BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Warren Harding is a vastly underrated US President

I will now address the issues my opponent brought up last roundThe League of nations was a much weaker version of the UN today, and the UN doesnt exactly impact US policy or lifestyle to an extraordinary degree. True the UN is a good analogy to the league of Nations and it too threatens American sovereignty. While originally it didn’t have much control over American affairs it has gained more and more power. There are 5 permanent members that have all the power, the US, Britain, France, China and Russia. If three of them vote against us we could be in trouble and China is not too fond of us now. [1] [2] Although in many ways it is also ineffective at accomplishing its stated goals and their efforts to promote peace and human rights can actually make things worse [3] The League of Nations though entered an era of peacefulness right after WWI True, but eventually problems did arise as you mentioned. America would have soon enough have to assist in Europe. It wasnt like FDR went around campaigning that he would lock up every Jap the minute he became president. Of course not, but the fact that he ended up doing it is what matters. Even if there was an anti-Japanese sentiment does that justify treating people who were born in this country who just happened to have ancestors from Japan like criminals? Realize that all that was required was being 1/16 Japanese. The US even denied that such an event had occurred for the longest time. [4] FDR led the country through the great Depression and a majority of WWII Which actually touches on one of the points I was trying to make. FDR’s strategy for dealing with the Great Depression is the very thing that kept us in it, whereas Harding’s handling of the economy kept us out of depression. Kennedy even kept a lid on the escalation of the Cold War. Then got us into Vietnam Harding as you said was a "do nothing president" So he is still inferior to these men because a lot of corruption happened under his presidency and not a lot of good came out of it compared to these other presidents. Yes he was do nothing in the sense that largely, he had a laissez-faire approach to the economy and he didn’t want to get involved in other nation’s affairs. Usually when presidents interfere in things in an effort to “fix” things they actually make things worse. I would place Harding definitely in the top 10 and likely the top 5, up there with James Madison, Grover Cleveland, and probably Thomas Jefferson. In conclusion I want to thank my opponent for debating with me. I hope I have satisfactorily presented my case and ask the voters to vote pro. 1 http://www.freedom.org... 2http://www.cfif.org... 3 http://www.foxnews.com... 4 http://www.lib.csusb.edu...
Warren Harding is a vastly underrated US President

My opponent says he is going to bring up several reasons that Harding was bad that do not involve what I mentioned and that is fine as I said he could use anything against him, it is important to look at everything. I would also like to make it known that although I am arguing that Harding was a great president, at the same time he was still a man and so was not perfect, so we must measure it by his relative success against his mistakes. So the readers know Warren Harding was the 29th President of the United States of America serving from 1921-1923. To see how successful he was in his accomplishments we must first look at his mandate. His mandate was a return to normalcy, which he did accomplish. The country was in a bad state after Wilson was in office. Some say that Harding was a do nothing president, but that is not entirely a bad thing. He saw that the best thing to do when dealing with the economy was to leave it alone, but this idea was mostly inspired by Andrew Mellon. By doing so, he averted having the recession that had started in 1920 from becoming worse and so by 1921 the economy was back to normal. When he died Coolidge took over and continued the same policy and by 1926 unemployment had fallen to 1%. [1] He was concerned with the Government having too much control. [2] To address something I brought up as a possible attack against him, Harding was not personally involved in the Teapot Dome scandal. It was primarily Albert Fall his Secretary of the Interior. The extent of the blame on Harding could be the fact that he appointed fall in the first place but that would be secondary. Overall the Teapot Dome Scandal was nothing compared to the scandals of many presidencies. [3] Harding was instrumental in the civil rights movement; contrary to the claim sometimes made that he was affiliated with the KKK. He was also involved in veteran’s affairs.[4] I am eager to hear the reasons and the controversies or corruption that my opponent will bring up to discredit Harding. (Yes the video is rather long but only about the first half deals with Harding or about 27 minutes in) http://www.youtube.com... 1http://www.lewrockwell.com... 2 http://www.jstor.org... 3 http://www.lewrockwell.com... 4 http://thewesternexperience.com...
Warren Harding is a vastly underrated US President

I will be arguing that the fact that Warren Harding often gets placed near the bottom of lists of US presidents is not really fir to him and in fact he should be placed close to the top. I will argue that his fiscal policies, as influenced by his secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon helped subvert a depression earlier and kept the economy strong. I will also mention why it is not right to wholly place the blame for Teapot dome on him. My opponent may bring up his own reasons for objecting to Harding.
Throw your traffic-camera speeding tickets in the trashcan!

Thank you for having this debate with me, it has been interesting for me tooThe majority of people support safety cameras, which I have shown are not shifty because their aim is to reduce serious incidents which they accomplish, and police do review and make the final decision on all the videos captured by them including those from U.S. providers such as Redflex traffic systems. Also offenders are welcome to view the reliable evidence against them. The increased number of minor accidents caused after installing these cameras are explained by the behaviour of drivers who travel above the speed limit, and who fail to stop within the distance they see clear due to failing to anticipate events ahead and thus panic. If these people took the gradient, road condition and other factors affecting the stopping distance, like they are supposed to, then they would not recieve a ticket, and less people would die or become seriously injuried.In round 1 he says "I got a ticket from driving too fast in an instersection, the camera caught me, sent me a bill", so he admits he was speeding i.e. breaking the law. This is why I think my opponent should pay the bill sent to him. My main argument from the start was this: if you believe your driving is acceptable and continue to drive recklessly, it results in serious injury or loss of life. Can we rely on people's conscious? I believe my opponent simply disagrees with the way in which he was caught breaking the law. I've now read the letter by holding ctrl and moving my mouse button up to zoom in, and know now he was driving too fast in a 40mph zone and caught because the yellow light lasted 3 seconds instead of 4.5 seconds, which confirms this belief.Although it may be unlikely he will have to pay if he went to court due to the police being unable to prove he was sitting in the driver seat, the speed limit changing and the yellow light time not being adjusted resulting in the wrong yellow light time, and similar things, I do believe if you do break the law you should be punished by the law, in your case the punishment is paying a fine, if you leave it to your conscious to punish you you might just continue driving dangerously. It is therefore important to accept a punishment when you have broken the law no matter how you are caught.Thanks for reading, Kirk
Throw your traffic-camera speeding tickets in the trashcan!

So this match is pretty simple to evaluate now:Becuse silence is compliance is debate, my opponent has conceded a lot of my points, these include: - The government has burden of proof, they can't know you're the driver.- Because you aren't signing a ticket they don't know you recieved it; the government cannot and will not hold you to showing up in court, or paying the ticket. In the astronomical chance that they do summon you, the other reasons I give mean you win in court.- Infringes your right to confront your accuser.- He concedes one other thing I'll get to in a second.Because these things must now be considered facts we can now conclude that if you get a red light traffic camera ticket and throw it away you won't get punished.....but should you pay it? this is the question my opponent questions. He argues that if you do something wrong you should be punished. However, the last thing he concedes is my argument against his case which states that this argument is unneccesary and contradictory. It assumes there are two types of people, good and bad, thus because you should be good you should punish yourself for doing bad, however, those people who are bad would not and do not care, thus they would reject that argument in favor of not caring about breaking the law. Then there are the people who value good, in this case, they already caes about doing good and their conscious punishes them enough. My opponent never establishes why it must be this form of punishment, fine, instead of you're own conscious. Thus even if you but his argument, rethink it, prefer your own conscious to reinforce good behavior. Being that this argument you shouldn't even be considering it from the start though....Also keep in mind that these tickets are kinda immoral because they encourage profit based law enforcement which is bad, this is another reason not to pay these tickets, you don't want to support such a system.Thus, what the judge knows for sure is that you can throw them away with no legal, punishment, I say this is good enough to affirm, however taking into account what we should do, this position has been refuted by me and my reponse hasn't been attacked, thus, since silence is compliance this argument is already conceded, but to take it a step further, keep in mind that there are alternatives to punishing yourself through giving money to the government, conscious suffices. This has been my summary round. I thank my opponent for an interesting round. Oh and as far as the picture, I can't find the link but if you zoom your screen in you may see it much better.Thanks-TJVN
Throw your traffic-camera speeding tickets in the trashcan!

Traffic speed cameras detect traffic regulation violations, such as speeding, vehicles going through a red traffic light, unauthorized use of a bus lane, and recording vehicles inside a congestion area. There are some groups, such as the National Motorsists Association (NMA) in the USA which claim that the systems "encourage revenue-driven enforcement" rather than the declared objectives. The NMA are in my opinion simply mad, they oppose the installation of red light cameras, encourage motorists to challenge all trafic tickets in court and have even encouraged many drivers to be inconsiderate by asking them to stay in an overtaking lane in a caravan at the posted speed limit on a few local highways leaving the far left lane open in an attempt to prove the speed limit was unreasonably low [1]If people obeyed the law and followed sensible advice then roads would be much safer and journey times would be improved. Anybody who puts lives at risk by speeding etc needs to be punished to help them adopt the correct attitude. Traffic cameras do the work of police but 24/7 on sections of roads where traffic calming measures would be unsuitable. I'm not sure goverments sign contracts with businesses who cut the police in at 30% but if I am totally honest I was suprised to find America has speed cameras because I always thought they chopped them down when they were introduced. I ask my opponent to provide a reliable source to show how the law cannot hold you liable for a ticket."It’s commonly believed signing the ticket is an admission of guilt, but this is false. It’s simply a confirmation that you received it" [2] So, you are not agreeing to anything! And people can dispute the charge later.There is also a myth that you can just throw traffic tickets away due to traffic tickets not transferring to other states. However "the Driver Licence Pact is an agreement among 46 member states that makes it virtually impossible to shirk the law. Disregarding tickets can lead to further criminal charges" [2] You can't even escape speeding fines gained on holiday by just ignoring them, as British drivers are finding out after coming home from Spain [3]If you could actually save hundreds of dollars by simply ignoring speeding tickets or throwing them in the bin you'd believe your driving is acceptable and then continue to drive recklessly, which could result in serious injuries or loss of life. This is the main reason why I think you should pay it.sources:[1] www.wikipedia[2] http://www.flexyourrights.org...[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Throw your traffic-camera speeding tickets in the trashcan!

The reason you should discard your traffic light speeding tickets is that the government actually has no authority to enforce them. In fact those traffic lights you see in the streets are probably owned by a foreign bussiness which has no legal ground to charge you for breaking the law. What happens? The local government signs a contract with the bussiness for taking the photos and then the bussiness cuts the police in, usually at about 30% the pay. So here is why you throw away your traffic camera speeding tickets:You haven't agreed to attend court for the violationWhen you get pulled over you are made to sign the ticket, and the reason you sign is because you are agreeing to several things, one of which is that you will appear in court. Thus, being that you never officially agreed to go to court for your violation, the law cannot hold you liable for your ticket, or showing up at court to pay your ticket, and they will simply ignore your absense. Thus you can save hundreds of dollars by simply throwing these tickets in the trash and forgetting that they ever existed. A federal judge has ruled you dont have to show because of that reason.so? DONT PAY, THROW IT AWAY.
In WWII the USSR played a larger role in defeating the Nazis than America.

I do not believe the USSR defeated 90% of the German Invasion, as the USSR at the time controlled Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria, all of which were under German occupation until late 1944, AFTER the United States invaded France forcing German supplies and troops to be moved to the French front. Stalingrad? How about Moscow? These cities are well into Russia, but by this point the Germans could see these and other cities of the USSR. While the USSR might have won these battles themselves, they were losing the war as the Germans were again preparing to make a farther push into Moscow which would have crippled the USSR and effectively lost the war on their front, the United States conducted it's invasion of France and Italy.In addition, while the resistance forces played a role in World War 2, it was a minor one the only major effort being the Battle of Osuchy, in which the Polish Resistance broke through German lines and met with the USSR Commanders but neither side could agree so they ended up being crushed by the Germans. Destroying a few supply lines and disrupting communication is not something that wins you a war, only something that buys you some time, so these resistance were also losing their fights.Rebuttal to my Rebuttal:Yes the USSR did make it to Berlin, and yes they did take it. This does not mean they won the war. As you see, the USSR again did not make any major advances until it was Post-D Day. In fact the USSR was still fighting deep in USSR territory in late 1943, making little to no advances on German lines, and the only effectve and reasonable explination for the high death toll on the Eastern Front was the weather, it was -22F in most cases and the Germans, who had not been expecting this kind of weather slowly froze to death in their Fall uniforms. Logical Conclusion:The United States invasion of France was a major turning point in the war that allowed the Russians to have some breathing room as the Germans began fighting a two front war. It was during this point and this point only that the Russians made advances, while they held the Germans out of the oil fields this mattered little as the Axis controlled North Africa which could have sustained them for much longer.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)4. http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)5. http://www.commandposts.com...6. http://orientalreview.org...7. http://listverse.com...8. http://terrafirma.umwblogs.org...;
In WWII the USSR played a larger role in defeating the Nazis than America.

The United States coming in and saving Europe is a huge misconception. Yes without the US army D-Day would not have been possible, but the fact remains that the USSR defeated 90% of the German Divisions as well as stopped the German advance, thereby turning the tide of war in against the Nazis. Furthermore, the Nazis needed fuel to continue the war; the Nazis planned on gaining this fuel from attacking and taking control of the oil fields in the Caucasus. If the Germans were able to take these oil fields then they would have had enough fuel to not only push forward and take out Moscow, but also to fuel their North African Campaign. Thereby, defeating the Ally's strategy of attacking the soft under belly of Europe. Fortunately, however, they were able to hold the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) and thereby keeping this fuel out of the reach of the Nazis. See, the USSR depleted the German army and forced it to spread so thinly that allowed D-Day and the invasion of Italy possible and be successful. Furthermore, the Red Army was not the only force attacking the Germans in the USSR. Militia from Ukraine and other Eastern countries also took part in destroying supplies lines, disrupting communication, and stalling the Germans, just like the French underground rebelling. They also played a major role in defeating the Nazi army and further the over spread of its army. Now to Rebut My Opponents Case: The USSR did make it to Berlin first, and no matter what the cause of this was or their motivations were, the fact remains that the USSR effectively ended the war in Europe by taking Berlin. And if you do not buy that argument, USSR still did more damage to the Germans that both the American, British, and Canadian forces did combined. Yes the Red Army and Stalin did some incredibly terrible things, but we are not debating which faction is worst we are debating which faction played a more major role in defeating the Nazis. And finally, USSR was making major headway before the Americans entered the war against the Nazis and the USSR received little to no help from the Americans or the British, it was the citizens of USSR and there resolve to defend the motherland that defeated the Nazis. Conclusion: The Red Army and the Militia of the USSR did so much more damage to the Nazi army than the Americans ever did and stopped the Nazis from gaining valuable resources. Furthermore, the Americans entered the war late and some historians would in fact argue that Canada did more damage than the Americans in WWII. Thank you for your time and good luck to my opponent.
In WWII the USSR played a larger role in defeating the Nazis than America.

Not by any means, The United States of America effectively saved Europe this is a well known fact, if it were not for the US, then Europe would look very different, the only reason that the Russians made it to Berlin before the Americans was because of "Operation Market Garden" the failure that was. British Field Marshal Montgomery took all of George Patton's fuel and diverted it to his men for this mission, this immobilized Patton who had been steaming to Berlin and expected to be there by Christmas of 1944, but instead he wasn't given fuel so he couldn't move, the USSR contributed most definitely but they fought for themselves and themselves only, they were in fact attributed to many more rapes, and pillages than the *Germans* themselves, so no the USSR did not play a larger role than America in WW2 it wasn't even until America got involved in the war that the USSR made some headway.
Types like George Juergens make horrible fathers and father-in-laws

It's cool how you are concerned for role models affecting the children. All you can do is hope. I think we (the usa) should get our education system and economy inline first, then to other frontiers(Like space! ) You should start a George 2014 like Kony 2012 YOU CAN DO IT Thank you for this talk/debate thing, i'm new here and i am like it so far. Have a good one.
Types like George Juergens make horrible fathers and father-in-laws

You as a individual care about a character's behavior in a series, I get that I guess. I for one am fascinated about psychedelics and I have my reasons for that. They are illegal for bullsh*t reasons and are perfectly safe, and what they do to conciseness is absurdly, infinitely profound to me. (Maybe because I have been sober for 17 y, 11 m, 364 h, and 30 min of my entire life)Actually, no. I actually have a curiosity about types like them. I came upon his character and he reminded me of fellas like that who I've had to deal with in the past.I don't know if your little series is over, but maybe he will have a strong change of heart :0http://en.wikipedia.org...It's an actual series. I gave a link already (didn't you read it?)As I have concluded... types like him should never be considered a good role model in society.
Types like George Juergens make horrible fathers and father-in-laws

You as a individual care about a character's behavior in a series, I get that I guess. I for one am fascinated about psychedelics and I have my reasons for that. They are illegal for bullsh*t reasons and are perfectly safe, and what they do to conciseness is absurdly, infinitely profound to me. (Maybe because I have been sober for 17 y, 11 m, 364 h, and 30 min of my entire life) I don't know if your little series is over, but maybe he will have a strong change of heart :0 Maybe he will become a monk in the himalayas. If you really don't like to see the bad in humans, stay with your regular drama shows, but not ones that involve families so you can't be unset. (Weeds, 24 hours, A ordinary family etc) P.S, if have a Netflix subscription, i recommend DMT: the spirit molecule Namaste
Euthanasia should be legal

You did not respond to any of my arguments so they still stand. I have also addressed you’re arguments and shown they are logically unreasonable. Again you don't have the liberty to do whatever you want. I don't have the liberty to shoot you in the chest and others don't have the liberty to kill themselves. As far me not being able to say euthanasia is wrong unless I have ALS the same then should be said about those with deep depression. If ALS is a good enough reason to kill yourself then so should depression. Except we spend millions each year in suicide prevention every year, so that logic makes no sense.
Euthanasia should be legal

Euthanasia should be legal for those who have serious physical illnesses, like ALS. Nobody should take away their right to life and liberty. Also, unless you are one suffering through a serious physical illness like ALS you can't say euthanasia is wrong, considering you don't understand what it's like to go through ALS. All you do know, is many of those who are diagnosed with ALS do not want to live through it.