BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is a Choice

Stray away from rebuttals until the second and third rounds, first establish your thesis and position, then refute your opponent. Make sure to cite your sources. Arguments and Position: 1. Several scientific studies in the Unites States and Europe, such as UCLA's study on identical twin brother, spearheaded by scientists from the David Geffen School of Medicine discovered that methylation, a form of DNA modification, in certain regions of the genome differed between homosexual and heterosexual identical twin brothers. What they did not find were the elusive "gay genes. " [1] No singular gene makes someone homosexual, ergo, our personal biology does not dictate our sexual prefrences. 2. The human X and Y chromosomes have been completely sequenced and mapped. Gene maps, sequenced in the human genome project, could not find any "gay" gene in the genetic structure of 153 million (X) and 50 Million (Y) pairs. [2]
Euthanasia should not be legalized.

My argument is simple. The legalization of euthanasia will not set the dying free, but set the selfish free of the dying. The obligation one has to care for a dying and/or suffering family member is a moral and spiritual duty bound in self sacrifice. It requires strength in the face of sorrow, vigilance, patience, thoughtfulness and compassion. These are all selfless traits in a world which has increasingly become more selfish. Once euthanasia becomes legalized (as it is soon to be here in Canada) the dying who cannot communicate their wishes will have only the moral consciences of their kin to protect them, and not the laws of the state. Are we, as a society, prepared to wager that our citizens will always have sincere and compassionate intentions in their hearts when they are ready to "pull the plug"? While I sympathize with those who wish to end their own suffering on their own terms, the change in this law will lead to many instances of what is essentially legalized murder; the dispensing of a person whose existence has placed a burden on another's life. In closing, I believe that the legalization of euthanasia will feed the abscess of selfishness, and offer freedom not to the dying, but to those who can not wait to be rid of them.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

You're twisting my words. I never said the First Amendment does not apply to the federal government. Obviously, the federal government cannot establish a state religion. However, religion and government have co-mingled since our nation's inception. James Madison essentially wrote the Constitution, and yet he made four religious proclamations as president. REF: James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Washington: Bureau of National Literature, 1897), Vol. II, pp. 498, 517-518, 543, 545-546. You admit that prior to the 14th amendment's supposed passage, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is obviously true since Jefferson himself gave a Thanksgiving prayer as governor of Virginia, after the 1st amendment's passage. But the weakness of your argument is this: You just point to the Supreme Court -- the same court that gave us Dred Scott. Who made the Supreme Court the final arbiters of law? They did themselves. The founding fathers would have never stood for this. Jackson himself did not. And it was only after the War of Northern Aggression that the Supreme Court's totalitarianism became widely accepted (it took the death of 650,000 Americans). Prior to this time, it was the executive, legislative, AND judicial branches -- as well as the states -- that determine a law's constitutionality. Thus, according to you, if the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that the United States would hereby abide by Shariah law, then you would have to agree. After all, in your blindly-trustful-of-government haze, the Dictators of the Bench are omniscient gods in black robes: They can never be wrong. Again, see Dred Scott. The 14th amendment was not ratified, no matter how long we've been pretending it has been. No one really even argues that it was properly ratified, they just go along with the charade. (This is NOT a "conspiracy theory" as many have with the 16th -- the 14th REALLY WASN'T ratified). And even if we continue this fantasy, the fact is that the amendment does NOT say what the Supreme Court has determined it says. The blind faith in the Supreme Court that has given you your atheist utopia is the same one that can enshrine socialist Mike Huckabee as Grand Ayatollah of Christendom. Be careful what you wish for.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

1. The 14th amendment was never properly ratified. See: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Even if the 14th amendment were legitimate (it isn't), it still does not apply all of the Bill of Rights to the states. It is absurd to suggest that it does. This is NOT how the amendment was understood at the time it was supposedly ratified, and your interpretation was created out of thin air by the Supreme Court in 1947. The 14th amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Where does this say that all of the restrictions on government imposed by the Bill of Rights and Constitution are thus imposed on the states? NOWHERE. Your interpretation of the 14th (which again, was never even ratified) was birthed by the most bogus and overt act of judicial activism in our nation's history. The 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Does this amendment apply to the states as well? If so, then the people have every imaginable natural right, and thus, virtually every bit of state legislation is unconstitutional. Obviously, the 9th does NOT apply to the states (and the federal government is undeterred by it as well). The 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment was NOT repealed by the 14th (nor was the 9th), and thus still remains. State churches are not prohibited anywhere in the Constitution, and thus, the right of establishing one is RESERVED by the state. And finally: Even if I were to accept your statist argument (which I don't), the fact is that this still does NOT imply a "right" to be "free from" religion -- only against the establishment of religion. Nothing in the Constitution bans co-mingling of religion and government. Separation of church and state is a good principle and one that I agree with. BUT IT IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS EVER BEEN, LEGITIMATE LAW.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

This is absolutely not true. The First Amendment is very specific and not at all unclear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Congress. Shall make no law. That's it. And what shall they not make a law doing? Respecting the establishment or religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This in no way implies a "right" to be "free from" religion. The only freedom "from" religion you have is to walk away from proselytizers and retreat to your own property; and to not associate with religious individuals. There is no "affirmative" or "positive" right implied by the First Amendment. The First Amendment -- like the rest of the Constitution -- was written with Original Intent. THERE WERE STATE CHURCHES AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION'S RATIFICATION. The state constitution of Massachusetts recognized the establishment of religion until 1830. Never was there a First Amendment challenge, because the First Amendment clearly only applies to the federal government. It has only been more recent bastardizations of the Constitution by Dictators from the Bench that have reinvented the meaning of the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. And I say this as a firmly secular atheist. Facts are facts.
An adventure advocating the advantages of alliteration

My opponent has spun and interesting tale and I'm quite looking forward to seeing how she finishes off the story! Now, without further ado, my last alliteration: Duncan, the deadly, deceptive, dastardly dinosaur was Duke of the Domain of Dinotropolis and the dominant leader of the dinosaur army. He was a dastardly dictator, who demanded that the dinosaurs donated thousands of dollars in tax to aid his goal of world domination. The situation seemed rather desolate for the deflated for the denizens of Dinotropolis who were unable to depose of their dictator. They had tried declaring a democracy, but Duncan had demolished the idea. They had tried denouncing Duncan as a dreadful Duke in an attempt to demonstrate to Duncan that he was disliked. When these plans were defeated they devised more drastic plans. Diana the Diplodocus wanted Duncan decapitated, while Derek, a dainty Deionychus was dedicated to defeating Duncan in a duel. Despite the disposition they all shared towards Duncan, only Derek was daring enough to defy the dominant leader of the dinosaur army and challenge Duncan to duel him to the death. And so Derek demanded that Duncan duel with him to denounce anyone from deriving that Duncan was distrustful. Duncan had dominated the last decade of dinosaur duel tournaments and declared that he would definitely defeat Derek. At last the day of the duel dawned. After much preparation Derek felt ready for his daunting duel with Duncan. The dinosaurs entered Dinotropolis's only dojo. It was packed with dinosaurs, daring to support Derek despite Duncan’s deadly presence. The duelers both decided to decline the offered daggers. It was dinosaur against dinosaur. Both duelers dwelled in their corners, where their coaches departed last minute advice. Then Duncan decided to draw up to his full height and defy Derek to dash at him. Both dinosaurs dared not do anything drastic as the duel began. They drew their claws along the dojo's floor or displayed dangerously sharp teeth. The duel seemed like it was going to drag all day. Both dinosaurs danced around the dojo, dashing and diving at each other. Then suddenly Derek dove at Duncan, drawing his legs out and bringing him down. Derek quickly dove on top of Duncan, denying a response. Despite the duel being to the death, Derek decided he didn't want to dispose of Duncan. Instead Duncan was driven out the door and designated his own cell in the Dinotropolis Detention Center. Derek, the delightful, daring, decent dinosaur became Duke of Dinotropolis and the denizens delighted in the new democracy.
An adventure advocating the advantages of alliteration

Again, what an awesome read! I really enjoyed my opponent's piece. Here I will continue my previously-started story: Saba suspected that significant consequences would result from the suspect's psychological stir. A sentence of severe sustenance was sure to be sustained by the state for a crime such as this, Saba assumed as officials scanned the quarters for evidence. A single soul spoke to Saba with the utmost sincerity: “Miss, we're sorry, but as a result of these serious circumstances, we're asking that you leave the scene of the homicide as soon as possible.” Saba disliked the sound of his unstable proposition and decided to protest. “Sorry, no! You see, sir, I live in this stable structure, and I see no satisfaction in separating from it!” The police smiled, silently assuring Saba that she would be secure. “The station will provide you with safety, security, and anything else you need.” Saba sighed stepping toward the police car. “I suppose this is my only choice, isn't it?” “Yes, indeed, it is. Surely you'll understand, Miss Saba.” So, with that, Saba secured her most sentimental belongings and set off to the station, solidly-packed suitcase in hand. “I must not be selfish,” Saba said to herself as she sat in the seat of the police car. “I must allow the scene to be examined.” After a somewhat lengthy ride, Saba scuttled up the steps to her so-called “secure” destination. Saba was shown to the section of the station where she was supposed to reside. She was served a late supper consisting of spaghetti and sausage, and then sent somberly to her sleeping chamber for some restful slumber. A psychologist was assigned to Saba as a so-called “extra measure” to ensure her sanity and comfort, and sessions were set up with Saba seemingly daily to make the psychologist’s presence crystal clear. A series of days passed, and Saba slumped on through the especially critical lens of the station workers and psychologist. She slowly grew skeptical of the situation, seeking a better explanation of why she was really residing at the police station under such serious observation. After several more days had passed, Saba came to a stunning realization: she was being secretly examined under extreme scrutiny as a suspect in the homicide! A stone-cold shiver slid down her spine as she suddenly spotted several cameras—cameras that were supposedly recording her every move.
An adventure advocating the advantages of alliteration

POOH PIGLETT AND NOTHING IN PARTICULAR:Two of the most important friends of my childhood were Piglett and Pooh, or as Pooh liked it pronounced, Pooh and Piglett (although he was a perfect pacifist and never pointed this out). The two partners played peacefully in their forest, whether it was party games or Poohsticks (http://en.wikipedia.org...) the were perfectly happy together. Pooh also has a passion for poetry and composed many a poem that he performed to Piglett and his other friends. Pooh really was a pioneer for his peers. Tigger was the prowling, pouncy pal that any kid would proudly play together with. He was pleasant enough, but also persisted in playing where, perhaps, he possibly shouldn't. But what Tigger lacked in politeness he provided for with positively. Eeyore is the posse's pessimist. He is perpetually opposed to enjoying a perfect life and must point out potential negative possibilities for everything. Eeyore also possesses a proficiency for sarcasm and put-downs.A.A. Milne's perfect personification of these particular personalities is certainly praise worthy. His prowess for capturing the pictures that play in a child's imagination are preached in a perfectly professionally yet playful recital. P.s. This debate is positively pleasant for playful puns and perfect prose and is pretty much a fantastic way to pass the time. Plus it's pleasing to see alliteration performed by my opponent with such prowess.
An adventure advocating the advantages of alliteration

I love the creative descriptions you used to get your plot across. My story will be continuous throughout the rounds, so please consider this the beginning: Saba stumbled, seemingly by surprise, upon what was perhaps the messiest scene imaginable—the scene of a sadly successful homicide. A slaughtered soul, sustaining scarlet strangle-marks and severe signs of immense strain, was spotted sprawled in her sunroom. Saba gasped, suddenly stumbling backward in sincere shock at the sight of the scene. In a succinct gesture, she scrambled from the sunroom and toward the closest serviceable phone to swiftly contact officials. Within what seemed like seconds, police were seen sprightly swarming about the scene of the crime. Some attempted to sustain a salubrious, pacifistic scene, while others focused on studying the vicious slaughter in solemn silence. The corpse seemed to have succumbed as a result of the serious misdeeds it suffered, however the precise cause of cessation could not yet be stated for certain.
An adventure advocating the advantages of alliteration

I will start by recounting a tale of great bravery from tiny heroes: Armoured Army ants were anchored at Adelaide, anxiously awaiting the arrival of their alligator allies when all of a sudden they were attacked by an anteater with an atrocious appetite. The anteater antagonised the ants, attacking with an aloof assault. The ants acted admirably in response. They attached apples and asparagus to aircraft and ambushed the anteater in an alleyway. The anteater went on the offensive, allowing no ants to apprehend it. It began aimlessly assailing the ants and any hope was abandoned. Then the alligators, allies of the army ants, arrived in Adelaide. The alligators were arrogant but aggressive and actively aided their allies, who had been brave in their absence. The anteater was soon overwhelmed and abandoned it's afternoon of aerobic activity. Instead it ambled back to it's abode and fell asleep for the afternoon. The ants were ecstatic that the attack had abated and all attended an awards event to celebrate the audacious ants and alligators the had, in affect, allowed all to assume amity. THE END
An adventure advocating the advantages of alliteration

Alliteration is defined as: The occurrence of the same letter or sound at the beginning of adjacent or closely connected words. The rules of the debate are as follows: Round 1 is for acceptance In the next three rounds each person will pick 1 letter or sound and produce a piece of writing using alliteration of that letter or sound. You can not change in the middle of a round. I ask voters to judge on quality rather than quantity, i.e. Don't just write gibberish, try to have it make sense You can tell a continuous story in each round but you do not have to. Please partake in this this daring debate, dedicating to partaking in precise and perfect use of alliterations for an enjoyable afternoon.
Ninjas are Better than Pirates

This debate is for fun, obviously, but I warn you I will argue it seriously. I argue that ninjas are better than pirates in the following ways: Ninjas are more skilled than pirates -They undergo intensive training to master ninjitsu in order to be successful assassins. Ninjitsu is an umbrella term to describe espionage skills, which range from spying and disguise, to poison, explosives, and other stealthy ways to kill. Ninjas followed the same basic lesson plans as samurai, albeit taking a different route. Whole schools are devoted to the teaching of this art, as it is no easy task. Ninjas are more moral than pirates -Although some were assassins for hire, a good number of ninjas were loyal to particular nobleman or clan, or a political cause, and familial groups of ninjas usually protected the village where they lived from from robbers or others. Pirates on the other hand, were rarely loyal to anyone themselves and killed indiscriminately except when fear for impracticality made it illogical. A ninja could kill a pirate before a pirate could kill a ninja. -Pirates were rarely trained at combat (at least formally) and used to direct confrontation, where as ninjas are used to sneaking, and would be able to take a pirate when he least expected it. They are assassins; they're trained to kill.
Proper grammar and spelling are very important in written debate.

Also, I would like to point out that my opponent used proper grammar and spelling in his argument. While this may not affirm the resolution, it certainly aided my opponent in several ways. He will not lose points for this when voting time comes. Also, this made his arguments very coherent and palatable. I would just like to quickly get a few things out of the way. My opponent states,"Effective arguments are the most important aspect of debate. " I agree, but this has nothing to do with the resolution. Also, my opponent states,"people don't often have time to proofread their work, especially since there are time limits on responses. " This is ridiculous. It took me 3 minutes to read my opponent's argument. I was allotted three days to respond. I think that leaves ample time for the ten minute proofreading session. Again, the only reason for not proofreading is laziness. Also, there are 7 possible points for voting. Every one of those points is very important when deciding a winner. Notice how many debates end in ties. My opponent states,"The Con does not have to advocate the use of improper grammar and spelling in written debate; it just has to show how improper grammar and spelling are not detrimental. " I have illustrated its detriment with the attached debates. In one, The spelling and grammar are so bad, The pro actually negates his own argument several times. Remember, just because to have a good argument does not mean people can understand your writing. If I cannot understand your writing, then I cannot understand your argument. Since this is the most important part of a debate, I believe it stands that spelling and grammar are very important. I already stated that no one is perfect and typos happen. That is not what this debate is about. It is about the importance of proper grammar and spelling, overall. My opponent did not rebut the part about spelling and using spell check. I assume that is because there is no excuse for not using spell check, except laziness. That leaves only grammar, and I believe wholeheartedly that the readers will agree, it can be very difficult to understand what someone is writing when their grammar is sub-standard. It takes longer to read, and takes much more effort to decipher what some are really trying to say. My opponent says, " Proper grammar is not always common knowledge. " I say that proper grammar is taught in schools for a reason. It is taught universally so that it may become common knowledge. It is absolutely crucial in communication, and isn't that exactly what debate is all about? Debate is about two people communicating their views to each other and the readers. This cannot be done on a consistent basis using poor grammar and spelling. I would like to sincerely thank RougeFox for this debate. It has been fun, and I very much look forward to his final round. I'm sure he will give me a run for my money, but I felt this topic was important to bring to the surface. Thank you, everyone, for reading this debate, and I hope I was convincing. Good luck to my worthy opponent.
Proper grammar and spelling are very important in written debate.

Recently, I have found it extremely difficult to understand what is being said in some debates. With sub-standard grammar and spelling, deciphering meaning and context is nearly impossible. I would like this debate to be somewhat informal, and would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will not be using any arguments in this round, and would appreciate if my opponent would also use round one for introductions. I look forward to a thought provoking debate, and may the best argument win.
God Does not Exist

Yay!! Lepanto continued: Vivat Hispania! Domino Gloria! Don John of Austria Has set his people free! Cervantes on his galley sets the sword back in the sheath (Don John of Austria rides homeward with a wreath.) And he sees across a weary land a straggling road in Spain, Up which a lean and foolish knight for ever rides in vain, And he smiles, but not as Sultans smile, and settles back the blade.... (But Don John of Austria rides home from the Crusade.)