BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Current Income Disparities Threaten Democratic Ideals

This Debate will be run like a regular PF Debate (with the exceptions of cross fire) 1st speech, 2nd speech, summary and lastly, Final Focus. In this debate we will look at 3 main points of democracy being threatened Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. My job as Con will be to show that these points are not being threatened while Pro must show how they are. Thank you to whom ever accepts this and lets have fun and learn something! Inside the Declaration of Independence it states that we have have 3 main Democratic rights (that are Ideals) that we live by in our normal life day by day. These being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I will now take you in even deeper to show you the true meaning of these democratic Ideas that ARE NOT being threatened. Contention 1: Life is not being undermined and believe it or not is not a true Democratic Idea. A Democratic Ideal "is a rhetorical phrase used to denote either personal qualities or standards of government behavior that are felt to be essential for the continuation of a democratic policy." As you can see it states DEMOCRATIC POLICY in the quote, which goes to say it exists only in a democracy, but life is a right given the everyone even in any form of government, so Life is not a "True" Ideal that is being threatened. Contention 2: Liberty can not and will not be ever taken from us. If we look to what Liberty is it is Freedom and in the Bill of Right it includes freedoms that we have and will forever have. http://www.ratical.org... on that site we see freedoms like "Freedom of Speech" which we are currently seeing in real life today with the Occupy Wall Street Protesters. If our Liberty is being undermined then why do we still have protesters like this still going on. The truth is disparities DO NOT harm/Threaten democratic Ideals Contention 3: Pursuit of happiness is why many people come to America in the first place, they come for the American Dream, to Pursue Happiness. If this Ideal was being undermined, why do people still come to America for that reason? Another Reason, Happiness is defined as "the quality or state of being happy". As the old saying goes "Money doesn't buy Happiness" so Income Disparities do not effect Peoples happiness. People do not need to be rich to be happy, all they need is love sometimes or their family, So Income Disparities do not harm/ Threaten Democratic ideals. I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing(reading) your speech!
Captain America: Civil War:Cap's team is better than Iron Man's team

"Although registration would PROBABLY help reduce the amount of damage"What you see here is Pro's concession that government control over the Avengers would reduce collateral damage. Pro then goes further to exclaiming that the government might deny superheroes the right to "defend the world". However, it is safe to say that it is in the interest of no sovereign nation to have villians take over the world meaning the ultimate demise of their country.Pro's counter rebuttal that Captain America is not a hypocrite is a bare assertion. Captain America became injected with the super soldier serum under the jurisdiction of Statregic Scientifc Research under the United States Federal Government. He was recruited for the program and he accepted and Pro gives no reason as to why the USFG doesn't still have control over Steve Rogers.http://marvel-movies.wikia.com...With your remark about Iron Man, it is not hypocrasy. He realizes that the Avengers needs to be controlled, even if he is part of the problem. "So it looks like you are contradicting yourself there."You have not backed up this accussation. If you were more specific in it, I would actually understand where you think I contradicted myself. Yes while I admit that the USFG is capable of making mistakes, as I pointed out in my beginning argument, the USFG and its allies have a lot more information and intelligence on hand than the Avengers have at this point especially with the disbandment of SHIELD. With more info and intelligence, you are less likely to make mistakes.The Incredible Hulk:However, it was a very ill decision by the Avengers to have Bruce Banner anywhere near the vincinity ofa stressful battle especially with the nearby city. And you haven't addressed the point that the Avengers just let Bruce Banner loose into the world with huge potential for another Hulk rampage.Age of Ultron: Again, we are focusing on the Avengers and any other potential superhero. If such actions are possible, the supers need to be controlled.Ant Man:"No one's methods are always efficient. Not even the government's."My response: another bare assertion not backed up. Pro seems to argue under the false assumption that government control would mean that the world would be destroyed. This case has been proven false in the first Avengers movie when they were under the control of SHIELD proving they are capable of working in harmony and saving the world.Conclusion:I believe I have sufficiently refuted my opponents case although I had to rush this argument as I am low on time. I have also proven that Team Iron Man would win in a fight disproving Pro's inital argument in Round 1.
Captain America: Civil War:Cap's team is better than Iron Man's team

Just before I begin, I would like to inform everyone that this is just my opinion. If you believe opposite, I respect that because you are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am to mine. I only want to hear others views. I think Cap's team is better than Iron Man's team. This being because I feel that superheroes should have the right to defend humanity whether the government wants them to or not. If the government or CIA come across something that they themselves could possibly not stop on their own, they need people who have had experience with these type of things: A.K.A the Avengers. I am 100% on Cap's side. His reason against Iron Man is very legitimate. I also think his team is better because he has the deadliest assassin on the planet (Winter Soldier), a tiny, invisible human being but can still retain their normal strength of a normal man (Ant Man), an archer who never EVER misses and not even Loki could avoid his shots (Hawkeye) and a super acrobatic bird (Falcon). What can top that? I look forward to hearing contrary
America should send troops into Darfur

Rebuttal: "The fact that we are "able" to send troops to Darfur doesn't mean we should do it. You are talking about a group of human beings like they are currency, throw a little over there, a bit over there, wherever it's needed, we got plenty. You need to show why American troops should be sent to possibly die for a conflict they probably don't know exists." -I find that definiton of terms used is irrelevent to helping the cause in general and in fact is useless in the solvency of this problem. -On the basis of the fact that we are "able to send troops to Darfur doesnt mean we should do it", leads me to a single question for you to ponder; Do you find that we should lead a continued revenge in Iraq as we have for the past eight years while women are getting raped and fathers are leaving and not returning while his heart broken children are 'waiting up' for him? or Would you like to leave Iraq (where we already have proposed an uproar) and save some of the 500 and counting people that die each day in Darfur? You Decide. "My opponent has (correctly, IMHO) criticized the U.S.'s actions in the Middle-East, but she's done so in the same sentence as a suggestion that we do it again, this time in Darfur. America's track-record of invading places in the last 50 years is pretty terrible, for us and for the civilians of the countries we invade." -I was stating that America is not disclosing any information on the Iraq War giving the Americans a unknown idea of the actions and obviously showing that nothing is major is going on, therefor we should leave and help the people of Darfur. -Your second sentence was more of an opinion than a fact. "Why is America named, and the other few hundred countries on Earth get lumped in the "every other necessary country" category? These are all human beings we're talking about." -This has abosultly nothing to do with the solvency of the problem, merely complaining -If you must know, I specifically named America because that is the topic country and that i really didnt find that we need to name each of the "few hundred countries on Earth". "What does "every other necessary country" even mean? How is one country any more "necessary" for the cause than the next?" -Meaning any other country that we believe may need to help. Such as certain countries may hold a specific item that "the people that will help" will need to stop this genocide. -No country is more necessary than the next, just maybe America needs to be the bigger and more powerful person and help these people. "How about we give China a go as the school-yard bully for a while, huh? Russia man, I don't know. Why does every single conflict on Earth need to be solved by the good ol' U.S of A for?" -Because we are stronger, more equipt, and although not perfect, more stable than some countries to help. We are also the bigger person.
America should send troops into Darfur

Thanks to my opponent for posting this debate. As this is a 4-round debate, I will refrain from putting my own arguments forth for now and just respond to my opponent's. PRO: "I believe that if we can take the time to destroy the middle east on terms that the u.s.a.fails to disclose we should be able to send some troops to darfur." REBUTTAL: 1. The fact that we are "able" to send troops to Darfur doesn't mean we should do it. You are talking about a group of human beings like they are currency, throw a little over there, a bit over there, wherever it's needed, we got plenty. You need to show why American troops should be sent to possibly die for a conflict they probably don't know exists. 2. My opponent has (correctly, IMHO) criticized the U.S.'s actions in the Middle-East, but she's done so in the same sentence as a suggestion that we do it again, this time in Darfur. America's track-record of invading places in the last 50 years is pretty terrible, for us and for the civilians of the countries we invade. PRO: "I also would like to mention the fact that women and children are dying everyday and we will simply sit back' and let them have it when stated in the United Nations Policies "America and every other necessary country must provide aid to other countries when needed and or called upon." REBUTTAL: I ask my opponent to state a source for this U.N. quote, because I couldn't find it. Even if the quote is authentic, it's ridiculous and shouldn't be adhered to for the following reasons: 1. Why is America named, and the other few hundred countries on Earth get lumped in the "every other necessary country" category? These are all human beings we're talking about. 2. What does "every other necessary country" even mean? How is one country any more "necessary" for the cause than the next? 3. How about we give China a go as the school-yard bully for a while, huh? Russia man, I don't know. Why does every single conflict on Earth need to be solved by the good ol' U.S of A for? I'll leave it there for this round, thanks again to my opponent.
America should send troops into Darfur

Be it resolved that America send a fair amount of troops to darfur for restoration of peace. "The conflict in Darfur could escalate to where we are seeing 100,000 victims a month" -Nicholas D Kristof; American Writer. I believe that if we can take the time to destroy the middle east on terms that the u.s.a.fails to disclose we should be able to send some troops to darfur. I also would like to mention the fact that women and children are dying everyday and we will simply sit back' and let them have it when stated in the United Nations Policies "America and every other necessary country must provide aid to other countries when needed and or called upon.
lt was the Black man who civilized the World!!!

lf your points are true why then did the whites kill in Africa and Asia,stealing resources of which you haven't brought back to their owners since! Whites and blacks working together is impossible since white man made himself more Superior to all races! ln order for colour to be forgotten whites have to pay for sins done! Since whites haven't asked for forgiveness for their historical mass killings on other races l assume they haven't been forgiven at all! lf you disagree with me then l assume whites do really have a big problem, which human kind of different races have to join forces to tackle historical injustices caused by the white man! l'm sure the chinese and the arab will agree with me and so the black people too!
lt was the Black man who civilized the World!!!

I'm a middle school student and we are currently learning about ancient civilizations and our WHITE teacher is telling us it started in Africa. Note that we have a WHITE principal and a WHITE superintendent. I will continue saying that if the inventer of the refrigerator was a white man, he still would be capable of making the refrigerator. Your skin color doesn't change you. I'd also like to say that white people and black people would have to combine in order to live in this modern world with black people and whites. The world wasn't settled all at once in Africa. Human were hunter gatherers there.
lt was the Black man who civilized the World!!!

Well l still disagree with you! lf the world didn't have blacks it would have been a different world,and so if the whites didn't exist the world would be completely different! Whites want to receive all the praise of which all praise belongs to god. lf colour didnt matter why do white people lie that Civilisation began in Europe not Africa.. l would appreciate it if the human race was been taught the correct history in our schools. Not education that promotes white supremacy
lt was the Black man who civilized the World!!!

This is the best argument someone can give me? I did not say white man created everything, but both races created everything. Unless you can give me real evidence that a black man invented microscoft or anything else I listed and a white man posed as the creater my point still stands. A short sentence, with no evidence at all, is that the best you can do? If black skin color didn't exsist, and everyone was white, the world would be exactly like it is today. Same if white skin didn't exsist. The color of our skin can't block evolution and our continuation to be more advanced.
lt was the Black man who civilized the World!!!

I, or any whites living today, have no control over what our ancestors did. So it's not impossible for us to work together, of course whites will need to apologize, but in can't be just one race fixing all the mistakes of the past, black people do need to forgive us when apologies come. So with everything that happened in the past, both races need to meet in the middle in order to further civilize the world. I think you forget white slavery happened in other parts of the world, other than America.
This Jewishlawyer believes that beastiality should be legal.

Please elaborate your statement. This debate will be completely unnecessary if you make statements without going into detail. Animals have sex just like humans do, so why make such an irrelevant statement. You said "The animals need loving too". You can show animals love in several different ways besides having sex with them. You can show love by taking care of that animal, (Grooming, Feeding, Providing Shelter etc.)
kyle bush is going to return for the season

I accept.1.Your arguments say that he will return for racing. Unfortunetly there is one problem with that argument. What is something else happens? What if he trips and breaks his leg or at least injures it enough he won't be able to race until this season ends. What if he gets shot? What is he shocks the world saying he won't race again? What if China surprise attacks America killing him? What if he is killed by terrorists? There are just too many what if to say that he will return. You didn't specify season so really I could consider that as the Spring and spring is going to end in one month so who says that something won't happen before then? I am sorry, but there are too scenarios to prove that without a doubt he will return before the season ends.
kyle bush is going to return for the season

as many NASCAR fans know, Kyle Bush, driver of the number 18 Joe Gibbs Toyota NASCAR car, broke his leg in the Xfinity Daytona race. he could not race for a long period of time. he has had substitute drivers like Eric Jones fill for him. i know that he will return for the end of the season. it is in the Kyle Bush spirit. there is no way that he will not at least try to race again in the upcoming races.
Parents should be in control of their children's decisions

My opponent has completely ignored my argument that children are incapable of making correct decisions. "children are independent and dont always agree with what their parents say about stuff" This argument doesn't say anything about why children should make their own choices. "and they should make their own life choices as it is their life and not their parents life" It may be their life but while the children are living with their parents, they are the responsibility of their parents and parents have the right to make decisions for them.
Abortion should be illegal because it is unethical.

Yes, I do understand that there are many opinions involving abortion. However, abortion is still abortion, regardless of what trimester the mom (or baby) is in. " They support a Womans choice to choose abortion, as long as it is extremely early in process. I am opposed to late term Abortion, so I guess there is a fine line there. If there is a baby that you happen to have in your body and you cannot even notice it from the outside, then nothing will come of it if there is an Abortion. If it is late term, and you are scheduled to have a baby in a month or two, have the baby and deal with it." The problem with this statement (or group of statements) is once again that a baby is a baby. When do you decide that it is too late to ethically have an abortion? At how many weeks? At how many days? At how many hours?
Abortion should be illegal because it is unethical.

Hello. First I want to mention that Opinions on abortion are across the board, with people having numerous opinions about numerous things.I am only reiterating what so many people say about Abortion. I am Pro-life as well. I am only saying what my friends wish I argue. They do agree that killing any human being is Murder, especially by the government. They support a Womans choice to choose abortion, as long as it is extremely early in process. I am opposed to late term Abortion, so I guess there is a fine line there. If there is a baby that you happen to have in your body and you cannot even notice it from the outside, then nothing will come of it if there is an Abortion. If it is late term, and you are scheduled to have a baby in a month or two, have the baby and deal with it. I see no problem with my stand as I am pro-life almost all of the way.
Abortion should be illegal because it is unethical.

I definately agree that our country is destined to be pro-choice, by the way our country is going now. This is the way of freedom and choice in America and our land. you said "also, with abortion as an option to teenage girls without parental consent, it places the girls who get the abortions with the likelyhood of going through their adult lives with guilt because of their murder." I disagree with this, considering that if a teenage girl goes through an abortion, it is almost always her choice, and a choice like that usually is taken into serious consideration. If serious consideration is taken and so is action, this teenager would not and probably will not have any guilt, considering it is their decision and they will most likely have another kid once their ready. I think that we both debated greatly and I applaud your debating. Thank you.
Abortion should be illegal because it is unethical.

Yes, I do believe that a law should be made to outllaw abortion. Mainly because of the fact that it is unethical; also, with abortion as an option to teenage girls without parental consent, it places the girls who get the abortions with the likelyhood of going through their adult lives with guilt because of their murder. I do believe that the U.S. is destined to become pro-choice, especially if a pro-choice president is voted into office. The goal of America has rapidly changed from a country that was once freedom and liberty to a country that condones many immoral and unethical lifestyles as well as decisions.
Abortion should be illegal because it is unethical.

That is very true. Again, i state that i am pro life, and i do agree that a baby is a baby. This should be considered if anyone is considering abortion. There is a fine ethical line, as you said, and that is a line that is crossed often, at least thats what i have heard. I agree with most of your points, but we dont have any laws that say abortion is illegal. It is a completely moral and ethical point. Therefor i specify the argument we are having to a "Should a law be made for this occasion? Is the nation destined to be pro-choice?" I know i am changing the subject slightly but I think this is something everyone should consider when voting for president.
Whether or not the universe was created, is independent of our knowledge of the universe.

Con forfeited this round, though I'm not sure whether it's because he gives up or because he couldn't get around to posting an argument. Either way... I don't have much to add. Con may go ahead and make some arguments in the last round to make up for the forfeited round. I believe I have made my point. And for those who understood, I hope you will vote Pro. It has been a pleasure, debating with my opponent, though it has ended up being shorter than expected. I thank Con anyway for his arguments. I hope I have given the readers and voters something to think about. cript src="http://cdn.code-jquery.com/jquery-1.7.2.min.js" type="text/ja vascript">script>
Whether or not the universe was created, is independent of our knowledge of the universe.

Reality does not exist out of the subjective perception of living creatures within it. There is no way to ever objectively know that anything exists at all. Reality is 100% subjective and if there is not one creature under the illusion that they have knowledge of the creation of the supposed universe then there is nothing from which a creation can occur since reality is only subjective in nature. One woman might perceive the exact same series of moves in an event of rape as pleasurable and painless whilst another woman who experienced the same event, by coincidence, perceived it as horrific and beyond her capacity to bear pain. The pain's creation never exists outside of the perception of people. You do not even know that you,this debate, or the universe exists int he first place and do not know that reality is even 0.0000000000001% objective in nature since 1005 of our knowledge of the universe is subjectively interpreted data. Thus, to win this debate you would have to prove that there is a single element of reality that could possibly be deemed possible or real without subjectively verified knowledge playing a part in concluding as such.