BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The constitution should be interpreted based on what it would mean if it was written today.

I apologize for my failure to post last round. The time to post was far less then I had anticipated, and I neglected to ensure that it was indeed the three days I am used to. As a result, I gladly concede the conduct point to my opponent, but would ask my arguments be considered regardless. Constitution: Universal Law The primary contention my opponent operates on in his case is that the Constitution is not eternal; it can be and has been outdated, and should be replaced by a modern alternatives. This is patently, by its very meaning, false. The definition of "Constitution" is "a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed." (1) The very concept of a Constitution amounts to a groundwork of a legal system that does not change, hence why the Constitution of the United States is so vague. Laws are meant to adapt, but a Constitution holds the basic tenants which laws shall not ever break. The reason the Ten Commandments could never be instilled into a society is because they attempt to take matters that should be legal issues, and turn them into a Constitution. Times may change; in the 1700s, Tories and Christian oppressors were the threats, and now it has become Fascists and Islamic Extremists. But the Constituion holds true. Free speech will not be restricted, and in this way, the Constitution is eternal. Because ultimately the Constituon will adapt, due to it being not a series of laws, but a series of rules laws must be based on. So, I must ask. Which of the 27 amendments in our noble consitution would my opponent see "re-interpreted"? Which article no longer holds true in the modern world? Free speech? Trial by jury? No restriction on voting rights? I challenge my opponent to raise a single grievance with an amendment that can be resolved simply by recontextualizing the writing. The Constitution simply need not change. However, were there ever to be a legitimate complaint against a section of the document, there are processes which which it could be solved. For example, by very heavy majority, it is technically possible to have amendments eliminated, added, or altered by popular vote or congress. But to suggest that the solution is merely to interpret the Constitution differently to somehow adhere universal rules to the contemporary world is puerile. The Constitution is interpreted as to constrain the abuses of law-makers and the flaws in the political system. Opening it up to any theory or analyzation will result in chaos, and whomever makes those decisions holds uncontrollable and irreconcible power, I have few characters remaining, so I will leave my rebuttals here. Good luck to my opponent in future rounds, and I apologize once again. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
The constitution should be interpreted based on what it would mean if it was written today.

And good luck to you too! Now, I would like to begin this debate by stating that when the constitution was written in 1787, there was no crystal ball that would show the future of America. As a matter of fact, I am will to bet that the founding fathers would not even be able to comprehend the advancements of today, and therefore, the constitution ought to be interpreted as time goes on. Not to mention the hypocrisy the founding fathers stood for. For example, Thomas Jefferson, a great man who drafted in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, " That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends" As times advance, we have to stop looking at a bunch of rich, educated, white men that wrote an important document a couple hundred years ago, and we have to realize, they did not have all the answers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we get rid of the constitution, I would fight to the death to defend it again, but, as it turns out, most high-praised documents are open for interpretation, whether we like it or not. An example of this is the bible. Many versus within the bible can be taken several different ways. The versus of the bible do not only mean one thing. They could mean a multitude of things. It just depends on the time period they are being read from. Just like so many other great documents, taken out of context. The constitution was written with the intention to be a solution to the issues to the times of its birth, and therefore it is something that has to change along with today's trends and times. Thank you, and I have some questions. Do you feel like it would be okay to change the constitution under any circumstance? If so, who do you believe should have to power to change the constitution? EX. executive, legislative, or judicial branch?
"Famer's debate tourney, Skepsikyma VS Buddamoose Round#1"

My opponent has regretably failed to respond to my arguments. I will therefor use this space to briefly restate it:Due to the hardship inflicted when one lives without money, and the stress and dependence which such a life would breed between friends, it is better to live a life with no friends with money than a life with many friends with no money. The lack of friends imposed by the conditions which I am defending does not preclude acquaintances and other positive relationships, which can provide benefits similar to those which accompany close friendships. This further supports my argument.
"Famer's debate tourney, Skepsikyma VS Buddamoose Round#1"

Resolved: 'Better to live a life with no friends with money than a life with many friends with no money.'Rules:1st Round: Rules, definitions and acceptance2nd Round: Opening arguments ONLY3rd Round: Rebuttals ONLY4th Round: Defense, final rebuttals and conclusionDefinitions:Better: More useful, suitable, or desirable [1]Life: The interval of time between birth and death. [2]Friend: A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts. [3]Money: A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account. [4]Many: Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number. [5]No: Not any; not one; not a. [6]1. http://ahdictionary.com...2. http://ahdictionary.com...3. http://ahdictionary.com...4. http://ahdictionary.com...5. http://ahdictionary.com...6. http://ahdictionary.com...
Death pentaly

The death penalty should be enforced in the U. S. because it is neither cruel nor unusual. Therefore, it is a valid punishment. It is not unusual because it has always been done throughout history. From . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... : "The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B. C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. " It is not cruel because it is just retribution for inhumane crimes. The 8th Ammendment to the constitution only states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " . http://www.usconstitution.net... This is the only restriction on punishment in the U. S. Therefore, there is no reason to ban the death penalty.
humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

My dear friend i think as you mentioned above you were against the changes in the lifestyle of humans because that is leading to bees extinction. But now you are favouring technology in some parts too. Just take care what you actually feel is the reason for the declination. My last words would be that bees have a relevant role in the environment but we cant go against human ways just to encourage their safety . Bees are important the same as the requirements of the people because declining needs of people have never been seen so its time to save bees by technology too. When we can discover ways how to save human beings then why not bees ? and that can be possible only through technology.
humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

In our current situation its hard to say only some species are at risk. This is impossible if you use technology and climate change as the reason for their decline. just like they cant make pesticides that target just one species of insect, what kills one kills (or damages) all. I like your airplane analogy because i cant agree more, honey bees are our canary in the coalmine. and I must admit in some respects we do need technology to solve the problem but not in the way most companies(monsanto) or people think. finding a new way to genetically modify seeds or developing new medications and pesticides is not the answer. In many ways in regards to bees/farming we need to go "back in time" and return to a less big business approach and go back to the way we used to do it. buying local is a big part of that. the technologies we need to invest in are ways to combat climate change and or better regulations for importing foods. Yes its true that alot of these people are still exploiting the environment, but alot of them are farmers and companies like monsanto have forced them to do things their way (literally, if you dont buy monsanto seeds they will lobby the grain buyers not to purchase your product) And inregards to the cell phone thing, I have not seen proof that cellphones cause any harm to bees at all
humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

Technology , actually during 1950's we were not even aware of the machines , inventions etc. There were superstitions about most of the things which technology proved detrimental . Actually its not a single person responsible for this declining bee species its the whole world. "To borrow an old analogy that Paul Ehrlich often used, with the wild pollinators, losing a species is a bit like losing screws in a plane . If you lose a few here or there, it's not the end of the world, and your plane can still fly. But if you lose too many, at some point, the whole plane can suddenly come apart in mid-flight." said Berenbaum. That's what we call an exact answer . Not all the species are under danger but only a few . If people are so much concerned for bees then they should stop using the technology and find some peaceful ways , it would be a pleasure working with such people but the point is , aren't these people using technology ? half environment care takers or technology haters are using cell phones (harmful for bees ) thats again technology , other half are exploiting the environment and pretending being environment carers . The point is obtaining every thing at a single time is not possible , its we who decide not the technology .
humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

In regards to varroa mites and tracheal infections that is an understatement. They are a huge huge part in the decline of bees. As a beekeeper I have seen the damage first hand. But my biggest argument is that these mites and diseases are a result on our global economy. Honey bees in the areas where these diseases/mites were at one point immune to these. But with the importing and exporting of goods, along with our reliance on a handful of bee breeds (which man bred) has made the bees more susceptible to disease and made the disease/mites a worldwide problem. As for the cellphone argument I would like to see some supporting evidence. as far as I know the research done recently has debunked that hypothesis. Their was a study where bees under powerlines were having trouble finding their way home. But that was only the hives directly under, which with that much electricity and bees uncanny and unknown sense of direction and navigation, its no surprise. the amount of electromagnetism from a cell phone or a few cell phones doesn't amount to enough to confuse a handful of bees let alone the trillions and trillions that have disappeared. as for finding a technical solution to the problem that is not the answer. we have been doing that by genetically modifying crops and coming out with new medicines to give our bees. But once the varroa mites or infections become resistant we have to develop a new cure to compound onto the many we are already using. which is itself a huge stressor for the bees and is part of their decline. we need to find a solution and im afraid technology is the cause not the answer
humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

Yes , exactly the population of bees is declining every year. Although human can be the first cause but there are many other reasons for this deterioration. The two parasites TRACHEAL and VARROA MITES are also effecting the bees. Both of them are effecting the bees internally and externally respectively and the solution of the problem is still under question. The electromagnetic radiations of cell phones attract the bees which damages there navigation and hence they are not able to locate back to their home . Technology finds a solution for everything and if this technology helps us as well as harms our environment the scientists should consider it and also find some successful solutions for the negative side effects.
humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

Bees are disappearing world wide at a steady rate since before the 1950s. Thats a fact. If they continue to decline at such a rate they will be gone by 2050 and according to albert einstein humans will perish 4 years later. it has not been proven (yet) but i believe climate change is a huge factor. Harsh winters, wet or dry springs and late blooms or early blooms followed by frost are a huge stress on honeybees. I believe man is the cause of climate change but thats another debate. Other causes for the decline include pesticides, Genetically modified crops, a reliance on a global economy (shipping foods over long distances), and a lack of diversity within the honeybee species itself (their are only a handful of bee breeders worldwide selling basically the same strain of bee) which makes the species less diverse resulting in a weakness to disease
pencils are sharper then pens

You claim that I have not negated your mudkips argument. Mudkip is not real and is not a pencil or a pen, therefore is irrelevant to this debate. We are debating the resolution. You also claim that pencils are useless, this also has nothing to do with the debate, something can be useless and still be sharp. You say that pencils come in the packet flat. I gave the definition for pencils, your resolution is not about unsharpened pencils. Yes, with enough force anything can pierce your skin, but a pencil would do it quicker and with less force, therefore making the pencil sharper than the pen. Everything else in your argument is irrelevant. You have failed to properly defend your point.
pencils are sharper then pens

. -BUT, as we can see kaaarll hazeth not negated my mudkips argument therefore I am ahead by 11- -Kaaarll believes that pencils are " slender, pointed piece of a substance used for marking " when really they are just useless (see my first source from round 1)- -Pens do not need to be sharpened with the spinning serrated blades of pencil chewing; resulting in the shortening of your pencil until it is but the size of my third block teachers patience- -pencils are also made of cheese [1]- -pencils come in the package completely flat. . absolutely nothing to symbolize that of a point- -"My opponent's first source is irrelevant to this debate. " this statement is completely irrelevant. . almost as much as talking about getting a pizza at a Chinese restaurant- -"For example, the ball-point pen. You can literally take this pen and press it on your hand without pricking yourself. So we cannot assume that all pens are sharp. " With enough force any (vote for con) thing could pierce skin. << omg a real statement? .. moving quickly along. - -with this closing statement the 7th and final star has now imploded. . my house is being buffeted by gale force winds. .. . and I have gas. .. - -I egarly await the response of kaaarll [1] . https://ecommerce.inlandprinting.com...
pencils are sharper then pens

I would like to point out that my name is not Kaaarll. ================================ DEFINITIONS ================================= Pencil: A slender, pointed piece of a substance used for marking [1] Pen: Any of various instruments for writing or drawing with ink or a similar substance [2] Sharp: Having a thin cutting edge or a fine point; well-adapted for cutting or piercing [3] ================================ ARGUMENT ================================= My opponent claims that pencils are sharper th(a)n pens because some pencils get dull. What my opponent has done is simply stereo typed pencils. Just because some are does not mean all are. You can't say that flies are bigger than bees because you saw a bunch of big flies and a bunch of small bees. If you look at the definition of a pencil, you will see that it says 'a slender, "pointed" piece. ' My opponent could have gotten away with his argument if the resolution was "Dull pencils are sharper than pens" this is not the case however. By saying pencils my opponent automatically uses the definition of pencil. Pens come in many forms. Some are fatter than others, some are long, but not all are sharp. For example, the ball-point pen. [4] You can literally take this pen and press it on your hand without pricking yourself. So we cannot assume that all pens are sharp. My opponent's first source is irrelevant to this debate. My opponent also uses a broken pencil as his second source, this does not have to do with the argument either seeing that his resolution is not "Broken pencils are sharper than pens. " The resolution has been negated. Thank you. Sources: (1). . http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). . http://dictionary.reference.com... (4). . http://www.freshpromotions.com.au...
pencils are sharper then pens

-Now to start off my argument I would like to imply that Pencils can be sharp for a while before they become completely and boringly DULL. <<< DUUUUUULL - -This however is not true about the ever so useful pen. As we all know a pen does not dull because its tips are not made of useless lead- -This is obviously true for people who have played metroid for the NES <<< you must blast many small micro pixel opponents who clutter the screen so intensely that even my toaster can not run it without frame rate reduction. - -Now as we all know kaaarll. .. . likes mudkips[1] this leads me to believe that pencils dull even faster when you write. . now when you use a pen, no matter how much you write with it it will constantly stay at the same shape and point. thus eventually no matter what a pen will be sharper then a pencil. - - also we musn't forget. .. .. [2] - I look forward to my opponents attempts at destroying my assumptions. [1] . http://img246.imageshack.us... [2] . http://imagineannie.files.wordpress.com...
Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries

Actually the United States outsourcing less than people think. According to the NCPA, is increased economic globalization has caused jobs to move to the United States as well as away from it. The United States does outsource IT companies to India, however we have companies that stay within the United States and export products which is beneficial when the dollar is weak. Yet, as I stated before more developed companies are outsourcing their jobs to the United States. In the last fifteen years, For the past 15 years, corporations have moved jobs to the United States at a faster rate than jobs have left, for an 82 percent increase in insourced jobs compared to a 23 percent increase in outsourcing (1) We have insourced more maufactoring jobs at an even faster rate than outsourcing. Therefore for those people who are saying outsourcing is not beneficial to our country, I disagree. Due to the fact that other countries are outsourcing to us as well balances what people believe to hurts our economy. http://www.ncpa.org...
Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries

Thank you for the chance for this debate. Reply 1. We may be helping developing countries and selling items at a cheaper rate however how can we have a working economy while so many people are unemployed and need govt. aid just to eat if we encourage our nation to outsource more jobs we are just putting more people in that situation. 2. Giving jobs to people from other countries makes very little sense to me because at the moment we have so many unemployed people looking for jobs but, can't find any in part because of this. Why should we focus our aid on other developing countries whilst we still have a large percentage of the population without one. 3. If we accept outsourcing we are yes lowering the cost of goods but it won't matter because the more we outsource the less people will be able to afford them at all.
Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries

1.Some people are against outsourcing because they feel like they are losing local jobs to overseas countries, however I disagree..While companies like outsourcing because they are able to save a lot of money in hiring costs, they are also promoting goods to developing countries. I agree that we need to allow our country to gain employment, but by outsourcing we are helping our economy through importing goods. 2.The United States outsources a lot of their customer service jobs from major companies to overseas countries like India for example. An example of this would be outsourcing electrical industrial jobs to African countries like Rwanda, which allows the United States to promote our companies and providing factories in these countries we also promote technology. 3.I believe that outsourcing is good for the economy, it can help the American economy grow and become more stable. it allows other countries to raise their pay, which in term, raises our own pay.
Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries

I don't believe in outsourcing jobs to other countries. We need to focus on growing our economy and our employment. When we focus primarily on profit of big business we are not benefitting the United States, but focusing on other countries to grow their employment through our businesses. Recent statistics show that over two million jobs were outsourced in 2013, with the bulk of them going to China and India. With American employment at a low, it"s easy to argue that those two million jobs would have been better kept for American workers. (1) While it is true that America is at the forefront of creative innovation, creating new jobs and outsourcing them around the world will only continue to invigorate the American economy. (2) Yet the end result is more products will be sold in other countries, but the loss of jobs in the United States every time a corporation moves its headquarters is detrimental to our country. (1) The Cost of American Outsourcing (2) America"s Future With Outsourcing
Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries

I understand what you are saying regarding unemployment rates. However according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, unemployment is at a low of 4.7. Therefore your argument about outsourcing causing more unemployment rates is not necessarily correct. Since some corporations are outsourcing and the unemployment rate is lowering, I disagree that we are harming our economy. As I stated before, outsourcing is justified in the long term by providing more efficiency within a corporation, it also helps the consumer, and lastly the more we outsource the more other countries we also try this practice. I believe that we must look at the federal numbers to prove whether outsourcing is hurting or helping the economy. According to the Bureau of Labor, it is definitely helping. Thank you for your debate.