BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A non natural born citizen should run for president, with the requirements to be eligible to run.

Technically, the requirements to be eligible to run include being a natural born citizen. It would be completely irrational for someone in another country to run up to someone else's government and declare change. It has nothing to do with race, but does require that one has a full loyalty to the country in which they have lived in all their life. You can stand against the government with any type of heritage, but joining it is a different issue. It's like a king or queen being crowned that came from three kingdoms away and has no connection (royal blood) to authority figures. An American that moves to England cannot become the new royalty. Running for the highest place in office has little to do with courage. It has to do with intelligence, knowledge, and a positive past. No one wants an ignorant natural born citizen in the office either. A non natural born citizen is going to do less good for a country it hasn't been raised in than someone who has been exposed to the culture and history for every second of their life. Despite all the debt that America has been swimming in, America is the sixth richest country in the world with a GDP per capita of $47,084 and is one of the most populated countries in the world (1). They may bond an ally with other countries, but what if it is too close of a bond? We have already had issues with our own natural born citizens betraying their country, but one who has direct ties to another country that happens to have an interesting anti-American attitude would be more likely to cause more problems. In what way would "if something good doesn't happen, then it would be easily escaped" be logical? This is the same thing for a president that is natural born. You are correct when you say that "loyalty does not come from documented papers." Even natural born citizens have turned on their own countries. And if someone does not have a country in their blood and has not been exposed to it since the beginning of their life, it would be easier to turn. Definitions: GDP per capita: "A measure of the total output of a country that takes the gross domestic product (GDP) and divides it by the number of people in the country. The per capita GDP is especially useful when comparing one country to another because it shows the relative performance of the countries. A rise in per capita GDP signals growth in the economy and tends to translate as an increase in productivity."(2) (1) http://www.businessinsider.com... (2) http://www.investopedia.com...
A non natural born citizen should run for president, with the requirements to be eligible to run.

This topic is not talking about partnerships, trade, or any of those connections we have with other countries. This is about passion. America is a land of the free, home of the brave- but how are we brave, when we can't stand for what's right? The only reason I haven't stood against the government, is only because of my line of heritage. It's not only me, it's many others too, whom come from different nationalities. If we keep this patriotic land, and open it up to be more diverse, I don't see how there's a problem. Of course you'd need the requirements a president needs to have to run, but you also need the courage to become part of the highest office. I feel that this Constitution only branches this out, solely because they wouldn't want some ignorant, immigrant to become our president. Obviously, that's not what it say directly in the Constitution, but that's what the clause implies. Now, I am born and raised in the U.S. I have no problems with natural born citizens running, but our government is heading nowhere, now. It's not just because of the President, but also the whole Congress itself- better yet, the government entirely. We've made mistakes in this day and age that are extremely hard to get out of, and unfortunately cannot be reversed- such as the extreme amount of money America is in debt with (I believe six trillion dollars). But with the help of these "foreigners" something good might happen, along the lines. Connections with their former countries would bond an ally, making it a win-win situation. And if something good doesn't happen, then it would be easily escaped. You see, loyalty does not come from documented papers. It comes from passion and obsession. This debate wasn't made to go against anyone's opinion, this is yet just an idea I've deeply, intrinsically thought of. If you do not agree, that is utterly and completely fine, because I would truly enjoy what people do think of this. Thank you and have a wonderful, mystical, magical day!
Enslaved individuals can be happy in their position.

Sorry, What you state would be difficult because since many people know what freedom is like and even a little enslavement can cause them to strike back. Many people prefer to do what they choose and what they want. They might want to do something other than what they are being forced to do. For example if someone was being forced to cook but they like to clean or something they wouldn't be happy. Also being enslaved does not give people the chance to express themselves which makes it harder to leave negative feelings. This may lead to more violence and does not allow people to be happy. Thus, enslaved individuals cannot be happy in their positions.
Enslaved individuals can be happy in their position.

In the beginning you stated "In rare cases, the enslaved person may be happy but this is only because the person wanted to be enslaved or he or she wanted that kind of life." The question is not whether individuals are currently happy as slaves, it is that slaves can be happy in their roles, which you in fact conceded as possible with your statement. Also, if individuals are properly conditioned they in fact can be taught to love their enslavement, to believe they deserve it or believe they are not enslaved.
Enslaved individuals can be happy in their position.

Enslaved individuals can not be happy in their positions. The definition of a slave according to Webster's Dictionary is "someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay." or "a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something". Therefore, any one who is enslaved is being forced to work. In rare cases, the enslaved person may be happy but this is only because the person wanted to be enslaved or he or she wanted that kind of life. Being enslaved does not allow anyone the freedom to be who they want to be. Being enslaved gives their owner the right to do whatever they want to the enslaved person. Everyone can make their own judgement. If they cannot, then they need special care, not enslavement and extra work.
All benefit-scrounging single mothers should have their kids taken off them

Line by line. 1. Youre welcome. Brian Eggleston. 2. No, I totally agree. DOWN WITH TRISHAS!!.. Along with those who allow sarcasm to fly over their head. Group the rest. Yes, it is an attack on the lower class.. Although you may believe some (most) cases are worthy of welfare, the mindset is still flawed. It is up to no one to determain if someone is worthy of welfare or not. What I am arguing is merely a critique on your mindset. Im sure even you understand now that different people have different situations. The picture painted is a sad one indeed, but what is even more sad is that you believe you can pick and choose who is worthy of aid. Im sorry, but you cold concede my entire case. You concede that I agreed with you, the picture you painted was a bad one, but not only are we not in the position to judge these people, but the government can do absolutely nothing to change it. That alone is grounds to vote on. Say a law is passed similar to this one, can you imagine the world? The government doesnt like the fact youre recieving a bit of welfare, so they give the excuse that shes "lazy" and take her kid away and put her on the street. This is completely relative and we have nothing to judge this on. Sure, there are cases in which a child can be taken from the person who gave it birth. But "laziness" on the part of the mother that is impossible to judge is not one of these cases. Gracias
All benefit-scrounging single mothers should have their kids taken off them

Thank you for accepting this challenge, fresnoinvasion (curious nom de plume, b/t/w, did you invade Fresno? Was there much resistance?) I should like to make it clear that my scenario was not an attack on women called Trisha - it is a very nice name, very nice indeed (apparently my opponent's mother is called Trisha). Neither was it an attack on "lower" class people. As it happens, I consider myself working class (although nobody else does) and am proud to champion our various causes. One of those causes, incidentally, is welfare. I strongly believe that involuntarily impoverished, economically underprivileged, socially vulnerable or otherwise financially disadvantaged people deserve dignity and respect and access to decent education and health care services, free of charge at the point of use. In addition, these people should enjoy a reasonable standard of living and should be provided with adequate housing and enough money to live a respectable life. This is nothing less than they deserve and most taxpayers do not mind funding these benefits. That's because these people are unemployed through no fault of their own. Perhaps they were taxpayers themselves but they were made redundant and are unable to find alternative employment? Perhaps, the case may be that a young woman gave birth to a baby that was disabled and will need constant care for the rest of its life and her husband was absolutely disgusted with it and he left her in the lurch by fleeing the country? These people and other genuine claimants all deserve financial support from the state. However, there are far too many girls that see having kids as a meal ticket. They play the system, cynically exploiting the taxpayers' generosity for maximum personal gain. They know that the more kids they have, the bigger the house and the more money they will get. They also know that, unlike childless people, there is no obligation for mothers to go out to work – not ever, not even part time. These women really think that the state owes them a living and that the taxpayer has a financial responsibility to bring up their kids. This is wrong and it is not what the welfare system was designed for and specialist assessors should be employed to sort out the wheat from the chaff when pregnant young women throw themselves on the mercy of the state. In a previous debate I argued that the financial incentive to get pregnant should be removed by suggesting that Compulsory Abortion Orders should be served on pregnant women with no visible means of support. On reflection, however, I have softened my view and now propose that they should have their kids taken off them instead. Thank you.
All benefit-scrounging single mothers should have their kids taken off them

"Say you have a neighbour..." No, i dont have a neighbor named Trisha. Trisha is my mother. Haha In all seriousness (and due respect), this scenario should not even be read. Any scenario can be brought up in order to twist the topic into the favor of the individual making the argument on either. Im pretty sure your scenario is not meant to be the basis of this debate. So lets look at the deeper issues at hand. You have no idea the individual circumstances of the person, and to take away all of their kids is ridiculous. That will solve absolutely nothing, just cause more anger toward the government. Sure, be against welfare. Be against putting money into the lower class. But to think that you can control the people to the point of taking their kids away is wrong. No one person is any greater than another. Just because someone is a member to a lower social class you cant group everyone in the class to think they are just lazy sitting at home on the couch eating chips. Honestly, the topic is ignorant. To think that people even believe the money being put into our lower class, in this case, the single mothers who have absolutely no help at all because of a lack of father to the child, is wasted is ridiculous. The bottom line is that; yes, there are injustices in how some of this child support money is spent. However, you do not understand the situation of the individual, and the government will never be able to actually understand the situations. The only alternative (the affs plan) would be to take the kids of poor mothers and kick the mothers to the street. Now, if my tax dollars can save that. Ill gladly pay up.
All benefit-scrounging single mothers should have their kids taken off them

Say you have a neighbour, who has an eighteen year-old daughter called Trisha. Now, please don't get too excited boys, she's very overweight and distinctly unattractive. Also, she has personal hygiene issues. And she's rude and she's foul-mouthed and she's ignorant and she's very, very lazy. That's why her parents are always pestering her. So Trisha decides she'll move out and get her own place. The trouble is, that costs money and she is way too unemployable to get a job, even if she wasn't too bone idle to work. But wait, there's another option. All she needs to do is move in with a rich boyfriend. Simple! Except, she hasn't got a rich boyfriend, and with her looks and attitude, she is certainly very unlikely to find one that would invite her to come and live at his expense. Never mind though, all is not lost. There is an army barracks in her town full of squaddies who have just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan and are, therefore, so horny that they could **** the hair on a barbershop floor. So, on Saturday night, Trisha goes into town wearing her most revealing dress, walks into a bar full of drunken soldiers and asks a group of them to take her round the back. (I mean, invite them round the back by the trashcans, as opposed to inviting them to kick her back doors in, although she probably did bend over for some of them). Anyway, as a consequence of this somewhat less than romantic series of sexual encounters, Trisha becomes pregnant, which is great news. Not because she likes kids, she doesn't. No, because as a single mum she'll be entitled to a free house and be given a generous income, all courtesy of the ever-generous taxpayer. The only thing she has to do to qualify for these lavish benefits is answer a few questions from the Child Support Agency so that they can be satisfied that the baby's father cannot take financial responsibility for the child. So, when they ask her who the father is, Trisha replies: "I do not know who the father of my child was as all squaddies look the same to me." http://www.funny.co.uk... So when the baby is born, Trish gets her own, fully equipped place and enough money to live in some luxury. Now, you work out that the income tax you pay every week is just about the same as the money Trisha gets in rent and allowances and other benefits from the government. In other words, you are paying for her to stay at home, watch TV and eat junk food. Indeed, you are also paying to bring up her kid. But what choice does the Government have? It can't allow a single mum with a small child to live on the streets. No, but they can take the kid off her, put it up for adoption and let her live on the streets. They could do that, but the don't. They should do that though! Thank you!
Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

Public schools should require their students to wear uniforms. They would end up saving money for parents, could help stop bullying, and help focus students attention to the lessons that matter. Personal outfits can often be too distracting, revealing, and results in sutdents being bullied for dressing their own way or not being able to fford certain brands of clothing. The debate will consists of 5 rounds 1. Acceptance 2. Argument/Rebuttal 3. Argument/Rebuttal 4. Argument/Rebuttal 5. Conclusions There will be an 8,000 character limit and 72 hours to complete each round.
Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

I concede that it's not the responsibility of the school to clothes its students. However, requiring uniforms would help both parents and the school out, making it a win-win for everyone. Unfortunately, the money schools receive is not enough. Schools are constantly being faced with budgets cuts and having to cut programs and teachers. While their funds may be at an all time high, it's still not enough to cover each and every expense they are faced with. In New Jersey particularly, budget cuts have left schools unable a thorough and efficient education for its students. since when does one size fit all? I'm sure uniforms would be provided in all shapes to accommodate every kind of student. Just because a few students can't get the right clothes or are bullied does not mean the government should make everyone that goes to a public school wear the same thing. While this could be considered true, it's the government's responsibility to protect the well being of its people. When children's lives are threatened (whether by another person or by themselves) it's imperative to take every measure possible to protect them. If the uniforms in place save even just one bullied student's life, I would consider it a success. In this country especially, majority rules. It's simply the type of voting system in place. 80% vs 20% is an overwhelming majority rule. I concede that an eight year study would hold accurate results, but the results may not be the same for every public school afflicted. Children can find other ways to express themselves besides their clothing, such as hair, activities, jewlery, music, etc. Their identities aren't being stripped. To conclude: Public schools requiring school uniforms is a good idea, and should be practiced. Uniforms can help save parents money in the long run, for they wouldn't have to keep buying their children new, trendy clothes as often as they would if regular outfits were allowed. If the style of uniforms were to stay stagnant, parents could reuse them for their other children. Students would also be able to reuse their uniforms for upwards of three-fours years. School uniforms would help appease the epidemic of bullying. Children would all be wearing the same thing and would no longer be teased for their outfits and what they can't afford to buy. Uniforms would ease some distractions in classes (i.e., outfits revealing too much, offensive slogans) and put the focus on learning, rather than fashion. Uniforms would prepare students for the workplace where there will be strict codes on what they will be able to wear (sort of like uniforms in their own right) All in all, uniforms would be beneficiary to parents, students, and public schools. Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to your concluding arguments. http://www.nj.com...
Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

Schools need to acquire money to survive. If they don't, they are subject to cutting teachers, classes, and programs. Yes, the intention of a school is to teach students, but it needs money to do so. If the schools provide the means for the uniforms, they can make a profit enough that could be considerable enough to save a teacher or class. Yes, kids could reuse their regular outfits, but trends for students change basically over night. Parents would have to continue buying new brands of shirts, shoes and pants more frequently than they would have to purchase uniforms. A little goes a long way. The public schools in America are greatly suffering, and money at all could help them prosper a bit more. Some students may protest, yes, but tat can not be said for every student. One boy wearing a skirt to school to protest uniforms isn't enough to suggest students as a whole hate the idea of school uniforms. I'm sure students who are picked on for their clothing wouldn't mind uniforms, for they would be wearing the same clothing as the people who pick on them. One researchers findings isn't enough to rule out every single case of school uniforms. "In Reno, Nevada, school uniforms have made the life of one autistic student much easier while helping him advance in his cognitive development at school. With the help of intensive therapy and the CLS program at Roy Gomm, he now can do most things a typical developing student can do, including putting on his school uniform." Saying one researchers findings completely rules out any chance of the opposite is ludicrous. Ask a white racist male how they feel about other races, is their answer enough to rule out a another white male's opinion? Until Brunsma studies every single school to use school uniforms, there is no saying that any claims made otherwise are ruled out. In a survey conducted at Roy Gumm 80% of parents liked the school uniform requirements. One can express themselves while their young through other avenues such as the music they listen to, the films and television programs they watch, their hair, and jewlery. Having students wear uniforms doesn't completely strip them of individuality. In the same respect, adults can do the same. Actually, students can wear offensive clothing, whether depicting an offensive act, or even it being too revealing. THeir clothing can be just as offensive as words can be. At Warren Hills Regional High School one student wore a shirt with the offensive term "redneck" on it, while another wore a shirt with the confederate flag. The students could've been targeting a particular student with their choice of attire - there's no way to know. Clothing can caused just as many problems as words can. http://www.mynews4.com... http://www.cir-usa.org...