BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Should help the rebels topple Assad if they turn on Al Qaeda and help Assad if they refuse

Al Qaeda is at war with us, but this doesn't give us the right to twist a group of peoples arm, especially the Syrian rebels that are not in a position to combat Al Qaeda and Assad. I agree that we should prevent Al Qaeda from ruling Syria but you approach it in the wrong way. Rebuttal of your Rebuttal "1. The concern is that the regime installed by Al Qaeda would give them a safe haven. If they create a theocracy then it's fine as long as they don't harbor terrorists that are at war with the United States." Al Qaeda is part of the revolution, but the people decide what regime is put in place. Al Qaeda doesn't have complete control, its just another group struggling for power. If Al Qaeda gains the majority power then we can intervene, but until then, we shouldn't intervene. An intervention now would be sloppy and ill-advised. 2. Yes, if the KKK is at war with that country. But how would you tell the KKK members apart from the rest of the mob? Not all KKK members are going to publicly reveal they are KKK, especially not with a shoot on sight memo. Rebuttal of your Rebuttal 2 "1. I don't care how they appear. Al Qaeda can never be the good guys because they are international terrorists at war with the United States. That they appear like the good guys to the Syrian people shows they pose an even worse threat and getting the rebels to denounce and root out the Al Qaeda terrorists could help change that perception." They will never be the good guys to us, but to other groups it can look that way. Even though the Syrian population knows they are terrorists, they are part of the war effort against Assad. For the time being that makes them Brothers-In-Arms to the Syrians.
We Should help the rebels topple Assad if they turn on Al Qaeda and help Assad if they refuse

Even if Al Qaeda is not the focus of the revolution it is a huge part in the revolution. Al Qaeda is at war with the United States, so supporting Al Qaeda is irresponsible behavior on the part of the United States of America in regards to protecting our national security!Not supporting Al Qaeda and preventing Al Qaeda from ruling over Syria is more important than ousting Assad.Rebuttal"Think of it this way, if America was going to throw over the government, gangs like the KKK would join the effort. The people overthrowing the government may not avidly sponsor and endorse KKK members in the revolt, but they are still there. In that scenario, would you think it would be acceptable for another country to tell us we must find and destroy the KKK members that have integrated themselves into the revolution? Also, Al Qaeda could install a theocracy but the people could too. The middle east has a different culture than we do, if a theocracy goes is installed an the people are fine with it and not being oppressed, and we are not being threatened, I respect that countries decision to be a theocracy."1. The concern is that the regime installed by Al Qaeda would give them a safe haven. If they create a theocracy then it's fine as long as they don't harbor terrorists that are at war with the United States.2. Yes, if the KKK is at war with that country.Rebuttal 2They appear to be the good guys when they help out with the revolution and play quite a large role in it.1. I don't care how they appear. Al Qaeda can never be the good guys because they are international terrorists at war with the United States. That they appear like the good guys to the Syrian people shows they pose an even worse threat and getting the rebels to denounce and root out the Al Qaeda terrorists could help change that perception.
We Should help the rebels topple Assad if they turn on Al Qaeda and help Assad if they refuse

"We used an ultimatum on a dictator that we believed to have a hold of WMD's, suppressing its citizens, and had already invaded another country. Not a group of people liberating themselves from a dictator not much different from Saddam." But the people 'liberating' themselves include elements of Al Qaeda. National Security first. Spreading democracy second. America needs to protect itself first before pursuing wars based on idealism. Besides that if Al Qaeda wins they won't have a democracy they'll have a theocracy. "I believe that we had a miscommunication. I was saying that we had "falsified information" about them (I would like to change the term to "Misconceptions") For example it seems quite a few people believe that Islam(as a religion) hates America. This is not true. In the Quran there is a verse "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah(God) and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord."" I never said I thought all Muslims hated America. "I'm certain that if Al Qaeda is there they are already integrated." Integrated how? They're Al Qaeda! They're not going to become integrated and just get along and accept democracy afterwards. "To answer the second part of your statement, how many American lives did we spend to make Iraq free from the same situation you just suggested supporting." In this case it isn't primarily about Syria, it's about us. This is about putting America first. Al Qaeda is a threat to our national security so allowing a new regime to take power that could be ruled by them makes no sense. We should do what we can to prevent an Al Qaeda-lead Syria. If we leave it alone the rebels might win and Al Qaeda might rule them. But Assad isn't a good guy so if we can side with the rebels on condition that they purge themselves of Al Qaeda we may be able to get rid of Al Qaeda and Assad. But to protect our national security interests we should support Assad if the rebels refuse. If we don't the rebels might win and institute an Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda-run state in Syria.
We Should help the rebels topple Assad if they turn on Al Qaeda and help Assad if they refuse

"We did. We issued an ultimatum to Saddam and he refused and we went in and now the democratic regime we set up in Iraq is up" We used an ultimatum on a dictator that we believed to have a hold of WMD's, suppressing its citizens, and had already invaded another country. Not a group of people liberating themselves from a dictator not much different from Saddam. "Under falsified information! Yes, and they will keep falsifying no matter what we do. We might as well defend ourselves." I believe that we had a miscommunication. I was saying that we had "falsified information" about them (I would like to change the term to "Misconceptions") For example it seems quite a few people believe that Islam(as a religion) hates America. This is not true. In the Quran there is a verse "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah(God) and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord." "We can't wait until the end of the war as Al Qaeda could easily win. If we can turn the rebels against Al Qaeda we will have the upper hand. If they won't turn against Al Qaeda we can prop up Assad and it would serve them right for siding with our enemies." Al Qaeda is there, and could possibly be helping out the rebels. I'm certain that if Al Qaeda is there they are already integrated. Right now in Syria we are fighting a common enemy, so we can accomplish other things and when they become a threat to us we neutralize them. To answer the second part of your statement, how many American lives did we spend to make Iraq free from the same situation you just suggested supporting.
We Should help the rebels topple Assad if they turn on Al Qaeda and help Assad if they refuse

"The United States does not, and will never have the power or legitimate backing to issue an ultimatum to a large group of people that can lead to the formation of a country." We did. We issued an ultimatum to Saddam and he refused and we went in and now the democratic regime we set up in Iraq is up. "The only thing an ultimatum of that nature would do is cause an even larger gap between us and the people in the Middle East. A culture of people that Americans have neglected and badmouthed for years under falsified information." Under falsified information! Yes, and they will keep falsifying no matter what we do. We might as well defend ourselves. "We can rebuild a relationship with the Middle East and Syria, but it would be more appropriate to address the problem of Al-Qaeda after we help the country rebuild." We can't wait until the end of the war as Al Qaeda could easily win. If we can turn the rebels against Al Qaeda we will have the upper hand. If they won't turn against Al Qaeda we can prop up Assad and it would serve them right for siding with our enemies.
We Should help the rebels topple Assad if they turn on Al Qaeda and help Assad if they refuse

The United States does not, and will never have the power or legitimate backing to issue an ultimatum to a large group of people that can lead to the formation of a country. That sort of ultimatum is not acceptable, and would cause more damage than it would cause help. The Syrian people are trying to escape from the cruelty that has plagued them for many years, not trying to create a "Safe Haven" for terrorism. At the fundamental level they are a group of people struggling to make a better life for themselves and their family. The only thing an ultimatum of that nature would do is cause an even larger gap between us and the people in the Middle East. A culture of people that Americans have neglected and badmouthed for years under falsified information. We can rebuild a relationship with the Middle East and Syria, but it would be more appropriate to address the problem of Al-Qaeda after we help the country rebuild.
We Should help the rebels topple Assad if they turn on Al Qaeda and help Assad if they refuse

The United States is at war with Al Qaeda. Our national security is the most important thing to consider in foreign policy. In Syria there are two sides, Assad's baathist dictatorship and the rebels. There are many people among the Syrian rebels who are related to Al Qaeda. Al-Nusrah, Al Qaeda's branch in Syria has been estimated by some sources to be to "the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force." This creates a national security threat to the United States. Syria could become a new safe haven for terrorism. Yet Obama is already posturing against Assad and threatening to invade on the side of the rebels over chemical weapons. This can be twisted to our favor. We may let the rebels know that we've reconsidered it and have decided that while we want to stop chemical weapons protecting our own nation from terrorists is more important and hence we'll agree to help the rebels even if Assad keeps his chemical weapons if the rebels agree to turn on Al Qaeda. They could kill or imprison Al Qaeda members and we should only express a preference for how they take care of Al Qaeda in the case where some members may have valueable information to be used to protect our country. But if the rebels don't cooperate and they continue to accept Al Qaeda then we should go in and help Assad and tell him not to worry about chemical weapons. This is clearly the best option for the protection of the national security of the United States.
The Toyota Prius is a bane to society

First of all, I would like to notify you that the appearance of a car doesn't neccesarily influence the preformance of the car unless the key components of the car are displayed in the appearance.Rebuttals:"Have good acceleration"I would first like to rebut this quote from your arguments. In one of the consumer reviews from http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com... it states, "Acceleration is leisurely at best," (Kelley Blue Book) This was a review from the website, Kelley Blue Book, which is a self proclaimed "trusted resource" in the automobile world. Another review states, "Acceleration in the Toyota Prius is far from sprightly, but it should be adequate for most buyers," (Edmunds) This is a review by the website Edmunds, which is also a resource with a very trusted reputation in the criticism of automobiles.Reasoning:I would first like to promote my opponent. Pro was correct. The Toyota Prius doesn't have a high top speed. It has pronounced road noise. But all of these issues with the car are clearly made up for the Prius is, self proclaimed, The Hybrid That Started It All. Not many cars feature the attribute of electricity. But the Toyota Prius is one of the most trusted cars with this feature. And the pronounced road noise? This was most likely noted at highway speeds. These Pros of the Toyota Prius clearly outweigh the issues with the car, which, in turn, makes the car nice in performance standardsIn conclusion, the Toyota Prius, like the Pro stated, do have problems. But these issues need to reach certain conditions in order to reach them. With the consumer reviews to the outstanding hybrid experience, The Toyota Prius is great in its own way.I would like to conclude the debate. I directly compliment the Pro for providing such an outstanding argument. The way you stood in the way of fire as you argued. That is just amazing. I would like to thank my opponent for such an amazing experience on Debate.org!
The Toyota Prius is a bane to society

Yes many people like the Prius. But most people aren't as concerned about performance as I am when it comes to good vs bad cars. I apologize for not stating that i was speaking about performance. That is 100% my fault. So, in the performance world, a car must: Look good Have good acceleration Have a high top speed Corner well (Like I said before) sound good And be dependable when driving it hard ( for this you can reference: Motortrend - Roadkill Ep. 17) The Prius, does not have any of these traits. Again I apologize for not saying that I was speaking about performance.
The Toyota Prius is a bane to society

I am sorry for misunderstanding your arguments. It was my fault for not reading your arguments thoroughly. I will now rephrase my arguments:First of all, you are not clear on which model you are describing, so I will assume you are describing the newest model: The 2015 Toyota Prius.Your arguments are, like I said, opinion dependent. On the website, Edmunds.com, it states that the average consumer rating for the 2015 Toyota Prius Hatchback is 4.6 stars out of 5. This directly disproves most of your arguments because it shows that many people disagree with your arguments.You argue that the Toyota Prius is one of the most boring things on the planet. The definition of "boring" means that it is "not interested; tedious." One of the reviews on the Toyota Prius is ". Now I use it every chance I have for my personal rides." This completely disproves your statements before. A car that is "boring" wouldn't be used as many times as possible. And I know what you are going to say, that the quote is just an opinion of another consumer. But YOUR statements are also OPINIONS.
The Toyota Prius is a bane to society

I believe you misunderstood my argument. Firstly, the Camry is a nice, tasteful vehicle (I never said that all Toyotas are boring). However, I am talking about the Toyota PRIUS being boring. And it does not handle better than most sedans, or hatchbacks. Also, I believe you misunderstood me again by my meaning of the phrase "doesn't sound good". When I say that, I mean the engine itself and the exhaust system fitted to the vehicle don't sound pleasing to the ear. For example: a jaguar F type has a tasteful, and pleasing exhaust note (as a person who likes cars, a petrolhead if you will, the sound a car makes is important to me). I never meant the name " Toyota " sounds bad. The way a car company's name sounds when spoken, doesn't really matter to me.
The Toyota Prius is a bane to society

First of all, I would like to rebut your arguments. But, I am not trying to be those typical debaters that make fun of the opponent for making a dumb debate, all I am doing is criticizing your arguments. My first rebuttal is that most of your arguments are opinion-dependent. You say it "is one of the most boring things on the planet," and "It's not fun to drive, it doesn't sound good, it's stupidly put together, it's so slow, it doesn't accelerate and it looks hideous! " You say it isn't fun to drive. For example, on the average consumer reviews on the 2015 Toyota Camry, it states that it "handles better than most sedans" Which proves that it being "not fun to drive" Is incorrect. Second of all, you say it "doesn't sound good," is incorrect. The word "Toyota" comes from someone named Sakichi Toyoda. He was an owner of a company named "Toyota Industries," in which "Toyota" originated when the son of Sakichi created a spinoff of his father's company. So basically, you are making fun of some Japanese person's last name.
I need a debate

Why should gays not be allowed to get married? It only makes sense. Just because two people like each other, and they happen to be the same sex, they can not get married. Is it because it makes you uncomfortable? If that is the case, you are not letting two people have eternal love for each other because it disturbs you. Let me show you a video. http://www.youtube.com... Fast forward to 9:50 and watch until 12:05
should companies market towards children

My opponent is saying that companies should market towards children. He is not specifying any type of company, so it is assumed that he is referring to all companies. No, not all companies should market towards children. Some things are inappropriate for children. Cigarettes and Alcohol are two companies that should not market towards children because it is morally ill-disposed. It is harmful for children to be exposed to alcohol and cigarettes, and marketing companies could exploit their impressionable nature by marketing towards them. This marketing strategy could backfire and make the masses less inclined to purchase the product because now the morality of the company is in question. Here is an example:http://www.thedenverchannel.com...
Star Trek v. Star Wars (Star Trek is Better)

Star Trek v. Star Wars. This argument has plagued nerd communities since both of these wonderful series came into being. With the birth of the new Star Trek and Star Wars series, the argument has reignited.My position is against Star Wars. Con's is against Star Trek.Rules of engagement:-The first round should be used to state our positions on the argument.-The newsest movies of each series, (Star Trek- Star Trek(2009), Into Darkness. Star Wars- The Force Awakens) are off limits. We are gauging the worth of all series made prior to 2000.-This debate should be fought with honor. I will not make any attacks towards my opponent, and I expect the same towards me.I throw the gauntlet.
Capitalism is a better economic system then communism.

Just because a system can function does not mean that it's a good system. Imagine this you are 18 and just out of school full of ambition and drive. But the government sticks you somewhere and you'll be stuck there for the rest of your life. Pretty soon you just stop trying. Why wouldn't you? If your just going to receive the same amount of money as everyone else regardless of how hard you try then why work hard when you don't have to? This is not a good system. Now capitalism on the other hand is a different story. Lets use the same scenario as before. Instead of being told what to do and how much you'll be paid, you go to college whether public or private, get a degree in law. You grow up to be a very successful and happy lawyer. All with little government intrusion. This is how the world should run, with the freedom to make your own choices about your life. http://listverse.com...
Capitalism is a better economic system then communism.

Communism- a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. Communism- a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. These are two of the definitions of what communism is about. Now we all know communism was an idea made by Karl Marx, but the Chinese have had this type of system for thousands of years. It just never was really useful when the Chinese Invented, but it never became really useful until Karl Marx fixed and made it better. Now this idea doesn't always work, but it still works for some nations. Such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Those nations still use communism, but they don't call it communism in front of other nations just so they don't make other people mad. Sometimes it is better to have everyone get paid the same amount and get the same amount. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalism is a better economic system then communism.

In a capitalistic country, everyone and anyone can have a chance to make their way to the top. If fact, many of America's top companies were founded by poor immigrants. If you work hard then you will be rewarded for it. But in a communist nation this is not the case. Everyone has the same things as everyone else. You cannot create your own wealth or be rewarded for hard work. Almost every aspect of your life has government influence. If communism is so great then why are people in communist nations so unhappy. Take the berlin wall for example. Why was it there? If communism is so great then people from the west side would be going to the east side. But, that's not how it was. Millions of people were trying to cross into west Germany because the quality of life was so much better due to capitalism. If that's not evidence then I don't know what is. . http://www.libertyzone.com... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Capitalism is a better economic system then communism.

Well communism fights corruption, apathetic behavior, and encourages work ethic to increase. I know that Communism has failed in the past several times, but I still believe it to be the best government for a Society. When a citizen of the US thinks of Communism, he or she thinks of Stalin and Zedong and Castro. The reason these so-called Communist regimes are responsible for the death of so many is simple: they were essentially fascist. Think of Hitler. He can be classified as a Communist dictator. In a democratic, Communist society with incentives to work hard, equality is widespread, and the dream of Marx is achieved. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(SFRY) is a perfect example of communism used in a good way. The president of SFRY was a communist and was leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.I personally think communism is a good thing for everyone is equal and the same,nobody is better than anybody.Remeber everybody is the same,we are all unique in our own way.
Xbox one is better than Ps4

Pro is in favor of Xbox One being "better" than PS4 (Playstation 4). In his opening argument, Pro has linked google. com which is completely irrelevant as it provides no direct source to anything on Xbox One being better. Sure, there are many sources on Google that may claim Xbox One is better, but pro didn't directly list any, and keep in mind. .. . There are that many more websites that will tell you PS4 is the much better console. When it comes to comparing games, and consoles, one thing should be crystal clear. .. They are opinions, nothing more. If he thinks Xbox One is better, that's his opinion, does that mean it's better? No. I don't know the specs, but I assume PS4 is a much better hardware console as PlayStations generally has better hardware than Xbox consoles. As for games? It's a matter of preference. PS4 did make more sells, and the list goes on, pro has not provided a solid argument, and is on a uphill battle if he wants to win.