BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Lincoln was overall a bad President

Abraham Lincoln was overall a bad President based off of the events that he was directly responsible for during his Presidency. I have proven this in the previous round. Con apparently does not see this debate as worth his time to respond to, as he has not attempted to refute any of my claims. If he does decide to post a rebuttal, I would ask that he notify me before he posts so I can extend the number of rounds. In the contingency of his continued absence, it will be assumed that he has conceded defeat, and I will assume all votes.
Resolved: Lincoln was overall a bad President

Lincoln was overall a bad President. I will delineate how two of his actions reveal him as such: he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, and prolonged a devastating war at the cost of thousands of lives. The first of which makes for a bad President because of the inhibition of freedom, the latter because of the sanctity of human life. In September of 1863 President Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The proclamation ordered that, "all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid or comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by courts martial or military commission," Lincoln claimed that his action to suspend Habeas Corpus was constitution regardless of the Constitution's assertion that only Congress has the authority to suspend the writ. Lincoln's claim was that the Constitution did not explicitly state which power, executive or legislative, had the authority to exercise the power. This claim is surreptitious and dubious in its very essence. President Abraham Lincoln prolonged the Civil War and manipulated the American people into believing that it would only end if slavery ended. During the days prior to the passing of the 13th Amendment, the war was winding down. However, Lincoln didactically resolved that the South would not be allowed to return into the Union without first ending slavery as a whole. This was an unnecessary action. Slavery is a great blight upon human history, but in the case of America, it was only a matter of time until industrialization and human sentiment precipitated the extinction in America of this antiquated sin. By issuing his ultimatum, Abraham Lincoln caused the destruction of thousands of American lives. It is very likely that slavery would have been abolished in their lifetime, had they lived; as you may know, the seemingly heretical concept of Women's Suffrage (during the 1860's) was passed into law only 27 years after the end of the Civil War. It is exceedingly likely that the thousands of men, both Northern and Confederate, who died during the latter years of the Civil War would have lived to see the day the slaves were set free. Sources: 1. . http://civilwartalk.com... 2. . http://quod.lib.umich.edu... 3. . http://www.freerepublic.com... 4. . http://books.google.com...
Resolved: Lincoln was overall a bad President

I will be arguing that Abraham Lincoln was overall a bad President based off of the events that he was directly responsible for during his Presidency. My opponent will attempt to counter my arguments using evidence of Abraham Lincoln's actions as well. Con must argue that Abraham Lincoln was overall a good President. To be a bad President means that his actions were harmful towards the preservation of the original Constitution, human life, and freedom. Round 1 will be for acceptance of the debate and common formalities. Rounds 2-3 will be for the bulk of the debate.
Science provides indisputable proof that God formed all Life on Earth, failing to prove otherwise

dtien400, thank you for your comment: let debate continue. Premise for supernatural intervention stated two separate occasions. I submit that it is neither naturally or accidentally possible for life to come into existence as reproductive processes across the entirety of the Earth demonstrate uniformly and demonstrate mandatorily there must be embryonic growth by the means of egg development among all living mammals, insects, amphibians and crustaceans. Seed germination for plant life etc... Evidence in keeping with standards of rules as follows: external scientific proofs: Human reproduction requirement of egg/fertilization to reproduce: http://video.nationalgeographic.com...... equirement for fly egg laying to reproduce: http://www.bing.com...... Requirement for Fish and birds to reproduce: http://www.bing.com...... Requirements for amphibians to produce: http://www.bing.com...... Requirement for insect reproduction: http://www.bing.com...... Factual physical evidence. The harsh requirements are meant to exclude these fictional reports to keep you from going crazy reading reports which at its end result in no existing physical evidence, merely conjectures. The time for truth is now. We can no longer afford the fanciful. If our existence hinged solely upon a superior being as reproduction clearly indicates in the most impossible of scenarios, mankind must come to grips with this and Him. Which came first the chicken or the egg takes on a whole new meaning when in full reflection one comes to the very real conclusion that it could not possibly have been either one by any natural constructs! Hard science has already proven long ago that to obtain an adult it must grow from egg or seed for plants. Yet for a seed or an egg to be available you need an adult creature to provide it! Biology allows for no other way and scientist the world over have never been able to create so much as the tiniest of insect life from any known method. Postulate? Sure but physical living proof of it. Does not exist! For science to claim the ability to produce a living specimen without the need of egg or seed to develop into a living plant or animal, must require physical proof for such preposterous claims.
The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

To begin her second rebuttal, my opponent states that the Queen isn't a figurehead and does pay attention to other realms. However, she doesn't explain why or even present sources to contradict my own. Unfortunately, this is the case with almost all of my opponent's rebuttals. She repeats my list of powers the queen technically has, but doesn't disprove that she can't use them. Further, she claims the Queen would be Head of Church in the US, failing to prove how this doesn't violate the Constitution. Next, she claims the Queen's powers keep things in check, but fails to explain how they do so if she can't use them. She notes the Queen does occasionally visit Commonwealth realms, but doesn't disprove she only rarely does so. Basically she's failed to prove her case. Her argument on religion is a red herring - she asserts separation of church and state isn't codified in the Constitution, ignoring my real argument about the ban on religious establishment by the federal government. Similarly, she claims the US wouldn't overwhelm the commonwealth but ignores my actual arguments. In her final arguments, my opponent makes a few corrections before responding to my plagiarism accusations by claiming she owns 'Commonwealth USA'. I'd like to see proof of that claim. She also argues that her arguments about the US joining the Commonwealth are related, but the resolution says otherwise - this is a debate about the Queen becoming head of state, not joining the Commonwealth. She ignores my arguments about the monarchy not being universally popular and instead basically repeats herself. She just rambles on about how great monarchs are without rebutting my points. And in the conclusion, she doesn't actually rebut any of my arguments. As you can no doubt see, my opponent simply hasn't upheld her case. With the sole BoP she not only fails to establish a compelling opening, but also fails in rebuttals. Additionally, she has plagiarized and attempted to argue in the comments. In contrast, I have utterly refuted my opponent and explained why the resolution is a bad idea.
Death penalty

As this is not a “typical” debate on the topic I shall simply state the reasons the death penalty is not a suitable punishment. Pro stated “if someone killed a family member of yours would you want the other person to die for it,” and I completely and entirely agree with that statement, as I am sure many people if not all would. I just like many of you, would want the person who killed a loved one of mine to die in exactly the same way my loved one died. My emotional turmoil that I would be going through would cloud my mine, put me into a rage and want vengeance on the person who has taken away someone I loved. The key there is vengeance… The only reason I would want that person dead, is pure and utter vengeance. I want to have revenge wrought out against them in the most torturous means possible, and I want to do it myself. But I am not the one, thankfully, passing sentence on the murderer of my loved one. That task is instead the duty of a group of my peers, who are to remain objective, logical and analytical of the evidence at hand and pass a verdict and a recommended sentence, which is considered by an impartial judge who then passes down sentencing. Society, via the legal system, then carries out the punishment. To summarize, there is a trial, a conviction, a sentence and then the legal system acting as the will of the people punishes the offender. This means the people; all of us, are the executioners in the case of the death penalty. Since humanity is imperfect, the justice system is imperfect and this leads to inevitability the death of an innocent person.[1] & [2]We send people to prison for years, even decades, for a crime they did not commit. [1] Due to this unalienable fact, that an innocent has been killed by society, that makes every one of us a murder, since we are the ones acquiescing to the punishment of death. Here is the logic I propose: Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of someone by another Killing an innocent person is unlawful Society allows the death penalty The death penalty has executed innocent people Society has killed innocent people Society as committed murder If society punishes those who committed murder, but then does the act itself, what does that say about society? Shouldn’t society be the best of humanity, the best that we can offer to the world and ourselves? Yes individually, I would want the murder dead, but society has to be better than the individual. Is the death penalty a good deterrent to murder? Maybe… [3] But does the end justify the means? Does society killing innocent member of its own population justify killing the ones that are not innocent? Is not life imprisonment in solitary confinement, with access only to your lawyer and the library without possibility of parole a decent enough punishment and keeps the society safe as well? [1] http://www.innocenceproject.org... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] http://econ.cudenver.edu...
Sexual abuse already perpetrated by ETs during abductions should be forgiven.

"monkeys are not sentient" There is some debate as to whether or not monkeys are sentient. http://en.wikipedia.org... They most certainly have senses and perceive subjectively. Probably, what my opponent means is that they are not intelligent or capable of "higher thought". "even if the aliens are unable to reliably communicate with us it should be fairly obvious to them that we are a sentient race capable of higher thought." "Higher thought" is a relative term; higher than what? Monkeys are smarter than dogs. Does that make them our equals? Just because we have nuclear energy and the Theory of Evolution doesn't mean the ETs will, or even should, embrace us as equals. "I for one would rather die than be enslaved by an alien race." The aliens have shown no sign that they wish to enslave us, only that they wish to study us... invasively. The option of dying will always remain, should submission to ET demands become too humiliating for you. The ETs want only to probe a few human beings every now and then, out of our whole planet. They will probably figure out the secrets of human DNA pretty soon. After all, they have superior science to us as you have stated. Once they get the answers they are seeking I'm sure they will stop abducting people. They don't do it for recreational purposes, or out of cruelty. They do it out of a passion for science, one which we as human beings should understand. If victims need to be compensated, it is worth the government's while to do so themselves, to maintain peaceful relations with the ETs. Forgiveness means the ETs themselves should be absolved from paying the cost. We have no leverage here. We can only proceed with forgiveness and understanding.
Sexual abuse already perpetrated by ETs during abductions should be forgiven.

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///My opponent has stated that peaceful negotiations have taken place between Earthlings and ETs. While this may or may not be true, reports of abductions have been far more numerous. /// The situation that I proposed is hypothetical. If the alien race does not have peaceful negotiations with the human race I don't believe that humans would have any chance to survive, or at least retain our freedom, even if we didn't accuse them of abducting our citizens. ~ ///During abductions, humans are treated like animals. This is very sad and hard for us to accept, but it would be foolish for us to expect a superior species to treat us as equals. Do scientists pay monkeys reparations? /// The difference is that monkeys are not sentient, even if the aliens are unable to reliably communicate with us it should be fairly obvious to them that we are a sentient race capable of higher thought. Also, the claim that humans are treated like animals only supports my side because harsher treatment suggests a greater need for reprimand. ~ ///Here opponent has admitted that accusing the ETs of criminal activity could lead to a war which would doom the human race. He has, however, grossly understated the implications of their superior technology. They could wipe every man, woman, and child from the face of the planet from a remote location, and we probably couldn't shoot down a single flying saucer if there was one in our airspace to shoot at. This is a risk that we cannot afford to take. /// The fact that this is a risk that we can't afford to take is your opinion, I for one would rather die than be enslaved by an alien race. You have no idea of exactly how superior their weapons technology is or if it is even superior to human weaponry. I do acknowledge the possibility that asking reparations for the treatment of humans could lead to war, but I also state that this possibility is fairly low. The human representatives would not accuse the aliens unless there was ample proof that the abuse happened and it is not unreasonable to ask for reparations. I will reiterate that these reparations should not take the form of the incarceration/punishment of individual, but rather as reimbursement of those victimized. ~ ///As explained on the Mayo Clinic website, "When someone you care about hurts you, you can hold on to anger, resentment and thoughts of revenge — or embrace forgiveness and move forward. "/// I don't see what this has to do with the debate. I doubt that anyone on earth cares enough about the aliens to want to unconditionally forgive them. ~ I await my opponent's response.
Sexual abuse already perpetrated by ETs during abductions should be forgiven.

My opponent has stated that peaceful negotiations have taken place between Earthlings and ETs. While this may or may not be true, reports of abductions have been far more numerous. During abductions, humans are treated like animals. This is very sad and hard for us to accept, but it would be foolish for us to expect a superior species to treat us as equals. Do scientists pay monkeys reparations? The following quote is taken from my opponent's argument: "The aliens could respond to this information in many different ways, a two of which I can think of are here: ... * Non-compliance that involves the alien race waging a war against humanity, one that humanity would likely lose due to the fact that the aliens likely have superior technology..." Here opponent has admitted that accusing the ETs of criminal activity could lead to a war which would doom the human race. He has, however, grossly understated the implications of their superior technology. They could wipe every man, woman, and child from the face of the planet from a remote location, and we probably couldn't shoot down a single flying saucer if there was one in our airspace to shoot at. This is a risk that we cannot afford to take. Even if accusing the ETs were a viable option, forgiveness is much healthier psychologically. http://www.mayoclinic.com... As explained on the Mayo Clinic website, "When someone you care about hurts you, you can hold on to anger, resentment and thoughts of revenge — or embrace forgiveness and move forward."
Sexual abuse already perpetrated by ETs during abductions should be forgiven.

It is integral to the survival of the human race that we allow the ETs a clean slate. We do not even know whether the aliens are observing the Golden Rule. If they are, then they may have no idea why we are detaining their pilots. A campaign against ET sexual abuse might be perceived as an act of war. Surely, we could not withstand such a conflict. Even if the aliens knew they were victimizing abductees by probing them, this does not mean they will react kindly to our punishment of them. There is still a chance that once we make the ETs aware of our customs, they will cease their sexual misconduct, and perhaps cease abductions altogether. The risk is too great for us to instigate the ETs. Their technology is far too superior. Our only hope to be treated with mercy is to obey them.
There is no valid reason to believe that prayer to God yields results.

God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions. [1] Prayer - the act of communicating with a deity (especially as a petition or in adoration or contrition or thanksgiving)) "the priest sank to his knees in prayer" [2] There is no valid reason to believe that in general, prayer to God yields results. The positive effects of meditation or the personal happiness that prayer might produce do not count as results. Results - One prays to God for something in particular, God hears the prayer, God answers the prayer and grants the one who prays what he prayed for. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Resolved: Legislation to Extend First Amendment Rights to Employees and Students

I accept the challenge and look forward to rigorous debate on this topic. First of all, it must be noted that in the status quo, people retain free speech rights but are only protected from the state and national governments under the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments combined. This being set, the resolution will in fact make it so private employers will have no right to restrain speech in their workplace. My opponent's main argument is that rights will be abused, and mentioned the possibility of someone getting fired over a Myspace or Facebook post that offends the employer. My opponent doesn't note the fact that the employers are people as well, and when you place restrictions on them, they are losing their freedoms and liberties. My opponent is essentially trading off one right for another, giving rights to the employees but removing them from the employer. This is no better, if not worse, than the status quo. Another point that must be raised is with the example you have provided. The reason many employers do fire people for these kinds of posts is for libel, defamation, or things just plain inappropriate. For example, people get fired for looking up inappropriate material at work, e.g. social networking, porn, games, etc. My opponent addresses this. However, employees can still be unscrupulous without passing the boundaries that would define what they do as any of the above. For example, if an employee insults or demeans his boss on a social networking site, it would reduce respect and authority for the boss. This would in turn reduce efficiency. Now onto the advantages of staying with the status quo: Advantage 1: Increased efficiency Subpoint a.) As mentioned above, efficiency in the workplace will be increased because the boss will have more respect. Also, the chances of having a very disruptive presence in the workplace will be decreased, because even of what my opponent has mentioned, those methods aren't foolproof. Subpoint b.) This leads to more efficient workplace, which leads to a better economy as people become more productive Subpoint c.) The impacts of a more efficient population are huge. Economy, quality of life, all down the board, it increases. When voting, several things must be kept in mind 1, if you vote for my opponent, you aren't improving liberties which is what my opponent is advocating for. As mentioned above and repeated here, you are trading off one liberty for another. Thus, my opponent cannot gather any offense in any form because the plan is flawed. 2, Efficiency in workplaces will remain relatively high and go up if this resolution is negated. Thank you.