BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Foreign-Born Presidential Candidates

I would like to begin by addressing my opponents example: "My name is Jihasdis. I am from Iran. The U.S. has recently passed a law. Now I can go there, live for 25 years, and become the president. I'm Middle Eastern. I'll get elected, and I'll destory the country. I dislike America. They killed my grandfather. I will make them pay." It appears to me as if my opponent does not trust the American people to choose a president that will help our country as opposed to hurting it. If someone comes here for the bare minimum of 25 years, and was born and grew up in a country with a bad political relationship with the United States, it is implausible that someone of this nature would get elected. My first contention is that the natural born citizen clause is outdated. We"d like to question whether the "natural born citizen" presidential eligibility requirement makes sense in today"s world. To answer this, we must recover the original understanding of the presidential eligibility clause by comparing the clause"s text against the backdrop of the historical context. America had declared independence just 11 years prior. Even though the majority of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were second-generation Americans, some were born abroad, primarily to British parents. The framers wanted to draw a clear line between the two kinds of people who would seek the presidency. They welcomed people who were 35 years or older, who had been residents for at least 14 years and who had either been born in America or were citizens when the Constitution was adopted. The framers did not want any latecomers to the United States running for president, especially latecomers from Great Britain due to the hostilities. Candidates needed to show that they had completely separated themselves from the Crown. If a person was foreign-born, even to one foreign-born parent, it cast doubt on their ability to make that separation. Is this set of attitudes one that should be continued today? The United States no longer has a critical mass of citizens born in a nation that we are formally separated from, and with whom we fought a war with to finalize that separation. Akhil Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School, agrees: (quote) Today, to worry about foreign dukes and earls, it's really a little paranoid.(end quote)The reasons for the law no longer apply, so why should the law exist in its current form?
Foreign-Born Presidential Candidates

My name is Jihasdis. I am from Iran. The U.S. has recently passed a law. Now I can go there, live for 25 years, and become the president. I'm Middle Eastern. I'll get elected, and I'll destory the country. I dislike America. They killed my grandfather. I will make them pay. Now tell me this. How is that prevented? Oh, ya. You cannot be a president if you are foreign born. Many people hold resentment towards the U.S. Anyone can promise anything in an election to win. Natural-born citizens, generally, have a great sense of nationalism and would prefer to see the U.S. prosper. And oh ya. I accept the argument and will take the burden of explaining the problem with a foreign-born preident.
Foreign-Born Presidential Candidates

Good afternoon judges, timers, and fellow debaters. My name is Elizabeth Murray and I will be affirming the resolve that foreign-born citizens should be allowed to run for and hold the presidential office. I would like to begin by defining some terms. By the foreign-born citizen clause, we are referring to the statement in the constitution that "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". Who is a natural born citizen has been defined as jus soli, meaning right of soil, or being born in the United States, and jus sanguinis, meaning right of blood, or being born to parents of American citizenship. Jus soli was confirmed by the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 when Mr. Ark was denied entry to the U.S. even though his birth in San Francisco made him a citizen. Jus sanguinis was confirmed by the court case of Perkins v. Elg, when Marie Elizabeth Elg was called an illegal alien after returning to the U.S. Her father relinquished his citizenship to show his loyalty to Sweden, but he was still a citizen at her time of birth. These cases confirmed the two basic ways a person is a citizen at birth, or a "natural born citizen". Allow me to explain our plan of action. We intend to enforce a longer residency requirement for foreign-born candidates: A minimum of 25 years. We would also like to ensure that the individual has been a citizen for at least 22 years.
The United States Government Should Substantially Curtail Its Domestic Surveillance

My inherency is topical to the debate because it is saying that there are little gaps in the current system for warrants and the police are taking advantage of the gaps extending surveillance. When in your house, the could tap your phone, computer and that's surveillance. So my inherency is topical. Next my plan. My plan is: The United States Federal Government should uphold the case American Civil Liberties Union v Clapper that the collection on metadata by or for the use of the NSA is unconstitutional. Now onto my opponents arguments: All he did was ramble about how bad my "evidence" was a failed to provide a decent sized evidence card. I don't think a few sentences counts as a card. I can not go against my opponents evidence because there is none.
The United States Government Should Substantially Curtail Its Domestic Surveillance

FIrst, I would just like to talk about the debate. Although I hate these discussions, I have little choice. First, this round is severely skewed for me: My opponent is the one with burden of proof and he should have presented an actual case to argue against during this round. My opponent's inherency argument doesn't go anywhere. He hasn't even identified a problem in the status quo. All he has done is tell the readers about the current rules regarding warrants and some negative things about the FISA court. I would like to make an aside here concerning one incorrect thing in his inherency argument: right now, police cannot search outside of the warrant zone. The only legal places to search are within the designated areas. Back to my main point however: If you look at pro's significance and harms section there is nothing there of value. The only thing present is a description of why NSA surveillance is bad. But why is any of this irrelevant. Without the solution to the problem (a plan) it isn't. And if you look at his solvency, it isn't actually solvency. In order to have solvency you need to be vindicating and justifying that a plan will success, yet there is no plan here. If we're being Frank this round is being run terribly right now. Not only has my opponent failed to provide a plan, or anything signifying to me what he plan might be if he decides to run one. But he has also failed to follow his own rules. THe first round explicitly states that all sources should be in the round. there were none so there is a time skew on my side, because I couldn't check any of his facts for the first day and a half. There are 10k characters allowed and there is no reason that my opponent couldn't have outlined his entire plan, not just a vague and worthless summation of an andvatage for a non-existant plan. Even though my opponent has BOP he seems to believe that I have to make a case for NOT curtailing surveillance. I again assert his responsibility on the BOP. It would seem the round was set up so that pro could get out extra evidence in the second round without giving me any target to attack, then shift the debate on my side, to make me prove that surveillance shouldn't be reformed, and then dumping evidence on my in the next round, where I can only respond once, however perhaps this isn't the case, I can't be absolutely certain, that's just my perception. Never the less, I have to make some sort of response here so I willContention 1 is the counterplan: CP text: Congress should make the NSA inspector general subject to senate confirmation, require a NSA civil liberties &privacy officer, change the jurisdiction of the PCLOB to include all intelligence activities, institutionalize privacy concerns in performance reviews, have the DNI annually report in a public forum on privacy and civil liberty matters, create panels of cleared external reviewers for consultation by the DNI regarding new programs to encourage executive restraint in the area of the plan. This is the only response possible to muster. .. keep in mind he could just make a plan that circumvents this CP.
The United States Government Should Substantially Curtail Its Domestic Surveillance

I will be arguing that the United States government SHOULD curtail their domestic surveillance meaning to reduce. Definitions: Curtail: meaning to reduce Domestic: within U. S borders (Sources for these definition can and will be brought up if the opponent asks) Rules: 1. ) Round One is for acceptance 2. ) A forfeit of concession will not be allowed 3. ) All arguments and sources shall be posted in the round. If challenger does not have enough characters, send them in a outside link. 4. ) Debate resolution, definitions, and rules can not be changed.
Life is like the game of Flappy Bird.

The con side seems to present a very literal way of comparing this game to real life. Therefore, as the pro side to the argument, I will refute and present both the literal and figurative sense.If the con side wishes to argue the literal way, all living things do have an aforementioned goal from the moment we are born. This is to live until we die, to try our best before we succumb to our death. Such is the case of Flappy Bird, which is to live until it dies. The con side also mentions how it was created by a man named Dong Nguyen, which shows that we were all developed by a creator and in our case, our parents. (Unless the con side believes in the existence of God, then our creator would be God.)Regarding the con's rebuttal of how life is not about balance, the proponent of this argument fails to see how life is not about balance or cannot be about balance. First of all, we wouldn't have even existed and would have burst to death if our inner pressure was not in balance with the outer one from the moment we were born. The whole world is in balance through gravity and thus we are balancing ourselves on this very ground. Everything depends on balance and without balance in the game of keeping it steady, it will result to hitting the pipe. I would like to point out that this side sees the goal in Flappy Bird as how humans try to achieve a single goal in real life. Thus, I shall now present my figurative case. Flappy Bird shows that death is inevitable as it is inexorable. Every time we fail, all our hard work and efforts 'dies' meaning, seems to fall apart. Because of that we need to build ourselves and rise again. In the case of Flappy Bird, this is to click restart.The con side alludes that the "unexpected" the pro side has mentioned signifies the redundant background, pipes, scene, etc. However, I would like to point out the correction that the "unexpected" the pro side mentions means its death. The death or failure always seems to happen so gratuitously no matter how careful one handles the bird. This is what the pro side has been comparing to real life. Failure can be uncalled for and unjustified but it is how we react to it that matters. Every time the bird dies, our reaction of whether throwing the phone at the wall or deciding to try again is what matters as a player. I now end my argument as I have presented both the literal and figurative aspects to the game and real life whereas the con side has yet to contrast the figurative side of the game to real life.
Life is like the game of Flappy Bird.

Before I address the two points I shall be making in this round, I would like to first rebut some of the arguments put forward by my opposition. First of all, though feeling alone does depend upon the person, the individual will still come in contact with people. However, Flappy Bird will never come in contact with anyone. This is not an accurate portrayal of life, as some people do not feel alone. How are these people portrayed in Flappy Bird? In addition to this, the opposition has stated that people do have goals. While people do have goals, Flappy Bird has had one goal since his "birth" to the end of his time. No person on birth is born knowing what their goal is. Yet Flappy Bird is "spawned" with a goal. As for my opposition's third rebuttal, I shall be addressing that in the later round with my last point. Furthermore, the opposition has also said that life is about balance. However, I fail to see how life's balance relates to Flappy Bird. His second point is that Flappy Bird teaches us to expect the unexpected. But Flappy Bird is entirely predictable. There are the same obstacles, the same background, same everything. Moreover, though life is about starting over again, we do not die every time we fail, which is what Flappy Bird does. Now, the first point I will be addressing is that failing to overcome an obstacle results in the death of Flappy Bird. Whenever Flappy Bird comes across an obstacle, or green pipe, he has one solution to it: go through the gap. But what happens if he doesn't make it? Flappy Bird could accidentally take a dive to the ground, or hit one of the pipes instead of the gap. And what does this result in? It results in Flappy Bird's death. But in real life, every time we fail to overcome an obstacle, we do not die. Could you imagine if we did? The last point I shall be making this round is that Flappy Bird has a goal for the entire of his life. As I have said before, humans are not born with goals. Along their way, they must discover their interests and form their goals. Flappy Bird has a goal for the entire of his brief existence, which is an inaccurate portrayal of goals in real life. In addition to this, the goals of humans often change, whereas Flappy Bird's goal never changes.
Life is like the game of Flappy Bird.

First off I would like to point out three errors from the opposition side. Feeling alone depends on the person. It does not necessarily mean that if one is surrounded by many people, he/she does not feel lonely or does not feel like he/she has to do it alone. The second one is that in real life, people do have goals, be it in the long future or the near one. For example, a person's goal can be to ace the upcoming test or complete their New Year's resolution. It doesnt have to be ambitions and big challenges all the time. The third one is that flappy bird cannot be resurrected (unless one applies cheat or codes) just like we humans. And even if the magikarp bird could be resurrected we'd never know if it applies to humans becuse no one has come back from the place they resurrected in (be it heaven or hell) to prove it.For my argument, this game is similar to the ways of life. First is that, it is all about balance. Life is all about balance. If there is the rich then there must be the poor. If there are introverts then there are extroverts. If the balance is broken, just like the game then the world falls. Literally. My second point is that Flappy Bird teaches us to expect the unexpected. Even if it seems like the bird wont touch the infuriating green pipe, somehow it does. Life is about expecting failures when it seems like you'll succeed. My last point is that life is all about starting over again. Each failure, we go back to square one and improve ourselves to try not making the same mistakes of not hitting the relentless green pipes. Each day is a new day to start over and life is all about making the most before you die. Just like Flappy Bird.
Life is like the game of Flappy Bird.

As the opposing side to this resolution, I will be arguing that life is not like the game of Flappy Bird. The points I shall be addressing in these three rounds of argument are: one, that Flappy Bird is all alone in his journey; two, that the obstacles in Flappy Bird do not correlate with the obstacles in real life; three, that failing to overcome an obstacle results in the death of Flappy Bird; four, that Flappy Bird has a goal; and five, that Flappy Bird can be resurrected. Before I address my first point, I would like to define some of the key terms in the resolution. Life is: the existence of a human. Flappy Bird is a 2013 mobile game, developed by Vietnam-based developer Dong Nguyen. Flappy Bird is all alone on his journey. No matter how many obstacles Flappy Bird overcomes, he must do it all alone. He has no peers, no enemies, no mentor to either hinder or help him. Nothing to influence his mind, no one to help him make decisions. He is all alone in the world, and nothing could be further from the life we lead. In our lives, we have friends and family to help us along our way, and enemies to hinder it. We are unlike Flappy Bird who is completely alone. No matter who or where we are, we are never completely alone like Flappy Bird. There are always the people around us. The obstacles in Flappy Bird do not correlate with the obstacles in real life. In the game of Flappy Bird, obstacles materialize as green pipes with a gap that Flappy Bird must jump through. Flappy Bird can see these obstacles in the distance and so prepare for them. We as humans cannot see the obstacles looming in front of us, nor what form it takes. In Flappy Bird, the obstacles are almost all identical, with the exception of the gap or "solution" in different places. But these gaps are always the only way Flappy Bird can overcome these obstacles. In real life, there is often more than one solution to an obstacle, and the solutions are not always the same, just like the obstacles are not identical. In this round of debate, I have addressed my first two points. I shall further develop my case in the next two rounds by addressing my four other points and by rebutting the arguments put forward by the opposition.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

== Rebuttal =="Does nonsense not exist? "I don't know the answer, but I clearly understand it. Ultimately, the question is still irrelevant to the resolution since Pro's BOP is to prove the resolution is *necessarily* true in all circumstances. Since (1) Pro doesn't rebut my case and drops it, and (2) Pro doesn't uphold their burden, the resolution is negated.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

== Overview ==Pro has not made a *single* point in the entirety of the debate - failing to fulfill BOP, present a case, or rebut my case, instead positing random questions *irrelevant* to the resolution, which remains negated. As such, till BOP is fulfilled, I am not obliged to address a question such as "subjectivity doesnt exist?", which makes no sense whatsoever. Extend all arguments.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

== Overview ==Pro *drops* my contentions and fails to uphold BOP, so presume Con.== Rebuttal ==R1) I don't comprehend = I don't answer"Do you exist?"I *completely comprehend* this question. I understand the meaning of the terms "do", "you", and "exist"--where "exist" means to "have objective reality or being." [1] But, obviously, I can't answer it.Pro *drops* my two contentions. The resolution is negated.== Sources ==[1] Google ("define exist")
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

== Rebuttal ==So far, Pro has *failed* to: (1) uphold their onus in demonstrating that comprehension = answering, and (2) rebut my case, which, thus, still stands. Now, I shall address the questions Pro presents. "Do rocks exist? Do lies exist?"One can never know the answer, via. epistemic nihilism and Munchausen trilemma. [1] While this can count as a "response" and may even be the *result* of my comprehension, that doesn't mean comprehension necessarily = answering the question. == Underview ==Pro *fails* to (1) uphold their full BOP, or (2) rebut my case. The resolution is resoundingly negated.== Sources ==[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

I accept. == Definitions ==I shall first define the term. "Comprehend" is to "grasp mentally; understand." [1] A "question" is "a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information." [2] An "answer" is "a thing that is said, written, or done as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation." [3]== Arguments ==(1) Comprehension vs. AnsweringTo "comprehend" something is to *understand* it. Understanding a sentence expressed to elicit information does *not* imply knowing the information and providing the necessary answer. We have no reason to believe that comprehension is actually knowing the information itself. This is seen in the very definitions of "comprehend" and "answer". (2) Comprehension of an unanswerable questionSome questions are, currently, unanswerable, or, at least, some people would be unable to answer them. For example, I can *comprehend* the question "does God exist?", but answering it is beyond me. Another question which *is* scientifically unanswerable - "why are there exceptions to every rule?" [4] I can understand what the question says, but am unable to answer it. == Conclusion ==Thus, comprehension and knowledge are *entirely different*. The resolution is negated. == Sources ==[1] Google ("define comprehend") [2] Google ("define question") [3] Google ("define answer") [4] http://www.futuristspeaker.com...
God: Myth (Against) or Reality (For)

Hi, I do understand the definition of myth. I also understand that it is impossible to prove a negitive, but its also impossible to prove a positive if you dont have any real proof. But there is much in the bible that is incorrect, one example could be Noahs ark. For those of you who dont know the bible says that he fit to of every species in a ark, which is impossible! If one part of the bible is proven not to be true then why should anyone trust any of it? -- Second of all, the bible is full of contradictions, here are a few examples: 1 In that count how many fighting men were found in Isreal? *Eight Hundred Thounsand (2 Samuel 24:9) *One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicle 21:5) 2. The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once? *Yes (Matthew 21:9) *No It witherd overnight (Mark II:20) 3. Dis Judas Kiss Jesus? *Yes (Matthew 21:19) *No Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him ( John 18:3-12) I just presented many mistakes in the bible, if the bible isnt true, then why should we think that god is reality?
God: Myth (Against) or Reality (For)

I accept. I would also like to put out the definition of "myth": 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. 2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth. 3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth. 4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person. 5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. Keep in mind, I am assuming that you are talking about definition 3, 4, and 5
no matter what race or religion: we should all be treated the same

i'm not saying that we ARE equal, i'm sayibg we should be treated as equals. just think. if we were to be treated as though we were 100% equal, there would have been half as many wars. and our world right now would be a much better place. discirmination is still happening to day. if it wasent, the united states would have pulled out of iraq a long time ago and canada would have no reason to be in afhganistan. and a lot of wars were started because of different beliefs and religons. if we found a way to cope with the fact that other people believe other things. even the holocaust could have been avoided.