BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Bush was a good president

R1: My opponent does not give proof for his claims. I'm sure the voters and myself would love to see actual proof that my opponent's claiims are true. R2: Saddam did nothing to us, and it was none of our business to remove him. It was not worth our American soldiers lives who signed up to defend the U. S. not the citizens of another country. Also, the fact thst liberals stopped the capturing of Iraqi oil is irelevant. We would not have had a bad economy in the first place if we would have never went in Iraq. R3: My opponent says nothing more than he is a imperialist and is will to trade U. S. and Iraqi blood for oil. R4: It proves he was lazy! He took mor vacations then anyother president. No one wants a slacker president. R5: My opponent basically says that it was right for Bush to show the world that we are not about freedom, but for killing anyone who stands in the way of our imperialist aggression against nations that have done nothing to us. He also admitted that Bush, the one that is supposed to help us keep our rights did not care about them. In conclusion, there is no reason to support Bush, as a matter of fact their is good reasons to hate Bush. He did not care about our rights nor did he care about the lives of our soldiers when he sent them unto a un just war.
President Bush was a good president

Counter to contention 1 As for Bush wishing to take the country instead of " sending in special forces and easily taking Osama by surprise people already tried that multiple times and failed If you watch the show 10 ways to kill bin laden the attempts of special ops failed because he could always run our only option was to corner him and then slit the thought or in the beautiful way of shooting him in the head like a pack of wolves going at a deer. 2 By attacking Iraq we got rid of Saddam which I do not believe you wish to say was a bad thing. Also if liberals had not made such a big deal about the oil we could have harvested it and brought the economy up instead of down but the liberals had to convince everyone taking oil from their was a evil right wing attack to conquer the world so really its the liberals fault that the economy is down. 3 wrong people say Bush went in for oil right so if he did that could have given us resources helping us but we did not allow it sadly. 4. So what if he took vacations it proves American Imperialism 5. He didn't care about American rights he went to war to make a lesson not just to the towel heads and camel jockeys of the world that were gunna beat them down but to the world not to stand in our way because we will sit in their country a shoot any of them that are stupid enough to stick their head out the door and if they don't peak out well just blow them up he proved America is not scared of prolonged warfare.
President Bush was a good president

Bush was not a good president and I will be proving it. My opponent says Bush was a good president because declared more wars. I disagree and the next contentions will tell why Bush was in fact a horrble president. Contention 1: Even though Bush attacked Afganastan, he failed to accomplish the main objective. He failed to get Osama Bin Laden. Bush could have easily went in with special forces and have gotten Osama by surprise, but he wanted to take over the whole country and it cost are country both valuable human life and money. Contention 2: Bush got our country into a bad rescesion, which cost many Americans their jobs. His big spending almost destroyed our countries economy. This was also by attacking Iraq which never did anything to us and waisted large amounts of cash. Contentions 3: He attacked Iraq which never attacked us. He claimed they had weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. He attacked a country without probable cause and it cost our country valuable soldiers and money. The people who declare unjust wars are bad, therefore Bush was a bad president. Contention 4: He took a lot of vacations. This points out that he was lazy, which there never was a good president tht was also lazy. President Bush was a lazy president. Contention 5: He passed the Military Commissions Act, which removes the right to Habeous Corpus, one of the most fundamental safe guards against tyrrany. This shows he cared nothing for the rights of Americans. In Conclusion, Bush was a horrible president.
Drug Legalization

This debate is for bsh1's May Round Robin Tournament between myself and ShabShoral.Full ResolutionA just government ought to legalize the recreational use of drugs.DefinitionsDrug - a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.Legalization - permitted by law.Rules1. BOP is on Pro. As the affirmative, he will begin arguing in Round 1 and will waive the last round.2. Alcohol is exempt from this resolution.3. No trolling/semantics/kritiks.4. Voting is on arguments only. 5. Maintain a civil atmosphere. Looking forward to an exciting debate.
In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.

o.0! A forfeit?==Arguments==1) Burden Of Proof-- As the Pro side of this debate, I hold the burden of proof. So, I shall devote this argument to prove that inequalities do exist...(lol this is obvious) According to ABC News, While the top 1% population's income went up by 275% in the last 30 years, the middle class's income levels only went up by 40% and the poor class only went up by 18%. This is solid proof that there exists an inequality between income levels in America.http://abcnews.go.com......Further more, according to the New York Times, 46.2 million people are living below the poverty line, the highest number in 52 years.http://www.nytimes.com......2) Influence -- Everyone has heard of this before. "Money talks" Guess where else money talks? Within our political system. Although the US's foundation includes equality and equal voices among the people, that is simply no longer truthful. The rich and the poor simply no longer have equal voices. The rich, often with plenty of money to spare, can afford to campaign. They can afford air time, advertisements, attack ads, and they can afford to skip work. Nowadays air times can cost sometimes up to or over $468,000 for just 30 seconds of airtime on some popular T.V. channels. Now I ask you this. Who gets their opinions heard? A group of wealthy people paying for advertisements or a group of poor people struggling to survive? The answer is clear here. One group of people have a bigger voice than another. This is a clear violation of our democratic ideals of fairness and equality.3) Education-- 1) People who are educated to college level have a much higher chance of voting.2) Poverty hinders and affects a person's education.3) Therefore, those living in poverty are less likely to vote.This simply furthers my point on fairness. Are these elections fair? Poor and struggling people often don't vote. Consider this. It is perfectly fine for a rich person to ask if they can leave work and go vote, since they can afford the slight loss in income and their bosses often don't care (if they have any lol) However, it is far less likely that someone who is desperate and falling into poverty will go vote, because they need the money and it is probable that they are working labor and that their boss is a lot less accepting.4)Mental Health--A study by the APA has shown that there is a correlation between a person's socioeconomic status and a person's risk for mental disability and psychiatric hospitalization. Furthermore, this was true no matter what kind of economic hardship the person went through. http://mentalhealth.about.com...;5)Unfair Tax Cuts-- The Rich are recieving unfair tax breaks, and in turn, the middle class and the poor class are paying more to make up. Is this fair? Step back and ask yourself, is the government treating everyone equally? This is another violation of democratic ideals. Our country was founded upon the principles of equality and fairness.http://www.aflcio.org...http://www.faireconomy.org...;====That's all I will put for now.... Hopefully, CON will respond.
In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.

Well, acceptance it is then. I'd like to thank my opponent for this chance to debate! Hopefully, we'll both learn from this experience. But I will like to add some definitions before we begin.==DEFINITIONS==As the PRO side of this debate, I hold the right to define this resolution.I define...1) Income Disparities as "differences in the amount of money people earn, in which they have to at least earn some amount of money."2) Threaten as "to be a menace or source of danger to"3) Democratic Ideals as our current beliefs as a democratic state
Atheism

My opponent stated that Hitler was an atheist in private and that Religion was used as a propaganda tool 1. If it were not for that propaganda tool, then there is a good chance the atrocity of the Holocaust would not have occurred. 2. There is no correlation between Hitler's alleged Atheism and the practices. Nazisim and the ideals that Adolf Hitler had resulting in the mass genocide of countless millions had nothing to do with atheism directly. It was due to Hitler's twisted views of several things. . http://en.wikipedia.org... In fact, atheists were the target of Nazism and there was a crusade against godlessness by Hitler. Thus, my opponent is wrong. Another example of a great atrocity not involving atheism is WWI. The war occurred because of politics and not ideology. Yet another is the Second Sudanese Civil War, in which this atrocity was due to oppression and not atheism. I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Atheism

My opponent seeks to show that Atheism is responsible for all the world's atrocities in the last century. Since we are now living in the 21st century, then he must be referring to the period of 1900-1999. Here is a list of all the greatest atrocities of that century. . http://users.erols.com... I argue that not all of these atrocities are directly linked to atheism. Hitler himself was a Christian and did not use Atheism as a background for his decision to perform genocide. Since this atrocity was not the result of atheism, then there is at least 1 atrocity in the 20th century that was not caused by atheism and my opponent's statement is debunked. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Atheism

I regret to announce that my opponent has conceded this debate. Although he has accused me of making "lame semantics", he has decided not to respond to anything I have said despite the fact that through my formality (which is a necessary component of debate) my arguments still ring true. It is fact that my opponent's connection of Atheism and Hitler's atrocious genocide violates key logical structure and is completely fallacious. It is fact my counterargument was not based on semantics, but on the rules of logic and the identification of a key error on his part. Even if my opponent WERE correct in saying that I was making "pedantic, lame, semantic" arguments, it does not apply to my counterargument against his flawed logic. It is fact that I questioned my opponent's strange definition, a definition of "atrocity" that was contorted to match his. I merely quoted out of Merriam-Webster, and my opponent is invalidating my argument based on that fact? Perhaps aside from a bias against atheism, my opponent also has a bias against dictionaries. It is fact that my opponent's attack has nothing to do with my argument, he simply cannot develop a response to all the points which I have raised and this is his manner of conceding. I thank my opponent for this debate and I urge the audience to vote PRO, as my opponent has decided to waste his last post crying foul. Thank you.
Atheism

Wow.I managed to get halfway through your responce before becoming extremely bored and losing the will to continue.You obviously are unwilling or unable to debate my original point, which was pretty unambiguous.This debate was supposed to be about how atheism did or did not influence the campaigns of those i mentioned.Instead i get pedantic, lame semantics.Pathetic.I can see your response already"my opponent refers to me as pedantic,the websters definition of pedantic is......." You might even win this debate as my opinions are quite unfashionable right now.If you do,i recommend bringing your dictionary out to dinner to celebrate.
Atheism

How sad that you will not debate me on my points.World War1 was not mentioned as it was principally a war between nations for power.It does not qualify as one of the greatest atrocities because there was little specific targeting of racial groups for mass murder,unlike the Atheist inspired campaigns of those i mentioned.You still have not begun this debate!You seem to be cynical about my claims of esoteric cults having influenced nazi idealogy.I refer you to the work of Nicholas Goodrick Clark.In fact this point is common knowledge among historians.The beliefs of these cults varied wildly,yet they had common ties,chief among these was a rejection of a belief in God.Therefore their members had to be Atheists.It is true that Hitler targeted Atheist groups.This was because these specific groups had free thinking as part of their motif and as such were seen as dangerous and not for their belief in no God which they had in common with Hitler.Hitler needed slavish devotion and could acheive this through manipulation of the general population which was christian.However he was privately an Atheist.Only the Atheist regimes targeted civilian populations on a massive scale.This was a 20th century phenomenon.Previous to world war2,wars were fought for dominion and territory.With the new Atheist based ideologies of communism and nazism,wars were waged in order to wipe out perceived enemies from existance!This was ok because as there is no God,we are just animals and should live by the law of the jungle or Social Darwinism which is a logical Atheist progression as was Eugenics.
Atheism

My opponent states that he is dealing only with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. I quote: "Atheism is the most insidious belief system in the world and is responsible for all of the greatest atrocities of the last century. I refer to Hitler,Stalin,Pol Pot and Mao. " My opponent clearly says that Atheism is responsible for ALL of the greatest atrocities of the last century. Everything on the list I gave could be classified as a great atrocity, and thus, all of them are suitable. In fact, WWI as an atrocity killed more people than Stalin's regime did, since WWII atrocities were listed along with the figure of 20 million. The fact that he refers to those 4 atrocities mean nothing, he could only be listing them as some examples. There are plenty of examples of atrocities that occurred in this century that did not result from Atheism, but if my opponent is going for quantity, WWI is still a good example. Regardless, my opponent then goes on to speak of "esoteric mystical cults". Then, it is probably due to that and not atheism. My opponent asserts that Hitler was both an Atheist and a Magical "voodoo" type pagan. My opponent then says that terrible atrocities came forth from Hitler. There is direct correlation between those pagan concepts of superior Aryan races and the atrocities, but no correlation between those atrocities and Atheism Thus, I find my opponent's conclusion to be absurd, classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. He has no proof that atheism was the pure cause, only a beginning and an end with no middle. Thus, his argument is invalid.
Atheism

Sudan??I specifically stated Hitler,Stalin,Pol Pot and Mao.Their collective campaigns were in terms of scale and wider impact the greatest massacres of the century.They were all documented Atheists.Please debate me on THESE points.Also,I did not say that Hitler used religion as a propaganda tool but that he appeased the various religious communities in Germany while remaining an Atheist in private.The ideologies which gave rise to nazism were derived from early 20th century esoteric mystical cults,themselves influenced by various pagan beliefs in magic and master races.Virtually all of the top ranking nazis were active members in one or more of these groups,which rejected the existance of God.
Gun control will prevent school shootings

It doesn't have to be an amendment. Even a federal regulation banning assault weapons and mandating universal background checks would be enough. You say that it may not be ethical, but it's unethical to let dangerous lunatics and violent extremists have powerful weapons. That goes without saying. And I was talking about the potential shooter being radicalized, not the gun. When somebody posts on social media that they are going to commit a mass shooting, or endorse ISIS, or something like that, we should take their gun away. Your argument basically comes down to "We shouldn't try to stop mass shootings via gun control because it's too hard.". It may be hard, but we can find a way. It is an ethical imperative to do everything we can to stop mass shootings.
Gun control will prevent school shootings

I agree that stopping even a single massacre would be worth it, but is it enough? There are so many shootings in so many different states, it would have to be made into an amendment for anyone to pay attention to it. Even then, would anyone enforce it? And is it ethical? Hurdles may be useful, but these murderers are Olympic athletes so to speak. Gun-buyback programs are unreliable. And honestly, the murderers will have already killed innocent people before the weapon will have been radicalized. Or do you have other suggestions for what a radicalized weapon is?
Gun control will prevent school shootings

I agree that potential shooters who already have access to guns is a problem, but that doesn't include all shooters.if even one massacre is stopped by gun control, then it's worth it. Also, there are ways to solve that problem. Maybe a gun-buyback program like Australia's, or taking away people's guns once they're clearly radicalized or unstable? And it's harder to get guns when they're illegal. Most assault rifles are manufactured by fairly large companies, so said companies are unlikely to make and sell those guns. And if someone is going looking for an assault rifle, there's a decent chance they will be caught. Building extra hurdles in front of potential shooters is always a good idea. If even one shooting is prevented, it's well worth it.
Gun control will prevent school shootings

But those who already have guns are therefore able to use them. These people are not necessarily illegally holding a gun. If you have it in your mind to go to a school and kill children, you`re not going to stop when you realize that you are not allowed to have a gun. You have proposed that the government will prevent people from collecting weapons that could kill many people, but what about the people who already have them? Would you give the government permission to interview gun shops on who bought what and collect the guns from these people who have paid for them? No. That would not be wise. And who is to say that they will not get them anyway. These people are murdering children. They are not afraid to illegally collect guns.
The United States government would be wise to invest more in NASA.

-First of all, I would like to add something to my rebuttals. When I explained that the cut is 1%; it is still crucial to many departments in NASA because the objectives might never be complete, and most scientists might not be paid as much. Further Rebuttals:EnvironmentEach time a spacecraft is launched into space it impacts our Earth somehow. For instance, it leaves space debris in the stratosphere and harms the stratospheric atmospheric layer. The reason the layer is being damaged is because the gas that the rocket emits causes the molecules in the layer to break apart. Every rocket engine causes some kind of impact to the atmosphere and the environment. I appreciate you including the stratospheric damage in your entry, I just added a bit more information on this factor [1].Sources:[1]: http://www.slate.com...Trip to Mars might never occurThe trip to Mars might actually never occur, I see that you have ignored my reference that I provided for you in the previous round. The main objective of NASA as they say is to put a man on the planet Mars. But due to the continuous budget problems this trip might never occur. In order to send a man to mars a lot of recourse's are supposed to be provided for these astronauts. And that is something that NASA currently can't afford. When the vice president of this agency, Lockheed Martin Thomas Young was asked when will NASA put a man on Mars, he answered, "never." Young has also said, "the dominant strategic issue facing the civil space program is human spaceflight [2]."Sources:[2]: http://www.slashgear.com...EconomyAs for the economy, I have explained this before. I could also see that you are agreeing with me on some points. You actually admit that economy has always been in crisis after the recession occurred. NASA does not invest in the whole portion; it actually borrows more money from the government than the amount of money it invests in corporations.Technologies and DiscoveriesAs for the technological discoveries, I can't really argue about that, they do produce stellar devices, though. But... some of these devices as I have explained harm the atmosphere and the environment. Also, some of them fail to work. For example, Challenger exploded causing 7 astronauts to die in the space craft [listed before] or the Mars arbiter that received incorrect coordinates and crashed on the planet.ConclusionNASA, from my perspective hasn't yet improved significantly in some parts of its field. My opponent says that we invest a lot of money in our defense forces. Well, isn't defending the society and its citizens supposed to be the number one priority in the country. First, we must put people in a civilized, safe society before we can make a step farther. NASA has made great discoveries thought many years, but now I wouldn't put all my hopes into this administrations. VOTE CON!!!
The United States government would be wise to invest more in NASA.

Rebbutals:My opponent says that I haven't answered my question "is it worth wasting money? " Well, through a series of thorough entries that I have written it is obvious that I am saying that it isn't worth it. An yes, instigator the economy is still bad. For instance, I could clearly tell that you have neglected these factors that our economy is facing: Decrease in sustainability, refuse to practive foreign trade, trade deficits, we don't manage access to the market, etc. etc (1). Well, NASA isn't pioneering in technology very well these days because of the continuous budget cuts (see my entry). Also, notice how my opponent says that NASA helps the environment. Well, actually space explorations damage the environment. Also, NASA has said that our current path won't reach Mars. Meaning that NASA is not on the path to put humans on Mars (see reference 2). Vote me! Sources:[1]: . http://economyincrisis.org...[2]: . http://www.spacenews.com...