BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hot button issue

"Amendment X gives states all powers not granted to the Congress in Article I section 8. The example that my opponent brings up, the changing of drinking laws, is a fine example of the loophole being used. Congress doesn't have any authority over the thousands of miles of state roads, but gave themselves authority by holding highway funds hostage." The issue is, sometimes Congress needs to get things done, although not necessarily with the drinking idea, but the thing is, one dissenting state could ruin something that needs nationwide cooperation. Another example would be (I shudder to say this) global warming. Pollution does not respect borders, and the federal government needs nationwide cooperation for everything to work. A state where most of the population is being stubborn and opposing the law has no motivation to pay attention to it, even if its cooperation is vital. The funding stick is necessary to gain cooperation. "I believe that pressure can be exerted from the community level to change laws to make them more acceptable. (See MADD, for this instance) Pressure in politics should come from the bottom of the food chain, the people, not the top, the feds." Global warming legislation is being pushed for by community groups nationwide, yet, in some more red states, community groups fight the legislation. If states could choose not to follow important global warming legislation without serious consequences, then these states would not cooperate, and the measures would not be as effective. Another example is gay marriage. Nationwide, the majority is for it. But in again, some red states, the majority is against it. So, a federal gay marriage law would fail to allow all gays that wish to marry, their right to marry. "Why should the democratically federal government need to get co-operation from the democratically elected governments of states? If everyone is representing the will of the people, then it should work itself out naturally, without coercion." The will of the nation is not always the will of Wisconsin. Wisconsin's cooperation however may be vital to the exercise of a piece of legislation that is supported nationwide.
Hot button issue

I suppose I will try to keep my argument equally succinct. I believe that by holding funds hostage, the government is basically taking advantage of an inherent loophole in the tenth amendment to the Constitution. Amendment X gives states all powers not granted to the Congress in Article I section 8. The example that my opponent brings up, the changing of drinking laws, is a fine example of the loophole being used. Congress doesn't have any authority over the thousands of miles of state roads, but gave themselves authority by holding highway funds hostage. To Rebut: "No Motivation for states to change policies" I believe that pressure can be exerted from the community level to change laws to make them more acceptable. (See MADD, for this instance) Pressure in politics should come from the bottom of the food chain, the people, not the top, the feds. "Without this stick, the federal government could not get the cooperation it needs." Why should the democratically federal government need to get co-operation from the democratically elected governments of states? If everyone is representing the will of the people, then it should work itself out naturally, without coercion.
Hot button issue

Con for 3. Would've done PRO for 1, but whatever. My argument will consist of one sentence. If we did not withhold funding, then there would be no motivation for a state that is in opposition to follow along. Just kidding, two sentences. As an example, when the drinking age was raised, Congress had to use highway funds as the stick to make states lower the drinking age. Without this stick, the federal government could not get the cooperation it needs.
Hot button issue

Well I want you to post your constructive with your favourite of the three topics that I will soon state. You may pick pro or con for any of the three. 1. The proprotional representation system would be better for federal legislative elections in the United States, than the current system, the plurality single vote system. 2. The United States should show strong preference towards Georgia in handling the Georgian-Russian conflict. 3. The United States Congress should not withhold major (major being defined as enough to drastically alter the state's ability to carry out a function that was funded in part or in whole by the United States Federal Government)amounts of funding toward States if the state refuses to comply with a Congressional measure. (Not a Constitutional one) Remember, post your R1. I'd prefer you not pick #2, just because I don't want to do that one. But really it doesn't matter.
Guns Should Be Banned From Civilians

Thanks for posting, Con.== NEG CASE ==R5) Armed CiviliansCon cites a single instance in which armed civilians may have helped reduced the number of fatalities during a mass-shooting. Firstly, whether or not the police actually needed the help is very questionable-- there was only one sniper, and there were already several police in the area, so having a couple more students along with them realistically couldn't have had that big of an impact. Secondly, citing this one incident doesn't even come close to mitigating the harm which I have shown guns cause.R6) Mass-ShootingsCon claims that rampage shooters only target areas where there are not likely to be guns. I have no idea what he's trying to prove with this observation... it is obvious-- shooters are going to target those who are least likely to put up a fight (i.e elementary school kids, church-goers, movie-goers, etc). This would not change if all civilians had guns; we can cross-apply R3 to show that the average civilian would still be relatively defenseless (and thus still the easiest target) even when armed with a gun.R7) ImplementationThis contention fails because the resolution is not US-specific. I do not deny that it would be nearly impossible to implement a gun ban in the United States, due to the "gun culture" present there. However this is not the case in all countries-- all over the world, especially in Europe and East Asia, there are societies which, as a whole, could not care less about having gun rights. This contention would only work in Con's favor if the resolution was "A Gun Ban would work in the United States". == AFF CASE ==Con has not attacked *any* of my arguments. Instead, he has essentially just re-stated his contentions. I have already refuted them. My evidence shows that a prevalence of guns only *increases* the amount of violence crime (i.e. instances of "force" being used), and that they are rarely ever effectively used for self-defense. My case remains standing...The resolution is affirmed.Bye.
Guns Should Be Banned From Civilians

I look forward to a good one. Let me begin; 1. The Second Amendment was added to our Constitution because the founders believed in private ownership of guns was necessary for protection of our liberties. 2. Taking guns away will not restrict criminals from receiving them. Gun control does not address the issue of gun-related crimes. In 2010, gun sales in Chicago were verboten. There were 432 murders in 2010 and 500 in 2012. The FBI named Chicago the nation"s murder capital. If a criminal is going to break the law, they will find a way. 3. Local police force will not be able to protect a person in time if there is an emergency 4. There"s still murder in countries where handguns are banned. The United Kingdom banned handguns in 1997 after a man shot 16 elementary students and then shot himself. Let"s look at the UK"s homicide rate before, during, and after the ban" In 1996, the murder rate was 1.12 per 100,000 people. In 1997, it rose to 1.24. In 1998, the rate rose even further to 1.43. And in 2002, it peaked at 2.1 homicides per 100,000. Just because you ban guns, doesn"t mean people won"t find other ways to massacre other human beings. 5. Armed civilians help take out the bad guys. I"m referring to the first modern mass shooting in Austin, Texas in 1966. A sniper in a tower shot at University of Austin students for 90 minutes. The police who reacted had help. Students went to their trucks and grabbed their rifles and shot along side of the police. It was enough to pin the shooter down and allow the police to take the shooter out. Police then thanked the civilians for helping them fire on the shooter. 6. Rampage shooters like soft targets. They"re targeting elementary schools, churches, and theaters" not places where you"d think guns are likely to be" Hell"s Angels" bars, Scarface"s house in Miami, or a police station. 7. The world isn"t perfect" and you can"t regulate it to perfection. There"s about one gun for every citizen inside the U. S. already. It would be impossible to collect this massive trove of guns. Even if the government wanted to, they could not control guns already present" or guns that would find their way into those hands who want them.
People take racism, sexism, religion, etc. too literally

People have every right to make whatever joke they like. I agree that they should keep opinions to themselves, bu just because someone is not okay with jokes about race or sex does not mean everyone should not be aloud to say them. I am blonde and I have heard some of the worst and best blonde jokes ever. I find them funny, because I know that being blonde does not make me dumb. (plus on TV its always the red head who are seen as idiots) If someone told a joke about a Jew or a Mexican that doesn't mean that the person they are telling, who may happen to be a jewish person or a mexican-american, is whatever the joke makes them out to be. They should not view it as such.
People take racism, sexism, religion, etc. too literally

If something is meant to be funny, and not literal, I say you have the right to get upset if offends you. But, what I'm saying is people just go WAY overboard. If I say something about a Mexican, to deliberately make them made or hurt them about having a funny accent, (only for an example, i would never do this) they can get mad at me. However, if I only tell a joke about a Mexican accent, no one needs to start a fight over it. That's what happens way too much. Being called a name, or having someone make a snide comment about you that offends you, that's when it is okay to react in a way you see fit. But when someone only says something for fun or to be funny, that's when you (A) don't laugh, (B) tell them, in a calm manner, "I don't think that is something that should have been said I know you were trying to be funny, but it was just rude", or (C) Say nothing, and be internally mad. One more thing, just to clear things up: I was not being prejudice against Mexican people, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind, for an example. I apologize if it did make anyone upset.
for students that have the free lunch program should snacks be included

Although I agree that it is sad that a child who cannot afford a snack can't have one while a other student who can afford one is able to have a snack, I believe it would not be beneficial for a school to be required to provide free snacks as the cost involved would be far to much all in the name to make the children happier. "The National School Lunch Program cost $11.6 billion in FY 2012. By comparison, the lunch program's total cost in 1947 was $70 million; in 1950, $119.7 million; in 1960, $225.8 million; in 1970, $565.5 million; in 1980, $3.2 billion; in 1990, $3.7 billion; and in 2000, 6.1 billion" ( https://www.fns.usda.gov... ) If we were to provide free snacks this already massive amount of spending would grow. It is because of this that we cannot sacrifice even more of our budget which I feel could be used in more important areas simply to make students a bit happier.
for students that have the free lunch program should snacks be included

First seeing as my opponent has failed to do so I will provide definitions. Free: provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment: Lunch Program: A school meal or school lunch (also known as hot lunch, a school dinner, or school breakfast) is a meal, typically in the middle or beginning of the school day, provided to students at school Snack: a small portion of food or drink or a light meal, especially one eaten between regular meals. . https://www.fns.usda.gov... . http://www.dictionary.com... I will be arguing that schools should not provide free snacks to any students regardless if they receive free lunches or not. I await my opponent's opening argument.
cunt is not a vulgar word

My position is elitist? I listed a dictionary definition, but I apologize for that... I guess? May I point out that you gave no reasons for why it isn't a vulgar word, and again, YOU HAVE THE ENTIRETY OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF. You always try and shrug it off, but it's YOURS. Also, your being elitist more than I by implying that only three cultures seem to exist: British, American, or Australian. I wasn't being elitist, in fact, I said "generally accepted", so OBVIOUSLY THE MAJORITY. Response to Point 1: You got some evidence for this bold assertion or am I going to have to take this on faith. If you're saying a vagina is equal to a c*nt, then you don't understand the concept of synonyms and how different words can mean the same thing but imply something else. Response to Point 2: I was talking about the country of America, where I live. Nowhere did you imply that we are talking about Australia or England, so your objection is out of left field. I would also say that c*nt is still vulgar, even if it is a friendly term. I think an appropriate general rule is "Can you say this word on TV?" And, you CAN'T say c*nt on TV in England[1].Response to Point 3: Uh, the historical period we are currently in? Like, is this even a necessary question? Words change to fit society, no matter what the original word would mean. In fact, all you have shown is that c*nt used to mean vagina and only vagina. Whoop-de-doo! A dick is a penis but it doesn't ONLY mean a penis. Response to Point 4: All you show in point four in why it has become vulgar. Thanks for the concession.I even went out of the way to say I don't think c*nt is a morally bad word. It is vulgar, not necessarily bad. Even if it is used in a friendly matter, doesn't make it not vulgar. If I friendly called you an a**hole, it would still be vulgar. Here's the logic: a**hole=swear word=indecent=vulgar. Um, you're Australian's leading erotic poet, so please do the English language a favor and stop butchering it. Seriously, it is so hard to make out what you are saying.So please, please, show why c*nt is not a vulgar word. Also, may I point out that either DDO doesn't recognize c*nt as a word, or it is counted as a profanity. So, again, since I know it is so hard to understand ideas for you, c*nt=swear word=indecent=vulgar. Sources:[1] http://censorship.wikia.com...(UK)
cunt is not a vulgar word

There is something fundamental you have wrong, and that you often do wrong in your debates. You, not me, not anyone else, YOU have the burden of proof. This isn't up for debate, you have the burden of proof, you have to show that the word cunt is not a vulgar word. However, I will support the argument that cunt is a vulgar word.You have not defined vulgar, so I will do this for you. Vulgar is defined as "indecent, obscene, lewd[1]". Indecent is the best word of the three, so indecent is defined as "offending against generally accepted standards of propriety or good taste[2]".Before I begin, may I say that I do not think "cunt" is a morally bad word, but that it is only vulgar. Also, I would argue that a vagina, which is what "cunt" represents, is bad. Just like "dick" or "cock" is vulgar, but penis is not.Now, cunt is a swear word. A swear word is an offensive word used often in times of anger. Swear words are thought as offensive against generally accepted standards of propriety or good taste, thus indecent, thus vulgar. So, our train of though is like this. Cunt=swear word=indecent=vulgar.I can't wait to see how you spin this. Sources:1: http://dictionary.reference.com...2: http://dictionary.reference.com...
cunt is not a vulgar word

1) So only Australia, England, and America exist, eh? Nowhere did you specify this was about any one culture, so this point is void. You also do not properly reply to the TV argument other than "TV caters to the dumb". 2) C*NT IS A SWEAR WORD. YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THIS ON CONTEXT. IT. IS. A. CUSS. WORD.1) I used the TV argument and the Swear Word argument. Also, note that the debate is about whether or not c*nt is a vulgar word overall, nowhere did you say we are talking about your poem, other than noting the use of the word c*nt was met with disgust.2) Okay, honey, let me walk you through this. The majority means... more than half! Yes, it really is that simple. Those groups you listed are, wait for it, GROUPS AND NOT THE MAJORITY. Note, the majority of America are religious, in the middle class, and are in the working class. Uh, this isn't a debate about porn? But yeah, definitely bring that up. Notice, we have the opinion of Belle Knox, Nothing objective, just this person's opinion. Actually, no this doesn't mean that people's moral beliefs may not meet their actions, it means that people's alledged moral beliefs do not always follow their actions. Notice, again, the majority disagrees with porn, but you haven't shown that those people still support porn or watch it. Not to mention, THIS ISN'T A DEBATE ABOUT PORN, but thanks for the waste of time.
cunt is not a vulgar word

This debate must be judged on objective criteria ie how one gives proof to ones claims even if you agree c*nt is a vulgar word you should not let your prejudices stop you from being objective I must win this debate as 1 1)I have backed up my claim that c*n is not a vulgar word by giving proof from other countries ie Australia and the UK where the word is taken very lightly not offending any one- in Australia it is seen as a word of friendship 2) I have argued that in the poem refered to the word is used to refer to a beautiful thing -and is not a swear word con must lose as 1)he makes assertions that the majority of Americans see the word as vulgar but he does not give us any proof 2) I asked him who this majority is ie which America you talking about the: religious middle class working class underclass subculture he has not told us so all con does is make assertions without any proof given I make assertions and give proof so on an objective evaluation of this debate i must win OUT OF INTEREST So who is this majority con says would regard c*nt as a vulgar word I will do the work for him- this majority may just be this http://www.medicaldaily.com... A large number of Americans, mostly white evangelicals and those aged over 68, disapprove of watching porn. on this point the reader might find it interesting - is that when it comes to condemning porn "[Americans]people"s moral beliefs may not always match up with their actions Also "Belle Knox told The New York Daily News that she believes "80 percent of the world"s traffic on the Internet is pornography." http://www.medicaldaily.com... "Why Americans Think It"s Wrong, But Still Watch It" "However, a 2008 study on college campuses found that 87 percent of "emerging" adult men, between the ages of 18 and 26, and 31 percent of emerging adult women, had reported watching porn at some point. The same study found that 20 percent of young males watched porn every day or every other day. What this means is that people"s moral beliefs may not always match up with their actions" "Perhaps watching porn isn"t right or wrong, but it depends on whether porn stars do it based on their own free choices and for their own reasons. Belle Knox told The New York Daily News that she believes "80 percent of the world"s traffic on the Internet is pornography. And I think that probably every single person at some point in their life has watched pornography. So, I think it"s extremely hypocritical that the same society that consumes me is also condemning me.""
cunt is not a vulgar word

You're so stupid. I'm going to lose conduct points for saying that, but someone had to tell you that.It doesn't matter the context of how it is used, it is still a swear word. If you don't understand this then I don't know what to say. Here's a link to a list of swear words, and guess what? C*nt is on there. http://www.noswearing.com...I did tell you, you just have a hard time with the English language.There is only one United States of America. If you disagree, you're going to have to back that up. I said in the second round I was referring to the majority. As in, MORE THAN HALF OF THE PEOPLE. I also gave a general rule, that if it cannot be said on TV then it is a cuss word or vulgar. C*nt cannot be said, thus it is vulgar. Okay you say something about porn, maybe? It is really hard to understand you when you butcher every sentence you type. Here's the thing. I never said the c*nt is a morally bad word. Is it a swear word? Yes. Is it vulgar? Yes. Does this make it wrong to use it? NO. But that's not what we are debating. Notice I said majority. I don't know if you know this, but 12 percent is not the majority. Let's test this out. 12 is smaller than 88. There. The majority of adults do not watch porn, thus your argument is invalid.Um, what are you even saying here? In my sources I will leave you a guide on how to use punctuation. You object to me using TV as a general rule because "it caters to the lower dumb nut". I don't really think that is a proper rebuttal, so I will let you try again next round.Here's a simple exercise. Is c*nt a swear word? Yes. Does context change this? No. Also, I didn't just say that. I also said that "beauty" doesn't change the fact that it's a swear word. But please, continue to misconstrue my arguments.1. It was used as a swear word since it is a swear word.2. Claiming something is beautiful does not change the fact that c*nt is a swear word.3. If something is a swear word, then it is indecent, and thus it is vulgar. Sources:[1] http://www.wikihow.com...