BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Politicians should not be allowed to personally benefit from legislation they vote for or draft

The corruption of politicians can be halted by preventing them from personally benefitting from their office during their elected term. All too often, politicians will take donations, or charge "speaker fees" in exchange for promoting a company's or special interest groups agenda via votes or drafted legislation. It is my position that a politician would better serve the interest of his constituents if he did not put these groups or persons above the overall interests of residents in his state. One way to better serve the people is by refraining from making money for oneself or ones family/friends as a result of proposed legislation. I propose that politicians need to submit to related regulatory controls on a regular basis.
All Confederate flags and symbols should be removed

Regardless of my opponent's disregard of this round, I shall post my arguments anyways. Definitions: Confederate: Related to or pertaining to the Confederate States of America, the CSA.Symbols: "something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance;" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Contention I: The Confederate States of America are an Important Part of the USA's HistoryThe Confederate States of America are an important part of the United State's heritage. The War Between the States, though tragic, influenced our country greatly, brought the US's citizens together, and achieved equal rights for all. It is generally thought that the entire south was for slavery, however, this is false. Only the 1%, the rich slave owners wanted to keep slaves, which I think we can all agree is bad, but the normal, everyday citizens of the south believed the US government was denying them basic rights. The southerners were paying 75% of the United States Federal Government's entire funds; money was being stolen from the south. The USFG was centralizing, withdrawing power from the people and from the states. The everyday soldiers were fighting for freedom. This is important to our history. We must remember we have the right to fight.Contention II: The Symbols of the CSA Remind Us We Have the Right to Fight Against OppressionThe symbols of the CSA help us remember our rights given to us in the constitution. The symbols and flags aid us ro remember that we can fight against oppression. As the USA citizens we have the right to fight back against oppression. The USFG, in the 1850s-1860s, was oppressing the south, and they used their right to fight back. Contention III: Removing CSA Symbols is Denying the South Its Right to Its HeritageThe southern states, whose great-great-grandfathers died for their rights, deserve to be able to remember their ancestors. Removing the CSA symbols is negating the basic right of the citizens of the southern states. ConclusionJudges/Voters, I urge you to vote for the side that upholds freedom, the side that wants you to remember that we have the right to fight against an unjust government, Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, we Americans all have the god-given right to make our country into what we want it to be.
All Confederate flags and symbols should be removed

I think we are going to actually start the debate next round, so this will just be for my opening statements, things I expect, etc... First of all I thank my opponent for adding this debate to Debate.org's vast list of arguments. This is a topic I have a definite opinion on, so I shall debate to the fullest. I also expect a few things to be obeyed by my opponent; rules, if you will. I expect that my opponent will respect me, and I will respect him or her. I also will not do Kritiks'; do not even go there. And finally, any evidence that is not widely known to most people needs to have a link/book title or other form of reference or accessibility. I urge the voters to disregard any unsupported evidence. To you, the voters: I recommend that you cast your vote not to the debater who upheld your side of the value, but the one who best upheld his or her side of the value. Thank you, once again, all.
The Bible is Imperfect

Well of course it has those errors but back when it was written that was perfect grammar. It is the most perfect book in he world. With nearly 1,400 Christians responding to the survey, an overwhelming 86% said that they believe the Bible is perfect. One responded cited 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Most in this group believe the Bible to be perfect because God is its author and He inspired the original writers through the Holy Spirit. "Of course it's perfect, because the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and God doesn't make mistakes." "It is the inspired Word of God written by men guided by the Holy Spirit." Some used more scientific reasoning to prove the accuracy of the Bible. "Archaeology and history continue to produce findings that confirm and support the Bible."
The Bible is Imperfect

(Heh, I sound like a scholar. ) However, some ground rules:My BOP will be that the Bible is imperfect, meaning that is has contradictions, spelling errors, grammar errors, etc. My opponent's BOP will be that the Bible is absolutely perfect. Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ARGUMENTS ONLYRound 3: REBUTTALS ONLYRound 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed. )Rules:Plagiarism not allowedForfeiture not allowedSwearing not allowedSpamming not allowedTrolling not allowedBreaking structure of debate is not allowed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points. By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Good luck to the opposition.
Regular soda over diet soda

Diet soda was introduced in the U.S. during the late 1950s, although it wasn"t until the early 1980s that it became much more mainstream and profitable. Colas were the first sodas to be labeled as diet, and originally marketed to women who wanted to lose weight or keep slim. Now they are also marketed to men and even children as healthier alternatives to regular soda pop. According to the American Council on Science and Health, diet soda consumption by American children increased from 6 percent of kids in 1999 to about 12.5 percent by 2008. About 25 percent of adults drink diet sodas. The main advantage of drinking diet soda instead of regular soda is that you"re consuming far fewer calories, because diet varieties contain no high fructose corn syrup, sucrose or other forms of processed sugar. Consuming lots of refined sugar on a regular basis increases your risk of dental caries, obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular problems. Artificial sweeteners in diet soda such as aspartame are calorie-free. Diet sodas are also a good source of hydration and many people prefer their taste over plain water, although some might complain that they're not quite as tasty as regular soda. -http://healthyeating.sfgate.com... My opponent was very confused during the round. Plus I have supplied specific evidence that diet sodais better than regular. Please vote on side of diet soda
Aquarium hobby

About most to all of the fish in the hobby from both fresh and saltwater are bred in fishfarms. Fish caught out of the wild go for a high price and could of been bred in the hobby. Many countries thought put a ban to collecting fish out of the wild for the trade including Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand. Today you can find wild varities of fish that have been bred in the trade for years.With draining the wetlands in Southeast Asia and building Dams in the Amazon, Fish are dieing the the thousands each day but those same ecaxt fish are still swimming around the the trade. For example the Zebra Pleco is a rare and exotic fish native to a tributary of the lower Amazon. Brazil put a ban on its collection when the Belo Monte dam was built but the previous collected fish were bred. Bioligist say the Pleco will go extinct by 2030 but they will they live forver in the hobby. Another species in the same condition is called the Redtailed Shark, Not a shark But a minnow that lives in the wetlands of Southeast Asia that is currently Extinct from draingage. Today the Fish is a common fish in the hobby sold a low a $5.
Aquarium hobby

1. "Fish are dieing the the thousands each day but those same ecaxt fish are still swimming around the the trade." How does this make the aquarium hobby inhumane? People are in essence protecting the fish's lives as well as preventing their extinction through keeping them in aquariums."For example the Zebra Pleco is a rare and exotic fish native to a tributary of the lower Amazon. Brazil put a ban on its collection when the Belo Monte dam was built but the previous collected fish were bred. Bioligist say the Pleco will go extinct by 2030 but they will they live forver in the hobby."Again, how does the fish living forever in the hobby mean that aquarium keeping is INHUMANE? Your arguments do not match up with the opinion you are siding with. In the comments, you said that the resolution you meant to put was "Is the aquarium hobby inhumane?". You realize your on the PRO side, correct?"Another species in the same condition is called the Redtailed Shark, Not a shark But a minnow that lives in the wetlands of Southeast Asia that is currently Extinct from draingage. Today the Fish is a common fish in the hobby sold a low a $5."Extend the same arguments above for this comment!2. In the source that was linked to wikipedia, no information was given directly linking Aquarium fish-keeping to the endangerment of the RedTailed shark. In fact, one part said: "There is no evidence that collection for the aquarium trade is responsible for the species' decline, and it is more likely that construction of dams and draining of swamps that took place during the 1970s was to blame"Everyone, I urge you to vote CON, as most of the arguments PRO made were actually harmful towards his own POV. Not only this, but one of his sources actually contained information that contradicted his POV.
A T-65 X-Wing (Star Wars) could defeat the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D (Star Trek)

Thanks, ProI appreciate the concession as such conduct has to be preferred over forfeit without cause. Still, I regret we couldn't continue the geekfest. In truth, I had no idea that X-wings specifications were as limited as the fan pages seem to say. Top Speed 1050km/hr and a missile range of 500m? An F-18 has a top speed of 1915 km/hr and a missile range of 2500m, meaning that if one had to choose between a squandron of X-wing fighters and a squandron of US Air Force fighters to take out the Death Star, the Air Force would be more likely to get the job done. Well, thanks for the opportunity to do some fun research.
A T-65 X-Wing (Star Wars) could defeat the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D (Star Trek)

Thank you Con, for a fascinating, yet unexpected counterargument.My opponent states that the X-Wing is "only...a make". This is simply not true. The X-Wing is extremely loved by the Star Wars fan base. It is synonymous with Star Wars itself. Ever since its debut, it has been loved as the starfighter of the rebel alliance. To call it "only...a make" simply does not do justice to it's influence. Just as the Star Trek fans would be angered over the defeat of the Enterprise, Star Wars fans would be rightfully outraged if the X-Wing lost. Next, my opponent claims that fan politics would allow the Enterprise to emerge victorious. Again, I strongly disagree. The Star Wars franchise is far more valuable then Star Trek. In 2007, it had brought in more then $20 billion. [1] When sold, it was purchased for slightly over $4 billion. [2] In comparison, the Star Trek franchise has grossed somewhat higher then $2 billion. [3] While certainly impressive, it is nowhere near Star Wars' level of success. In addition to that, Star Wars is much more popular among fans. In a poll conducted on IGN, 77% of the 65,000 polled selected Star Wars as the better franchise. [4] As such, any crossover would inevitably end in a Star Wars victory. They simply could not risk angering that large and lucrative of a fan base.While I find these points about hyperdrive largely irrelevant, I will refute them nevertheless. In Star Wars: A New Hope, the Millenium Falcon travels from Tantooine to Alderaan, a distance of 30,000 lightyears, in roughly 8 hours. [5] That multiplies out to 90,000 lightyears per day. However, the Millennium Falcon had a hyperdrive rating of .5. An X-Wing has twice that, with a rating of 1.0. Thus, the X-Wing could travel 180,000 lightyears per day, or 1, 260, 000 per week. The X-Wing had enough consumables to last 1 week. However, that could be extended with the addition of storage pods. [6] While not an easy task, the X-Wing could travel a distance such as that.My opponent's final points would have little impact on a battle between the craft. Once the X-Wing had located the Enterprise, it could overwhelm its shields and destroy it long before the Enterprise to flee in Warp. With the obvious technical advantage, and it's advantage in "fan politics" it remains obvious that the X-Wing would be the victor.[1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(film_franchise)#Box_office_performance[4] http://m.ign.com...[5] http://www.stardestroyer.net...[6] http://starwars.wikia.com...
A T-65 X-Wing (Star Wars) could defeat the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D (Star Trek)

I look forward to it To began my argument, I will list the basic specifications for both vehicles. A Constitution-class heavy cruiser had a standard armament of eighteen phaser emitters and two photon torpedo banks. [1] They were equipped with deflector shields for defense. [2] The T-65 X-Wing was equipped with four Taim & Bak laser cannons and two proton torpedo launchers, each launcher holding three torpedos. [3] They were also equipped with a shield generator for defensive purposes. [4]The Photon torpedo was a relatively powerful weapon, with most estimates placing its power at 25 isotons. (Roughly 50 Megatons. ) [5] However, the torpedo was relatively unmanuverable. It would have little chance of hitting a small craft such as the X-Wing, which flew at speeds faster then one thousand kilometers per hour. [6]Next are the phaser emitters. Throughout Star Trek: The Original Series, these appear to be the Enterprise's main ship-to-ship weapon. They are mainly useful in combat against large, somewhat stationary objects and would again be useless against the small and nimble X-Wing. The strength of a Constitution-class's shields are never specifically stated. However, a Galaxy-class's shields were taken down by four hundred gigawatts of energy. [7] As the Constitution-class was significantly less advanced, it can be assumed that it's shield strength is significantly less. It is also worth noting that the deflector shields were most useful in dissipating energy. A Jem'hadar starship tore through the USS Odyssey's shields in a suicide ramming. [8]Now, returing our focus to the X-Wing, we can look at the Proton torpedo. While we have no real numbers on their energy amounts, they are physical torpedoes that are designed to direct a large amount of energy directly towards its target. There is a high probability that the physical impact alone would tear through a Constitution-class's shields. Based on the above information, it becomes abundantly clear the advantage a X-Wing has over a Constitution-class. It's firepower could easily rip through the deflector shields, and destroy the ship soon after. The Constitution-class, lacking any anti-starfighter weapons, would have no counterattack, and would be defeated within minutes of the initial contact. [1] [2] . http://en.memory-alpha.org...[3] [4] . http://starwars.wikia.com...[5] Star Trek: The Next Generation technical manual. [6] . http://starwars.wikia.com...[7] . http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode)[8] . http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode)
A T-65 X-Wing (Star Wars) could defeat the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D (Star Trek)

I expect to be able to demonstrate that Pro is unable to prove with any kind of confidence that a standard issue Rebel T-65 star fighter should generally or regularly be expected to overcome by force in a weightless vacuum a Federation Constitution-class heavy cruiser from the mid-to-late 23rd Century. I look forward to Pro's argument.
Racist jokes are funny

I really like how you completely ignored my entire backing. That question was rhetorical, but I guess you needed me to point that one out. I'm not trying to sound rude when I say, I don't care to hear what your fiance thinks about minority murder jokes. I think you're missing the point here. Your fiance will have her own opinion of minority jokes, as do I. All jokes are outcomes of personal humor. The most sickening thing in the world could be hilarious to someone. Does that make it socially acceptable? Not at all, but they are still laughed at. That little video you sent me is not a joke, you're completely right; it is a hate crime. Now please show me the evidence that these types of crimes are the direct result from cracking a joke. It even states in the text below that clip, "As the teens were partying and drinking miles away from Jackson that night..." Oh, but being intoxicated had absolutely nothing to do with the murder they committed? Listen, to be honest, you lost my interest in this debate because it all boils down to someone's sense of humor. This debate would just be a waste of time because it's pointless trying to argue with someone whose view is too clouded by what the media reports. They report a few related coincidences, and that automatically associates racist jokes to a "response of all out war?" You can say these jokes are the worst things on this planet, but what really sets us apart here is that I have the complete opposite view as you. Anything I say you'll just disagree with, and vice versa. You know what, I find racist jokes from ALL backgrounds to be funny. I can laugh at a stereotype easily because I don't take it seriously. Yeah it's unfortunate that all people aren't easygoing like that, but what are you going to do? That's how life works. Sometimes idiots take racism to another level, and it gets out of hand. Jokes aren't to blame, though. Instead of trying to fight the meaningless jokes, you should turn your attention to the people who hold them up so highly. You want to go all noble on this, then go ahead. I'm sure you'll feel prideful in knowing that I couldn't make the debate response on time. Oh well, maybe I'll find you in another debate. Hopefully next time it won't be something so dramatic. Maybe you should further your discussion with some of the people on Tosh.0's website http://www.youtube.com...
Racist jokes are funny

To answer your question, I would have come after you with twice the fervor if you had been a black woman. I'm in an interracial relationship. I'll ask my fiancé what she thinks about the minority murder jokes. I'll get back to you on the reactions of black women being jokingly called monkeys. Mr.KKK talked about running over black people with his truck. This is what happens when children learn racism from the many, many sources who either support it, or don't take it seriously. By the way, this one is not a joke. http://www.cnn.com...My argument for this round: The only acceptable attitude toward race degrading humor is a response of all out war.
Racist jokes are funny

Come on, man. Are you really interested in debating THIS? It's not even a complex issue. Alright, let me start by saying this: it's obvious you're trying to downplay me here. Your statement is loaded, so it automatically makes me look like I truly think things like, 'legalizing the murder of black people,' are funny. Me just defending my position in return makes me it appear like I actually am racist, when I know I'm not. I guess I'll defend my position anyway. Yeah you're right, I DID think it was funny. Only for that fact that his skewed thoughts were incredibly bias, and people like you took it to be offensive. Listen, there are far worse things in this world than a so-called 'racist' post on debate.org. Like I previously stated in the comment on Mr. KKK's (or whatever his name was) post, if you watch some late night comedy program, jokes similar to those are bound to come up often. The fact that I found it to be funny was my personal taste; I don't see how you can argue against someone's humor. Different people find different things to be funny. Sometimes jokes are made based on generalizations, and although it may not be 'nice' to a specific group(s), race(s), or gender(s), they're still frequently made. Just because there are jokes on racial stereotypes, doesn't mean they apply to every situation. Would you have gotten so defensive if I was a black woman laughing at that post? My guess is probably not. Fortunately for me, I laugh at all stereotypical jokes no matter what the skin color may be. That's just what I happen to find funny.
The Steelers will win the super bowl this season

The steelers lost to both teams last in matches that appeared to be close but only deceivingly so. They weren't really in those games as they trailed by two scores in the fourth quarter in both of them. The steelers haven't really gotten any better this offseason. They did poorly in the draft as usual and Lardarius Green was the only decent free agent pickup. He won't make a difference, he's just a substitute for Miller. The draft picks were no-name dbs who won't make a big impact, much less a starter. Burns and Davis don't make the top ten list of almost every draft analyst. Analyst Doug Farrar said Steelers general manager Kevin Colbert has a history of slightly overdrafting defensive players from a value perspective, and Burns fits that category. He's a ridiculous athlete.
The Steelers will win the super bowl this season

Last year, the two best teams in the AFC were the Broncos and the Patriots. The Steelers lost to each of them by just 7 points and beat the Broncos once by 7 points as well. As a result, all I need to prove is that the Steelers will be a little bit better than they were last year. As stated before, Keith Butler is entering his second year meaning that his defense will look a lot better than it did. In addition, we have new talent on defense with draft picks Artie Burns and Sean Davis. Senquez Golson also joins the team after being injured his rookie year. As a result the secondary will be much improved! Also, the Steelers sustained an enormous amount of injuries last year which are unlikely to continue. Those 2 things will be enough to push Pittsburgh to a super bowl victory. The Martavis Bryant loss is disappointing but Markus Wheaton had just 16 fewer yards last season! He will step up to the plate. Our difficulty beating bad teams has no bearing on the playoffs, which we will make!
The Steelers will win the super bowl this season

The Steelers are not really a viable pick for 2016 Super Bowl Champions because they just are not ready to take that big step. They have the weapons on offense to win a playoff game, but they just don't have the consistency. The Steelers are constantly losing to second and third tier teams. Last year it was losing to the Ravens twice, the year before that they lost to the Bucs, Browns, Jets, and Saints. The big story last year was their chronic failure against higher level teams. If you cannot beat the Patriots, Chiefs, or Broncos (They did beat them once, but not when it mattered.), then you cannot compete in the AFC. The teams I just listed have only gotten better this offseason and the Steelers have gotten a weaker secondary and an overall less competitive team. The loss of Martavius puts too much pressure on Brown, so he will probably be overworked and injured. Ben is getting older and more susceptible to injury. It will be near impossible for them to beat the Pats or the Broncos.