BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Words "Under God" Should Be Removed From The Pledge of Allegiance

Unfortunately I do not have the benefit of Pro's Round 3 arguments. In this round I will rebut Pro's arguments from round 2 and extend my previous arguments.Round 2 RebuttalsPro has charged that the phrase "under God" is a direct violation of the First Amendment. I have distilled his arguments into two salient points (shown below in italics). I will not address Pro's remarks related to the Republican Party as I do not consider them relevant to this debate. By reciting the words, "under God" within the pledge, we proclaim our faith in GodI do not follow the logic here. When making a proclamation of faith, one articulates the specifics of what is believed. I ask Pro to identify where in the pledge is this articulation? Is it simply a proclamation of faith to "God"? If so, then which God? Is it a Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Pastafarian God? It is Zeus, Apollo, Thor or Ra? I could go on, but you get my point. Unlike the Nicene Creed (1), the Pledge is not a proclamation of faith, because the specifics of one's faith are not proclaimedThe establishment clause essentially says that Congress can make no law regarding religion. That is, it can't promote one religion over the other, or create a religion, or pass a law forcing people to follow a religion, or to not follow a religion, or forcing people to pray, etc. I just don't see how these particular words in a non-compulsory pledge violate the clause. In round 2 I used the "Lemon Test" to show how these words are not unconstitutional.Although not directly germane to the debate, my personal opinion is that the inclusion of those words echoes our recognition of our right to believe (or not to believe) in a supreme being. Every religion has its own definition of its God. Whatever that image is or isn't, we are all free to believe or not believe without fear from our government.By reciting the words, "under God" within the pledge, it is tantamount to school prayerPrayer is a form of communication (petition, adoration, contrition, thanksgiving, etc) to an object of worship (2). There is no direct communication to a perceived deity here. When the words "One Nation under God" are spoken, they are merely describing an attribute of "one nation". The word, "indivisible" functions the same way. I am certain Pro would not suggest that using the word "indivisible" in the pledge is tantamount to school prayer. There is no prayer here whatsoever.ConclusionPro has identified two reasons to support his claim, and I believe I have successfully disputed both. I have shown how the words "under God" neither constitute and proclamation of faith, nor a prayer. Again, I extend my round 2 arguments to the next round.(1) http://www.creeds.net... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Words "Under God" Should Be Removed From The Pledge of Allegiance

Thank you, Folkcat for initiating this debate and for providing a brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance. Pro has effectively outlined the debate by stating that the words, "under God" are a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First amendment. It is here where I will focus my attention. In the interest of fairness, I will forgo any rebuttal of Pro"s arguments until later in rounds 3 and 4. In this round I will simply state my initial arguments. As far as I know, the Supreme Court of the United States has not directly ruled on whether or not these words are unconstitutional, but there have been rulings indicating that an individual cannot be compelled to recite the pledge (1). In evaluating whether a statute violates the Establishment Clause, the use of the "Lemon Test" has been used (2). By no means does the "Lemon Test" offer itself as the determining factor of constitutionality, but at least it provides a good guide. I will list the three parts of the Lemon Test and my position on each part as they relate to the Pledge. 1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose As pro has alluded to in the last round, the addition of the words happened during the McCarthy area. Their inclusion served to differentiate the U.S. from other atheistic/communistic countries. Any strictly religious motivation for their inclusion has now diluted into the realm of ceremonial deism along with Christmas celebrations and the words "In God We Trust" on our currency (3). 2. It principal or primary effect must be on that neither advances nor inhibits religion As stated above, the inclusion of the words, "under God" is a nominally religious custom which neither advances nor inhibits any particular religion. The non-compulsory use of the pledge maintains the church/state boundary. 3. The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. For the reasons stated above, having the words "under God" in the pledge does not represent excessive government entanglement with religion. No particular religion is specified. An individual is not compelled to recite it. It poses no threat to any particular religion, nor does it represent a bias towards any religion. Again, I thank Pro for the debate. He has posed specific questions he would like me to address, and I will do so in the subsequent rounds. (1) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org... (2) http://www.usconstitution.net... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Words "Under God" Should Be Removed From The Pledge of Allegiance

Thank you Sojourner for joining this debate. To begin, I'd like to talk about the history of the Pledge. The Pledge was written by a socialist Baptist minister who was essentially fired for describing Jesus as a socialist. He was a writer for a magazine that sold American flags, leaving questions about his exact motives for writing the pledge. The original pledge written in August 1892 was as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The Pledge went through several grammatical changes throughout the years, but substantially it remained the same. In 1952, after pressure from the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, Congress added the words "under God" making "one nation, under God, indivisible." This change may have been a political move to differentiate the United States from the "godless" Soviet Union. The pledge has since been repeatedly challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court. The problem with the phrase "under God" is that it is in direct violation of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." When we say the pledge, we not only pledge allegiance to America, we proclaim our faith in God. Why is that necessary? I ask you, how is this acceptable to have our children proclaim this, every day before school? "Under God" is tantamount to school prayer. Members of the Republican Party* frequently proclaim "The Second protects the First", but then they desecrate the First as much as the left is guilty of desecrating the Second. The pledge is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause, and I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. *I identify as a libertarian.
Gay Marriage; Liberalism (Con) vs Right-Libertarianism (Pro)

We will be debating the Liberal approach to the Gay Marriage issue, represented by my opponents comments:"Gay people have a right to marry and be happy, even if the bible says it's a sin. God isn't real, there is nothing wrong with gay couples marrying"As opposed to the Right-Libertarian approach toward Gay Marriage which I will be representing. My arguments will be formed based on the Constitution.
Children should be disciplined with beatings.

I'm going to go ahead and forfeit this debate. I figured I would want to debate this issue, but I really haven't been motivated to look up information on it. Perhaps, we can revisit this issue at a later date. Or, perhaps, we can meet in the forums, but this isn't a particular topic of heavy interest of mine, and would be doing a disservice to the debate community for not being thorough in addressing this subject I apologize to you and all others.
Children should be disciplined with beatings.

cbrhawk1 recently asserted in this thread "The stupidity of today's American youth"(. http://www.debate.org...) that parents should discipline their kids with violence, as well as claiming that he succeeded under this type of parenting. Trusting that he means what he says, I am willing to debate him on the subject. This is his quote:"This is lack of parenting in the Western world leading kids to try stupid things. This is because we teach parents not to beat the living hell out of their children when they are wrong. When you don't discipline and/or watch your children, this is what happens.
Children should be disciplined with beatings.

Well, the big thing here is this: When I was challenged, I figured I would eventually find time where I would want to look his stuff up. I did write down a few sources, an opening, and I had an idea of my counters to the sources and arguments. But, I'm just not a big fan of debates like this. I prefer discussions over debates. The one debate I did have was before I realized that the forums were active and full of good material themselves. Later on, I'll probably make a thread where these things can be discussed by many people. I can post smaller bits of research and won't have to hunt down everything and try to be elaborate and lengthy. Just so it's known, the last debate I had, most of my rounds were done over the course of a few hours of study, verification, calculation, and writing itself. This topic, while one that I have an opinion on, and with Diablo and Uncharted Waters, combined with my current investment in the topic of Global Warming, it's hard for me to want to dedicate that kind of time.
If God were fair, he wouldn't allow religion to exist.

So you are concluding that God is not fair because He allows religion to exist? You are saying He is there but He is not fair because religion exists? Or you are saying God is not there because if He were there, He would not allow religion to exist because people are treated unfairly in religion? I"m not sure how to argue this because I'm not sure what you are saying in your opening statement. I will say this: 1) God is always fair, "Fair: Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination." This is evident in the fact that we are all held under death sentence. 2) God is there. People treat each other unfairly at times, but God is always more than fair to all......He gives time when all deserve death. Even the stillborn child had time to develop from conception before it's life expired and God in His fairness will bring that baby to Himself in heaven as the child had not reached maturity when it could be held accountable in court of law for breaking God's Law. 3) Religion is mankind trying to reach God or gain access to eternal life in heaven. Mankind's practices of religion often become unfair to people who do not follow the same religious practices. In summary........by your opening statement, are you saying God is not there or that He is there and He is unfair because He allows people to act unfairly toward each other? Please clarify your intentions for this debate........By the wording as it stands, I have to conclude that you are accusing God of being unfair, so you are acknowledging that He is there. If you deny that He is there, please state this clearly.
evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

Alright then, I will address your proofs. I was going to do it in the last round, but I ran out of space. Your Proof 1: You kinda lost me here. You said that after parrot fish have eaten coral, they excrete it as sand. Great, so fish poop out a lot of sand. It is amazing but I am a little confused on exactly how it relates to evolution. Tell me if I am wrong, I could very well be but this is what I think you are saying. p1 Fish poop out a lot of sand p2 That sand is crucial to the development of these islands and development of life C Evolution must be true The way I see it, it is a clear non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion kind of comes out of nowhere. If this is not what you are saying, please write out what you are talking about. I don't have time to watch 3 hours worth of videos. I am not having a debate with youtube, I am having it with you. It is fine to put videos as a reference to your argument but I need to at least be able to understand what you are saying without spending 3 hours watching videos. I don't think voters will do so either. Your proof 2: Similar to your first proof, I understand what you are saying but I don't know how it supports evolution. I honestly could say it is God's design why that happens. Your proof 3: Again, not sure how this supports evolution. I get that microbes develop immunity to antibiotics but it doesn't prove that evolution is proven fact. It doesn't make sense. Until I fully understand your argument, there really isn't anything else I can address. If I have misunderstood your proofs, please write out in words why they support evolution. I have also laid out 4 solid proofs why evolution is false. Don't forget to address those.
evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

Glanced through what you posted and didn't read it because it has 0% to do with what was posted in RD1 in which 100% proves evolution along with 2 of them are in perfect sync with Gaia Mother Earth. National Geographic and PBS's Frontline knows 100% better than any diatribe your dog meat buffoonery can come up with. Now you knock those 3 things presented in RD1. Until you do, do not bother me again.
evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

I will end this in one single round with three confirmed proofs of evolution and there's nothing you can say, think or do about it. Two of them come from One Strange Rock, since it it rather point blank obvious that you didn't watch it like I told you to. What is wrong with you that you MUST be right and everybody else is wrong? Well too bad. Proof #1 Prof Chris Perry "After the parrot fish have eaten the coral, they then excrete it as sand." Narrator Will Smith "In one year, one fish poops out a ton of sand, literally." Chris "That same sand material that you find in parrot fish poop can be found in the islands themselves. Sometimes, on some islands the sand is made up of 70% of parrot fish poop. The parrot fish are absolutely crucial to the development of these islands." Will "But life"s not done. Fish form the fresh beach, then more life follows on. And presto. Instant island paradise." Mike Massimino "Its kind of amazing what a small creature can do. That a bunch of little fish can build an island just by going about their daily routine. That"s quite an impact." That is absolute proof of Gaia Mother Earth working with evolution. Proof #2 Mae Jemison "Plants here are green because our sun is green. The majority of light emitted from the sun is in the bluegreen wavelength. It doesn"t look green to us because it has light emitted in other areas to - in red and blue. And so when you blend all those together they look white. Most plants here on earth have evolved to use primarily red and blue light for photosynthesis. They reflect back the green light which is why they look green." That is PURE evolution with Gaia Mother Earth pe-ri-od. Now you watch One Strange Rock and pay attention to actual evidence rather than shrugging off something in which you clearly know nothing about. Simply google "One Strange Rock" Proof #3 Antibiotic resistant microbes, better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. Superbug 1.a pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides. (has developed means evolution is taking place) Now watch the vidies that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now) http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary http://www.youtube.com... - Dan Rather Reports Addicted to Antibiotics Dan Rather "Every year more than 90,000 Americans die from similar infections that are resistant to antibiotics. That stunning figure is higher from the death toll from AIDS, car accidents and prostate cancer combined." http://www.youtube.com... - Antibiotics Resistance The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven fact No matter which language you speak. god is NOT proven fact. My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. So only religion is left to argue in this debate.
evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

Do not ---ever--- bother me again, not for any reason. Just because you are a complete failure in everything which obviously includes life itself, it doesn't mean that ---everybody--- is. Evolution was proved unto you with 3 different proofs backed upped with something called ---evidence--- and 3 completely different viable and reliable sources that are better than you in which quote 'You kinda lost me here" and "I honestly could say it is God's design why that happens." in which you didn't prove and "It doesn't make sense." So that proves only ---ONE--- thing... all you have is your mouth.
evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

Con must concede if he cannot answer these questions: 1. If evolution is true, then why aren't we seeing transitional forms from species to species? 2. If complex life forms evolved from simple ones, then why aren't we seeing the macroevolutionary relationships to prove it? 3. Even if God does not exist, does that mean that evolution must be true? 4. How does macroevolution explain mutualism? Evolution is just not logical. It attempts to make excuses as you would put it and explain around all of the many, many objections to it. So unless you can respond, you must concede. Throughout all of our debates, you have insulted me rather than attack my arguments. "You must think that you, a punk kid who has no friends or loved ones who in absolutely no possible way can back up what he says with any evidence whatsoever" I am going to be honest, I have never had anything against you. Where this is coming from I HAVE NO IDEA. Your whole thing about me inventing excuses, lying, being a jerk, it is all a figment of your imagination. If You actually attack my arguments, that would be great. But until you stop attacking me, I don't think I can have any more debates with you.
evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

I read the first sentence of your most recent argument and that was enough you flapping easter egg vomit whackoff complete contradictory hypocrite. What the fluke in a dumpster of toy pee-nuts do you think you did in RD2 as you yammer on about YOUR god? And when you state something completely ignorant as you did in RD3 "I honestly could say it is God's design why that happens." Then you beltchingly need to back up what you say in which you cannot do and you know it. Since you can't then you have no business in saying it unless you WANT to be pegged as a square peg lost in a samurai's splitting headache. So naturally since I am a lot better at this than you are, I called you on your bluff, and you just cannot stomach it because you have to invent excuses of all kinds because you have no answers. So I question you on follow-ups to your moronic god in which ---YOU--- opened the gates upon like a can of tin foiled sardines in both RD2 and in RD3, in which case you, as always, do not have ANY answers to, you clam up like cement in a toaster oven. Oh and btw you darling pathetic little gimp who has no friends or loved ones and wants to keep it that way, ALL of proofs 1 & 3 were entirely about evolution in RD3. OK we're done. You had your chance. OMG I just skimmed through "Please address my proofs." I am trying so hard to not put my fist through YOUR computer in which you deserve. I get it. I really do. You must think that you, a punk kid who has no friends or loved ones who in absolutely no possible way can back up what he says with any evidence whatsoever, is better than National Geographic, Scientific American, PBS's Frontline in which case knows one helluva lot better than you. Are you kidding that "I" am going to address "your" proofs? National Geographic, Scientific American, PBS's Frontline and others already did. I don't have to do anything to prove anything. Se haba ingles? You blew it. Bye.
evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

We are not having a debate about God, we are having a debate on evolution. My arguments will be strictly on that. It isn't fair for you to get mad at me for not watching the videos because they are 4 hours long in total. I don't just have that amount of time floating around. None of your proofs scream evolution. Just because fish form the fresh beach does not mean evolution is true. It could mean that fish are the reason that there is sand, that's reasonable. But you took it to mean something entirely different. I really don't understand how from there we just instantly get all of the sea creatures we see today. Please address my proofs. I have spelled out exactly why I don't believe in evolution and you haven't addressed that. Why are you getting mad at me for not addressing your proofs, which I very well have, when you haven't addressed my proofs. Leave God out of this debate. It is titled Is evolution proven fact, not is God proven fact. If all of my proofs are true then evolution cannot be true.
Modern beauty/ life choice ideals

Let's attack every claim you make. 1. To whom is it that society can seem heartless? Everyone? Some people? I think society seems less heartless than the barbarity to be found in nature. 2. It is shallow to reward people based on their beauty, but equally shallow to assume people who are not stereotypically attractive are somehow not repellent or even shallow and fake in their own ways. 3. Judgement is the human condition, but not the fault of society. 4. Society does put people down at times. Point conceded. 5. Sometimes, however, those reasons DO matter. If I put down a rapist for raping, judge him even, I'm doing a good thing. 6. People who's eyes are brighter, are gay, and fat, are objectively better people than the rest. DISPUTE ME. 7. Society is in constant flux. Our attitudes change dramatically over time. They don't remain the same at all. You know how I can prove that? YOU CAN VOTE NOW! 8. It is bothersome, but there is probably a great deal more logic behind it than you give credit. 9. I have joined you in this game by debating you.
Modern beauty/ life choice ideals

society at times can seem so heartless very shallow and fake in the way it deems a girl ugly or a boy a 'queen', it's very judgmental with it's take always seems to put someone down for reasons that hardly matter such as who's eyes are brighter, who's gay or who is fatter it's society's ideas that stubbornly remain the very same it's bothersome and illogical, now who will come and join me in the game?