BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A bigger military enforces more individual rights.

Interesting, instead of rebutting my points, you seem to have just restated what you have already said. An odd strategy at the very least, as I have already responded to your point about the price of a large military. As for soldiers, a "bigger military" isn't only based of enlisted population. It's also about having more arms, weaponry, and technology. When people feel safer, they will work harder and earn more money, because they will keep more of their individual rights.
A bigger military enforces more individual rights.

1. Your comment was not correctly laid out 2. Germany's depression was not caused by Germany's large military in WWI, it was caused by the Treaty of Versailles forcing Germany to pay for all the damages caused by the war. 3. No members of the population would be forced into joining the military, I never mentioned anything of the sort. 4. If people feel more safe they will work more, creating money that can be used to fund a larger military.
A bigger military enforces more individual rights.

1) My comment referred to a nation as a group of people, so my comment was merely misunderstood. 2) Germany's depression was caused by WWI Germany's large and oversea loud military. 3) The conscription of a very large military would be a deficit to the nation and it people because a) it would require a large portion I the population to surrender personal freedom in joining th military and b) would be far too expensive to maintain, resulting in a post-WWI Germany, Post-Revolution England, etc
A bigger military enforces more individual rights.

If people feel unsafe they are more likely to give up their personal freedoms in exchange for their protection. A larger military equals a larger feeling of security, giving people less incentive to keep their individual rights. Pre-WWII, for example, Hitler came into power because Germany's people were economically unsafe, and unsafe overall after WWI. This made people resort to giving him Power. By the way, a nation doesn't have individual rights, only people do. Your comment lacks sense.
Prayer in Public Schools

Well then you needed to define that. Instead of just saying prayer should be accepted in school, then give a definition. You have the burden of that, meaning, that instead of just saying prayer, which many people associate with Christianity, you must say all religions. That is the burden of proof on your end. In that case, then your argument is invalid as praying in school is allowed. It just cannot be school sponsored or government sponsored as that is against the First Amendent and the Establishment Clause of the United States, but seeing that the government is not sponsoring then, I agree with the assessment. But you didn't state your point, you didn't give a definition, and you don't have sources. I contend that if you have given us sources, a definition, anything, then I would have conceded and not done this debate. Instead, you say two sentences in the first argument and one sentence in the second round.
Prayer in Public Schools

It depends on who is praying. The definition of prayer, as defined by Webster Dictionary is "an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought." The only way prayer should be allowed in school is if all members of every religious denomination was allowed to pray. That would include Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, Christians, Jews, Catholics etc. So by prayer do you mean Christian prayer? Or just plain religious prayer. Because if it just Christian prayer, then your argument is invalid and you should refer to my next argument.It is also against the United States constitution, which in Wallace v Jaffree, the school one minute prayer or mediation was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court wrote in the opinion that "the enactment of the statute was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose". http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...;
There should not be tax exemptions for Curches.

I believe that there sould not be a tax exemption for Churches. Con must argue the opposite, of course:) Definitions:Tax exempt: To be free from, or not subject to, taxation by regulators or government entities.*Some information about the topic: US churches received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding**. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained. Acceptance first.Sources: *http://www.investopedia.com... **Edwin S. Gaustad, Church and State in America, 2nd edition
The Libertarian view of Nonaggression supports the pro-life position.

As this is the last round I will not present anything entirely new but will rather be clarifying and expanding upon my previous points as well as responding to his. First of all my opponent says, "If my opponent objects to this he should bring up a reason why, according to the non-aggression principle, the fetus has a right to life that trumps the mother's right to her life and property. " My opponent wants me to say why the life of the fetus trumps the property rights of the mother. The solution is to accept that the fetus is acting as a tenant for 9 months. I anticipate that my opponent might counter this by saying that the fetus is instead a squatter, but would imply that the fetus actually invaded the women's body, which is not the case. Besides, why should the women's property rights trump the fetus's right to their own well being? Are property rights more important than the right to life? I would say, according to the nonaggression principle it doesn't because if someone wanders onto your property, you cannot shoot them without fair warning. He goes on to say, "My opponent then argues that one is retaliating against the wrong person. However he misinterprets my point. It is the fetus that is aggressing against the mother's property. It is the fetus that is occupying itself inside the mother's womb and it is the fetus that is nourishing itself off of the mother's nutrients. " However a fetus does not invade the body it is already there. The true aggressor is whoever provided the sperm since it is not the fetus's fault that he/she exists. "It was my opponent that said that the mother should kick the newborn out on to the street. " This is a complete misrepresentation of my point. I was saying that in order to be consistent under ethical egoism one might come to that conclusion, and that no rational person would go for that. "Again, the act of abortion is necessary to stop the aggression being brought against the mother. There is nothing else that can be done that stops the aggression at that point. " This really doesn't address the objection I brought up and more dodges the question, so I will elaborate on what I mean. I will repeat what I said earlier, the act of abortion can have worse long term effects on the women's body then carrying the baby to term. To elaborate let us look at specifics. First of all remember that abortion is a major surgery while the act of giving birth is a natural process. Abortion can cause infection, increase the chance of future miscarriages and an increased chance of sterility. Also, since it interferes with the change in hormones it has detrimental effects on the women's natural process. [1] It can also cause psychological distress and depression as well as an increased rate of suicide. [2] [3] I await my opponents response. Vote for pro. 1 . http://www.abortionfacts.com... 2 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3 . http://afterabortion.org...
The Libertarian view of Nonaggression supports the pro-life position.

I thank con for responding I agree with you definition and feel it is more complete than the one I presented. It is true that violent self defense is permissible and does not violate the nonaggression principal. As far as it being an act of self defense though, the mother's life is only in danger in a small number of pregnancies, and in such cases a reasonable effort should be made to save both. [1] [2] As far as property goes the fetus is not an intruder as it originated there, therefore the womb is home for 9 months. However if anyone is the intruder it would be the sperm, though even there it is usually an invited guest. Also, there is the issue of duty. If you are on a boat and see a drowning man and he boards your craft for his life, would it be morally justified to push him back? Would his being there actually have any significant detrimental effect on you? [3] http://www.youtube.com... In your premise D you say "A fetus, embryo is aggressing against the mother by invading her body and living off of her nutrients. " The same could be said of a newborn or toddler; they live off the mother's nutrients and food, could you simply kick a toddler out on to the street simply because they are a drain on you? I thank my opponent and await his response. 1 http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2 http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org... 3 http://www.lewrockwell.com...
The Libertarian view of Nonaggression supports the pro-life position.

I would like to present to you why the libertarian nonaggression principal supports the pro-life position. If abortion is an act of aggression, and I will make the argument that it is, then libertarians should oppose it. Although the the nonaggression axiom is often applied to foreign policy, it also deals with interaction between individuals. "No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else". [1] I will also argue why the abortion debate is not one of property rights but rather individual rights, as the fetus is an individual. The first round is setting up our arguments and the debate will commence from there. I wish my opponent the best of luck. 1 http://www.csun.edu...
is poverty should be consider as life style

You can't cook with petroleum you would blow up. Power can be given by solar power. People can cut down on what they do but to say that they should live like a person in poverty means you do not understand poverty. If everyone is poor which is impossible then there would still be exploitation because people would fight over food. Your argument only makes sense if you completely change the wording saying people should cut down on using coal and petroleum but your argument now is ignorant.
is poverty should be consider as life style

First of all my debates are limited to lifestyle adopted by pours & not to exploitation,corruption,terrorism,voilance &drug problem by which poverty exists in Africa & South Asia.Secondly I have found if you are rich,you wastes natural resources like any thing.You know a big car if running 4-5 hours consume petroleum in which a poor can cook his food for 60 days.Same with the case of power consumed for T.V.,Video Games,Air Conditioner using as well as making to them.My simple suggestion to this world that adopt the life style of poor and you will see problems like Global Warming,exploitation of poor by rich,pollution etc will end immediately.\Thanks
is poverty should be consider as life style

Poverty- State of being poor: the state of not having enough money to take care of basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing. I guess I don't truly understand how you could say poverty is a lifestyle and not a limitation unless you blame the person that is in poverty. . http://www.poverties.org... . http://www.globalissues.org... It is impossible to blame the person that is in poverty I would like to point to the continent of Africa as an example they were colonized by Europeans that still to this day take more money out of Africa then Africa gets approximately 500 billion dollars is taken out of Africa and only 180 billion is given to Africa threw aid foundations and the U. N. For you to call poverty a Lifestyle I challenge you to define poverty in your own words and also how it is the person in poverties fault. Oh yea in poverty stricken countries people have more kids because they think most of there kids will die and they want to have some children live dead bodies cause harm to the environment when not buried and in non developed countries there are many times that they cannot afford the time or money that it takes to bury someone since they live off of $2.50 cents a day.
The Problem of Evil and the existence of God

A common argument that has been proposed repeatedly throughout history goes something like this: Christians claim that their God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. If God is all powerful then He could prevent evil from happening. If God were all-loving, He would want to prevent evil from happening. Evil exists. Therefore, God is either not all-powerful or not all-loving. In either case, He is not worth worshiping, if he exists at all. Pro will take the position of the argument above, or some variation of it to Pro's liking. I am Con, and I will refute this claim. Round 1 is for accepting and optional opening statement from Pro.
Abortion

---- Definitions ----Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Side note: If the opponent dislikes my definition he/she can put forward his/her definition. ---- Pro & Con ----Pro - I will choose pro for this debate I believe woman have the first and final choice over their body. Con - Will be chose by the opponent he/she will protect his belief that woman should not be allowed to have abortions. ---- Rules ----Round 1 will be for acceptance, then we will move on from there. Please no new cases in round 4. Take the debate just as a debate nothing more nothing less. Have fun.
Resolved: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a communist nation.

Contention 1: StatelessThe Communist society must be that of a stateless one. There is no government in a communist society. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It's funny that my opponent bring up North Korea being communist, because if you look at Con's source it reads that the North Korean Government is not communist, but a Juche Socialist State. (Self Reliant) North Korea was originally set up as a puppet state by the USSR, but now the USSR is gone and the DPRoK functions on it's own. They even hold their own elections. Earlier this year Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un got elected with a 100% margin with a 100% voter turn out rate! He was the only one who ran though. (http://www.usatoday.com...) According to it's 2009 Constitution, it is a revolutionary Socialist State. (http://naenara.com.kp...) In communism one cannot be communist until after the Revolution has happend, thus meaning that North Korea by their own standards are not Communist yet. Their political Party actually is not a communist Party, but a Self Reliance Party that puts it's military fist. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'_Party_of_Korea)Contention 2: MoneyIn a communist society there is no Private ownership, but in 1998, North Korea legalized Private Ownership and decentralized command over the economy. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov...) Taxes in North Korea were abolished in 1974 and the average income of North Koreans are $25-$30 a month, but this is because Education, housing, food, and health care are all free. (https://web.archive.org...) In terms of debt the North Koreans do not have a lot of that. The most of their debt is to Russia and they wrote off 90% of it recently. (http://uk.reuters.com...)
Resolved: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a communist nation.

I acceptArgument:North Korea is a communist state, because the government is a puppet, it's so corrupt, it doesn't function and so technically North Korea is stateless. Now for classes, technically the rich 10 people are too small to be a class, so it isn't divided by classes, as there is only one super poor class. Now North Korea is basically bankrupt. So it's moneyless. So this makes North Korea a stateless, classless, moneyless society. This happened, because when Korea split, North Korea became a USSR communist satellite state with a puppet nonexistent government. Also the only dominant party in this state is the Korean Worker's Party (a communist party with communist ideals. So based on the criterion's North Korea is communist. (1)(1): http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a communist nation.

THIS IS NOT A TROLL DEBATE!This debate is over weather or not North Korea is communist or not. I'd like to thank TheDebateMaster1 ahead of time for accepting this debate.RulesRound 1 is for acceptance and my opponent will make his first argument.Round 2 is Contentions and rebuttle. Con will make his rebuttles and conclusion.Round 3 is rebuttles and conclusion by Pro. Con will type, "No Round as agreed upon."No Trolling.No Spaming.No Semantics.If any of these rules are violated then Con Forfeits all 7 points.DPRoK- Democratic People's Republic of Korea or also known as North KoreaCommunism- a stateless, classless and moneyless society, structured upon common ownership of the means of production. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
The St. Louis Rams will win the NFC West

As I am con and you have posted no arguments, I will not post any arguments in this round. I assume that this argument is referring to the upcoming NFL season, and not just saying that the Rams will someday in the future win the NFC west. I also assume that as PRO you will have the burden of proof for this argument. Finally, your use of the word "will" in the resolution led me to believe that you are saying it is practically a 100% chance the Rams will win the NFC West. Knowing this, I just have to prove there is a slight possiblity that the Rams will not win the title again.
The Council on Foreign Relations (The CFR) is a shady organization.

First a background: The CFR was founded in 1921 by Colonel House(1) (a Marxist(2), ah!) and received important funding from the Rockefeller Foundation(!) and the Carnegie Foundation(!) by the late 20's.(3) It has become more and more influential since then and the longer it has been around, the more presidents there have been who are members. That's a well-known fact and can be found on the official website of the CFR as general knowledge. Example: All the presidential candidates right now? All members. (1)http://www.cfr.org... (2)House was the author of the book, "Philip Dru: Administrator…" In this book House says his goal is for "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." (Circumstantial, but it's harder to prove he isn't a Marxist than to prove that he is which is really bad enough so go on – try it. http://www.amazon.com... (3) http://www.hirhome.com... (Go down real quick to the "Who is behind the CFR" part and it's right there, so don't be discouraged.) Why is this background a bad thing? Colonel House was co-president alongside Wilson during most of his presidency (Wilson himself referring to House as his "alter-ego") and it was during Wilson's presidency when things such as the The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment were passed into law. Before Wilson was even president, the people who financed his campaign were international bankers such as Rothschild and Rockefeller… So, this House guy (who it can be argued was the real president during this time and Wilson his puppet) is not coming from an innocent place and the policies we see connected to him are disgusting. You ever heard anyone tell you that if you want to know what a candidate is all about, you should go and see who's financing their campaign? http://www.youtube.com... Okay, so the guy who founded the CFR is factually pretty shady himself and now we have a whole organization created in his image that likes to "make recommendations" to our presidents as to what our foreign policy should be? Have we not already seen and know well what kind of policies House favours (Federal Reserve Act)? And who invested in this organization to even make it what it is today?: International bankers, yay! (Remember Rockefeller and Carnegie up there ^?) *They* really have our best interest at heart, eh? I'll go into this in more detail upon the acceptance of the challenge. Someone who accepts the challenge is accepting this: 1. You must counter my allegations of shadiness directed toward the CFR. 2. You should want to show how the CFR is really a good thing. Not something to be worried about, but something to like. You = The CFR is good and this is why... My burdens include: 1. I must create doubts in people's minds as to the authenticity of this questionable organization. 2. I must convince people more convincingly than you counter that the CFR is a threat to us common folk and takes away our voice in our very own democracy. Me = The CFR is bad and this is why... Alright?
Resolved: English should not be the official language of the United States

Contention1-Not everyone can speak English People all over the world immigrate to the US and their home country may have not spoken English. So if they make English the official language in laws,and documents then the non-speaking English Americans will miss out. Contention2-Relationships between countries can make learning English dangerous Let's say a man from Vietnam immigrates to the US. Then relationships between the US and Vietnam becomes sour. The Vietnam government says that learning English or adopting US customs becomes an act of treason. But,the man's family still lives in Vietnam,so if he learns English his family might get harmed. VOTERS: My opponent did not attack successfully. His defense was very weak. All he said was that I didn't give examples, not worthy of a point. I have attacked all his points, and proved successfully that English should not be the official language. My opponent's defense was weak, and not good. I believe that the Pro should win, because of the amount of better arguments presented.
Resolved: English should not be the official language of the United States

First I will attack my opponent,then defend my case. My opponent's value is similarities,but he doesn't give any examples/ My opponent's criteria is utilitarianism (The greater good for the greater number of people) but,what the greater number want isn't always the greater good,the people of Nazi Germany wanted to follow Hitler's Final solution,and the outcome was 12 million killed my the holocast.http://www.hawaii.edu... His contention1 he says "English being the official language is beneficial",you might think that might be good in the beginning but in the long run,it is bad because people will get frustrated and leave and the US will suffer. His contention2 he said"What's there to loose in using English? Nothing, but much more to win." If we do trade with another country who doesn't speak english then we won't be able to do trade and the US will suffer His contention 3 he said "States that have English as the language, don't only speak english." But the laws are in english and non-eglish-people won't understand it. Now I will defend my case Cross-apply my attack to his criteria to his attack towards my contention 1. He attacked my contention2 by saying This is an arbitrary contention regarding the resolution. He said that if a person comes to the US, the relationships between US and Vietnam become sour. This doesn't happen. We have people coming from all over the world, some of them from Mexico. Our relationship with Mexico is still quite healthy, despite them not knowing English. Leaving a country is not treason, it doesn't affect them. I never said leaving a country is treason,I said going against their homecountry's law is treason.