BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

In closing: No your point is my point, exactly. It is the Federal or States flag code which may need editing, to remove a word from associating the Republics non-incriminating declaration as it relates to the understanding of the letters GOD inside the pledge of allegiance. As it clearly States, I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the "Republic" for which it stands, not the Flag of the United States of America and "Christianity" for which it stands. Possession is Nine Points of the Law Law and Legal Definition. Possession means holding property in one"s power or the exercise of domination over property. By having possession one exercises control over something to the exclusion of all others. Christianity has no possession over the Letters GOD in the case of the pledge of allegiance. Unless Christianity can substantiate how an axiom using numbers can be used as a model for a non-biased forms of justice for all. Like the claim states in the pledge of allegiance. https://definitions.uslegal.com... You are very welcome for the debate your efforts and knowledge are very impressive. Keep in mind when the axiom is abused it establishes a number. That number is 911 this is fact. Also keep in mind religion is at the Center of all World Trade, so this creates a great value on the only known legal separation process from self- incrimination. It is not a Theory it is an alibi, held in trust for the Republic, by the Republic of the United States of America. As We the people, for the people. For Congress can pass no law respecting the establishment of religion. The republics evidence clears both President elect and congress to spite their own possible bias. Good Luck".. All the Republic asks is for Representation" It is not a religious GOD.
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

I agree; your point is not my point. My point is that the words "under God" should be removed because in the Flag Code it CLEARLY STATES that the words "under God" refereed to the religion of Christianity and none else which leaves NO ROOM for any other theories of whether or not the words "under God" refers to another religion. However, you do not make yourself clear in stating whether or not you believe that the words should be removed or not, coming up with theories on what the words mean when the Flag Code, the Knights of Columbus, Eisenhower, and EVERYONE in Congress have agreed that the words "under God" mean the Christian God. I know that this is the last argument but for the past four arguments you have not stated what stance you are taking and I refuse to deduce for the fear of making a mistake.
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

"The understanding is straight forward. People may be free to believe that "Article VI, United States Constitution" may not apply. All Depts Contracted and Engagements entered into before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made. (This is not excluding the Separation of Church and State, which is held as self-evident inside the United States Constitution itself) under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States an of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." This is a very complicated issue which pivots on the basic differences and evolution of a voting consensus, as at this time in world history the voting public has been greatly increased. The position a citizen holds with power to vote, places them into public office. Where is this going, as people we are free to believe that the Letters GOD, God, and however written god are only a religion. Still no religious test can be given to hold office, so by affirmation and a stance outside religion, an axiom of god has full rights to representation equal to the flag in any Nations Pledge of Allegiance by this Condition. "The topic was whether or not the words "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance should or should not be removed." Addressing the term of letters God as being an example as visually confusing the principle may be, the phrase under God is no more than admitting truth we are all under an order of often complex principle. Your point is not my point; as the line between them takes shape, it is the image which is created when only two ends meet which describe the body of State.
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Once again thank you for your time and your refute is very impressive however after reading our arguments over again, I have realized that both of us may have gone off topic by assuming the meaning of the word "God" when the topic was whether or not the words "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance should or should not be removed. I believe we should stray away from our interpretations of the word God and get onto the real topic. I say we should begin the REAL disscussion at Round Five. What say you?
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

You are welcome and it is a pleasure to debate this topic with you. Completely off topic is an exaggeration. If you would like time to gather information that supports a limit words must have by definition in law. To debate or better prepare argument, I would understand. There are no facts that tie the use of God, god, and GOD to only be religion based on strictly only Christian beliefs or English grammar. Where the witness you provide, a former President Elect of the United States is impressive, it does not make the witness perfect, all knowing, or the holder of the only meanings of word, words, letter and letters. When a person offers letter, word, or words to a crowd of people, everyone is allowed to examine them and introduce meaning or definition, even if contrary to a label it was previously given by sue of law, or in this case more specifically if it carries as an burden of religious bias. Regardless if a "President elect " introduced it by written law for all posterity, before the Republic of the United States. It doesn"t dictate that this verbal and written incrimination must be left to stand against it. The United States holds the only written non- biased Separation of Church and State, by Constitution in the world. Where all people may not be so inclined to preserve it. As proved by the number of Amendment held against it. It most certainly can be used to protect, preserve, and defend it. Moving one step forward in this round three. As a common defense and to insure the general welfare. It could be described that what is seen as interpretation, is not interpretation at all. Simple just facts either ignored or never learned by few ,or by many, for money, or for promise of money, by taxation, or by donation. Regardless of how the phrase has been presented to us, "We the People" of the Republic of these United States of America. No law should states, that the Republic is bound to exemption from its own Constitution created under an axiom, and must allow itself to be openly and publicly incriminated. Very possibly by those religions people who may fear it as a symbol to a false profit of their own religious design.
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Once again thank you, but I am afraid I must say somethings you might deem harsh: 1) I'm afraid that you have gone completely off topic, suggesting mathematical concepts instead of religious and logical concepts. 2) Once again I'm afraid you misinterpret me and I have made it clear that the words "under God" are religious, means people of different religion are praying to God and the conclusive fact that the word "God" in the pledge is upper-cased, meaning that it means the Christian "God", not any other god or else that god would be lower-cased. 3) The law Eisenhower passed says that the words "under God" were for Christians. Sorry for being both blunt and rash and I hope you can understand, but I have to say you have misinterpreted my meaning.
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

You are welcome, thank you for starting and excepting the debate. Roman numerals follow the history of Rome itself from the early stages at the Latin Palatine hill in the 8th and 9th century BC to its fall in the 2nd Century AD from Civil war. Plague, civil apathy and the rise of Christianity and Northern European powers. (http://www.thefactsite.com...) Any connection to a possible plagiarism of the term God by religion, or even the association a President elect of the United States may have had with a term. Does not mean a religion, or group of religions have the authority to hold a definition incriminating to the United States, and its prescribed method of Constitutional Separation. Roman Numerals in documents and inscriptions from the middle ages sometimes include symbols which are today called "medieval Roman numerals". Notes and etymology, O, Presumed abbreviation of "onze", French for 11. G representing the number 400, and finally D abbreviates Quingenti, Latin for 500. (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org... When placed in the described order of GOD forms a number by use of equation, which can be describes as a basic principle and model for algebra. The translation as written 400, 11, 500, solved by applying a mathematics principle 500 " ( 400 " 11) to establish an answer of 89. The principle is the same as a person might write 4 with the roman numerals IV, or 6 VI. We establish a personal liberty to which we can understand and gain not only knowledge but wisdom. Eisenhower was quoted as saying: "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it." ( Wikipedia) The goal set before me is to provide a self-evident truth. Meaning something a person can be shown then see for themselves. Interpretation is not a substitute for Constitutional truth, basic truth guided by precedent that does not always stop at what the first witness may introduce as fact.
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Now, i shall say only one thing, and that is that many religions worship their god under one name such as Buddha, Allah, etc. Eisenhower (the one who passed the law saying that "under God" should be put into the Pledge) said that the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance meant God as in the Christian faith and you may search it up as it was passed in 1954. The words "under God" were meant to separate us from the U. S. S. R. and was proposed by the Catholic group "Knights of Columbus". Thus,I believe that it was you who had misinterpreted the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and that it must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Once again thank you for your time.
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

The declaration of Independence made for you today is that "GOD" is a mathematical axiom. It has many purposes and not just a limited definition dictated by religion, a person may have grown accustom with just one definition, so the direct point. If the axiom of GOD can be presented in self-evident form to you. Making itself independent of a religious GOD, it has a right to not only be seen, it should also be heard, equal representation, by any tax sponsored separation including the pledge of allegiance to a Republic. A Nation is described by Google as a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. You have already said you share the same language this axiom symbolizes, that a person's chosen belief can not be wrong. only misunderstood.
The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

"No child should go to school each day to have the class declare that her religious beliefs are wrong in an exercise that portrays her and her family as less patriotic than believers." -David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association Back then, we were a nation full of white and Christian people, we were that same nation who added "under God" to show that we were different from the Soviet Union. But now, it is not the same. America is a changing country; a melting pot of people from different parts of the world and of different religions who worship another higher being. Many of them are all American citizens who have contributed almost their entire lives to the "American Dream" and would do anything to protect America, this pinnacle of light. However, many of these people are suppressed, and the pledge of allegiance is one of the things that does that; the words "under God" are just too old these days when there are so many people who worship another and it is time Congress and Mr. Obama and President-elect Trump should consider to remove the religion barrier that separates us as a nation. Those words may have proven us as a nation before, but time has moved on and change is rapid, and one of those things that must be changed is our pledge and the removal of the words "under God" in the pledge.
A Pure Democracy is less free than a Constitutional Republic

Hi. I'm Justin. I'll be arguing for the Pro stance on this resolution. Freedom, as defined by Merriam Webster:a : having the legal and political rights of a citizenb : enjoying civil and political liberty <free citizens>c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside dominationd : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another I elect we choose D. If my opponent wishes to suggest a different definition, so be it. But, if we are to argue the relevance and accuracy of definitions, support will be required for why the new definition is more legitimate than mine.
Wikipedia is a good source of information

I hear it all the time on here and so do most of you, someone makes a reference to a Wikipedia article in a debate, the other side instantly claims that it is not a reliable source for information, but never actually explains why.... I have looked through many Wikipedia articles over the years and all of them are neutral over controversial issues, straightforward in anything relating to math, gives reasonably accurate statistics about past wars, and gives both sides of the story on historical events such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc. and it only uses general facts for anything else The Con must argue that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source under any circumstances. The Con is allowed to use the first round to state their arguments. If you accept this don't be a troll or end up forfeiting every round.
Wikipedia is a good source of information

I will end this debate by countering my opponent's statements. Also, I am sorry for the late response, for i have been feeling a tad under the weather and have been essentially immobile for the whole day. 1. The point I have been trying to make this entire debate is that you do not in fact know if someone is only editing the part of an article that they ostensibly know about. Refer to my previous arguments if you need further proof. 2. I hardly think the term occasionally is appropriate for the amount of blunders Wikipedia's free editing system is responsible for. Additionally, if you are admitting it is an invalid source, why should it be trusted? 3. This source I gave was from the Vancouver sun news paper, and it does not simply imply it, it flat out says "It's estimated there are 100,000 ‘sabotaged' pages on Wikipedia" 4. I fail to see how "anything new and complicated" could be considered scholarly, it may be possible that such things could be created by scholarly people, but you fail to provide a source proving your definition, so i assume we should just stick with mine 5. What I was saying is that if one believed that, for some reason, Wikipedia is a legitimate source, they would be more trusting with the site and be susceptible to false information from the site, and if one did not trust Wikipedia, they would not use it and be safe from acquiring false knowledge 6. By this I clearly did not mean that any of your sources was faulty, i merely asked you to link the site that was locked in result of the Palin-follower vandalisms to Wikipedia. Unfortunately you did not do so, and therefore, both of us will never know to what extent this site was locked. 7. How do you know how much longer the articles are for the Encyclopedia Britannica? and additionally, How many articles are there? I would have liked to see this before you provided these calculations. In conclusion, Wikipedia, notorious for it's factual blunders, is not a site to be trusted. Why else would schools across the nation bar it as a reliable source? I believe i have provided far enough information to say that it is Fact that Wikipedia has no right to say it is a reliable source. Thank you for this WONDERFUL debate, seeing as it is my first, and I urge the Judges to vote for the Con. Thank you!
Wikipedia is a good source of information

Last round(finally) Ill give some quick final remarks and then end with a statement 1) The point of this argument was to show that people who contribute to wiki articles often know about the subject they are editing, and they are not editing the whole thing they only edit the part of the article (whatever it may be) that they know about. Also anything they do edit is examined first by the couple thousand editors and only then is approved or deleted. 2) Wikipedia is known for occasionally being an invalid source on some information, but I am trying to show that Wikipedia in general is a very decent source of information 3) I believe that no site would show each and every screw up in Wikipedia, what I was questioning though is that the one source you gave only implies there is 100,000 errors. I tried to find out how many Wikipedia errors there were but every link i found only showed 5 to 10. There isnt a source that definately states that there are 100,000 errors on Wikipedia, the source the con gave only implis there are but doesnt offer any evidence of how they found this alleged 100,000 4) That depends on what the definition of the word "scholarly" that he was referring too. He may be referring to anything advanced like you said or anything that is relatively new and complicated. It all depends on the context of the quote: "It's great for general information, but as a scholarly resource it falls short. " It all depends on the term scholarly. .. . and even then the quote is just showing his opinion of Wikipedia 5) So we agree then that only a very very small proportion of information on Wikipedia is subject to vandalism? 6) I provided 4 different sources just to be safe in case one of them didnt work, which source didnt work though when I tried all four of them they all worked fine. .. . 7) If Wikipedia has 3.5 errors per page then according to the sources the Encyclopedia Britannica has about 2.5 errors per page even though they have half the information on any subject compared to Wikipedia Wikipedia = 3.5 errors x 3,719,838 = 13,019,433 errors Encyclopedia Britannica = 2.5 errors x 3,719,838 x 2 (since their articles are shorter than Wikipedia) = 18,599,190 So to summarize following the Cons logic Wiki mistakes = 13,019,433 Ecyc. Brit. = 9,299,595 mistakes Ecyc. Brit. = 18,599,190 mistakes if length of information between both were equal. Wikipedia may be known for some historic blunders, but many sources and studies show that Wikipedia is very accurate when it comes down to many different subjects. Many sites and studies also find that the information found on Wikipedia is comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. This combined with the thousands of people who constantly keep Wikipedia up to date, along with the low number of vandalism that does occur on the website, along with the response and protection of articles that are subjected to vandalism, makes me feel that Wikipedia is indeed a reliable source. . http://howtosplitanatom.com... . http://news.cnet.com... . http://slashdot.org... . http://www.nationaltechcenter.org... . http://www.cbsnews.com... . http://www.cbsnews.com... :D
Wikipedia is a good source of information

Response to Pro's counter-points 1. I thank you for finally letting me know what you mean by this, but my argument still stands, with all of the mishaps and errors going on with Wikipedia it is best to utilize other sources available when one is searching for information. 2. People likely look on Wikipedia to find out information, what I am saying is that people should be informed that Wikipedia is notorious for being an invalid source so that they have the option to legitimate information. 3. It is true that there are several websites listing famous Wikipedia blunders in groups of "top 5's" or "top 10's" at a time. This is only Because Wikipedia has made over 100,000 failed articles. I hardly think Any person would ever give up a portion of their life to list every single Wikipedia blunder in History, that would be absolutely ridiculous. 4. I hardly think Scholarly is defined as "new and advanced stuff". Is an Ancient world historian not a scholar? The oxford dictionary defines Scholarly as "having or showing knowledge, learning, or devotion to academic pursuits". So, in other words, anyone willing to look up information that is even remotely considered scholarly must not be trusted. 5. Regarding how one judges the legitimacy of Wikipedia. It is more than likely that one would go to the Wikipedia site to find information that they do not know. In this case, how could one figure out if a piece of information was "a little off"? 6. I now Agree with you on this part, seeing as you have finally shown that it was locked, but 1: why present 4 different sites? and 2: If you do not mind, could you also link the page that was locked. 7. If Wikipedia has "only 3 or 4" errors per article, and there are approximately 3,719,838 articles on Wikipedia (lets say 3.5 is the average amount of errors in Wikipedia) 3.5 x 3719838 = 13,019,433 errors on Wikipedia. I fail to see how this is possibly considered minor.