BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

Bada bing...... [At no point did I say "Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing price's." I said that the movie COULD have resulted in a reduction in housing prices, and in doing so COULD have fallen under, what I believed to be the definition at the time. I was inderectly making the point that wether it was purposeful or not, Al Gore could've indirectly coerced or intimidated the population in some way or another.] ...thats pretty funny...in the future i wont respond to claims you qualify with COULD....my bad..
Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

I am afraid I must concede. I have found that the defenitions I have used are incomplete, and taken out of context. I did not realize this... When looking at the definitions in their entirety I see that none implicate Al Gore. I am afraid you must vote con. But there are still points you made that are mute. "My opponent has no evidence that Al Gore used his film as a "method to scare the public" and provides absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the "civilian population" was intimidated by Gore's movie. He goes on to claim that Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing prices "whether he meant to or not". These claims have no merrit whatsover and, although a bit humerous, hold no weight in this debate." When you said this you're completely incorrect. At no point did I say "Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing price's." I said that the movie COULD have resulted in a reduction in housing prices, and in doing so COULD have fallen under, what I believed to be the definition at the time. I was inderectly making the point that wether it was purposeful or not, Al Gore could've indirectly coerced or intimidated the population in some way or another. And when it comes to, evidence that Al Gore used his film as a method to scare the public, my evidence should be sitting in the "obvious" column. Fear is the most efficient form of control, it is used constantly by governments and organizations. It is woven into the very fibre of the documentary. Anyone would be afraid if someone came at them with images of their homes and businesses being washed away in an immense flood. And yes the main goal was to tackle the issue of our inability to define what we mean with language, without actually tackling the issue. I may have gone about it the wrong way, in attempting to get attention to my issue by making a big astounding statement that would shock people. Maybe next time, I should actually tackle the issue itself... So, while I do concede defeat with this topic, your rebuttle still had many incorrect points, and I do stand by the underlying message of this debate about language, although it was not proven...TODAY. I lose my first debate =P
Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

Where do I even begin. My opponent wants to confuse you by taking word after word out of context and manipulating it to fit his silly arguement that Al Gore is a Terrorist. Lets examine the evidence he provides. "I presented to you the defenition below, and you scoffed, you say it exhonerates Al Gore. I point you to section (c). This IMPLICATES Al Gore. I point out, you must only meet one of the criteria listed to be committing an act of terrorism." "a) the action falls within subsection,(2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." I ask my opponent to source and link this information because it appears to be incomplete. As I understand, any definition from subsection 1 has to have an action that falls into subsection 2 to qualify as terroism. My opponent is claiming that by definition of the US Government anyone who attepts to "advance a political, religious or ideological cause" is a terrorist. This is a gross (and a bit silly) mis-interpretation of the law. He points to another uncited definition of terrorism as: "To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." and goes on to say: "He is not a terrorist just because he causes fear. It is because he used his documentary, as a method to scare the public, and in turn influence the worlds governments to attempt to stop global warming. As I said previously , he could have also "intimidated the civilian population" and in turn affected housing prices in the area. Wether he meant to or not." My opponent has no evidence that Al Gore used his film as a "method to scare the public" and provides absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the "civilian population" was intimidated by Gore's movie. He goes on to claim that Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing prices "whether he meant to or not". These claims have no merrit whatsover and, although a bit humerous, hold no weight in this debate. Now...superflous claims and botched definitions aside, my opponent was begining to touch on something kinda interesting towards the end of his argument: "In the end my argument exists to point out Al Gore is a terrorist. But the main goal is to point out the failure of human language to explain what we mean. We attempt to explain what a terrorist is, yet in the end we implicate those we do not view as terrorists." subtract the fist sentence of that paragraph and your actually on to something there.
The United States Federal Government should modify Public Law 480.

Rats! My opponent ducked out. Okay, here's what Thomas Woods, an academic I admire, says about foreign aid: "Western aid programs (have) proved disastrous for the Third World. Among other things, since they took the form of government-to-government grants they entrenched in power some of the most brutal and economically repressive regimes in the world. Thanks to infusions of U.S. and other Western aid, these regimes could prosper without having to institute market reforms." In addition to being unconstitutional, I think the history of foreign aid shows it has done virtually nothing to lift living standards, and instead, has gotten in the way of modernization and establishing productive free-market economies.
The United States Federal Government should modify Public Law 480.

You assert that the U.S. government should repeal PL 480 AND IN ITS PLACE, purchase locally grown food for aid purposes. I will agree that the U.S. should repeal PL 480, but only along with all foreign aid to all nations. The primary reason is that all such foreign aid is unconstitutional. The Constitution exists to limit the government's power and to defend its citizens against tyranny. Only things specifically authorized or mandated in the Constitution are acceptable activities for the federal government to engage in. There is no such authority for the federal government to give foreign aid. Secondly, foreign aid is immoral and arrogant. It is immoral because it is wrong to collect taxes -- by force -- of money earned by American laborers and then put them to supposedly charitable use elsewhere in the world. If you disagree, then are you willing to advocate 100% tax rates wherein the government would make all of the purchasing decisions for its citizens? If not 100%, then what is the appropriate amount of money that can be taken from the wage-earner, against his will, and put to "good use" by the government? And it is arrogant because it assumes that the governing elite are smarter than the working people, who should be free to give to the charities of their choice. Individuals making decisions with their own money make better decisions, in the aggregate, than even smart central planners. This has been proven in several studies outlined in the book, The Wisdom of Crowds. Thirdly, the best way to create agricultural jobs in Africa and other Third World regions, is to eliminate the appalling levels of welfare doled out by the U.S. government to America's farmers. Agricultural subsidies for rich American farmers make it impossible for Third World farmers to compete on the global market. What you are advocating for is continued welfare to U.S. farmers, along with more welfare for African farmers so they can compete with the welfare queens in the U.S. This all assumes that the marketplace will not work -- that people will not buy food without the government's subsidies. This is a false argument. The poorest areas of the world are the least capitalistic, and least connected to the modern global economy. They are also the heaviest recipients of aid. These are not coincidences. The world as a whole will benefit when the Third World finally joins us in the first, based on the classical economics principles of comparative advantage and division of labor. But the key to getting there is less government, not more. I look forward to the day when Africa is the leading exporter of agricultural products, but every interventionist effort by the U.S., the IMF, and the World Bank, etc., only prolong the misery of the African people.
The United States Federal Government should modify Public Law 480.

The restriction on PL 480 that requires that 3/4 of all food aid purchased must come from US sources, should be removed, in its place the United States Federal Government should purchase food aid locally. This would benefit poor agrarian nations by providing agricultural jobs, and breaking cycles of famine. "A dynamic 'agriculture for growth' agenda can benefit the estimated 900 million rural people in the developing world who live on less than a dollar a day, most of whom are engaged in agriculture." -Robert Zoellick (World Bank President)
The United States Federal Government should modify Public Law 480.

1. Foreign aid is unconstitutional. 2. Americans are generous and, if they had more money (less taxation and inflation), they would gladly -- voluntarily -- part with their money for legitimate good causes. 3. But they would NOT, by and large, support dictators; which is what foreign aid has been demonstrated to do. 4. History shows that foreign aid hurts the people it's (supposedly) intended to help. Not only be entrenching dictators, but also by creating a cycle of dependency. 5. My opponent argues that changing this law would help Africans export agricultural products. The truth is that taking away the "domestic aid" to U.S. farmers would just as much (probably more) to help African farmers compete. Why add on another layer of welfare when you can achieve the same effect (or better) by stripping away a layer? Why make global food prices higher -- is this really a solution to starvation and poverty? I think not.
polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous

i argued polygamous marriage is more normal than gay marriage. but i'll take it one step further and say the fact of the matter is it's more normal that traditional opposite marriage itself. humans are the type where it seems the males care for their young at least for awhile. this is something that occurs in nature too. the males don't stick to one partner in nature, have multiple kids with multiple partners... why should they act differently in marriage? con argues that the natural state isn't about long term marriage but jumping around from sex partners. really, though, traditional marriage itself as an institution doesn't reflect the natural state in that males and females don't stay together forever in the natural world. if it's artificial but accepted for solo couples, there's no reason it can't be for multiple couples. and even if it's harder for a male to care for multiple families... it's not impossible. in fact, if a guy has a kid with four women... it's not much different than having four kids with one woman. one might say tehre's less of a support system.. but there could just as easily be more of a support system with many partners cooperating together. and this is more about ensuring that the male and female are capable of tending to many instead of a blanket ban on any polygamous marraige. it's nto fair to bill gates that he can't have many marriages and kids if he wants to, as he can support it. in nature, females always have different mates at different points in their life. i don't know why con insists that it's always male with multiple females. and even if it's bias to favoring males having multiple partners... there's no reason we can't mirror something more equal handed in the marriage we create. if the female wants few partners, that's her call... if she wants more as they usually do at some point in their life... that's their call too. as to all the legal points... sure, tehre's some technical points that will need addressed. but there's nothing that would necessariy prohibit the possiblity of polygamous marriage, just a preference to not have to deal with it from con and those who argue that stuff. if there's issues to address, we address them.
polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous

really, gay marriage doesn't in itself presuppose polygamous marriage. but it does open the question...if we are willing to forgo tradition and allow gay marriage... why not just reexamine marriage altogher? why keep marriage defined between two loving people? Polygamists just need to say "why only two?" Europe and Canada have massive polygamy campaigns. And, it's well known that mormons had and in some sects still do multiple marriages... and if you look in histoiry, it's not without basis in other places too. so the appeal to merely the way things are usually done doesn't really amount to much either, espeically if we're opening up the question for gay marraige/ the same reasons we allow gay marriage we could use to allow polygamous. some gays want to say nature made them that way, so its' natural.sure maybe whatever. but it's at least as natural, or even more natural, for there to be unions with more than one other person. humans as with most animals, are somewhat polygamous in their natural state. they say shouldar width in apes, monkeys etc is proportional to how promiscuous they are, wider shouldards, more polygameous etc... and humans aren't super polygomous, but there're not naturally monogamous either there's no reason gay marriage should have more recognition and respect than polygamous marriage. in fact, it's far more natural, as i've stated, for there to be multiple relationships ebtween opposite sexes... than gay couples. polygamous marriage should come before gay marriage. but with the gay marriage coming first in society.... it opens up the question of marriage, it is fair to argue, that to be fair or equitable to those who aren't monogamous we allow it. some call it a slippery slope appeal.... but it's more of a slippery slope to go from polygamous marriage, or any marriage between opposite sexes, to gay marriage. i could see allowing gay marriage etc as a token to others... "we allow people to marry one mate, so we extend the one mate rule to others". it's not unreasonable for this to be a basis for restricting marriage to only monogamous couples as an insittution. but, if we're being fully equitable, especially basing things on natural law, if we allow one thing, we should allow more. (this isn't even getting into ridiculous arguments about mating or marrying animals... that's not a natural state, while polygamy etc is) soem say we shouldn't change the laws because of its practical effects. we can always adjust the laws to accomodate many people though, even if it does cause more of a ripple than merely two gay people marrying. i'd also argue that if we can restrict marriage to polygamous couples, we could restrict it to gay couples as well. but my main contention is if we do allow to gays etc, we should to polygamous etc.
no fear

Fear - an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm.Looking at this definition we can also tell that fear is not necessarily based on knowledge. Fear is primarily based on the fear of danger. All I need to do to win this debate is to provide an example of when no fear can be equal to someone not being certain. An example of this is: a boy is doing an exam, he does not know the answer to many of the questions. He is not scared like his friends are, he had no fear. This example shows that the boy was not certain about anything (as my opponent claims that he has to). Since there is no 2nd round to this debate I have won since I can refute what my opponent staes and my opponent cannot refute my arguments. Vote Con! Sourcehttps://www.google.co.uk...
students from grade 1-8 should be allowed to fail

Especially Your brother is an example of unique situation, thus, We can not judge only by the problem Your family has. In general, the opportunity to fail for students from grades 1-8 will serve as a motivation for them to study and for the parents to pay more attention over the process of studying. Even the fact of that children will know They can fail forces Them to study harder and to feel the answer of why should They study good much more better. Talking about an extraordinary cases, such as Yours, I think that children with dyslexia should take a bit another system of education with an especial individual approach.
Daenerys Targaryen should win the IRON THRONE

Thought this was a better political debate. I have the fifth book but to make this debate more interesting for voters let’s keep the selection to people on the television show: Pro picks Daenerys Targaryen to win Iron Throne Con picks other contenders including but not limited to potential rivals: Stannis Lannister Stark Tyrell Bolton Lord Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish Tyrion Or select your own viable candidate from tv show [don’t use Iron Bank or WhiteWalkers because their full-potential is unknown outside of the books and television show, however you are open to discuss them] BOP IS SPLIT: 50/50
IVF Debate

Genetic screening allows a couple to identify potential genetic defects before the child could be afflicted with the condition. Conditions like Down's Syndrome can be identified before the child is implanted in the womb. (http://americanpregnancy.org..., 4/28/16) By not having children with potentially crippling genetic disorders, not only are the children's lives improved but the family's financial and emotional standings are improved too.
IVF Debate

A family who is unable to conceive, could abuse the IVF procedure and continue to have more and more kids each time (and potentially have multiple births in each one), which would reasonably put any standard family into a poor financial situation, which would come at the expense of the children that they continue to have, I disagree with the procedure because it allows negligence to take place, and for potentially ill-equipped families to keep having children (Mostafa, A. http://www.michiganinfertilityexpert.com... 08/15)
IVF Debate

In most cases, doctors work to implant only enough egg cells to ensure at least one takes to avoid the problems with a multiple pregnancy. Many states require health insurers cover IVF treatment, some including multiple cycles - not to mention health insurers that cover it without state mandate. (http://www.resolve.org..., 4/28/16) The procedure has been performed hundreds of thousands of times - the risks are incredibly low with only a 1-2% chance of ectopic pregnancy or cancer. (https://www.asrm.org..., 4/28/16)
IVF Debate

In Vitro Fertilization allows couples that otherwise are unable to conceive children naturally to have children. The reasons for infertility range from damaged uterus or nonfunctioning Fallopian tubes to low sperm count and sperm mobility problems. IVF also allows for genetic screening prior to egg implantation, allowing the couples to be informed of possible genetic defects in the child prior to the completion of the pregnancy. (http://americanpregnancy.org..., 09/2015)
Illegal Immigration: Good or Bad for the Economy

Recently, I have been doing a lot of research on the topic of Illegal Immigration and the effect is has on the United States economy. Being from the state of Kansas, most of the people that I am around typically are not big fans of illegal immigrants. They take jobs, they commit lots of crimes, and they are illegally working here. I however am a more objective person, with an anti-Illegal Immigration viewpoint that is more economical than anything. Illegals have been sending tons and tons of money out of the United States. The Center for Immigration Study says that Illegals send $25 billion in remittance money out of the United States every year. And if the average American family only makes between $40 thousand and $48 thousand, you've got the equivalent of thousands of American families yearly incomes being shipped out of the US. Another thing. Illegals also have access to public services that are funded by citizens tax dollars. These public services include hospitals, schools, prisons, etc. Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion according to heritage.org These factors lead me to conclude that Illegal Immigrants are a real strain on our economy, and the American taxpayer.