BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States is a Democracy

But first, that doesn't actually mean that, had I not accepted, the abuse wouldn't have been present. Regardless of who accepted, the debate would still be a truism, so he still bites into my theory shell and still bites into the harms. Secondly, the only way that this abuse would've been checked is if I had accepted, as there aren't many debaters on the site well read enough in debate to understand how to respond to abusive arguments such as this one, and out of those there are almost none who would've taken the time to do this debate. This essentially places an obligation on me to take the debate and check the abuse. Outside of that, there really isn't any other kind of response to my theory shell, so extend out the interpretation and how he violates the interpretation. Extend out my standard of ground skew as to why violating the interpretation is bad for debate. Then extend out the voters of fairness and education and why they're vitally important to debate. Making this debate with the argument he used violates both of those, and thus you should vote him down for it. So to summarize the round:Her argument is that definitionally the United States is a republic, which negates the resolution that it's a democracy. My argument is that this type of argument is bad for debate because it doesn't leave any kind of counter-ground available for the opposition: she created the debate in this type of manner to use this specific argument that doesn't leave any room for me to debate it. Her only response is that I didn't have to accept the debate, which I've thuroughly refuted. As such, you vote her down off of the implications of my argument.
The United States is a Democracy

I will proceed by refuting Pro's arguments one by one, in the order they come. Pro: "I have a higher ELO score, thus am probably the better debater. The role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" Con: I would have to disagree. The role of the ballot is to vote for whoever supported their position the most successfully, and who refuted his/her opponent's arguments. Whether or not you are ranked higher by a single website should hold no weight in how a voter decides. Pro: "Resolutions must be crafted as to allow both sides access to substantive argumentative grounds. " Con: As I said before, this debate was not mandatory. I defined my terms at the beginning, and I sincerely apologize if the definitions were unclear. However, if Pro saw such flaws in the setup of this debate to begin with, then why did he accept? Was it to use the argument he used in round 2? Most likely. Pro: "The US, by definition, is a republic, so to say that it"s anything but a republic is, by default, wrong. " Con: Pro, there are people who do not believe that. It was my hope that one of them would accept this debate. You are absolutely correct, but it does nothing for you but strengthen my side. Pro: "If there isn"t any way to defend my position with substance, therefore forcing me to take abstract positions such as theory, then there isn"t actually any discussion about the resolution taking place, but rather discussion about the nature of debates in general. " Con: I never intended for this debate to turn into something so technical, and I do believe it is counterproductive to argue about the "nature of debates", but to be fair (becasue Pro is very concerned with fairness), I did discuss the resolution, and Pro had ample opportunity to refute my arguments, but took that time instead to discuss the "nature of debate". Pro: Reject the debater to disincentive bad debate, since debaters know they can just kick abusive arguments and exploit the time trade-off. Con: Disincentive? This debate isn't mandatory to accept, but in no way am I intentionally deterring people from accepting this debate. It is in my best interest for someone to accept it, not because it gives me opportunity to "kick abusive arguments" around, but to have a constructive debate with someone who honestly believes the U. S. is a democracy. Once again, I sincerely apologize if the setup of this debate was unclear, or if my arguments came across as abusive and an attempt to exploit the system. It was not my intention.
The United States is a Democracy

She created a debate in which definitionally there’s no way to actually argue against her position. This is harmful for debate as a whole, and you should vote her down for doing such a thing. And, don’t let her argue that this isn’t topical and has nothing to do with the resolution at hand because a) there’s no rules and stipulations put forward that I necessarily have to defend the converse of her position, opening possible cases to include theoretical arguments of this nature, and b) I’m being entirely topical by discussing the arguments she advances. To say that my discussion of her arguments isn’t topical is to concede that her arguments aren’t topical, which negates the entirety of her case as there wouldn’t be a link to the resolution. At this point you presume Pro because I have the higher ELO score, thus am probably the better debater. The role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater, and if it’s impossible to come to that conclusion, ranking systems offer ideas of who the better debater probably is. A - Interpretation - Resolutions must be crafted as to allow both sides access to substantive argumentative grounds. B - Violation - Con explicitly creates a resolution that is definitionally slanted entirely in her favor, leaving no substantive ground for her opponent. The US, by definition, is a republic, so to say that it’s anything but a republic is, by default, wrong. C - Standards Ground Skew: Making a debate that eliminates possible ground for a side to argue is inherently unfair. It’s not possible for me to defend my position if there isn’t any possible argument or evidence for why my side is correct, which turns the debate from a fair discussion of two opposing viewpoints to a one-sided shouting match. This also harms the educational value of the debate because it virtually eliminates substantive discussion of the resolution. If there isn’t any way to defend my position with substance, therefore forcing me to take abstract positions such as theory, then there isn’t actually any discussion about the resolution taking place, but rather discussion about the nature of debates in general. D - Implication – Vote them down. Fairness is a voter because competitive debate mandates equal burdens. The function of the ballot is to vote for the better debater but that’s fundamentally impossible if one side is skewed. Education is a voter since it garners out of round benefits that affect our daily lives. Prefer competing interpretations since a) reasonability has an arbitrary brightline and thus invites arbitrary judge intervention and b) competing interps incentives fairer positions, promoting the integrity of the activity. Reject the debater to disincentive bad debate, since debaters know they can just kick abusive arguments and exploit the time trade-off. Even if you reject the argument, I’ve proven that their case doesn’t affirm the resolution, since you reject their advocacy.
The United States is a Democracy

"A Republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin That is what our government was always intended to be. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First argument: The United States was founded as a Republic, not as a Democracy The first article of the U.S. Constitution clearly defines the Legislative branch as one made up of representatives of each of the states, whether in the House or the Senate. These representatives vote on laws, as opposed to the entire population voting on a law, as is the case in a true democracy. (Source - The United States Constitution) The very founders of our country had strong feelings about the difference between the two governments: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams How, then, can we say these men instituted a government contrary to their beliefs: a Democracy? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Second Argument: Enough Said. (And school work is catching up with me, so this will have to do.)
The United States is a Democracy

I will be arguing that the United States of America is not a democracy, rather a representative republic, and was always intended to be. Round 1: acceptance + definitions Round 2: main arguments Round 3: rebuttals Definitions: Democracy: Ruled by the omnipotent majority. [1] (laws are voted on and passed directly by the people) Republic: A constitutionally limited government, of the representative type, created by a written Constitution[1] (laws are voted on and passed by representatives elected by the people) [1] http://www.diffen.com...
Should the Supreme Court uphold the Gun Ban in the District of Columbia

"1. The Second Amendment was created to give individuals the right to own firearms.", It was to ban England from taking guns from farmers. The right to bear arms was put into place for farmers as you said. Many of the right in the constitution were going against the times, but times change and if the constitution is the end all be all, than why was it revised to remover slavery and has had 17 amendments to it and had a amendment revoked. So we can revoke a amendment, but we can't revoke the first ten right wrong. there is nothing wrong with the D.C. ban. 2nd, you say it will hurt other gun laws, but if a law is bad, it should be dealt with. Donna L. Hoyert, PhD, et al., "Deaths: Final Data for 1999," National Vital Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68 and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Report, 1999. Analysis performed by the Violence Policy Center. "A gun is far more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill a criminal. Using federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1999 in a justifiable homicide, 185 lives were ended in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.", What this proves is that gun bans are not bad, because guns are used illegally, not against british soldiers. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999 [Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence, February, http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org... ] "Gun violence represents a major threat to the health and safety of all Americans. Every day in the United States, 93 people die from gunshot wounds...In addition to the human suffering caused by these injuries and fatalities, gunshot wounds account for approximately $40 billion in medical, public service, and work-loss costs each year.3 In short, gun violence is a significant criminal justice problem and a public health problem.", Guns need to be banned so this cannot happen. Guns cause serious probelms.
Should the Supreme Court uphold the Gun Ban in the District of Columbia

After the debate with the incompetent in : www.debate.org/debates/Does-the-2nd-ammendment-give-us-the-right-to-own-guns/1/ And in consideration of the recent Supreme Court case, I've posted this debate stating that the Supreme Court should strike down the Gun Ban in the District of Columbia. I'm hoping for someone who actually knows federal law, and who actually has a clue what he/she is talking about when discussing the Constitution. 1. The Second Amendment was created to give individuals the right to own firearms. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, If America learned anything, it was this. Farmers with guns were what defeated the British Empire. And if they could defeat the British Empire, they could also put a stop to the Central Federal Government if it steps out of line. The DC ban is not in keeping with the Second Amendment in its broad restriction and should be struck down by the Supreme Court. 2. The law as it is poses a danger to all federal gun restrictions in the future. The DC law as it is is unique in terms of Federal laws with blanket restrictions. If upheld, then it simply leaves room for a more conservative Supreme Court to strike down, not only the DC law, but all federal laws restricting gun control. The DC law should thus (from the pov of gun control supporters) be struck down in order to protect other Federal gun control laws so should an even more conservative Supreme Court seize control, they would have less controversial laws to work with.
War in Iraq

Thanks for the debate. The resolution is not clear, but it can be agreed upon that CON supports withdrawl from Iraq. I am not supporting withdrawl. Iraq is still not a structured country yet. We deployed troops who fought and died for it. The only objective was not to take out Hussien or kill terrorist, but establish a peaceful democracy so that things like that wouldn't happen and tranquility could be established. In order to makes sure this process checks up, we must stay until we as a country feel it's stable enough not to be overthrown, lest our sacrifices be in vain. Thank you for the debate.
The CIS (Battle Droids) were Actually the More Justified Faction.(Star Wars Prequels)

During the course of this debate, I will attempt to prove that on balance the CIS are the more justified faction. (As opposed to the Republic) While the Republic is portrayed as the "good" faction in the movies, it is apparent that CIS, contrary to how it seems, is not a bad organization. According to the Star Wars wiki article for the Confederacy of Independent Systems, CIS was-"Formed by various planetary and sectorialal governments, as well as some mega-corporationsions, that declared intentions to leave the Galactic Republic, refusing to comply with its excessive taxation andcorruption in the Senate during theSeparatist Crisis."Now we know that the CIS was not just an evil mastermind with a robot army. In fact, it was a democratic coalition of thousands of planetary systems. CIS had every reason to create an army, an instead of using cloning, which in and it self in inhumane, they used robots. That way, no Separatist citizens lost family members or were drafted. Now, the same goes for Cloning, but if you look into it, the Clone Program was a awful thing."The standard troopers were genetically altered to be more docile and susceptible to obeying orders than their genetic template, supplemented by rigorous behavior modifications to install absolute loyalty to the Galactic Republic. A surgically implanted inhibitor chip was a further safeguard against betrayal from rogue Jedi. The chip, however, proved to be an integral part of the Sith masterplan. In order to grow fully matured clones in half of the time it takes ordinary Humans, the Kaminoans modified the clones by implementing "age acceleration" into their development, thus allowing the clones to reach adulthood in ten years instead of two decades. Although the exact rate at which clones aged is unknown, it appears to be nearly twice as fast a natural-born Human and it is theorized that this rate increased as clones grew older—especially under stress, thus leading to a dramatic shortening of the clones' life expectancy. Despite these modifications, the clone troopers could still think and act creatively and possessed a level of individuality that their Kaminoan creators did not anticipate.Just to clarify, that means that they were doomed to die young, brainwashed, and forced to fight for a flawed cause.Back to you Con.
I am a worse debater than my opponent

A group of tigers is called a "streak". To the tune of "We Are Young" by fun. Give me a second, I I need to get my points straight My friends are off debating, Always winning 'cause they're first rate I'm sorry you were waiting for me Just below this post I wanted to wait here and take my time Because I thought my side was toast I know you won this debate days ago I know you thought that you were bad But between the points and counter-points And the holes in my main arguments You know that my whole attempt is just sad So if by the time the debate closes And you feel like I might win Just try to remember... You're right You are right So I submit this debate to you All my posts make people boo Like a ghost You're right You are right So I submit this debate to you All my posts make people boo Like a ghost Now I know that I'm not The best that you got I guess that I, I just thought, Maybe we could find new ways to debate it But your points make sense But I always mess up 'Cause I'm so intimidated by your thesis, oh oh You're right You are right So I submit this debate to you All my posts make people boo Like a ghost You're right You are right So I submit this debate to you All my posts make people boo Like a ghost I admit, you are right (La la la la la la) I admit it, you are right (La la, la la la la la la) I admit, you are right (La la la la la la) I admit it, you are right (The world is on my side, ) I admit, you are right (I have no reason to run, ) I admit it, you are right (So will someone come and declare he won tonight?) The round's not over, But I can hear the bell, And I want you to know that your points are so swell You're right You are right So I submit this debate to you All my posts make people boo Like a ghost You're right You are right So I submit this debate to you All my posts make people boo Like a ghost So if by the time the post's due And you feel that you are through I'll admit finally that you are right Written by Louis Star's friend Peter Silukim
I am a worse debater than my opponent

so he wrote, "Con had a stroke"I'm so bad, I'm making up quotesWoke up early morning, pro's got another point and,Calling me out with the loudest,Most confident voice to prevent flowage,I had to google these debate terms,Forgetting a plan in policy,Looking for partners for LD,Speeding on novices in PF,Can't even keep up in parly,So once I did some congress,Gave a good speech about the Mid-dle East,Got the paper back from all the judges,Making out words from the blue pen,"You know more about Nicki,Nicki Minaj than the Middle East" I come looking for you with sourcesI try to stay up on all the politicsWords like "free trade" confuse me,You get the votes and I start envying(Turn up)I woke up to a new contentionI woke up to a new contentionI woke up to a new contentionI woke up to a new contentionI woke up to a new contentionYeah, so I turned to extemp,Was gonna do I-X but I didn't stay in,Can't even tell you where Paris is in,but the US is sweet bringing these Mexicans in,See how bad, offending racesFaking sources, hourly trendPrep time is half like that dumb DX,They tell me, "go speak", so I leave the room,Hide in the hall, making up sh--,Domestic, making up stuff 'bout Obama,Fall on the Times, put CNN here,Throw in a CSM and LAT there,Finally the judge like "oh, he's here"Woke up early this morning, mind is telling me "go home,"Signals: 5 down, tell me to start when I'm ready,About all the others: I spread rumors,Living my life like Hakuna,Matata, oh good, cite the Lion KingTwo minutes pass I'm doing my thingJudge sees the clock, holds up the "5"I stop and wave back like a good boy should, Woops! I come looking for you with sourcesI try to stay up on all the politicsWords like "free trade" confuse me,You get the votes and I start envying(Turn up)I woke up to a new contentionI woke up to a new contentionI woke up to a new contentionI woke up to a new contentionI woke up to a new contention"Extemp Congress and Interp", is all he talkingAttacking sources during CX, is why they hatinHe got off topic during 1AC, disqualificationWalk the road out the room with bare feetI look to see my partner's struggle, but it's L-D,Then I realize nobody wants to work with me,Because I know more about Minaj than the topic of which I speak,I can scan it if you want, so there's one source that can you see,Tripping on words like I'm speedin like in policy,But then I see, maybe debate's not for me,But then what is? Duo or DI, HI or XT, maybe prose is for me I come looking for you, now defeatedI gave up on all the politicsBasic debates, oh they con-fuse meYou get that 7 point win, I jealous(Turn up)I woke up to a bomb against meI woke up to a bomb against meI woke up to a bomb against meI woke up to a bomb against mePut the middle finger as the R-F-D.
I am a worse debater than my opponent

Henry Ford supports the Nazi party, distributed anti-semantic pamphlets, and even made tanks for Germany during WWII Lion king theme: I do not know! what I am doing here! I have no... chance at this (chance at this) I do not know! what I am doing here! I have no chance at this (chance at this) Debates are hard I have no chance I am too bad at every debate I am too bad at every debate [near whisper] I am too bad at every debate I am too bad at every debate I am too bad at every debate I am too bad at every debate (debates are hard) I am too bad at every debate I am too bad at every debate I am too bad at every debate [Chant repeats] Every time I begin a debate And I choose, to check my spelling I find many dozen spelling errors I don not know what I should do oo I have no chance at this here debate I now know that I am doomed to fail I may be going pro But I now must go Because I am simply that lousy. I have no chance at this I am doomed to fail Though I do try so hard I will soon lose Until you beat me I will try even though I have no chance I have no chance at this
I am a worse debater than my opponent

Sailing is the only Olympic event not televised on American television. To the tune of "When I Was Your Man" by Bruno Mars. Same game, but it feels just a little bit later now,No cross-ex round, good cause my opponent would win,When I argue all that it does is just drop my win rateCause my soul breaks a little, when you vote for themIt all just sounds likeoooh ooh ooh ooh ooohhMmm to young to dumb to realizeThat I should have just gave up and let you winShoulda conceeded all my points when I had the chanceJust give it all up starting from the start 'cause I remember when you kicked my [donkey],Oh the things I should have done, when I had a chanceMy points, my sources, my ways they're all B-S. .. .Cause a good new record to drop worse than the Habs. .. .Now I never, never even won a debate I made,And it haunts me I can't even win grammar, It all just sounds likeoooh ooh ooh ooh ooohh Mmm to young to dumb to realizeThat I should have just gave up and let you winShoulda conceeded all my points when I had the chanceJust give it all up starting from the start 'cause I remember when you kicked my [donkey],Oh the things I should have done, when I had a chance Although it hurts, I am the worst, you say that I was wrongOh, I know that you're probably much too greatWhy did I even accept this debate? But I just want you to know oh oh ohI suck cause I do extemp, can't talk fast enough for C-X.
I am a worse debater than my opponent

Since Hercules is the son of Zeus who's the brother of Poseidon, who according to the 1985 Disney movie, The Little Mermaid, is the father of King Triton who is the father of Ariel, Hercules from the 1997 Disney Movie and Ariel from the 1985 movie are first cousins once removed. To the tune of 4'33" by John Cage: