BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Song debate

For this next song I choose 99 LuftBalloons by Nena. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Lyrics in English: (http://german.about.com...)This song is very important as this shows that it's not just the immidiate West and East that are worrying about the war. Nena is a German who sang this song in warning how horrible things can occur. The song starts out by showing how World War 2 ends, "about 99 balloons/on their way to the horizon" (Nena 3-4). The balloons that go up is likely to be describing when the troops return home from the war and the celebration that they have returned. This shows the happy times here, but things suddenly go south, "People think they're UFO's from space/so a general sent up/a fighter squadron after them/Sound the alarm if it's so" (Nena 11-14). This shows that how high the tensions were once again. Many people were fearing the opposing side and fear of UFOs being government projects were heard all the time. This heightend when Sputnik went up so we can see that it has to be a Western Power that see's these balloons and over react. Next, Nena shows the chain of reaction of war that occurs, "99 fighter jets/Each one's a great warrior/Thought they were Captain Kirk/then came a lot of fireworks/the neighbors didn't understand anything/and felt like they were being provoked/so they shot at the horizon" (Nena 17-23). Here this shows the escallation and how this happend to be a mistake caused by 99 Red Balloons that caused this war between these two warring nations. It is soon to enveloped all nations through the nummerous treaties that everyone is involved in from NATO, to the Warsaw Pact, to the 3rd Way. It shows that the war goes nuclear and in a nuclear war there are no victors, "99 years of war/left no room for victors./There are no more war ministers/nor any jet fighters./Today I'm making my rounds/see the world lying in ruins" (Nena 33-37). We can see in the final line of the song that the Nuclear War has killed everyone and has left not one to come out on top. "I found a balloon,/think of you and let it fly (away)." (Nena 38-39).
Song debate

() My topic is: American Patriotism. The first song is God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood. My reasoning behind this song: When you first hear the lyrics it describes if someone had to start over completely with just their family, then he would only do so in America for one main reason. That the flag stands for freedom. Regardless of anywhere else on the world, his freedom is what he values in the midst of the greatest hardship. It continues on to the main chorus, describing how he is proud of his country and those who served in its army. This is now considered as a reference to those in Afghanistan as depicted in the video. The song describes the immensely different landscapes in America and how all are free. It then again references his pride to be American and his thankfulness towards those who have fought for it and died for it. He proclaims that he would gladly stand next to these men who have defended his freedom to the best of their abilities because of his love of the American ideals. This song has often been used as a representation of the feelings following the 9/11 events and those following it. I can distinctly remember this song being played at schools following the attack on the remembrance date of 9/11 and the amount of people who have used this song since to represent those soldiers who we send into the Middle East. This concludes my first song and so turn it over to you, Lannan.
Song debate

My topic I choose is: The Cold War turning into a nuclear War.Up first for my song choice I choose "A Letter from the Shettler," by Planet P Project. http://www.youtube.com...Lyrics: (http://www.lyricsmode.com...)This song is extremely important as it shows the worst from the Cold War. This song actually give a specific incident, "And it was two-handed touch/Out on the white house lawn" (Planet P Project 11-12). This points out that this was during the Kennedy administartion as he and his family played "two-hand touch" on the White House lawn. The reason why it was Kennedy and not some other President is this is when the Cold War was the hottest and we were closest to nuclear war then at any other point in time. To make the song even better it gave several areas where it explains the "tips" for nuclear war at the time like, "And we were nobody's fools/Fillin' in the swimming pools/We poured concrete and steel/When the neighbours had gone" (Planet P Project 13-16). The reason they were told to fill in swimming pools is that they were told that during the Cold War that all power would be out and that there was no way to get clearn watter so what they had to do is fill their swimming pools with clean watter and that would be their drinking water during a nuclear war. The reason that they were building a fall out shelter when the neighbors were gone was not so much the fact of the neighbors telling the Soviets, but it is more of a trust issue. If you have a fall-out shelter and your neighbors do not and the bombs are being dropped. They will try to kill you and take your family's shelter for their own. More trust issues can be found in the Cold War was during the McCarthy anti-Communist raids and this really showed and revealed the trust issues within the US at the time of the Cold War whether the War would be on purpose or the source of a rogue officer like in the movie Dr. Strangelove. Another issue once again showing the tension of the two sides, "When a madman gets a gun/He's gonna point it at someone/If it's up in texas tower/Or over there across the pond" (Planet P Project 31-34). This once again reveals the tensions at the time and the Texas Tower line is actually an allusion to the mass shooting at Texas University when an armed gunman killed multiple people so this section personifies the two nations as people and it also shows that eventually someone might snap and lob a bomb. The Across the Pond line is another allusion to refer to the Atlantic Ocean. This can be seen to be refuring to Europe or even America since the band moved from the US to Europe.
Senator McCarthy was right in many/all of his accusations

Should I keep my arguments for the new debate? I would have more sympathy for your plight if you weren't the instigator of the whole thing! But yes I understand how things can catch up to you and you suddenly find yourself super busy. No worries, you start the next debate but please be a little more general with the topic because I feel like we can have a meaningful discussion on several different levels about McCarthy, the validity of the term "McCarthyism", and the nature of McCarthy's intent (you find it just. I find it to inevitably be demonizing and destructive)
Senator McCarthy was right in many/all of his accusations

First of all, I want to apologize for not addressing more of your points in my second argument. I had to post my response rather hurriedly, because I had to volunteer at the library. I hope to make up for it this time. As you said, I'll have to do better than that. I think the best thing we can do is start over, so I'm going to challenge you to a new debate on the same topic. Sorry again that I haven't performed up to snuff. Time has really been a problem these last few days.
Senator McCarthy was right in many/all of his accusations

You are correct in saying that whether McCarthy was literally "right" in his accusations is not the only issue that should be coming into play. His methods were really what determined the impression he made on people, which eventually led to his downfall. You suggest that I start another debate about McCarthy's "impact on American politics. " The problem, however, is that I DON'T believe McCarthy had a positive impact on America. He could have, conceivably, but his hardheaded methods and crucifixion by the media, without even going into the truth/untruth of his accusations, prevented it. I will, however, challenge you to a debate with this argument, "McCarthy COULD have had a positive impact on American politics. " I will do that. However, if you'd rather, we could continue with this debate. Regarding Annie Lee Moss: The FBI had, by virtue of its extensive counter-intelligence work, a list of CPA members. Annie Lee Moss' name appeared on that list. She also had once subscribed to the Daily Worker, a Communist (not Socialist) newspaper. Mrs. Moss, though she was an "elderly African-American woman," her job with the Army Signal Corps was certainly not as a cafeteria worker, and she was obviously an intelligent person. During the Army-McCarthy-Signal Corps. hearings, the official description of the job Moss performed was such: "[To] examine messages in tape form in code and clear text from Receiving Banks, to determine the coherence thereof, whether numbers are in the correct sequence, correctness of time or date group, precedence and whether complete. .. Messages received in code must be more carefully scrutinized inasmuch as it is more difficult to detect omissions or errors in coded letter or number groups. .. Process high precedence messages immediately by hand-carrying to overseas desk for quick routing. .. [Duties Include] recognition recording and disposition of encrypted messages destined for or received from the Crypto Center. .. etc. " It's obvious that Moss was no simpleton, contrary the impression that Symington, McClellan, and Jackson (who had all, by the way, known the Mrs. Moss' FBI file indicated she was a Communist party member. ) Indeed, after Moss stumbled reading a memo the army sent her, McClellan asked patronizingly, "Did you read that the very best you could? " This seems to me rather racist, as well as implying that Moss couldn't perform her job at all since it obviously involved reading and filing priority messages. A humorous footnote to this case was that Moss was actually a licensed Realtor in Washington D. C. She was definitely an intelligent person. Intelligent enough to perform her job at the Signal Corps. and intelligent enough to misuse those messages if she so pleased. McCarthy "went after" her out of the fear that her Communist affiliation made her do exactly that.
Senator McCarthy was right in many/all of his accusations

Even people who have nothing to do with politics know what politics did to Joe McCarthy. McCarthy has been portrayed as a "brawler"; making pointless (and baseless) accusations for his own benefit. For this, he was maligned to the point of being some sort of deranged bogeyman. "It's McCarthyism!!" "Well you're just a McCarthyite!" "Go to bed or McCarthy will get you!" and so on. He was cast from the Senate and his name was ruined. Everything you've ever heard about McCarthy is wrong. With the fall of the Soviet Union, many classified documents were released to the public. Along with newly declassified FBI records, these prove that many, if not all, of McCarthy's "victims" were, in fact, Communist party members or even agents of the Soviet Union, infiltrating the government. Of course, this information has not changed, in general, the historical view of McCarthy. Indeed, any time this hard evidence is brought up, it is dismissed as "old news." So, my thesis: McCarthy, though his methods were far from perfect, was correct in making most of his accusations. He made his accusations not from avarice, but from a sincere belief that those he accused were actively infiltrating the American government, and using their power to benefit Moscow. In nearly all of his cases, he was right.
The Iraq War

I didn't agree with the war when it began. I protested at Macdill Airforce base in Tampa and in NYC. I believe that this war is unjust. However, to cut and run now would -in the long run- have a net result worse than staying; in these terms: US lives, Iraqi lives, monetary cost, increasing the risk of a takeover by Islamic militants like Al Qaeda. If we cut and run Iraq will become Afghanistan 1996 all over again. The most extreme, militant elements, foreign and Iraqi will usurp the weak new government there and establish a base that is ten-fold more effective and dangerous than those in Afghanistan. We need to stay. Like General Powell said: we broke it, we fix it. It is entirely irresponsible to leave now just because things are going "bad." The champions of the war in 2003 when it first began didn't predict a "bad" situation (by the way, as wars go the US casualty rate is minimal compared to Korea, Vietnam, WWI, WWII, and The Civil War) now are squimish because marines are dying and dont have the stomach to see through the monstrosity that they started. The most responsible thing to do is to stay until a safe and secure Iraq is established.
Euthanasia Should Be Legal.

~Counterarguments~ 1. Stemming from my argument from Round 1, it's evident that I am arguing in favor of euthanasia by voluntary consent, and not euthanasia by involuntary consent (at least not in this specific debate). My apologies if this was unclear from just reading the resolution. Let's assume doctors do get paid for voluntary euthanasia, and in this case got paid a LOT for it. If this were to be a viable problem in the future due to fears of corruption, then the solution will be simply to not pay them for euthanasia procedures. With voluntary euthanasia, there could be legal documents or any other certified form of verification, perhaps like an audience of witnesses, of which before the patient will state that they are allowing their physician to perform the euthanasia procedure. The medical conditions of the patient should be reviewed by the hospital's panel of doctors, and a consensus on whether or not they should be allowed euthanasia can be reached. This will be to help prevent any corruption on the doctor's part, or someone else influencing from a third party. There are always scenarios in which we can think of where greed and malice trick the system, of course. However, this is true of many things in life right now. Undoubtedly there are many corrupt lawyers, police officers, businesses, and other people in high positions of influence. No system is perfect due to the nature of man, yet this doesn't translate into an argument against euthanasia. Lawyers are supposed to help the people, and police offers are supposed to protect society from dangerous individuals. There are many of each respective fields that are corrupt, but that does not mean we should stop both careers. Unless you can show how euthanasia will lead to great numbers of "falsely euthanasized patients", your argument fails. 2. I think it would be safe for me to say your argument commits the slippery slop fallacy. You stated that allowing euthanasia to be legal would entail in the future for laws to interpret it into something corrupt, something that will "control or manipulation against its people". However, you haven't stated what contingencies will lead to this. Your example of the Bush administration is a good example of a corrupt policy being CALLED OUT. Many people have discovered it, and rightfully damned it as unconstitutional and unjust. The famous scandal of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse lead to soldiers being prosecuted. In this case, the new "interpretation" of Torture under the Bush administration was rightly vilified.
Euthanasia Should Be Legal.

Euthanasia is legal in Texas, Oregon, and leaning towards legal in California. Gallup Poll shows that 80% of American agree Euthanasia should be legal (http://en.wikipedia.org...). So Technically Euthanasia is MOSTLY illegal but not completely. However, Euthanasia should be illegal because no law can be made that is perfect enough to ensure no abuses of Euthanasia will exist. 1. Many scenarios can occur where the ill can ultimately be manipulated by family, friends, or outside third parties to ask for Euthanasia. Not to mention that doctors would be receiving money for their work in Euthanasia. Money corrupts people and many scenarios can occur where greed leads to the murder of a human being disguised as Euthanasia. Legalization of Euthanasia would be permissible if all Men had integrity, honor, and compassion for one another. Then their would be absolute guarantee that abuses in the system would not exist. Unfortunately greed, malice, and selfishness do exist in our society. These flaws of man make it impossible for a system of assisted suicide to work flawlessly, and no law can be crafted that can produce a system absent of these flaws. Once you realize the reality of flawed human character and understand how that will breed abuses in the system it becomes a matter of how much we value Human life as a society. 2. You must trust the Government. Many do not trust government and for good reason. Politicians accept money from lobbyists and and create law to benefit those interests. This is a legal practice in Washington. They have written law in a way that is counter-productive to the legislation process. So can the congress pass law that will be counter-productive or corrupt in the case of Euthanasia. Once passed into law, Euthanasia can transform through amendments and interpretation. So years into the future a government can turn Euthanasia into a way of control or manipulation against its people. Like the Bush administration who redefined "Torture" as "Pressure" and we now have soldiers who water board detainees, force them into stress positions, or sexually humiliate and degrade them. By enacting legislation giving the power to kill in a society of flawed men is very dangerous and risky.
Euthanasia Should Be Legal.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending someone's life in a painless manner, under their full conscious consent. This is done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no foreseeable cures for their condition, a condition in which usually the patient is under excruciating pain. In a way, this is a form of suicide, one that is assisted by a physician who takes into consideration factors such as the condition of the patient; of whether or not they are viable for euthanasia. Individuals have the number one priority in a decision dealing with their own personal health and care. If they consent to euthanasia, then it should rightfully be granted to them. I will develop my arguments in further rounds.
Separation of Church and State

1. The Nature of the Separation of Church and State, and the Establishment ClauseYes, the first amendment says congress can't establish religion, or prohibit the free exercise of. [1] This is separation of Church from Congress, not separation of Church and State. Like I have shown in previous rounds this allowed State governments to have sponsored religion which wasn't against the constitution. This shows that the first amendment doesn't separate church and state. As far as Jefferson "Thomas Jefferson attended this church service in Congress" and "and his familyhave constantly attended public worship in the Hall" of the House of Representatives." [2] Yes, Jefferson did draft the declaration of independence, and he put the words "endowed by their creator" which is very much mixing church and state. The founders believed that there should not be a church of the United States, but not total separation.It is true the founders didn't want a theocracy, but they didn't want separation either. A government could be run without supporting faith, but this was never intended "I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" - Ben Franklin [3]To a point it is valid what the intent was is invalid, but I was using to show that the first amendment does not create such a separation. 2. Religion in Government TodayThere is many ways in which we do not have separation between church and state.On all our currency today the words "In God we Trust" appears, and those words also appear in the House of Representatives, which is a clear non-separation between church and state. Also, in the pledge of allegiance the words "under God" are also a non-separation. When a president is sworn in they say "so help me God" while having a hand on a bible, which is a non-separation. Then there are these things called blue laws which are " in U.S. history, a law forbidding certain secular activities on Sunday." Which was held constitutional in the supreme court 8-1. [5] There are 22 references to God in US code [6] Also, when the supreme court is entering session at the end they say "God save the United States and this honorable Court" [7]3. Briefly bout De facto SeparationAbortion was enacted by a court ruling [8] and is slowly going away [10], Gay Marriage is often also by court ruling and is still banned in 33 states, and Contraception covered is not in effect as there is a supreme court case pending on the constitutionality of such a thing. [9] Such things are almost never by choice, but by force. Sources:[1] http://www.archives.gov...[2] http://www.loc.gov...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://www.britannica.com...[5] http://www.oyez.org...[6] http://undergod.procon.org...[7] http://www.supremecourt.gov...[8] http://www.oyez.org...[9] http://usnews.nbcnews.com...[10] http://www.procon.org...
Separation of Church and State

1. The Nature of the Separation of Church and State, and the Establishment ClauseThe first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." [1] It states nothing about separation. The term "comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to a Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut." [2] 15 years after the constitution. "The Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating." [2] This can be seen with a quote by John Adams "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [3] Also all the thirteen original colonies had a state supported church with the last one disestablished in 1877. [4]So, it was not in the foundation of the U.S. and the founders approved of religion in Government.Sorry about the short, incomplete response, but time has been an issue lately. I will make a full response next time, but I wanted to at least confront the first point.Sources[1] http://www.archives.gov...[2] http://www.prageruniversity.com...[3] http://catholiceducation.org...[4] http://undergod.procon.org...
Separation of Church and State

PrefaceGuidestone and I had been having an interesting discourse regarding the role of religion in theU.S. in the comments of my Gay Marriage debate with InVinoVeritas. While talking more in the PMs, we decided on this rather intriguing topic, and I look forward to a stimulating debate.TopicIn the United States, there is separation of Church and State.Rules1. No forfiets2. All sources my be cited in the text of the speech3. BOP is shared: Pro must show that it should be there; Con must show that it should not4. Violation of any of the R1 set-up merits a 7-point lossStructureR1: Acceptance. Con may present arguments in R1 if he wishes, but he must then forgo doing so in R5R2: ArgumentsR3: ArgumentsR4: ArgumentsR5: Summary (no new arguments or responses)Thanks...to Guidestone for this great debate, and to the judges for taking their time to score this debate!