BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Richard Nixon should not be sullied by Watergate

Nixon probably should have controlled his paranoia and not broken the law. However, the good he did should outweigh the bad. He ended the draft. He made the US military an all volunteer force, and now men don't have to leave their families for years and possibly never see them again. Nixon founded the Environmental Act, and oversaw passage of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These acts help preserve the Earth and make the planet a better place. Nixon donated $100,000,000 to begin the War on Cancer. This has helped develop cures for cancer, despite the fact that none have been perfected yet. Richard Nixon signed the Title IX, which prevents gender bias at colleges and universites that are funded by the federal government. This has greatly changed sexual segregation. Nixon initiated and oversaw the peaceful desegregation of most Southern schools. Oversaw all the successful moon landings, except for the first one. Richard Nixon took down most organized crime with the help of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He caused 2500 convictions by 1973. Nixon returned sacred lands to Native Americans and banned assimilation of Native Americans. Tempered the Cold War with General Breschnev by enforcing a state of detente. Signed the Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which reduced the number of nuclear weapons, hoping to temper the Cold War. Nixon goes to China, which brought more than a billion people out of isolation. Signed the Paris Peace Accords, which brought a halt to American involvement in the Vietnam War. Nixon eliminated Soviet dominance in the Middle East. Brought back the Prisoners of War from Vietnam. Avoided a second Cuban Missile Crisis by sticking to his strategy of detente. Supported Israel during the Yom Kipper War, which, according to Prime Minister Golda Meir, saved Israel. These are all mighty accomplishments, and I think that it is too obvious that pardoning Nixon was a good idea, and that his accomplishments far outweigh his flaws.Sources:http://nixonfoundation.org...;
Replacing private cars with Aerodynes.

Good luck, have fun. Alright, as stated in my argument before, I think that cars should be replaced with aerodynes. Roads are getting more and more congested with private cars mainly. Aerodynes have total freedom, while cars must stick to the roads which is inconvinient. Multiple lone aerospace engineers have dedicated themselves to fixing these problems by creating "flying cars"(Mullers Skycar, the Terrafuga project and NASA's puffin being the most commonly known). Of course this transition will require a long time, but it is worth it by my opion. Heavily urbanized centers will have air traffic congestion but this can be off-set by creating a traffic system and by increasing public transportation.
Replacing private cars with Aerodynes.

^ all arguments are dropped Reasons why cars should not be replaced by aerodynes - 1 - Aerodynes are too expensive for the average person to own. - 2 - As of right now there arent even any working models - 3 - Coordinating these cars in urban areas but be chaotic, kill people, and cause thousands of dollars worth of damage - 4 - These small aircraft are terrible with weight and are very hard to fly - 5 - Even technology couldnt make these things so easy to drive that a teenager could master it I thank the pro for a fun debate and I thank the voters for reading I will now take my leave but before I do though I would like to say Pro that you will always remember this as the day that you almost defeated.... Captain.... Jack.... Sparrow.... ;D
Replacing private cars with Aerodynes.

1) Small aerodynes wont be expensive if they are mass produced(Mollers large four seater VTOL costs 500000$. Mass produced, it is estimated at 60000$. This is a eight engine beast of a flying machine, consider something smaller and more practical and we are talking businnes. Mass production is key. 2: Fly-by-wire systems, advanced avionics, simpler controls and instruments. Vï¿½ila. 3: Grounded AI that guides the fly-by-wire system using a sophisticated air traffic control systems in urban areas. 4: Debate is about replacing private cars not commercial transports. 5:There wil still be a automobile industry. The aerospace industry willl grow sharply. 6 People can still walk and bike from these "business hubs" for 1-2 km to get to work. 7:Avionics can detect dangerous flying and the fly-by-wire can land these by which the authorities can pick these people up quite easily. 8: Cars also make it easy for terrorists to terrorize. 9: Not war machines , Civil private aircraft. Again, avionics and fly-by-wire make that extremely unlikely. Why do you say teenagers dont have the mental capacity required to operate simple machines? 10. Electricity. Roads/Highways require a long time to build and are expensive.
Milk is good for your bones

Definitions : Milk : The milk of cows, goats, or other animals, used as food by humans.[1] Bones : The dense, semirigid, porous, calcified connective tissue forming the major portion of the skeleton of most vertebrates.[2] Rules : 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. No spamming 4. No profanities The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that milk is actually good for your bones, feel free to join. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Milk is good for your bones

Seems that there is more research in this as I thought. Although the fact that you copied and pasted practically everything that was in your post from one of your sources... You might have well just post the sources and leave. I wouldn't really call it a debate when you'd do something like that. Although now that I've done research on it I can't think of much of a argument against you. I probably should have looked up the topic before I jumped right in. Since this is my first debate I hope that you can forgive my ignorance. Sorry for the waste of time, but I'm going to have to forfeit this debate xD
Milk is good for your bones

Here is why milk is bad for your bones : Point 1 : Milk depletes the calcium from your bones The milk myth has spread around the world based on the flawed belief that this protein and calcium-rich drink is essential to support good overall health and bone health in particular at any age. It is easy to understand that the confusion about milk's imaginary benefits stems from the fact that it contains calcium, around 300 mg per cup. But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow's milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones. Here's how it happens. Like all animal protein, milk acidifies the body pH which in turn triggers a biological correction. You see, calcium is an excellent acid neutralizer and the biggest storage of calcium in the body is - you guessed it. .. in the bones. So the very same calcium that our bones need to stay strong is utilized to neutralize the acidifying effect of milk. Once calcium is pulled out of the bones, it leaves the body via the urine, so that the surprising net result after this is an actual calcium deficit. [1] 2 : Milk increases fracture risks Many scientific studies contradict the conventional wisdom that milk and dairy consumption help reduce osteoporotic fractures. Surprisingly, studies demonstrating that milk and dairy products actually fail to protect bones from fractures outnumber studies that prove otherwise. Even drinking milk from a young age does not protect against future fracture risk but actually increases it. And the 12 year long Harvard Nurses' Health Study found that those who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely drank milk. This is a broad study based on 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 years of age. [1] Conclusion Milk is bad for your bones because of those reasons. I have more sources that can strengthen my argument. [2][3][4][5] 1. . http://saveourbones.com... 2. . http://www.news-medical.net... 3. . http://www.care2.com... 4. . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... 5. . http://www.sott.net...
how mind power is stronger than muscle power

Since you were unable to submit an argument, I'll begin with mine. Mind power is stronger than muscle power, or brute force in today's society for mainly this reason: Brute force doesn't lead a country well. Specifically, not countries that advance in society and technology and have happy citizens. Brute force is putting a gun to someone's head and telling them to do something. While they certainly have...motivation to do their job, they will not be happy. Happy workers produce more. Happy workers advance society. Meanwhile, a leader with a strong mind will be running a country much better. They can set their country up in trade and diplomacy, allowing them to have a strong place in the world. They can make smart laws and decisions that best benefit their country. Basically, they can think everything through to make a place where everything runs smoothly. It's really as simple as that. Brute force forces everyone to do something one way that leads to an unhappy, unproductive country. A smart leader sets the country up with all the tools it needs for success.
There Should Be a Zoo for Mental Patients

Look, I know they're enjoyable to watch, even a form of art if you please, but having a zoo for them would simply encourage too many people that mental patients are a normal thing in our society, and that they shouldn't be wiped. We need to hide the mental patients, lock them up, give them a bit of the old ultra-violence, teach them what's what. We can't have them parading around in a zoo for all to see.
There Should Be a Zoo for Mental Patients

Great! So we could start with some brothels, maybe get some poles in there for some light entertainment, and then for some extra coin we could give the crowd some private dances. There are multitudes out there who would pay by the bucket load to see men with no legs scrawling upon the floor, and breastless women give them the old in-out. It's a common practice in television shows such as Game of Thrones, and like Joffrey, we can all be perverted and give these mental patients some action.
There Should Be a Zoo for Mental Patients

But that's where you're wrong! A zoo for mental patients would be great entertainment that the public could enjoy and it would provide a safe and fun environment for the whole family. Think of all those teenagers glued to their violent video games at home; something like this might just be able to pull them away and then their would be even less psychopaths and serial killers in future generations. Some of the mental patients' conditions might even improve through social communication rather than degenerate through years of isolation. There is a whole range of benefits that a zoo like this could provide, you just have to see past the stereo-typical fear of mental patients to realise the potential!
War in afganistan

The war in Afghanistan is necessary and must continue until bin laden is found I apologize for being so late I am still figuring out how to use this website My point to this war is that we were attacked on September eleventh two thousand one and the point of war is self defense I do agree the war dose cost a lot but we are fighting for good purpose do you believe you can put a price on reasons like life freedom defence or should we just let the deaths of 9/11 go in vain Osama Bin Laden may not be the only one involved in 9/11 but he is top of the chain of command and he declared war on us this is not a show of American imperialism bringing freedom to a new country to expand our influence it is a show of a country being attacked by a group of racist war criminals it is no different then if the clan had caused 9/11 or anyone else we are defending our self's here also yes we have lost more than 1,000 troops in this war but that's not as many as it seems it was a great victory if you only lost 1,000 troops in Thermopylae the Persians lost half of a army numbering in the hundred thousands to millions yet still marched on to burn down Athens we need to continue to fight fight like real Americans 1941 the Japanese imperial empire made a unprovoked attacked a US military base in the Hawaiian islands that base was pearl harbor the Japanese attacked both civilian and military targets the attack was successful in doing much damage yet even though the Japanese were seen as invisible the US wanted revenge and went on a long and bloody campaign costing hundreds of thousands of lives until victory was finally taken by the US now to compare the two events 9/11 and Pearl Harbor both attacks were unprovoked both attacked military and civilian targets both were successful at doing great damage and both started a war the only difference is that against the mighty Japanese imperial empire even with hundreds of thousands of casualties America surged forward in a war against a small group of warlords with less then two thousand casualties America wants to withdraw and surrender a win able war
War in afganistan

Since my opponent is pro and has yet to provide burden of proof for his claim that "The war in Afghanistan....Laden is found.", I will open my side of the debate with a few short points to why the War in Afghanistan is not necessary and should not continue. I will expand on these points as well as make additional points in my Round 2 argument. **Note: I'm assuming Pro's definition of the "War in Afghanistan" is the operation known as "Operation Enduring Freedom" (see [1]). If this is incorrect, I would not know since Pro did not specify too concretely the terms of this debate. I apologize for advance if this happens to be the case, but I am fairly certain it is not.** 1) The war has already cost the United States 445.1 billion dollars total over the past decade [2], and the cost only continues to grow with each passing day the United States is involved in said war. 2) There have already been 1,461 United States casualties since the start of the war [3]. 3) As recently as 2009, some have said the war to be similar to the war in Vietnam that took place in the late 1960's [4]. 4) The United States has not been able to catch Osama Bin Laden for the past 10 years, and is apparently no closer to doing so today [5]. 5) Bin Laden isn't supposedly even hiding in Afghanistan - he's suspected to be hiding in Pakistan [5]. 6) Bin Laden's capture would not signal the end of the war, considering the fact he is only the first person on a long list of dangerous war criminals connected to the 9/11 attacks, most notably Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda second in command [6]. Is the purpose of this war really to capture one single man, or is it to supposedly create democracy in a foreign country? 7) Even if the point of the war was to catch one man, we are (and I will re-state this for emphasis) no closer to catching him than when the war began nearly a decade ago [7]. In fact, we aren't even sure the man is still alive [8]. These points being introduced, I wait for Pro's opening arguments and for my chance to expand on my points in the second round. Best of luck, Pro, and here's hoping for a great debate! [1] http://www.globalsecurity.org... [2] http://costofwar.com... [3] http://projects.washingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.voanews.com... [5] http://www.usatoday.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://articles.nydailynews.com... [8] http://www.washingtontimes.com...
THe United States Government should require a national photo identity card for all residents.

Okay, my opponent didn't say anything so I really don't have anything to say either, but here is something. Some people think that no mistakes would be made through this system or that is unbreakable. This definately would be untrue. People who work for this system could make mistakes. Mistakes always occur inh government run projects because they are done on such a large scale. Identity cards could also be forged, stolen, or wrongly made. Terrorists could obtain a card too. No database is 100 percent safe. "It seems there is a security breach every day. How many people have been affected?" on privacyrights.org. Okay, thanks for reading. :-D
THe United States Government should require a national photo identity card for all residents.

~Hey~ Here we go... Crimes in the United States would not go down because identity cards will not prevent Americans from doing anything. They might (but most likely will not) keep teenagers from drinking and sneaking into clubs, but the most serious crimes will not be prevented. "hacking someones social security number" could not be prevented either because identity theft will increase. Getting a person's information will be easier than ever. The fact that everything will be on this card makes it easier for criminals to get all the information they need. It is one stop shopping for them. Leading experts point out that as more and more cards are put into operation, more and more people know how to break them. Thanks for reading! :-)
THe United States Government should require a national photo identity card for all residents.

i believe that you should have identity cards for the governmant to identify 1) Do you know how many criminals get away with things each day because there is not enough evidance? Well if you had a card that could identify you and where you were you would not be able to commit such crimes thus lowering crime rates in the united states. 2)Social security you could also be caught trying to steal someones social security number. if you are trying to hack someones social security number but your identidy card could keep you from doing bad things you see fellow debaters that if we all had some form of identifacation that could identify us at all times crime in the United States would most definately go down!
THe United States Government should require a national photo identity card for all residents.

Okay, I'm going to make this as short as possible, but I'm not very good at that. National identity cards should not be made. Here is why: 1. National identity cards could always be stolen, and there is no preventing that. National identity cards will make it easier for people to steal others identities. Lives could be ruined and it will be even harder to fix afterword. 2. National identity cards could foster new forms of discrimination and harrassment. Police officers will have complete and total access to these cards and can get whatever information they want off of them. Some autorities are already racist. Imagine what could happen when they have access to your full heritage, ethnicity, and history. 3. National identity cards will not prevent terrorism. The public doesn't know this, but it is true. The little public support for identity cards would presumably be much weaker if the public actually knew this. 4. National identity cards are an invasion of privacy. How are Americans supposed to feel free if there are screening points, and backround checks everywhere they go. 5. This system would be VERY expensive. It is going to cost the military 145 BILLION dollars. That doesn't even pay for the whohle thing. There would have to be a database of all the information of all Americans. People coming into America would have to be in the system too. This is far beyond what we can afford. Okay, that is my case. I guess it wasn't that short, but I tried my best! Please vote fairly, and thank you for listening! :-D Here is one last quote to prove that I am right. The American Civil Liberties Union stated at aclu.org, accessed on March 13, 2008, "It offers only a false sense of security and will not enhance our security - but will pose serious threats to our civil liberties and civil rights. A Naional ID will not keep us safe or free."
God does not exist

I deny the existence of any God. In my application of what I deem to be logic, I see no clear evidence for the undoubted existence of a God or Creator. I do not subscribe to any religion and also do not regard religious books as sufficient evidence for the existence of a God. I do not think it is necessary to follow religion to be a good human being. Religion has both positive and negative aspects, however it is not necessary for our growth as a human race and it is flawed in much of its reasoning. On what grounds is religion true, and also, what evidence is there to prove the existence of a God other than personal conviction.
America is no longer what may be termed "the land of freedom"

Side information for this debate: -the long response time is due to my vacations, during which I will be travelling, hindering my responsiveness. -I am not a citizen of the USA, nor a resident in the USA. My position is that of saying "no, America is no longer the land of freedom" One of America's nicknames is "the land of freedom", possibly derived by letters written by president Jefferson to a friend in the 1st decade of the 19th century, in which he states his desire to build an "empire of liberty". It is also linked to the huge flocks of immigrants who managed to build lives of prosperity in America, the political exiles who fled oppressive regimes, and the free land provided far into the 19th century to immigrants. I base this position on the various measures that the government and agencies in the USA have taken, which demonstrate a desire to place security, security of American citizens from terrorist attacks, security of the USA's economic assets, above freedom, the traditional American "main principle", the guideline, the focus, of American policies during the cold war. I also base it on the lack of intervention to defend freedom on various occasions where I believe America should have been "principle-bound" to defend freedom, and failed to do so. I place the loss of freedom as a guiding principle, something that America wanted to establish throughout the world, in the 1990's, and its transition to security to be situated from 2001 to 2003. definitions; freedom as the guiding principle of American politics by this, I mean that the stated objective and focus of Americans was to "free the world", in the way they saw would achieve this. I would be willing to discuss the validity of the way they saw freedom and how they searched to achieve it, but it is nonetheless what Americans saw as freedom that they were trying to spread throughout the cold war. I would like my opponent to confirm, or -by all means, if you disagree-apply corrections to this definition, which we may continue refining during further rounds -if we disagree- and to present why he believes America to still be what may be nicknamed "the land of freedom". My point is not that America has become a land which values security only, and I do not wish my opponent to contradict me on this. He may if he wishes to, but in a separate section (to which I will try to reply) which will not be part of the debate. If you have a problem with the set-up of this debate, please feel free to tell me, and we can recreate this debate on grounds we agree on.