BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Society's Take On the Catholic Priest Harrassment Scandal

Society's outrage on the priest scandal is rather pathetic. First, they decide to turn their heads away from other religeous figures, I don't know, Reverend Wright, who do equall damage to society, and decide to put the spotlight on Catholic priests, who conveniently are rather conservative, the direct opposite of American society today. Second, they paint ALL Catholic priests as demented little buggers and shun them. Third, this will most likely lead to general abhorment of all Catholics, because obviously their religious leaders, including His Holiness, are demented little buggers, so they must be demented little buggers. I believe that this is just another diversion from the real issues at hand, e.g. the war, and yet one more facet of the socialist agenda to eliminate religion from our "free" country. Resolved, the priest ilemma is an attempt at religious persecution, something that our liberal friends scream at the top of their lungs about, and should be swept under the rug as all the rest are.
HERE COME THE GIANTS! THEY WILL BEAT NEW ENGLAND, RUIN THEIR PERFECT SEASON, AND WIN THE SUPERBOWL!

The Giants are going to be contenders, this is true. But, the Patriots want it much more. It has been proven time and time again that he who has come the farthest and wants it most will get the gold! I know from experience that the teams that have shown might throughout a season (debate, forensics, and basketball) will fight the hardest at the end of the season because they have the most to lose and the most to prove, that they are number one. The Patriots are going all in and are going to win!
HERE COME THE GIANTS! THEY WILL BEAT NEW ENGLAND, RUIN THEIR PERFECT SEASON, AND WIN THE SUPERBOWL!

Pull across all of my psychological analysis, it went uncontended. The strongest defence can be crushed in the face of fear. Brady won't have any trouble at the game and has shown his superiority time and time again. I think it is clear who the winner will be. Have a good super bowl weekend everyone! Enjoy! - Matt
HERE COME THE GIANTS! THEY WILL BEAT NEW ENGLAND, RUIN THEIR PERFECT SEASON, AND WIN THE SUPERBOWL!

You overlook my analysis on this argument that people inherently do better after coming a long way. The Patriots will expect perfection from this game and will work accordingly whereas the NY Giants are going to have to "throw crap (it won't let me use the word synonymous to crap) at the wall and see what sticks at the end of the game." There is no avoiding it, the Giants will be SCARED of the Patriots.
HERE COME THE GIANTS! THEY WILL BEAT NEW ENGLAND, RUIN THEIR PERFECT SEASON, AND WIN THE SUPERBOWL!

(1) THE GIANTS LOVE BEING UNDERDOGS AND WILL HAVE NO PRESSURE ON THEM, VERSUS NEW ENGLAND HAVING TONS OF PRESSURE (2) NY HAS A BETTER DEFENSE , ESPECIALLY PASS DEFENSE (3) BRADY WAS VERY SHAKY IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME, AND MANNING WAS STELLAR DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS WHOEVER OWNS THE TURNOVER GAME AND RED ZONE WILL WIN GIANTS BAYBEE ALL THE WAY
Federal Legalization Of Gay Marriage

How does it get worse? And this argument is getting off-topic. You need to tell me why federally legalizing gay marriage isn't constitutional before you tell me why gay marriage is immoral. Since I'm still waiting for your reply on why it's unconstitutional, I'll go along with your argument. You still need to determine why being gay is wrong, let alone gay marriage. First of all, you are using a slippery slope argument. You can't compare pansexualism to people who commit rape. Rape is involuntary and violates one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pansexualism is completely voluntary. "We don't make gays drink at seperate fountains, we don't spray protesting gays with firehoses! " Not in the literal sense, but you are still preventing them from getting marriage licenses in 30+ states which give you tax benefits. Why? Not only that, but gays are suffering persecution from fundamentalists all across America. Now you bring up another point about whether or not homosexuality is natural or not. Can you prove this point without using the Bible and saying it's true because the "Bible said so"? If you are referring that homosexuality is a mental disorder, you need to provide evidence. I'll provide a quote from the American Psychological Association as to why it is not: "No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder." - APA The same institution also says that gay men are not more likely to molest young children than straight men: "Homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." - APA As far as being gay is a "choice" is concerned, the APA once again states that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation," even though there isn't enough evidence to determine what exactly causes sexual orientation. Also, the short little clip below explains in a scientific fashion how it is very likely that gender affiliation and sexuality is determined within the mother's womb: http://www.youtube.com...
Federal Legalization Of Gay Marriage

Marriage is limited to Heterosexualism in sane countries for a reason: It gets worse. Next you have pansexuals and rapists begging the government for legalization, and then we get Sodom and Gommorrah! Now you're comparing a sinful, immoral movement to the civil rights movement? We don't make gays drink at seperate fountains, we don't spray protesting gays with firehoses! The difference is, gays are not natural. There's a rare few animals out there that don't know any better. It's like comparing apples to oranges! The problem is, without religion, there's no reason to do anything!
Federal Legalization Of Gay Marriage

You're right; marriage isn't specifically mentioned in the First Amendment. However, freedom of association and protection against the establishment of religion are. 1. Freedom of association means we have the right to associate with whomever we chose, and that includes the person we chose to marry, regardless of gender. 2. Protection against the establishment of religion means that we cannot be using the Bible, Koran, or any other religious ideology/text to dictate how people chose to live their lives on a moral basis. This means people can't be using God's Word to justify their position against gay marriage. I beg to differ. Gay couples cannot get married in 30+ states, which means they won't be able to get the tax benefits and status that a normal heterosexual couple would get. That could be defined as a "lesser economic opportunity." As far as pansexualism is concerned, it doesn't affect me (or you), so why should I care? However, that is a different topic. As far as the constitution is concerned, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that the "right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals" and "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." Marriage is deemed a "fundamental freedom" protected by the Constitution, and states cannot deny an individual of this basic human right. Concerning the 14th Amendment, the Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights while the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination. Looking at the entire constitution, if marriage is a constitutional right and since the government sponsors marriage to begin with, the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination on who can get married. In the past, it used to be interracial marriages that were protested against, until the court held up interracial marriage under the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. In order to keep consistent with the constitution, people need to recognize that members of the same-sex are entitled to the same privilege that interracial couples were once denied. I would like to hear more about how gay couples are different than interracial couples.
Federal Legalization Of Gay Marriage

Some people say that gay marriage is a states' rights issue. Some say it should be made completely illegal using a constitutional amendment. I say both views are incorrect. As I see it (and how the Supreme Court has ruled in the past), legalizing gay marriage on the federal level is already constitutional and is mandated by the 1st and 14th amendments to the Bill of Rights. Leaving gay marriage to the states or signing laws like the Defense Of Marriage Act into law are blatantly unconstitutional and wrong. I look forward to the discussion.
lannan13 is a Troll

2: Pro has the BOP, and has to bring accusations and proof that con is a troll. 3: Con has to counter pro's arguments, but beyond that has no BOP. 4: If pro wins, accusations should be brought to the president that con is a troll, and all voters must tell the president con is a troll. 5: If pro does not prove con is a troll, pro should automatically lose. 6: Con is innocent until proven guilty.
Germany (along with its allies) had the military capacity to win the second world war

My rebuttal shall be a bit short due to a lack of time.I acknowledge the fact that the Germans, if they had had superior technology, would have been able to take Moscow in December, but my entire argument on the matter in previous rounds was that the Germans should have attempted to take Moscow sooner rather than attempting to take Kiev which in fact would have allowed them to take the city. Taking Moscow would have divided the countries rail lines into 3 parts, leaving the Northern and Southern Russian armies to shrivel due to lack of supplies and reinforcements. I look forward to you rebutting my arguments used in the previous rounds including the discussion of the Battle of Britain. I leave the end of this debate to you con and thank you for participating.
Germany (along with its allies) had the military capacity to win the second world war

While it should be admitted that Hitler's allies were shaky he had it within his grasp to defeat the Soviet Union almost completely before the beginning of 1942. Hitler could have left the Soviet Union damaged almost certainly beyond repair in 1941 if he had taken Moscow. The failure to take Moscow should be blamed mainly on Hitler himself. He chose to take Kiev before Moscow in 1941, leaving the Moscow assault to be done in the winter. The Germans had the military capacity to take Moscow during the summer. On 18 Aug 1941 the Army High Command (OKW) presented Hitler with its plan for the autumn campaign, which designated Moscow as the key objective. On 22 Aug, however, Hitler rejected the OKW plan & decided instead to strip Army Group Center of both of its 2 panzer armies, sending one to support Army Group North which was assaulting Leningrad & the other to support Army Group South assaulting Kiev. These new dispositions were in effect by 25 Aug. Army Group North arguably made no better progress with 2 panzer armies than it could have with only 1, but Army Group South won one of the largest encirclement battles of the war, took the city of Kiev, captured over 450,000 Soviet troops, & positioned itself for a thrust all the way to the Don River & the southern city of Rostov, which it captured before the end of the year (& then had to abandon during the winter).[1] Despite the seeming victory in Kiev, these battles ignored the strategic importance of Moscow. An assault on Moscow would have taken or at least damaged the main rail connections in the Soviet Union, effectively leaving the armies in the Archangel and Caucuses regions detached as well as taking or destroying the important production area that Moscow and its suburbs were. This of course should not be ignored as the only reason the Germans failed to take Moscow. It is widely acknowledged that the Russian winter is what eventually stopped the Germans. The delay of the German offensive against the Soviet Union caused by the invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece, which caused a delay of approximately 4 weeks, was also disastrous for the German armies. That 4 weeks very well may have been enough for the German armies to take Moscow and celebrate Christmas in the great city as they had planned months before even with the minor strategic faults in their plan. These two points also should be remembered: 1. Germany had allies in Europe. These allies would eventually grow to be the countries Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Finland. 2. Germany easily took France, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Greece along with the help of its allies. This left them in control over almost the entirety of Europe. [1]http://www.alternatehistory.com......
Germany (along with its allies) had the military capacity to win the second world war

It has been one of the most fun debates to research for. D1.1 LuftwaffeMy opponent spends the entirety of their rebuttal discussing the Battle of Britain and displaying how the Battle could have been won by the Germans had they had better strategy. Let it be noted that my opponent does not rebut either my points about the flaws of the Luftwaffe and the Invasion of the Netherlands. The problem with my opponent's objection about the Battle of Britain is that he does not discuss how the Luftwaffe still could have won had they had superior technology. The strategic errors that are addressed are minor offenses and I believe that if the Luftwaffe had been superior they would have won the Battle of Britain either way. The primary flaw of the Luftwaffe is that they were focused solely on creating short-range, tactical bombers as opposed to long-range bombers [1]. Therefore they could not possibly win even had their strategy been flawless. D1.2 PanzerMy opponent's rebuttal contradicts their entire argument. My opponent says that the flawed Panzer divisions were irrelevant because the Wermacht was ". .. Extremely tactically sound in all but a few battles. .. ". My argument in this section is that the Germans were so behind technologically that it would have been nearly impossible for them to defeat the half of the world which was the Allied faction. D2. Production FlawsUnfortunately, my opponent fails to rebut my argument here whatsoever. This is, in my opinion, the most essential part of my argument and it is a shame that it got no recognition. D3. Failure of AlliesAgain, my opponent contradicts himself. The premise of the debate is that Germany, along with its allies, had the military capacity to win WWII. However, when I discuss the flaws of the Axis as a whole my opponent simply states that Germany was in full control of their destiny and that their Allies had nothing to do with it. ConclusionMy opponent has repeatedly contradicted himself and ignored my arguments. I believe that my three divisions, technological inferiority, production flaws, and failure of allies remain standing. I acknowledge my opponent's point about the delay on Moscow, however given all of the other factors it is illogical to say that Germany would have won had they had superior strategy. Sources[1] . http://cs.stanford.edu...[2] . http://books.google.com......
The Electoral College

I accept your terms, and I shall prove why the Electoral College is a good system to elect the President. First off, the United States isn't a "full democracy", but is a Democratic-Republic. It has been this way for hundreds of years, yet our country is still doing fine. I personally understand why many may not like the system, as they feel it is not a full representation of the people. And while that is true, sometimes the interest of the majority may not exactly be what's best for them. If the majority of people wanted to be euthanized, should we let them vote on it and pass it? My point is, what the majority wants isn't always exactly what's best for them.
The Electoral College

In this debate, I will argue that the way the electoral college currently works is not a good way to elect the president. I would prefer to debate with someone genuinely supportive of the electoral college to better understand both points of view. Please keep the debate civilized and on topic, so don't be partisan on other topics. You (the challenger) bear the burden of proof, meaning that you have to prove that the electoral college is good. Your response should be acceptance and then your argument. From there, I will attempt to disprove your arguments. Further rounds are further rebuttals, and round 5 is for closing arguments. You should not post on the last round so that that way we each get four rounds of argument. I don't get round one since it's dictating terms. Please be civilized, so no swearing and going off topic. Please provide strong, logical arguments in favor of the electoral college. Have fun, and may the odds be ever in your favor!
A just government should provide health care to its citizens.

I am actually on the fence about this issue. Perhaps this debate will allow me to learn enough to take a defined stance. For the purposes of this debate, I will argue against the resolution. My starting points shall be: Every human being ought to be good stewards of their own body, responsible for their own health and well-being. I argue that a Government is no more responsible for your health care, than it is for raising your children. To demand Government health care, would be shifting the burden of personal health accountability. Health care costs money. The only way to pay for health care is to maintain an employed work-force to contribute taxes for social programs like health care. That makes Government sponsored health care an oxymoron. If you are employed, you have access to company health care. The only people who who actually benefit from Government sponsored health care, are the unemployed. Private health care creates healthy competition between medical providers. It serves as an incentive for doctors to practice quality medicine. Social health care programs would eliminate competition and remove incentive for doctors to provide above-standard care. The patient would lose their person-hood and be regarded as a case number to be absolved, so that an annual health care audit would not flag the case. Social health care would create an assembly line "rotating door" system. (See military Tricare for active duty military personnel).
U.S. mentally handicapped citizens should be able to vote for the President of the United States

"First of all, there are multiple parties for a reason." However, there are only two that can win the presidency. "Simple because only two of them have been elected to office in quite a while does not mean the others do not receive any votes." However, it doesn't matter, because they never win. Besides, even the mentally retarded are more likely to vote for a main party. "Secondly, half of the time is a large number!" However, there is bound to be a decent number of people who can make responsible decisions while mentally retarded. Therefore, they'd make the right decision more often than not. "An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year!" I question that. For one thing, if they have to estimate, that means that not everybody is identified. For another, your definition requires an onset before the age of 18, invalidating the statistic for this debate. For yet another, if 1/4 of all adults are really mentally retarded, it can't really be all that serious in each case, because I don't even know a single mentally retarded adult, so anyone who is doesn't even show it. Finally, this implies that mental retardation can come and go. A person who plans to vote Republican shouldn't be stopped for a temporary disorder. "Are you trying to tell me that a number as large as that cannot sway an election?" There would be more votes in favor of the candidate they prefer. "In the United States, the president does not hold enough power to exterminate people with disabilities unless agreed upon by congress. (Which would never happen)" Germany didn't think that would happen, either. Plus, letting the mentally retarded vote for everything but the president seems a little off-center. "Since this is such a valuable right that we are privileged to hold, we must not let it be marred by the uneducated vote." Now the mentally retarded are uneducated? Well, literacy tests for votes are illegal. Plenty of uneducated people vote every year. Some people vote Democrat because their favorite color is blue. Some people vote Obama in the name of affirmative action. Voting out of mental retardation is far from the stupidest thing someone could do. "Even if the mentally ill only get the vote wrong half of the time, it is still invalid!" Can a vote ever be wrong? "To uphold the validity of our votes, the resolution must be negated." To uphold our values of freedom, we must not discriminate, and the resolution must be affirmed. Thank you, as well.
U.S. mentally handicapped citizens should be able to vote for the President of the United States

Essentially, the debate comes down to two points. ==Decision Making== I have shown that mentally retarded people often cannot make an educated decision. My opponent claims that "they can only get it wrong half of the time." First of all, there are multiple parties for a reason. Simple because only two of them have been elected to office in quite a while does not mean the others do not receive any votes. Secondly, half of the time is a large number! An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year! [1] That is about one fourth of american citizens of eligible voting age. Are you trying to tell me that a number as large as that cannot sway an election? Allowing these people to vote would completely invalidate the voting process. ==Protection== First of all, equating America to post WWI Germany is completely off-center. In the United States, the president does not hold enough power to exterminate people with disabilities unless agreed upon by congress. (Which would never happen) I am only arguing that the mentally ill should not be able to vote for the president, not that they should not vote for congressmen. Therefore, they are in no danger. Allowing the mentally retarded to vote compromises American votes. Since this is such a valuable right that we are privileged to hold, we must not let it be marred by the uneducated vote. Even if the mentally ill only get the vote wrong half of the time, it is still invalid! To uphold the validity of our votes, the resolution must be negated. Thank you. 1- http://www.nimh.nih.gov...