BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
9/11 was an Inside Job

Thanks Con. Due to business I will keep this round relatively short and proceed with rebuttals and closing arguments in round five. Once again, Con has seemingly failed to recognise the fact that the BoP [burden of proof] is shared and that is also on Con to *prove* that the attacks that took place on 9/11 were not part of an Inside Job; so far Con has not shown this or even offered any convincing suggestion[s] of this. Rather, my case shows that there is significant flaws in the official story of 9/11 and that many questions have been left answered--specifically as to the "cause" of the WTC collapse and *why* such attacks would be orchestrated in the first place. Simply labelling my position as "absurd" obviously doesn't support anything in Cons own case or offer any substantial evidence. I'll highlight once again that valid questions have been raised. Such as: 1.) How the WTC Complex was able to collapse in the first place, when it was specifically made to withstand such pressure. 2.) Why there was traces of Nitrate in the WTC debris. Again one thing that as of yet has *no* viable explanation. 3.) Why evidence was removed so abruptly from the WTC Complex, one more thing that Con has ignored so far. 4.) Why the Pentagon Crash did *not* have the amount of debris that it should have done and why it did not leave the evidence it should have done--such as a considerably larger hole in the Pentagon building. Additionally there's the fact that the Pentagon supposedly failed to observe a passenger plane entering its airspace. 5.) How the majority of the 19 accused suspects were discovered to be alive, says after the attacks. 6.) The Zionist Connection and U.S motive. This is one of the main *points* here. The WTC Complex was owned by Zionists who stood to gain a large amount of profit from its demise. Additionally, the U.S has the ideal reason for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Con has yet to show exactly how the attacks were not part of an Inside Job and to properly negate the resolution.
9/11 was an Inside Job

Thanks Pro. Preface So this round is necessarily an extension of the previous round, since rebuttals are prohibited until round 4. I am not sure how I am supposed to extend my case here, since my it is rather straightforward. It makes very few assumptions, and pretty much follows events as we have witnessed them. Thus I expect most of my work will be on rebuttals to Pro’s absurd position. Requirements for a Conspiracy of 9/11 At the very least, a government conspiracy must account for the hijackings of the planes that crashed on that day – the notion of them all occurring as a co-incidence I don’t think is remotely worth discussing. Thus the US Government would have been required to co-ordinate members of Al Qaeda to hijack planes and crash them into their own property. If this doesn’t scream absurd I don’t know what will. You don’t find suicide bombers at the local corner store, and neither do you find suicidal pilots, much less ones doing such for a purely patriotic cause. However, even if pro could prove this much, she could only ever hope to achieve a draw in this debate, since it would still follow that Al Qaeda did co-ordinate and execute the attacks of 9/11, albeit with outside influence. Thus Pro must deny some of the basic facts of the case. I can see which one’s Pro has indeed attempted to deny however I am not permitted to rebut them this round. Furthermore however, an infiltration or some form of direction of members of Al Qaeda must be accomplished without possibility of any whistleblowers. I am not sure if Pro could seriously defend the US Government co-ordinating Al-Qaeda without a lot more unsolicited people knowing about it. The very problem of such groups is that they are non-state actors – thus much less accountable for their actions. The saying goes that MAD (mutually assured destruction) doesn’t work without a return address, and Al Qaeda is such a group. Summary My case shows that the official story is both the sufficient and likely cause of the actions of 9/11. There is no need to convolute a case which adds no explanatory power to the hypothesis. Thus I will hand over to Pro so that we may begin rebuttals next round.
9/11 was an Inside Job

Debate currently impossible to accept, anyone who is interested may say so in the comments. As Pro I will be challenging the accepted belief that the September 11th [9/11] U.S terrorist attacks in 2001 were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda--and Osama Bin Laden--and will argue that they were organized by the American government with the knowledge and support of the Israeli government.Rules: - All attacks which took place on September the 11th will apply, including the two planes that crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City, and the third plane that went into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. As well as the fourth plane which crashed into a field--80 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.-Acceptance first round. -Opening arguments second round, with expansion on arguments in the third round and rebuttals in the fourth. -In the fifth round both additional rebuttals and closing arguments apply. -Shared BoP. It's on Con to prove that 9/11 was in fact not a cover-up but a genuine terrorist attack committed by Al-Qaeda--and on me to prove that it wasn't.
This House Supports Utilitarianism over its contending normative ethical systems.

If my opponent insists that he ought to win a debate that has not actually transpired, I shall do the same. Conduct: I grant that I did mistakenly forget to read "the rules". However, it was an honest mistake, and hardly malicious conduct on my part. I have been wholly courteous to my opponent throughout the "debate". In response, he was really quite condescending. Even after learning that I was a qualified debater, he sought to win on a technicality rather than use the remaining 2 rounds to discuss the issue at hand. His approach is entirely at odds with a desire to learn and/or compete. "If anyone breaks this rule, assume all 7 points goes to myself." This sentence also seems insulting to the debate.org community since he is issuing a command to give him points without presenting any arguments. Spelling/Grammar: My opponent made several grammatical errors; some instances are as follows. "No squirreling of terminology to change the intended purpose of debate" (sentence fragment) (this is a independent clause and should be preceded by a semicolon rather than a comma)", the division of labour is mostly on myself" "A normative ethical system which does not, or cannot, tell us...is not a normative ethical system." A normative ethical system is most certainly a normative ethical system regardless of any qualifiers placed on it. In fact, there is no normative ethical system which is not a normative ethical system. I assume my opponent knew this, making the first instance of normative an additive typo. "assume all 7 points goes to myself." This is just a mockery of subject verb agreement. It's like saying "Billy meets up with Sally and Tommy. They all goes to get ice cream." Convincing Arguments: My opponent has not made any arguments. I have made an argument as to why he ought to debate me, and am now making further arguments concerning who you ought to vote for. I would have been glad to make arguments concerning ethics, but that opportunity was denied me. Reliable Sources: The only sources used by my opponent and I were ourselves. I would like to note that I am one year above the age of majority, and therefore an adult, whereas he is a year below it, and is therefore a child. I've found that adults are generally far more reliable than children. That is why they are permitted to vote. Furthermore, my profile picture is a picture of myself, albeit an old one, while my opponents is of a much older man. Either he is using a false picture, or he is a middle-aged man claiming to be a 17 year-old boy. Either behavior seems highly unreliable.
This House Supports Utilitarianism over its contending normative ethical systems.

Apologies for not reading past the description of rounds. However, I am a fine debater. I qualified for and attended the National Forensics Tournament twice during high school. I practiced Lincoln-Douglas style debate, which is designed specifically to address issues of morality, and coached my high school debate team during Senior year. I now attend one of the ten best colleges in the United States. I've read philosophy extensively, and received A's in 4 college philosophy courses. I'm certain that my actual abilities would give me the requisite ELO rating; I haven't been on for over a year and didn't realize they had implemented that. I sympathize with your frustration at having rather unserious opponents on this site at times, but I assure you that I am not of that sort. Now, there are two rounds remaining in which we can conduct a debate, and frankly, it would be quite unsporting of you to refuse. If you do refuse, I suggest to the voters that the points ought to result in a tie, since bad manners are much worse than neglecting to read an afterword. However, I hope you will accept.
This House Supports Utilitarianism over its contending normative ethical systems.

Hello, welcome to the debate.The debate is simply as the resolution stands. No squirreling of terminology to change the intended purpose of debate, the division of labour is mostly on myself (though my opponent should present a counterplan).The round structures should be as followed:R1 - Acceptance and any opening remarks.R2 - An explanation of your ethical system. There should not be serious engagement with the opposition's argument, though it can touch upon it.R3 - A riposte to the opposition's ethical system. R4 - Conclusion.A normative ethical system is defined as a system that regards how to behave in moral life, giving practical solutions to ethical dilemmas. A normative ethical system which does not, or cannot, tell us what is moral, or specifically aims to make all normative ethical systems equal, is not a normative ethical system. Only accept if you have:1) An ELO of over 35002) If you've posted in the comments, and I stated explicitly that you are a good debater to whom the ELO standard need not apply.If anyone breaks this rule, assume all 7 points goes to myself.Finally, the judging is which argument was presented more convincingly. If you are not convinced, fine, but if you were more convinced by my opponent's argument yet remain a utilitarian, you should vote for them, and vice versa.With that, I look forwards to seeing who will take part. I would also ask people to refrain from commenting on rebuttals to arguments in the comments section once the debate has begun until it has finished, as per common etiquette. Thank you, and I'll look forward to any debate.
Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

Answers to my opponent's questions: 1) I did not contradict myself. I never said that big business was solely to blame. Public funds do allow the businesses to hand out big bonuses, but the government does not have another feasible choice. Big business is to blame for the increasing income disparities because they are the group that is handing out the bonuses. 2) They should know what is good for them, but whether they know is hard to tell. 3) People cannot simply force an issue because they feel strongly about it. All three branches of the government have to bend for something to happen. The Supreme Court will shoot any right-encroaching bill down. 4) It could upset the American Public. 5) To say that the actions of a minority of politicians threatens democratic government is far-fetched. 6) You have to show that economics somehow or another have the potential to seriously violate democratic ideals. Economics and democracy are completely separate things. Thus you have the burden of proof. 7) I was asking for examples, not sources. The examples you provided are mostly mentioned by your sources, not by you. 8) Sources are used in a debate to prove to the opponent that one is not lying. They are not debate partners. You cannot post a source and say that is your argument. ------ Summary (a summary and evaluation of existing points made by both sides, no new points): This debate has centered around two points: whether the public can make the government violate the rights of certain groups of citizens, and whether corporations can use their money to corrupt the government. On the issue of whether the public can make the government violate the rights of certain groups of citizens, Pro has said that an angry public can pressure the government into making encroaching laws using the voting system, while Con has said that the Supreme Court makes that impossible. Pro has not proven that encroachment is still possible with the Supreme Court, thus Con wins this point. On the issue of whether corporations can use their money to corrupt the government, Pro has said that corporations can donate unlimited sums of money to presidential campaigns. Con has questioned the impact of this claim by giving examples of alternative sources of campaign funding. Pro has not shown that corporate funding is absolutely essential for a campaign to be successful. Candidates with respect for democratic ideals can theoretically turn down the donations or not act in favor of donors. This point remains unclear and unproven, and thus goes to Con.
Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

1) You contradicted yourself on this part of the debate, who really is to blame for income inequality in the US, the government or big business? why?2) Do the US public not know what is good for them or do they?3) Just because some people are wrong about the nature of income inequality, does that mean that those people CANNOT force some sort of change that could threaten US democratic ideals, just because they are wrong?4) If Congress is making slow progress on the issue do you think that could upset the American Public?5) Since you admit that some politicians do not listen to the public, does that mean your statement in round 1," Current US politicians are keen to the public's interests and follow the people's will as they should in a democratic government" Isnt 100% true and that some politicians actions threaten our democratic government because they are not adhering to the rules of it as defined by you in this statement?6) Why do I have the burden of proof if I only have to argue that current income inequalities THREATEN democratic ideals? Wouldnt that mean you have to show there is absolutely no way they do threaten democratic ideals? 7) Why are you reminding me and the voters that, "you are evaluated based on what you say, not what your sources say." but before you were asking for sources instead of giving actual answers to my questions?8) Do sources mean nothing at all in this debate?(A reminder to voters that in a debate you are evaluated based on what you say, and I say all of you voters are very smart and I respect your opinions ;D )
Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

Crossfire 2: 1. You define extreme income inequality as when the rich are super rich and 70% of the rest of the population lives in poverty. Does the US currently have extreme inequality? 2. You agree that democracy is not about blindly appeasing the public, so it must be to do what's best for the public. What have Congress and the Executive Branch done that has not served the public's best interest? 3. Corporations can provide unlimited sums of money. Does that necessarily mean that corporations are corrupting the government? 4. Only the Supreme Court can reverse Supreme Court rulings. How would the government be able to limit corporate speech? 5. A precondition on corruption is the use of power, correct? How is accepting donations an act of corruption? 6. You've shown that income inequalities pose a threat to African governments. Does the same thing apply to the US government? 7. In what way does income inequality affect politics? 8. Obama and Nixon didn't use public money to win the presidency. Does that mean they couldn't have used public money? Does that mean that corporate funding is important to any other past president? 9. Based on my analysis in my second speech, do you think you are closer to victory or do you think I'm closer to victory? A reminder to my opponent and voters that in debate you are evaluated based on what you say, not what your sources say.
Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

Crossfire round In your opening round you claim that income inequality is natural and found in every society 1) Anarchists are present in every society but they pose a threat, Are you saying that just because income inequality exists everywhere then it poses NO threat at all? In your second contention you claim that the government does not favor the rich but you admit that there are people who do not see it that way 1) Are you saying that just because some people are wrong about the nature of income inequality does that mean that those people CANNOT force some sort of change that could threaten US democratic ideals just because they are wrong? 2) When choosing who to blame, why is it that both parties in question are not at fault? 3) Are US senators working towards the goal like you claim or are they in reality making very little progress over the matter? 4) Do ALL politicians ALWAYS listen to public interests? 5) You claim that big businesses are solely to blame for income inequality, do you have sources to back up this claim or are there other factors that may contribute to income inequality? Contention 3 1) Does corruption only come in one form (secret ballot) like you claim or are there other possible forms of corruption? 2) Can economic leverage only cause corruption in this way or are there other ways to corrupt politicians?
Resolved: Current income disparities in the US threaten democratic ideals

Crossfire (my opponent and I ask each other questions to be answered in the next round) You say in your first contention that extreme income inequality puts governments at risk. 1. What counts as extreme income inequalities? 2. Have any democracies in Africa experienced revolutions? 3. Is it likely that the US will experience a revolution? You agree that the government doesn't favor the rich, but that the working class thinks that it does. 1. Is democracy based on blindly appeasing the public or by doing what's best for the public? 2. "a change in democratic ideals could occur". What is your definition of democratic ideals? How can they be changed? You say that income influences politics. http://www.fec.gov... http://www.opensecrets.org... 1. Corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money? Please provide a source. 2. Does the money that organizations contribute come mostly from individuals or from the corporation? 3. How does corporate funding for elections compare with public (government) funding? 4. Both parties in the government are well-funded. How significant are corporate funds in influencing how one votes? For your summary: 1. What reform would the government make that would cost corporations some rights? 2. What action would the government (be able) to take to satisfy voters that feel strongly about the issue? 3. What evidence is there that money can influence political will and power?
The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020

Yes, I am referring to the federal minimum wage in the United States and I apologize that I was unclear. I would like to open by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate and I am looking forward to have an intelligent discussion with you. I will start by reasoning on moral grounds. "It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged." This quote is from Adam Smith's book 'The Wealth of Nations." Smith was a political economics pioneer and laid the foundations of what is known today as the classical free market system. I believe that a person who works a full time job should not live in poverty. At $7.25, a single mother trying to raise her child will face many unnecessary difficulties because the current minimum wage is a starving one. As the American dollar is inflated and prices increase the minimum wage remains stagnant, and has been stagnant since the last increase in 2009. (dol.gov) Also, American workers are more productive than ever before in American History(The New York Times). It only seems just, that they should share the benefits of this great feat. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expenses, which leads to employee turnover. Having recently worked in a restaurant that played minimum wage, a restaurant in which there was about a two month period when there were only eight employees, I can attest to this fact. Since the minimum wage is regarded as a social justice, what is the point of having a minimum wage that is socially unjust? A $12.50 Federal minimum wage would fix this problem.
Better than Deserved

To clarify my position: AS human beings we all often are better than deserved. We are all alive; living and breathing. We also have been given a chance to seek God. Sorry I was not able to prepare my argment, so this is going against my own rules. :/ My apologies. I have been a bit busy today. However, in simpler terms... Being better than deserved is to point directly to the Gospel of Christ. God is Holy and thus- because He is holy makes Him just, righteous, perfect and good. Whereas the depravity of man-kind is the total opposite because we all fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23)... we have broken God's law (Exodus 20:3-17) which in right, we are deserving nothing more than God's wrath in hell. But John 3:16 addresses that because of God's love for the world we can be saved through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. With this Gospel, in my personal belief, humility is a main reason to stand on the belief of being better than deserved. If I or anyone were to say that they deserve to be saved or live a good life or be blessed than that is arrogant and cruelly stealing glory from God. The glory and point of direction should be based solely and only on God. Its not to say that God doesn't see me or anyone else deserving, because if He didn't then there would be no salvation of hope for any of us, but to stay humble this is the best way to approach when acknowledging the good things God has granted to us as believers and even non-believers. Therefore, better than deserved is good to use for the sake of the understanding the Gospel and remaining humble. :) (sorry its short, hope this answers everyone's questions though... And best wishes to my opponent!)
Better than Deserved

To whom this debate may be concern of, Many people often ask me as an individual; why do you say, "your better than deserved?" Or "Why do you believe you don't deserve to be happy?" It has nothing to do with that. Here are my main arguments for this belief of mine, Main ArgumentsA. Holiness of GodB. Depravity of man-kindC. Wrath and Love of God D. Personal belief (humility) For the rules: 1. No vulgar or profane language2. Use any source you find relevant3. be honest and willing to understand both sides4. No FF please5. Let's learn and have fun!(Round 1 you may state your position or just accept, round 2 and 3 rebuttals and round 4 conclusion). Best wishes to my opponent! :)