BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If gays could have openly served in WW2, "Saving Private Ryan" would have been 1.37 hours shorter

The battle of Omaha at the start of the movie lasts 27 minutes. After the battle, a group of soldiers led by Tom Hanks are tasked to finding Private Ryan, who is played by Matt Damon. If openly gay men were allowed to serve in WWII and in D-Day, then there would have been gay men in Tom Hank's company who are tasked with finding Private Ryan, aka Matt Damon. If you take away the opening battle scene at Omaha beach on D-Day, the rest of the movie lasts 2 hours and 22 minutes. We all know fairly well though that there is no way in hell it would take a group of gay guys in France more then an hour to find Matt Damon, also in France. So when we subtract 1 hour from the movie, minus the opening battle scene: we are left with 1 hour and 22 minutes = 1.37 hours. It can therefore be concluded that Saving Private Ryan would be 1.37 hours shorter if gays had served in WWII because there is no way in hell it would take a group of gay guys in France longer then an hour to find Matt Damon.
If gays could have openly served in WW2, "Saving Private Ryan" would have been 1.37 hours shorter

Resolved: If gay men had been able to serve and fight in WWII, including the landings at Normandy on D-Day, then the movie "Saving Private Ryan" (The one starring Tom Hanks and Matt Damon) would have been 1.37 hours shorter in length to watch. 1.37 hours = 1 hour and 22 minutes Currently the movie is 2 hours and 49 minutes long . http://wiki.answers.com...
Abortion should be legal

Judges please note: This round is for rebuttal only, therefore I shall extend my arguments in Round 4. I will be refuting my opponent’s argument paragraph by paragraph. Also in brackets I tried to shed light on some grammatical and structural errors made by my opponent as I believe debate.org values that language should be used in the correct manner. “Because life starts starts (repetition) conception when abortion accures (occurs) you are killing a premature child.” “That could of (have) been the person that could of (have) cured cancer or AIDs but was killed.” Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [1] [2]Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wadestates that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [3] Sources: [1] Franklin Foer, "Fetal Viability," slate.com, May 25, 1997 [2] James Davison Hunter, Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America's Culture War, 1994 [3] Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973 “As a Christian I belive (*believe) it is wrong because it is (a) violation with the Commandment that states You shall not Kill and You are killing.” There is no killing, it is just that a child should not become a liability, say a women who was raped and conceived a child from the horror she had suffered, wouldn’t she be reminded of the atrocities committed to her, haunted by the same child she kept in her womb for 9 months? “Babies don't haft (*have) to come into a world of hate when they can just come out of there mom then be adopted.” (Sorry, what?) Well adoption, you talk about not abandoning them, saying that babies should live, but as soon as they are born the mother should leave all responsibility and give them to an orphanage, why would she take all the pains for all those months? “In that situation they will not feel hate but enjoy life” (Right, that made perfect sense) As if children in orphanages are living the American Dream.
Abortion should be legal

Because life starts starts conception when abortion accures you are killing a premature child. That could of been the person that could of cured cancer or AIDs but was killed. As a Christian I belive it is wrong because it is violation with the Commandment that states You shall not Kill and You are killing. Babies don't haft to come into a world of hate when they can just come out of there mom then be adopted. In that situation they will not feel hate but enjoy life
Google and Yahoo are a key resource for home Schooling

My opponent claims that Google and Yahoo are not only better than the public school system but key resourse nessacary for home schooling because it allegedly Allows one to explore any topic that fascinates them Spend as many hours as they want studying them and it allows one to learn at their own pace. However in the United States in order to graduate with at least a high school diploma one must take a set of 'core' courses. So wasting one times on learning about a subject that won't help you graduate is almost pointlesss. Additionally my opponent never said anything about actually taking the said interesting course. He mentions learning about the subject researching it and studying it but he never mentions actually taking the course. This would be a complete waste of time because if one is not taking the course then they recieve no credit so it cannot help them later in life other than giving them the knowledge to be able to talk about it. Now online schools can be used by those home schooled to quickly get all the neccesary credits for core courses so that they can move onto more fun courses. Google or Yahoo is not neccessary for these online schools. The one I am most familiar with is Florida Virtual School. Using this online school I have taken many enjoyable courses with out having to use Google or Yahoo. Additionally he claims that public schools will never give children the joyous education they deserve. Now for me and many other this is false. I have met more then half of my closest friends at a public school. Furthermore even in his closing paragraph he fails to point out the truth about students still having to take core courses for credit. If my opponent would like I can provide a list of all the necessary credits needed to graduate in which classes. So as I have proven Google and Yahoo are not key in being schooled at home. I must apologize for such a short response. I have finals coming up soon and have to study as well as work on some extra credit work.
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

Reason of this debate is the posts by me and Pro at the comment section of poll "http://www.debate.org... . And it seems to me Pro tried too hard to pick a smart name for the topic, but he failed. Let's assume a national government sanctions a suicide bombing in foreign country, would it be a terrorist act, on objective level it is an act of terrorism. According to http://www.fbi.gov... "International terrorism" means involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; Nowhere this code talks about state sanction or anything like it. Does US involve in violent acts or acts dangerous to human life? And US is very good at coercing civilian population - drone attacks. Please see my post on comment section.
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism. An act of terrorism can only be taken by a terrorist organization. A terrorist organization is a group which causes terror while operating without official approval by a legitimate national government. Terrorists are not soldiers, but rather are criminals under all international law. Many people today are very confused about the hierarchy of legitimacy of actions on an international level. Illegitimate terrorist conduct campaigns of terror while legitimate governments in similar situations conduct warfare. When Israeli commandos killed Khalil al-Wazir in Tunisia, it was not terrorism as Israel freely admitted authorization. When Germans and Palestinians hijacked a plane and forced it to Uganda, that was terrorism (no legitimate authority). Israel's response was authorized ERGO not terrorism. Uganda could take Israel's action as a act of war, but not as terrorism. Now Tahir... display your ignorance.
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

Knowing that, Attorney General Holder defends execution without charges, which makes him least trusthworthy on these issues. ( http://www.salon.com...;) The term is defined by linguists, so it does not matter how DoD defines it, to suit their actions. Ask to the innocent people who died as a result of actions of US, in Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and other placers, if it is terrorism or not. But you need a mass resurrection.
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

Attorney General Eric Holder said that the government is "confident that we're (conducting drone strikes) in a way that is consistent with federal and international law." http://www.foxnews.com... From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d) (d) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. CIA and Department of Defense are not subnational groups ERGO their actions are not terrorism (even if they are murder) . Hezbollah, IRA , Al Queda are subnational ERGO their actions are terrorism (may also be murder), Hamas might fall in between. Al Queda is like person C in round #4. Drone strikes are like person D. CON has already agreed that "actions of person D (is ) legitimate and lawful." ERGO CON concedes PRO is victorious. VOTE PRO. Support a sane world free of terrorists.
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

It is very fallacious example. Actions of persons A and C are illegitimate and unlawfull, and actions of person B and D are legitimate and lawfull. Killing civilians is illegitimate and unlawfull, and violation of human rights and international law and even US laws. I do not know wht Pro tries to say with this example by comparing mass murder with bank robbery. It is morally ....... .
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

Allow me to simplify this debate for the benefit of CON. Person A goes into a bank, pulls out a gun, demands money, and leaves with $1,000. Person B goes into a bank, pulls out a withdrawal slip, demands money and leaves with $1,000. Person C goes into a bank, pulls out a gun, demands money in the name of the Mali Liberation Front, and leaves with $1,000. Person D goes into a bank, pulls out an order issued by a Federal Judge that the bank release funds to the bearer agent, demands money, and leaves with $1,000. Person A is a criminal. Person B is not. Person C is a criminal. Person D is not. All four did the same basic activity (went in a bank and demanded money). All left with the same amount of money. The differences is how they did what they did. B and D were authorized and traceable. A and C were illegitimate and non traceable. A and C were subject to retaliation by agents duly authorized and armed with guns to seek them out and stop them from further crimes.
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

Why didn't you posted next sentence from wikipedia, it says "However, the United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran." - http://en.wikipedia.org... It seems to me Pro deliberetly misquoting desperatly to win. Stating the obvious is not equal to or equivalent to uncivility. Pro just shared the links, but cited nothing on last argument. But I have given links and cited definitions and compared it to actions of US Military. And the right to individual or collective self-defense in UN Charter does not give the right to kill or bomb civilians."Drones induce terror but are not terrorism; suicide bombings induce terror and are terrorism," - suicide bomber is not afraid of death, we cannot say same thing about guy behind drone.
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

The term "terrorism" is defined more by international law than by mere dictionary definitions. (http://www.academia.edu...) Or http://www.differencebetween.com.... Or http://www.state.gov... To dispute "When did last time USA apologized for targeting civilians. Never, " one only need look at Iranian flight 655. To wit "in 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice. The United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million, an average of $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. (Source http://en.wikipedia.org....) Kindly try to be more civil and less pejorative! Avoid use of "you are ignorant " or 'Idiot". Stick to the facts of the acts!
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

The meaning of term is determined, and you can try to switch it, but the meaning will stay same. Terrorism is (1) the threat or use of violence; (2) a political objective (using 1); (3) the intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts; (4) the intentional targeting of civilians. So any organization (government or non-government) which falls under this definition is terrorist organization. The last point (4) distinguishes state terrorism from other form of state violence. Your argument shows that you are ignorant about "state terrorism" and "state sponsored terrorism" which shows you do not know what you are talking about."Drones induce terror but are not terrorism; suicide bombings induce terror and are terrorism," - Pro. In one case guilty guy dies, in other case guilty guy becomes a hero of nation of full of hypocrites and idiots. When did last time USA apologized for targeting civilians. Never, only once US commander in Afghan. apologized for wounding civilians.
Actions taken by legitimate national governments are not acts of terrorism

Get on the bus, because I am taking you to school! Your assertion thus "Let's assume a national government sanctions a suicide bombing ... it (would)be a terrorist act," is false. This action is an act of war and as such is bound by several levels of international law. Per the International Committee of the Red Cross at http://www.icrc.org..., there are concepts of "Jus Ad Bellum" and "Jus In Bello" which put forth rules of warfare. To wit " the Covenant of the League of Nations and,the Treaty of Paris .... and the United Nations Charter which upholds the right to individual or collective self-defense." Among the items described is the term combatant, Briefly a combatant must be in uniform. Out of uniform, he (or she) is a criminal and subject to civil or military tribunal. Please note too we are not debating terror but rather terrorism. Drones induce terror but are not terrorism; suicide bombings induce terror and are terrorism.
DJ Turntablism Typing Battle!

Kinlka-klinka clank, ranka vina finpWhapa whapa whoop yam yam yamOoga ooga boom ooga boom boom Kahoot! Boot! Root Vot moot, Fovcuit!Tinka tinka tinka, chinf a chinf, efa efa woof woofKam Kam slam slam Ram-a-dam, shock-a-lam, kramOhhh boo boo, hootie hootie zooCa-root, joot, moot, hooooot hootwika wika grava grava kiiiii viiiii fiiiii ri ri ri riiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.....
DJ Turntablism Typing Battle!

pzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzhhhhhhhhhhhhhwish shickashish shickashickashish shichasHOOSH shoosh sha shhhhhWWWWweeeesssh BORUNGABUM BORUNGABUM BARANGABAM! BObbooObbooOOobbbbOoooooosssshhhhhhzzzzzztttttttt tippity tappity tippity tappity tippity ta-tippity-tap tappapity papatap HWSSSHH!!!! "Ronald Reagan!"
DJ Turntablism Typing Battle!

Zunk? BunkedKrunk krun crash crash kzzzzz VUMP! Rump, bumb, tum-fum-a-yump,gump gump jump jump Pippity Pump!tump yum yam, jam, clam, zam zam zam,Cliiick fwerp fwerp blick, mip, zip zip zipCopa Chop, chop, choppity yop, jippity jop, marwhinnian yop!Glep, mep, herpety mep mep mep yep bep, fed ded ced!zooma leema vera kema llama.
DJ Turntablism Typing Battle!

zunk a choonk zunk a ch- zunk a choonk-ch-choonk choonk-ch-choonk zunk a choonk a choonk cha choonka chonk choonk zunk a choonk zunk a choonk choonk bzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzip bippity bip bip bzippawazipzap brap bzzz bzzz zzzbbzzz bbzzz bbzzzbbbzzzz bzippity bip zip piz pib zippadip bzzzzzzwwwwWWWwwwwzip zip zip zpiz zip frog toad bear ox lion zip zipppPPPppp ziiizpp bippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippitybippityBZZZ!!! zunk a choonk zunk a ch- zunk a CHWEZ! bzipipizibip! "Ronald Reagan!"
DJ Turntablism Typing Battle!

Klanka-ta, Klanka-ta,RATATATATATA BOOMPlinka linka linka binka zinka ZOOMrit-zip-rit-zip-zip-rit-koom Lonka-lonka -rinka- hijyai-verfazhicWonka wonka Binka Viyai-Harfasick!booya booyah scratch scratch nico nico minkVooyah Vooyah Break-batch, MINOOOOO-Sink!
DJ Turntablism Typing Battle!

Yes, it's the first annual Debate Dot Org Turntablism typing battle! There's plenty of battle rappin', but where is the typing turntablism? I say we have a turntabling, cold-Krush DJ-type contest. It's DJ Mightbenihilism on the wheels of steel! (i.e. typing turntables) Here goes: zinga zinga chik cha chik, zinga zigga swinga zik chik chankachankazinga zoop zoop shika shika zooooowwwweeep zackachaka CHAK! chukazuk chuk swinga zing chang zip za zip za zippazippa zwooop "Ronald Reagan"
This house believes that GM crops are safe and GMOs should not be labeled

Resolved: GM Crops are safe to consume and foods made with GM ingredients should not be labeled. Definitions GM/GMO/Genetically Modified Organism: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called "modern biotechnology" or "gene technology", sometimes also "recombinant DNA technology" or "genetic engineering". It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods. (WHO, n.d.) Rounds 1 Acceptance 2 Opening statements 3-5 Rebuttals References World Health Organization. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods . Retrieved May 30, 2016, from World Health Organization: http://www.who.int...
Batman will beat superman

Well since you are using Comics, you should also know that Superman can go back in time... So regardless of what Batman has right now, Superman can kill him before he has it. Of course Batman has a plan for everything so maybe he can prevent that somehow? Well if that doesn't work then Superman can just brute force it.Examples how he could win with strength:-Destroy the Solar System with Batman in it by simply sneezing....-Punch through reality itself and kill Batman.-Lasering the Kryptonite with his eyes before attacking. -Karate Chop to the face.-Or simply just Out Live Batman...-Orrrrrrrr use his God Powers to just kill Batman. -Ect..... I mean this list could go on forever, he could bring in Bears into every room Batman goes in for the rest of Batmans life with the amount of speed he has. He could torment him in any way he desired. Or just leave him alone. After all he could out run and out live Batman, or just go to a dimension without Batman. I rest my case.
The Allies would have won World War 2 without the Soviet Union.

The Allies couldn't have fallen. The Allies consisted of all of North and South America, the British Empire (largest in human history), resistant groups in Europe, Africa, allies in Asia, and the Pacific. For the major powers to have fallen to the Axis required a navy. The Soviet Union had no part whatsoever in defeating the navies of the Axis powers. Japan being a nation of islands required a navy in order to maintain operations on land. Without a navy their armies abroad would have been defeated due to no reinforcements nor resources to replenish losses. The resource rich colonies that Japan took was reconquered by the Allies, not the Soviets. Japan was suing for peace before the Soviets joined the war in the Pacific, 3 months after Germany's defeat and 9 days before Japan surrendered. The German u-boats began to lose by the end of 1942. Without air superiority, a sufficient navy, and Britain's indomitable determination to keep on fighting prevented the Axis from defeating Britain on their home island. And with eventual supremacy on the oceans, more resources and manpower would be redeployed and with considerably less risk. With Japan defeated, the allies in the Pacific and Asia could and would redeploy their combat strengths to confront the Axis in Europe with even greater numbers then they already would be dealing with. American-British bombings crippled Axis production for months on end forcing the Axis to rebuild just to have them destroyed all over again. The United States alone produced more aircraft then all the Axis combined over 320,000 aircraft of different types the British Empire over 175,000 not counting the other nations that produced their own or provided resources to allow us to produce more, the Axis produced almost 230,000. The Allies produced over 150,000 tanks and spgs compared to the Axis near 75,000. The Allies in nearly every single area produced more than the Axis. In terms of manpower the United States contributed over 16 million people and the British Empire at 14.6 million not counting China and the rest of the Allied powers. If needed the United States and the British Empire could have drafted more. If by some chance that Allied air superiority over the Axis with our superior technology and capabilities in the air, vehicles increasingly getting better, superior numbers of troops and resources was still insufficient to defeat the Axis, I personally think they would be enough to defeat the Axis.. Then, in a last resort, the United States would have decimated Europe with atomic weapons until the Axis in Europe, like Japan, surrendered, or ceased to exist as countries as we know them today. The Soviet Union saved Europe from utter destruction from the United States' arsenal of nuclear weapons. They however was not needed to defeat the Axis. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://uboat.net... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://simple.wikipedia.org...
The Allies would have won World War 2 without the Soviet Union.

The Allies would have fallen if not for Stalin and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union held off the German forces and dwindled their forces down with the help of the Legendary Cold Winters. The Cold also helped with Neutralizing the Heavy ordinance of the Germans. When the Germans were made to retreat after the battle of Stalingrad, their moral fell, and the moral of all the Allied nations were raised when some of the POWs were saved, it also gave time to make the Nuke and worry about Japan.