefarious activities:- Watching television- Using illegal drugs- Logging onto the internet (sending and receiving emails, searching for a job, watching movies, etc. )I interpret "persons obtaining welfare from the government" as meaning "persons who receive public assistance, taxpayer funds, and/or other forms of public aid. "If we agree on these definitions, I will challenge the premise on the following grounds:1. "Those who receive public funds" would include so many millions of Americans, that this program would be prohibitively expensive. Every soldier, corporation, large farm or agribusiness, oil tycoon and public sector employee receives public funds. Investigating this many citizens, without any suspicion of wrongdoing, would be massively burdensome to taxpayers. (I agree that we should drug test congressmen, however. )2. Without any reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are being used by these men and women, they are well within their rights to refuse to comply with any such drug tests. Watching television and surfing the web are not illegal - and the constitution strictly forbids government monitoring of this private activity. These factors make any such program impracticable to implement.3. This premise is profoundly unserious. There are no policy proposals that might be adopted by any state that make such humiliating and draconian measures likely to ever become law. Therefore, my argument, as of this round, is that this type of measure is intended only to humiliate the poor. The best outcome for taxpayers is that families in need will prefer to starve rather than risk becoming the subject of a potential serious criminal investigation - which will require time and money in order to fight off. This negligible gain will be overwhelmed by the extravagant cost of implementing such a program. Additionally, so many millions of Americans will qualify as having "received welfare" that much of our constitution (habeas corpus, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, etc) will need to be suspended for an unacceptably large share of the American public.
The United States should NOT decrease foreign aid to Israel.

Again, I believe the United States should NOT decrease ALL foreign aid to Israel for many reasons. First, Israel is the ONLY democracy in the Middle East. As a mediator between the violent extremist groups and the various terrorist organizations that now control many governments in the Middle East, it is absolutely vital that the United States maintain a firm and healthy relationship with Israel. Furthermore, Israel serves as one of the United States' only allies in the Middle East. Israel is the country through which the United States can conduct peace talks and negotiations with other countries in the area. Therefore, it is very important we make sure our relationship flourishes. Next, I'd like to continue with my first point: democracy. As a fellow democratic nation, we ought to be promoting and defending Israel, rather than attacking it, blaming it, and decreasing our foreign aid to it. Israel has proven to be our MOST reliable ally in a very hostile area. Point blank, we NEED to support Israel to maintain sufficient relations in the Middle East. The United States has been allies with Israel for at least 45 years. For us to suddenly decrease foreign aid to the ONLY democracy in the Middle East would be unjust and consequential for two reasons: First, it would make it seem as if the United States does not promote Democracy, and instead that it supports radical extremist groups that attempt to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. " Secondly, it would cause the other allies of the United States to question our loyalty toward them. For example, the United States is allies with Egypt; we send them nearly $2 billion annually. But the disturbing part is, Egypt is not even a democracy. For starters, it does not have free elections. As a matter of fact, there was a nearly 10% voter turnout the past election. Furthermore, Egypt hosts a semi-authoritarian regime headed by "President" Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, who is not much of a "President" at all. My point is, we simply do NOT believe in the principles that exist in these nations. Yet we still feed them billions of dollars in aid every year. My opponent proposes we decrease ALL foreign aid to Israel, the ONLY democracy in the Middle East, and a vital outlet to negotiations in the area. For these reasons, I fundamentally disagree with my opponent, and believe that the United States should NOT decrease foreign aid to Israel. I await my opponent's response. . http://www.time.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://socialissues.wiseto.com... . http://www.associatedcontent.com...
The United States should NOT decrease foreign aid to Israel.

Normally I don't like debate resolutions with imperatives like "should" or "ought", but I think the meaning implied is sufficiently understood that it won't be a problem. My case is that the United States SHOULD decrease foreign aid to Israel. There is no specified amount of decrease, but for the sake of simplicity I will contend that the United States should cut off all foreign aid to Israel. For future reference, it may have been clearer to phrase the resolution as "The United States should decrease foreign aid to Israel" and then take the Con side. Obviously when you are trying to take a position that the status quo should not be changed in a certain way, it becomes unusually difficult to phrase the resolution. Fortunately, it is easily understood in this case. It will be interesting to see what direction this debate will go. There are no shortage of questions that are brought up by the resolution. I am eager to see my opponent's case.
The United States should NOT decrease foreign aid to Israel.

Hello, I'd first like to say that this is my second debate on Debate.org, and I am very open to constructive criticism and tips. The topic states: The United States should NOT decrease foreign aid to Israel. I believe that this statement holds true, and feel obliged to defend my position. I will gladly welcome anybody willing to debate the issue. Again, I am on the affirmative side of the case. I am looking forward to a fun and interesting debate. *Just to clarify, there will be NO 1st round debate. Debate will begin in the second round, and there are four rounds.
The United States should NOT decrease foreign aid to Israel.

My opponent has again forfeited. The fact that he set the time limit to only 24 hours instead of the usual 72 may have contributed to this problem. As my arguments went unquestioned, they can only be considered the superior arguments. No attempt was ever made at refuting them. For the future, I urge Confucius to set longer time limits on debates. What could have been a good debate unfortunately turned into a forfeit. I suspect that this could easily have been avoided if the time limit were set longer.
The Bible is reliable

I assume any contradiction is allowed, regardless of if it is something not so major or if it is major? Anyways, I will begin. As agreed upon, I will only post 2 contradictions per round. One will be from the old testament, the other from the New Testament.1) Two conflicting creation accountsIn Genesis 1:25-27 it reads:"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."In this account, animals came before humans. However, in Genesis 2:18-19 it reads:"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.In this account, humans came before animals. "Only one of these accounts can be right, which makes the other false.2) Is Jesus' witness of himself true?In John 5:31 it reads:"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. " This is Jesus speaking, of course.In John 8: 14,18 it reads:"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true... I am one that bear witness of myself" This is also Jesus speaking.
The Bible is reliable

The Bible is reliable in that it accurately recorded events as it happened. To show that the Bible is unreliable it will be up to Con to show that the Bible contradicts itself. Please use only one or two examples at most per round. Examples must preferably prove that God made an error or contradicted Himself. Humans are able to err. History books contain lots of examples where people lied or made a mistake but that do not make the history unreliable. If more than two arguments are mentioned I will choose which ones I want to answer without any obligation to address the rest. I hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible in the same way we interpret things literally during normal communication today. In other words, parables, figure of speech, examples, sarcasm etc. has an essential literal interpretation. For this debate, please use the King James Version Bible as reference as support for your arguments.
Today believe in religion slows the progress of science.

1. Denying the big bang and believing the earth was created about 10,000 years. 2. Being a against abortion 3. Denying parts of human history. 4. Discarding physical laws. (Believe in miracles). 5. Condemning homosexuals. 6. Being against embryo research. 7. And recruiting more people to do the same. Religion slows down the progress of science.
starcraft/ terran are better

By lifting off you leave your units on the ground and allow me to shred them. Thus allowing you not to be able to gain resources and leaving you pretty much hopeless. Also, if I zerg rush which takes about 4 minutes if done right as shown above with the help of blizzard and the encylopedia I used, you should not be able to have many if any units. I can also use my hydralisks which when equipped with the grooved spike upgrade can shoot farther and inflict more damage. This allows me to destroy your small force, if there is any. So, with my zerglings and hydralisks which are both easy to get early in the game against your marines or firebats I am able to defeat you whether or not you lift your base off the ground. Tanks take several things in order to build Requires: Barracks, Factory, Machine Shop for Siege Mode. http://classic.battle.net... I would agree if you had any early on in the game than well your simply cheating. My zerglings require nothing but a Spawning Pool, which is very easy to obtain early in the game. and the hydralisks are easy to obtain as well. Also, seige tanks can only attack ground units so my Queen, Scourge, and Mutalisks would destroy them fairly easily. The fact that zerg can burrow and attack you unexpectedly is probably one of the biggest advantages. The Lurker as shown above with the spikes and zerglings/hydralisks just sitting and waiting and then springing up and attacking from behind as I have a force attack you from the front. The terran are outmatched in the beginning of the game but could make it interesting if the zerg rush fails. However, 9 out of 10 times it won't, so I would say zerg are the superior fighting person. The Zerg in starcraft can destroy terran as shown in the arguments above. to recap, zerg rush, easy to do, new players are helped out by the simplicity of the zerg rush and unit making capability, have superior fighting strategies such as burrowing or turning the terran against themselves using a Queen and making the terran infested and kamikazes fighting for you. So zerg is better than terran in starcraft.
starcraft/ terran are better

If I work fast enough, i should be able to lift off and land in an isolated island area ureachable by early means. This will give me time to build a decent defense and a force of tanks, valkries, and firebats. Put to effect at just the right time, I will have 2+ bases at my disposal and it will take time for you to destroy all of them. Tanks, having the longest range in the game, can destroy any of your defences in seconds with their powerful siege attack. Since you mentioned lurkers, i will add science vessels into this. Now since your being massacred, you will probably bring in all your offensive units to save your base(s). that will aloow me to make up for my own loss of defences while my tanks are perfectly secured by firebats (with a good ground/splash attack) and valkries (with a deadly air attack). Now of course this all depends on context of situations, so time and location may differ the outcome...
starcraft/ terran are better

Zergling(zerg lil critters that can attack) are extremely fast and can kill the terran marines very fast. A zerg rush typically should take 4 in a half minutes if done right. This should give the terran very little time to build an army seeing as I get two zerglings per larvae that I evole and the terran get 1 marine per per person they train. A zerg player has an advantage to quickly build cheap offensive units faster than any other race. This allows the player to amass Zerglings (the aforementioned cheap offensive unit) and eliminate a player before they even get a chance to finish building a defense. http://encyclopediadramatica.com... Thus the terran would lose Zerg Queens have the ability to infest severely damaged Terran Command Centers, saturating them with parasitic bio-toxins. Once the Command Center is fully infested, its previous occupants can be turned into mindless suicide soldiers capable of mass destruction known as the Infested Terrans. The infested victims of the Zerg are completely consumed by the will of the Overmind. Their bodies twisted and mutated to produce extremely unstable chemicals, infested soldiers long only to find the Swarm's enemies and destroy them by detonating their own bodies in a cloud of toxic fluid. As with other Zerg ground units, an Infested Terran also has the ability to Burrow. The Infested Terrans have the capability to inflict up to 500 points of explosive splash damage to any unit or structure. To reach their full destructive potential, an Infested Terran must be commanded to target a specific unit or structure, but they can also be commanded to target an area within the proximity of several units or structures. The splash damage from the exploding Infested Terran will cause massive damage to all nearby targets. Thus once again the zerg have the advantage over terran because they can turn terran into suicide bombers working for them. Zerg also have the lurker. Lurkers emit waves of supra-dense spines against their enemies and actually burrow under the ground. Once underground, a Lurker can utilize a series of spines that rip up through the ground in a straight line from the Lurker to its target. These spines continue to their maximum attack range, regardless of where the targeted unit lies within that path and every enemy unit in the path of the spines will take damage. If he decides to take his base and move it I can attack with Mutalisks. The Mutalisk serves as the basic flying support unit for the Zerg and has the ability to strike both air and ground targets. The Scourge are the zerg actual kamikaze units and explode killing air/ground people. So, whether the terran base decides to pick up and move I can attack it. So, I can rush or wait later in the game and I will end up winning because the zerg have superior units, can be used by new players, can be used quickly by rushing, and overall destroy the terran.
This website has lost all value

Very well. I'm just now noticing a major flaw in my generalized wording, but it is far too late (and unprofessional) to go back now. My intention for this debate was that: "As Con you are to refute the claim that this website and it's users have not lost merit--if so, gained it--and the website has the same value, or better, than before.", not what you quoted, however to avoid complications I will submit to your terms. I accept definition 3 of the 4 you have listed. My claim is that, 1.) this website has no importance or utility for the debates that are common place are not as well-structured and the original ones a three years ago or so, meaning it will be better to utilize the debates from three years ago than the current ones, making them useless and unimportant, and in comparison to the older debates they are worthless. Furthermore there were fewer debates of leisure four to five years ago, and in some months, none. And 2.) the debaters from that time were typically in their mid-20's and debated more relative subjects, but now many of the common debaters are Freshmen in high school and debate over entertainment, which really isn't a debate at all. Overall the site has no value as it is mostly rehashed debates week by week and the few unique debates get little to no views and are rarely voted on as such debates do not interest the common user as much as the debates of entertainment. The recent debates (past year) on this website has little to no value in comparison to what it had years ago.
This website has lost all value

I accept.To quote the affirmative's position:"My position, Pro, is that this website has lost all respective value and has deteriorated because of frivolous users posting repetitive and debates of senseless leisure."Thus, to win this debate, the negative needs only to prove that this website holds even a little bit of value. In other words, if I can prove that this website still holds even the tiniest bit of value, regardless of what that may be, I will win this debate.To define value: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged the monetary worth of something relative worth, utility, or importance a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...Good luck.
This website has lost all value

My position, Pro, is that this website has lost all respective value and has deteriorated because of frivolous users posting repetitive and debates of senseless leisure. Here are a list of the same debates that are posted at least three times a week, that could have easily been avoided if the user were to use the search system: same-sex marriage, drug legalization, abortion, immigration, war on terror, does God exist, death penalty, Israel-Palestine, capitalism vs communism vs socialism, etc. along with other debates that aren't truly debates as they are two opponents stating nonsense and whoever shows the most humor wins. The sorts of debates previously listed get views in the thousands while original, thought-provoking debates only get 50 views, or maybe over 100 if the debater has a lot of friends. Most unique debates never get voted on. Looking back at the first 500 debates or so, one can see that the topics were intellectually better and had much merit. As Con you are to refute the claim that this website and it's users have not lost merit--if so, gained it--and the website has the same value, or better, than before.
Today's Youth Misuses Mobile Phones And The Internet

The topic is "todays youth misuses mobile phones, internet" it doesn't imply any portion of a group, so if I can prove that even one youth misuses mobile phones, internet, then it's my win. "WHEN THERE IS A POSITIVE SIDE,THERE WILL BE A NEGATIVE SIDE ALSO one cannot plot all the negative sides of everything. if so happens,then its his fault." My opponent, again, is refuting his own side. I don't feel it's necessary to represent my arguments on this round. I will give my last argument next round if he/she starts to support his "own" side instead of my side.