BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States government should sever all economic ties to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia

81%. That's the literacy rate of women in Saudi Arabia. 45%. That's the amount of women unemployed. Women can't even drive in Saudi Arabia. 100%. That's how many people are Muslim in Saudi Arabia. Why is that the case? Practicing any other religion in the country is a crime. Although, as my opponent has said, Saudi Arabia's economy might be booming, their economy is booming because of the oil exporting they have. No other buyer of oil is bigger than the United States, once Saudi Arabia sees that the United States Government is serious about their human rights violations , they will realize that what they're doing is unacceptable and ultimately will change their ways. We could continue to import oil from Saudi Arabia and positively reinforce their atrocious behavior or we could stop funding their causes and begin to sever all economic ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Greed or Morals. Which one will you chose?
The United States government should sever all economic ties to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia

As you point out, ``oil imports into the United States from Sauji Arabia come in at second place with about 160 million barrels of crude oil annually.``( http://www.quoteoil.com...) Canada is ranked at first place. In recent years the United States has imported approximately 200 million barrels of crude oil annually from Canada.(http://www.quoteoil.... com) However, we must keep in mind that ``in the Middle East there are an estimated 727 billion barrels oil in reserve. The amount of oil in the Middle East far outstrips what is available anywhere else on Earth.``(http://www.quoteoil.com...) In recent years the government of Sauji Arabia has been using financial resources brought about by oil export to the U.S. for building social infrastructure. This has contributed to creating mass employment opportunity. Chas.W. Freeman, JR.(President , Middle East Policy Council) says that ``the economy is booming. The stock market was up 75 percent in 2004 in Riyadh. Construction is everywhere in evidence. Public debt is being retired.``(http://www.highbeam.com...) About eight years has passed. And now Riyadh is one of the fastest growing and most prospeous cities in the world.( http://travel. yahoo.com) In my opinion the root cause of social unrest and terrorism is the economic disparity between the rich and the poor. However, rapid economic growth has contributed to reducing those serious social problems in Saudi Arabia. As a result, I imagine that a hatred feeling and distrust toward the U.S. among the general public of the country have been greatly reduced. From above arguments I beliebe that a freindly relationship must be established between the two countries as long as possible.
The United States government should sever all economic ties to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Where my opponent has it wrong is that Saudi Arabia is the most stable exporter of oil in the world. This simply isn't true. There are many other alternatives for the United States in terms of oil importation such as Mexico, Canada, and Russia. Although he has good intentions, my opponent got another thing wrong. Saudi Arabia does not have the world's biggest oil reserves. It simply isn't the case. Sure, the main exporter of oil in the world is Saudi Arabia but that is simply because the United States hasn't tapped into their true potential of the Green River Foundation, as I had said before. Not only does this one piece of land have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, this is a piece of land inside the United States. What this means is that the United States would have more jobs in production and it would stimulate the economy, unlike what my opponent had said. My opponent has another thing wrong in his writing. Saudi Arabia doesn't have the same concerns and similarities that the United States has. Saudi Arabia actually supports Al-Qaeda and has actually aided Syria and surrounding countries against the war on Israel. Overall, Saudi Arabia is an enemy of the United States that shouldn't be given the right of trading with the United States.
The United States government should sever all economic ties to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia

I accept this important debate. I believe Saudi Arabia is not a harmful country for the United States. Rather, the country is an important and indispensable for the survival of the U.S. from the economic point of view. ``The United States and Saudi Arabia established full diplomatic relations in 1940. Saudi Arabia`s unique role in the Arab and Islamic worlds, its possession of the world`s largest reserves of oil, and its strategic location makes its friendship important to the United States. The two countries share common concerns and consult closely on regional security, oil exports and imports, and sustainable development.``(U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, http://www.state.gov...) Moreover, the United States has sold Saudi Arabia military aircraft, air defense weaponry, armoured vehicles, and other equipment to strengthen its defense capability for a long time. (http://www.state.gov...) The most important thing for the U.S. is that the U.S. has been too much dependent on the high quality oil exported from Sauji Arabia since the end of World War Second. It is the vital energy source for the U.S. economy and the daily life for the general public. However, these days it is expected that a new energy source like shale oil which can be extracted in the U.S. will be replaced with a large amount of imported oil from the Middle East. Mass media reports that the day when the U.S. will not depend on the oil from Arab world might come in the future. This situation might contribute to reducing the trade deficit of the U.S. However, in my opinion this is a very optimistic view. There are number of disadvantages for shale oil. For example, ``critics of shale oil extraction pose questions about environmental management issues, such as waste disposal, extensive water use, waste water management, and air pollution.``( http://en.wikipedia.org...) I firmly believe that Sauji Arabia remains the only, one stable oil supplier for the U.S. for many years to come. Therefore, the U.S. must continue in keeping the economic and diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia as long as possible for getting the stable supply of the energy resource which is vital for the economic activity. Good luck.
colin leslie deans erotic poetry is put down on DDO where similar works would not

You had like 12 hours or more and you come up with "well you didn't DISPROVE me in a debate where I have sole burden of proof so I WIN." Um, okay. Okay then.However, you DID NOT meet your burden of proof. My statement that it is not my job to find other examples was in response to you telling me to find more examples to support your position. Thanks for taking me out of context and being deliberately misleading. I'm not sure, but I think that constitutes me getting the conduct point at least.You also did not show where any of the given works of art have been accepted on DDO. I know you aren't really the debater, being the "leading erotic, uh, poet, in Australia" or the public relations representative for the "leading erotic, uh, POET, in Australia" but there is this thing called the BURDEN OF PROOF. You don't just get to hand it over to me for a cheap win. I did give exactly one debate you have had about your poetry where a serious conversation ensued. You gave one, and I gave one that shows that you are wrong. I also proposed that it is your offensively unsubtle advertisement tactics that have been shot down, but I see no comment on that one. Deny, deny, deny, am I right? Or, no, it's "Say nothing and maybe they'll forget." So, to summarize, you didn't meet your burden of proof, you didn't respond to my objections to your own example, you didn't respond to my alternate theory about why your debates are met with reproach, and you've been purposefully misleading to try to save your case.
colin leslie deans erotic poetry is put down on DDO where similar works would not

Actually, whether or not you are CLD is relevant to this debate, since I argued, and you didn't even try to respond to, that your debates are put down, not the work. The next point is also relevant, since I also argue it is your advertisement and obsession with your own work that is being put down. I won't do your work for you. It is not my job to find other examples.Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that your work has been put down where similar works haven't. You haven't shown where a debate on FSoG has been accepted. I also argue that it is the sheer volume of your debates on the same artist that is not being accepted. In fact, your very first debate on this website, you had a serious conversation about whether or not "this is a great modernist poem".You have given one example out of 60, and you have not shown where a discussion on similar works have been accepted.Please, for the sake of the voters, try harder next time.
colin leslie deans erotic poetry is put down on DDO where similar works would not

point 1 con asks "You are Colin Leslie Dean, right?" it is no point to the debate whether I am or not that question is irrelevant point 2 con says " I mean, I've never heard of this person before seeing your debates" that is is irrelevant to the debate point 3 to my example of put down con says "Surely you could have found a few more, no?" just do a search you will find more my example I think captures the rest point 4 con has to show that colin leslie deans erotic poetry is NOT put down on DDO or show where similar works have been put down so far con has given no proof of his position where I have given an example of my position
colin leslie deans erotic poetry is put down on DDO where similar works would not

Before we have this debate, there is something that I think needs to be addressed. You are Colin Leslie Dean, right? You talk about him/her in the third person, but either you are the BIGGEST fangirl/boy for a relatively unknown poet, you are CLD, or you hired someone that is pretty good at public relations. I mean, I've never heard of this person before seeing your debates, so I guess the advertisement is working. You even give a link to free poetry of CLD. You aren't even trying to be subtle.Your link is to 1 of 60 debates you have had about this person's poetry, and thus is only the opinion of one. I'm sure you can probably link to where your, um, "debates" have been met with reproach, but you have allowed 8,000 characters for each round. Surely you could have found a few more, no?Really, it depends on the debate subject. Even narrowing it down to the oh-so-maturely put "naughty bits" of, say, Fifty Shades of Gray, there is still a variety of topics to be had there. For instance, does FSoG promote BDSM or rape culture? One could even have a debate about how a series of glorified fanfiction could be made into a book trilogy, if it happened an appropriate amount of times. One could gain from having a philosophical debate about what sex means in a medium full of metaphor, figurative language, and where one can choose to take a sentence literally or figuratively. I would even argue that a debate about one's opinion, which is truly what you are offering here, not philosophy, not metaphor, pure opinion, and one could even back up their own opinion. However, hashing out the same exact debate in a different dress does not bode well with a public where debates are the common pastime. Your next sentence is pure gibberish, so I can't respond. Oh, and thanks for yet another advertisement for Colin Leslie Dean.Okay, my rebuttals are out of the way. Now it is time to make some points.Case One: I have alluded to this idea in this very argument before. You see, if my theory that you are either CLD or a vocal advertisement, it makes sense you advertise on the debate section of a debating website, but these topics aren't debates. A forum would be okay, maybe even the opinion section, but there is no rational discourse that can happen with you or the, um, "debates" you have chosen. So, I would say it is not Colin Leslie Dean's work that is being shot down, but it is your arrogant, self-advertisement or obsessive fangirling/boying over a pseudo-celebrity that is being shot down.Case Two: You're CLD, right? Like, there's no argument at this point, assuredly. You even have debates about this self proclaimed "Australia's leading erotic poet's" idea on mathematical theories. Come on. We're not dumb.Thanks, and I await your response.
colin leslie deans erotic poetry is put down on DDO where similar works would not

colin leslie deans erotic poetry is put down non DDO where similar works would not you can download for free deans poetry from here to see what his poetry is about http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com... it has been said of deans work http://www.debate.org... "This is the single worst, most vulgar, and perverted sense of Literature I have read." my claims is 1) the naughty bits in Lady Chatterley's Lover a novel by D. H. Lawrence, would not be put down 2) discussing fifty shades of grey would not be put down 3) discussing the naughty bits in Shakespear would not be put down 4)discussing the naughty bits ie incest masturbation in the bible would not be put down if con says no the above debates would would not be put down then I argue colin leslie deans poetry is put down DDO for interest The National Library of Australia regards dean poetry to have cultural value since they have archive/preserved colin leslie dean work see here http://pandora.nla.gov.au...
how anyone sees future from there time by believing one god is true when one god is lie

i am talking on believers of god who are originally genie who sees future from there past and past from there future which runs in there same time. genies who are believers of god sees future from past and past from future by believing god is true only and never wrong but god is also wrong and been proved that every genie has evil thoughts who forces someone to sin when someone becomes against there gods which is evil sinner act. So you tell me when god is proven as wrong and those who sees future from past in same time for them how they sees future from past which is in the same time for past and future by believing god is only true and never wrong ? when god has been proved lie so every believer must believe god is also lie and visit past from future and future from past but believers of god believes god is only true and sees future from there past which is in same time for them. You tell me how they sees future from there past which is in same time for them by believing in temporary fake truth and never believed in original truth. If they never believed in original truth then how they sees future from past which is in same time for them by believing god is true and they believe god is not lie or wrong when god has been proved lie and wrong. If genies are true then only there power works and if they are wrong then there power doesnt works so how any genie power of truth works which is not proven lie by anyone. Dont you feel god knows this ? that he is lie and wrong which is true but still believers of god sees future in there current time and when any genie is wrong there power doesnt works.
how anyone sees future from there time by believing one god is true when one god is lie

Okay, so, first of all, I want to clear up a few things. Foremost, my opponent mentioned in his or her argument numerous times these "genies" that run the world, and I am confused. Could he/she please define what you mean by "genie", as your argument never quite defined it. Second, my opponent mentioned in your argument that the past, the present, and the future are all moving along at the same time, yet this has been proven false. Time, and by extension the future and the past, are simply constructs of the human mind to keep track of when events occurred. In the universe, there is simply a string of events, and whenever one claims to "see the future", they are making an educated guess at best. Simply put, no human can travel through time or know for certain what will happen in the future. Now, on to the religion part of this debate. While I am unsure which god my opponent is referring to, so I will use my knowledge as a Christian in this debate. While it may be simply based on what one believes, the reason that I believe the Christian god exists is because of the work that he does throughout the world. The many, many near-death cases where all medical science says that the patient should have died, but didn't. Or the one standing school with students huddled in fear amongst a wasteland left in the wake of a tornado. These actions are signs of mercy by god, and they happen far more often than could be chalked up to random chance. Overall, I ask my opponent to clarify what we are debating, as well as use better grammar in future debates.
fox news should be taken off air

Let me first point out that this debate is not very well structured. You give no definitions or supply rules for what this debate is meant to be, which makes it more confusing and less likely to be debated. I picked it up because I am trying to experience all that Debate.org has to offer. For the interests of this debate, you should know that I tend to lean liberal although I try to stay out of political issues. I don’t watch Fox News or any major cable news channel regularly but I am familiar with some of the agendas they support. Now let’s break down your argument piece by piece. 1. “They’re rape apologists, racists, liars, and they let their republican views influence nearly everything. Fox news is a despicable show.”This is a statement of your belief. While I appreciate your belief, you don’t offer any specific facts or instances to prove that Fox News is what you say they are – rape apologists, racists, liars, and misconstruers of fact. If you believe that Fox News does these things, that’s fine. However, I can’t have an intelligent debate with you if you don’t provide me with something to base those beliefs on. For instance, I could say that MSNBC is a channel that employs baby killers, homosexuals, job killers, hippies, communists and that they let their democratic views influence nearly everything and it would mean nothing if I don’t substantiate those beliefs. However, according to a Pew poll run in March 2013, 85% of MSNBC’s programming is dedicated to “opinion” whereas 55% of Fox News’ programming is devoted to “opinion” [1]. 2. “It should be taken off air.”First off, who would be taking the show off the air? The company that makes more money off of it than CNN, MSNBC, and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC, and CBS combined? [2] Probably not. The US government? Even less likely. Even if you hate everything Fox News has to say, they’re opinions are protected by the 1st Amendment and there is no precedent for the US government removing a television show or channel because they express a different viewpoint. 3. “Replaced by a better, less unreliable, news source.”Like what? 4. “They are a hteful (sic) group and it shouldn’t go on any longer.”This goes back to point number one. This is a statement of belief that doesn’t provide any contextual evidence to support it. I hope I didn’t come off as too condescending. This is an issue that I’d love to discuss more. I look forward to your response. [1] http://www.politico.com...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections

Pro believes that a recall of election is a form of direct democracy, however we in the United States do not have a direct democracy system. Also we have the power to vote the president out of office every four years, representatives every two years, and senators every six years. The United States is deeply divided on every major issue. If we allowed this every time a state or group did not get there way they would just try to throw out the president. this would lead to very inefficient government that would not be able to get anything done. Politicians would worry more about getting kicked out of office than the issues, they would not want to make anyone angry and loose their jobs. Texas wanted to succeed just because Obama gained a second term. Americans are privileged with the right to vote, a free vote, and a fair vote. This happens on a regular basis and if you have issues with a politician use your power at the polls. Also any major issues will lead to an impeachment or resignation of said official, so the only thing this resolution would do is create an ineffective American system. This legislation is not needed and will only hurt America
The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections

“I am Aristotle, and I approve of Recall Elections!” Indeed, a recall election as described above is not a new political and democratic tool, it has been around since Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens in which he notes the story of the laws of Solon. [http://classics.mit.edu...] Creates a More Accountable Government. As it stands right now, only having an election every 4 years does not prevent a president, or any other federally elected official for that matter to be prevented from doing harm to the economy and/or country. By the time the election comes up, the politician in question has had enough time to recover from a scandal and the people may have forgotten it, giving the nasty politician the ability to continue his reign. This would be a huge reprimand to a politician should he or she get engulfed in a scandal. In fact, in the US political system, only politicians based on the representation of their people may impeach a president. This current system is under the mercy of partisan hackery, and instead should be given to a more objective audience (the people) to judge the merits of a sitting elected official. It would take the political interest of a competing party (obviously hoping for the impeachment for example and will try to seize power for powers sake) out of the equation. Closer Representation of the People and Their Ideologies By enabling recall elections, the people can show what actions they find tasteful and distasteful by removing or keeping said politician in power. We Already Do This At Voting Booths: Should someone be upset, within 4 years, the person may voice their displeasure with a vote for someone else instead of the previous elected official. This would cut down the waiting time for that displeasure to be voiced, and allow swift action to take place as a result. We would no longer need protest voting, and get a more accurate picture of who legitimately is the winner in an election (https://en.wikipedia.org... ) This is also allowed in Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, and Washington, (http://en.wikipedia.org... ) This Legislation Relies on the Democratic Theory that People Are Good: To enable this legislation, would further the democratic assumption that people –for the most part-- may be trusted for voting in line with the best interests of himself, and his/her fellows also voting. Furthermore, countries with recall legislation have shown that recall elections are not in fact abused, but used as a tool for the most tyrannical of people in power. In fact, the whole reason why the US Constitution was founded in the first place was to limit government, and prevent a tyrannical one from taking place. This legislation furthers that idealism, and that goal the founding fathers clearly tried to uphold. Clearly this is a much needed legislation for any democratic society to be able to function. I say, introduce recall elections! Thank you!
The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections

"A recall election is a form of direct democracy in which citizens are able to cut short the term of an elected representative through a public vote. Particular mechanisms vary, but usually involve a petition signed by members of the public. If a sufficient proportion of the electorate signs the petition the recall process is triggered and a special election is called to decide whether the representative concerned should be removed from office."Standard DDO Code of Conduct applies.