BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Indianas Religious Freedom Law

(Reminder: Closing Statement Only) Freedom isn't easy, it hurts and sometimes will seem like it's not truly freedom. However, while it gives people to descrimination we see only good come out of that. First, if someone declined a service to another then people would know who, in their community, is racist. Second, it is that persons privately owned business that they themsleves worked for and paid for. It is not our right nor the governments to force them to do anything, but we have a right to boycott them. This is about allowing people, who are religious, to respectfully deny those who contradict their religious beliefs. A catholic denying a gay, a jew denying a Neo nazi, a Muslim denying a redneck. Everyone who owns their business should have a right to stand by their religious beliefs without their business being shut down. I'll keep this short and to the point. We must protect our citizens freedom and their private business rights. Any argument my opponent has is based off of discrimination, but like I said this is about the government not being able to force a catholic photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding, or the Jewish baker to bake a nazi cake, or a Muslim to make ballons saying Muhammad is the devil. This is a fight for true, and real freedom!
Indianas Religious Freedom Law

If I could rebuttal what you just said above it would be easy, but I can't so, let's just see your opening arguments: It protects the first amendment: That's actually NOT what the first amendment was stating. It was stating that they can't favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. However, if someone's RIGHTS are being removed, then the government has a say, because it's not a religious issue. The bible approves of slavery, should the government allow it? What about a religious person's rights to practice their beliefs and kill nonbelievers? You said that the government cannot get involved into religion! No, the religiouse freedom act's name is merely a cover name to allow discrimination. It's a standard right: Your statement with Neo nazi's are a different situation. Neo nazi's wants to bring back the nazi movement and exterminate the Jews. Gays just want to be equally treated. This law is sympathizing with overly-religious bigots who wants to deny service to someone for circumstances they couldn't control. Notice how this law specifically goes after gays? Freedom comes at a price: You are stating that freedom's price, is the freedom to deny service, thus limiting other peoples freedoms.....
Indianas Religious Freedom Law

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" My opponents own argument supports my point. Without the religious freedom law, then the person denied a service can get the state involved, and then the state forces that person to do an act against their will. My opponent brought up blacks and obviously has failed to realize this is about religion. Religions don't have anything against blacks but some, like Christianity, are against gay marriage. It's about protecting people's rights to their religion. My opponent mentioned them suffering due to liberty. However, how on earth is a gay couple going to suffer if they can't get a photographer who's catholic to take pictures at a wedding? Well they aren't. My opponent also then brought up towns where there is only one place to get food and water. However, my opponent fails to realize the law doesn't stop gays from buying goods from a store, it only gives those owners a right to deny a service such as baking a cake. My opponent then mentioned something about living in a hospital, however, I don't see why a gay person would want to live in a Walmart instead of a hospital. So his argument there doesn't have much reasoning. "Equality over freedom." Without freedom there is no equality, if everyone is free then equality can be created on its own accord. (Reminder: no rebutting against what I rebuttled of your arguments, keep your Rebuttles only about my opening argument.)
Indianas Religious Freedom Law

I'd have to argue that the religious freedom laws are a terrible idea, at least as they present it. 1.It's actually not a right If you read the 14th amendment section 1 you get All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See the last part? "nor dent any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law", that means that nobody can constitutionally discriminate against anyone. We have the civil rights act of 1964, which says that you cannot discriminate against blacks, so constitutionally, they have to do the same for gays. 2.Liberty Liberty is the rights to do whatever you want as long as no one suffers. If you deny service because of something they cannot control, they are suffering. Discrimination against gays is morally wrong because the gays has done nothing wrong and is still being denied service. There are towns where there is only one place to get any goods like food, or water. What if THEY deny service to gays? They could DIE! And before you say "they can go to the hospital", no, it's not right that someone should live in a hospital, simply because their gay. 3.If it's a religious reason, so what? There should be no laws "respecting an establishment of religion". Allowing people to discriminate is favoring the religion over the guy who just wants to EAT SOMETHING! Equality over freedom. And the religion of Islam states that Christians and Jews are evil. Should they be allowed to deny them service? It's for their religious reasons! Sorry point 3 is so short, I'm sure your rebuttals will be ridiculous.
Indianas Religious Freedom Law

American society was founded on the basic principles of freedom. Private property, private ownership, the government not controlling anybody. However, for decades after our great countries founding that freedom has been under attack. Around 20 states have laws that protect religious freedom, now Indiana has tried to get one and is under Attack for it. For the following three reasons I'll present why we must support this law and stand are ground against those who want it gone. 1. It protects the first admendment. The seperation of church and state has been a part of our country for generations. However, for a long time the government has broken that law of the constitution and gotten involved in religion when it came down to people practicing their beliefs and turning away customers. If a Christian baker turns away a gay couple wanting a cake, the baker could face huge fines, prison time, and lose his business. All cause he didn't want to serve a cake for something that was against his beliefs, instead of that couple finding a new baker. The government, instead of keeping hands of religion, gets involved and punished those for practicing it. I myself am not religious and realize this is wrong. We must stand up for the rights of these people. 2. It's a standard right If a Neo nazi asks a Jewish baker to bake a anti Jewish cake for a gathering, shouldn't that baker have a right to respectfully decline? If someone owns a business of their own and someone else asks for something, doesn't that owner have a right to decline without the government deystroying his business? When it comes down to public property, then you can't decline someone. This law, however, is about the private business', the ones that are owned by people with religious beliefs of beliefs in general. It gives them a reassurence that someone who's is against their religious beliefs can't sue them and shut them down for respectfully declining them. It's their own land and their own work and their own money! 3. Freedom comes at a price Yes people will argue it's a cause for descrimination, but this isn't about descrimination. A gay person still can go inside a store and purchase a cupcake. Unlike before, now a baker who's chrisitian doesn't have to go and participate in the gay persons wedding and make a cake with two men on top. Yes it might seem unfair but it's a natural right, it's freedom. Freedom comes at a price and sometimes it might seem harsh, but if you take that freedom away, then your in chains. The government will have the power to take more control and freedom becomes nonexistent.
racial segregation

Politically: First, segregation is isolation. Isolation from one another encourages individuals to base their views of other races through the media. In other words, stereotypes are going to be encouraged if individuals--regardless of race--don't have the opportunity to socialize with each other regularly. Economically: Racial segregation is detrimental in the economical aspect as employers will only be able to hire employees of certain ethnicity. In other words, employers won't have the opportunity to hire the best possible workers period. Without having a sufficient option of employees to chose from, businesses will have a hard time functioning. Education: Not as much money will be devoted to schools containing minority races . Rather, the government will be supplying most of its resources to the majority race, simply due to the fact that it is the majority. The lower the resources, the lower the quality of education. Hence, I provided 3 objective reasons as to why racial segregation is bad. My opponent has merely stated that it is her opinion that racial segregation is good. Furthermore, she has provided no arguments. Hence, it is painfully obvious that you must vote against her case if you intend to make a ruling here. I now await the final round.
America needs more diversity

The topic is pretty broad and it may make you think about this in many ways, but I would like to discuss specifically about people and how being diverse benefits not just America, but also other developed and developing countries as well. I persoanlly like a Canadian prime minister, Justin Treaudou. He mentioned diversity creates innovation. So given that, even though I know that diversity leads to street and property crimes a lot more, I am this time on the pro side. Thank you for checking my page
Abortion should be illegal

Rebutting to a few of the previous speakers arguments: The previous speaker has stated that 'unwanted pregnancies' is done from unprotected sex. However, I'd like to point out that this can be caused by other things such as rape. Rape is a crime and that the women has to be forcefully condemned without abortion to carry out this pregnancy isn't moral: Women must also have control over their own bodies. The previous speaker even mentioned that "every human has rights", so in this case why can't the mother simply have a basic right to control her own body. The proposition side has continuously mentioned that abortion is simply not "morally correct", however, many abortion cases were carried out to save the life of the mother, such as when the mother is a rape victim and that her body is too weak to birth a baby many of the time causing the death of the mother is abortion was not permitted. The biggest abortion debate going around now in the United States is a clash between the right-winged republicans against the democrats which hold liberal beliefs. Even the majority of republicans even stated that abortion would be permitted in a case where either the mother is a rape victim or if the mother is in a 'life threatening' situation. All in all, it is simply un-constitutional that a women doesn't have rights to her own body and that the proposition side is willing cause rape victims suffering or even a case of which the life of the women is at stake.
Abortion should be illegal

As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being and that's the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development." (http://bit.ly...) As you can see, embryologists say that fetuses are human beings then I guess they are. And to this argument from you " I question the fact that the previous speaker knows what many people use abortion for: to stop unwanted pregnancies and many of the time even saving the life of the women" Well I say, if you do not want an 'unwanted pregnancy' do NOT have unprotected sex (no like I support sex before marriage) or don't have sex at all if you don't wanna have a kid kid. that is a woman's choice to you know. Abortion is also the morally incorrect thing to do. Since i have proven that the fetus is a human, then I can further that by saying every human has rights. One of those rights is a right to life. (http://bit.ly...) and also even if scientists say fetuses are not human that does not mean they do not have rights. After all even animals have rights.
Abortion should be illegal

Before moving onto my own argument, I would like to rebut to my opponents pervious argument: 1: My opponent has stated that abortion is murder and that adoption is the best way to get rid of an unwanted child. However, I question the fact that the previous speaker knows what many people use abortion for: to stop unwanted pregnancies and many of the time even saving the life of the women. Anyways, I'll take my opponent's argument at his best stating that abortion is murder. Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another: the brutal murder of a German holidaymaker | [ mass noun ] : he was put on trial for attempted murder. Murder is a human unlawfully killing another human. The fetus can't be classified as a "human" yet, and plus, it is not an "unlawful manner" to rid the fetus. Also, it is a mean of self-defence and a choice that women must have in their lives in modern democracies: The freedom of choice. And the right to stop unwanted suffering that can easily be stopped.
You choose the topic.

So I am to argue that pro did not choose the debate topic, and you are to argue that pro did choose the debate topic? Generally the topic should be something debatable. I would not argue that 1+ 2 = 3 as it is a fact not an opinion. Nevertheless I will attempt to debate you on this. I said I would debate any topic, therefor the topic for debate was "any topic". I chose what the debate was about when I said that In will argue any topic, you only narrowed the topic down. The statement "pro chose the debate topic" is a category of "all topics", you have merely defined the topic, I was the one who chose the topic. Therefore ULTIMATELY CON CHOSE THE DEBATE TOPIC. I rest my case.
Historical Figures Debate

I will be arguing that Aristotle is the most influential being in the world, and that his teaching and his philosophy have outlasted and been incorporated into more religious, racial, and class sectors then any other being in the world. Before we start, this debate will be subjective, because Aristotle did not do anything remotely similar to what Napoleon did for example. Napoleon was a commander and Aristotle was a philosopher. It would be difficult comparing the two.
Historical Figures Debate

In this debate, Pro and Con will each nominate a historical figure. In Round 2 each one of us will make the case for why that person was the most influential figure in known human history. Rules: 1. One's nominee must be human only. 2. It cannot be the founder of a major world religion. 3. One's nominee must be with little to no doubt a real historical figure. 4. One cannot say "the first human" or someone like that, as that'd be too easy. 5. Picking a historical figure of whom there's too much doubt over his/her existence results in an automatic forfeit. 6. Trolling this debate results in an automatic forfeit. 7. One cannot select an ancient figure and appeal to the the Butterfly Effect to argue that since this candidate lived earlier his/her effect on history is obviously greater (though selecting an ancient figure is not in itself against the rules). Examples of acceptable candidates: Abraham Lincoln, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Barack Obama, Attila the Hun, Mikhail Gorbachev, Martin Luther, Adolf Hitler, Queen Victoria, Charlemagne, etc. Examples of unacceptable candidates: King Arthur, Saint George (the one who slew the dragon), Buddha, Abraham (the Biblical figure), Tarquin the Proud, the Apostle Paul, Santa Claus, etc. First Round is for acceptance. Burden of Proof is shared.
Historical Figures Debate

This argument went different places when you stated that Aristotle may not have been real. If you look at all the writings from Greece, all the history that backs it up, it is impossible to deny that Aristotle is real. He was a real man, and that is fact. Your argument is that we do not know that Aristotle did his work on his own. In Ancient Greece, if you were a philosopher, you were widely renowned. Everyone knew you, and everyone respected you. Aristotle did all his work on his own, without plagiarizing from someone else. By stating that Aristotle may not have been real, or may not have done all his work on his own, is not a good assertion. History and facts prove that he was real, along with his work. If you look at the memoirs of Alexander the Great, and all the books written about him, you can see that Aristotle was his mentor. Additionally, there is no evidence as to who would have killed him. A bomb exploded on the way, and the Arch-Duke's carriage took a detour, and Princip so happened to be in the coffee shop on the road that the carriage was going on. This was all a matter of coincidence, and coincidentally, someone else could have done the same thing Princip did. Aristotle, on the other hand, it would have taken people years to fabricate the same thoughts. Remember, he created these fields with what he said. If he was not alive at that time, it would not have spread. Alexander the Great spread Aristotle's teachings during his conquests throughout Greece as well as the Middle East.
Historical Figures Debate

You first claim that somebody else would've shot the archduke if Gavrilo didn't do it. I wouldn't be so sure about that. According to this source, there were 6 assassins. http://www.open.edu... The link in question also implied that had Gavrilo Princip not been where he was, the plot to kill Franz Ferdinand would've been a failure. Besides, how do we know that Aristotle didn't plagiarize someone else's work? Or what if his works were basically a rehash of the work of another great thinker or a compilation the collective knowledge of the Greeks on logical thought, works of which are lost today? How do we know that somebody else wouldn't have come up with all that stuff within 50-100 years if he never existed? In fact, how do we even know that Aristotle existed? What if a whole bunch of works from now obscure Greeks (or one Greek) was compiled and attributed to a fictional guy named Aristotle? The truth is, he lived so long ago that we can't really know (to illustrate my point, we don't know for a fact if Homer existed, even though there are great literary works attributed to him). The fact is, Gavrilo Princip started WW1. We have no way of knowing whether it would've started without him, but there's a good chance that it wouldn't have, or at least it would've started much later, something that would severely alter the course of history. He shaped the 20th and 21st centuries. That is a concrete fact. His year and day of birth (July 13/25, 1894). We know when he died (April 28, 1918). We know where he was from (Oblija, Bosnia-Herzegovina). We know what his prison sentence was (20 years). We know where he was imprisoned (Theresienstadt Prison). Photographs of him exist. Since there were eyewitnesses we know he was the killer. There is zero doubt that Gavrilo Princip was a real person, and that he was the person behind the achievement accredited to him. The same can't be said about Aristotle. Done.
Historical Figures Debate

I do believe that my opponent overstates Aristotle's impact on history. The Ancient Greeks were a people who had many geniuses, mathematicians, philosophers, etc. I find it more likely that Aristotle took already practiced principles and translated those ideas onto paper, principles such as logic, the scientific method, etc. And I'd hardly list the invention of taxonomy as a huge achievement. As for capitalism, the same applies. The idea of private property dates back to the Biblical Old Testament and to the Code of Hammurabi, two texts which record economic transactions, such as purchases. Abraham bought land in order to bury his wife. I will admit that there remained high tensions in Europe that would not have just subsided had Princip failed. However, like I said earlier, WW1 needed a spark, and there may not have been a spark. Or, the spark may not have come for many more years. In which case WW1 would've happened differently. For instance, in the years leading up to WW1, Russia had undergone heavy modernization programs and the implementation of primitive capitalism, in contrast to Russia's traditional collectivist system. http://www.historydoctor.net... It's possible that had the war been delayed by 10 years Russia may have been modernized enough and strong to defeat Germany. Also, it's possible that in that time the troubles that plagued Russia in the first two decades of the 20th century might've gotten better by the 1920s, and the Bolsheviks may have never come to power (the moderates would prevail). Or, as the Moderates increased in influence with increased modernization and democratization, Russia may have not been drawn into war. Either way, a delay by just a few years (assuming that WW1 would've happened at all) may have made a massive difference and completely changed modern history. Done.