BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States.

For your first attack, my civil war reference, that was a fun opening remark that had no bering on my case, it was an attention getter stating that this was a big topic. "...is an overstatement the US FED GOV is not restricting peoples right, yet. This is what i seek to avoid and yes the GOV did help the slave cause...they made money off of it." <--- what are you talking about slavery has nothing to do with this the debate boils down to are the states rights being violated.... nothing to do with slavery. "Now 9 times of 10 even if the supreme court does side with the states they did not side with the Utah governor when he said no to AYP and then they said no to him about funding which is not fair to those kids in that state. " 1. What is the AYP ? 2. What funding? 3. Can you please explain to me the circumstances of this event so I can refute it ? 4. When did this Happen? I apologize if I am missing something that is blatantly obvious but quite frankly I have no idea what you are talking about "Also we all know that electoral collages are bs i live in a small state vs. someone in a big state my vote does not matter so that argument does not matter." <-------- Well I'm sorry that this is your opinion however you have supplied me with no evidence supporting your claim of "we all know that electoral collages(misspelled) are bs" While it is true you live in a small state and they receive less of a vote the fact is even with a popular vote you would have the same problem. However this is a tool of the state to make sure the are properly represented. "And as for increasing taxes within your own state is really stupid in its self because there are those state that have really limited taxes like Oklahoma for example and New Mexico now the people that will directly effect will not be happy at all" <-----Regardless of their limited taxes as I sated and you did not refute Federal funding is a privilege not a right. Is it the Federal Gov.'s fault that the people of that state don't have as much money? NO and any argument to the contrary would be a fallacy. "even if i get elected to go to congress are something like that it wont matter because California will always beat me." <------This statement is untrue for to reasons. 1. If the Federal Gov. was as strong as you purpose it is (which it isn't) legislation limiting its powers would help all states and therefore California would now "always beat" you 2. The Senate (which is part of Congress) Represents all states equal and while they alone may not pass a bill they can certainly block an unfavorable one. FURTHERMORE You Left TWO (4 and 5) of my Checks unchecked (PUN lol) therefore they can only flow to the end of the debate as ways that prevent the Federal Gov. from becoming two powerful as well as defend the states rights. I am afraid this debate is quite clear Is the Federal Gov. to strong and are the states rights being violated. I have disproved both of these arguments and therefore can urge nothing less than a negative ballot.
The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States.

Alright the main thing wrong here is first the civil war comparison while entertaining to read is an overstatement the US FED GOV is not restricting peoples right, yet. This is what i seek to avoid and yes the GOV did help the slave cause...they made money off of it. Now 9 times of 10 even if the supreme court does side with the states they did not side with the Utah governor when he said no to AYP and then they said no to him about funding which is not fair to those kids in that state. Also we all know that electoral collages are bs i live in a small state vs. someone in a big state my vote does not matter so that argument does not matter. And as for increasing taxes within your own state is really stupid in its self because there are those state that have really limited taxes like Oklahoma for example and New Mexico now the people that will directly effect will not be happy at all Now we are letting our Government have to much control over the states and even if i get elected to go to congress are something like that it wont matter because California will always beat me. Thus I affirm the resolution that "The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States."
The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States.

For my opening argument just to prove that this is happening now... Look to No Child Left Behind Act, If a state does not follow this than they lose all funding from the US government. Now there are 2 things wrong with this, 1. The US government controls to much of the states power that they cannot even pay for there own public schools... That's not Cool. 2. If we allow them to say if you dont do what we say than we can do whatever we want to you. At this point we must realize that not only are the states right being abuse but us as American citizen's are being abused as well we cannon allow this to happen.
The United States Should Stop Giving Military Aid to Israel

My sincerest apologies for forfeiting last round, I was extremely caught up in other business and plus when I saw your rebuttal I knew I was going to need a decent chunk of time to do mine. As such I must concede the round since it is not my place to rebut in the summary. Great arguments by Pro, by the way. Very nicely done. I hope that if I see you, or in general anyone else, I will be able to more effectively and more consistently post arguments.Any tips for my 1NC in general?
The United States Should Stop Giving Military Aid to Israel

As Con forfeited the last round, I urge voters to give conduct points to Pro. I would like to add on to my analysis of Kirsten E. Schulze's research at Indiana University that I mentioned in the previous round (please see that round for citations). After reading more of her paper, I found that perhaps even more relevant to the discussion of Israel"s military morality is Schulze"s finding that "symptoms of groupthink range from the illusion of invulnerability, the belief in the inherent morality of the group. .. and direct pressure on dissenters," (218). This cuts straight to the heart of the disagreement over Israel"s military morality. Its leaders only argue that military actions are justified because they have subconsciously backed themselves into a corner (due to the effects of a groupthink) and have no other way to go. This "illusion of invulnerability" can be roughly translated into a "military superiority complex," which also explains why Israel will take actions that the international community has advised it against and carry out exercises in civilian areas. No doubt, Israel does have safety and defense arguments to justify its military actions, but in the light of this new view, it seems that it is using this argument to hide another, less valid and more controversial one: that Israel uses excessive military action simply due to peer pressure. In conclusion, the United States should end military support of Israel for the main purpose of not sponsoring the violence that Israel's military factions conduct. The concerns about Israel's safety, fracturing alliances, and economic ties, as brought up by my opponent, are unfounded for the reasons I have stated previously.
The United States Should Stop Giving Military Aid to Israel

Sorry, I've been super busy lately and I don't have much time so I won't a great case but I don't want to forfeit a round:Con accepts the BoP. This round should be judged on a cost-benefit analysis; that is, whichever points still stand at the end of this round should be weighed against each other to determine the winner.CI. Morally CorrectDemocracy is the foundation upon which America has been built upon; thus it is natural that we support one of the most democratic countries in the world. US-Israel relationships go back to the core of oppression; they are both nations that have been based on forming a society with fundamental democratic ideals from a religiously oppressed people. It is morally essential that we stick up for our allies that have fought hard and created a thriving, democratic government for themselves when they are being threatened by neighboring Muslim groups in other Middle Eastern countries. If we do not help Israel hold its own against neighboring countries, wIn addition, sending aid to Israel has been the precedent for decades. Suddenly withdrawing our aid to Israel would weaken our relationship with Israel, and potentially break ties between us.CII. Advances US Strategic InterestsThe Israeli military is one of the most powerful in the world, to the point where they have independently developed nuclear weapons- far above other countries. Having a stable, democratic, and most importantly powerful ally in the Middle East is a huge benefit to the US for strategic reasons. If we do not help Israel hold its own against neighboring countries, we would lose an extremely valuable stronghold ally in the Middle Eastern region. Our aid and strong support for Israel deters nearby countries from, for instance, "blowing Israel off the face of the earth", as said by Ayatollah Komenei. Removing that aid would jeopardize all of our strategic influence in Israel given the loss of a powerful ally in the Middle East. Additionally, Israel is indebted to us due to the flow of aid, and will readily support us in the event of an attack on the US or something similar.CIII. Advances US economic interestsAid to Israel has long been advancing economic interests. As we give Israel aid, they are more prone to invest in American industries. Israel buys weapons from the US and helps us out economically too; we are not merely losing the money that we put into Israel. In fact, we get most of it back through US treasury bonds.Sorry that was short but I am running out of time and my computer froze earlier so thus I urge a con vote.
The United States Should Stop Giving Military Aid to Israel

Thank you for accepting and good luck! Let me define a term just for clarity: ter-ror-ism - the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The United States has long held an unofficial policy of not negotiating (which implies not sponsoring) terrorism. However, the Israeli Defense Forces can and should be considered terrorists under the this given definition above, as Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip and West Bank are not justified. By providing millions of dollars (specifically, $3.1 billion baseline per ten years plus billions more of discretionary spending) [1] to Israel for the military - a military that has used weapons that are made and paid for by the United States -, the United States is effectively sponsoring terrorism. Now, Israel claims that its attacks in these aforementioned areas are acts of self defense. Self-defense, as determined by Article 51 of the UN Charter, applies when the facts of violence alone justify the act, leaving "no choice of means and no moment for deliberation" to otherwise change the outcome of of the situation at hand in order to protect the boundaries and interests of the country in question. [2] This is not the case here whatsoever. Since September 29, 2000, 1,104 Israelis were killed by extremist Islamist factions such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO while 6,836 Palestinian civilians were killed by the highly organized and praised Israeli military. [3] A significant portion of these numbers came during Israel's Operation Cast Lead (The Gaza War), in which 1,417 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli forces, while a mere 13 Israelis (civilian and military) were killed, 4 from friendly fire. [4] Israel is using the advanced weaponry given by the United States to root out extremist leaders, often through the use of destructive firebombs. As expected, civilian casualties soar when these tactics are used. Intentions are not good enough to justify Israel's actions - the results must be heavily weighed as well. It is true that the United States is heavily reliant on Mossad (Israel's intelligence service) for information pertaining to the Middle East, but supplying Israel with arms is not the method to repay the price of this intelligence. Israel needs to take significant steps in its relationship with Iran (where many of these extremist groups are based) in order to gain some ground in a legitimate manner, but the whole issue of nuclear power comes into play here; I will address this later. [1] - http://www.fas.org... [2] - http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu... [3] - http://www.ifamericansknew.org... [4] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Next Years NBA Finals will be a Rematch.

extend the opening by the con. 10 Upsets happen all the time in sports. Can a team upset the OKC? Can a team upset the Heat? Those two previous clauses are more probable in a season than to state that the finals will be a rematch and stating anything else is not "impossible" but my assumption is more probable than my opp's calculation. I do not mean to batter the Heat or OKC. They are good teams. But plenty of things can happen to those teams and other teams that can petter their crowns of the east and the west (as well as King James). It is copious to think that trades that make a Western team that is already good, better can transpire. Same with an Eastern team that is fundamentally apt. The statement that "next years finals will be a rematch" by the words bundled up is ungallant to even state with firm riotousness. Please watch more sports and comprehend that teams that are far from the Heat's fervor can go all the way achieving the highest trophy. That applys to any sports. From H.S. to little league all the way up to the NBA, NHL, teams in China, etc.
You Choose the Resolution

I am willing to allow my opponent to choose the stance he or she takes on the resolution that I would choose from (when listing resolutions, Indicate "pro" or "con" next to your given resolution). The opposition may use adefinitions, Frameworks, Introductory statements, Or sources when presenting his / or her resolutions (only if necessary) After I've chosen the topic, The debate will begin. ==Rules==1. I reserve the right to change any resolution that is abusive, Truistic or nonsensical. For example, A good example would be as follows: "America's economy would surge if we return to the gold standard" or "Progressive tax is unlawful by the constitution". You get the idea. 2. BoP is shared3. Citations are mandatory when listing information / evidence and quotes. There is no specific format for listing your sources. If you wish, You may shorten your URLs by using Bitly or Tinyurl. 4. Please keep it civil5. Please vote based on how well the arguments were presented, Not on your opinions or personal beliefs. 6. Forfeiture = automatic loss==Debate Outline==R1: ResolutionsR2: Pro arguments / Con argumentsR3: Rebuttals and 1 new argument for bothR4: Defense of arguments / concluding statements==Note==If you want to accept the debate, But you're dissatisfied with some of the rules, Please notify me and I'll change them. I'm trying to make this debate as free as possible, Please feel free to use any format to present your arguments.
God Exists

The complexity of our planet and humansDoes complexity really need a designer? Surely god is more complex than anything he created. This begs the question, "Who created god? "Also, I'd LOVE to see sources from scientist that back up any of your claims. We know that life evolves to fit its environment; therefore it is very possible for life to exist if the earth was smaller or further/closer from the sun. My opponent cites the complexity of the organs. Yet again this begs the question "Who created god? " My opponent is using the argument from ignorance [i. e. "I do not understand].2. Accuracy of the BibleMy opponent cites Isaiah which gives the king BY NAME. This seems impressive until once realises thata) we do not have the original--it was very possible that Daniel added this later or that someone fabricated it;b) There are contradictions in the Bible and; c) The Bible contains faild prophecies. Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up. The river mentioned here is the Nile. Obviouilsy the Nile is still the main water source in Egypt today. Ezekiel 29:10-11 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. Never in Egypt's history was it uninhabitaed for 40 years. The prophet Daniel incorrectly states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar will conquer Judah. The third year of Jehoiakim’s reign was 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died. (Dan 1:1 NRSV) In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. (Dan 1:2 NRSV) The Lord let King Jehoiakim of Judah fall into his power, as well as some of the vessels of the house of God. These he brought to the land of Shinar, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his gods3. The unexplained phenomenon which is our universeAgain, this argument begs the question, "Who created god? " It also violates its own argument and thus is self-refuting. Back to you.
God Exists

Hello DDO,In this debate I will NEGATE the resolution that God exists. My opponent must be a believer in some type of God. This is the structure of the debate:Round 1: Acceptance ONLYRound 2: Opening arguments ONLYRound 3: Rebuttal 1Round 4: Rebuttal 2Round 5: Rebuttal 3/Closing ArgumentsDefinitions will be in the next round. Thanks and good luck.
Rap Battle

Once again, The King up against another dumb b-ch My hunger for these wins is the only reason for this dumb sh-t But I've come with some tips to give all of y'all a little clarity I hand out donations to the little people, I'm all about the charity I keep shooting till not a bullet in the gun is left You think you'll win this battle? Let's make a bet He breathing? F-ck if he dead, I ain't finished yet Spray him while he's on the floor like I'm using a Swiffer Jet I seen your loss coming, That's a predict You'll get dragged out the house, That's an evict Your day will turn into night, No eclipse You'll get battered and fried, No chicken strip Judging by your name, I'll call you C for short The way this battle is going, You'll need some support You p-ssy, So it'll be nothing to get C lit Peep this, If that heat wave, It'll get C sick I'll leave a bad taste in your mouth if I bust C lips You bought to go under concrete, F-ck what C meant This ain't a beach, But would I wash up C? Sure Shoot up his house, I'll leave shells on C floor Who wanna see more, F-ck it the heat rising If I see C breeze by, He dying If it's war, Let me guess he riding? We must be at the aquarium, Cause C lyin'
Rap Battle

Your artwork is like some trash Filled with crap, Like it got smashed. When you drove to my door, Your car got crashed. Your name rings a bell, One straight from hell, I knock at your door, Oh sh*t u don't have one, you're too poor. I'm at a f*cking lakeside while you commit homicide. you have to much pride but your rap just got dried. Your bars are prison bars. I'll put your guts in canopic jars. Your hoe smokes cigars. you'll be taking seminars on how to rap, you suck like F*cking trash. Your artshow was a flop You'll sweep your rap with a mop. When I beat you you'll scream "chill! " Fine, I'll chill. I'll watch you get addicted to these pills, but one thing I know, is that your rap just got, KILLED.
Rap Battle

Yo, I paint a picture when I rap, People say it's like an art show So I ain't talking razors when I graze him with this Quattro My wordplay too sick, You will never match my flow I've already smoked you bad in this round; watch me blow If I'm at your door, It's too late, You should've been alarmed Kvng_8's name ring bells no intercom You must be hungry, Get a taste of my firearm Metal round on your wrist, But it's not a charm Like I said, My bars are an art show, Take a trip in through the gallery I came well prepared to exercise my strategy Pounds on my hip and I ain't talking about a calorie I'll leave this dude stretched since my bars cause the casualties You'll go by the King's rules; obey and abide The bullets will break your heart you'll be hurt inside I'll hit a baby back like it's burping time Once I'm done with you, You'll be at a lakeside
Rap Battle

While you drive your d*mn Honda Pilot I flex my Lamborghinis. While you drown in your debt I drive my Ferraris. You plead for help, Saying please help me. I'm sorry. I can't worry. About the treachery, of your f*cking herpes. Your d*ck so small It's the size of your doll. B*tch, Your mama so fat, When she fell, I didn't laugh, but the sidewalk cracked up. OOOHHHH! I'll go light with my verses B*tch good luck you'll die with your curses.
In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

obviously your voting neg, but for the sake of arguement... Aff has failed to make any kind of defense in the round, thus extend all offense on the aff side of the flow FOR THE NEG. So since you cannot evaluate the aff case, you must look back to the neg side of the flow. On the neg side of the flow there was no any attack anywhere thus the only thing you can evaluate in this round is the entire neg case. VOTERS- Neg has all offense on the aff case. Neg upholds entire case and retains all offense there. (NO WHERE TO VOTE AFF IN THE ROUND)
In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Aff has failed to make any kind of defense in the round, thus extend all offense on the aff side of the flow FOR THE NEG. So since you cannot evaluate the aff case, you must look back to the neg side of the flow. On the neg side of the flow there was no any attack anywhere thus the only thing you can evaluate in this round is the entire neg case. VOTERS- Neg has all offense on the aff case. Neg upholds entire case and retains all offense there. (NO WHERE TO VOTE AFF IN THE ROUND)