BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is time for the farmers of the San Wakeen valley to go to war with the federal govt

Things just keep on getting better. My opponent's arguments have gone from bad, to terrifying and illusory, and now it would appear they have finally managed to reach escape velocity from all terrestrial constraints of candor, constraints like civility, logical coherence, and rationality. Consequentially they are venturing into areas that are most commonly referred to as psychotic, delusional, and dangerous. No one should have to make the arguments that I'm making right now. ====== Case Pro- Rebuttals ====== "My opponent is clearly a pacifist and his writings and responses to me indicate that he would not even fight and die for his own freedom, life liberty or pursuit of happiness. I can understand why he thinks no one else should either. This is not an unwarranted editorial on my part as he has stated violence is "never" the answer." -sadolite Please, don't lie about my positions. I have never written that (violence is "never" the answer) in the context of this debate or at any other time. On top of this I am not a pacifist. I'm just a sensible person that realizes how crazy and pointless your call for war is. Moreover, your attempts to lie about my views are as poorly constructed as your opening argument. (Moving on) ====== Case Pro ====== Contention 1: The March on Washington was peaceful. My opponent has decided to ignore my argument about MLK by calling it irrelevant because he has nothing else of intelligence to say on the matter. Let me restate it for those that have forgotten. Imagine how different our world would be if Martin Luther King had led a group of militants to Washington instead of peaceful protestors. [1] It is, of course, fallacious for any serious person to draw such a comparison between ascendant discrimination and policy disputes. I merely do this to show that there are peaceful means to resolving even the most intractable of disputes. Sadolite could have said everything he is not saying about the civil rights movement in his calls for violence and yet civil rights were attained through largely peaceful measures and by way of legislation. [2] ======= Conclusion ======= I don't know if your joking, but if you are its not funny, and quite frankly I'm getting creped out just a little bit. I have already given two alternatives that don't require violence and will most likely produce good results. [3]-[4] Further, my opponents attempts to draw an analogy between the founding of our nation with policy disputes over water in California are as poorly rooted in history as they are in logic. –Resolution negated (Vote Con) All the best, Freeman Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.gopetition.com... [4] http://www.centeroncongress.org...
It is time for the farmers of the San Wakeen valley to go to war with the federal govt

The federal gov't through the EPA has kowtowed to environmental extremist and cut off the water supply to the farmers in the San wakeen valley in California. It is the extremist argument that a smelt is becoming endangered because of the pesticides used in farming in that region. The consequences of this action has put nearly forty thousand people out of work. And now the people of that area that once used to grow the food that they ate and export food all over the world now import food from China are now all destitute and unemployed living on demeaning, enslaving Govt handouts just to survive. This situation is artificially created by the federal govt. The govt is making these people live in poverty and has no intentions of reversing this lunacy. The people of this region are more important that some 3 inch smelt. People are more important than these fish, you can't even call them fish they are smelts and you can't even eat them. If they disappeared it would have no noticeable impact in the food chain, people don't even eat them. What the federal govt is doing to these people is criminal and all those involved in this heinous travesty against these people should be brought up on charges and thrown in jail and the water turned back on. If the water is not turned back on and I mean today, right freakin now, the farmers and the people of that region should form a militia and take matters into their own hands, turn the water back on and defend the free flow of water to their farms to the death if necessary. They need to declare war against the worthless pile of crap we have called the Federal Govt. They have repeatedly tried to solve this situation in a civil manner. The time for civility when it comes to the federal govt is over on this issue.
Should teachers union be abolished

Strikes that come to mind included the auto workers of General Motors as well as the workers of Verizon in New York. Arguing that the teachers union should be abolished because some can strike is the same as saying that the auto workers union should be abolished because they can strike. Verizon and general motors aren't teaching the future. My first point is that New York State has a very high barrier to entry into the profession of teaching. Teachers must obtain a Bachelor's Degree in order to obtain their Initial Teaching Certificate which is valid for a period of five years. During the period of time the teacher is earning his or her Bachelor's Degree the teacher must also obtain the Internship Certificate. Within this five year period the teacher must also earn a Master's Degree and must continue ongoing professional development in order to earn the Professional Certificate. [2] There are also exams that must be passed in order to obtain both the Initial Certificate and Professional Certificate. Please elaborate how this is relevant to the debate. My second point is that there is a serious question as to exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. Politicians and the media alike feel that the most effective way to evaluate a teacher is to tie the teacher"s performance to standardized test scores. However, simply tying teacher performance to standardized test scores ignores the individual learning ability of each child, economic factors and most important as far as I'm concerned is the level of involvement of each student"s parent or parents. How can a teacher should be held accountable for a student not performing if the student continuously misses classroom days, does not complete homework assignments and project assignments? A student such as this will simply not perform up to standards. A teacher"s job is to educate children not raise peoples children for them. If a school district or city feels that a teacher is that detrimental to students then why is cost a factor, especially if educating the future of America is of the utmost importance? Your right. There are a lot more variables to why a student might fail. But when you have a teacher who is show over and over again to be proven ineffective, that's not a coincidence. But because it's nearly impossible to fire that teacher due to the unions, there's a problem. http://www.youtube.com... For this reason alone, teachers deserve union protection That's not a sufficient enough argument to justify why teachers deserve union protection. I have an idea! How about we make teachers unions illegal, and if a teacher is show to be effective we give them a pay raise, if not we fire them. Simple.
Should teachers union be abolished

However, in places such as New York City, teachers are not allowed to strike as a result of the Taylor Law This is true. However teachers in other places can still go on strike as they did in Chicago (the 3rd largest district in the US) in September [1]. During this 3 year period a teacher can be terminated for being ineffective. Again this is true. One again though after tenure is earned the process of firing a teacher is long complicated process that is costly [2]. In New York firing a teacher is like breaking a diamond. What happens is the ineffective teachers typically get passed along from school to school without ever getting fired. I'd agree with my opponent’s agenda point. why deal with the negative stigma of the profession which on average earns a person approximately $42,000 per year. It's important to that teachers wages tend to rise with experience and there are other factors too like cost-of living. For example a teacher North Dakota makes half of the average salary but living costs are cheaper in North Dakota then in New York [4]. The reason we should deal with the negative stigma is because as said they're teaching the future of America. There only a handful of jobs that guide the direction of America’s future economic viability. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://nj1015.com...[3] http://www.oprah.com...[4] http://www.payscale.com...
Should teachers union be abolished

I would like to begin my rebuttal by addressing my opponent"s statement that "teachers have to strike." As with any unionized profession a strike is a last resort and normally occurs when there is a standstill in negotiations. However, in places such as New York City, teachers are not allowed to strike as a result of the Taylor Law [1]. The Taylor Law makes it illegal for any unionized public employee to strike. In the event that public employees do strike they are penalized by having to pay two (2) day"s worth of wages for each (1) strike day. Stating that teachers have to strike is the same as saying that auto workers have to strike. With regard to tenure, tenure is earned after a probationary period of 3 years. [2] During this 3 year period a teacher can be terminated for being ineffective. Although the term tenure is, for the most part, synonymous with the profession of educator the term probationary period is not. Correction officers, police officers, firefighters and others in public service must also serve a probationary period in order to be afforded union protection against unfair and unjust termination. Non effective teachers are not protected by tenure. As with any unionized member in any profession, a non-effective employee can be terminated for job performance whether tenured or not. However, being tenured allows for due process should a school district or city wish to terminate a teacher for ineffectiveness. My opponent is correct in the statement that "unions donate to politicians to push their own agenda." However, the teachers union is one of many unions. Basing an argument on this statement, I could easily argue that all unions should be abolished on this premise. However, unions donating to push their own agenda are no different than a person voting Republican, a person voting Democrat or for any other party line. Politics in itself revolves around agendas. Why does the National Rifle Association donate approximately $7,000,000 per year to Congress? [3] One has to ask, what is the agenda of teachers in the public education system? Personally I feel it is to educate the future of America. If not, why deal with the negative stigma of the profession which on average earns a person approximetly $42,000 per year. [4] [1] http://www.perb.ny.gov... [2] http://teaching.about.com... [3]http://ivn.us... [4]http://www.payscale.com...
Should teachers union be abolished

As i'm looking forward to a productive debate. To begin, i'd like to state why teachers unions should be abolished. Teacher's unions are detrimental to this nation's public education system because, teacher's have the to strike which interrupts learning of the student, tenure, protection for proven noneffective teachers, and union's donate to politicians to advance their own agenda. These unions put their own agenda in front of what be a number #1 priority for them, teaching this nation's children.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Con says-> "Because the rest of the sinners aren't marching in the streets in protest." I say-> I beg to differ. People, not even just Homosexuals protest in the streets for countless amount of reasons. Ex- Civil Rights Movement, Occupy Wall Street, Job Strikes, etc. So what country do you live in? Con says-> "You keep attacking me for ONLY using God as an argument, but I would counter-attack with:" You can only make your argument by ignoring God." I say-> From Round One I never ignored God and noted that religion was a big factor people use against Homosexuality and Gay Marriage. But I also did mention that there are multiple reasons against this fight other than God alone, which Con has ONLY spoke about. Con says-> "Who has more rights? The man and his identity or the dignity and security of the little girl?" I say-> Both have the SAME amount of rights. Last time I checked- a Transgender is still a Human- still has a heartbeat, still has feelings, still has the same vital necessities as you, the voters reading this, and me. "The security of the little girl"? When was she in harm's way? Living life in general is dangerous. But when did that innocent Transgender threaten her? Seeing that transgender in the bathroom is a realization that it is the 21st century and that now Transgenders are more proud and open than years ago. That bathroom trip opened her up to the Real World, to things she is going to encounter in her later years. But "security" of her? Really? That transgender has the same rights as that little girl and from what Con wrote- I do not see how her "security" was in danger. Con says-> "That's not marriage. That's a romantic relationship. Marriage is difficult, painful, sacrificing and it glorifies God. So few people recognize marriage for what it is, Christians included. That can be attributed to our generational culture. It was not always so. Marriage carried a lot of weight for the past few thousand years. The divorces we are seeing are a phenomenon of the 20th/21st century." I say-> I never said MARRIAGE was EXPRESSION. I said "I recognize 'expression' as showing your love, devotion, and commitment to something or someone, possibly even through marriage." Keyword- POSSIBLY EVEN THROUGH. If marriage is such a bad thing, a Homosexual couple should be able to be as miserable as a heterosexual couple who is married and experience that "difficult" and "painful" experience that sometimes ends up in divorce according to Con. The argument here is simple- there are many unfair advantages against Homosexuals and Gay Marriage. I say- let them be; if they're happy, who is Con to say something about it? Everyone has different beliefs and I respect those of Con, but this fight is about Equality. It's about Homosexuals having that same equality, including marriage, has Heterosexuals. When it comes down to it- we're all human despite of our gender, race, sexual orientation, political parties, religion, and social class. I say EVERYONE, including Homosexuals, Heterosexuals, that little girl, and that Transgender, is equal and therefore should all have the SAME rights. Vote Pro*
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

The LGBT community is not fighting to change the beliefs of any religion nor make a "declaration of war on God". Just as racial equality was fought for and is still minimally fought for; Homosexuals are simply fighting for equality, to be recognized as equals to heterosexuals in regards to marriage. The inequality in homosexual and heterosexual marriage, portray heterosexual marriage to be right and homosexual marriage to be wrong. No marriage is wrong. There are many people from all religions who support gay marriage and do not label two members of the same sex getting married as a means of going against God or being unjust. ->Con implies that The Bible basically says that everyone is a sinner, somehow or someway. ->I say if everyone is basically a sinner, then why is homosexuality so highly argued against? If eventually everyone is going to sin and become a "sinner" according to Con, why can't everyone be left alone and live their life how they want, even if they wish to be with someone of the same gender. ->Con states: "If God is real and his mercy is available" which implies that God and his mercy MAY be real. -> I say how is Con going to fight against Homosexuals being married with only Religion as his argument and then state "If God is real and his mercy is available"? Con seems unsure when he/she wrote this sentence, but I know that of course God's mercy is available. On numerous accounts The Bible addresses the mercy of God. As Con said everyone is a sinner according to the Bible therefore God is clearly merciful, labeling and accepting everyone as a sinner. With that being the case, then homosexuals are no more or less sinners than everyone else, including those in a same sex marriage, is implied to be. ->Con says: "If a gay couple wants to be recognized as joined, change your status on Facebook. Stay out of the Church." ->I ask; what does Facebook have to do with this argument and the equality of human beings? This argument is about legally and rightfully being equal and married to the person they love. Also, it is recognizing the Homosexual population as human beings and married instead of a "union". ->Con says: "Marriage is not an art form. Unless you mean to express you devotion to God, don't do it. If you insist on doing anyway, don't do it in a Church." ->I say; When I speak of "Freedom of Expression", I recognize "expression" as showing your love, devotion, and commitment to something or someone, possibly even through marriage. ->Con stated: "Again, gay people are free. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Period." ->I say: EQUALITY has NOTHING to do with being free. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equality is "the quality or state of being equal". Therefore, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equal means "of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another". Therefore, the argument and fight for Equality for Same Sex Marriages, has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom. I await your reply. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

I appreciate your reply Con, but I still see basically only one argument against my belief. The only strong argument that Con represents it "Religion" and "God". But obviously Con fails to realize that the Bible is a book about GOD not about a person's sexuality. Regarding Con's second point about Homosexuality being a Sin, currently Con is assuming all homosexuals are in an adulterous relationship and therefore that is the only reason Con claims the Homosexual lifestyle is a sin. If Con believes so highly in Religion, then Con must realize that regardless- Homosexuals are still God's children and we are how He made us. ->Genesis 1:27 God created the human being in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. On a website made by Lesbian Christian Woman, she said, and I quote: "For example, many Christians don't know that: -Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior. -The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality. -Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today. " (1) Con speaks continuously that Marriage is a Symbol for the Christian, but until I stand corrected- other NON-CHRISTIAN People do get married, so therefore how is marriage "For the Christian, of what Christ is to the Church"? Con also probably does not realize that some Christian Churches do acknowledge Gay Marriage and do perform Gay Marriages at their alter in their Christian Church. Con brings up the point about different Religions not being able to be married in a Church that houses a religion different than the Groom-To-Be and Wife-To-Be. But if I recall correctly, the Muslim religion does NOT believe in God, in fact they believe in "Allah" which goes against God. ->Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other gods before me. So according to Con, Homosexuality is wrong according to God and the Christian Beliefs, but so is having another God. So therefore, why should a "married" couple who follows a religion that believes in a different God, or no God, be acknowledged as "married" and "wife and husband" but a Homosexual Couple can not be recognized as "married" or "husband and husband" or "wife and wife"? Bottom line is the fight against Gay Marriage is much more than Religion, and it is unfair, unequal, and unjust. A homosexual marriage would not affect anyone in a negative way. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of Mankind and obviously, Homosexuality is not ending. Does Con realize the only argument they still present is only ONE point that I touched upon? How about we step away from simply the "Religious" argument against this and speak of other points I thorougly presented in Round One. I am still anticipating a different argument from Con because currently, Con repeats themselves with the same "Argument" against Homosexuality and Gay Marriage. Pro-Gay Marriage. Love is Love. 1- http://www.soulforce.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Although my opponent stated his stand, I feel I have much more valid and reasonable reasoning why Gay Marriage should be legal. 1- Although marriage is "designed" by God, no where in the Bible states that Homosexuality is wrong, it only speaks of sexual intercourse being wrong, and it says about a woman and a man having sexual intercourse is wrong. a. Why should marriage "reflect" Christ and his Church? Marriage is a decision between two PEOPLE to symbolize their love, affection, devotion, and commitment towards each other. b. Currently, and unfortunately, marriage in 44 states is between a man and a woman. People fail to realize the true meaning of love, other than Religious views. Marriage is between two people who LOVE each other. So why shouldn't a homosexual couple who's been together for years and is in love not be able to obtain the title of "Married"? 2- By passing the law allowing Gay Marriage, the United States Government would no be governing religion, but instead governing equality and justice. a- Marriage is a UNION, a union between two people who have unconditional love for each other. b- You state the same thing over and over. c- There are plenty of different religions other than Christianity and "Non-Believers". If marriage has so much to do with religion and the United States Government should not "govern religion" then everyone should have "Civil Unions" and not have the chance and choice to get "married" because discriminating against Homosexuals due to who they love and therefore not allowing them to get married is simply wrong and unjust. Con repeatedly states the same claim over and over without acknowledging that not everyone is Christian. Some churches, including Christian churches, allow Gay Marriage in their church. The only argument against Gay Marriage that Con has is simply "God" and religion, but only ONE religion. Con fails to acknowledge that being so religious, you are not supposed to JUDGE anyone. "Only God Can Judge Me". If Gay Marriage is so wrong due to God and the Christianity Religion, why not wait and deal with that after death? You only live once so why should a Homosexual not be able to spend that ONE LIFE with the person they love as their "Husband" or "Wife". It is unfair and unconstitutional that only a man and a woman can get married. As human beings, we have freedoms and rights. Therefore, why shouldn't a homosexual be given those same rights? Other than religion and ignorance, my opponent has no valid reasons. Actually, other than Con repeating themselves and only speaking of the Christian Religion and not touching any other valid points I discussed, there is no other argument Con presented. By banning homosexuals to get married, it signals them out. There are states that allow people to marry their own relatives, such as a cousin, which is in fact incest, but yet Gay Marriage is wrong. In my opinion, love is love and no one can help who they love, whether it is a female or a male. I await your "argument".