BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christians oppressed in the US

Christian oppression is fully possible and does happen in the modern world. That's not to say that it is common, but as the resolution makes no specific statement that it has to be the status quo, any amount of christian oppression proved by my side means that I must win the round. And there is in fact christian oppression. Obviously not a lot of it, but it does exist. The same pew study that my opponent referred to was misinterpreted by her. The entirety of the study basically argues that christian oppression occurs, but on a global scale. Specifically they talked about North Korea and a few other areas where christian oppression was particularly strong. However, as the resolution specifically deals with the US we can not look to these examples for winning the debate. Fortunately, at the end of the article the Pew Research center posted a graph in which they showed the median social hostilities in a number of countries. At the bottom of the graph is the Americas. They were rated with a index of .4 which, although small, allows my side to win. Again, as the resolution does not specify we can assume that ANY oppression which occurs proves my side correct. And the evidence which I provided clearly does just that. Here is the link if you would like to see: http://cnsnews.com... Additionally, my opponents primary argument against the resolution was personal examples that she brought up. Evidence of this kind is completely subjective and therefore can be disregarded. It is impossible to prove a point only using personal examples, you must have actual evidence. For these reasons and many others, I urge votes in favor of my side of the argument.
Christians oppressed in the US

Thank you to anyone who accepts my debate. Here is my opening argument: A recent Pew study found that white American evangelical Christians think they experience more discrimination than blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, atheists or Jews. Really? Christianity is the majority religion in the U.S. Many kinds of legally ensconced religious privileges are on the rise including the right to woo converts in public grade schools, speculate in real estate tax-free, repair religious facilities with public dollars, or opt out of civil rights laws and civic responsibilities that otherwise apply to all. I have personally experienced being discriminated against because I am an atheist. A woman at work flat out told me I wasn't because I was too nice of a person, and when I came out to my mother and told her she blew me off and said, "I wish to have a pleasant evening." In America, you are labeled as a Christian until you say otherwise. There are schools dedicated to Christianity, magazines, television shows and channels, magazines, the ten commandments are being displayed around public places. And let us not forget how Christians are the majority in the United States.
Christians oppressed in the US

I would like to post another poll on the percentage of Americans who feel Christians are oppressed to appease my opponent. http://www.wnd.com... My opponent believes even though there are countless privileges that Christians have still means that they face oppression. I would love to have an answer for my next question.. How can the majority of a country be oppressed? Also, my opponent failed to realize that this debate is referring to Christians in the present. I do not believe that an incident in 1834 has any relevance to this argument. However I will accept it. Christians on a daily basis deny liberties such as women's reproductive rights, the ability for the LGBT community to be wed and even in certain states not allowing someone who is atheist to run for office. Christianity is shoved in the faces of children in school (ex. the pledge) and it is on our money (In God We Trust) Clearly pro realizes that Christians control the United State especially in politics. There is a fabulous quote by Jon Stewart which captures Christian oppression exactly, "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively." My opponent believes that stating a few acts against Christianity can prove it's oppression. However, more recently there have been several acts of great violence that have been committed by Christians. Click the link below to view such atrocities: http://www.alternet.org... Also referring to my opponents examples of Christian Oppression in the past I would like to bring up these instances: http://markhumphrys.com... I believe that I have brought up several more examples than Pro. So please take what I have stated and my evidence into consideration while voting. Thank you
Christians oppressed in the US

My opponent has not addressed my interpretation of the resolution, nor has my opponent attacked or discredited my evidence , so we can assume that these must flow through. To reiterate the points that I previously brought up, I said that because the resolution states nothing about the status quo regarding Christian oppression, any instance of christian oppression that I bring up, so long as it is in the United States, must win the round. In order to satisfy that requisite I brought up median social hostilities in a number of countries, including the US. As the US does in fact have an index at all, it must mean that there is some level of hostility against Christians, hence oppression. Additionally, the resolution makes no provision for time; it only states Christians oppressed in the US. Thus, we can infer that any incident concerning oppression of Christians at any point in the history of America must make the pro win. So, I would like to cite two instances: "In Massachusetts, a convent"coincidentally near the site of the Bunker Hill Monument"was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent school." As well as the Mormon persecution with instances throughout the 1830s and 40s. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com...) This evidence empirically proves that there was, and is Christian Oppression. Admittedly, there is extremely little in the modern day, but the resolution does not restrict the debate solely to the modern time. My opponent basically stated that because there is a lot of Christian privileges that there is no oppression. This is inherently fallacious logic; simply because there is a surplus of Christians being pampered by no means proves that there is no oppression. There are a lot of rich white people, but just because some are rich does not mean that all are. My opponent is making an enormous generalization, and has not provided any evidence that there is no oppression. The only argument she has brought up is a weak inference that oppression might not be there. As I have provided evidence that there is in fact Christian oppression there can be no other ballet but that of the Pro.
Should teachers teach about non-straight sex

I Object! Voters should note that my opponent has not given gravity to which age groups teachers should be teaching Non-straight sex, or much simply, sex education. In the light of the argument, I have no option but to assume that the debate is based on Middle-High School, as there are only professors in colleges. *MY ARGUMENT* In schools, the age group varies , in this case , from 12-17. This is the definite period of adolescence where the child learns new things about his body and other things around him/her. If Teachers jump directly to sex education, and that too an intricate and complex topic like Gay Sex, a lot of information would go misunderstood, or not understood at all. In the begging, teachers should be free to teach about sexual reproduction, which they already teach, but jumping to homosexuality, will be rather stupid. Homosexuality is a sexual attraction to one's own sex. It is not a gender, but it is a sexual preference. In schools or at comparatively lower ages, children are unable to identify their sexual preference. Usually 1 in every 12-14 children turn out to be gay. That being said, even if they do, it is unfair for the teachers to give importance to Gay Sex rather than Straight Sex altogether. That will be it for now.
Should teachers teach about non-straight sex

I believe that, teachers should teach about non-straight sex because of safety, self image and respect. Firstly let's go into safety. I've heard lots of stories about people getting injured and STDs from unsafe straight sex. In non-straight sex there are a lot more to worry about, so people have to deal with these problems more often. Also in non-straight sex there are more misconceptions because people don't have figures clearing these things up. Secondly is self-image. Lots of young LGBT people that I've talked to, have problems with their self-image and accepting themselves. All of that is heightened when they don"t know what to do, when they want to explore their body's or have non-straight intercourse. Lastly respect. We can't get rid of disrespect but we can move it form sexuality. I say this with proof from myself. I used to have homophobic tendencies and when I wanted to insult somebody that's what I would go to. Homophobia comes from two places mainly, religion and not understanding; so we can help one of them at least.
Cash for crappy cars

First, let me start off by correcting a couple errors I overlooked before submitting. 1. Dow 9,093.24 -- 9,382.92 (+236.66, +1.37% from previous day.) - Dow 9,093.24 -- 9,382.92 (+126.66, +1.37% from previous day.)* 2. The average mpg increase for the fuel economy is estimated to be 9 mpg. - The average mpg increase for the fuel economy is estimated to be 9.6 mpg.* 3. It will save each driver of these new cars around $580 each year, saving $58 million gallons each year. - It will save each driver of these new cars around $580 each year, saving 58 million gallons each year.* 4. Removing older cars from the road will not only reduce fossil fuels being used, but also shows a majority of trucks and SUVs being traded in for passenger cars. - Removing older cars from the road has reduced the amount of fossil fuels being used. Statistics show that the majority of trucks and SUVs are being traded in for passenger cars. And the only thing left to do, without more arguments from my opponent, would be to tie up any loose ends: "They all so fell yesterday like the Dow it was doing really bad starting out at 8,000 something it has gone up but here we go again its going back down." - The stock market does that. It did go back down on august 6th, only to rise again august 7th. It has been on a rising trend since July 4th. "The worlds going to end some day so y not now and not let this happen again. So lets not worry about taking the crappy cars off the road and let the gas go." - Sort of a big leap there, ya think? "Some people can't afforded new cars so they have to stay with the gas taker cars. Lucky them Not." - People are still in fact able to buy used cars if they choose, no one is forcing them to participate in the program. "They also didn't know if they wanted to start this program cause they have been thinking about it for 7 months now and they finally let it go to see what it did it made some stuff go up for now but now that dealerships aren't doing it no more the stocks are going back down." - Not true at all in fact. The program has been tested in several different places world wide, as well as here in the States. And I like to have a little faith in my government, enough to believe it wouldn't just implement a program to "let it go to see what it did".
Cash for crappy cars

Alright, I'll target one argument this round and his other arguments in Round 2 while responding to any rebuttals. As for now, here are my arguments in favor of the CARS program. But first a brief summary on the topic: CARS stands for Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers). It was pitched a year ago in the New York Times by a well known economist, Alan Blinder. Ever since then, a majority of democrats in the House and Senate have been eating it up. The program had been tried in a few states to improve air quality, and it championed exceptionally small decreases in air pollution.[2] The program was instituted just weeks ago, and Congress has recently approved $2 billion dollars to extend Cash for Clunkers.[7] 240,000 Americans have already traded in their clunkers.[4] I will explain more with my arguments which I will divide into 2 separate parts: 1. Economy - (Market Data [1]) 7/7/09 -- 8/7/09 (8/6/09) Dow 9,093.24 -- 9,382.92 (+236.66, +1.37% from previous day.) NASDAQ 1,746.17 -- 1,999.91 (+26.75, +1.36% from previous day.) S&P 881.03 -- 1,011.39 (+14.31, +1.44% from previous day.) There is no direct correlation between Cash for Clunkers and declines in the stock market. In fact, since July 24th the averages continue on a steady incline, with a few sudden and short lived declines. Cash for Clunkers is meant to increase consumer spending and put money back into the economy. As automotive sales had been at the lowest in years, the cash for clunkers program has increased sales. For example, GM has boasted a 28.7% stock value increase this quarter, and although sales are down 3.1% from this time last year, its an increase from the 11% they were down at the start of this year.[6] And Cash for Clunkers is also an indirect investment in the job security of employees of over 100 companies that rely on GM. These companies and suppliers will go bankrupt along with GM, which alone has around 69,000 U.S. Employees.[8] I haven't found any statistic estimating the jobs at stake, nor can I guess.[3] Keep in mind GM is only one of The Big Three automotive companies. The average mpg increase for the fuel economy is estimated to be 9 mpg, from 15.8 to 25.4 mpg, a 61% increase.[4] The increase is a static analysis and calculated to save 80,000 barrels of oil each day.[7] It will save each driver of these new cars around $580 each year, saving $58 million gallons each year.[5] 2. Environment - Removing older cars from the road will not only reduce fossil fuels being used, but also shows a majority of trucks and SUVs being traded in for passenger cars. If that's not enough to sway any Global Warming fanatics, then how about the estimation that there will be around a 575,000 ton reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, reducing greenhouse gases.[5] [1] http://moneycentral.msn.com... [2] http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com... [3] http://www.newsweek.com... [4] http://www.time.com... [5] http://www.istockanalyst.com... [6] http://www.michigandaily.com... [7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cash for crappy cars

This was going to be a great idea for for about a week but instead they had to at another 2 million dollars to it. Dealers are starting to say that people are so post to take back their cars. I found this on this web site http://uaddit.com... Dealerships give customers the program's $4,500 trade-in rebates up front, then must file paperwork with the federal government to be reimbursed by stimulus dollars. Cosignatory says her dealership has not gotten any of their program paperwork approved so far and wants the new car back in the meantime. It's dum people thought it was going to bring the economy up (it did a little) but the stocks are starting to fall again This table charts the key U.S. financial indices by their last reported value and change since the most recent trading day opened. Index Last Change Dow 9,256.26 -24.71 (-0.27%) NASDAQ 1,973.16 -19.89 (-1.00%) S&P 997.08 -5.64 (-0.56%) They all so fell yesterday like the Dow it was doing really bad starting out at 8,000 something it has gone up but here we go again its going back down. The worlds going to end some day so y not now and not let this happen again. So lets not worry about taking the crappy cars off the road and let the gas go. Some people can't afforded new cars so they have to stay with the gas taker cars. Lucky them Not. They also didn't know if they wanted to start this program cause they have been thinking about it for 7 months now and they finally let it go to see what it did it made some stuff go up for now but now that dealerships aren't doing it no more the stocks are going back down.
Civil Rights in businesses does nothing more then mask the problem and should be abolished.

I believe civil rights should be done away with when it comes to businesses. I believe that businesses should have the choice to hire or fire anyone for any reason. If a business does not want to hire or serve a particular race or age or gender of people then that should be completely up to the business. For example a law that forces a white racist to serve black people against his will only masks the still present racist feelings in the white owner. Now black people are going to the business and buying goods, they are supporting this business with their money, yet they have no idea that the very business they are supporting financially through the buying of goods, is owned by a racist. These customers are now unknowingly supporting a racist. The black customers are giving money to a business that is owned by a person who hates them. But, because of civil rights and the law, that business remains in a forced cloak of good, a cloak of good over a heart of bigotry. Now, if the business was allowed to choose to serve whites only, then people would learn about how that business is racist and they would no longer support that business. If I, a white person, learned that a business would serve me, but not serve black people, then I myself would not support that business. In addition I would tell as many people as I could to not support that business. People will want to talk to the owner, local people in town will want to talk with the owner, debates will be starting, thinking will be started, and that discussion and thinking is just what is needed to solve the problem. It is just a lack of understanding that causes a person to be racist. Once they understand they will no longer be racist. Am I saying converting a racist will be easy? Absolutely not, but it is very possible and necessary to truly solving the problem. One of my repeating themes is that laws do not solve problems. If laws solved problems, then that would be a nice thought, yet in the real world that just isn't so. To simply set a law in place to fix a problem is just too easy of a solution to be the right one. The solution is knowledge and understanding, and that is a hard and rocky path, but in the end will pay off greatly. Civil rights when it comes to goverment is absolutely right, but when it comes to businesses, I believe civil rights is absolutely wrong. We must stop pretending, and and start being real, as hard as that might be.
Civil Rights in businesses does nothing more then mask the problem and should be abolished.

watied to long to type this but the civil war and those who died would not have died in vein at all. Slavery was ended, everyone has a right to vote now, and a slew of other good things came about. Ending the segregation in schools. When it come to government there should absolutly be civil rights because the government is everyones but when it come to a buseinss that people choose to go to that is a much different. People do not need to go to these businesses they choose to and when a person makes a choice that mean they must follow the rules of the business, it would be like someone coming into your house and then the government telling you have to be nice to them. It doesn't work, forcing people to be good does nothing but cause more problems.
Hollister is Overrated

First of all, just because the mission statement says that their clothing is geared more towards college students, doesn't mean that other age groups can't purchase their product. For you to make a statement like "their mission statement does not always follow through; In my class of 17 8th graders, more than half own American Eagle clothing." is completely ignorant. From your statement it sounds as if you're blaming American Eagle, as if they should guard the doors from anyone younger than college aged. Sorry, but my statement that Hollister is just a fad doesn't prove your point what-so-ever. Your argument was that Hollister was overrated, if you wanted to argue that fads are overrated then you can make another debate attacking fads or teen culture, or society. But this is not where that arguement is going to take place. What i'm saying is that you're irresponsibly singling out Hollister when Hollister is just one of many. Also, fads aren't seen to be overrated, they're looked back upon, but that's completely up to the individual on what they see that era's style or fad is seen to be. When I say it's a quality product, i mean i's a long lasting product. If you need something that'll absorb your mess, I'd try Brawny or possibly a bib. If you'd go to other stores popular with teens such as Pac Sun you'd see that the shirts run around $20 and jeans are relatively $60, polos from pacsun are $30 and are about $25 at American Eagle, and hoodies do run around $100 these days. It's not to look cool, but if that is the style that someone has, that's their style. If one has money to pay for it, well then that's their perogative. I think girls find an empty wallet and a nice hoodie more attractive than someone who can't drink a cup of water without making a mess. Thanks for the luck you've wished me. I really needed it to be able to follow what your argument is and to be able to figure out your logic.
Hollister is Overrated

"American Eagle or The Limited, if you'd even like to call The Limted competition, is based towards a college and older crowd." While American Eagle's mission statement is that their products are directed toward college students, their mission statement does not always follow through; In my class of 17 8th graders, more than half own American Eagle clothing. I have been in an AE Outfitters store, and more than half of the customers are teens, and even some tweens. "Hollister is just a fad, it's the latest craze." Yes, Hollister is a fad. It is the latest craze. Fads are often considered "cool" for a short period of time, and then tossed aside and moved on. Fads are looked back on, and are seen to be overrated. Your statement of Hollister being "just a fad" contradicts yourself, and thus proves that Hollister is overrated. "I've purchaed jeans and a few shirts from Hollister, and I must say it's a quality product." I have too, indeed. I am, in fact, wearing, a Hollister shirt as I type; it is made out of cheap cloth and cotton. I spilled water on it today, and rather than evaporate after a while, the sopping water stuck to my shirt for an hour, causing the shirt to sag down. Another shirt, like my AE one, is made out of thicker cloth and cotton, allowing the water to be absorbed without an issue. "It's not too over priced as far as T-shirts go, they're acually cheaper or competitive with most other clothing stores." Au contraire. The T-shirt I purchased from Hollister was $15; the cheapest of the sort I have seen. All other products from Hollister range from $15-around $100. What teen in their right mind would pay $100 for a hoodie? For what? To make you cooler? Maybe, if you think girls consider empty wallets attractive. The price of their polos are even more outrageous; they start at $29.50. Outrageous. I bought two polos at Aeropostale for $25, each for $12.50. I also saw a hoodie at Aeropostale for $15-the same price as the cheapest possible Hollister product. A hoodie at Hollister can ring you up for around $50. And the quality isn't any better, and sometimes, less! Astounding. Claiming that Hollister's products are "cheaper" than other competitor's products is really going out on a limb, I'm sorry.