BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Topic is the first sentence in the debate.

Clarification: Topic is the plan text. I am affirming the topic in that the topic is my plan text. LOL //I reserve the right to clarify.// The Neg gets to clarify, so should we - reciprocity is a voter for fairness. Off T - Armed Forces 1. The affirmative plan is that the USFG should increase the number of people in the armed forces. 2. The debate is about whether or not we should do the plan - we get Fiat to say that the number of people would increase. 3. This T stems from a lack of understanding by the neg - the plan text is the topic. Off T - substantial 1. No warrant to his C, I don't have to increase by 100K soldiers, only a substantial amount. 2. Plan text provides for a substantial increase in the number of soldiers increased - we get fiat. 3. We fiat pecuniary and education to cause the increase. Off T - not the armed forced We're not extra T - its already standard policy for the National Guard to do animal control Heath et al, 1998 ("Animals in Disasters", Secretary/Treasurer, American Academy on Veterinary Disaster Medicine, http://training.fema.gov......) If your initial assessment requires resources beyond your local capability, your State emergency management office should be notified of this immediately.The National Guard may be asked to assist with animal control issues and animalï¿½ related claims investigations. Off Solvency - A and B, group them: Cross apply the clarification and the T - armed forces #3. C. If you read the rest of the card, engelman was talking about stopping the squirrels from suiciding - he said you couldnt stop them short of killing them - this is what we solve for; more people means we can kill them. Off Obs 4 - A. The squirrels are currently at war with us, though. They attack us and do the damage listed in the 1ac harms. We need to fight back to solve for extinction. C. His C is nonunique - they're already attacking. We stop them from attacking by killing them, as per the Armed forces protocals (as per the plan text). Off CP - Perm - 1. Perm do both - invite the squirrels into the Armed Forces then kill them. CP is not exclusive. 2. Perm do plan and all mutually exclusive parts of the CP. CP sucks - 3. Squirrels don't have higher level brain function. If they join the military, they'll accidentally set off all our guys and kill us, or continue suiciding on the electricity lines (per the 1ac).
Life imprisonment

I do not think that death penalty is easy than life imprisonment, because they will die and could not know and feel how it is painful for people who lose hiss or her. And if they sit in a jail, they will awake mistakes and prison can change their behavior. And if they do not want to sit in a jail criminals should think more than just kill people. And criminals should be thankful for life imprisonment because most of people want to live and they can live in a jail. Criminals should work hard in a jail because they do not deserve good life and government also distinguish money for their food, clothe and e.t.c
Life imprisonment

Adilya, what you say is also true but death penalty makes the criminal learn that a crucial punishment would be done and it would also make other criminals think twice before doing the same crime. If it was a well-experienced criminal, he would have 65% chance for escaping out of jail. Criminals will stop growing in that particular nation which gives penalties because they fear the punishment and do not wish to do the crime again. They have to suffer death than breathing in jail.It is a terrific deterrent to violent crimes when it is carried out swiftly, as the United states proved when we had the pre 1960's DP system, and as China is proving today. On the other hand, European countries only have 65 less deaths per 100,000 people per year, despite having millions and millions less people.
Thomas DiLorenzo's book, "The Real Lincoln" is poorly written and very inaccurate

I am sending you a debate about Jackson vs. Lincoln in a fight. How dare you not know who slash is! Do you not know what music is? Did you even google his name? Are you gonna tell me next that you don't know who Mick Jagger, Freddie Mercury, and Kurt Cobain are? Do you love America? Anyway, you failed to prove that Lincoln and/or DiLorenzo are even real, let alone that DiLorenzo wrote an entire book about jack- sh*t. You think he wrote an entire book and did no research on anything? Anyhoooo, sending you the debate now.
Thomas DiLorenzo's book, "The Real Lincoln" is poorly written and very inaccurate

1) The Civil War started in 1861 2) Possibly 3) I think Obama is doing the best he can given the circumstances and the constant Republican refusal to cooperate with a Democratic Pres. 4) Like many utopian ideas it is good in theory, but the worst system in practice 5) What is Slash 6) Yeah. 7) I think I looked something up about a debate and this website showed up in the search results 8) Sorry if they seem condescending to you, but I'm just answering your questions. Lincoln actually proposed suffrage for black soldiers and in his words, the "very intelligent" black people. He also established the Freedmen's Bureau to help former slaves get an education and transition into the life of freedom. This was better than about 98% of the white population of the US. The only people that proposed more were the radical Republicans and a few abolitionists He also thought that they should be afforded all the protections of the Constitution and should be treated like human beings and be able to earn the fruits of their labor. (btw Lincoln was 6' 4" and Jackson was 6' 1", Lincoln was also a champion wrestler and won just about all his fights. He was renowned for his strength and wrestling prowess and would easily defeat Jackson) Why did you choose Jackson?
Thomas DiLorenzo's book, "The Real Lincoln" is poorly written and very inaccurate

Why is there a 61 after theunionforever? Are you the only person in the world to be a fiscal liberal and social democrat? Why are you pro Obama? What are your opinions on Communism? Does Slash really exist? Is there a god? Where did you here about this website? Why do your answers to my questions seem condescending? Getting on to the debate... How do you know Abraham Lincoln is real? How do you know Thomas DiLorenzo is real? Are you sure Lincoln said what you said that Lincoln said in the last round about what Lincoln did and did not say is correct? How do we know you are not the one who is misquoting Lincoln? Besides, Lincoln was a d*ck. He freed the slaves, but then gave them no rights whatsoever. Andrew Jackson would have kicked his a*s in a fight.
Thomas DiLorenzo's book, "The Real Lincoln" is poorly written and very inaccurate

I accepted this debate for several reasons and to ask some questions. 1) Why does your profile say that you are a democrat, but your ideology is conservative? 2) Why are you not accepting messages at this time? 3) Why are you so pissed at Thomas DiLorenzo? 4) If you do not like him, why would you read his book? 5) I accepted to piss people off 6) Make fun of people 7) And get everybody to comment and/or vote on one of TheGamer1998's debates, because
Thomas DiLorenzo's book, "The Real Lincoln" is poorly written and very inaccurate

Thomas DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola University and a pro-secession, neo-confederate. His book is full of historical errors and "quote mining": taking quotes out of context or even misquoting. His book is also extremely one-sided, never giving the reader a quote that would destroy his arguments, or even misquoting to make a point. Most of his sweeping statements do not come with footnotes, and therefore cannot be verified (though most likely he makes up these "facts"). His "career" as an historian is a joke and so is his book.
GOD is great!!!

Rebuttal to contention 1: [1] This doesn't explain the water cycle at all. It says when it rains the crops grow and then they eventually dry up. This is something anyone can observe just by planting a flower! [2] It doesn't say that the moon is just reflecting the sun's light. This verse is just an observation of what you can see when you look up at night. It says the moon is luminous. Luminous is defined as: "Bright or shining, esp. in the dark." [3] This isn't the big bang. This is saying that 'the heavens' and the earth were separated. The big bang theory has nothing to do with 'heavens' Also aside the point, water did not make up every living thing because water is hydrogen and oxygen which discounts the six elements in between. [4] This one doesn't mean anything it doesn't distinguish between the sun, moon or any other 'heavenly bodies'. [5] By my premise, the heavens don't exist anyway and I would like to point out what that verse actually means in the comments with my sources.
GOD is great!!!

My opponent has failed to prove his premise that "god doesn't exist."Contention 1: Allah is great because he has predicted the greatest scientific discoveries that humans have unlocked, thousands of years before they unlocked those mysteries.Allah wrote about the water cycle[1], that the moon was bright because of sunlight[2], that the Universe began with a big bang[3], that the Sun was stationary with respect to the solar system, while planets orbit[4], that the universe is expanding [5].Contention 2: Allah is great because he is known as the greatest. By the resolution I gave, he is great.My opponent used all of his characters up unnecessarily proving his innocence. he posted all of my rules although he only broke one. Please take substance and laconicity into account when judging. Thank You.[1] http://quran.com...[2] http://quran.com...[3] http://quran.com...[4] http://quran.com...[5] http://quran.com...http://www.youtube.com...
GOD is great!!!

No... I didn't break any rules! Your rules were as follows: No ad hominem No straw man No being offensive All terrorism comments will be irrelevant All Shintoism arguments will be irrelevant There will be no discussing philosophical or scientific views on evolution, cosmology, or morality I am not being offensive by saying your god doesn't exist. I am allowed to have my own beliefs as you have yours. We are both entitled to believe what we wish to believe. If god (or allah or whatever) doesn't exist, then he can't be great! You agree that is a fact yes? Something that does not exist can't be great. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of god. How could he possibly be great if he doesn't exist?! You can infact prove a negative. Link in comments to an article proving that. Thank you
GOD is great!!!

Judges, I have yet to start my opening argument and Con has already blatantly disregarded the rules he accepted. -Rule Infringement-"I am here to debate with you on the side that god doesn't exist and therefore can't be great." He is being very offensive here by saying my God doesn't exist. This is an infringement on the rules that he agreed to.The resolution states, "Allah, the greatest, is great." We are not debating whether or not Allah, the greatest, exists, but rather whether or not Allah, the greatest, is great. Please take that into consideration when judging and debating.Contention 1: By definition Allah, the greatest, is great. The resolution states, "Allah, the greatest, is great." He accepted this resolution. Allah is the greatest. An entity that is the greatest is the ultimate in the category of "great." Therefore, Allah is great. If you want to argue with the word go ahead: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;Contention two: In logic you cannot prove a negative.Thanks!
GOD is great!!!

Resolved: ALLAH, the greatest, is great.Rounds:Round 1: Acceptance.Round 2: GOD is great.Round 3: Rebuttal to why opponent says GOD is not that great. Rules:No ad hominemNo straw manNo being offensiveAll terrorism comments will be irrelevantAll Shintoism arguments will be irrelevantThere will be no discussing philosophical or scientific views on evolution, cosmology, or morality Good luck to my opponent.
Copyright laws are antithetical to the principle of free expression.

I am supporting the idea that copyright laws are contrary to the principle of free expression--and, by extension, unconstitutional in the US after the ratification of the bill of rights. It is important to keep this debate constrained to copyright alone, and not extended into the wider realm of intellectual property in general. There is a distinct constitutional issue involved in copyrights, in that they are explicitly intended to restrict the expression of ideas by people other than the copyright holder. This is not necessarily the case when dealing with, for example, patents, as they protect only concrete methods and inventions. The first step of any argument is, I like to think, to define the concepts being discussed. Copyright law is, according to the US Copyright Office, "a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression." This definition I will not disregard, however I clearly take exception to the notion that this is "grounded in the constitution". I'll get back to that. The other major concept is that of "free expression", a definition for which I will take from the US Constitution. The first amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." According to several Supreme Court rulings, a fact that I do not believe many will dispute, the "free speech" clause of the above is interpreted to mean a protection of all forms of expression, be they on a tangible media or through the spoken word. Getting back to that issue of copyright being grounded in the constitution. It is clear that, pending the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Congress was granted the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." However, this power, as implemented through our current system of copyright, would clearly run counter to the later prohibition on the restriction of expression by congress. How can Congress pass a law to "secure the right of authors... to their respective Writings" if they are unable to pass a law restricting the freedom of expression? That last sentence would actually be a good way for me to sum up the issue, in my opinion. Fundamentally, copyright laws are a restriction on the right of the people to freely express themselves, and as such run counter to the first amendment. For a society that places value on the principle of free expression, it seems somewhat strange that we also put such high value on the restriction thereof, in the form of copyright laws.
Does God Exist

Hello everyone, this question of "Does God Exist?" has been of interest to the human race for ages, and I believe it will be for ages to come. Rules are: No rules. Profanity, though it's allowed, is frowned upon and will ruin the professional manner this debate is trying to maintain. I will be pro, and advancing the belief that there are good reasons why God does exist, while the con will try to cut down my arguments and propose new ones to give reason why there is no God. Also, note that I put this topic in the "Science" category as opposed to "Religion", this is because no religious text or authority is going to be mentioned, only scientific, intellectual, and logical facts and reason. First round is for acceptance. Good luck.
Moonlight Cocktail vs Gangnam Style

I will be arguing that Gangnam Style is better than Moonlight Cocktail. Moonlight cocktail is better then Gangnam Style because it is older. Just because it is older doesn't mean it is better. For example, old people are older than young people but young people are better at many other things like fighting, running, etc. This is just on average. Here are my bullet points for why Gangnam Style is better than Moonlight Cocktail: 1. Gangnam Style has approximately 2 billion views. 2. Gangnam Style is more known than Moonlight Cocktail. (Like, have you even heard of it? Maybe in a cocktail, but not the song) 3. Gangnam Style is by Psy. Psy is the first three letters to psychic. Psychic Pokemon are powerful and can control people's minds. Ergo, Gangnam Style is powerful and can control people's minds. 4. Moonlight Cocktail is something less people have heard about rather than Gangnam Style. Everyone knows Gangnam Style but not Moonlight Cocktail. 5. Moonlight Cocktail came to be right after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a sad day for many Americans. More to come. I await my opponent's arguments and rebuttals in Round 2. For now, here is Gangnam Style. http://www.youtube.com... Also, people do the Gangnam Style dance.
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

I apologize for not addressing your abortion statement; I had some personal things going on and had 15 minutes to post a rebuttal. On the topic of abortion that is an example of the other thing US law will do, side with the larger party in this case, the pro choice party. I mentioned this earlier. I do not support simply siding with the larger party on an issue so evenly divided, and this is why I so strongly support a compromise instead. I do not support gay marriage, not because of my theological views on it, but because it just isn't in accord with US law. The poles I've seen are extremely varied many saying most of America is against it and many saying America is for it. I will; however, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the homosexual population is now bigger than the anti-homosexual one. That being said, I'll also assume that if a compromise can't be reached than the law will side with the homosexual community instead of the anti-homosexual community. I still don't believe that route to be fair and while we are assuming the gay community to be bigger, this issue is still far too evenly divided to be instantly assuming we should side with it over sheer numbers. I said this when assuming the anti-homosexual community was bigger too. Siding with the gay community leans too far to one side, this is not fair. Now, you've given quite the argument over why gay marriage is morally acceptable but the anti-homosexual community has just as reasonable a stance. You also claim religion and government shouldn't intertwine and yet you are campaigning for a law that goes against the theological beliefs of a huge amount of people. Furthermore, you say they should not be allowed to have a say in the matter because they are coming from a religious point of view? That is neither fair nor constitutional. This does affect them because their faith is being violated. A gay couple has just as many rights and shouldn't be prevented from being happy together but blatant marriage is just not the answer. Again, I say compromise to make the most people happy and to not have anyone's rights or beliefs taken away in the US law. You said it yourself, not everyone will be satisfied but that is the closest they will get and the most fair we can be to all who are proud to be US citizens. Be fair and just to all everyone, and don't just side with one person if they are both equal in opinions and reasoning.
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

You state the nature of US law is to have both large populations of America walk away that can meet both parties needs" First of all there are many laws that the religious community doesn't believe with. For example, abortion for which I have mentioned before. But, you seemed to ignore that. Do you think abortion meets both of the needs of both parties? No, but it is the ethical thing to do to give women their freedom I don't agree with abortion I am using this as a example. It may not meet both parties needs but its the freedom of choice. That goes the same for gay marriage both parties may not agree with it but it is the ethical thing to do. Like welfare people who don't receive it don't agree with it but people who do receive it usually do agree with it. The people who are religious don't usually agree with gay marriage but the people who are non religious or gay or religious do. Over 65% of Americans agree with gay marriage what are you talking about that it doesn't fit the larger parties needs? The religious community is starting to agree with this concept of gay marriage and how it is a universal right to love who you want to love and marry who you want to marry. What do you mean not in this point of time? You are basically agreeing with gay marriage but saying "not now". Why are we not giving the gay community of what the deserve? Why should they be affected by the religious community they should have the right to make their own decisions. Your reasoning doesn't make sense there always won't be a law that will meet both sides of the issue but sometimes its the right thing to do. Also American law makers shouldn't be affected by the religious community. And, religion and the government shouldn't intertwine. As I said before many times there will never be a law that leaves both sides satisfied but for the freedom of everyone it is the right thing. How does there marriage affect others who are not gay? Thank you for joining this debate. To the voters I hope you vote pro for the freedom of some Americans. Have a great day everyone!
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

You have a legitimate point, but the problem holding back the legalization of gay marriage is the nature of US law. Yes the religious community is opening their eyes to being fair to the homosexual community but the anti-homosexual community is still very large and prominent in society, regardless of the reduction of its members. Their counter argument to your statement about marriage not being their business would be something along the lines of "ISIS doesn't have our bodies, but we fight them because what they are doing is wrong". To the anti-homosexual community the act of gay marriage is wrong and against human nature. However one may feel, this is a valid and well supported argument from a theological point of view, coming from a large group of people in the eyes of the law. It is not considered blind prejudice because there is a clear possibility they are right. The gay community does; however, still pose a legitimate argument themselves. One's love should not be judged and condemned in such a way, that is also a clearly morally valid statement. Therefore if one is to look at the big picture from the US government's point of view there are two equally valid and backed moral opinions with conflicting goals trying to have their interests put into law. The nature of US law is to have both these large populations of America walk away satisfied with a law that can meet both parties' needs to the best of its ability. Legalizing gay marriage cannot do this, it leans too much towards the homosexual community, and it therefore shouldn't be put into law. Something along the lines of the compromise I listed in my previous argument can and that kind of thinking should be what is made law. Am I saying I'm the supreme judge of this? Of course not, but I believe in the concept of bringing both parties to a common ground and having them both walk away mostly satisfied. Gay marriage doesn't do this, so it shouldn't be legalized at this point in time.