BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
euro african relations

Mugabe vs Putin and Obama At the time, Zimbabwe had 13 million people and Mugabe tore down the homes of 700,000 people. That is one in 20 people who have lost their homes to him. In comparison it would be like if Obama threw 6 million people out of their homes. Obama has not done anything that even comes close to this violation of property and human rights. While Putin is known for poisoning political opponents and having an aggressive foreign policy, nothing he has done comes close to the scale of evil that Mugabe has committed. None of these men have ended democracy in their countries like Mugabe has. Sources The sources I use like the Washington Post peer review and fact check everything they write. They are highly professional in their journalism. If you think some of the statistics I have presented are inaccurate, then please point them out. Sanctions Cripple Economy It is true that sanctions often hurt the nation's economy, however you are not seeing the big picture. They are a way of encouraging a tyrannical government to cease harmful actions. So they do more good than bad. Mugabe has been less harmful to his people and many sanctions have been lifted as a result (2). Mugabe hasn't done Good I would like some examples of the good things Mugabe has done. He spends $1,000,000 a day on military action in the Congo instead of helping his people. 60% are unemployed. Most of the population lives on less than a dollar a day and earn less than half than what they did on independence day. 25% are still infected by AIDS. The yearly inflation is 115% (3). What real good has he done? Zimbabwe is backwards even by African standards. Tearing Down Homes is Bad I think you are arguing that Mugabe removed 6% of the population because they are living in illegal structures. So you are telling me that satisfying building codes is more important than the basic well being of 700,000 people? These people are racked by an incurable disease without the medical care to help them. Their money is quickly losing value, and these people live in squalor and most just barely eat enough to survive. They are unable to find a job and yes I can understand if their houses are substandard. If they are hardly able to feed themselves, you really think they will be able to effort to make major renovation to their homes? Why not spend all that money being used for killing on new homes for people? Peoples lives are more important than building standards. 1: http://www.independent.co.uk... 2: http://www.reuters.com... 3: http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4: http://www.cato.org...
euro african relations

1. Mugabe is just as bad as Obama,Putin 2.your sources washingtonpost ,guarding are pro western 3.sanctions cripple the zim economy more than they punish Mugabe 4.ordinary zimbabweans are more sensitive to changes in the state of the economy than do the rich ministers and the 'tyrant' as u refer to him who have a larger buffering system financially 5.Mugabe has done more for his people than the sanctions have punished him 6.any sound government would destroy any illegal structures in the city
United States should ban the death penalty

For who ever takes this challenge up I'm 12 so yeah..no name calling or cussing. (Ps don't be easy cuz I'm gonna debate my history teacher from last year and for UIL this year) :) I think the United States should ban the death penalty because there are thousands of people wrongly sentenced. I think it's too easy because you just end their lives right there when the victims (of the crime) family is thinking day and night about it. When people are wrongly sentenced die, days maybe years later if they find out that they didn't do it they have to tell the family they made a mistake. It costs thousands of dollars to just kill them with appeals when that money could go to something else. So first time doing this if anyone takes this up after they could give me some pointers :) thank you By the way my wifi is down so I can't look up facts but I'm going to be writing a paper on this for fun so if you have facts please give them :D
United States should ban the death penalty

Hi and i accept your challenge. I am arguing that the United States should NOT ban the death penalty for these reasons -Before they execute someone, a lot of research and planning is done -They dont just kill someone with the snap of a finger -Chances are if the United States needs to enact a DEATH penalty, then the criminal probably did something REALLY BAD. *The caps are just for emphasis, not to be rude or mean.* Ok, so starting off, you say that thousands of people are wrongly accused, yet you have no proof/sources. Also, your information is misleading, there have been 3 thousand people that have been executed over a period of 10 YEARS. [http://www.guardian.co.uk...]. Next, you say that it is too easy for someone to get executed. That is completely false, if a person is getting a death penalty, then they did something really bad, such as kill 30 people. In that case, they SHOULD be executed. And no, they don't just say, "OK, i think you did something so im going to kill you. No, they spend weeks on weeks doing research on the crime scene analyzing data with multiple sources and multiple times. After all of the extensive research, if they come up with the conclusion that the person they have caught is indeed the criminal then they will confirm (double check the crime scene/check witnesses), if all of this holds true, then they will execute the death penalty. So no, they dont just kill someone on the spot. Moving on to your next argument, "When people are wrongly sentenced die, days maybe years later if they find out that they didn't do it they have to tell the family they made a mistake.", this argument is proved invalid because I just said that the chances of the government/state wrongly sentencing someone is very very meek. Next, you say that it will cost thousands of dollars to sentence someone. This is not true, for one point, if you are talking about the trial, the money spent is all private, the criminal (or victim) and lawyer pay for all of it. So no, there is not money wasted because no money is being spend by the feds. Extending that, if you are talking about the equipment that they need to kill the person, it is a one time fee, after they pay for it, they don't have to pay again. Also you said that the money saved could be spent on something else. I would like to bring up a point, the US in debt trillions of dollars, do you really think 1 thousand dollars is going to make a difference? This next point is a question. If your WIFI is down as you say it is, then how are posting this debate?
Macro Evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief

Macro Evolution is a complete concept, he cannot just pick one part of the definition and say thats all that the entire concept means. "Macro evolution - Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups." Pro left out the context of the quote to make it look as if he can argue one small portion of the entire concept. That is the "e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups" the formation of new taxonomic groups part is not an optional part of this belief, its the basis of the belief and therefor cannot be taken out of the definition. 1.) A.there is no showing of lizards "mutating" into different colors, certainly some certain lizards can change colors, but all of those lizards have always showed that those types could change colors there entire life and every other lizard of that species could do it therefore there is no evidence to say they mutated to have this ability, they could have always had that ability, which is most logical because we have never seen a positive mutation like this happen. B. substitution mutations just means that there is only a single nucleotide is exchanged with another single nucleotide therefor it loses and adds information. as to insertions i would ask pro to show links an examples to show the beneficial mutations that have occured from this before i refute. finally as to the unlikelihood of it occurring as i show later that is not a sufficient amount of time when you look at the statistical chance of it happening. 2.) did you you say "suppose .....", im pretty seething to be a fact we cant just be supposing things, we have to know them, hmmmm sounds like a belief. 3.) Id say we should stay away from wiki as it is not a reliable source. (http://www.allaboutscience.org...) shows that "The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy." 4) Your for transitional species being in every species alive and for humans to be an example is an obvious case of circular reasoning, therefor argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition (macro evolution being a fact) - in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself. Therefor it is something you can BELIEVE but not a fact. 5) If radio carbon dating and other methods of dating the earth are inconclusive this would show presumptions of evolutions plausibility in it having time to occur.
Macro Evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief

As per my opponent's directions I will be providing some definitions, brief points of clarification, and some small opening arguments. I wish my opponent good luck. Macro evolution is defined by my opponent's source as evolution on a large scale. This is fairly obvious, but he fails to define evolution. Merriam Webster [1] defines evolution as the process of change in a certain direction. It also defines it as a change from a lesser form to a greater form. I will be rejecting the latter definition on the grounds that the terms 'lesser' and 'greater' are words that can be judged only by people's values. No value is more justified than any other, therefore basing this debate of some such element would be irresponsible and inaccurate. The direction the change occurs in is also based on preference of the observer which means any direction is just as justified as any other. So I simply have to show there is 'change' on a large scale. My argument now hinges on the idea that the universe and the vast majority of its elements are indeed changing. We can see this as cars move along the streets, as planets move around larger suns, and even as entire systems are destroyed in black holes. To claim that there is no change on a large scale would be to say our entire universe and all of its elements are static, something that is obviously flawed. After all, if we were static entities how would we be having this debate? I leave interpretation to my opponent. These are my arguments. Thank you. 1 - [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]
Macro Evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief

Macro evolution - Evolution happening on a large scale, e. g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups. is defined on biology-online. org. - . http://www.biology-online.org... Belief - 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof is defined on dictionary. reference. com - . http://dictionary.reference.com... Scientific fact - any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted is defined on dictionary. reference. com - . http://dictionary.reference.com... I as con will be arguing against Macro Evolution as a scientific fact, and also attempt to show it to be a belief. both my opponent and myself should hold the burden of proving which is a more plausible, Macro evolution as a scientific fact or as a belief.
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

I believe you shold have oral eaminations rather than written because it would be a challenge to work your mind more.Some people have a tendacy to know the information but can't put it down on paper.Our school sysytem needs to be more direct with its students find out what the student knows and don't know. This will help the student to grow.I think you can help the student more by challenging him. Thats all for now.
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

"Con" (1) abolishing written examinations and changing it to another type of exam is an indecent idea because: (a) if you make it an oral exam, it will be more complex because in essays, you can support yourself with greater ideas as you write while in talking you have shorter time and you get mental blocked sometimes (b) having mental block can be achieved while having an oral exam when you are afraid of your teacher and such (2) we are used on having oral exams rather than having other types of exam.
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

In response to your arguments I find that as a person who lives with a mentally handicapped student and friend I find that oral tests or examinations, are easier for her due to that fact. I find that statisically speaking written examinations are harder for those with mental handicaps. Next thought please. I find that the abolition of written examinations would be to the benefit of the civilized world, on the other hand some people find that written examinations would be beneficial to the civilized world. Next thought please. Written examinations have nothing to do with your grades.What they do have to do with is your knowlege of the subject you are studying. Teachers do not have favorites but reward hard work. In conclusion I think that we as a society should abolish written examinations, because of the fact that we can answer the examination questions just as well as on written examinations. Oral Examinations are better because you do not! have to write your answer on paper all you have to do is answer the teachers questions. Thankyou Jemul, This was a nice and enlightening debate. Even as we go to voting let's remain as friends.
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

I, in the negative(con) side strongly believes that written examinations must not be abolished because: 1.) There will be no evidence of your grade because it is orally while if written exams, there will be a written proof. 2.) Favoritism can never be avoided because a teacher has his own favorites and likes. I will surely affect when you'll going to get an oral exam. 3.) You must look practical, smart, and clean so that the teacher will have a good impression if you'll going to have an exam. Teachers are particular in appearance, who wants to have an oral exam with a smelly, dirty and awkward student? 4.) Not only oral exams are the solution for self confidence and growth in verbal conversation, there are seminars and other extra-curricular activities which aid you to have good speech. 5.) If you are going to take Entrance exams, Masteral, etc. after you graduate to have a job or civil service. How will you apply you expertise in speech if they are all in paper. Clarifications() 1.) In what you said that dyslexic find oral exams easier or better tan written exam is partly correct. Yes, they can find it better but they should have a special school because they are called "gifted". All disbled people have their own special school. There are schools for blind students and as well as deft ones. 2.) If you will not have self confidence how can you even answer your teacher and even go close to him/her.Self confidence is a big issue in a oral exam so you must know that it is relevant. (Goodluck for the both of us in the voting period...thank you for being my opponent, I have learned a lot of things and this will be debated by me and my classmates tomorrow...thanks very much for your time and patience..THANK YOU!)
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

In response to your previous comments about Self Confidence I fail to see where that would be relevant to the abolition of oral examinations. I still think that there should be Oral not Written Examinations. That has nothing to do with how well a person does in his or her classes. Next Please. Due to that fact people that are dyslexic often find Oral Examinations easier to take than Written ones. That is a statistical fact if you must know. Next Please. On to your point about verbal conversation. Sometimes teachers and professors like to talk to their students to make them feel more at ease about their Examinations, whether oral or not. This type of communication makes for a better time of it. That is also a documented fact. Seatwork , homework ,and classwork have nothing to do with written or oral examinations those have to do with what are being taught by the teacher.
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

Mr. James, since this will be the last round, I would try to clarify to you what I want to interpret and say. (1)If you'll going to take an oral examination there will be no evidence of your grade because the teacher has his own jurisdiction or decision to how high will be your grade while if written examination wasn't abolished there will be an evidence and clarification why your grade turned that way. If the right answer of the question is 2 and your answer on the paper is 1.5, that would be wrong because there is an evidence while in oral there will be no evidence because you and your teacher only communicates, so the teacher can cheat or consider your answer. (2)If you graduate, how will you apply those self confidence and those that will grow in becoming good in verbal conversation if you are going to take entrance exams if you go into college or masteral if you want to go abroad. You will forget all the things you've learned in writing because all your exams became an oral examination. (3)If incase only written term exams be abolished (meaning the quizzes, assignment, seatwork etc. are written). Quizzes taken from one part of a lecture, as well as seatwork and assignment but written examinations take a broader topic which includes all the topics. Oral examinations are limited to short topics but written exams are on how wide is your knowledge on the subject. (4)Every person in this world has his own likes and favorites. You can't rebuke a person on liking the person because he found something in him that he might likely have. Like your teacher has a great debt at your family, what will you do if he is not good in academic but his family bribed you in deducting your debt if your gonna make him pass. In addition, every person also has his own first impression. On the saying "First impression lasts", if your teacher has a negative impression on you, he will have difficulty in liking you even if you are not what the teacher expected. (5)1 out of a million gets dyslexia. So that's a very small percentage of dyslexic patients, dyslexia is not a reason because they can have a special school because if she/he will have an oral examination he will stutter or give different words because persons with dyslexia do stutter and give wrong words and twisting some alphabets. Oral examination cannot be a solution for this disorder. That will be the problem of the teacher because he could hardly understand what he/she said. (*sigh and as well relief* i wasn't forfeited! yeepee! That will be all. thank you, but don't get angry on me because of my reasons. I am only "debating" and by the way, I don't keep a grudge on people fights me on debates but I do hate people who put a person's self esteem down. I won't be arguing on being indirect and direct because almost a half of the rounds I argued about those things. My reasons on the previous rounds will clash your round 2)
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

Jemual, I still think that we should abolish written exanimations. Some people especially dyslexic people would find oral examinations easier to take because they can tell the teacher the answers better than write them.I know that from exerience , because my wife is dyslexic. Here ia how you spell flunk, this is part of why we should abolish written examinations, this is because you would be judged on your grammar rather than your answer to the questions. This is a good example of being indirect rather than direct with your answer. Teachers are supposed to be objective and impartial to the students.They are looking for answers not at your appearance.I find that 99% of students do better when the teacher makes a game of being verbally tested.Like Jeopardy for example, this helps the student learn a little bit better.
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

You said that being afraid has no "Bearance", yes that was right, but, we cannot change the fact that a lot of our teens are afraid of our teachers. Statistics shows that 3 out 10 students are afraid of their Teachers. So, if you abolish those written exams and change it into oral exams. Those 30% of the teens will flank the exams. We cannot also deny that we always get nervous when we are on our mid-term or exam week because it holds a big chunk on our grade. If you get nervous, what would happen? You will have difficulty in explaining directly to the teacher what you mean. Neatness in the appearance and on the paper is different. Some people do have proper grooming and appearance but lack neatness on the paper and vice versa. If you will have a one-on-one exam wherein your teacher will ask and you'll answer. There is tendency that you will commit a mistake because of your nervousness. That can never take out when your exam week comes. Even you are fluent in English, you have a little nervousness in you. You can freely answer the exam if it is written even if you don't know the answer on some parts it will not be a big embarrassment because you put it in paper rather than you can't answer the question that came from your proffesor's mouth, can you easily say that you don't know? Obviously, you will be shy telling that to the teacher because the teacher has expectations for you. (Sorry for the late uploading...we had a unsympathetic camp and I thought i will be forfeited but I had a day to upload..so, I did this for the sake of so I won't be forfeited..sorry but I got really tired from the camp and wrote this and after that I slept sounly)
Resolved, that written examinations be abolished

First of all let me answer your first quote, a teacher you should not be afraid of.If you do a written exam you have the tendacy to elaborate more on your subject rather than be more direct.When you are writing a essay does neatness count yes so whats the difference of a oral examination here you have chance do use your thoughts more when you do your exams orally. Being written you can't be more direct with your teacher you will become more indirect because you might elaborate more on your paper rather than be specific . With a oral exam you have to be more specific and direct with your answer. Being afraid has no bearance on your answers for your questions. If you look at alot of people in high offices more of them are better testing verbally than a wriiten exam.