BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bill O'Reilly Is Not A Combat Veteran

This debate is to determine if Bill O'Reilly overspoke when he claimed to have "seen combat," to have been "shot at by the enemy," and to possess the type of hard-won wisdom peculiar to our fighting men and women in the US Armed Forces. Specifically, I have resolved to defend the notion that Mr O'Reilly has never served in the military, never been shot at by "the enemy," or has never been imperiled in any military way whatsoever.To meet at least one of these conditions would result in a triumphant victory for myself. Joy.Point 1: I point out that Mr. O'Reilly admits in the audio clip that he has never served in any military, thus meeting one of the criteria for victory. It is fairly clear that he was being overdramatic, and quickly retracted the claim.As for actually serving, Bill O'Reilly fled America during the Vietnam War, by obtaining a Draft Deferment, and (to be extra safe) also by living in England during this time. http://lickingcalcutta.blogspot.com...Cowardice seems to be a common trait among Super-Patriots and war mongers, but I digress.Conclusion:Bill O'Reilly immediately retracted the statement, and admitted that he has never actually served in the military.
Bill O'Reilly Is Not A Combat Veteran

In the clip that I have supplied, Bill O'Reilly's voice quakes with emotion as he recounts his time in combat. He promises that if "his unit" were in danger, and he has captured the enemy, he would force that captured soldier to give up his secrets. His voice is reflective, pensive. He is almost reluctant to tell of the horrors. But he must. He must somehow find the strength to tell the American people of what he has gone through, what he has learned. The lessons learned at gunpoint are often the hardest lessons to forget. And the lesson? Sometimes, in war, the enemy has to meet his maker first. The enemy must be tortured, if that is what it takes to save his unit. Bill O' Reilly has wisdom, wisdom gained during his time in combat. The times that he has seen it. The times that will haunt him forever. Except that I do not believe that Bill O'Reilly has ever truly seen combat. I do not believe that he has ever had a unit. In this debate, I will ask to be proved wrong; I will ask my debate partner to demonstrate that Bill O'Reilly has ever served in the military, ever been shot at by "the enemy," or has ever been imperiled in any military way whatsoever. I am willing to be relaxed about rules: I will honor any agreements made in the comments section. I ask that the first round be set aside for acceptance only - so that we both may have an equal number of rounds in which to present our arguments. I also ask that drops not be counted as concessions. http://www.youtube.com...
Let us Clearly Define Conservative and Liberal

In this debate there is no real winner. Simply put I will state what kind of America today's American conservatives seek and on your turn you will define what kind of America today's liberals seek. Only accept if you are a liberal, because I'm the conservative here. I will not attack your stance, and you will not attack mine. There will be no real winner regardless of who gets more votes, but the purpose of this is to clear up precisely what agenda conservatives have, and what agenda liberals have. I would let you go first, but I don't know how to do that.
senor citizens are liability or an asset....

My opponent has presented an argument, for which I am grateful. If he needs any help learning this site he can ask and anyone will be happy to help him. Con argues that senior citizens have experience, which makes them useful. The problem, of course, is that being senior citizens, their experience is at best used to bore small children. Senior citizens, are, by definition, elderly and retired. Being elderly alone means that their memory is poor and they are falling apart, so are hardly able to work. That's the entire reason they're retired, and seeing as they are in fact retired, they are not members of the workforce so any benefits they may have to the nation are not capable of being used. No senior citizen, by definition, can participate in the workforce. Their only effect on the nation is to terrify other drivers and to keep those kids off their damn lawn. My opponent has failed to prove that senior citizens are an asset to the nation, has presented evidence against his resolution, and I have countered his arguments effectively.
senor citizens are liability or an asset....

Sigh. My opponent has been running around challenging everyone to this exact same "debate", even harassing them when they decline. I accepted, asked for an argument (as my opponent initiated the debate, and was not challenging any statement I'd made or opinion I had), in private messages my opponent refused and asked me to present my argument, then proceeded to challenge me to this entirely new but same debate, with our old debate still open. Yes, that's right, my opponent is spamming the site and wants to debate me twice separately at the same time on the same issue. If my opponent insists on wasting my and others' time I may as well get something out of it. Once again, I ask my opponent, the instigator of the debate, to make his argument and prove his position.
Classic is good than pop music.

Pop music lacks musicality and is heavily compensated for by marketing, hype and publicity. Classical music has more value. In today's music industry people like Justin Bieber, are becoming very famous, but can you really say that they talent when it comes to music? They are part of a factory line, just one big process of songwriters, lyricists and composers that put things together for them its not the same and doesn't have the same quality. But unfortunately people today aren't into quality, and that's with everything. Whatever is quick, easy and simple. Be it fast food or fake wood. Because of this, some tend to feel that since it is so popular it must be just as good as the other stuff (home cooked meals, real wood, and classical music.) when it just simply isn't. A quote from a book says that "enthusiasm doesn't equal talent" the same can be said for effort. A student can put a lot of effort into writing a math test but still fail. The classical music that has survived today is examples of brilliant music not like pop that dies out and people forget this music carries on for years and years. Are there pop songs that will be remembered for centuries? Maybe but only a minority and pop lacks the textural complexity of classical music.
Classic is good than pop music.

OK. Only one argument. 1) The music buying public did not come to the consensus that "complexity" or "expert skill" should be the barometers for music quality. Even more to the point, classically trained musicians are simply experts at classical music not music in general. One of the most ludicrous and illogical statements I have ever heard is that "anyone can do pop music"...It always sounds like the not-funny-at-all punch line to a bad joke. 1000s of new pop acts fail everyday to even sell a 1000 copies of their album, BUT ALLEGEDLY ANYONE CAN BE A POP STAR. I dare any Classical musician to attempt to outstay the likes of Beyonce, Michael Jackson, or Tina Turner! The fact that people you think are untalented are allowed to make CDs is no winning argument either; right now there are 1000s of classically trained musicians that my personal music coach and 100s of others can not believe were allowed to obtain a degree in music. More to the direct point, NONE of this is relevant because the general public is not under your assumption that "complex music made by expert musicians" is the end goal or even important for music. The GP believes a song should move you, and they have chosen the various phases of pop music the last 100 years by continuously buying it!" 2) Classical Music is a misnomer at best! Are you referring to Baroque? Romantic? "Modern"? The ancient music of Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America came out at the same time, so why isn't it called Classical (you know why)? Anyone every pondered why this "inferior" music seems to resonate so well with people across all socio-economical stripes, while "classical" music seems to only appeal to the Upper Class/Elitist mentalities? Because "people are stupid"? Answering yes leaves my point made.
Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org.

The intention of the site as to how you should vote. That's not anything indicative of my intentions. I give my votes intention by intentionally voting however I choose. And abuse of the voting system would be if it were used in ways it wasn't intended. To use it to vote for people... oh... scandal! It isn't an abuse of the system to vote the way I want. At worst it's a use of the system. There is a fairly useful motto which says "A difference that makes no difference is no difference." http://en.wikipedia.org... . When this debate completes, I'm going to vote down the line for myself. Likewise, let us suppose that somebody having read my arguments and findings that I've made superior arguments and votes down the line for me. Then we have two individuals who are doing the exact same thing. My vote is clearly abusive by your standards and this other individuals' vote will be exactly the same but not abusive. This supposed abuse of the system, boils down to a thought crime.
Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org.

"I think it remains to be shown that the intention of the voting system is, what my opponent claims it to be, or that the intentions of the voting system should play any role is how we vote. I intend my votes to influence the winner. I might just not like one person, think the debate was clever, see somebody make an interesting point and swing all my votes over to them." The intention of the voting is shown in the article, "How to Vote," found on this site. http://www.debate.org... "The next four questions break down a debaters score by looking at the four most important aspects of the debate. These questions are where the points come from. Remember, voting on Debate.org is based on fact and NOT on Opinion." "Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include: Opinions held you, but not mentioned by the debaters. Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round. Comments made by other members of the site. " Thus, the point of the system is to get the points to the people who deserved them based on FACT, not OPINION, and opinions are one of the aspects of vote bombing. "In your idealized way of view the world are you really suggesting we vote like automatons? If I had to vote for people for other than wanting to vote for them, I would bore myself to death. While I don't support the idea of registering multiple accounts to cheat the vote, I will vote however I damn well choose. If that involves loading up 40 debates and voting for you in all of them, that's fine." I don't really care how you vote; I just want to point out that if you vote based on opinions, you are abusing the system. "You speak heavily of the purpose of the voting system. Like using it against it's purpose is going to cause the world to crumble. The voting system assigns 7 points to people. Use them however you like. It's much more entertaining. You don't need to go QQ just because some people are going to vote you down for being a tool. You're not abusing the system by voting however you choose to vote." You are abusing the system if you don't follow the guidelines laid out for how to vote. "PS. The voting system is going to end up putting names for who voted what direction eventually. So those of you voting against me, be warned... I'll know who you are. *eyes dart around*" My opponent is trying to threaten everybody who votes against him... In conclusion, vote bombing is, in fact, an abuse of the voting system here on Debate.org, because the purpose was for debates to be won based on facts, and NOT opinions. Thank you for reading, and I hope you vote, hopefully based on fact.
Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org.

I think it remains to be shown that the intention of the voting system is, what my opponent claims it to be, or that the intentions of the voting system should play any role is how we vote. I intend my votes to influence the winner. I might just not like one person, think the debate was clever, see somebody make an interesting point and swing all my votes over to them. In your idealized way of view the world are you really suggesting we vote like automatons? If I had to vote for people for other than wanting to vote for them, I would bore myself to death. While I don't support the idea of registering multiple accounts to cheat the vote, I will vote however I damn well choose. If that involves loading up 40 debates and voting for you in all of them, that's fine. You speak heavily of the purpose of the voting system. Like using it against it's purpose is going to cause the world to crumble. The voting system assigns 7 points to people. Use them however you like. It's much more entertaining. You don't need to go QQ just because some people are going to vote you down for being a tool. You're not abusing the system by voting however you choose to vote. PS. The voting system is going to end up putting names for who voted what direction eventually. So those of you voting against me, be warned... I'll know who you are. *eyes dart around*
Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org.

I'm back! Anyways, the intention of the voting system was for the voters to determine who, in the debate, handled the debate the best by the criteria. By ignoring the criteria, and basing their votes on "information not pertinent to the debate at hand", vote bombers do not abide by the purpose and criteria of the voting system, which is improper and excessive, as they do it many times, so the resolution is affirmed. Thank you for your patience.
Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org.

I affirm the above resolution. This first round will be for definitions and facts only; no conclusions or arguments. Vote bombing - An action taken by members of Debate.org who make their votes on debates based off of information not pertinent to the debate at hand. Also, "when a user (often times with multiple accounts) maliciously votes down all seven points to all of a rival's open debates." http://debatefans.com... Abuse - improper or excessive use or treatment (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Voting system on Debate.org - The system where members read debates, then select who of the two debaters they think deserves the points associated with each of four categories: spelling & grammar, conduct, convincing arguments, and reliable sources.
Violent video games should be banned

There are so many ways to learn history or mythology or science( books, films,etc). Furthermore, games can cognitive and interesting without any violence at all; thus, violence isn't necessary attribute of beneficial game. Also, a person who plays violent games too much can be used to acts of cruelty in real life as well. As a consequence, the person treats violence indifferently, regarding it as a normal thing; spiritual values are effaced. With such tendency, the crime rate can be increased considerably making the world less and less safe. Especially it has impact on children, whose individuality isn't formed yet. Its formation depends on the experience, and if a child plays brutal games and sees all disgusting scenes with blood, death, etc, it can lead to psychological trauma, which will remain with the child for the whole life. Yes, I know that most such games have age limits, but it only increases the curiosity of a kid, not deterring them from playing.
Public schools should not teach religion.

First of all, thank you, Petars, for posting such a good point that I may have missed out on. I did some thinking about the whole prejudice of religion and biased knowledge, and I agree with you, teachers may slant their teaching to their own religion, and could paint other religions into a negative way compared to their own religion. However, the school could bring in some teachers with different religions within the school,(such as a Buddist teacher teaching Buddism) or they could bring in a pastor, a monk, etc. to specially teach in that religion. Plus, boxing the lesson into one mere period does not make sense, I agree. However, religion could be taught in a unit, with one religion for several weeks, then the next religion, and each lesson could be the basic things, such as the brief history, the philosophy of this religion, how it came to be, et cetera. If the student has any questions about it or wants to learn more, they could always reasearch on their own to enrich their thinking even after they finished the unit. Sure, they might be able to do it by themselves, without the guidance of a teacher, but if schools didn't teach the basic things about the religion, the students won't be able to know which religions there are, or the basic things about it. The young brains need to mess around with all types of philosophical basics about diferent religions, and thinking about it at an early age could help with further questions in life, and will be good guidelines for the lifelong decision of the religion. They don't need to decide now, but knowing a little about it firsthand will make it much easier. And if the student or the parents are not comfortable with the education, the student could skip the religious classes, no problem. But other students who are interested in learning about this should have the oppurtunity to learn freely with a professional leader outside of their usual religious church, temple, mosque, or any other place they attend to in private.
Public schools should not teach religion.

Here a summary of the First amendment in the regards to religion. The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England. Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state. The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety. Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.Source: http://www.uscourts.gov... While the First Amendment protects the practice of religion it does not enforce the teaching of it, making it non applicable to this argument. I agree with my opponent that religion is a big part of people's lives, but I think they underestimate the complexity of the subject. To assume that the teaching of religious studies, to the point of comprehension and even understanding, can be neatly boxed into 45 minute school lessons, once a week is hypocritical. I would be greatly concerned if I discovered that people are basing their religious choice on a mere introductory lesson at school. Furhermore this raises another complexity of this subject; who will teach these classes? Even the most brilliant teacher cannot have even partial knowledge of all the major religions and their intricacies. Another aspect to consider is the teachers personal slant on the matter, how can we ensure that the teacher is not prejudice against some religions. I would be displeased that my children are being taught by people who at best have shallow knowledge of a subject and at worst are biased. My oponent want to raise religious studies to the level of the Sciences, that does not pass muster. I want my child to first learn about the physical world around them, then with a fully developed adult mind to tackle the question of which religion to follow. I say again, I agree with my opponent that religion is a big part of peoples lives but it is a part that needs to be kept out of school.
Public schools should not teach religion.

As you pointed out, religion is a private topic that should be the responsibilities of parents and religious leaders. However, religion is a right for all persons, as cited by the first amendment from the Bill of Rights, and even parents could invade the freedom of religion. Students should have the right of choosing their own religion, and in order to learn about what religion really is and what options they have to live by and believe in, schools should teach the students. And, about raising the importance of religions, religion is as important as all the other subjects, maybe even more important, because religion is a topic in which it gives the way of life for your entire lifetime, and even though math and science and history should be taught respectively and intensely, religion is, likewise, a very big topic that could determine your beliefs for the rest of your days.
Public schools should not teach religion.

Public school should not teach religion. Religion is a private matter that should be left to the guidance of parents and religious leaders. As my opponents correctly pointed out religion is deeply intertwined with history,but that aspect of it should be examined in an objective history class rather than in a class which might be biased to one interpretation of history. In addition, no aspect of religion requires thorough testing where as all the sciences do; thus by teaching religion in schools you are implicitly raising religion to the same level as all the other subjects.
Public schools should not teach religion.

Public schools should teach religion. In the world, many people believe in different religions. We should be able to learn about what others believe in. Religion is a way of believing in how humans were made, where we will go in the afterlife, etc. It is important to see why other people think the way they think, or whether or not they believe in a god and have a religion at all. It could give us more ideas of our lives and could alter our beliefs, to either strengthen our original thoughts, or maybe think and live in a different way. It could also help in schoolwork, since religion links with history. Many people attend public schools. Those students also should get a chance to learn religion, not just private school students and students who attend Catholic schools.