BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children's Beauty Pageants Do More Harm Than Good

Thank you for excepting. Beauty pageants. A place where little girls' dreams of being princesses come true, where mothers live their childhood dreams through their daughters. Although in the past few years, the glitz and glam of beauty pageants has grown to accommodate certain things- male competitors, for example- they still have yet to see the horrors of their own show. When a small child is encouraged to dress semi-maturely or maturely, flirt with judges to win them over or act like a full-grown adult; something is terribly wrong. It is one thing for teenagers and adults to 'strut their stuff' and act their age, but for a small girl it is inappropriate. Although, studies show that harmful things such as rape are not based off looks, it will still draw unneeded attention to the child. I'm not saying the attention would be sexual or devious. But publicity can be bad for a child so young as eight, because they are easily impressionable and are not mentally mature enough to think for themselves. Also, it can cause unwanted publicity that can endanger the child. May I refer to the Jonben"t Ramsey case? Jonben"t was deliberately murdered, because in the light of her extensive publicity, word got out that her family had been given $180,000. When Jonben"t was kidnapped, the ransom note said that the kidnapper wanted the $180,000 and if John and Patricia "Patty" Ramsey complied without reporting anything to authorities, that Jonben"t would be safely returned and they could forget the whole ordeal. Patty Ramsey still called the police about her daughter's disappearance and about eight hours later, Jonben"t was found- strangled with a piece of thin rope tied tightly around her neck and various abrasions about her head- in the cellar of the Ramsey home. Because of publicity towards the six year old beauty queen's extravagant wealth, she was murdered. Finally, I'd like to tell you that about 2.5 million pageants take place around the world per year. About 2,000 participants are children and 6% (Roughly about 1,200 people) end up hospitalized with eating disorders. Plus, some mothers abuse their child. I've seen pageants where the children are hit and yelled at for losing or not doing well. If the child wins after being punished, the parent makes them an angel, like nothing ever happened. Beauty pageants can be a risk to the child's mental and physical health, because of their impressionable age. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.minorcon.org... http://www.time.com... http://www.news.harvard.edu... http://www.writing.com... http://www.pretendplaykitchenshop.com... http://www.debate.org... http://cityjournal.dsc.rmit.edu.au... Thank you again for accepting, I hope to see your next argument.
The U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was justified.

1. Congress has the stated power in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S constitution to raise and support armies. It does not say anything opposed to conscription or forced military service, simply that Congress can create a military. The reason it was left so vague was because if need be forced conscription should be an option. Had Lincoln, FDR and Wilson hadn't taken such liberties away Slavery, World war 1 and World War 2 would have lasted longer without the surge of men conscription provided. 2. Yes defending South Vietnam was our initial reason for going to war but it wasn't our intention when we left. For a decade we succesfully defended South Vietnam. Towards the end we decided that while we weren't going to invade the North we would turn over the defense of South Vietnam to the ARVN. That was our goal before we left. We left with the ARVN as a fully capable military force and with North Vietnam abiding by the ceasefire established in the Paris peace accords. The defeat that followed was not a U.S. defeat, but rather a defeat of South Vietnam. 3. Our initial objective was completed. We never intended to defend South Vietnam for eternity if the war carried on for eternity and nobody ever thought so. We went in to defend South Vietnam which we did. In the decade we defended them we built up the ARVN until it was one of the most powerful fighting forces on the planet. We did more for the South Vietnamese than any other country in history that entered a long fought war initially to defend an allied nation. As long as the U.S. was in South Vietnam, South Vietnam was well defended and well supplied to fight the remainder of the war themselves. The U.S. goal was accomplished with 58,000 U.S. deaths while killing up 1.1 million communist soldiers successfully defending South Vietnam for the time we were there while preparing the ARVN for when we left. 4. "We are putting ourselves in the shoes of American leaders before they made the decisino to go into Vietnam" That is in direct contradiction of one of the first statements you made upon entering this debate You clearly stated and I quote, "We will not be looking at this event through the eyes of one alive at the time of the war, but we will look back on it using hindsight" - socialpinko I know I'm new to this website but I don't think you can change the rules when it best suits you. Using hindsight we now know of the multiple atrocities committed against humanity after the U.S. left Vietnam. Millions of Cambodians were massacred, millions more were poverty stricken, thousands of South Vietnamese supporters were sent to concentration camps, hundreds of thousands were forced to evacuate and Vietnam is still oppressive against political, sexual and religious minorities.
The U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was justified.

Justified: to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded[1] Me and my opponent will be debating whether or not the Vietnam War was justified. We will not be looking at this event through the eyes of one alive at the time of the war, but we will look back on it using hindsight. We have the advantage of knowing all the effects that would come about as a result of our involvement. I will argue that looking back at the outcome that came about, our involvement was not justified. 1.)The Draft In order to keep up with the growing need for soldiers, military and political leaders began to draft male citizens, many times against their will. 25% of the men drafted had family incomes below the poverty level and more than 75% of the men drated came from lower middle class backgrounds.[2] These men were forced to join the army and made very little money and were not given an option to pursue a better career. Whatever was gained from the Vietnam War it was not worth this blatant taking away of the rights of American citizens. 2.)We lost I know that we were merely aiding an ally in a Civil war but the United States failed to meet the objectives set out in the beginning of the war. The U.S. may have caused many more casualties and occupied most urban cities but in the end was forced to pull out after failing. Looking back now, knowing that the U.S. would fail in it's objectives, makes the war unjustified. 3.)Dead, Wounded As the war went on between North and South Vietnam before and after the U.S. became involved and this debate focuses solely on the U.S.' alleged just cause I will only include statistics based on American servicemen. Out of the more than 2.5 million army personnel who served in Vietnam, more than 58,000 were killed with more than 150,000 wounded. [2][3] This combined with the fact that neither the U.S. nor South Vietnam gained anything from the war makes the Vietnam War, when viewed in hindsight, unjustified. These are merely introductory arguments and we may go more in detail in the next round. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.veteranshour.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was justified.

Contrary to popular belief and media opinion, I believe that the U.S. becoming involved in the Vietnam war was a justified action to take. Initially, the North and South were divided with communism reigning in the North and capitalism in South Vietnam. Quickly North Vietnam and communist sympathizers in the South began committing acts of aggression against the people of South Vietnam and their government. In the beginning, Kennedy sent U.S. soldiers as advisors to help train South Vietnamese forces. After the Tonkin Gulf incident, with the attack on the Maddox being confirmed, we passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers. By then we gave large amounts of funds, arms, munitions, and vehicles to the South Vietnamese effectively making them a strong military and economic ally. With the USSR and China aiding communist forces to attack a good ally of ours it was a justified action to take to send armies to South Vietnam and aid in the defens of our ally. The only real mistake we made was not invading North Vietnam once and for all to effectively end the attacks and the ensuing conflict. All in all sending soldiers to defend South Vietnam and invade the North would have been as justified as invading Nazi held Europe.
Homeschooling

In the last decade, the amount of children being homeschooled in the U. S has risen. From 1999 having 850,000 homeschoolers to 2011 having 1,770,000 shows other people agree with homeschooling. . http://www.parents.com... In a 2009 SAT score. Homeschoolers ranked above public school children. And in the national average percentile score in public and homeschooled children. Homeschoolers ranked way above public school students. As you can see, homeschoolers receive a higher education compared to public school children. . http://www.home-school.com... Homeschooled children can also learn at their own pace and go at the speed they want. Since homeschooling is tailored to that child, they get the education they need. If that child is struggling in a subject, they can get the necessary help they need to stay on track. Students can also have a one on one relationship with their teacher because the teacher to student ratio is far less than in public schools. The teacher can focus on that one student to help them with their work. . http://school.familyeducation.com...
In the US Justice System, Truth-Seeking ought to take precedence over Attorney Client Privilege

The con will be taking the stance that ACP must always come before Truth Seeking. Neither side can take a stance that includes the other side. The first round will be acceptance and the second round we will present our cases. Third round will be rebuttal with allowance of new arguments. Fourth round will be rebuttal without new arguments and fifth round will be our summery. Any source can be used as long as you can link it or source it properly.
Military conscription is unjust.

It is most unfortunate that my opponent has forfeited all of his final round, but, you must judge fairly and without any exception, therefore, you must extend my arguments from the previous round to this one. This impacts the debate considerably because not only have all of my arguments gone unquestioned (which is reason enough to judge in favor of them), but if you look at my opponent's rebuttal to my case, it weighed on the notion that his arguments outweighed my case. In other words, he agreed that my case showed conscription had some just to it, but this his points outweigh that bit of just. Well, not only did I present a valid reason for you to disconsider that argument (which was because he provided you with no reason as to why his arguments outweighed mine), but with his final round being forfeited and all three (originally four, but again, he dropped one of those arguments) of his arguments not being continued, even according to him, you have no reason to VOTE in favor of the instigator, since my argument (which he suggested showed justness of conscription, hence his "at first I am sure you judges will think this is a reason to deem conscription just") still stands whereas his own do not due to the forfeiture. Thus, it is most reasonable for you to vote CON. I thank both the judges and my opponent for this interesting little session. PEACE!!!
Resolved: American governments should not legislate against burning American flags in protest.

Burden of Proof: This debate is a "should" one where the BOP is shared. The reason being is because the positions of both sides of this debate are making affirmative statements, and the debate requires stacking up reasons on either side of the debate in order to show that flag burning/desecration should or should not be banned. Treason: In citing the segment of the American Constitution that talks about treason, my opponent leaves out the most important part: what is considered to be treason. On treason, the Constitution defines is as the following: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," in Article 3, Section 3. This in no way describes flag burning because providing aid and comfort means providing material needs or doing something overt to physically protect enemies of the county [1]. Flag burning, therefore, doesn't fit this description and is Constitutionally not considered to be an act of treason. My opponent really hasn't argued anything I said in this part of my contention. He completely acknowledges that these civil liberties are greatly important but doesn't explain why they don't protect flag burning while I have provided the original Framers' explanation stating that symbols can be used in free speech. National Interest: This is an easy argument to make counterarguments for because my opponent makes a lot of statements here that absolutely have no warrants of any sort. He doesn't even provide a correlation between flag burnings in the United States and the level of cooperation with the United States for other countries, let alone a causation. All of my opponent's statements here regarding this are completely unfounded. Principle: My opponent is arguing that the flag should be protected by principle. I'm arguing that the American Constitution should be protected by principle, much more tangible and important than just a flag symbolizing it. The American Constitution is what grants the rights and priviliges of the American people. My opponent argues on protecting the flag just on principle, but this isn't practical in any way, and if people don't agree with the principles that the flag symbolizes, as citizens, they have every right to desecrate it. [1] http://www.archives.gov...
Obese people should be allowed to adopt

Greetings to my adolescent American adversary who claims that there are more evil people than obese people: sex pests; kiddy-fiddlers and the like - but she forgets that people can commit these sins and ALSO BE OBESE AT THE SAME TIME. We already know that obese people commit 35% of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS even before they get out of bed in the morning so any sins they commit after that GO ON TOP. Now, it may be that my opponent is right and leaving food on your plate is wasteful, but it is NOT SINFUL. Nowhere in The Good Book does it say: "Thou shall finish all thy vegetables or thou shall not get any dessert" or "eat every last scrapeth of thy food for there art people starving in Africa." Next, please take a look at this picture of the Last Supper: http://www.globalgallery.com... Do you see any obese people there? No, and that's for two reasons: 1 – None of Jesus' twelve disciples were skulking fat loafers because Jesus didn't associate with SERIAL SINNERS, and; 2 – Even if Jesus did have some corpulent slackers as friends, they wouldn't have come to the Last Supper because the menu consisted of dry unleavened bread, roast lamb and bowls of bitter herbs [1] and that wouldn't have appealed to the palettes of heavy-treading Hebrews and other obscenely fat followers who would have, instead, dined on greasy kebabs (hold the salad) or stodgy pizzas with all the toppings: both of which were available in the Biblical Holy Land at that time. [2,3] In conclusion, we wouldn't leave innocent children in the care of couples with a history of violence; substance abuse; theft or sexual offending as they are likely to corrupt them - and the same principle applies to the obese who are likely to DAMAGE THE HEALTH of VULNERABLE CHILDREN by OVERFEEDING them on JUNK FOOD and FIZZY DRINKS. Thank you for a good debate, PRAISE THE LORD, SING HALLELUJAH! and, of course, Toodle pip! [1] http://www.trivia-library.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Obese people should be allowed to adopt

can I ask what does DATCMOTO mean lol? Is it some title you get when joining Mensa or? (ROFLMAO i just remember I actually took a mensa IQ test and got 1% above average in Oklahoma lool. .. I think my result was 81, Oklahoma average is about 80, and my family average is 73) basically. .. yeah. <> Definitions <> I agree that an obese person is one with a body mass index greater than 30. lol. But then DATCMOTO wrote "because they eat too much and do too little exercise, in other words they are greedy and lazy" Its so offensive. How can he know that they do little exercise and are greedy? I know some obese people who attend all PE classes, eat lots of healthy food like carrots etc. And they're even faster than me haha ROFLMAO (but its kind of weird when i race against them lol. They always tell me to run backwards because that is how all the runners do it. I know they are right, but its still weird weird) I mean, basically. .. yeah. Also, we need to measure things properly right? Its only a hypothesis that obese people are lazy and greedy. I'd like to see if my opponent can find evidence to confirm that obese people are lazy, and he needs to confirm the the hypothesis through scientific mechanism: 1. Hypothesis 2. Theory 3. Basically, yeah Once you confirm the hypthesis and theory, you get the conclusion. Thats basically how it goes. So, readers, has DATCMOTO come with even ONE fact? I dont think so. Its absolutely ridiculous. <> Arguments <> Well I totally disagree that obese people are the worst sinners of all are. What about rapists? murderers? Prostitutes? Child molesters? Palin supporters? Are they better? No. And obese people are NOT evil. Do you know that we actually have too much food in the world? Its just that some stupid people who are really evil dont let people get food. In fact obese people are helping us eat food instead of wasting it. Yeah. Did you know that "When you count what's put down the disposal, 25 percent of what enters our homes is not eaten," . http://www.culinate.com... Yeah? Is this better? Obese people at least eat what they get and the food doesnt get wasted. Also, most obese people are Christian. . http://www.associatedcontent.com... So how can DATCMOTO say that these people are sinners (although some might not be true Christians. .. like my uncle, sometimes he says that he is Christian, and sometimes he says that priests can be very attractive) basically. .. yeah How is my argument red herring? ? Its the same isn't it? If obese cant adopt, then its the same as blacks cant adopt. They are all PEOPLE (although we have a lot of racists in Oklahoma who argue otherwise. .. Damn, I really could kill them. I wonder if I would be sentenced to death tho? Who cares, just because "ONE" law is bastard doesnt mean that my country Oklahoma is bastard). .. yeah. Also. .. What if DATCMOTO was fat? What if mensa wouldnt accept his very high IQ just because he might be fat? Is that fair? No. Well, I than DATCMOTO for a fantastic debate tho. We both argue very well and I think we are very good debaters. thanks. "Toodle pip! " Basically, yeah.
Google is the best search engine

*definitions* best- excelling all others[1] search engine- computer software used to search data (as text or a database) for specified information; also : a site on the World Wide Web that uses such software to locate key words in other sites[2] Through this debate I will show how Google is not only not the best search engine but that it is also not safe in anyway shape or form. If you look at the image at link [3] you will see an image of a search made on Google images of the word pole, now of course you can imagine that some not so appropriate pictures came up, and if you look you will see that this search was made in moderate safe search. However I then proceeded to do the search under the "strict" criteria and still yet some inappropriate came up[4]. I then proceeded to do an image search for "pole" on Bing and as you can see in link [6] far less inappropriate images came up. Now as I assume that the first thing you are going to do in response to my position is to argue that I purposely searched a word that would come up with some pictures that you cant quite consider safe. So link [7] provides you with a search of the north pole. Link [8] provides you with a search of Mrs. Claus. Link [9] for the word hi. All of these done on Google with moderate safe search on. There are many more that I can provide you with but it seems that this proves that Google is in now way safe, even with safe search enabled. There are many other search engines such as Bing that will provide you with much safer options. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]. http://img185.imageshack.us... [4]. http://img225.imageshack.us... [5]ttp://www. bing. com. .. [6]. http://www.bing.com... [7]. http://img185.imageshack.us... [8]. http://img203.imageshack.us... [9]. http://img689.imageshack.us...
Google is the best search engine

My opponent has failed to refute any point that I have made therefore I am lead to believe that he is conceding this debate. He also states: "SO I think that some people just use google for there own inapropriate things." If Google was really the best search engine then why would there be things such as this, I think not. If my opponent proceeds to refute my points in the next round then I shall proceed to post the following arguments. 1)Google plagiarism (or phishing) 2)Google traffic view 3)More and more and more Google safety flaws.
Should the Pledge of Allegiance be said daily in public schools? (US)

To summarize my debate, I believe that we do have a problem in our country regarding patriotism. Our youth lacks the patriotism and enthusiasm to say the pledge of allegiance. As the Con said, he believes the answer to the problem is to reduce the amount of times kids say the pledge in school. However, I do not believe this will solve any problems purely because it does not make sense that if you get rid of the pledge from the daily routine it will be more meaningful. If you omit the pledge from the daily routine the next step will to omit it from the weekly routine and so on. I do believe the answer is quite the opposite. We must as a nation stress the importance of the pledge daily at school. I think part of the reason kids would rather gossip that say the pledge is because of the lack of relevance it has in their lives. It does not directly effect them so they do not say it. Where they are mistaken is that it does effect them. The men and women who lay down their lives daily to fight for American and worldwide freedom are the people the pledge serves as a creed to. Patriotism does not come by forgetting about it. It comes from pride in a nation and this pride is only instilled into a population when they know what their nation stands on and for. This foundation is the pledge/constitution. If we get rid of this pledge we are choosing to further hide the foundation of our nation. Thank You.