BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Burning of the national flag as a form of protest should be outlawed.

"[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."- the Supreme Court, Texas v. Johnson ruling. Taken from Oyez.com [1] This quote I believe is crucial to this argument. Your argument has led me to conclude that you are arguing based upon your emotions/ feelings/ views of the matter- calling the flag burning act respectively "offensive or disagreeable," which is just as the Court addressed was not a true reason to prohibit it. Now, what we must both understand is that this is the majority opinion of the most prestigious legal representatives in the Nation- they, through the power of Judicial Review, have told us what we are allowed/ prohibited from doing according to the Constitution. If they tell us that flag burning is an act that is protected, this would lead to the conclusion that it is protected/ should be allowed. This is my point- we must argue whether it is Constitutional (the most Supreme Law) or not. In clearer words, this is a legal question to me. If we we're to argue on the principles of symbolism, I'm afraid that we would wrap ourselves into an position based on emotion and feelings. (Example, "it isn't a piece of rag... it's our job to protect it.") In fact, if I we're arguing based upon emotions/ feelings/ views I would be in agreement with you- but that is because I have very patriotic views, just as you do ( evident through your passion on the matter.) On account of the Founding Fathers- they we're arguably very patriotic Nationalists, if you showed them a flag burner I believe it safe to assume that they would find their (the flag burner's) act to be a form of treason. Yet, even through their opinions and views (that truly differed when you review the battles between Antifederalists and Federalists) they realized that we need the First Amendment- which led to the protections of ideas that they disagreed with just as much as they agreed. They realized that that act of expression (indirectly- they may or may not have thought of flag burning when creating it, of course) must be protected- not banned/prohibited. Hopefully this all makes sense, my apologies if it doesn't. - Sources - [1] https://www.oyez.org...
Burning of the national flag as a form of protest should be outlawed.

Pleasure to meet you Negotiate and I am looking forward forward to the debate. Let me start by saying that I acknowledge that flag burning is a protected act of expression. What I am saying is that it should not be protected and therefore banned. Burning a national flag in the form of protest is a form of treason. The general public speculate that burning the national flag is a way of expressing dissatisfaction with the current government and conveniently burn it to push for change. I fully support the right to freedom of expression, this is what our founding fathers fought for, and thanks to them we have this right today. I do not support the burning of the national flag as it is wrongly categorized as freedom of expression, it is a form of hate speech. Burning the national flag incites violence and is a form of damaging property.
Burning of the national flag as a form of protest should be outlawed.

Great to meet you, en1gma. I appreciate and look forward to this debate. By the Constitution's 1st Amendment, flag burning is a protected act of expression, as stated by Title 18 U.S. Code, Chapter 33, " 700 and Supreme Court ruling in the 1989 Case, Texas v. Johnson. Because of this, it is and shall be protected/allowed by the Nation.
Burning of the national flag as a form of protest should be outlawed.

Legislatures should overturn the bill that protects flag burning and ban the practice. National flag - a flag that represents and symbolizes a country. Ban - to prohibit by law, or make illegal. The flag wasn't bought with money, it was paid for in blood. It isn't a piece of rag, it symbolizes who we are; and its our job as law abiding citizens to protect it.
Taking the life of another human being can in some instances be the lesser of two evils.

It is my argument that, in some exceptional cases, murder can be seen to be the lesser of two evils. Ofcourse, by this I am not claiming that I believe murder to be moral. There are instances however when murder could be seen to be the better of two options. I view this not only from a personal, moral viewpoint but also from a Christian view. I look forward to an intelligent and challenging debate with whoever accepts!
Taking the life of another human being can in some instances be the lesser of two evils.

seeing as my opponent forfeits and has not refuted any of my points on deontology. So, one must conclude that based on this taking a life of another human being can never be justified and never be the lesser of two evils. Because, of universal law, the categorical imperative, and the alternative theory, must be applied and show you how the morals allow the resolution to be false. I also win on the abortion point because he did not refute the points i brought up against them.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Response To My Opponent's Claims Con says that what I said was ambiguous, but this is clearly false. I outlined in my last round exactly what I said. I will repeat rule 4, and explain why my opponent is wrong in saying that the rule stating that every other letter must be a capital letter with lower case letters in between only applies to each line individually:"Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). Every line must start with a lower case letter, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he/ she wishes."As you can see, rule 4 is split up into two sub-rules:Sub-rule 1 (which is underlined): Every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters, and this holds for the entire debate (meaning, not each line individually, but the debate as a whole (hence the "entire debate"). Sub-rule 2 (which is italicised): Every line must start with a lower case letterMy opponent's argument is fallacious because the part of the rule he quoted pertaining to each line individually only dealt with the sub-rule 2, which states every line must start with a lower case letter. However, sub-rule 1 CLEARLY states "with regards to the entire debate". Since Con broke the rules, he will lose the debate. He clearly broke the rules several times. My Opponent Broke The Rules AgainIn Con's last round, he doesn't have every other letter being a capital letter:"mY oPpOnEnT's ReSoLuTiOn Is AmBiGuOuS, sEeMiNgLy StAtInG iN tHe AbOvE sTaTeMeNt tHaT tHe CaPiTaLiZaTiOn RuLe ApPlIeS tO eAcH lInE iNdIvIdUaLlY." I bolded and underlined the infraction. Not every other letter is a capital letter, with a lower case letter in between. And remember, the only part of rule 4 that applies to each line individually is the part about each line starting with a lower case letter. The part about every other letter being a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters clearly applied to the debate as a whole, as I said "entire debate" and there was nothing pertaining to that sub-rule regarding each line individually. Clear breaking of the rules. Here is another one from the last round:"n ReSpOnSe To My HaNdWaViNg; mY NuMbEr Of DeBaTe"There are two lower case letters back to back, the rules specifically state that this cannot happen anywhere in the debate as a whole!**The Nail In The Coffin!**If we buy my opponent's argument that rule 4 applies to each line individually, he STILL loses!"...iT sHoUlD bE lEfT tOtHe VoTeR's To DeCiDe If It QuAlIfIeS aS aN inFrAcTiOn"He has a lower case "i" right next to a lower case "n" IN THE SAME LINE!It doesn't matter what my opponent says, he will lose this debate, and an automatic 7 point loss for Con entails he broke on of the the exclusive rules for Con.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

"eVeRy LiNe MuSt StArT wItH a LoWeR cAsE lEtTeR, aNd My OpPoNeNt CaN cHoSe As MaNy LiNeS aS hE/ sHe WiShEs." mY oPpOnEnT's ReSoLuTiOn Is AmBiGuOuS, sEeMiNgLy StAtInG iN tHe AbOvE sTaTeMeNt tHaT tHe CaPiTaLiZaTiOn RuLe ApPlIeS tO eAcH lInE iNdIvIdUaLlY. i PoSiT tHaT bEcAuSe It Is AmBiGuOuS, iT sHoUlD bE lEfT tOtHe VoTeR's To DeCiDe If It QuAlIfIeS aS aN inFrAcTiOn. In ReSpOnSe To My HaNdWaViNg; mY NuMbEr Of DeBaTeSiS IrReLeVaNt, BeCaUsE i CoUlD hAvE jUsT aS mUcH dEbAtInG eXpErIeNcE aS mY oPpOnEnT oUtSiDe Of ThIs SiTe. FuRtHeR, ExPeRiEnCe Is IrReLeVaNt To ThE vErItY oF aN iDeA. sAyInG yOu'Re BeTtEr LoOkInG tHaN mE iS IrReLeVaNt, AnD aN iNsUlT, MaKiNg It An Ad-HoMiNeM iNsUlT. tEaChInG cHuCk NoRrIs ThE rOuNd HoUsE kIcK iS iRrElEvAnT tO oUr DiScUsSiOn, NoR iS iT pOsSiBlE sInCe He'S dEpIcTeDuSiNg ThE rOuNd HoUsE kIcK iN tHe MoViE bReAkEr! BrEaKeR! (d) WhIcH wAs MaDe In 1977, 10 YeArS bEfOrE yOu ClAiM tO hAvE bEeN bOrN (oN yOuR pRoFiLe, WhIcH i PrEsUmE iS a ReAsOnAbLe SoUrCe SiNcE yOu UsEd MiNe AgAiNsT mE).p1 Is UnPrOvAbLe By NaTuRe. YoU cOuLd HaVe EaSiLy HaD a HeArT aTtAcK, cAuSiNg YoU tO fOrFeIt EvErY rOuNd, Or SoMeOnE cOuLd HaVe HaCkEd YoUr CoMpUtEr AnD VeRbAlLy FoRfEiTeD fOr YoU, rEsUlTiNg In My WiN, eTc.p2 Is CoMpLeTeLy SuBjEcTiVe.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Response To My Opponent's Claims My opponent simply stated that I committed all these logical fallacies, but didn't explain how I committed them. Ironically, they were bare-assertion fallacies my opponent was committing by engaging in the accusations. Also, simply calling my arguments irrelevant and illogical is hand-waving. Why My Opponent Will Lose The Debate: He Broke Rule 4 My opponent broke rule 4, therefore, he will lose the debate. How did he break rule 4? Well, every other letter in the debate is not a capital letter, with a lower case letter in between. I will bold and underline the back to back lowercase letters in his last round: "eVeRy PoInT rAiSeD wAs EiThEr CoMpLeTeLy IrReLeVaNt, CoMpLeTeLy IlLoGiCaL, oR aN aD-hOmInEm InSuLt.cOnSiDeRiNg ThIs Is A fOrMaL dEbAtE sItE, tHaT aLoNe, I bElIeVe, WiLl AsSuRe My ViCtOrY." The lower case "t" in the second line (or first line, depending on how the user views it) is followed by a lower case "c" in the second line (or third line, depending on how the user views it). Possible Rebuttal My opponent my say that the rule that every other letter has to be a capital letter with a lower case letter in between only applies to each line individually. However, that would be clearly false, as I said that part of the rule applies to the debate as a whole in my opening round Here is rule 4 repeated: "Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters..." Since I specifically stated that every other letter must be a capital letter, with a lowercase letter in between with regards to the entire debate and not each line individually, then that possible rebuttal would clearly fail..Conclusion Since Con broke rule number 4 by having two back to back lower case letters in the debate, and the only possible rebuttal to it fails by default, then a full 7 point loss occurs, and I will win this debate. Thank you for playing.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

eVeRy PoInT rAiSeD wAs EiThEr CoMpLeTeLy IrReLeVaNt, CoMpLeTeLy IlLoGiCaL, oR aN aD-hOmInEm InSuLt. cOnSiDeRiNg ThIs Is A fOrMaL dEbAtE sItE, tHaT aLoNe, I bElIeVe, WiLl AsSuRe My ViCtOrY.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Nobody has broken any rules yet, so it is still anybody's game. The reason I think Con will lose this debate, is that besides the rules outline, it is anybody's game. However, the cards are stacked against my opponent. Therefore, it is more likely that I will win than Con. Also, remember, even if Con follows every rule, that doesn't mean he wins automatically, it only means that he has dodged a definite loss. Another reason I think I will win this debate is that I am more experienced than my opponent. He only has 3 debates under his belt, I have over 200. He may have a higher win percentage, but this is due to a small sample size. Another reason I will win this debate is because I believe I am better looking than my opponent. This is suggested by the fact that I am confident enough to post a picture of myself as my DP, while his DP is of a cartoon, which is probably a reflection of his drawn out love life. Another reason my opponent will lose this debate, is that if he wins, I will kill myself. I'm sure the voters don't want a man's blood on their hands, so because one is not compelled to automatically vote for Con, even if he follows all the rules, the voters will vote for me, as most people don't want an innocent person to die. Therefore, since I will kill myself if I lose, and most people are caring and sympathetic and don't want that to happen, they will vote for me, and I will win. Therefore, since I will win, it follows deductively that my opponent will lose. Thus, my opponent will lose this debate. Also, I taught Chuck Norris the round house kick, and had the most interesting man in the world tell me I am the most interesting man in the world. A logician agreed, but he got fired. It is a shame really, as he was really bright. last argument: P1: If chicken Mcnuggets taste amazing, Con will lose the debate P2: Chicken Mcnuggets are tasty as hell C: Con will lose dawg!!
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

-- In this debate, the cards will be stacked against Con (this debate is essentially a challenge game for Con). If Con accepts, it means that he also accepts the rules by default, so please, no disputing a rule after accepting the debate -- Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them. Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent *Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance *Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). Every line must start with a lower case letter, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he/ she wishes. Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been accepted Rule 6: Shared burden of proof Have fun, it should be entertaining ha
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

I lose by your understanding as well as my own. Who's understanding was more correct is no longer relevant. I take back what I said about con's position being easy. It's tedious, time consuming, and as a result, incredibly aggrivating. I was less logical and less thorough than I normally would be just to get this ordeal over with. I hope to in the future debate you on a topic with some actual substance to it.. Until then, to relieve some of my general aggravation, you suck and I hope your internet lags for the rest of your life. Thanks for the debate. I can't say it wasn't fun.
finish my story

I am going to start a story and you have to make it as silly as you can. My first day Its my first day in a new city in a new state all my friend's are gone. They were killed by a murderer so my family moved us . but this high school sucks there are kids who don't even know their abc's !!!!!!! I saw a light in the hall and you couldent see it blinded you. I triped into a hole in the hall and I fell down, down, down............
Balanced Budget Amendment

Thank you for your swift reply.Con 1: War and National EmergenciesI agree with con's point here. As I pointed out in the first round, the Balanced Budget Amendment provides provisions for such an event:Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.http://www.heritage.org...An obvious objection should be "What stops congress from declaring wars just to have extra deficits?" This is an excellent point that I can foresee my opponent bringing up in the next round. I think that there should be extra provisions: Had the United States have NOT been involved with wars or a national emergency, then the proposed budget would be balanced.Con 2: Recessions My opponent argues that during recessions, government ought to stimulate the economy and help the overall economy to grow. However, FDR’s New Deal prolonged the Great Depression "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." http://online.wsj.com...;The Wall Street Journal writes “The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.” http://www.heritage.org...;We can also use Japan as a way of measuring failed economic stimulus and government interventions. Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years, thus building up the largest national debt in the industrialized world, yet its economy remained stagnant.[9] Con 3: Congress breaks a lot of AmendmentsThis argument is a non sequitur. I agree that congress (sadly) breaks a lot of amendments, though that doesn't mean we should have this place. Using my opponent's logic, we would therefore be a dictatorship and have no constitution and no bill of rights at all. That is something neither myself nor my opponent would like!
Balanced Budget Amendment

My ArgumentsWar and National EmergenciesWhen a country is at war, it has to spend a large amount of money. We did so in every war we spent on. President Franklin Roosevelt had to raise spending by a lot in order to win World War 2. We needed to go into debt to fight this war because had we balanced the budget we would have not had the money to fight in it. World War 2 is not the only war we fought in, we must also look at the Cold War, which was mainly won by the actions of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan, George H.W. Bush went to war with Iraq which spent that we needed to keep up a lot of spending. After the war Bill Clinton became president, but because he had no wars to deal with he could reduce military spending and debt as well.Finally, after 9/11, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama did the responsible thing and raised spending on the military, but due to the ways the terrorists acted, the Department of Homeland Security and other domestic security measures were needed. Like with Roosevelt, Reagan, and the elder Bush, our two most recent presidents need to raise spending in time of war. This can been seen here: click="document.location='/AStevenson/photos/album/2327/16455/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/3/2327/71662-2327-97emr-a.jpg" alt="Debt from the modern presidencies." />However, we should not just look at wars, what about other disasters? Hurricanes and other natural disasters all require government assistance. What if a disease comes and spreads worse and is more deadly than the Bubonic Plague? The government must respond to it. This means that we need money.Economics and RevenueWhenever we go into an economic recession, the government loses revenue. As we have seen in 1929 and 2008, recessions can be unexpected. Traditionally, when a recession occurs then we need to relieve the poor. It happened in 1933 with the rise of Franklin Roosevelt and it happened in 2008 with the rise of Barack Obama. This means that the government must take immediate action to fix the recession and that means spend money. This can be even worse when you maybe in the middle of a recession and at war. What about tax cuts? They usually make you lose revenue. Ronald Reagan signed a tax cut in 1981, but revenue dropped. What if this dropped passed the amount of revenue need for spending? Then we would be in debt. I got that from here: click="document.location='/AStevenson/photos/album/2327/16454/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/3/2327/71662-2327-vpmn3-a.jpg" alt="Government Revenue" />Congress Breaks a lot of AmendmentsCongress has broken several constitutional amendments over the years that may have been unpopular, but still happened. This has angered generally everyone, but it still happens. How is a balanced budget amendment going to be any different. Thank you.
Balanced Budget Amendment

Resolved: The US Should Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment Definitions:1) Balanced Budget Amendment - A BBA requires congress to pass a balanced budget for each fiscal year. Currently, there is debate going on in the House and Senate between different versions of the amendment. There is very little difference between the two, however for sake of the debate, I will use the Senate's version found at . http://tinyurl.com.........; Also important to note, the BBA gives exception in times of war in relationship to defense spending.2) Balanced Budget - The overall amount of spending within a budget is equal to or less than the revenue brought in. 3) Should - Ought, is proper4) Adopt - Put into placeRounds1) Acceptance2) Opening Statements (ONLY)3) Rebuttals 4) Rebuttals/Closing StatmentsRules1) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. 2) No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. 3) Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow.4) No trolling - debaters should have adaquet debating experience.5) Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss
Balanced Budget Amendment

My opponent has failed to respond to ANY of my original arguments and ask the voters to take that into consideration as you vote.As this is the final round, I would like to make a summary of several points in this debate:1) The federal budget is recording chronic deficits and needs to be balanced2) The BBA fixes a flaw in democracy 3) The BBA allows leeway and exceptions for wars and national emergencies4) The BBA allows for the national debt to be no more than 20% of the GDP - not 0 as my opponent claimsMy opponent has not contested any of my arguments and hereby urge a pro vote.