BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

Thank You CON! 1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off.3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens.4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency.By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Not everyone believes in god in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. I don't think my opponent will argue that no atheists exists in America, but I'll provide a source either way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5% of Americans are atheists. As for the second class citizen, the definition is here: http://dictionary.reference.com... "A person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration." I'm not saying we need to take every dollar bill and erase the statement. Only that we must stop printing it on our bills. The Government is getting involved with religion, and- that's a problem.This brings us into the law of separation of Church and State."Separation of Church and State: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"-Jefferson.http://www.loc.gov.........The actual rule:"The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion" http://dictionary.reference.com... By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion. The government is supposed to be neutral on this subject, meaning it should not have any statements regarding god. Therefore we must take god off of our currency.
The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

I will acknowledge that Atheists do not believe in a deity. I will also say that 'In God We Trust' is offensive to them as well. When taken in a religious point of view it is indeed a lie to say that everyone trusts in God when nothing like that could ever be ascertained from our country. While I do not believe it is a huge deal to have 'In God We Trust' on our currency due to the fact that I honestly don't think anyone is paying attention to it and believes that you are preaching to them if you use it, I do also understand that I have this point of view simply because I myself believe in a deity. Thank you for the debate, Con. This was most interesting.
The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

Thank you con. "I used both definitions for my argument which is as follows: You are arguing that Atheists are not treated with respect, are not recognized, and are discriminated against because of their beliefs despite being legal citizens of America" Right,,, Well because it is saying "In god we trust" it is asserting that Americans trust in god. It does not say a single thing about atheism, therefore atheism does not get it's fair share of respect. If there was no mention of religion on the dollar bill, this would be no problem. However they respected all other religions except for atheism. They also told a lie by asserting we all believe in god. "Because you argued that Atheists are second-class citizens because of this motto on our currency you had argued that they are being discriminated against. " They are not getting a fair share of respect, and a lie is being told on our dollar bill. Yet again not all people are theists. It would be like me putting a sign up next to the local School saying: "Westhardly middle school students trust in god" this would clearly be not appropriate,.. It is not respecting all of the atheists who do not in fact believe in god. I await your responses.
The Crusades were mostly motivated by Geopolitical factors

This is what prompted the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos to seek aid from Catholic Europe. This was when the first Crusade was originally initiated; as a call to assistance from Western Europe to aid the Byzantines. The first indicator that the Crusades were not motivated by religion but rather geopolitics because if the focus was more on religion then the pope wouldn"t need an excuse to start a crusade as he would have simply called out for one instead of waiting. By the 1090"s Western Europe had mostly ended the "Dark Ages" as stable localized Kingdoms were established following the period of instability after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Preceding this the Catholic church held indirect however tremendous influence over Europe, the 1090"s came a few decades after the Norman Conquest when England had finally stabilized. So it would seem possible that the Pope"s speech at the Council of Clermont was a way for him to take influence over the secular kingdoms of Western Europe. His speech included much exaggeration of the "atrocities" done to Christendom at the hands of the Seljuk Turks. Christendom before had little concept of the idea of a "Holy War" In the speech made by Pope Urban when he called to the Crusade he did not address it as a Holy War but rather as a militant pilgrimage. The acts done by Crusaders after taking the City of Jerusalem contradicted Catholic teachings as well as the Crusaders killed everyone in the City indiscriminately upon their arrival. Now quoting from the Gesta Francorum (a Latin book that chronicled the Crusades in the perspective of the Franks) ". .. [our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles. .. " A second chronicler of the first Crusade, Fulcher of Chartres documented how the Crusaders took the Temple Mount during the siege. He says and I quote "In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared" Once more if religion really had much motivation to the Crusades then why would the Crusaders kill not only Muslims but their fellow Christians as well? Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://dcc.newberry.org... 3. 4. 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://historymedren.about.com...
The Crusades were mostly motivated by Geopolitical factors

For this debate we will be discussing the first four crusades as the the fifth crusade and after held little to no real significance, I will be arguing that the Crusades were mostly motivated by the Geopolitics and the Politics of Europe and the Middle East at the time and Con is to argue otherwise. Terms: Crusades: A series of medieval military expedition made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. (As mentioned previously only the first four crusades are to be debated on. ) Motivated: To posses a motive or a reason to do something. geopolitical: Politics that are driven or influenced by geographical factors.
The United States should retain the use of the death penalty

I sincerely apologize to my opponent. I have been very busy with soccer, school and other things and won't be able to finish this debate. On top of that I've had a discouraging and disappointing week and am in no mood for writing debates.I also apologize for the forfeit last round. When I realized I wouldn't be able to do this it was my intent not to forfeit any rounds, but I accidentally did so, so I apologize. I will have to urge a pro vote.I sincerely apologize for wasting your time.
The United States should retain the use of the death penalty

Please don't accept this if you have not won at least 5 debates, thank you.Resolved: The United States should retain the use of the death penalty for murder.I will be negating the resolution.Thus I think the United States should not continue to use the death penalty.Burden of Proof:BoP is shared.Definitions:Death Penalty - a punishment in which the person who committed the offence is put to death by the state. [1]Structure: 1st round: Acceptance. 2nd, and 3rd round: Arguments and rebuttal. 4th round: No more arguments, just rebuttal and closing up.Terms: 1. Each participant should have respectable behavior and good conduct. 2. No plagiarism, sources should be properly cited. 3. One forfeit should result in the loss of conduct point but that is all. If a participant forfeits twice voters can use their own discretion.4. If needed to save space because of the character limit, participants may post their sources in a separate link or in the comments section. 5. Please no semantics. Note this is not a rule but more of a request. I think I have made a semantic proof resolution, but semantics should be allowed in debate. Though I hope we stay out of that so we can have a good debate here.If anyone has any questions, or complaints please feel free to leave a comment or pm me. Good luck to my opponent whoever he or she may be.Sources:[1] http://en.wiktionary.org......
A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

"relying the amount of money the wrongly convicted should get on their previous income is unjust and an irrational thing to do." It's perfectly rational, it's the major objective factor in how much harm they have suffered. ". In the time those people were wrongly convicted, they could of easily gotten a way higher-income job or an education that helped them get to that higher-paying job." Whereas many of them DEFINITELY had a higher paying job than 50,000 a year. Uniqueness criterion. "Because the government is trying to be just in the process of compensating the wrongly convicted, they should in fact have a stable number like $50,000 per year of imprisionment because it would be equally fair to every single one of them. " They have not suffered equal damages, hence it wouldn't be fair. Should people whose Ferrari was blown up by someone receive the same compensation as someone whose old junker was? :Creating a compensation based on previous "income before imprisionment" would create an unfair deal because the government doesn't know what that income could of been during those imprisionment years and because of that they should have a stable and reliable number like $50,000. There is nothing "Reliable" about that number-- it has no relation to damages or anything else but the fact that you ASSERT it's fair. : To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again It is to compensate them for damages. :To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past; what we should base it on is the time that they were imprisioned and by creating the compensation of $50,000 per year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point".You have not demonstrated it is fair, and previous income and rate of increase is entirely just. Justice consists of people paying for the consequences of their actions-- the government should pay for demonstrable consequences of their actions.
A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

He instead gave me his straight up thinking of the whole debate and that is sufficent enough I suppose. An addition to that, he did agree with the second condition of the bill; but not so much of the first. Anyway moving on to my why the first part should be approved. I would like to say that the $50,000 annually rule is NOT a random and arbitrary number; it is a stable and reliable number for the wrongly convicted to have. The "proper" procedure that my opponent is trying to propose is not so proper whatsoever; first of all, relying the amount of money the wrongly convicted should get on their previous income is unjust and an irrational thing to do. In the time those people were wrongly convicted, they could of easily gotten a way higher-income job or an education that helped them get to that higher-paying job. Because the government is trying to be just in the process of compensating the wrongly convicted, they should in fact have a stable number like $50,000 per year of imprisionment because it would be equally fair to every single one of them. Creating a compensation based on previous "income before imprisionment" would create an unfair deal because the government doesn't know what that income could of been during those imprisionment years and because of that they should have a stable and reliable number like $50,000. To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again; it is an unfortunate situation that I wouldn't wish anyone to go through and because of the posible psychological and mental scars that could come from being wrongly convicted $50,000 per year of inprisionment is a reasonable idea to go with. To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past; what we should base it on is the time that they were imprisioned and by creating the compensation of $50,000 per year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point".
A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

While the records should certainly be expunged, governments, like any other payers of civil compensation, can only justly be made liable for well-evidenced damages. Additionally, their liability cannot justly be capped at $50,000 annually per wrongful conviction. 50,000 is a random and arbitrary number. The proper procedure is for a civil trial to be presented before a judge at which the income of the person before imprisonment, the rate at which their income was increasing up to that point, and other relevant factors are considered, deciding an amount on a case by case basis, unless both parties agree on an out of court settlement.
A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

Welcome to my debate! Now, I will give off the key ideas that would come with the resolution. 1- The federal government compensates them with $50,000 per year of incarceration for exonerated felons. 2- All states have to expunge the criminal records of the wrongly convicted. I will give my arguments and such in round 2, after I get my opponent and his acceptance of the debate. Thank You.
Kids should not grow up with their parents.

I think you've given an interesting system that sounds good on paper, but is ultimately flawed. You state- "I propose a system where the top percentiles of performers in each discipline (mathimatics, sports, art, mechanics, etc.) are the only people allowed to procreate" What you're suggesting is that only people who excel academically can breed, in order to better the human race. It's normally people who suffer from autism that excel at one particular subject, so your idea would only breed a new generation of super autists. This is called selective breeding and we do it in animals, such as dog. The problem with selective breeding is that you're limiting the gene pool and forgetting other very important traits, such as health. I think you'd be hard pressed to remove children from their parents in order to have them breed selectively with other children. It has a creepy dystopian feel to it, so good luck gaining support for that idea. I’m sure it would work, but people don’t want to gain scientific advancement at the expense of their children. A few reasons to keep children with their family- 1) Having a proper family is important for children. Many children love their parents and being around them makes them happy, parents can be key motivators for children. 2) While in school, it’s important that children feel a sense of belonging and comfort, especially while trying difficult tasks, such as exams. 3) Children are dependent on their parents to raise them, without parental guidance children will be lost. 4) How will children get the affection they crave? No teacher at a boarding school can give the emotional support a mother can. Even if you could convince the children that leaving their parents is a good thing, how could you convince the mother to give away her child for scientific exploit? As you said, people are having children “Willy-nilly” but if overpopulation is your concern then you should consider a different approach.
Kids should not grow up with their parents.

This should be interesting. The standard model of "family" is outdated, and impractical. I propose a system where the top percentiles of performers in each discipline (mathimatics, sports, art, mechanics, etc. ) are the only people allowed to procreate, and ALL children are raised in more of a boarding school type of environment where they are taught EVERYTHING, giving them the ability to choose their own paths through life. Once kids choose a path, they work in their field, trying to be the best in their field so they can procreate. Creating an end result of an elevated society of more and more capable people. Simultaneously, freeing people from the distraction of kids allowing them to work harder in their disciplines. Now I don't want to argue about my system I just described, its obviously not thoroughly thought out. But I needed to atleast give an example of a different system that would be feasible to contrast our current system where parents have kids whilly-nilly, regardless of financial capability, and lacking in gene pool monitoring. Parents also are in general not always the greatest teachers and influences to give kids the absolute best shot at being successful, and instead a lot of times are hindered by their upbringing far into their adult life. Con should try to prove that kids growing up with their parents is still the best way to raise a child. Rules: 1. be respectable 2.
Kids should not grow up with their parents.

I am suggesting that not just people who excel academically get to reproduce, but those who excel as people. Whatever the field may be, Art, Music, Aircraft flight, etc. Those that are at the top of their respective discipline would hold the privilege of continuing their lineage. I understand that a great artist may not give birth to another great artist. I would not be limiting the gene pool too much because those at the top of their respective fields are free to mate with anyone else in the top of any other field. Further, All children will still have the opportunity to engage in any field they believe they can excel in. Yes, I would be extremely hard pressed to find real life support for such a system. It would require a huge change in our social dynamic, or a slow social evolution. Its more of a thought experiment. Now, There is no inherent reason why kids HAVE to have their perceived parents involved in their growth through life. I think I described my dystopian future a little too disconnected. I don't think kids should live like Vulcans, devoid of emotional satisfaction. I think something boarding school-like would be effective, but nothing like we have today. Kids could be lumped in groups of maybe 20 (but that number could fluctuate based on age) and that would be a "family" with rotating guardians. Also kids would be free to intermingle and make friends in other families. but lumping kids in 20's would require fewer parents overall, because they could be handled by two adults at any given time. This would overall free up the time of "parents" since raising kids becomes more of a 9-5 kind of a job, instead of 24/7 (obviously night shifts would be needed to make sure kids are always under supervision). This ultimately allowing adults to have ample spare time to further their own lives, without the stress of 24/7 responsibility of kids. All "parents" would be trained to raise kids in the best ways we are aware of, and the rotation of "parents" creates a sort of checks and balances system. Over-population is not the concern. The concern is that we are already as a species beginning down a path of diverging evolution. The illiterate are breeding faster than the intellectual because smarter people tend to understand their financial capabilities and time constraints better than those with lower IQ's. Thus are having fewer kids overall. Extrapolate that out to the future and you end up with a population with an overwhelmingly small intellectual pool. (kind of like we already do, lol) Something has to be done about the fact that more and more kids are being raised in hostile environments. You've said a lot about how parents are needed for emotional satisfaction. However in a lot of situations, parents are actually the cause of emotional distress. Todays parents aren't trained in raising kids, and are doing it poorly.
Mary Deserve special honors and reverence

My opponent forfeited a round due to the fact that I'm an atheist. Even though my argument was devaoid of atheist-specific reasoning, my opponent found this as a good reason to ignore me altogether, claiming that he was looking for a protestant opponent. I extend everything I've said in round one. I have shown that Pro has given no valid reasons that Mary deserves special honors and reverence. Perhaps my opponent will actually post a response in round 3.
Mary Deserve special honors and reverence

There is not one other person ever who is revered based on the merits of another individual. Just as we do not show reverence of any kind for Einstein's father, neither should we for Jesus' mother. To express any feeling for a person - this is something we do based on the actions or merits of that person, not the actions or merits of their children. Simply being the mother of Jesus does not give us reason to revere her. If we are to revere her, it must be based on her own actions or merits. In round 2, please give an example of something Mary has done that makes her deserve our reverence, and explain why this is reverence-worthy. Also, your "profound" proof is quite lacking. Such a statement says nothing about Mary. It means just as much as the statements "Woman, go make me a sandwich" or "Dude, check out that girl." If you disagree and still hold that it is some type of profound proof that Mary should be revered, please explain to me and the voters why in round two, in addition to explaining what Mary did to deserve our reverence. Just as we don't hold Einstein's father in high esteem, there is no grounds to revere Mary based on her son's merits and actions.