BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Patriotism

Very good job. -The mentality of patriotism leads people to think of there nation as their identity. They then, obviously, think of a separate nation as a different nation as a separate and competing nation. They then make no moves to help, or care about, the other nation's position. -A nation is not something. It is an interesting concept, though. There are material Humans and they are on a ball that is earth, what is a nation? It is just an area under the control of one government, whose policies can change frequently. Sure, in the sense that a nation is a noun, it is "something", but it has no real significance, when you get to the core of instinctual and natural impulses of life. -What I am talking about is just patriotism, its Patriotism (wit' a capitol P). It is indeed obsessive, and many people are too limited by patriotism to think liberally at all. They get angered to hear others say things against America. They do not have the capacity to disagree with America. Anything goes, as long as it coincides with what is American. If you don't believe me, let me tell you a true story from real life. This happened to me just the other day: A friend of mine and I were having our own argument regarding Fidel Castro and Cuba in general. I will not go into details of the argument, for that is off topic. Later that night I emailed him a web link to a very convincing article. I was having a civilized debate with a friend, so I thought. The next day, (today, actually) while having another heated discussion (about whether an episode of the twilight zone could be considered "literature") and he was stubbornly frustrated with me informed me that he deleted that whole email I sent him without reading the article and that "My mom says you're an anti-american son of a b----" Now do you think that it is not obsessive? -My point there in the opening argument was only that Americans are greedy and utilize other's resources for their own country. Now I will address your reasons why patriotism is "good": -From, an idealistic point of view, I may see the advantages of propagandizing, twisting, and manipulating another person for your own utilization in the army. -yes, of course these values are perfectly all right, and even respect and admire them myself, but patriotism goes beyond the concepts of the government and to the decisions of the government (which often are not that great). If you include the values of our GOVERNMENT, then torture, death and destruction for wealth, unfair trials, wire tapping, and bribery are all values. (God bless America!) Lastly, I would like to note that patriotism does not make better decisions, but worst ones. A population full of skeptics would make much better decisions, than a bunch of overly loyal patriots. In order to have a clear mind, I suggest to all not to be a slave to patriotism.
Patriotism

I would disagree. First, I will refute your arguments. 1. You said thatit is often the cause of war, poverty, and an over all negative affect on the human race. First of all, it does not cause war. It can make war somewhat easier to carry out, but it itself does not instigate war. Second of all, I fail to see how it can cause poverty. Can you please supply evidence of this? Finally, I will dissaprove your final argument with my points as to why patriotism is good. 2. A nation is something. It has a government, a structure, it owns land, it affects the lives of all of it's citizens. A nation is a common bond between a group of people, and is reinforced materially with laws and their affects. 3. Partiotism does not cause people to become wholly obsessed with only their own nation. They can still think about, and be active in, bettering the human race. All patriotism is is another factor in people's worldview, and it is not an over riding one. 4. Patriotism has very little to do with why America uses so many resources. The reasons why america uses more resources are far moe varied. Some of them are, the fact that we are more advanced nation, and have more things that use resources. Another reason is that we are so entrenched in our wasteful, materialistic way of life that we have alot of trouble toning down our use of resources. It is not only patriots who are contributing to this,it is everyone. I would also like to make several points as to why patriotism is good. 1. Patriotism ties a nation together. It help's it's citizen's present a united front, and provides bonds of brotherhood to everyone therein. Without paqtriotism it would be very hard to make an army. If there where no patriots, and therefore no army, then the nation would be open to attack from anyone, and essentially defenseless. 2. Patriotism can promote positive values. A patriot will generally support their nation's values. In america, (the example you used), these values include, liberty,human equality, and justice. I see nothing wrong with people being supportive of this. Finally, on a side note, America is the greatest nation in the world. We are the most successful democracy in the world and we have more or less the highest quality of living and the most rights of any nation in the world. Admittedly, America has it's faults, but it is still the best. I am proud of my country, but I can still disagree with some of it's policies.
Patriotism

Patriotism is unhealthy and delusional. (I can assure you that I have seen patriotism at its worst; I live in Texas) It is often the cause of war, poverty and over all negative affect over the human race. I will start off addressing the bewildering question of: What is a nation? A nation is nothing. It is all in everyone's head. It is just an illusion, it is not real; it's just a different colored place on the globe; It is just a certain area of land, enclosed by imaginary borders; controlled by one regime or another. People become wholly focused on the bettering of their own nation, to the exclusion of all others. THIS IS NOT NATURAL in anyway whatsoever. We should have the mental state of bettering the human race, and not our own little clique. I do not understand how a human being can feel such twisted attachment towards such an illusion. This patriotism leads to irrational thinking. It makes people stupid. There is so much poverty, and america (which only comprises 5% of the world Population) takes so much of the resources. People just accept it, because it is their own great nation.
Canada should ban transgenderism

This will be the overview of certain words that are used, To we don't get mixed up with everything. This law will apply to all citizens living within Canada's borders, And will take place in Canada. A "transgender person" is someone who does not accept the gender role assigned to them biologically at birth. For example, A transgender person could be one that was born a male, And decided to change into a female. A few notes: I am relatively new to debate, So if I am doing something wrong, Please tell me in the comments. I really just want to get better at debate and decided here would be a good place to start. I think I did this argument before, But since it was fun and I have a strong opinion against trans people. Oh, And I am not homophobic. Good luck!
Canada should ban transgenderism

Calling me stupid isnt an argument it proves you immature, I automatically win because you have been abusive, I don't hav to state the exact law, I don't but An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16, 2016) is a law passed by the Parliament of Canada. The law adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act, And also to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, Incitement to genocide, And aggravating factors in sentencing.
Canada should ban transgenderism

Right, So a few things. First off is that bilsands is too stupid to understand what I mean by: "Post the exact law that states why it violates human rights". I've been asking him for the last 4 rounds, And he has never done it. What is the exact law that states this? If it was a real debate, I could just say the law didn't exist because you didn't site your source, And technically you would loose because you didn't. Seriously. If you can't understand basic english, Why are you debating here? Anyways, I couldn't find that exact Canadian law because I didn't know what to type in Google (lol). However, I found a law in the American Constitution that says something close: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, Or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, And to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Now, Banning transgenderism does not directly violate any of these laws. It states that Congress can't make any law respecting an establishment of any religion. However, Transgenderism is not a religion, Technically. It is getting a bit close to a cultish religion, I admit, But it is not a formal and established religion. This means that we can ban it before it becomes an actual religion. There is some debate over whether it is one, But it was concluded with the majority saying it was not. Banning transgenderism also does not violate freedom of speech. I mean, Yes. If transgenderism does get banned people could technically say they are "transgender", As long as they actually aren't. This means that it does not violate freedom of speech. To further support this, Recently it was announced that in America that Transgender people weren't allowed to serve in the military, Or that the number of people would be kept to a very, Very low minimum. If Congress can get the military to do that, Then why can't we just ban transgenderism?
Flat Tax Rate

I never said we cannot have a new debate, but it is dumb that I should lose this one due to your poor time management. "I find it completely petty and selfish how a experienced member would treat a Newcomer, for a win? " If you made an argument, this may or may not have ended up in a win for me. If you do this debate again you could win. "I would ask for neutrality, and not to vote. " War helps the economy, so does the flat tax.
Flat Tax Rate

With all Due Respect, I clearly stated that I would make a new debate when my vacations ends (Next Friday), and that I would allow Pro to copy his debate to the new one. Do you really have nothing better to do then Skim wins? For the sake if Emphasis, I'm going to repeat. I'm happy to start a new debate, on the same topic, on the same positions, with the same opponent, with the same arguments. In simple terms, a duplicate. I'm not quite inclined to however after Pros attitude and statements. I find it completely petty and selfish how a experienced member would treat a Newcomer, for a win? I bid you good day, sir. And In compelte sincerity to viewers, I would ask for neutrality, and not to vote.
Flat Tax Rate

I cannot dedicate enough time to thus debate for it to be accurate and concise with my thoughts. Currently I'm on vacation, and I'm having loads of trouble Copying and Pasting on my phone, as well as using the Spanish keyboards. I will be back home next Saturday, but from then on I won't be able to debate. I will create another, and will continue with the same opponent with the same argument. Again, many apologies, and please don't vote on this. Have a Great day.
Flat Tax Rate

As stated. A Flat tax rate directly causes income and wealth inequality in any country it's instituted in. This results in the creation of exorbitantly individuals along side extremely poor, and what exactly are the alternatives? 1. Progressive tax, a higher tax percentage depending on your income, I.E. A man who makes 35,000$ has to pay 5% of his income while a man who makes 1,000,000$ pays 20%. 2.Head Tax, everybody pays the same amount, regardless of income. No explanation needed to why this mode is unfair and ineffective. I believe in a progressive tax. A strong and widespread Middle class is the catalyst to being a global superpower, tell me I'm wrong. Spreading these large amounts of money that individuals possess back to lower classes and the Government supports much more then If it was to be stored in a bank. "Dead Money", as its coined by economists, Pun there. This money that's not being circulated is a Direct cause to Inflation, and I would daresay a direct cause to Recession. Now, before I open the floor to a pro opponent, I would like to refute a claim in advance, because I know it will be brought up. "Imagine a 55 year old lawyer, who paid thousands and thousands of dollars to put himself through university, who worked hard his whole life, has to fund and support lazy and poorer individuals, simply because he was successful". No man, or Woman, needs to have more money then to live the rest of their life comfortably. That's my philosophy on life. Also, I'm not a socialist! ;)
Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own firearms

My first gun rights debate, lets see how it goes. A firearm is defined as: a weapon that launches one or more projectile(s) at high velocity through confined burning of a propellant.[1] The resolution applies generally across all human societies, not US specific, however since most raw data available is from the United States it's likely that the debate will center mostly around this country. The first round is for acceptance and clarification of terms only. Advocating silly or semantic arguments like "there is no good way to measure "should"" or "the resolution means only citizens can own guns not the military..", makes you lose all 7 points automatically.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
There should be a universal language throughout the globe

It comes as a disappointment for me that the PRO side has forfeited the second round, as I was looking forward to a fruitful and enriching debate. Therefore, I should win by default as the PRO side has not been able to substantiate and defend his case, nor has he been able to fully elaborate on his existing points. If possible, could the PRO side please state their reason for forfeiture in the comments section. Thank you!
There should be a universal language throughout the globe

Hello everyone, why I feel there should be a universal language; 1) People around the globe, don't have to feel worried when travelling to a foreign country. As I come from an English/Mandarin speaking family, going to places in Europe, USA, Australia, Taiwan etc. is no problem for me. But when I go to places like Korea, Japan, Thailand, Germany, India, France, the problem arises. Yes some locals do speak English, but road signs, maps, rural areas don't have a single English word, which makes its difficult for tourist. Just look at Japan's map and you will understand. 2) The world would be much more peaceful. If people could communicate without a use of a translator, or having to learn another language, wouldn't it be much simpler and time-saving? In critical situation like war, business meetings, can a translator be fully trusted? You may be able to learn a whole new language and speak fluently in weeks? But how accurate a translation can you achieve? And the time spent on learning, could it be put to better use? 3) English it is. It is the most common 'business language'. Even businessmen in China are learning English knowing its importance for business growth in a global scale. Nothing much I need to elaborate on this.
Gay Marriage

For thousands of years human beings as a race and a society have constantly strived to survive. Producing offspring and growing your communities and villages through reproduction was not an option but rather a necessity. But times have changed and as a society we must change with it. No longer are we in danger of becoming extinct if we do not reproduce at the same rate that we did before. There are over 7 billion people on earth. Countries on our planet have in the past been so over populated that they make made reproduction illegal (China's One-child policy). We must also remember that even if gay marriage was kept illegal, it would change nothing in regards to children being born. LGBT people would still not have children of their own, as such a thing is impossible, however as a illustrated above not creating new mouths to feed on this planet is not a negative thing. For these reasons the debate that gay marriage will stunt the rate of reproduction of children is irrelevant. The argument that a child is unable to grow and thrive as a human being while only having parent(s) of a single sex is a statement that is completely void of any true data to back it up. In the United States today 15 million children live with out a father and 5 million children live without a mother in their lives. That is 20 million children who are being raise by a parenting group who, by your definition "lacks either maternal or paternal genetic predisposition required to raise a psychologically versatile mind". However history has shown us that some of the greatest, most famous people in history were raised without either a mother or father; Stephen Colbert, Bill Clinton, Shaquille O'neal, and even Barock Obama until he was four years old and his mother married a man who assumed the role of a father figure. All of these people are successful in todays society in a variety of ways, and all possess a "psychologically versatile mind" despite being raised without either their mother or father. So how is it that two, loving committed people who have made their love unconditional love to each other official through the unification of marriage could not raise and support a functioning child who contributed to todays society. Not having one sex as a parenting figure in your life is irrelevant to the outcome of a child's well being. Would a child be better off in a foster home where they have no parental figures around than in the home of two loving men or women? No they most certainly would not be. LGBT people who wish to adopt children are doing society a great service, by taking these children out of the governments custody they are not only saving us valuable tax dollars but also providing children with a safe, stable environment to grow up in and become valuable parts of society. In conclusion LGBT people are just as qualified to raise children than anyone else, if not even more qualified because there is never a time when they will accidentally have a child, they will have always chosen to raise a child and will therefore treat it with both love and care not because they were forced into doing so, but because they truly want to.
Gay Marriage

Thanks for the challenge. Just for clarity's sake i can argue both for and against gay Marriage. May the best debater prevail. My contention against Gay Marriage: Marriage as a social construct has evolved solely to supplement monogamous heterosexual relationships that naturally yield offspring. The purpose of marriage is to create an ideal atmosphere for procreation and subsequent child rearing. While i find nothing criminal nor unpalatable about gay relationships, gay marriage is where i must draw the line (on biological grounds). The basis of attraction to the same sex is a combination of environmental conditioning and genetic triggers. Unlike attraction however marriage is a choice. Marriage is also state sanctioned, which implies that (in a democracy) the majority and the norm be preserved. As an institution gay marriage not only threatens the definition of marriage but the very integrity of normal parenting. Gay couples cannot naturally procreate and a singular sex lacks either maternal or paternal genetic predisposition required to raise a psychologically versatile mind (in a child). A person with even minute biological and evolutionary insight (ranging from opposite polarities of our genetic code to the opposing action of hormones and neurotransmitters) realizes the significance of the following rule: Nature does not put all its eggs in one basket. The sperm from the father (XY) and the egg from the mother (XX) unite to form a viable zygote. My rebuttal to your points 1. Not enough data. The ancestors of the countries you have cited have been through a lot of toil (ranging from war to combating artificial or natural conflicts). If you do a simple ratio between the time these countries were conceived to when they legalized marriage you will find that the amount of time is not enough to judge the repercussions of gay marriage. To make a rather complex biological analogy: federal government integrating the necessary language legalizing gay marriage into the constitutional rule of law could very well be like a host's immune system letting a latent virus (such as HIV) integrate into the fabric of a cell's genetic code. Neither the biological host nor a nation's government will know the full extent of the repercussions of the impending malware until it is triggered (by a natural conflict) to express itself. 2. There is a biological/hormonal difference between the attraction between homosexuals and the attraction between heterosexuals. Men's testicles produce different hormones than a female's ovaries. As a societal construct marriage should be exclusive to heterosexuals. Sanctioning marriage rights to homosexual couples who cannot reproduce naturally defeats the very purpose of marriage and serves to devalue the natural union of opposite sexes. Nature does not put all her eggs in one basket.
Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage should be legal for two main reasons. 1) There are no negatives to gay people getting married. The most successful countries in the world support gay marriage; Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark are all places that have legalized gay marriage years ago and have seen no problems in their respective countries from it. 2) Equality. If a man loves another man or a women loves another women there no difference in a man and women loving each other. As a society and a planet we must move forward and strive for Equality, so that every person is given an equal opportunity to love who they want as well as their lives. Please respond I am curious to hear your argument. I am open to being proved wrong and I hope you are to May the best man win
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

#1 I think if the court had never passed this law everything would have stayed the same and nobody would have went to school together. #2 I understand what you are trying to say but the court did have some type of power because after a while they did have to get along and come together as one. #3 I think they didnt use schools as a battle ground but seen school as like a chance to bring blacks and whites together as one that way everyone can be equal.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

1.If the school enforces a law saying whites and blacks to attend the same school, it will create a problem. Since they do not like each other in the beginning, just imagine how they will be when they"re together receiving their education in the same environment. They will pay attention on hating and disrespecting the blacks rather than paying attention to their education. 2.If the courts gave the parents to choose the school their child goes too there will be a chance that they want their kids on what race they are. However, the courts are the one who"s putting the whites and blacks together meaning that the parents really don"t have any choice. The court puts them together, it took a while to have them get used to each other, but eventually it did work. 3.Yes, school is a place to show kids how to come together as one, but that is the only time they get to see each other. If they have the opportunity to see them anywhere else, of course they will have a battleground anywhere. School or not, they will fight.