BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flag Burning

I am a patriotic American, and I honor the flag and EVERYTHING it stands for. However, there are a few arguments I would like to make pertaining to my opponent's first round. He mentions that "in God we trust" is on our currency. This is a popular argument for religious groups that our country was founded on religious(aka Christian) principles. Well, not only was this slogan not on our original currency, but it actually conflicts with our first amendment which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. " This is the first sentence of the first amendment, and this slogan was not put on our paper currency until 1957. A popular saying regarding this controversy is, "In God we trust, all others pay cash. " I bring this up simply to negate my opponent's closing statement, which is an appeal to emotion, and holds no water in this debate. . http://www.archives.gov... . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent uses an example of military laws regarding the ensign. I agree that these laws apply, and should continue to apply only to the United States military, because that is the intended purpose of the laws. These men and woman who serve our country, a group that I belonged to for 6 years, have volunteered to be a part of an organization that protects the rights of its citizens, and who gain a sense of pride from this patriotic symbol. We may not agree with all the rights we are protecting, but the first amendment still protects people from being prosecuted for expressing their disapproval of the government. I happen to agree with them in many circumstances, but that is for another debate. The bottom line is, you are free to shun or otherwise engage flag burners(in a peaceful manner), just as they are free to burn the flag. Both rights are protected by our first amendment, and without that, we may as well call it quits and move the next regime in to impose their laws. I stand firm in my affirmation for the resolution, and argue for the country that pioneered the value of personal freedom, and for which I gave 6 good years in the hope to strengthen our constitution.
Flag Burning

There will be no need to explain later in this argument, for as I already know the reason. I thank you for your service to our country. I wanted to make sure you weren't one of those people who burned the flag because they were against America. I am glad to hear that you are not one of those kinds of people. Since I have not yet proved to you that I know the reason, please allow me to do so. Flag burning takes place when an American flag is deemed too marred and tattered to continue to fly. Never is it acceptable for an American flag to be thrown away, as this would be a sign of defeat for the message that it stands for. Instead, flag burning is deemed a more honorable option. The United States Military does everything that it can to take care of its flags, out of a deep seated respect for a€the republic for which it stands€ Sometimes however, especially if it has been torn apart in a battle, it is simply unavoidable. When this happens, a flag burning service is held, giving the flag its last honor. Military flag burning runs with a number of other traditions, designed to prevent the flag from being desecrated. For example, it is also a statute that the flag cannot be flown upside down. Nor should it ever be dropped to the ground, be made to dip, or be cut up and made into a costume. All of these preventions, along with flag burning, are a silent proclamation that the liberties endowed by the United States Constitution live on, safe and secure. I again want to say that I am not against this type of flag burning. I am against the kind of flag burning that requires people to twist the first amendment way out of its original context, and meaning. They claim that it is freedom of speech, I disagree, and say its treason. They say that they have respect for the constitution, but that is a lie. They desecrate the very foundation of the document that they say they respect. I was born an American, I will live as an American, and when I die, I am going to die as an American. God Bless America, and In God We Trust!! (Our Currency)
Flag Burning

My opponent has a lot of zeal, and I can respect that, but he and I are on completely different pages on this one. I served in the U.S. Navy for six years, and one of the reasons I did that was to protect the rights of its citizens. Burning the flag is actually the preferred method disposal, and I will explain in my later rounds. Also, while I like my opponent's patriotism, his ad hominem remark is not acceptable in this debate. Thanks again for the debate.
Flag Burning

Maybe you won't cop out of this one!! The American flag stands for everything we believe in and everything that soldiers long gone have fought for. No, they did not just die for the material that the flag is made out of, but rather laid down their lives for their country and what they thought was right. Haven't they been disgraced enough over the years, why is it so hard to have some respect.The State of Arkansas imposes a fine of up to $1,000 and a jail term up to one year on those convicted of mutilating, defacing, burning, maintaining on the floor, or trampling the U.S. flag.The State of Oklahoma imposes a fine up to $3,000 and a jail term up to three years for anyone who contemptuously or maliciously burns, mutilates, defaces or tramples upon the U.S. flag. The law forbids the public display of any red flag or other banner indicating disloyalty to the U.S. Government or promoting a belief in anarchy or the destruction of organized government. The law also forbids the use of the U.S. flag for advertising or publicity purposes. I don't care what state that you line in, this stuff is against law in some way or another. If the soldiers were willing to die for that flag, I think that you should at least have enough decency to respect the fact that they fought and died for your freedom. Why don't the people that support burning flags die for what they believe in?? I would be completely shocked if I saw someone being wrapped in a flag that was about to be burned. Heck, I would even supply the fuel! God BLess America!!!!!!!!
Flag Burning

Well, my opponent certainly illustrated his views that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but in no way refuted a single one of my arguments in regard to the resolution. This is fairly disappointing, since I was very much looking forward to a civil and thought provoking debate on a widely controversial topic. I must extend my arguments from my previous round and urge a pro ballot based on superior arguments and conduct in this debate. I would also like to say that all Americans should enjoy the rights of free speech and expression, despite the fact that many people may disagree with what they gave to say. This right extends to my opponent, and his views on our country's Christian origin. Although I disagree with him, he has every right to express this view, just as Americans who are displeased with their government have the right to burn a flag in protest. I wonder if my opponent would disagree with early Americans burning the British flag in protest. .. While I might not choose to burn an American flag to display my detest of many recent government decisions, I fought to protect that right for millions of Americans who might, and I make no apologies for that. I really have nothing further, since it would unbecoming to introduce new arguments in the absence of proper rebuttals, and for those of you who value your rights illustrate your qualms with our government, I support that as long as no one is injured or put in jeopardy.
community ascribers are communists.

Introduction Let’s see, you didn't even post an argument, you called my argument a fart in the comments and now it is the final round with nothing serious to refute. Wow. Never had that happen before. Rebuttals “grammatical intellect is not your cup o tee is it O Man?” How does this have to do with ANYTHING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION???? Random crap doesn’t help your case, Max.Wallace Also, I think you mean tea, and you mean men, because we are a joint account. Also, you have to start a sentence with a capital letter, and end with a punctuation. That is simple grammar in your sentence about how OUR grammar sucks. Wow. Conclusion Why we have won: 1) You never posted anything to support your side, you just said random stuff that did nothing in this debate, except seal your loss. 2) We proved that your random claim in the first round to be logically wrong. 3) You had 100% Bop and you did not uphold it one bit. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, VOTE CON! Thanks, DDD
community ascribers are communists.

My opponent has made a pretty bold statement. Let me define the resolution. (all from google) Community: “a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.” (google.) Ascribers: It is not a real word. I think you mean ascribe, which means that you “attribute something to (a cause).” (google) In this case the cause is the community. Communism: “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.” (google) So you are saying that by attributing to a community, you are a communist. How does attributing to your community make you a communist? The two words are different! You stated that being a member of a community makes you a communist, well, by that logic everyone on DDO IS A COMMUNIST. Why? Because DDO is a community! Your logic makes no sense and you put no effort to support your statement! “as a member of a COMMUNITY, you are a self avowed communist. period.” Read what I just said! Is makes no logical sense. I am part of the Calgary Flames fans’ community, and I am not a communist. Also, Bop lies on you, too, and you just make a statement that makes no sense then you don’t back it up. “If you accept, hen, then why not disagree?” Because we waited till this and the next round to make our arguments. I do hope you defend your side a bit more, DDD
Public Forum is the best form of high school debate

I accept this debate and will debate that Lincoln-Douglass style is a better form of High School debate than public forum. I'll make my points really brief, as the real debate will be when Pro writes their arguments. Because I am to pose my case first, I will only outline instead of writing it all out. Otherwise I would have an unfair advantage. 1. Partners - Partner's very often disagree, it's human nature. Having a partner that disagrees with what you say could ruin the entire debate. Lincoln-Douglass is 1 v 1, therefore, you don't have to rely on another party. 2. Morality - Lincoln Douglass debate morality and what should happen, or what should be valued. However, in Public Forum, you are forced to take a side and explain that something has to happen for x amount of reasons. Whether you like the side you're on or not, there are no loopholes out of the structure, tying you down to one opinion. 3. Structure - Lincoln Douglass debate is more structured, as many in High School debate would agree with. In Lincoln Douglass you sincerely have to know what you're talking about. Whereas with Public Forum, made up sources don't matter because your case is short, and you can stick them where ever you want to help your side, as opposed to sticking with facts and philosophers. 4. Values - Again with the flexibility, Lincoln Douglass allows you to chose your path in the debate, whereas in PF you must take one side and debate facts. In PF it's more "what's working" than "what should be fixed." Thus, I turn it to Pro for her case. I will write my entire case in the next round, because otherwise this debate is unfair.
Public Forum is the best form of high school debate

My opponent admitted in the comments section that she will continue to forfeit this debate, and that this will end up as a tie because of that reason. She goes on in this round however, trying to ignore that just so she can get an easy win, which is clearly unfair to her stance beforehand. As I could easily argue that I deserve the conduct vote here, I will not, and will simply urge a tie vote because my opponent, after agreeing to it, has failed to do so.
Homeschooling May Cause Children to Learn the Wrong Thing

Thank you as well for initiating this debate! I look forward to any future discussions! Regarding college, I would recommend preparing as much as possible for the SAT, and shoot as high as you can with your reading and math scores on it. Those two scores alone play a big role in scholarships. If your father received the materials through a convention, I would imagine they were pre-approved in some manner. Religion isn't supposed to be in public facilities, but individuals are free to pursue religious freedom. The difficulty lies in the enforcement, and that is why this topic is so intensely debated in American culture. So, really, it comes down to the simple question of: can the authority really be religiously neutral? I will close with a statement that a good friend has made more than once: "As long as there are tests, there will be prayers in school."
Homeschooling May Cause Children to Learn the Wrong Thing

My wording needs improving, I know. I only intended my sentence to be read on government approval standpoint, not necessarily government education. (Once again, I was a bit biased in my argument; since the only environment of homeschooling I know is the one I am being taught in now, and we don't have to do the log thing, because we're not, well, acknowledged, if that makes any sense. We haven't gone up to a school system and asked them to provide for us, and regulate us.) On the issue of social hindrance, I was allowed to socialize anywhere, but I chose not to. (Also, your sentence about government letting you learn creationism shocks me a little, and hit me unexpectedly.) I'm up for debating anything I believe in, so I wouldn't mind taking your offer up on creationist science and secular. What I meant in my argument about the nuance between homeschooling and public schooling, I meant it exactly how I said it. "Of course, the main difference is, as said, that public schools are regulated by the government." This is true. After all, they fund schools, correct me if I'm wrong. And my real reply about how you said the government allowed you to learn creationism, sure, that's inevitable, because your home wouldn't necessarily be a federal building, so the whole "Separation Between Church and State" (which I don't believe in, their view of it) that they push wouldn't imply a personal home. (My father works at a school, so I say with confidence that "God" isn't exactly allowed in schools [but Bibles are..?]) I can also bring up court rulings on how religion isn't allowed in schools. (Need I mention the ever so infamous Everson v. Board of Education?) All of these next references are from The Myth of Separation by David Barton: "A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if it is both denominationally neutral and voluntarily participated in. Engel v Vitale, 1962" "Freedom of Speech and Press is guaranteed to students unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional. Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965" "If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional to pray aloud. Reed v. van Hoven, 1965"
Homeschooling May Cause Children to Learn the Wrong Thing

You have acknowledged the possibility that homeschooling is subject to a margin of error regarding curriculum, and lend credit to my argument. You then suggest that there is no difference between legitimate homeschooling and public schooling. I will once again suggest that the main issue is that homeschooling can be far more focused on the academic pursuits of the individual student, while also hindering the social advancement of students. However, the larger issue that you appear to be raising is not to defend homeschooling, but to question the authority. You suggest that government regulation is the main difference between the two. I will first like to acknowledge that my homeschooling experience adhered to the structure of North Carolina School Systems. We were required to log 180 days, to copyright a school name, and to take a standardized test at the conclusion of the school year. I will also acknowledge that we also studied using a creationist science text book. In essence, we were regulated by the government and allowed to learn creationism. So, in response, I will submit to you the notion that the government is not truly where your logical dispute would be resolved. The government has no direct say over creationist teachings, as this would be an infringement on our freedoms. I suggest that you do not wish to argue the validity of the government, on the grounds that the government has no direct control over the scientific community. The academic scientific community is where your logic would be most hotly contested. If the government wanted to say 2+2=5 (nice 1984 reference, by the way), then they would be immediately discredited by the scientific community. Now, I feel compelled to ask whether you would like to void our last two rounds and proceed with another debate or shall we continue by debating the contrasting logic between creationist science and secular science?
Homeschooling May Cause Children to Learn the Wrong Thing

Thanks for the accept, and good luck, too! It is true that there is a margin of error when it comes to homeschooling, as it is, as said, not approved by government. And I have encountered the people who worry about my college education, should I decide to go to college. Obviously, every home is different. My family strongly encouraged independence in hobbies and other extracurricular activities. But concerning legitimacy of homeschooling, I question the real difference between this and public schooling. Of course, the main difference is, as said, that public schools are regulated by the government. But what makes the government right? In my house, we teach complete opposites of what public schools teach. (My dad is extremely religious, so we use the Bible, teach creationism, etc., etc.) So, from my being raised, I can tell someone that God created the universe, and think myself to be right, and someone can tell me about how the universe was created by spontaneous combustion, and think themselves to be right. But this is because of how we were taught. I know I will receive feedback of "How can you be right, then?" when I say "How can the Government be right?" Obviously, two people can be wrong, and only one can be right, so I may even be wrong, and I'm open to that. I wanted to argue the validity of the government. As I said in my opening statement, if the government wanted to say 2+2=5, does that make it 5?
Homeschooling May Cause Children to Learn the Wrong Thing

Greetings and Good luck! I accept the challenge, and will attempt to argue that homeschooling may result in students being allowed to learn something that is "wrong." First, a little about myself. I have also been homeschooled, only for 7th and 8th grades, and I feel that I greatly benefited from the academic focus that resulted from my homeschooling. It called for a much more student specific learning atmosphere, and gave my sister and I a much needed refuge from an overcrowded, underfunded, and outdated school system in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. This being said, I will move right into my argument: While I feel that I was benefited by my homeschooling, I must first admit that my parents were not the teacher. We have a family friend that had taught for several years, and she undertook the task of being our teacher. In retrospect, I have no doubt that she was far more experienced and thus, more prepared to teach than my parents would have been. My parents had no idea where to acquire textbooks, workbooks, learning aids, and the other supplies that were necessary for our education. The reason that our homeschool experience was so successful is undoubtedly because we were collaborating with a professional teacher. While it is entirely possible that my parents could have taught my sister and I, I will suggest that most topics require more than a basic understanding to teach. For example, I have a basic understanding of science, but would undoubtedly be a very poor teacher regarding the subjects of chemistry, biology, astronomy, and other similar fields. While my parents could have attempted to teach me these things, they would likely struggle to convey the more difficult facets of each subject, and thus, my learning would have suffered as a result. Theoretically speaking, when homeschooling is not legitimized (by following professional experience, or government protocol) it is open to inaccurate information, or poor teaching/learning techniques/atmospheres. This can potentially set students back, and make it more difficult for them to recover academically. In addition, homeschooling can lead to complications regarding college enrollment if there is not some level of legitimacy. Beyond the academic side of homeschooling, you also have the extracurricular side: When I was homeschooled, I was limited in my opportunities musically, athletically, and socially. I was hindered from playing music, with the exception of a small performance through a church-based chamber orchestra. I was unable to participate in sports, except for backyard football with a handful of friends. My social circle was essentially reduced to church functions, and preexisting family friends. This was not necessarily a terrible situation, but nevertheless, I would have appreciated more variation in my opportunities. In conclusion, I feel that homeschooling is an intensely focused academic model, but is at the mercy of the teacher's experience. I look forward to Round 2 rebuttals!
Homeschooling May Cause Children to Learn the Wrong Thing

I wanted to take the place against the assumption, or theory, that kids that are homeschooled may learn the wrong thing. First off, to start, I am homeschooled, I have always been. Now. Being homeschooled can be a benefit because it is free. There aren't government rules and restrictions on being privately homeschooled. (Example, I don't mean homeschool as in you order papers from school and send them back.) I understand there will be those who disagree, and worry that because of lack of government intervention, children may learn the "wrong" thing. My argument on this is: What is right? How can you say what is wrong or what is right? How do you know that being taught in a public facility approved by the government is the right thing? I'm not saying everything my homeschool teaches is right, and I'm allowed to question the authenticity and validity of a couple of subjects. But if the government has four apples, takes away two, and says the answer is one, does that make it right? Obviously, I'm being a bit biased by using my base of learning as an example of what is taught, because I know some families want to be rebellious by saying something like that, or some families may teach their children the doctrine of Satan, or Allah, or whatever your deity may be. I thank whoever accepts my challenge.
King Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

This debate is about the date in which Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed ancient Jerusalem. Most secular scholars believe it was roughly 587 BCE while some Biblical scholars believe it was 607 BCE. I do not think that any definitions are needed for this debate, as it is fairly straightforward. If you have any questions or concerns, please voice them in the comment section before accepting the debate. Structure: Round 1 = Acceptance Round 2 = Initial Argument(s) Round 3 = Rebuttals(s)