BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Obama a War Criminal

Under Gaddafi's rule,he introduced the gold dinar. It would defeat the US dollar(fiat money) so the US and A invaded Libya. Libya has the largest irrigation system under Gaddafi. Gaddafi is the only one who is holding Libya and the African Union. Libya has different tribes/factions and without him,the factions would be at war as you see today. The United States of America bringing democracy is like the European countries in the 19th century bringing civilization to Africa. Read the Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and you will have a idea about what I'm saying. The USA doesn't need to intervene to the wars of other countries. It become worst if they meddle with the affairs of other countries. The USA has spend trillions of dollar in the war on terror. The money that could spend in food and education was spend in war. Bush and Obama war hawks make the debt of America larger. Americans are more likely to be killed police than ISIS. In 2014,two Americans were killed by ISIS but the US police has killed 1110 people. According to the New York Times,far right extremists in America is more dangerous than ISIS. As for the Ukrainian conflict,Crimea is historically part of Russia. There are mre Russian speaking people there than Ukrainian speaking people. The US government staged a coup against a Russian friendly President and replace with Pietro Poroshenko. This isn't the first time this happen that the US government staged a coup. It also happen in Iran when USA replace a secular democracy with a monarchy because of a fake commie threat. As for dictators woth iron fist,America fund and buy oil from the undemocratic country of Saudi Arabia. The birtplace of wahabism which has led to terror groups like ISIS. It doesn't allow women to drive. It beheads homosexuals,suppress freedom of speech and the Shiite community is being dicriminated there. Saudis also commit war crimes(with the help of Obama) in Yemen. They bombed innocient civilians and destroy cities. They also funded ISIS and other extremists. Obama also funds the apartheid state of Israel. Israel isn't defending itself when they use white phosphorus and use hundreds of rockets fired to Gaza. Israel is led by the war criminal named Benjamin Netanyahu. His also a ally of Saudi Arabia. Obama likes to fund fascist rulers and support them. His the worst war hawk USA see today. Obama is starting a new cold war because of his intervention in Crimea. Its only a matter of time before World War 3.
Is Obama a War Criminal

Well yes we have funded those groups before. But that was due to us wanting to stop. These nations where ruled by dictators, these dictators ruled these nations with a iron fist. They would kill anyone who spoke out against there governments. Gaddafi who was the dictator of Libya has done more war crimes then any USA office has done in recent years. Here is one of his orders he gave his military. "One document shows the commanding general of government forces instructing his units to starve Misrata's population during the four-month siege. The order, from Youssef Ahmed Basheer Abu Hajar, states bluntly: It is absolutely forbidden for supply cars, fuel and other services to enter the city of Misrata from all gates and checkpoints" These rebels groups we where founding where fighting against a government that had done war crimes, and crimes against humanity. So they where in the right to rebel against these governments. Well for one we never sent any troops or weapons to help the people in Ukraine. Russia on the other hand did, they sent there own troops to help the government. The government also opened fired on protesters. The people of Ukraine did not want closer ties with Russia. http://www.theguardian.com...
Is Obama a War Criminal

FYI,the US government funded ISIS to fight Assad. The US government has funded Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen against the USSR. The US government like to send young men to die in their illegal wars. The banksters and evil corporations are in control of the US government not the people. The US government does not represent the people,it represented the Banks who control them. Barrack Obama has funded and armed the neo nazis in Ukraine. Barrack Obama has funded ISIS against Assad. Barrack Obama has destroyed Libya and give it away to the wahabi funded islamists. Libya is a improving and a secular state under Gaddafi. Obama destroyed it and turned Libya into a warzone Don't believe in the US government. The US government is not controlled by the American people. Barrack Obama is a puppet
Is Obama a War Criminal

Now yes we have been using drones, and in my opinion he is worst then Bush. But he is not a war criminal. He hasn't ordered POW's to be killed, he hasn't ordered for any mass killings of civilians. Now our military needs to have equipment to deal with terrorism. Once we find a terrorist he have a very limited window before they disappear aging. Plus useing drones reduces the number of US armed forces dying, and getting injured. The drone stirkes in Yemen our attacking the terrorist cell ISIS. These governments which we do done attacks in usually our fine with it. We are fighting there war for them. It is all about creating a safer better world. Also so you want Obama to be charged with war crimes. Well heres the thing, one we have never declared war on these terrorist cells, two they kill our civilians that they capture, three they kill people who disagree with them. ISIS needs to be wiped out, and it is now or never. They are the ones killing civilians, we are trying to keep the world safe. They are treating that peace, they are no better then barbarians. They rape women, they sell them into the sex slave trade. They kill any one, they torture anyone who dose not agree with there laws. They are the real villians here. https://www.bostonglobe.com... http://www.scaruffi.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...
should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification

Yes, a skill class makes more sense, again it is very rare to see a teacher that cannot use modern felicities. You said "then only few teacher will get the concept" this doesn't make sense, because if a skill class is provided what's the need for teachers not to understand the concept. You also said:" its just like your teacher teaches you something ,she or he thinks you have understood it so makes you do that job ; e.g. well in the rules of teaching and testing anything you have been taught you shall be tested on, the teacher had already passed the test so again I see not need for another test to be conducted to test the teachers basic skills. Teachers have been interviewed by Ofsted (if you live in the UK) so if the teacher cannot teach very well something shall be done about it. Teachers are grown adults, of corse they can make simple and basic mistakes but that doesnt mean they should have the need to have another test, expecially if they have qualified in what they are good at.
should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification

If i go according to your point ,if teachers have a basic skill class instead of basic skill test ,then only few teacher will get the concept its just like u teacher teaches u something ,she or he thinks u understood it but untill and unless she or he conducts a test for u on what he or she thought u before ,after u pass the test your teacher will be able to conclude that u understood what she or he thought. Even the concept of basic skill test is like that.
should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification

As I have to repeat again, why should somebody retake a test not needed when they have qualified for that thing. Teachers have been thought to teach, if they don't know how to use a blackboard which in normal circumstances in very rare, they shouldn't have a test but should show their understanding through actually teaching a basic class not as a test. Many teachers who may not be use to the new environmental modern world are generally old due to the fact they haven't grown into the modern society, but most old teachers are retiring so new teachers with the modern understanding don't have to be tested for this.
should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification

Actually in the topic I mentioned every 10 years teachers should have a basic skill test. and your round 1 opinion tells me that you haven't understood the topic yet. Because according to the topic basic skill test means not only the basics of the particular subject but also includes the new teaching methods ,technology and many other new things. If I go according to you then there is no need to update our textbooks including new topics, implementation of new teaching methods etc. Now tell me weather we are using the old black board . No most of the school have moved to smart board . Like other fields even the field of education has been developed a lot over the past years. So, it is equally important for the teachers to keep themselves updated. The best way to ensure it is to implement a basic skill test.
Legalization of Marijuana

I will not argue that marijuana used in a medical environment can be useful in treating cancer. But, there is no justification in making it legal for recreational use. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana affects many major body systems in a detrimental way. It causes your heart rate to increase by 20-100% shortly after smoking this causes a person to have more than a 4 times higher chance of having a heart attack. Marijuana also affects the lungs because they contain 50-70% more carcinogens then tobacco causing deregulated growth of cells in lungs leading to lung cancer. A study of 450 marijuana users that do not smoke tobacco concluded that people who smoke marijuana have more respiratory health problems. Now to the immune system, marijuana has been shown to impede the bodies ability to fight infection this means more people will get sick and more people will die. Now for the mind, marijuana has been shown to cause many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks, flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has triggered attacks of mental illness, bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. Can the government ever justify the legalization of a drug which has been shown to be so harmful to the body for recreational use? Currently marijuana is illegal throughout the United States for a good reason. Mexican Drug Cartels are responsible for most of the selling of marijuana in the United States. This is a 150-200 billion dollar business they have finances. If marijuana was legalized one of two things would happen first, nothing. The United States would have to tax their marijuana this means that prices would be higher than buying from the drug dealers. The psychology of the buyer is that people will buy something that is cheaper over the more expensive deal. Or the other option is that drug dealers lose revenue and begin selling more lethal drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.
Legalization of Marijuana

I would like to argue for the legalization of marijuana for both medicinal and recreational use within the United States. First of all, as many states such as California, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Jersey, Michigan, Maryland, Hawaii, And the District of Columbia, as well as a handful of other states within the US have legislation approving the use of medical marijuana for different types of patients. This shows that there are legitimate benefits in using marijuana. I am also arguing for the use of marijuana for recreational purposes because of the fact that it can generate an extremely large tax revenue for our country and will help to relieve some of the stress and tension that our national debt has put on individual taxpayers. NORML.COM ( National Organization for Marijuana Legalization) has examined many surveys of the daily and yearly usage of marijuana in the united states and states that between 2.2 and 6.4 billion dollars could be generated from the legalization and taxation of marijuana within the United States. It is no secret to anyone that the current restrictions in place prohibiting the use and distribution of marijuana within the United States are not effective, with the legalization of this drug our government would be able to gain a better control over who can produce marijuana, what chemicals and substances can be used to produce it, who can use the substance, where it can be purchased, and where and when. To anyone who looks at this topic objectively it is easy to see that this is a much safer system for the production and distribution of this product that what is in place today in which a buyer does not really know what they are buying, and the government does not have a share in the revenue that is generated. One more reason that I believe the use, distribution, and production of marijuana should be legalized and regulated within the United States is that the harsh criminal penalties imposed on otherwise harmless offenders of these outdated laws creates a burden on all of society. A portion of our hard earned tax dollars are used by our government to fund the increasingly expensive process of convicting these people and housing them in over crowded prisons. The FBI stated that in 2009 there were 858,408 arrests for marijuana violations within the united states and I feel that the resources and man power used for these violations can be allocated much more efficiently in finding and prosecuting other criminals.
A windfall tax should be levied upon publicly-financed investment banks

Everybody agrees that it is good news that a number of the investment banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer have now recovered from their positions of imminent bankruptcy and have recently reported massive profits. (1) The bad news is that they haven't learned from their mistakes. When these banks were on their knees begging the governments of UK and America to rescue them from the financial mire they had created for themselves through their collective greed and incompetence, they promised to mend their ways and no longer chase quick profits in order to pay themselves monstrously vulgar and obscenely lavish annual bonuses. So, the governments of these countries, perhaps naively, accepted that the investment banker's word was their bond and spent trillions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on re-financing the failed banks. Furthermore, they agreed to defer the introduction of any new regulations designed to prevent the future pursuits of misguided short-term investment schemes and excessive remuneration packages. (2) But, of course, while thousands of formerly profitable businesses have gone belly up and unemployment continues to soar and hundreds of thousands of decent, honest families' houses have been repossessed, the duplicitous spivs in the City and on Wall Street are once again gorging on fois gras and caviar canapï¿½s and quaffing magnums of vintage champagne in London and New York's swankiest hotels and restaurants. What they are, in effect, doing is giving the finger the taxpayer and saying: "We've had your cash and we are now spending the proceeds of your investment on Ferraris and helicopters and mega-yachts while you, on the other hand, are living in relative poverty as the result of our profligacy and greed. What's that? You don't like it? Tough - there is nothing you can do about it because even if we do our brains again and cause another recession as a result, we know that the government considers us too big to fail and they will bail us out again. In other words, no matter what hardships scum like you have to suffer as the result of our grasping ineptitude - greedy, imprudent bankers like us will still get our feckin' bit, don't you worry about that. Now get out of my way you dreary little proles." So, isn't it time that we stood up to these bandits in bespoke business suits and forced the banks to repay their governments' generosity and trust in them by implementing a windfall tax (of 50%, applied retrospectively over 5 years) on their profits? This would enable society as a whole to benefit from the lower taxes and the higher investment in public services that this extra income would thus allow and disincentivize bankers to prioritise their own short-term personal greed over the long-term security of the banks, and by extension, therefore, the wider economy. Thank you. (1) http://money.cnn.com... (2) http://www.bloomberg.com...
Vigilantism is Justified when govermnment has failed to enforce the law 2

V: Peace 1 peace is not achieved by a bad government 2 you provide no link 3 Not compatible with the resolution VC Legitimate governments 1 Are not always just and thus not compatible with the resolution 2 Do not necessarily create peace 3Blah Blah c1 Vigilantism is a in the middle option, During THE TIME THE GOVT IS GOING THROUGH REFORM c2 The vigilante does not uphold the law but the will of the people c3 ???? c4 Your example is invalid. The will of the people takes her will ( to not be killed) as well as the just masses into account By the way I didn't want to debate, sorry if I wasn't clear but I wanted to punch the holes out of my case. I really am rushing so If you want I will critique your case better in round two but we have no third rebuttal either. thanks for accepting though.
Don't want to be a Debby Downer but

1. No but during the summer I run a lemonade stand twice a week and have a shoveling/lawnmowing/raking business. 2. Soccer, Track, And baseball 3. I don't play video games. Reading, Sketching, Running, And playing board games 4. No, I have not 5. There's not a mall near my house, I watch movies but not all the time, I don't have a phone or allowance, And I don't know why you would want to know that question.
Don't want to be a Debby Downer but

I give you credit for not being the stereotypical millennial or young person who wastes all day playing Fortnite and than complaining about not being able to find a job. These complaints in my debate are about young people, Which I am not, I have been working since 14, Lived on my own by 19, Have 2 University degrees and run my own business in Law. So when I see young people today making excuses I just shake my head. So I realize you are young but how can you prove to me you don't suck? Do your work part time? Do you play sports? Do you have a hobby other than video games? Have you ever been outside your country? Or are you just the loitering kid who hangs out at malls, Watches comic book movies, Texts all day long and just asks his parents for allowance. Have you grown a pair yet or are you one of those whinny babies who needs mom to protect him from the outside world because his balls haven't dropped yet and still doesn't know how to talk to girls? Prove to me you are not the typical kid who sucks! Like the kids today. What have you done useful in life so far?
Don't want to be a Debby Downer but

Counters 1. I don't play Fortnite because it is dumb. 2. I have my own room. 3. Pop Tarts don't taste good. 4. I don't have Green Lantern pajamas because DC sucks. 5. I don't have a job because I don't need a job yet. 6. I am an avid conservative. 7. How do we know that all the things you just described are about yourself and you just want to take out your suckyness on the whole Debate. Org community?
Don't want to be a Debby Downer but

YOU SUCK! What have you accomplished in this world, You are just another sheep who plays Fortnite 18 hours a day in moms basement, Eating pop tarts, Wearing Green Lantern pj's and having mom do your laundry, While complaining that there are no jobs out there and having been a Dunkin Donuts counter person for the last 4 years putting in your 9 hours a week. Why don't you take your LBGT and Black Lives Matter hipster attitude and shove it, Whinny pu**y. Lets face it YOU SUCK, You haven't accomplished anything in life. Prove me wrong, Debate me and tell me how you don't suck in life
Is Abortion Okay

This and the case of which a rape is committed bringing the pregnancy of a baby, is hard to debate over. I still think that abortion should be frowned upon. If abortion is okay to you, that would mean that murder is okay to you. The murder of a child or adult is no better than the killing of a baby who has yet to be born. Also you state that it is okay if the mother is going to die, but she can survive if she aborts the baby. There are two reasons of which cause me to disagree with that. First, the reason that most mothers are near death during labor are because of blood loss during the birth. Even while pregnant the mother may die due to a faulty abortion. I'm afraid your uncle gave you some questionable information. Second, if killing a baby that is near-birth to save a mother's life is okay, wouldn't it be okay to kill a young child or teenager to save the mother's life in this case?
Is Abortion Okay

I believe that abortion should not be committed for multiple reasons. So many people have been debating over this for several years now and I want to know what some people think about it and why. I do not see why so many people can agree with babies dying before they have had a chance in the world and I hope that others agree. If you had sex, and then got pregnant, it's not the baby's fault. Please tell me why it is alright to kill the child off before it's ever got the chance to see the light of day.
Europe will be eurabia

"TFR of 2.1 is basically equilibrium. Can you spot the European countries with TFR above 2.1? " Europe will surely change its ways before it is too late. Obviously they are not trying to depopulate by not having babies, or it probably would've already happened. So eventually they will change their "anti-family ways". Regardless, this hardly matters at this point in time. . http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a list of countries by population. The total population of the European Union (EU) is about 497,198,740. The EU is 27 countries in Europe. The total population of Saudi Arabia is 24,735,000. The EU is over 20 times the size of Saudi Arabia. TFR will take an incredibly long time to even out the population. (Can Saudi Arabia even hold the population of the EU? ) Once again, EU has nukes. So war is not an option. Now, my opponent states that Europe will go Muslim. Not only is this claim false, but it does not prove his point. Just because you practice an Islamic religion does not mean you are Arabian. Even if Europe did go Muslim, they would still be European, not Arabian. So there would be no "Eurabia".
Europe will be eurabia

I am not discussing war with Muslim countries. What I am arguing is that Europe will become mostly Muslim due to the anti family biases in the current cultures of Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org... TFR of 2.1 is basically equilibrium. Can you spot the European countries with TFR above 2.1? Muslims in Europe have TFR substantially higher than the average. It is inevitable that Europe will be Musliim dominated unless they leave their anti family radical secularlism. Note that I am not saying that a Muslim dominated Europe would be a bad thing.
Europe will be eurabia

Forgive me, I started several debates last night DUI (debating under the influence) and the quality is clear lol. I will argue the point made by Mark Steyn. Europeans radical secular states are destined to change due to the failure inherent in replacing Judeo Christian values with Radical Secularlism and Moral Relativism. Regardless of how one defines radical secularlism or moral relativism, europeans are not having babies. By abandoning family values, the families have shrunk in size. Total fertility rates in Europe are all below replacement levels. This is in stark contrast to the positive replacement levels by their muslim populations. Unless, Europeans start having babies, Europe will become Eurabia.