BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Double Jeopardy Rules should be terminated.

I negate the notion that is currently in place which favors Double Jeopardy, and I believe that it should abolished for this reason: Double Jeopardy violates the constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu... According to the fifth amendment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This being stated, Double Jeopardy violates the United States constitution.
"Resolved: Gay marriage should be okay in the united states"

Yes that is what i meant...sorry..and thank you New York State, the media report with poorly disguised elation, is set to legally redefine marriage to include relationships between two same-sex adults. Before this happens, people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences. 1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry. A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan? Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not. 2. Rights of children. Legal equality for gay marriage will mean there can be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in any sphere, including adoption, custody and reproductive services. Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits. More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion. 3. Whither traditional marriage? Gay marriage may, as its proponents insist, strengthen the ideal of marriage by offering the highest public acceptance only to those in committed relationships. But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much. Andrew Sullivan, in his book "Virtually Normal," writes that the need for "extramarital outlets" should be recognized by partners in a same-sex marriage and that gays should not be constrained by a "single, moralistic model."
"Resolved: Gay marriage should be okay in the united states"

I gladly accept my opponent's challenge. In the resolution I'm assuming the focus is on whether or not gay marriage should be legal or not. For clarity, I would have titled the resolution "Gay marriage ought to be legal in the United States." This is probably what you meant though, so perhaps I'm just being nit-picky. I just have one question for my opponent regarding the structure. What exactly do you mean when you say the third round is for questioning? Is it like cross-examination? With that, I turn the floor over to my opponent.
"Resolved: Gay marriage should be okay in the united states"

First of all, I don't understand the links my opponent provided. The first two aren't even relevant to this debate, and the last one is just the site where she copied and pasted her arguments from. She still hasn't provided my the evidence I have asked for. "First of all it says in the bible that god created Adam and Eve, not Eve and Eve or Adam and Adam . my points are not just based of religion but it does has something to do with it. " What the bible says is completely irrelevant. We are not talking about whether or not the bible permits same-sex marriage, we are talking about whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal. As I have stated before, America is a secular state and religion does not have any say in what laws are made. "Is there any benefits to gay marriage? " Yes. The benefit is that same-sex couples would be allowed the same opportunities and commitments as heterosexual couples. It is the right thing to do. "If they legalize gay marriage everywhere is this going to cause chaos? " Absolutely not. There is no credible evidence that supports the premise that same-sex marriage is harmful. "Yes this would cause harm to religious groups! !" How? They are not directly affected by the marriage of same-sex couples. "Is it appropriate to have opposite sex friends when you are married and your spouse has trust issues? " Yes, I suppose. However, I don't see what this has to do with the topic we are debating. My opponent has not attempted to reaffirm her own case after I offered my rebuttals, so her case falls. Additionally, my opponent has not attacked my case. Therefore, my case still stands.
"Resolved: Gay marriage should be okay in the united states"

Sources: http://civilliberty.about.com... http://atheism.about.com... http://articles.nydailynews.com... First of all it says in the bible that god created Adam and Eve, not Eve and Eve or Adam and Adam . my points are not just based of religion but it does has something to do with it. Is there any benefits to gay marriage? if so what are those benefits? If they legalize gay marriage everywhere is this going to cause chaos? Yes this would cause harm to religious groups!! Is it appropriate to have opposite sex friends when you are married and your spouse has trust issues? It would be great if my opponent could answer my questions! For these reasons id like a CON vote into days ballet Thank you
Potassium is an element of the periodic table

Hi, would just like to say I felt like arguing a very one sided point such as this to see if I had a chance.. Next I would like to clarify that I meant the periodic table is not finished I would of presumed you would of caught on by the latter part of that point but I take the hit for not going over my argument. We now need to enter the realms of scepticism and history, if you might recall there was once a time when we believed the world was composed of 4 elements and when we thought the earth was square, we would of been ridiculed if we thought otherwise and quite wrongly so as we can clearly see hence we must realise that we can't always accept things and must always test things and this is what some scientists do, there are albeit a couple of axioms but nevertheless we must always treat things with the possibility of it not existing otherwise you rely on other people to much. Just to point out the periodic table that exists now is very much different to the one devised by Mendeleev thanks to scientists such as Marie curie. Now I would like to clarify elements existed before Mendeleev he only invented the periodic table for I guess public convinence there were others before him who hinted at the fact of a periodic table but anyways regardless of whether he decided potassium was an element and regardless of whether it is taught at schools can you be 100 percent certain and I am not sure you can be. I'm sure you can understand the standard periodic table is liable to change like so many other things it is not absolute/a statement of nature even if elements are, if that makes any sense. Btw your analogy of Cinderella is very good and I might of jumped a bit to far ahead from thought process to computer but I will explain. If Cinderella is in a Cinderella book but not in THE Cinderella book then she is not a character in the book. Similar to how you can get bootleg Pokemon games with weird characters but they aren't actually in THE Pokemon franchise. This concludes my argument and THE argument!
Potassium is an element of the periodic table

Firstly we must define what must be on the periodic table,The periodic table consists of elements as you quite rightly said. okIf it is not an element it is not meant to be on the periodic table and hence if potassium is on the periodic table it must be an element. Potassium is an elementThis is why we must debate the fact whether potassium exists We must not debate this because the substance known as potassium most certainly exists. It has many applications. When you eat bananas you consume potassium.There is no one periodic table which we can just rely on and say potassium is on this therefore it exists on the periodic table,Yes there is. All classrooms and scientists around the world use essentially the same periodic table with the same arrangement and selection of elements. Many thanks to Mendeleev for coming up with this arragnement of elements. equally I could make up a periodic table with potassium missing and say this is a periodic table without potassium on it, thus I have proved potassium doesn't exist. You could say that but you would be wrong. Furthermore I mentioned that I was referring to the standard periodic table.There is a difference between 'A' periodic table and 'The' periodic table. So essentially you need to prove to me that potassium is an element.The second statement in no way follows from the first one. It's like saying " 'the' story of Cinderella is is different from 'a' story of Cinderella, therefore you need to prove that Cinderella is a character."The periodic table was first put together by Mendeleev and always has had Potassium on it. It almost certainly always will.Furthermore, THE periodic table has been finished because it clearly isn't there are at least thousands of 'elements' which are predicted so it is subject to reliability.It has been fnished? What does that even mean? Read what you just wrote here. Does it make any sense to you?You are made - in part - of potassium: http://umm.edu... Potassium exists: http://www.rsc.org...Potassium is indisputably a part of the standard periodic table: http://www.rsc.org... Is there any debate topic I can come up with, that no one would debate? I wonder.
Potassium is an element of the periodic table

Firstly we must define what must be on the periodic table, The periodic table consists of elements as you quite rightly said. If it is not an element it is not meant to be on the periodic table and hence if potassium is on the periodic table it must be an element. This is why we must debate the fact whether potassium exists or not because if it doesn't then it does not exist on the periodic table, and not only potassium but essentially all other elements. There is no one periodic table which we can just rely on and say potassium is on this therefore it exists on the periodic table, equally I could make up a periodic table with potassium missing and say this is a periodic table without potassium on it, thus I have proved potassium doesn't exist. There is a difference between 'A' periodic table and 'The' periodic table. So essentially you need to prove to me that potassium is an element. Furthermore, THE periodic table has been finished because it clearly isn't there are at least thousands of 'elements' which are predicted so it is subject to reliability.
Potassium is an element of the periodic table

You're actually quite right in my aspects. However, currently, the best explanation of our observations of matter is atomic theory. It helps us understand our observations and make accurate predictions about the behaviour of matter. The periodic table helps us study and develop this theory. It is an indisputable fact, that periodic tables have potassium listed on them. Could there be some flaws in atomic theory as it stands? Sure. In fact, for the past few decades we have been developing, correcting and advancing this theory by leaps and bounds However, this does not make a difference. For example, everyone is certain that the story of the Cinderella is fictional. This does not change the fact that within this fictional story, the Fairy Godmother is a character. The topic of the debate is not "Potassium exists" or "Potassium's agreed-upon value of average atomic mass will never change because no new isotopes of potassium will ever be discovered". The topic states that Potassium is listed on the periodic table, and it clearly is. As for your point about other languages, 'potassium' is actually the IUPAC name for this element. The "I" in IUPAC stands for 'international'. All scientists around the world use the same periodic table no matter what their mother tongue is.
Potassium is an element of the periodic table

I ask you, have you ever seen the components of potassium, I.E the electrons, protons, neutrons. You base your claim on the assumption that everybody is right about what 'potassium is composed of' and to be honest, If i am correct we can't even see an electron so we assume that it has an equal number of electrons and protons (provided its in its neutral state), another thing which makes me sceptical of the electron presence is the fact we can't actually determined its orbits around the nucleus. I would also like to mention potassium is a label for an element, there might be another language where they use an alternate name for potassium in which case potassium is not an element in there language, so it is also a matter of perspective.
Cigarette taxes

First of all, I seriously doubt that cigarette prices in 2007 were at 6 dollars unless the price has gone down. The average, national price of cigarettes per pack is currently $4.97 (including taxes), while the average tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1.23. (. http://tobaccofreekids.org...) Personally I think the average tax on cigarettes should be higher and that the states ought to do something about it because if the price is raised then less people would smoke, and maybe my parents would quit as well. Death rate extrapolations for USA for Smoking: 440,000 per year, 36,666 per month, 8,461 per week, 1,205 per day, 50 per hour (. http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com...). "The U. S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention estimates that smoking-caused health costs total $10.28 per pack sold and consumed in the U. S. " (. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...).
Cigarette taxes

Thank you for better stating your resolution, that might make this last round a bit more to the point. Cigarettes have higher taxes for a reason: Cigarette addicts will be more willing to pay higher for these products because they are so addictive, and the higher the tax, the greater the revenue. Also the people addicted to cigarettes are harmful to the rest of society just by smoking these addictive products; therefore it is a problem that should be tended to by raising the tax and reducing the amount of people suffering (while raising the tax, revenue will raise until a large amount of people quit). Governments purpose is defined by the state of itself: In the beginning our government surely existed to protect property over life and liberty (take slavery for example), but many laws have been put into place to protect us, not from our selves, but from others just like you said. Our government exists to protect our rights to property and liberty, but at the same time exists to protect us from exploitation and suffering caused by other people like the CIGARETTE COMPANIES (all according to the laws of this land). Religion isn't a very good example because it IS often forced upon children by their parents when they're to young to distinguish logic from fairy tale (just as teens are often pressured to start smoking by their older "friends"). Health Care costs per year usually amount to about $72.7 Billion per year. And what is that paid with? Taxes. We need cigarette taxes to pay for the average smokers Health Care, which is 40 percent higher than the average non-smoker. (. http://berkeley.edu...) I'll state my conclusion: Cigarette Taxes provide a steady amount of income to pay for the improvement of society and the large amount of Health Care that addicts require. Cigarette taxes should also be raised to reduce the amount of people suffering from these Cigarette related problems: - 440,000 in the United States alone die from smoking related deaths per year. - Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined. - Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. (. http://www.cancer.org...)
Cigarette taxes

First of all, my opponent needs me to clarify what we're debating about. I think there should be a sales tax on cigarettes but just a sales tax. I think cigarette taxes should not be higher than other goods. You make a very convincing argument. Think about it this way: The government exists to protect our life, liberty, and property from other people. It does not exist to save each person from their self. If legislators raise taxes on cigarettes then they are basically forcing people to quit. I mean you don't make someone "religious" by holding a gun to their head. Besides if people start smoking less cigarettes they will try to hold down more smoke for a longer time which will cause more cancers and diseases. http://www.healthcentral.com... http://www.mackinac.org... The Congressional Budget Office concluded ("The external costs of smoking are already covered by existing taxes")a calculation that includes treatment of cancer, lung disease and the vast array of other health problems directly linked to cigarettes.http://www.time.com... Congress and legislators are contradicting themselves with these taxes. The congress and legislators say we need the revenue from cigarette taxes, and it makes some people quit. But if people quit smoking than we don't get that revenue from cigarette taxes. When people are smoking they have to buy lighters, matches, ashtrays, and other things that go along with smoking. So the external cots of smoking exceed the cigarette taxes when people start to quit. So smoking pays for itself and then some. In conclusion, raising cigarette taxes can cause more disease, less revenue, and a loss in civil rights. I wish my opened luck.
Cigarette taxes

"This is freaking America. (A free country)" Some would say otherwise; we have a large amount of government intervention in our economy, so its not entirely free, economically speaking. "But here's the thing. If you raise taxes on cigarettes, people that are addicted to them aren't going to just quit. " Raising the price of a product doesn't effect the consumption of that product at all? Is that what you're saying? From just a few minutes on Google I've found many sources stating otherwise. In fact the raise of cigarette taxes mostly effects the age group most prone to starting smoking: Teens. Here are some quotes contradicting your argument: "There have been several studies concerning the consumption of cigarettes and the explanatory variables associated with that consumption. All of the studies have shown that taxes can be significant in reducing smoking. " (. http://org.elon.edu...) "When the tax goes up, industry loses volume and profits as many smokers cut back. " -Philip Morris "If prices were 10% higher, 12-17 incidence [youth smoking] would be 11.9% lower. " -RJ Reynolds (. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...)
Cigarette taxes

This is freaking America. (A free country) If people want to smoke then they can. But here's the thing. If you raise taxes on cigarettes, people that are addicted to them aren't going to just quit. Here is a quote that very much defines what I'm saying. "From the standpoint of equity, few existing taxes can be held to be more reprehensible than the cigarette tax. . . .Tax-bearing cigarette smokers typically do not smoke less when rates go up; they and their families consume less of other things." (Professor Harvey Brazer of the University of Michigan.)http://www.mackinac.org... So, there for we could be causing more poverty with all this nonsense. Your turn opponent
Against or for Abortions

I'm for abortions because 1) They baby may not be wanted. 2) You could have been raped and not want the baby for the certain person. 3) You might not be in the right state to be able to look after a child e.g Alcoholic, drug addict or mental. 4) You may be a teen and not want your child. 5) You May be disabled and not be able to look after that child.
Against or for Abortions

Firstly I shall reply to my opponents arguments: 1) They baby may not be wanted. 2) You could have been raped and not want the baby for the certain person. 3) You might not be in the right state to be able to look after a child e.g Alcoholic, drug addict or mental. 4) You may be a teen and not want your child. 5) You May be disabled and not be able to look after that child. My reply to all of these is the same: adoption. Though you may not want the child for whatever reasons, this is fine, but give birth to them and put them up for adoption. I repeat, the ethical thing if you do not want your baby is to put them up for adoption and letting them live their life versus killing them. Abortion is only the easy way out of a child and extremely inhumane. There are so many families that would be happy to take in that child that was unwanted, maybe because they couldn't have any children, and the child could be happy. So as you can see, none of these arguments hold any water. My arguments: 1. Murder -Since life does begin right when the egg and sperm cell meet, abortion is murder. Is murder legal, is it right? No it is not, murder is not tolerated in our society, and can be punished with the death sentence. Murder-The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Yes, I believe/know that human life starts way before birth (I know my opponent thinks this, from reading the comments). The life begins in the mother's stomach, before she even knows she is pregnant. It starts at fertilization. http://prolifephysicians.org... http://www.nrlc.org... "In its heart, America knew that racial segregation was wrong. In its heart, America knows that human life begins before birth." --F. LaGard Smith, author-professor of law. http://cvhope.20m.com... http://www.123helpme.com... 2. The Bible -The Bible clearly states, on many occasions that children are "precious gifts," and that we should "have many." Therefore, abortion obviously goes against the Bible, and all Christian beliefs. Abortion defies all of the scriptures below. "Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3). "Be fertile and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) "I will say to God: ... 'Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again?" (NIV, Job 10:2, 8-9) http://www.twopaths.com... http://www.priestsforlife.org...
4c 65 74 27 73 20 74 61 6c 6b 20 69 6e 20 68 65 78 20 76 61 6c 75 65 73

41 72 65 20 79 6f 75 20 72 65 61 6c 6c 79 20 66 69 66 74 65 65 6e 3f JRSXIJ3TEBRWQYLOM5SSA5DPEBBECU2FGMZA
4c 65 74 27 73 20 74 61 6c 6b 20 69 6e 20 68 65 78 20 76 61 6c 75 65 73

46 69 72 73 74 20 6f 66 20 61 6c 6c 2c 20 73 75 72 70 72 69 73 65 64 20 79 6f 75 20 75 6e 64 65 72 73 74 6f 6f 64 20 68 65 78 2e 20 53 65 63 6f 6e 64 6c 79 2c 20 69 74 27 73 20 6d 6f 73 74 6c 79 20 62 65 63 61 75 73 65 20 69 27 6d 20 62 6f 72 65 64 20 3d 2f 20 73 6f 20 49 20 77 61 73 20 6c 69 6b 65 20 77 68 79 20 6e 6f 74 20 68 61 76 65 20 61 20 68 65 78 20 63 6f 6e 76 65 72 73 61 74 69 6f 6e 20 61 6e 64 20 73 65 65 20 77 68 6f 20 75 6e 64 65 72 73 74 61 6e 64 73 3f