BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Assad: The man of Syria

In response to your two questions I quote from your argument "1. If Al Assad goes, then who would succeed him?2. If Al Assad goes, what guarantee can be given that we don't see another Libya?"In response to question 1, if Assad goes, the Western nations could in theory (may take a bit of work, but would work in the end) re-write the Syrian constitution and force Syria to adopt a democracy. This may sound difficult, but could be done with Western support. To ensure we don't see another Libya situation, we would need to implement new laws and regulations within Syria and begin UN peacekeeping operations and Western support would again be needed. It all relies on other countries as Syrian rebels just don't have the manpower. I quote "So why isn't the Western nations supporting the Syrian rebels while Russia directly supports Assad by providing him with weapons?" The Western nations are TRYING to support the rebels but this costs money and we don't have it to be funding rebels.
Assad: The man of Syria

So why isn't the Western nations supporting the Syrian rebels while Russia directly supports Assad by providing him with weapons? The US claims that if they provide weopens to the moderate Syrian rebels, these weapons might fall into the hands of extremists. This again shows how irresponsible the rebels can be. I would like to end my debate with two questions: 1. If Al Assad goes, then who would succeed him? 2. If Al Assad goes, what guarantee can be given that we don't see another Libya?
Assad: The man of Syria

The rebels would be able to maintain control over territories if they recieved sufficient equipment and could be a well trained fighting force, if only the US and NATO would train and give more equipment to them. For an example. the US has only trained '4 or 5' Syrian opposition fighters[1]. The Syrian opposition is currently not as popular but they are still growing so that is expected but currently as you said the Syrian government may be more popular. If they did take Damascus, then they would require more manpower and other assistance from NATO countries, the Syrian rebels could not just defeat the Government by themselves. [1] "US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.theguardian.com...
Assad: The man of Syria

I would like to quote a sentence of my worthy opponent: " can't maintain proper control over territories as they are 'rebels' not a 'government force' which will surely have more people backing it." Doesn't this imply that the rebels are not capable of holding territory taken by them? Doesn't this imply that the Syrian regime is still popular amongst Syrians and Al Assad is a legitimate leader of Syria? Doesn't this imply that if rebels take Damascus,they wont maintain proper control over the whole of Syria? The Syrian rebels lack a considerable amount of firepower, something which is still an unfulfilled promise of the US. The Assad regime, on the other hand, even though facing massive manpower shortage, has enough firepower to beat back ISIS. As of now, the Syrian government is the only legitimate Syrian force to defeat ISIS in Syria.
Assad: The man of Syria

I quote from your argument "People living under the regime still attend weddings and go for parties, a stark contrast to the situation seen in areas controlled by the rebels." The rebels can't let people 'attend weddings' primarily because it is a warzone and they are continually fighting and can't maintain proper control over territories as they are 'rebels' not a 'government force' which will surely have more people backing it. Even Saudi Arabia[1] have called for Assad to be overthrown. Its also blatant use of chemical weapons against civilians is apalling and in its own right an automatic war crime, which by international law, means he needs to be arrested and tried for his crimes, which he must answer to. [1] "Saudi Arabia - Syria Intervention" http://eaworldview.com...;
Assad: The man of Syria

The rebels in Syria show no signs of unity except some radical groups which formed an alliance called " Army of Conquest" and captured Idlib from Government forces. In a situation like this, we don't see a legitimatei leadership for the people of Syria. Also, we must note that Syria is still a functioning state and the Western nations, including the US, believes that an Assad regime is much better than ISIS marching through Damascus. We must also note that even though Al Assad's regime has lost almost 60% of Syria's national territory, more than 60% of Syria's displaced population still lives under regime control. Another important point to be noted is that the Syrian government has lost only 2 of its 14 provincial capitals, Raqqah and Idlib. In the rest 12 provinces, the government has its presence established. People living under the regime still attend weddings and go for parties, a stark contrast to the situation seen in areas controlled by the rebels.
Assad: The man of Syria

The instigator has not made it clear if he is for or against President Assad stepping down, but as he is Pro I shall assume he is for him stepping down, therefore I am debating he should not step down. President Bashar-Al Assad should not step down. He has kept Syria unified and if he were to be overthrown, killed or displaced from his position, Syria would be in even more turmoil. It is similar to the previous situation in Libya, once Gaddafi was killed and overthrown, Libya was thrown in turmoil and civil war broke out with terrorist organisations, rebel groups and ISIS fighting for control. Only Gaddafi held together Libya. We could even relate it to former Yugoslavia. General Tito held together Yugoslavia and once he died, it all broke apart and a civil war broke out killing thousands. My point is, dictators hold countries together and stop civil wars breaking out. Overthrowing Assad will make it worse and will make the refugee crisis even worse than it is.
Assad: The man of Syria

Four years ago, amidst the popular Arab Spring blossoming in the Middle East, little did the world realize that a group of peaceful protests would lead to a multi fronted proxy war, which would trigger the world's worst refugee crisis. Now, being in its fifth year, the Syrian Civil War is not showing any signs of stopping soon. And what makes it even more worse is the rise of the hardline terrorist group calling itself ISIS. Whats more heart breaking is that the western nations fail to acknowledge the fact that currently there is no "legitimate" successor to Bashar Al Assad. The Syrian regime has now lost more than 50 percent of its national territory and the strength of their Armed Forces have been down to half of what it was when the war began. The US and its western allies still believe in their ideology that the moderate Syrian rebels would regroup and fight back against the ISIS. But they are wrong! Do you think they are?? Do you think Bashar Al Assad must step down?
Circumcision at Birth

Ahh, And so it begins, You can't refute my argument, So you begin with the personal attacks and ad infinitum assertions. Do you think it's beneficial to your argument to restate the things you've already said, You can't even deal with my critiques because you can't deny the truth of them. You state all of these benefits, There's no evidence for them, But even if there was, There are better ways to treat them that don't violate body autonomy and mutilate the child, So you're argument is invalid. You make ad populum appeal by saying circumcision is right because it's popular, This doesn't matter. The earth being flat was a popular opinion too. You say the rate is low, But doctors admit themselves that they botch 2 circumcisions a week on average. Then you appeal by saying that I should debate government doctors, Those would still just be opinions, Just of a different person. If the point is so clear, Then why can't you set me straight? You say death by circumcision is rare. Let me ask you, Why does there have to be any death at all? Why are we risking baby deaths for nothing? C-Sections are also mutilation and are only justified in emergencies. There are no emergency circumcisions because they're elective surgeries. Furthermore, It's not merely about pain, It's about harm too. Circumcisions save lives you say? Wow, I dare say you might be married to this belief. That is bad faith arguing. I never denied the disease. I merely said that circumcisions was not the golden answer to it. I also told you to wash your penis more instead of lopping off pieces of it. I'm sorry that you feel committed to this idea because you chose to get one. But I didn't get to choose, So think of it from my perspective, Because my case is the more common one. Your floor. Once again, Hold the blood.
Circumcision at Birth

JESUS CHRIST WILL YOU LISTEN TO ME FOR ONE SECOND. 1: STOP DENYING THE DISEASE. 2: I GAVE YOU A DAMN GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT READ IT BEFORE WRITING. 3: "The disease you mentioned is preventable so maybe take care of your penis better" What moron are you? Cancer is preventable lol just like not get cancer is your argument. No. No No. There is a medical benefit. I listed them. I gave you a trusted source. I didnt lie about anything at all. You are like an anti-vaxxer. Stop denying government documents. Just because you didnt get cancer doesnt mean it doesnt exist. I don't get what is wrong with you. You didnt even read my argument. Next time ill be taking your approach by not even reading evidence and ill just say that people that don't circumsize are indeed demons from hell. That is your approach. Oh my god. "It's more likely to cause more medical problems rather than solve them" So you would rather say my surgeon is a lier, Disprove 3 diseases, Lie about facts and make a stupid argument (I literraly could not take care of my penis before because of forskin. I COULD NOT take care of it PHYSICALLY because the foreskin would not open". Stop making up lies. Read some articles. You haven't been through it. Admit it. "Foreskins are natural parts of the body and to have them is not a crime" Cancers are natural. Why are you trying to chemo me? What is wrong with my cancer? Or my third arm? Read the articles provided, And then respond.
Circumcision at Birth

Your previous argument had absolutely no structure. Do you know of phimosis? You are saying that circumcision is based on religion. Wrong. Why would a doctor lie about a surgery. They don't get a bonus in Russia for it. I almost died due to the conditions and could barely walked for a week. This is serious. My doctor is not religious, And so wasn't I. Phimosis is a serious issue. Some people cannot stretch it to open like I couldn't. It is a serious issue that can be immediately prevented with one surgery. There is only 3 possible treatments to phimosis, Like 1: Wait and see. Bad idea 2: Circumcision 3: STEROID cream to help stretch it. You are saying that circumcision has absolutely no benefits. You are so wrong. Do some research. Do it here. https://www. Betterhealth. Vic. Gov. Au/health/ConditionsAndTreatments/circumcision Some points from that article. A GOV document btw. a 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (remembering that only one per cent of babies are at risk of a UTI, So 1, 000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one UTI) no risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin easier genital hygiene much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (although this is a very rare condition and good genital hygiene also seems to reduce the risk. More than 10, 000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one case of penile cancer) a possibly lower risk of men getting sexually transmissible infections (STIs) than men who are not circumcised (although these studies have not been scientifically confirmed and safe sex practices are far more effective in preventing these infections). Here have another one https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/ In the United States, Circumcision is a commonly performed procedure. It is a relatively safe procedure with a low overall complication rate. Try to debate 2 Government docs. I dare you. I am not saying that you should circumsize your babies now. Just tell them to do it to their kids. Its safe, And complications are really rare. "It has been widely reported that circumcision complications occur more frequently with increasing age of the patient. " This means it is less safe the older you are. "Fortunately, Death from neonatal circumcision is fortunately an extremely rare occurrence. King reported a period when 500, 000 consecutive circumcisions were performed in New York city without a single fatality " Now for the pain argument. In your world, Do we only do C-Sections then? Because normal birth is when the head and the skeleton of the baby is LITERRALY being pushed in. That is pain if I ever felt it. You are denying a medical condition. That is not proffesional. Circumsision saves lives.
Circumcision at Birth

Hmm. I do believe you're losing your temper. Tisk tisk. "YOU CAN'T PREVENT IT CAUSE YOU CAN'T OPEN IT. " wrong, Prevent means to stop it before it happens, Therefore you would be able to clean it because it wouldn't be stuck shut yet. "ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WRITE. YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT" I did, But as I pointed out, You can't just post links and make bold assertions. You have to you to explain why it's true. That's the part you're messing up on. You think that because you think it's true, That it's just "obvious" and we should just "believe" you. It's not that simple. You have to show us that your way must be right and that the opposite is impossible. You've presented numbers and they may be accurate, But you haven't met Burden of Proof and you haven't showed that circumcision is necessary, You've only shown that maybe people should have the right choose it as adults at best. "THE EYEBALL ARGUMENT IS STUPID. " Arguments can't be stupid as they have no capacity for thought. This is nota rebuttal but rather an insult. "NO. WE ARE NOT CUTTING OUT THE WHOLE PENIS JUST A TINY BIT OF SKIN. " Tiny is relative. Tiny compared to what? If we compare it in terms of sexual pleasure, Then they're cutting off over 90% of that. So bye bye 90% of sexual pleasure. If we're measuring in inches, It's over 4 inches. That's literally the length of some penises people. "YOU WOULD RATHER DENY 3 DISEASES THAN ADMIT I AM RIGHT. " False. I never said any diseases were not true. That's simply a lie. Also, For the third time, Even if I granted you the medical benefits, It's still not a good enough to violate body autonomy. I keep telling you this and you don't seem to want to rebuttal me but rather reassert the same thing I already rebutted. You got 1 round left, Maybe if you calm yourself and focus on actually trying to rebutting my points, You could get somewhere. At this rate, You've basically said the same thing 4 times in a row now. I suggest you don't make it 5
Circumcision at Birth

I'm done. How can I talk with such a person? OMG. For the last time. YOU CAN'T PREVENT IT CAUSE YOU CAN'T OPEN IT. YOU CAN'T CLEAN IT. THAT LIKE PUTTING AN OUTSIDE BANDAGE ON AN INTERNAL BLEEDING. ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WRITE. YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. THE EYEBALL ARGUMENT IS STUPID. NO. WE ARE NOT CUTTING OUT THE WHOLE PENIS JUST A TINY BIT OF SKIN. YOU WOULD RATHER DENY 3 DISEASES THAN ADMIT I AM RIGHT.
Circumcision at Birth

First, You are the one that started with ad hominem. Look. You are clearly denying facts. I literraly gave you facts. Gave you government documents, Evidence that you refuse to even look at. I can refute your point and I did. You just have a ego so far up you can't even see it. Circumcision is popular because it saves lives. Can you please provide evidence to show the 2 circumcisions a week? No? Just a thing you made up. Same as me saying- A doctor told me that 100% of all people that are not circumcised are demons. They aren't. That is a stupid claim. You have a stupid claim. If you can show me evidence of the number of botched circumcisions, I will GLADLY read it and agree with you. Why does there have to be any death at all? Exactly. Phimosis and foreskin cancer does not have to exist cause of circumcisions. Why are we risking baby deaths for nothing? We aren't. We are risking adults that will grow up with Phimosis. This is so stupid. Either read the piece of evidence I provided, Showing the number of botched circumcisions (3. 4%) or just get out. Harm. Phimosis is harm. You are married to the belief of circumsisions being bad. You can't look at facts and articles that I provided. By medical proffesionals. The fact that I told you like 4 TIMES AT THE LEAST and you still havent heard it is rediciolous. FOR THE LAST TIME. PHIMOSIS IS WHEN YOU can't OPEN THE FLIPPING FORESKIN. NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WASH IT, IT won't GET THROUGH. THATS LIKE SAYING YOU HAVE AN INTERNAL BLEEDING AND BANDAGING ON THE OUTSIDE. THAT IS STUPID. DID YOU READ THIS? OR ARE YOU REFUSING TO OPEN YOUR EYES TO FACTS? Your case is not more common. Over 70% of males in the US are circumsized. You literraly can't look at my articles. I provided articles. You didnt.
Transgender people should not be recognized by their self assigned genders.

Rules: Have Common Courtesy. Dnt spek lik3 dis k thx That's about it.Failure to comply may result in me calling you a "Fool". This is the only punishment.There may be unused rounds----------------------------------------------------I will be arguing that Transgender people should not be recognized by their self assigned gender, but instead by their biological gender.Con will argue that Transgender people should be recognized by their self assigned gender (Or something similar).Definitions: Transgender- a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person’s biological sex assigned at birth.Biological Gender- The human genitalia that defines whether a person is male or female. For the sake of the debate, it will be refered to as a person's sex. Sex Change- the alteration, by surgery and hormone treatments, of a person's physical sex characteristics to approximate those of the opposite sex.-----------------------------------------------------People who consider themselves to be of a different gender than that which was assigned to them at birth should not be recognized as their self identified genders, because it contridicts the laws of nature and biology, it allows for perverts to use bathrooms of the opposite sex without consequence, creates confusion with Identification Cards and the ability of government authorities to identify people, and may exempt male born citizens from the USA Selective Service while forcing female born citizens to enter the USA Selective Service.
Resolved: Video Games should not have sequels as a matter of principle

FrameworkI accept the BoP. I must show that video games should not have sequels as a matter of principle. My opponent need only negate what I say effectively. As for conetentions and such, I am fairly new to Public Forum debate and do not quite understand. I will argue them, but would be much appreciative if Con enlightened me a bit on how to format this to his liking. Contention 1a - Video games are an art form. I accept this. Contention 1b - Art uses sequels effectively. I agree that some works of art can have sequels which are effective and provide depth. However, this number pales in comparison to the monsters created by lazy game developers. For example, as my opponent mentioned, Toy Story was an amazing trilogy which touched many. But could the same be said for Ice Age? (Whose fourth installment recently has brought the series to all-time low. ) Or what about the original Die Hard versus its slew of lackluster sequels? The point I'm making here is that, while sequels can be beneficial, they also aren't most of the time. Combine this with my evidence showing that a lack of new IP is hurting the gaming industry, and you see that video games should not have sequels, as a rule of thumb. It's quite simple. Contention 2a - Video game sequels allow for a wider audience to be attracted to an IP over time. I completely agree, but new IP has been shown to attract new gamers to the industry as a whole. However, while COD is wallowing in its growing hordes of fans, and its increasing notoriety among parents, one cannot deny that the industry is on the decline as a whole. More gamers are being attracted to IP such as COD and Halo, but less and less are gaming at all. Is this really what's best for gaming? Contention 2b - A large audience engenders a large sense of community. I will concede this contention. ConclusionAs we can see, my points still stand. For reasons such as repetitive IP trashing the name of the industry, and for the dying industry due to a lack of new IP, video games should not have sequels as a matter of principle.
Resolved: Video Games should not have sequels as a matter of principle

Thanks to my opponent for his response.I stand to show why video games should not have sequels on principle.P1: Call of Doody (Oh you know I had to)Oh c'mon. You knew it was coming. Just like you knew that COD: Black Ops 2 (not so affectionately knowns as BLOPS2) was coming this year, COD: Ghosts is coming next year, and COD: Something or Other is coming the year after.Call of Duty, the highest grossing video game franchise ever, is a perfect example of why it is wrong to have video game sequels. It is the fat, lazy, cash cow that rakes in its profit from adolescent, testosterone-driven, males. It hardly changes every year, but still manages to tweak just enough to convince its mindless consumers that it is a brand new game.Games like COD give video games a bad name. They are what parents think of when they hear video games, just a mindless, cruel, profane shooter that wastes children's time and money. It not only ruins the reputation (and dating chances) of many gamers, but the industry as a whole.P2: Lack of imagination leads to stagnationNew IP is needed in the gaming industry for it to survive. Every year, we've been seeing a decline in video game sales. [1] Meanwhile, we've also seen a rise in the trend of sequels. [2] Coincidence? I think not!An article by www.mcvuk.com[3] outlines how this lack of IP will eventually lead to the death of video games if we are not careful.It states how we trick ourselves, as gamers. We think that these sequels that put up such big numbers are helping grow the gaming industry, when really it is in decline. These rehashes of games do little more than to slow the eventual bleeding out.The answer is obvious, we need new IP. Video game developers should make it their principle not to create sequels.Well, that ends my short and sweet R2. I believe that, while my opponent will undoubtedly come back at me with some well-spoken points, but I beleive that these points alone should be enough to make my case for now.A side note to my opponent. I'd ask that you not post your reply until Friday, seeing as I'll be busy through Saturday and this would give me the most time to respond. If this doesn't work for you, that's fine. I'll make do. But your support is appreciated!Sources:1. http://www.zacks.com...;2. http://www.complex.com... 3. http://www.mcvuk.com...
Resolved: Video Games should not have sequels as a matter of principle

This debate forms part of the Official DDO Prepared Championships for Summer 2013. Please see the forums for details. (. http://www.debate.org......).FORMAT OF THE DEBATE:R1 will be acceptance only, with no new arguments to be introduced in R4. 8000 characters per round with a 72 hour response time, plus a voting period of 1 week. DefinitionsSequel - "A work that continues the story of, or expands upon, a previous work. This includes spiritual sequels. "Principle - "A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior. "Anything that DetectableNinja wants to further define or clarify should be mentioned through PM or comments. Otherwise, it's game on. I look forward to debating you, my friend.