BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama does not have enough experience in the political office to be president

Hello. MY arguments may sound very bad but well..what can i do ? (other then get better..) Well you say that Senator Barrack Obama is in experienced and should not be president. I agree with you that he does lack experience but i do think he should be president. No matter how good your relations are, no matter how much, you've studied, or experienced you can still f*ck your country up. Anything can happen while your in power. People can get assassin ed , buildings can be blown down people could go wild anything! Like i don't think when George Bush was running for president he was expecting 9/11 to happen. It just happened because some lunatics are so against America. Look at George Bush. His been the president for how long and he's been getting to know foreign country's but even many of the leaders in Europe hate him, not America but because of the way he operates, the things he did. The majority of the world hated the Iraq war and still do. There have been so many wars way through out history but it keeps repeating it's self no matter how many times it happens. What Barack Obama is experienced in is change. He's experienced in talking to the public, he can make people smile. He stands for change and thats what America and the world likes about him. He's changing things up, he smiles he makes people feel happy! George bush ( been in office for about 7 years i believe and is doing the exact opposite right now) Im not sure what you classify as " No foreign relations experience) but from what i've known hes been around several countries now talking to leaders, and trying to solve conflict. And when Barack Obama had done this people starting saying " oh now he thinks hes the president flying around talking to political leaders." ( while it was the same people saying that he had no experience). And the problem with politics is no matter how much experience you have people will look for flaws in you to get people to not vote for you. Mind any spelling mistakes i made sorry.
Barack Obama does not have enough experience in the political office to be president

Less than a year in the senate, no foreign relations experience, no national leadership experience, he was elected to office in Illinois only after disqualifying his competition, and he lacks the time in the political office to see the long term effects of the decisions he's made. Barack Obama should not be president because he does not have enough experience to succeed in that office. My opponent must prove that Barack Obama's experience is enough to make him successful in the role of commander and chief.
Barack Obama does not have enough experience in the political office to be president

My oppenent failed to respond. I wish he had the time to because this could have turned into a good debate. Well hopefully maybe he can debate with either myself or someone else. Preferably someone else because i am not a American Citizen so i do not no all the laws , history, senators and what not. One thing that i cannot deny is something bad , or something stupid is going to happen while Barack Obama is in power. I don't know what or how severe it is but i know something will happen. It's happened with all the passed presidents of the US. Well anyways vote con if you feel like it. God Bless.
Barack Obama does not have enough experience in the political office to be president

"He oversaw executions, HANDLED DISASTER SITUATIONS" You are saying that George W. Bush has handled Disaster situations very well? George Bush new that Hurricane Katrina was going to hit and what did he do? He STAYED IN VACATION IN TEXAS. He had been given many warnings, it was on the news but what did he do just lounge around. Even after the Hurricane hit him and Dick Cheney stayed on Vacations. Yea this must have been a real tough decision to make . Aswell have you not seen the US Economy drop? I could get into this but it would be too long and exceed the characters limit. The thing that went up was the Gas prices and the amount of money in Texas- Men Oil Companies. "So is Dave Chappelle, Carlos Mencia, and George Lopez, but I am not voting for any of them for president" When you made this statement you were talking about how i said Obama makes people smile. Well making people smile is a good thing. Definitely something George Bush and John Mcain don't do well. In fact most of Europe Hate Bush, the middle eastern countries, and parts of Asia. Lets be 100 % honest here. IF we were to have a vote on which politician makes people smile the most it would be Barack Obama. The only reason your not voting for David Chappelle and those people is because there not running for president.( and believe me i know people that would) When i said ""He's experienced in talking to the public" i really stand by what i mean. Look at George Bush he's probably made dozens of Speeches by now and i can't recall what speach it was but he was reading it off piece of paper ( i cant recall everything he said) but i do remember he was reading from a piece of paper ( a speech he wrote or must have read before going to the podium) and he read" blah blah blah QUEEN ELIZABETH EYE-EYE but what it really said was Queen Elizabeth "II" (the second). Some one to mess that up, even after all the speeches he has made really needs to learn his Roman Numerals. Obama's speeches have not been anything like that, they all motivate the public, prove that the US can recover and alot more. "With minimal authority, what can he do to solve any conflict with foreign countries. That is the issue, he is attempting to fix problems without having the authority to do so, he can't fix anything. Talking is great but what change has he effected oversees?" Obama and George Bush both tried to stop the Israel/Palestine conflict. The future Chief Commander of the United States and the present Chief. They both talked but Israel and Palestine are still fighting even though George Bush has a lot of power around the world. Obama can and will be president of the US some day, it may not be this year maybe not even 4 years from now but he will be. Just look at Abraham Lincoln. Now your turn ^^ Sorry if i made any spelling mistakes/ gramatical errors. Im sleepy right now..
homosexuals should have the right to marry

I do realize now that I got my terms mized up and my opponent was not really playing abusive Ad Hom.Pro is being very abusive and shows extremely poor conduct, he makes bare assertions, attempts to shift the BOP to me, claim false victory, and never fulfills the BOP.Cross Examination- you have not provided a proper rebuttal......................... You are correct in saying I have not provided the proper rebuttal......... What do expect me to do!? Pull rebuttals out of thin air and address a case you didn't even make, I couldn't have possibly provided the correct rebuttals because you never provided a well grounded case; You show disgusting conduct by positing your own beliefs and dressing them up as "proper evidence", without actually making a case, that is bad conduct, My my my. as I have clearly stated in the rules that the second................. Pro is now pulling fantasy arguments out of thin air and throwing them around like he's high or something.......... You NEVER EVER said R2 was for debating, you said it was for REBUTTLING! You said and I quote; second round is for rebuttling You then go on to say I must prove that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, that posits we have a shared BOP, you never outlined such a credential in R1, if you do no such thing, the BOP rests on you, which you never fulfill. You then go on to claim I have lost the debate, I have done no such thing, you outlined R2 for rebuttals, therefore all I had to do was rebut your case....... Oh, wait! You didn't make a case! Now until you address anything relevant to this debate, you are the one who loses.therefore I conclude that homosexuals should have................You cannot possibly conclude this, you are making bare assertions with absolutely no warrants or proper implications and until you do so, your constant semantic attacks, lawyering, BOP shifting, and claiming victory with no proper reason will lose you conduct.
homosexuals should have the right to marry

Abusive ad hominem Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org... you have not provided a proper rebuttal as in the rules you have only rebuked me for my personal opinions. as I have clearly stated in the rules that the second round is for debating and you have not debated anything with me why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. therefore you automatically lost the debate now please follow the rules and use the third round for what it is really for...closing as I have also clearly stated in the rules. therefore I conclude that homosexuals should have the right to marry each other and live in happiness and harmony. also I conclude that no one not even my opponent has a proper reason why homosexuals should not be wed regarding religious reasons. voters please do the right thing and vote for the real winner.
homosexuals should have the right to marry

first off homosexuals are very kind and are human beings just like the bisexuals and heterasexuals. Nice ad hominen argument, just because homosexuals are nice doesn't mean they should have the right to marry. alas i am only refering to the homosexuals in this debate not the bisexuals. i believe that homosexuals should have the right to be in a commited relationshiop that can lead to marraige. I hate it when people use the "I believe" argument in debate, let's debunk this;A group of numerous people believe in different things, if one persons beliefs were correct, everyone's elses beliefs have to be wrong, unless you contend you are right 100% of the time. if the United States passe the gay rights law then the gays may not revolt which is possible but not probable. Ad hominen, cannot address this.
homosexuals should have the right to marry

first off homosexuals are very kind and are human beings just like the bisexuals and heterasexuals. alas i am only refering to the homosexuals in this debate not the bisexuals. i believe that homosexuals should have the right to be in a commited relationshiop that can lead to marraige. if the United States passe the gay rights law then the gays may not revolt which is possible but not probable.
homosexuals should have the right to marry

1. attracted sexually to members of one's own sex. Category: Medicine 2. of or pertaining to homosexuality. Category: Medicine 3. (n. )a homosexual person. Category: Medicine * Usage: See gay. Origin of homosexual: 1890"95 "homosexual. " Definitions. net. STANDS4 LLC, 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. . definition of marry: mar"ryˈm"r i(v. )-ried, -ry"ing. 1. (v. t. )to take as a husband or wife; take in marriage. 2. to perform the marriage ceremony for; join in wedlock. 3. to give in marriage; arrange the marriage of: married off all their children. 4. to join or unite intimately. 5. to gain through marriage: to marry money. 6. (v. i. )to take a husband or wife; wed. 7. to unite closely or agreeably; blend: This wine and cheese marry well. Origin of marry: 1250"1300; ME marien < OF marier < L marītāre to wed "marry. " Definitions. net. STANDS4 LLC, 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. . "homosexual. " Definitions. net. STANDS4 LLC, 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. <. http://www.definitions.net...;.
Donald Trump's Muslim ban is stupid (even though it was overruled)

The legal battle over President Trump's temporary travel ban targeting seven majority-Muslim countries likely will take weeks to resolve and could require the Supreme Court to make the final decision. But the arguments challenging and defending the executive order have become clear. The Justice Department argues that a president has broad powers to act unilaterally on questions of immigration and national security. It says judges have only limited powers to second-guess such decisions and urges the court to allow Trump's immigration order to go back into effect. Opponents concede that a president has some power on his own, but they say Trump overstepped that by banning people from specific countries and of the Muslim religion. They contend he violated core principles of the Constitution and ignored laws passed by Congress. Trump's order, signed Jan. 27 at the Pentagon, instituted a 120-day ban on refugees entering the U.S. and a 90-day ban for most citizens of Libya, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The order also indefinitely barred any Syrians from entering the U.S. He said his goal was to improve background checks to make sure terrorists are not admitted inadvertently. The order was blocked by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle on Friday while the challenge plays out in court. The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, seeking to reinstate the ban while the case progresses. A three-judge panel of that court will hear arguments by telephone Tuesday afternoon and could rule shortly thereafter. Then the Supreme Court could get involved. Thankyou and please respond with a ordinary argument and have a great day..... :)
what should be the max amount of time you should be aloud to be on the tv or computer or even phone

well you do have a point but for me i think its a lot and that fine with me so you can say what you want but i say you can be on you phone or what ever but if you wanted to save your time or if you want to tell your parents that you want to save your time or dont be on it at all for one day and keep saving you time to be on the tv or what ever you can get more time if you dont be on it or if you do good in school with your grades so try me M8
what should be the max amount of time you should be aloud to be on the tv or computer or even phone

Assuming the person wakes up at 8AM, sleeps at 10PM, that's 14 hours. And if you're alone, you can be as aloud (meaning people can hear you, though hopefully not through your walls) as you want. So 14 hours you should be allowed to be aloud on electronics. Convince me otherwise.
what should be the max amount of time you should be aloud to be on the tv or computer or even phone

DO you think kids or teens or any one should have a max amount of time to be playing games or doing stuff online? how much do you think time kids or teens should have on TV or computers or even phones do you think you should have 1 HOUR,2 HOURS or even less time than that or do you think you should have even MORE TIME THAN THAT! you Choose! K HAVE FUN Debiting
what should be the max amount of time you should be aloud to be on the tv or computer or even phone

You might want to try using sentences, just a tip. Anyway, I'll break down your important points and refute them.Rebuttal:"well you do have a point but for me i think its a lot and that fine with me so you can say what you want"That sounds like you're agreeing with me that 14 hours is a good maximum. So no objections here!"you can be on you phone or what ever but if you wanted to save your time or if you want to tell your parents that you want to save your time or dont be on it at all for one day and keep saving you time..."Could you clarify this please? Why should I save time, and for what?"if you do good in school with your grades so try me M8""M8"? Yeah, you're one of those guys... anyway, if the student isn't given homework, then they can reach the maximum 14 hours. If they are given homework, they should work on it. Studying isn't a necessity, but if the child's parents or teachers recommend, they'd better study. It may take 30 minutes, or an hour, but I have nothing wrong with 13 hours of electronics.Remember that "maximum" means a full amount, which you don't need to reach to be good. If you go over the 14 hours, sure you probably aren't eating healthy (unless you eat and game) and may not get enough sleep. But that's what a maximum is for. Go over, and there'll be consenquences. Like you try to fill your glass with more water it can hold, you've went over the glass's maximum and water spills.
Mormonism Argument

yes in the past dark skin was a label, or a curse but only because of the wickedness of the people. in fact there were two separate groups one was lighter skinned and the other, as you see today, was dark skinned. white=pure in heart, when the dark skinned people (lamanites) repented and joined the gospel they became white and pure again. with the priesthood issue, no one had thought of it until then and there weren't a large amount of black (pardon) members. when the Indian war happened the army asked for a Mormon battalion, which killed off many people, and the population of Mormons were dwindling. we where commanded to practice polygamy. we no longer practice this. The government was corrupt at the time, and I'm not sure where you are sourcing from. If you are righteous, you will do your mission in heaven, God loves, "it is far greater for one to die then a whole nation dwindle in unbelief" I quote this not for David, but for the other wicked people in the bible or in the book of Mormon. south park is in no way a source. a scientist wanted to look at the pages, so Joseph smith prayed 3 times if it was alright to lend them. the lord said no the first 2 times, but on the 3rd, he granted permission. Joseph smith lost permission to translate the plates for a short time after they were lost. if you have a problem with the bible Mormons use the king James version. "marriage between a man and a wife is ordained by god"
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

Israel goal was to stop rockets from being fired.They did so as smoothly as possible.If you want to talk about war crimes you should consider the US military in Iraq.The death toll of civilians has claimed over 100.00 deaths.Maybe look at Syria and how their gov.dropped Sarin in Ghouta suburbs of the Markaz Rif Dimashq district around Damascus,which painfully claimed over 1,000 lives. What Israel did was to stop rockets from being fired into schools,houses,hospitals which put civilians in harm
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

Whether or not Hamas is the de facto leader of Gaza, you concede that they are a terrorist organization. Ergo, reliance on Hamas to abide by the UN is folly. Warning civilians to evacuate has been done by AT LEAST the US military in Vietnam. In reality, Israel did not adequately warn civilians to leave their homes. Regardless, Israel committed war crimes when they killed civilians that refused to leave their homes. Israel believed that their greater strength made it acceptable to kill civilians.
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

I agree with the fact that Hamas is a recognized terrorist group,by US and EU. However, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2007,and now governs the Gaza strip. Israel"s goal was to destroy all Hamas rocket zones. Before Israel went into Gaza they informed civilians, through phone calls and dropping leaflets, to leave all targeted areas. This tactic of informing pedestrians is not done by any other military.
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

Hamas is neither a standing military, nor is it a sovereign nation. Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by the US and EU. Presumably, Article 51 applies to signed members of the UN. By extension, sovereign nations may be expected to agree to a ceasefire. Expecting a terrorist organization to abide to a ceasefire is folly. Terrorist attacks from a neighboring area did not justify a botched military invasion that included almost 1,500 Palestinian deaths and countless war crimes.
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

On June 17, 2008, through the arbitration of Egypt, Israel and Hamas came to a ceasefire agreement. Almost immediately afterwords Hamas continued to lob rockets from Gaza into southern Israel. Hamas successfully fired over 300 rockets into southern Israel,while Israel honored the treaty until December 27,2008. Under article 51 of the United Nations, Israel had every right to defend itself against Hamas's, which contradicts your BBC article. http://www.nato.int...
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

Israel's foray into the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead was not executed humanely. It was a response to end rockets from being fired from Gaza and into Israel. During this conflict, rocket fire from Gaza increased in volume. Up to 1,417 Palestinian deaths occurred because of this invasion. As of 2013, 75% of civilian homes destroyed have not been repaired.[1] An investigation found the IDF guilty of war crimes.[2] 1 A/HRC/21/33 2 http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Hannah Montana is the Worst singer

I like to welcome top_contributor to debate. org and I hope she will have a good time here. Now to business. .. the resolution before us is, "Hannah Montana is the Worst singer". This is very straightforward, and shouldn't require much defining. Basically, my opponent needs to prove that Hannah Montana is the worst singer of all the singers that ever existed. I believe my opponent has given herself a very hard task. In order to prove Hannah Montana as the worst singer, she has the burden of explaining how she is so popular. The TV show gets high ratings and the concert tickets always are sold out. It seems like if Hannah Montana is a poor singer, people wouldn't go to her concerts to watch her sing. That is my case against my opponent's stance. Her own case, presented in the first round, should be completely dismissed. First, she said that Hannah Montana "think she's sooooooo cool". What the singer think of herself does not reflect her actual singing talent. Then my opponent said Hannah Montana does not write her own songs. This may be true, but we are debating whether she is a good singer or not, not whether she's a good song writer or not, so this point should be disregarded too. Then my opponent mentioned about her teeth. Having big teeth may be a handicap for singing, but it doesn't seem like it is affecting Hannah Montana's singing skills. So this point should be disregarded too. So there you have it, in this round, my opponent has failed to present any relevant arguments to support her claim, while I have shown that Hannah Montana is a remarkable singer due to her popularity.