BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
European countries should not place travel restrictions on potential ISIL fighters

Sorry, I was busy for the past few days. I did not mention some of your points because that is rebuttal, which was supposed to be Round 3. When you say they are "potential" fighters, that does not mean they are not fighters. Potential means existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) You still have to consider the fact that they are capable of threatening innocent lives. If one is thought to be a potential fighter, that person could be innocent, but he could also be very dangerous. If the "few" was actually innocent, they should turn themselves in. I think most people would risk someone's "fundamental rights" rather than their lives. Seriously, you would let thousands die to honor several hundred's "fundamental rights? " That worries me. If the potential fighters want to complain because they have been "unfairly treated", then they can sue the government. They have options to protect their rights. We are not killing or arresting the potential fighters, we are simply imposing a travel ban. If the potential fighters want to complain, they can complain. When you said a person waiving ISIL flags are exercising their free speech, I sort of disagree. Flags are symbolic, waiving a flag means you support what the flag stands for. Again, there is a thing called a court. If they think ISIL is innocent, then they can send a letter to the media. I thank anyone who read our debate. I encourage all voters to vote fairly, even if it is against me.
European countries should not place travel restrictions on potential ISIL fighters

First of all, there are hundreds of Europeans and Americans with their European and American passports. This means they can freely enter their own country. This is extremely dangerous for the individual could cause various harms to the country. We don't need another 9/11. Also, the safety if millions is more important than "the fundamental rights" of hundreds. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The government has the right to impose travel bans to certain individuals should they become dangerous to the people. The citizens would rather be safe than sorry. Finally, it is very hard to capture this individuals. They are fighting and killing thousands with an organization that has hundreds of thousands of soldiers. In order to capture these individuals, we must put ground forces in Iraq. President Obama made it clear he would not allow ground troops no matter the circumstances. So it would actually be easier to kill them with airstrikes rather than risking the lives of soldiers to capture them alive. In conclusion, travel bans are the least the governments can do to protect their countries. They did not respect our fundamental rights. Should we respect theirs? These people should be executed, and travel bans are literally nothing compared to what they deserve. Thanks pro for bringing this topic up and thank you to everyone who read our arguments. Good luck, pro. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
European countries should not place travel restrictions on potential ISIL fighters

Resolved: That European countries should not place travel restrictions on potential ISIL fighters. Definitions: The Affirmative side reserves the right to clarify these definitions at any time. European country: A UN member state located completely within continental Europe Travel restriction: A law making it a criminal offense for a specific person to travel to certain countries Potential: [in context] In possibility based on suspicious behavior ISIL: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fighter: A person who fights 3 rounds Round 1: Aff: Definition of terms, terms of debate Neg: Accept debate Both parties: Declare country of citizenship/residence Round 2: Aff constructive, Neg constructive Round 3: Aff rebuttal, Neg rebuttal 10,000 character limit 72 hour time limit Minimum rating of 2000 to vote 7 point voting I am a citizen and resident of the United States.
Resolved: High school dress code restrictions should include prohibitions on Satanic clothing.

I’m glad that my opponent and I agree that my case makes complete sense, although I’m baffled as to why he so willingly admits that. The resolution reads: “Resolved: High school dress code restrictions should include prohibitions on Satanic clothing.” To argue this case, my opponent has the burden to prove that such a restriction is infeasible. I only have to prove that such a probation would be feasible, as a general principle. The reason that I do not have to prove that satanic clothing would materially or substantially interfere with the educational process is because to make such a determination would require a specific case that actually happened. It is not my responsibility to argue that invariably, in every circumstance, student’s wearing of satanic clothing does, in fact, materially and substantially interfere because to prove that would require empirical analysis of specified circumstances in given schools. This is a burden both improper for the resolution and for DDO. Because the resolution is about the components of what high school dress codes should or should not include, my only burden is the prove that restrictions on satanic clothing are theoretically permissible (and I have). Because my opponent grounded his arguments in the law, I responded in kind. I demonstrated that rather than being precluded by the constitution, US law actually protects the right of schools to impose regulations on what a student may or may not wear. As such, I have met my burden of proof. My opponent now wishes to elevate my burden in such a way that cannot be met. By definition, his question functions as a red herring because it distracts from the original clash of the debate. Contrary to my opponent’s assertion, the wording of my case was entirely deliberate and chosen specifically to meet the burden carried. The implications of his argument necessarily restrict what a school may do to facilitate the educational process, the burden is contrarily on him to establish how wearing of satanic clothing would not materially or substantially interfere with student learning in every situation. Because my opponent is limiting what a given school may do to meet the unique needs of its student body, and because the state has a compelling interest in promoting the education of children throughout our nation, it is therefore necessary that he establish how limiting the capacity of a school to perform its societal function is appropriate. Unless or until my opponent does that, he fails to meet his burden of proof.
Resolved: High school dress code restrictions should include prohibitions on Satanic clothing.

Judges, you are about to see the most pithy rebuttal DDO has probably ever seen. This is in part by the fact that pretty much most of my opponent's arguments make complete sense. Inadvertedly, my opponent has actually provided the increase in structure that my case needed in order to present the limitations of the freedom of speech. My opponent provides a legitimate case with Supreme Court rulings that substantiate his claim. However, going toward his Contentions 1 and 2, he fails to answer in his contentions his own million-dollar question: Does Satanic clothing materially and substantially interfere? My opponent provides the Supreme Court cases which would justify the elimination of Satanic clothing but never proves the significant interference nor the heaviness of its possibility.
Resolved: High school dress code restrictions should include prohibitions on Satanic clothing.

In this debate, I must negate the resolution and stand on the CON. Before continuing, I'd like to address one thing not mentioned in the wording of the resolution. This debate was inspired by an event occurring in the state of New Mexico, so for the sake of practicality and adequacy, this debate should be construed to the context of the United States and the civil liberties provided therein. With this said, I move on toward the iteration of my case.[Thesis]These dress code restrictions violate the First Amendment specifically because they inhibit the free exercise of a religion, hinder free speech with no warrant, and implicitly favors another religion with the establishment of a double-standard. Henceforth, these restrictions are unconstitutional and should not be implemented. [Contentions]Contention: These dress code restrictions violate the First Amendment.The following is the legal definition of what is considered to be a religion: "The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment." [1] Because Satanism fits within the line of this description, it is legally a religion protected by the First Amendment. Sub-point 1a: These restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause.The religious aspect of the First Amendment is the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [1] Because these restrictions inhibit the free expression of a religious garment, it inherently violates this part of the First Amendment. Sub-point 1b: These restrictions do not include other religious garments.These restrictions are specifically for Satanism, meaning that other religions are held over this particular one. This violates the Equal Protection Clause and Establishment Clause because of the discriminatory nature. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Trolling should be punishable by death.

Con makes a very compelling argument. Almost irrefutable.I disagree, my argument is very refutable1.Trolling causes butt hurtThis is true, however trolling only causes butt hurt some of the time, not every single time. 2.Butt hurt is defined as "An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the "aggressor." Example: Adam got butt hurt when Mike stole his bi*ch."I agree with this definition. (for those who still dont get it, to be butthurt means to be offended)3. A negative emotional response causes suicideOnly in very very extreme cases. If I posted a picture of a person drinking Bleach with a picture saying "Am I Amanda Todd yet?" that would cause people to be butthurt, bot those people wouldnt go and commit suicide over it unless they are Amanda Todd. But I know they cant be Amanda Todd because shes dead. 4.Trolling causes suicide from 1,2 and 3In a very very very very limited number of cases. People commit suicide because people hastle them on the internet or theyre girlfriend dumped them or some other stupid sh*t because white people these days commit suicide over anything. 5.Suicide is bad.I disagree, when Hitler committed suicide I think it worked out for the best. 6.Trolling is badI disagree, trolling can be funny as sh*t, as evidence by the debates below....http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...7.An eye for an eye suggests that trolls need to die.So just because a few dumba** teenagers cant handle life it means we have to eliminate everything offensive to prevent them from killing themselves? We cant sacrifice everything we do for joy just so that a few depressed teenagers who were going to off themselves will stay alive for a little longer, because have you seen these teenagers? They are depressing as hell to themselves and to those around them. Trolling does society a FAVOR by eliminating these weak teenagers because if these teenagers stuck around, it would just cause people around them to be more miserable just because theyre lives are so 'bad'. ==========================================================================Reasons why trolling should not be punishable by death:1) Trolling only causes people to kill themselves a small percentage of the time2) Trolling can be funny as hell without being offensive towards people3) Trolling can be used in the name of justice to fight idiots4) When trolling does kill, it only eliminates teenagers who were making society more depressed who were f*cking moaning about everything.
Trolling should be punishable by death.

Con makes a very compelling argument. Almost irrefutable.Argument why trolling should be punishable by death1.Trolling causes butt hurt2.Butt hurt is defined as"An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the "aggressor."Adam got butt hurt when Mike stole his bi*ch."[1]3.A negative emotional response causes suicide [2]4.Trolling causes suicide from 1,2 and 35.Suicide is bad.6.Trolling is bad7.An eye for an eye suggests that trolls need to die.Refutation of Con's argumentTo F*ck me we need to agree that trolling is a offence punishable by death. If you agree we cannot f*ck[1]http://www.urbandictionary.com...[2]http://www.kevinmd.com...
History can not account for the building of the pyramid of Giza

1. For some reason, you quote me as saying "the people who lived 4,500 years ago were primitive, bronze age ignorants" when in fact that is not my position. When I wrote that, I was merely pointing out the position of mainstream history, in order to argue against it.2. I do not see, in the entirety of your post, anything that would even remotely resemble an explanation of how primitive people could possibly have built the Giza pyramid, without very advanced technical and architectural understanding, and technological devleopments.This entire debate rests upon the assumption that my opponent is an advocate of mainstream history, and holds the same beliefs that one may find in educational institutions - meaning, you have to argue from the standpoint that the ancients were at the exact level of knowledge that modern historians and archaeologists place them at, which does not include advanced architectural knowledge. So in short, we could have this debate rolling if you could propose a method in accordance with mainstream views, which I would then argue against.
History can not account for the building of the pyramid of Giza

Intelligence level aside, people can follow orders. Schools taught us that Pharaohs forced slaves to build pyramids for them, under a hierarchy system. So say you have 100 slaves on the infrastructure site, each slave has to built w/ 100 bricks a day or he dies, by the end of the month you will have your pyramid. Obviously its an anecdotal exaggeration but you get my point. Once again IQ level doesn't prevent man from following orders. Egyptians and Greeks were highly intelligent in addition to this. Now quickly on your argument, "the people who lived 4,500 years ago were primitive, bronze age ignorants", not really in fact most ancestors post 10000bc are probably smarter than us from a natural instinct point of view, great w/ situational awareness. " the longest time has been the largest structure ever built.", its not even that big mate, and why would it decay if no one invades it." "In this debate, I will argue that mainstream history is obviously painting a wrong picture of the ancients, seeing that the ancients have built such a pyramid, and still have not received the proper credit for it - but are presented as ignorants, by editors worldwide sitting behind their desks not even knowing how to cook a meal for themselves. It's a disgrace" I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT LAST PARAGRAPH, WHAT IS YOUR STANCE N OVERALL MO BRO>/?
History can not account for the building of the pyramid of Giza

In mainstream history, the people who lived 4,500 years ago were primitive, bronze age ignorants - with less knowledge than the people living in some god forsaken village that you can come across if you travel across the seven mountains. Naturally, such people would only know the basics of living - perhaps starting a fire, getting some bronze melted, slaying some cows, making clothes from their skin, and perhaps even writing a thing or two on a couple of rocks.There is no way in the world, that such a group of people could one day look across a field, and say: okay, time to build a pyramid, son - gather the materials. I know what level of architectural skill and understanding of mathematics that it would take to create even a simple structure, not to mention one of the world's seven wonders, that remains up for thousands of years, and for the longest time has been the largest structure ever built. No, such people can not do that.In this debate, I will argue that mainstream history is obviously painting a wrong picture of the ancients, seeing that the ancients have built such a pyramid, and still have not received the proper credit for it - but are presented as ignorants, by editors worldwide sitting behind their desks not even knowing how to cook a meal for themselves. It's a disgrace.
History can not account for the building of the pyramid of Giza

Instead, you post a comment and request further information. I clearly stated my argument multiple times. I am looking for an opponent that agrees with the view of mainstream history, and believes he or she is able to explain the building of the Giza pyramid within that framework. In other words, babies do not know how to write. If there is a writing in the room, and you believe that the baby wrote it, you have to explain how it was done, within the limited framework that you can work with, of what toddlers are known to do. You can not say that he or she walked to the library, ripped out a page, and placed the page in the room, because babies (1) can not locate libraries (2) can not access libraries (3) can not use the traffic. Of course, this is only a far fetched example to demonstrate exactly what my argument is, regarding the Egyptians, and the Giza Pyramid.
Abortion is wrong

My position is that abortion isn't wrong. My position isn't necessarily a moral issue, however if you wish to argue through morals I can make that argument quite clearly. I don't believe that abortion is wrong because it should be the mothers choice whether or not to have a child. I do understand that it is essentially "killing a potential life form" however if it's a case of murder wouldn't it then be wrong to have the death penalty? After all the person there would be being killed as well. Another thing to consider is that some of the mothers getting abortions are far too young to have children, whether they knew it was a possibility to get pregnant or not in some cases it's much better to not have the child be brought on the earth than to have it live a terrible life with an inexperienced mother, is it not? Or do you perhaps believe that a child deserves to live a bad life because "abortion is wrong". Another thing to take into consideration is that some of the women getting abortions were raped. Do you think it's fair to ask a woman to have a child she never asked for? Whose father abused her mentally and physically? Is it right to make her keep that child and to always have the memory of what happened to her? For her to have to support a child she never wanted and never asked for whose father would never be present?
The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes

In this debate I am not arguing that the voting system for this website is simply flawed or contains unavoidable imperfections, but rather than it contains easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website. You may find this an odd statement to make. I have only been in one debate so far, and I am winning that debate, so why am I questioning the voting system, off of which I am winning. Well, I believe that the errors in the voting system did not affect my win (that I won despite the errors). In fact, I believe that I would have won by more if not for the errors in the voting system. I am not arguing that everything about the voting system is flawed, just a few things. Here are the dimensions of the debate: category miscellaneous topic The voting system for debate. org has many avoidable mistakes position (pro/for) number of rounds 3 time to argue 72 hours (3 days) voting period 72 hours (3 days) argument max 8000 characters The burden of proof is on me.
Abortion is medically equivalent to murder

No solutions have ever brought forth change with subjective understandings. So, again I thank he/she for maintaining that ability. My opponent has defined murder in much of the same way that I have. That being said, there are a few elements that are unmistakably synonymous but the way in which we both have dissected them is much different. The term used was "termination", and this term is synonymous with the term used under Oxford's definition, which is "killing". In both definitions, they refer to "termination of human life" and "killing of one human being to another". There should be no double meaning for these terms and the associating noun that the verb is describing is more important than the verb itself. The focus for my opponent was to sub-define termination without regard to the noun it is referring to. Without human life as the noun, terminating would only refer to "life, as it occurs in many contexts" and not specifically "human life". So making an attempt to describe the seven signs of life is irrelevant because life is a universal occurrence. Abortion is specifically linked to human life in the context of this debate, therefore we would need to understand the signs of human life. So we cannot conclude that "termination" is specifically referring to human life, since it is referring to all life. I would not think that stepping on an ant is considered murder even though it exhibits the 7 signs of life. I have defined what a "human being" is and how this is important in deciphering the constraints that defines murder. To make a comparative example, I will illustrate a situation where I am attempting to figure out what a mini van is, knowing almost nothing about it. I try to find the characteristics of a mini van but can only find the characteristics of an "automobile". The 7 signs of an automobile are as follows: 1. Uses gas2. Has a steering wheel3. Has four wheels4. Has an engine5. Has front and rear lights6. Has a break and gas pedal7. Has seat beltsNow, knowing what an automobile is does not get me any closer to understanding what a mini van is, even though they share the same 7 signs. I would need to understand what is specific to a mini van and not what the majority of automobiles in the world possess. My opponent has described an "automobile" and I have described a "mini van". I was going to rebuttal against my opponent's rebuttal but I do not think that would be appropriate considering he/she does not get a chance to respond back. Thank you very much for the informative topic and I love being able to learn from people!