BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition in Iraq.

No, if they keep stabilizing the region within about 50 years or so it will be a better country, and hopefully Al Qauda free. Boundaries are already done, but it will spark war for wealth of an area of land for oil. No the violence in Iraq is caused by Al Qauda, they jump in to provoke the ethnicity to fight and so, they are the root cause. They should not encourage it because of the surge right now. U.N. needs to encourage not the U.S. Why does it have to be that way, be bully Russia around, even thouigh they are bigger than us, why can't we get Iraq strong enough to control Iran. No separation. Yes as long as it takes to get a democratic Iraq. If it takes more than 50 years, then I will reconsider. Vote neg in my opinion to have the Iraqi's make the surge work. Which has worked.
Resolved: The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition in Iraq.

the surge is just about over, troop levels will begin to fall in july. after that then what? we will no longer be able to secure the country, violence will rise and the progress we made will erode. we have to think about what will happen with less troops in Iraq, and eventually none at all. soft partitioning the country will not only help to pacify Iraq, it will also help the Iraqis take the rains for their own protection. "stick with what works" as I've said, the surge is practically over, staying the course will result in even more violence and bloodshed after troop levels fall. we cannot be afraid to try a new strategy in Iraq. we have to have the courage to do what is best for Iraq in the long term, we have to encourage the soft partition of Iraq. i urge you to vote Aff. Thank you
Resolved: The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition in Iraq.

Yes the Al quada somewhat true, not really, Al Quada was in Iraq before we go there. It is kind of a statement liberals make bashing Bush or Republicans. Not to say you are bad, but what is popular is not always right. Which is where I come in again, the surge will work to mitigate the war on terror and of course give Iraq a stable country. Vote neg on the fact we need to continue a policy that is working right now in the surge and it would not be wise to give it all up because of a theory. Stick with what works..
Spirit matter is the spirit world

Rebutting my opponent's arguments:"http://science.nasa.gov......Dark matter does in fact exist, this is a link to NASA"Good job, now we are getting somewhere in regards to dark matter."Our spirit is in our body"Evidence? You still have not provided evidence that spirits or a spiritual world even exists. Also if our bodies are the spiritual world, then dark matter cannot be."IF black matter is the spirit world than, that explains why god can be in all places at once."You have provided no evidence that a spiritual world, spirits, or a God exists, let alone a God that can be everywhere at once. You have only provided evidence that Dark Matter exists."Unless you can prove that spirits don't exist than you can't know that you are right"The burden of proof is one the one making the claim that something exists, especially in the context of this debate.All you have done is provided evidence that dark matter exists, you have provided no evidence that a spiritual world exists. Therefore, you have failed at providing a solid case for Dark Matter being the spiritual world.Continuing my case for Dark Matter not being a spiritual world:1. There is no evidence that a spiritual world exists, therefore there is no logical reason to believe that dark matter and the spiritual world are the same.2. The physical vs non-physical problem, explanation below:Also lets look at the definition of matter."Matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/MatterMatter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist. Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass"http://en.wikipedia.org...Now lets look at the definition of spiritual:"Spiritual - definition of spiritual by the Free Online Dictionary ...www.thefreedictionary.com/spiritualDefinition of spiritual in the Online Dictionary. Meaning of spiritual. ... 1. relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter;"http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Do you see the contradiction? Dark matter cannot be the spiritual world because matter is defined as involving the physical, and spiritual is defined as non physical and not relating to matter. Therefore, if anything relates to matter it cannot be spiritual. Conclusion:I have provided a solid case for why dark matter is not the spiritual world, while my opponent has presented a flimsy case in her favor at best.
Spirit matter is the spirit world

What evidence is there that dark matter exists? Also, even if both spirits and dark matter cannot be easily detected and can move through things, you still haven't provided any evidence that dark matter is the spirit world. All you have done is taken a couple of very vague qualities you believe both to have, (even though I can name many things that share those same qualities), Can you name any other thing that has those same qualities?and no molecules do not have the same qualities of what we know about spirits and dark matter.http://science.nasa.gov...Dark matter does in fact exist, this is a link to NASA. "This matter is not only invisible, but it also does not directly interact with the physical world around it.."awe but your wrong if you look at the link i gave you it shows how it can.The case for dark matter is based on it being inside the universe, anything inside the universe is part of the physical world. If there is a spirit world, it would most likely exist as its own universe not part of ours.Our spirit is in our body and our body is physical.ConclusionEven big bang sincerest are interested in dark matter saying that dark matter was responsible for it. Interesting spirit / Black matter was responsible for the creation of the universe? IF black matter is the spirit world than, that explains why god can be in all places at once.On the macro level, astronomers believe that whole galaxies and clusters of galaxies — hundreds of millions of stars — are surrounded by a halo of this matter. While invisible to our current sensors it nevertheless influences the stars in visible ways.Dark matter does exist that is factUnless you can prove that spirits don't exist than you can't know that you are right.Some believe that this may prove otherwise.
Spirit matter is the spirit world

We know that spirits can move through things, we can not see spirits, they would not be easily detected. These are all things we know about dark matter. Dark matter is an invisible substance, that congeals, and holds together our universe. Massive galaxy clusters have been documented, that simply cannot be explained otherwise. This matter is not only invisible, but it also does not directly interact with the physical world around it, other than to produce gravity. This substance is all around us, and we dont even know it. Know we have been told that the spirit would is all around us, dark matter the spirit realm.
Taxing all sales can result in economic benefits

MaddSkillz appears to have conflated "economic benefits of a particular tax scheme" with "political resistance to said scheme". However, if We presume no such conflation, I shall address the point just the same.The Individuals to Whom MaddSkillz refers would almost certainly pay less in taxes unless They engage in frequent transactions of, say, stocks, bonds, currency trades, swaps, etc. As a result, the taxes such Persons pay would not only by minimal, the amount of tax would be regulatable to a certain extent by efforts to economize. This economization incentive would in turn have an additional economic benefit by placing downward pressure on prices which would help to temper inflationary pressures elsewhere in the economy.
Taxing all sales can result in economic benefits

A 2% tax on EVERY purchase, retail, stock, currency market, commodities, etc., in the United States would raise enough more than enough money to fund the federal government, pay down the debt, give Everyone a rebate on the tax up to the poverty line if not more, maintain anti-poverty programs, and eliminate the income tax, while keeping the tax burden heavily on Those with higher levels of wealth and increasing economic growth. US GDP is ~$17 trillion a year according to the U.S. Commerce Department. US stock sales are ~$21 trillion a year according to the World Bank. Currency purchases in the US are ~$205 trillion a year according to the Foreign Exchange Committee. With a 2% tax, approximately $4.5 trillion in taxes can be raised, all existing income/payroll taxes could be repealed. The economic benefits of removing the burdens of the income tax from Consumers and replacing it with a simple 2% sales tax could reasonably be expect to be significant.The new tax would also be progressive in nature. Anyone with an income up to the poverty line would pay 0 tax and Anyone with income below the poverty line would have a negative tax rate, as well as being eligible for the payments made under the current earned income tax credit. As One's income increases, the amount of money available beyond the poverty to spend/invest/trade increases, raising the amount to tax.
Animal rights

C1: animals are alive too. Living and not dead. (1) Or "1.ï¿½Living things are highly organized. 2.ï¿½All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3.ï¿½All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4.ï¿½All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5.ï¿½All living things have an ability to adapt." (2) Now based on this an animal is alive. Living things deserve rights. Just an opinion. C2: Animals feel pain too "Behaviour Other animals show reflex responses similar to our own. For example, when we accidentally touch a hot iron we respond almost immediately by retracting our hand. There is a lag period following this when no adverse sensations are felt but, if left untreated, the burn begins to throb and we alter our behaviour to guard the affected area." (3) Now this means their mistreatment I'd cruel as they feel abuse. Sub point: feel emotional pain " research has provided evidence that monkeys, dogs, cats and birds can show signs of emotional pain and display behaviours associated with depression during painful experience, i.e. lack of motivation, lethargy, anorexia, unresponsiveness to other animals." This makes the problem worse, it hurts them in the brain too. So if they have no rights then it would be a cruel world for them. C3: All life is sacred Life, no matter animal or human, is worth something. (4) These creatures are worth just as much as any life. (4) Moses, I am gonna go easy as it is your first time, hence the short response. Good luck. http://www.macmillandictionary.com... (1) http://prolifephysicians.org... (2) http://www.wellcome.ac.uk... (3) http://cultureandanimals.org... (4)
Chica is better than Bonnie in Five Nights at Freddy's

ArgumentsI would like to point out that I also said that "better" means the support for each antagonist from society. First of all, on the website, Google Fight, Chica gets a ore positive response than Bonnie. This means that people more likely approve of Chica more than Bonnie. But since we are debating on the advantages for each anamatronic for reaching and killing the character, this paragraph does not count toaward the debate topic. Bonnie is most likely active on all of the nights, (Being the most active on Night 1. ) He appears on the left side of the door in the office, and will probably leave when you close the door. But, Chica stays longer at the door than Bonnie does, shown from the wikia and experience in completing the game myself. Keeping the door closed for Chica can decrease your battery power significantly. I do agree that Bonnie has some advantages, such as being able to teleport anywhere as Chica has to travel to adjacent areas, but he is still able to be stopped easily, without taking much power from the door, when Chica stays longer. Chica is also able to access the Kitchen area, unlike Bonnie. Although this isn't really an advantage, this may cause distraction to the player, because of the clanging of pots and pans. Although Bonnie reaches the door more frequently, he usually leaves quickly, but Chica lingers, waiting longer and stealing more of the player's energy. I await my opponents arguments. (Keep in mind that we are only talking about the first Five Nights at Freddy's. )
Chica is better than Bonnie in Five Nights at Freddy's

I accept. I am a big fan of the game. (as much as you are presumably) I'll place a definition from which we will be making arguments. Better - Having an advantage (advantages) over the other animatronic. I will be arguing for Bonnie, my claim is that Bonnie is in an advantage over Chica when it comes reaching/killing the player. Good luck!
Chica is better than Bonnie in Five Nights at Freddy's

I will prove my position that Chica, one of the main antagonists from the Five Nights at Freddy's game series, is better than Bonnie, another antagonist.Rules:First round only for acceptance.No Plagaurism, unless to prove a point or to make a reference or citation.Take debate seriously; No trolling.Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point forfeiture.
Chica is better than Bonnie in Five Nights at Freddy's

Rebuttals I said that each of our gaming experience is unique,and that it shouldn't be counted as arguments. For me Bonnie was much more of a pain than Chica. Some of you might relate, some of you might not. The game creator Scott Cawthon created Bonnie and Chica with the equal advantage of wasting power. Bonnie comes more frequently, and Chica stays longer. Of course, there are variations in each of our gaming experience. If we cancel out our gaming experience, they tie when it comes to wasting power. If we concluded that, then it doesn't matter if Chica will appear on the door on 20/20/20/20 mode, since Bonnie will have the same advantage there. "Chica is as frequent as Freddy, because she is on her 20 mode" It doesn't matter if Chica is frequent, when Freddy has the advantage of killing the player, because you can't see him on the door, while Chica has to first appear on the door and then enter the room or block the buttons. While stopping Freddy, player stops Chica as well. Regarding to the custom night 20 mode, their time at the door doesn't change - they stay there very shortly. True, Chica will still be wasting power, but she will be in disadvantage when it comes to killing the player, since she will be stopped everytime when the door is closed. Foxy is not relevant here, because he will come only if player doesn't look at the camera or looks at the camera too much. If he does, Foxy will only take a little time (maximum 10 sec). This does NOT put Bonnie into disadvantage. "I would like to point out that your statement is inaccurate because you wouldn't know if the people new to the game wouldn't be able to atriculate the shadow in the window. First of all, there isn't much of a difference when Bonnie is there and when she's not there. But ,noobs, such as I was when I was new to the amazing game, will probably tell the difference between the window when she's there, and when she's not. And even if they were fooled, when they open the door they will probably turn on the lights, and they will see Bonnie standing, waiting to stuff him down an anamatronic, or stuff an endoskeleton down the security guard. " I pointed out that Pewds made this mistake. He opened the door while Bonnie was still there and he blocked his buttons. (Bonnie is a guy, so you should be referring to him as "he"). We don't know for certain, we approximate. Some noobs won't and some noobs will know. So to conclude: 1. Bonnie and Chica tie when it comes to wasting power 2. Bonnie is in an advantage over Chica on later nights because of Freddy 3. Bonnie has an advantage over Chica when it comes to killing noobs. 4. Bonnie is an advantage over Chica overall. Pro seemed to be relying only on the power-wasting argument, but i have proved that they both waste power equally, Pro did not disprove that Bonnie is in an advantage on the later nights, because he only used power-wasting argument. Pro also said "I do agree that Bonnie does have an advantage on the later nights. " Pro agreed! Also here is a video where Pewds made the noob mistake: Thanks for the debate, i hope we will have more debates about FNAF!
Chica is better than Bonnie in Five Nights at Freddy's

Go Bonnie! Brief rebuttal: Just to make it even (i know that we are talking about only FNAF 1), but Toy Bonnie has more searches than Toy Chica in google fight. I agree that this should not count, i just wanted to make it even. Each one of us has their own experience of the game,but i wouldn't agree that Chica is in an advantage because she stays longer at the door. We can even it out pointing out that Bonnie appears more frequently, therefore he wastes about as much power as Chica does. From my gaming experience Bonnie used to make me go nuts on nights 5,6 and 7, because he stayed much longer than Chica. So on average when it comes to wasting power they both tie. I wouldn't agree that Kitchen is a distraction, because it would be the same with hearing where Chica is and seeing where Chica is - we know her location. My arguments: Bonnie has two major advantages over Chica: 1. The most important strategy for survival on later nights On later nights (3-7), Freddy will start stalking the player. He isn't that agressive until night 5. Once you've reached night 5, Freddy will be the main focus, because he doesn't appear on the blind spot at the door. Why is this important? Because he always attacks from the right door from where Chica attacks (ignoring that he appears on the left door after power has been wasted). Player's focus is on Freddy now, since he has to keep closing the right door before looking at the camera (major strategy for surviving nights 5-7). Once this happens, Chica is not as much of a threat as on earlier nights, because the frequent lowering of the right door will simultaneously stop Chica while stopping Freddy - the major threat. This gives Bonnie an advantage, because player needs to check the left door, since Bonnie is the only "teleporting" threat there. Chica becomes much less of a threat, putting her into disadvantage. 2. Bonnie vs Noobs (i think it's a funny name) Noobs that start playing the game will only know the basics of the game. This is an advantage for Bonnie because he appears right at the door, while Chica appears at the window. When light is turned on, Chica can be clearly seen whether the door is closed or not. Most noobs won't know when Bonnie is gone after closing the door (i am aware of the shadow on the window, but noobs will figure that out much later). This will most of the time prompt them to open the door unaware that Bonnie still might be there. Opening the door will result in blockage of the light/door buttons and death of the player by Bonnie. Example: Pewds (I can't remember which episode though, since he filmed 3 of FNAF 1). So overall Bonnie has more advantages than Chica does, this is all i needed to prove (1st one is the most important of all). Back to you, Pro.
The Theory of Evolution is a lie. We did not come from monkeys.

And here I was looking forward to him cutting and pasting a lies from another creationist site of things he doesn't understand. The arguments invariably will be something like the measurements done by X were off. And even though dozens of later studies found the error in the original study and got better values the difference in these values show that science doesn't work. When in reality it's the later work which find and corrects the error which really shows that science works. Evolution is not a lie because you say it is. Evolution is a scientific theory of notable regard because of the preponderance of evidence surrounding it. We are mammals, we are primates, we are apes, we are humans. We share a common ancestor with all the primates including the monkeys a shy 80 million years ago. In case you encounter a creationist claim here's a list of all of them with multiple refutations: http://www.talkorigins.org... And if you want some of the preponderance of evidence, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org... Thank you.
The Theory of Evolution is a lie. We did not come from monkeys.

You mention how Noah's ark must not be taken literally,but there is evidence for it. The oldest living tree is about 4,300 years old. Now why would that be? They say the earth is billions of years old, and yet the oldest tree is 4,300 years old. The answer is simple, there was a global flood 4,400 years ago. After the flood stuff started to grow again. All you do is mention some mutations that barely change anything at all. Show me a mutation that can turn a fish into a man and then you've got something. For you to bring such minor mutations and concluding that therefore, we were once fish, is like saying "I can walk 1 meter, therefore I can walk to the moon." Evolution takes millions of years. The earth is only 6000 years, it's just not enough time. Do I have evidence you bet I do. 1: When uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they emit alpha particles—which are actually helium atoms stripped of their electrons. Analysis of the helium content of those same zircon crystals, from that same deep New Mexico hole, revealed amazingly high helium retention in those crystals. Yet helium is a gas and can diffuse out of crystals much more rapidly than many other elements, including lead. Since heat increases chemical activity, all that helium should be gone if the earth were more than a few thousand years old. 2: Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. The earth could not have been a hot molten mass. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form. Sources: http://www.freewebtown.com...
The Theory of Evolution is a lie. We did not come from monkeys.

I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys. doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted? Just because we changed our environment doesn't mean we automativally can mutate ourselves and just "evolve." When people get mutetions, they suffer from various illnesses. Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none. We are made in the image of God, our heavenly father, so when genes in our body changes it goes from good to something bad. How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? you can't. The fact is, evolution takes faith. How you can believe in something that is so absurd with no evidence is beyond me. Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes. Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence. So I challenge you, show me the FACTS, show me the Evidence, to justify this belief, because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you.