BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama's legacy will be greater than Bush's

We must remember the condition of the country as the President took office as part of his record, in that a person inherits a certain situation and must do the best they can to operate from that position. When Obama took office the economy was failing, we were faced with a corrupt government in bed with big business, two irretractable wars, a crumbling infrastructure, and a cynical public. To start with the economy: the auto industry was failing, Leeman Brothers needed to be bailed out, and the banking system was collapsing. So he initiated the TARP system and "stress tests" designed by a crack economic team. GDP Growth increased under his watch from -5.4% when he took office to 3.5% today. His housing market efforts were not initially successful, but the stimulus package created or saved more than 3.4 million jobs. As concerns renewable resources, he spearheaded a campaign to provide the American public with renewable resources, but economic interested counteracted his efforts. For instance, in a program designed to fund such energy sources, 2% waste was officially reported. However, for months in the news was talk about a company called Solyndra that may have been a bad investment. Another of his efforts met with counterforces as well, this one was The Affordable Care Act, which was given the unfortunate moniker "Obamacare." This single piece of legislation, designed to help shore up the health care system, came up for appeal over 50 times. It has given millions of Americans affordable health care and works to implement better procedures for doctors and physicians to treat their patients. He has oversaw the development of the controversial Core Learning education system that encourages outside of the box thinking to young children and cross education allowing for teachers to have the opportunity to teach breadth and flexibility to young minds. He disengaged the Middle East with a plan ending the wars there and began peace talks, currently working on nuclear disarmament with Iran. Blowback has occurred, it is unfortunate but must be expected with a war of this nature. He has done this with several obstacles in the works against him. The biggest obstacle of course has been a Congress that was the lowest rated in roughly 40 years of Gallup poll history during the 7-10 of November, 2013 at 9%. He also had to deal with hostile local and state governments that curtailed over 600,000 jobs in his first term as president. Obama promised Hope and Change when he ran for office in 2008. After a short time on the job Sara Palin mocked him by saying, "How's that hopey, changey thingy going now." As cynical as the public has been for as long as it has been Obama has delivered on that message of hope and change. So, I think with both his attitude and work ethic, Obama will have a good legacy and one that reflects more favorably on him than history will reflect on Bush. I would also like to add there are tough problems he has still to face, that we as a nation have to face hopefully we can push through these times with that same attitude of hope and change.
Obama's legacy will be greater than Bush's

I am not familiar with this format but assume this stage is acceptance alone so I here accept the challenge and I assert the opposite is true that the challenge propose, that is fact history in the future will be kinder to George Bush than Barack Obama. I do not argue to popular opinion such as found in polls, newspapers and blogs but rather from a cold scholarly consideration from an objective perspective. There is little doubt there will be those historians that will agree with the doctrine of one or the other of these two and those I dismiss as not scholarly or historical. What I refer to as "popular" as an example is what can easily be found about the Civil war which involves a vast array of complex human perspectives or milieu if you will that can only be understood with a solid foundation of Philosophy and Anthropology yet is reduced to popular acerbic political jargon such as "racists" and "hatred." To me this is not history and I assert if any of our arguments here are made along such lines as popular opinion then the other in the debate may and should declare this not valid as any observers. The cheer of the crowd should not be mistaken for the cold objective view of the historian.
Obama's legacy will be greater than Bush's

Pro will argue Obama will have a greater legacy than Bush. Con will argue Bush will have the greater legacy over Obama. The greater legacy belongs to he who will have done the most to improve the lives of people in this country for the future. Categories of Policy Include: Foreign Affairs, Domestic Policy, Civil Rights, Environment, Immigration, Health Care & Energy First Round: Acceptance Second Round: Arguments Third Round: Rebuttal The debater that shows the President to whom has greatest overall legacy using the categories listed above shall be deemed to be the winner.
Hurting Others Can Be a Good Thing

Section 4 of the March 23, 2014 Edition of "Want Theory #6," found at https://sites.google.com..., states "The term good is formally undefined." That suggests defining "good" is not worth the effort. It also suggests defining "good" is a possibly futile and unhelpful task. The meaning of "good" is intuitive and straightforward. We do not need to delve into such complicated matters. One definition that may be revealing for you, however, is the Definition of Should Be True for a Proposition, found in Section 5 of the March 23, 2014 Edition. That definition follows.Definition of Should Be True for a Proposition. In each sense of "good," a proposition should be true if and only if the case of the proposition is good.That definition suggests that "good" can be defined as "should."I agree that "want" does not equate to "good." While "Want Theory #6" basically says if a person wants to do an action, then he or she should do the action, I was unable to show the basic converse of that idea to be true. For all I know, it is possible that it is not the case that if a person should do an action, then he or she wants to do the action.While "Want Theory #6" suggests people should always do what they want to do, it also demonstrates that there are multiple senses of "should" and "to want." A person may want to run on a track and thus should in one sense each of "to want" and "should," but he or she may at the same time not want to run on the track and thus should not in another sense each of "to want" and "should." Thus, the principal that people should always do what they want to do is more complicated than it may seem.I want to be happy and free. I want to rule the world. I want to have the right to hurt others. I want to have the right to experiment with humans, including in ways some may deem as unethical or unorthodox. I want to own my entire existence and my entire universe. These desires are right and natural.
Hurting Others Can Be a Good Thing

Well, Thrasymachus, my central question for you would be, by what standards do you define the word 'good'? In what sense do you mean it? You need a solid definition of the word 'good' for your argument to be coherent. The muted group theory states that the dominant powers create the meanings of words by which the majority live by and obey. So, if governments and those who claim monopoly over the word 'good' (like religious organisations) define what is good, then whatever damage and hurt they inflict towards their goal is good-- usually war. It doesn't mean that this is truly 'good' for everyone. 'Want' does not equate to 'good'. This is Hume's is-ought problem. Just because I have desires (whether natural or internalised into me), does not mean that I should act upon them. I might desire genocide, it doesn't mean that I ought to enact it. And, what's more, where do these desires come from? Advertising ploys can make me desire to buy something which I don't need; it isn't necessarily good for me that I buy it or gratify these cultivated desires. It might actually harm my well-being or lead to addiction (e.g. with a desire to take drugs). Say I so wanted a TV that I stole it, harming those who got in my way. This would damage my social status, security, health (etc.) and then once I had done it, I might even come to the realisation that I didn't really want or need the TV. It was a short-term gratification, damaging my own being in the long-term.Would it be good to hurt others if there were no negative consequences? No revenge or punishment? Find me a world where hurt doesn't cripple individual security and lead to revenge. The more you hurt people, the less stable your position is for they shall want to destroy you and will, given the chance.
Hurting Others Can Be a Good Thing

I remind you that I'm not arguing that hurting others is always a good thing. Instead, I'm arguing that hurting others can be a good thing. I agree that for monopolies and aggressors, as well as governments, organizations, and people, hurting others is sometimes a bad thing. I agree that whether hurting others is a good or bad thing depends on other factors. There are multiple senses of "good," and I am unsure that hurting others is always good in even at least one sense of "good." According to "Want Theory #6," an axiomatic theory I created, found at https://sites.google.com..., if there is a sense of "to want" in which a person wants to do an action, then there is a sense of "should" in which he or she should do the action. Since "good" means "should," if there is a sense of "to want" in which a person wants to do an action, then there is a sense of "good" in which the case of "he or she does the action" is good. So basically, if a person wants to hurt others, then: he or she should hurt others and it is good for him or her to hurt others. Hurting others is bad when the inflicter will be or could be hurt by the inflicted in the future in return, possibly as revenge, punishment, or self-defense. But as long as the inflicter is always secure and protected, the inflicter can hurt others as he, she, or it chooses without fear of a counterstrike. In that case, hurting others is a good thing for the inflicter. Those who hurt others may be subject to some sort of punishment from God. But then again, those who hurt others may be subject to some sort of reward from God. You could argue that hurting others is only good when it is done for self-defense. I would disagree with that assertion. Hurting others can be good when it is done arbitrarily, at will, or for entertainment purposes. We should always do what we want to do, even if that means hurting others. That is plain and simple.
Hurting Others Can Be a Good Thing

Well as Max Weber famously put it in his 'Politics as a Vocation', "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". Whether such a monopoly is good, naturally depends on how we define the word 'good'. The good a corrupt state exerts, is for the good of its leaders and the minority ruling classes whereas the good practiced by charities is good-for-others (often the poor and vulnerable). Hurting others might not always be healthy for aggressors, and they might act on a false belief, believing that by hurting another they will advance their own cause when actually it causes their ruin. It again depends by which standard you measure the word 'good'. Fear is just a symptom of the impotent enduring what those with power and influence afflict on them for their own ends, their own good. If they invert this physical hurt applied onto them and call in 'bad', it is still 'good' for the dominant powers. Nietzsche raises this point. Hurting others is 'good' for whoever utilises this hurt for their own ends and goals.
Hurting Others Can Be a Good Thing

Many governments, organizations, and people punish other governments, organizations, and people. The government hurts others through its military and criminal justice system. Some governments have tortured adversarial people. Organizations hurt employees or students who misbehave as members and hurt people who infringe on organizations' rights, such as copyrights, trademarks, and patents. People, such as parents, hurt members of their own family, such as their children or adolescents, who misbehave or disrespect them. These governments, organizations, and people exhibit that they believe that hurting others can be a good thing. These exhibitions suggest that hurting others actually can be a good thing. Freedom of action, freedom in general, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech encourage the right to hurt others. Hurting others can be fun and entertaining. People can rightly derive pleasure from hurting others. Any open, prudent mind would accept the idea that hurting others can be a good thing. I feel some people may act like hurting people, or even other life forms such as animals, can not be a good thing because the former people are afraid of getting hurt by the latter people or life forms if the latter people or life forms were to somehow get in a position where the latter people or life forms had the ability to hurt the former people and knew the former people believed that hurting the latter people or life forms can be a good thing. This fear can be insincere, illusory, or poorly reasoned.
Hurting Others Can Be a Good Thing

I suppose you are right that: a thing is natural does not imply it is good. I do not believe I have made that fallacy, however. Hurting others is a part of life. Like with many parts of life, hurting others can be good and can be bad. So, hurting others can be a good thing. The Roman Catholic Church and other groups seem to think that being good entails being helpful, charitable, kind to all, and never hurting others. I think that being good does not entail those things. Throughout history, it seems many Roman Catholics have hurt, were mean to, or killed others, especially those in military. It seems that sometimes a person should be "cruel to be kind," like as suggested by the song "Cruel to Be Kind" by Nick Lowe. I feel that I would feel guilty if I genuinely and intentionally hurt or wanted to hurt another person. Perhaps I shouldn't feel that way. Perhaps I should "toughen up" and take more of what real life has to offer me by being less afraid of hurting and of wanting to hurt others. Perhaps there's another whole part of life that I'm missing out on because of my fear to hurt or to want to hurt others. Real life is supposed to be extremely dynamic, complex, and powerful.
Hurting Others Can Be a Good Thing

By true, I think you must mean morally true. So, something is morally true iff the case of the proposition is good. The issue with this seems to be that without a definition of 'good', that it is circular. It's like defining justice by saying that it is fair. No actual substance behind the words is revealed. To advance, your syntax needs the semantics behind it. How can I argue against your proposition when the good could be anything? Your sense of 'good' seems to be born from individual anarchism in the pursuit of their desires, making hedonists of us all. Say someone wanted to have sex with someone they see on the street, that does not mean that they ought to rape them. No serious moralist would admit to this as a good moral maxim. As for your desires, we have to ask where they arise from? If we lived in the 1400s would we want freedom, or is liberty a value instilled in us from the post-Enlightenment era? I read what you are saying as very Nietzschean, that is that the individual desires should proliferate and grow--that we have a will to power. But, just because this is natural, does not mean that we are obliged to do it. This is Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy. Just because it is natural, does not mean that it is normatively good.
should the terminally ill have the right to die in the uk !

Basically we must stop looking death as solution to all problems. I believe no person will consent death under normal circumstances he will do it only if there is "coercion" whether due to natural or material causes. Consent given under coercion is not consent whatsoever. There are various practical problems as well like "Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill Allowing euthanasia undermines the committment of doctors and nurses to saving lives Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families Moral pressure to free up medical resources Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution" (for more http://www.bbc.co.uk...). Ultimately it might be beneficial to a few but is harmful to many in many ways. Since democracy is doing things beneficial to majority.........things must stay as they are till a proper system is established to overcome all these problems.
should the terminally ill have the right to die in the uk !

This has nothing to do with religion ! Many people do not believe in it . I can't see why you think people are not going to be sane because they are terminally ill that's ridiculous . If there was cause for concern over someone's mental state then it would make it more difficult but there would be guidelines . You can't say terminally ill people are not sane and couldn't possibly understand what they were doing as many in physical pain are absolutely normal mentally ! Everyone has the right to a pain free death if they chose . It's causing unbearable suffering to many and its barbaric . Law needs to change for people in these circumstances ! That's it ...
should the terminally ill have the right to die in the uk !

Suicide is a sin according to any religion. It is not acceptable under any circumstance in any religion. Apart from this........... The most basic issue here is whether a person who is suffering from a incurable disease which causes agony and suffering physically can be sane enough to give a valid consent? Consent is "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something" however this a general understanding but under law valid consent require more than this like sane mind, majority, circumstances under which consent is given etc. So person suffering from illness might not be able to satisfy the standards of consent required by law. 2nd important issue here is 'whether a person has right to kill himself '? It is universally accepted that every person has a right to live irrespective of race, sex, religion, caste, class etc (at least theoretically) does this right to live include right to die ie, right to kill oneself...... such right is not recognised under any religious, moral or legal principles.
should the terminally ill have the right to die in the uk !

First of all in many cases the person is completely of sound mind and fully aware of what they are asking ! Many terminally ill patients do not want to die a horrible death in agony . And it surely is their choice as grown adults to decide . Why should someone who has nothing to do with you tell you , you have to carry on in agony ! In other cases yes it will be more difficult to determine an outcome but that would be down to medical professionals and the family , many people talk to family about things like this I know I have and in certain situations if I became very ill and not able to communicate they know what I would want . People have the right as humans to decide if they live or not I don't see why it's made so hard for people who know they are dying anyway and just want to go peacefully when they are ready not when their bodies give up .
should the terminally ill have the right to die in the uk !

First of all killing a person is not justifiable in any circumstance. Given the state of mind the person may be it is almost impossible it ensure a decision which is not influenced. Any decision to kill oneself which is influenced by others amounts to murder anyways. So justifying Euthanasia is nothing but justifying murder. Where a person is not even in a position to communicate how can some other person take decision to kill him? This is unacceptable. Every person has a right to live..... no person can deprive him of that right with or without consent as right to live does not include right to die. There is fair amount of chance that a person who is suffering from illness wants to survive but family members who are responsible might pursue him to take a decision to kill himself as they may not be in a position to bare medical expenses. Care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives as pace at which medicine is growing there might be cure for every decease.
Ban islam

Before comes to my arguments i will rebut what propositions said : According to proposition Islam is not a religion. but what makes something a religion? religion can be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, prophesies, ethics, or organizations, that claims to relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. So Islam also a religion according to the definition as they practically follow several ethics since long time. Just because someone doesn't like Islam does not mean Islam is not a religion. We all have private belief system. But we can not deny the fact that Islam which comes from the past is not a religion just because we don't like it. Moving into my arguments : 1) Islam has a long history as a religion - So if you suddenly try to remove it's label as a religion, will not be accepted by it's followers. Whatever we say about Islam, their followers are accepting it as a religion. So its hard to change it. Islamic people are not follow the Islam by force. They also like us. They always get their religion's side when any challenge comes. There are millions of people who follow Islam as a religion. They do it because it was accepted as a religion since 2000 years ago. So my point is that long time practices can not be challenged easily because Islamic people like their religion like we like ours. Even though Islam include unaccepted things, Islam people strictly follow that. 2) Also many countries follow it specially middle east countries. So if you try to remove it, those countries will upset against the decision. They will definitely challenge the decision. Then anti Islamic Mr.Trumph will come into play. We have a possibility that it could spread to a 3rd world war. Also the terrorist groups which are Islamic, will declare a war against Western countries. On one side Arabic countries will fight against Western and at the same time terrorism will increase. International arena will be like a war zone. International relationships will be affected. Now USA and Saudi Arabia are friendly countries. So what will happen if you try to remove its label as a religion? So international relationship will be damaged. My next point regarding religious freedom and human liberty + dignity, i will address in my next speech. My burden here is that just because you don't like Islam, does not give you an inherent right to remove it's long time label known as religion.