BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Birthright Citizenship

Hi I would like to start of by stating thank you to who ever accepts this debate. I am fairly new to this website so I ask my opponent for a good clean debate. I hope this will be of benefit to me and my opponent & I know it will be really fun. Debate: Birthright Citizenship - Should the right of citizenship for all children born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, be removed?Definitions: Birthright Citizenship - refers to the citizenship granted to a person by virtue of the circumstances of his/her birth. Accordingly, any person born within the territory of the U.S. is granted citizenship by birth. A child born overseas to U.S. citizens also acquires a U.S. citizenship.Con - I will choose Con for this debate meaning I believe a child should be a citizen of the United States not regarding his/her parents immigration-al status.Pro - Will be chosen by my opponent for this debate. He will protect his case stating that a child should not become a United State citizen regarding his/her parents immigration-al status.Terms:1. For the sake of the well being of me and my opponent as well, I ask him/her to keep private matter to himself. If this debate has to do with his/her personal life I ask him/her to not bring it forward to this debate.2. I ask of him/her to think of this debate as only a debate and nothing else.3. I ask for my opponent to use great deal of grammar, as I will try as well and to use reliable sources. If I lose or win a debate I like to learn from them so I ask for my opponent who will accept this debate to take it serious and give it all he's/she's got as I will do the same.4. Have fun I want to enjoy myself as I am sure my opponent will love to enjoy him/her self as well.Outline:Round 1 - Will be for acceptance and any questions or terms Pro may have.Round 2 - Con will present his case. Pro will rebut my case & present his/her.Round 3 - Con will add on to his case and rebut Pros case. Pro will add on to his/her case and rebut Cons case.Round 4 - Con will add on to his case and rebut Pros case. Pro will add on to his/her case and rebut Cons case.Round 5 - Con will rebut Pros case and make his closing statement. Pro will rebut Cons case and make his/her closing statement.
Justin Bieber deserves no hate

He needs to be shunned for posing as a bad example to our impressionable youth. No matter how many times a parent tells a child what is okay and what is not, celebrities will always have a bigger influence on the young and impressionable. The hate for Justin Bieber is justified after partaking in an activity that could have cost someone their life. The fact that it didn't is irrelevant. Causing or having the potential to harm is bounds for hating someone. He deserves the shunning he receives
Justin Bieber deserves no hate

I'd expect the hate from parents and older brothers who are watching their little daughters and sisters idolize a pot head, dui bully. He's older than I am, I am a musician, and I have never been inside a jail cell. Younger people idolize me and they see me as a source of knowledge and help. Even if I didn't want the role in life I possess now, I would suck it up. I have responsibility to demonstrate good behavior and good manners and good academic habits and I will hold myself to those responsibilities. Justin Bieber being a thousand times bigger, we should expect him to do the same. He is not the only young star, and there are even younger stars than him who do not act the way he does. He has no excuse. None at all. He is old enough to be smart enough to know right from wrong. He deserves the negative responses to his negative actions and he should be removed from the public view so no one idolizes him
people should remain friends after being in a relationship with each other.

People should not remain friends after being in a relationship with each other. Yes, there was a good connection with each other while you were in the relationship, however, the fact that they know so much about you is the breaking point for the friendship. If it was a truly good relationship then they should know a lot if not everything about you, even the embarrassing stuff that no one else knows. In order to be friends with them you're going to have to come face-to-face with the person again and often. Every time you do so you will think about everything that they know, that you don't really want them to know. Therefore, the embarrassment from the stuff that they know can keep you from remaining friends. Another reason can be how difficult of a break-up it was. If the couple had a rough break-up, they won't want to be friends. If one had accused the other of something that was not true and that was the reason for their break-up, the accused won't want to be friends. Smooth break-ups are incredibly rare, but even then there can be circumstances that make it so the ex-couple don't want to be friends.
Guns should be banned in the U.S.

1. People kill people, with guns The common argument for those in support of gun ownership is that people kill people, not guns. The flaw in that argument is quite obvious, people kill people using guns. If guns weren't allowed, murderers and such would have a harder time killing people. Now affirmation might argue that you can get guns illegally, well then we better step up our attacks on the black market. 2. Guns aren't needed to protect your individual freedom All police, military men and women an so forth, swear an oath to the constitution, not to the government or any individual. Therefore any argument that the government would use to military to make police state is false as the military would never listen to the government on such an order when they serve the people and the country as a whole. 3. Illegal gun trafficking could be stopped By banning guns from coming into the US altogether, we could have an easier time at focusing on stopping guns from entering and therefore ending the illegal gun trade.
War on terror

First of all thank you for honoring the us soldiers, but the part about them dieing is that they died for a good cause and when we join the military they make sure that we know how much of a risk there is and we accept that because we want to fight for a good cause. So the soldiers that die, die with honor and no regrets. Although I am sorry any soldiers have to die it is worth it for the protection of millions of civilians. invade: march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation; "Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939" I got this from Google define. So since we are not trying to conquer Iraq or Afghanistan we are not trying to occupy it.
War on terror

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "When I said 'win the war on terror' I meant to dramatically cut down terrorist threats." Right, and and this can not be done by continuing to scour Iraq and Afghanistan for rogue terrorists. As I showed and cited in Round 1, our presence in Iraq is actually causing Al-Qaeda to gain more recruits than ever before! ------------------------------------------------------ Your Experience In Iraq ----------------------------------------------------- First off, regardless on how I view the War On Terror, I still have the utmost respect for those who serve my country in uniform, and I thank you for doing so. I would like to ask you this. If we had not invaded Iraq to try and find non-existant weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't Kyle and thousands of other U.S. troops still be alive today? Our soldiers are dying every day, and what good has resulted that outweighs this fact? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we form a coalition (a mixed group of Iraqi and American military squads) it has proven to be much more effective at gaining respect from civilians and fighting the insurgents because it is there own military and they know the landscape and area well. " That is what we've been trying to do, but these Iraqi soldiers are the product of a government that the U.S. instated. Therefore, Iraqi citizens often view these soldiers with the same mistrust, no matter what their intentions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We are not occupying Iraq, that myth is one that has made many good men die." Occupy (v): to live or reside (in a certain place) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... So yes we are in fact occupying Iraq. U.S. soldiers are currently living and residing there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We are only trying to free Iraq, not take it over." That's our intention, but not to the Iraqis as I have shown. We are viewed as invaders.
War on terror

Sorry I didn't post the last round I was on vacation with my family. And for the whole 14 year old part of your case my son created this account and recommended that I try it so now I am. When I said "win the war on terror" I meant to dramatically cut down terrorist threats. You wanted some evidence in detail so here is a story: It was about 2 months after I landed in Iraq with my squad and we had a lead on a potential insurgent hideout in our vicinity. So we had to go check it out. Mike the oldest of our group went in first. It looked all right, no activity going on. But we made one fatal mistake, we all went to the downstairs first. You never ever want to do that because if there are insurgents in the building they will simply through a grenade down and you are just sitting chickens, and that is exactly what they did. I ran and dove out the door. Luckily everyone else followed. But Jim, our "kid" (he was the youngest having just turned 19 within the past couple of weeks) got. Hunk of shrapnel in his left leg and ended up getting it amputated. We should have thrown it back up but we just assumed that they had cooked the grenade (or pulled the pin which starts the 5 second fuse). That explosion caught a lot of attention and we were being compromised (forced to try and run out of there and get picked up by a helicopter at a pre designated area). We ended up losing one man, Kyle while being compromised and injuring Jim from the grenade. That is all I can say the rest I cannot speak of do to safety reasons. If we form a coalition (a mixed group of Iraqi and American military squads) it has proven to be much more effective at gaining respect from civilians and fighting the insurgents because it is there own military and they know the landscape and area well. We are not occupying Iraq, that myth is one that has made many good men die. That does make them hate us more, but we aren't. We are only trying to free Iraq, not take it over.
Iran are tryng too making nuclear weapons

I. Iran's current program, their proclamations Iran has announced 2 major advances in their nuclear WEAPONS advancement, both about creating nuclear fuel. [1] [2] They are much closer to making nuclear fuels then the US though. [2] Further more they deny the claim that the plan is only for research. (probably what you will argue) [3]. II. Israels claims Irans nuclear policy is scaring israel, israel is contemplating military strikes. [4] "It would seem that Iran is getting closer to having nuclear weapons," Israeli President Shimon Peres said' [4] Now, how do they know? Israel is close, and probably has agents in Iran. They wouldn't be scared if nothing was up, as they think Iran has weapons they are scared. Israel wouldn't be scared for nothing, a sign Iran is up to something big. III. Evidence Since the 1970's Iran has been trying to get technology for a nuclear bomb [5] "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." [6] Also the UN is preparing to reveal documents proving Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. [7] [8] "the IAEA says the research includes computer models that could only be used to develop a nuclear bomb trigger." [8] The UN, is trying to ensure the Nuclear program is peaceful. [9] This implies they suspect it is not peaceful, and that it needs investigation. Also medium level Uranium enrichment has begun in Iran. [10] IAEA said Iran had carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". [10] As this is first round I made it short and simple, I await your response. Vote PRO. sources: http://abcnews.go.com... [1] http://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://www.usnews.com... [3] http://www.usnews.com... [4] http://iranprimer.usip.org... [5] http://www.weeklystandard.com... [6] http://www.foxnews.com... [7] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [8] http://www.un.org...= [9] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [10]
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

Even though the Saints are one of the best teams in the NFC, behind the Seahawks and the 49er's they will not be able to beat the team representing the AFC in the Super Bowl (Patriots or Broncos). The Saints constantly play subpar teams which obviously is going to make them look good. Once the playoffs come the saints will have to play a solid team and their one deminsional offense and "improved" defense will not be able to hold up. One more thing....DREW BREES SUCKS
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

"Improving"? How about you just say improved. 4th ranked total defense. At 9-2 the saints are by far one of the top competitors in the NFC. Adding one reciever does not make an offense's pass game simply revamped over night. When facing a top 5 NFL defense a young player like Russell Wilson is highly likely to make mistakes leading to more offensive possessions for New Orleans. As we both know with more possessions the higher the chance that Drew Brees will devour their defense. As Seattle is their main opposition in the NFC, if the Saints can cause Wilson to make mistakes, which young quarterbacks are often prone to, then the Saints will be able to put their Super Bowl hopes on the back of Brees and eventually become Super Bowl Champions once again! As one of the top statistically ranked teams in the NFL they have a very good chance of turning back to Super Bowl form and defeating whatever team comes out of the AFC after the Saints annihilate Seattle and the rest of the NFC.
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

Hahahahahaha, "The Saints could force Seattle into a one dimensional run game". There is absolutely no chance that the Saints can handle the explosive Seattle offense. The Seahawks revamped their receiving core by acquiring Percy Harvin, and they can also run the read option perfectly. Let alone the fact that they have Marshawn Lynch, who constantly shreads the saints "improving" defense. All of these options give them many ways to score. Since the Seahawks hare basically the only realistic threat to the saints in the NFC, I believe that they will defeat the saints and represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

The Seahawks are very good, I'll give you that, but they are really the only major threat in the division. Seattle's defense is solid, but how can you put Their best defensive player Richard Sherman on Brees' main target Graham? It's mismatch! On the offensive side if the ball the Saints totally outmatch the Seahawks. As I have gone over in previous arguments the defense is at the very least serviceable and can handle what Seattle brings to the table on most days. With the teams solid secondary it is very realistic that the Saints could force Seattle into a one dimensional run game forcing the Seahawks to win the game on the ground. Something that the saints have improved upon is their tackling, you can tell this just by watching the games. This of course was New Orleans Achilles Heel in 2012 when Marshawn Lynch caused an earthquake in Seattle. So if the Saints D-line can make stops consistently like they did in week 11 against Frank Gore and the 49ers then I believe with all my heart that the Saints of New Orleans will make this years Super Bowl!
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

The Saints are one of the best teams in the NFC, but they aren't better thatn the Seattle Seahawks (10-1). The Seahawks have a well balanced offense lead by Russel Wilson and Marshawn "Beast Mode" Lynch. It is a real possiblitity that the NFC championship game will be between the Seahawks and the Saints, where I believe that the Seahawks will be able to handle the inconsistent Saints.
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

Does Lebron James hit every 3-point game winning shot? No. Does Mariano Rivera always get the save in every opportunity? Of course not. Succeeding in every clutch moment is impossible and to expect a stop on every single clutch drive is assenine: Regardless of Defensive ability the Saints also boast another impressive stat on the opposite side of the ball. Lead by Drew Brees, one of the top three quarterbacks in the league this season (Manning, Brees, Rodgers), the team is 2nd in the league in both total offense and pass yards per game. The team's usually modest run game has also shown great improvement over the past two weeks with the team rushin for over 275 yards in both games combined. This touch of an offensive run game helps Brees and enables one of the best QB-TE combos in the league today (if not ever) in Brees and Jimmy Graham to unleash their fury on opposing defensive nuts attempting to shut down the blossoming run game. 419 yds per game is well enough to score 17-28 points at least every week. If the team continues to play as they are playing I would go as far as to say that they are a LOCK for the NFC championship and the Super Bowl.
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

The fact that you had the audacity to sit here and tell me that the Saints have a so called "clutch" defense is appalling. I do agree that the defense has improved, but is no means clutch. For example, in week 6, the Saints came out of the swamp to meet the patriots in the immaculate Gillette Stadium. The Saints were leading for most of the second half, however, the offense failed to kill the clock giving TB12 one more chance. The future first ballad Hall of Fame quarterback lead the scrappy Patriots down the field for a 70 yard game winning drive capped with a touchdown to my boy KT with five seconds left. This just one more example on how the defense fails to show up when the game is on the line.
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

The vulnerable secondary which you mention is actually the 3rd best ranked pass defense in the NFL, and the 4th ranked total defense in the league. Allowing just 191.4 passing yards per game in a pass dominated league, if this stellar play from the secondary should more than suffice in the playoffs. Now, the team's run defense is sub-par and I must agree, however, they are VERY clutch. An example of the run defense successfully coming up in the clutch came in week 11 when the Saints held the San Fransisco 49ers, one of the top teams in the NFC to a season low in both total and rushing yards. With the tandem of Colin Kapernick and Franklin Delano Gore hold this team's rush offense is an extremely difficult task. Gore came into the game averaging 77.7 yards per game to only 48 yards. So the defense can step up when necessary in big game situations, especially in the final quarter when the Saints tackled Gore for losses constantly with the game on the line, proving the teams defensive abilities.
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

I, as an unbiased NFL fan, believe that the New Orleans football Saints are not a legitimate Super Bowl contender. This is based off of their pathetic defense, which s constantly under achieving. Granted that they are the leading their division, but their division along with 95% of the the NFC is pure garbage. For example the Saints "improving defense" averages 5 yards per carry. Which any well balanced team will be able to attack in the play offs. Their secondary is also vulnerable. Gifted quarterbacks will with out a doubt shred their defense and the saint's one dimensional offense will not be able to keep up with their opponent.
Are the New Orleans Saints a Legitimate Super Bowl Contender

As things stand in the NFC South as of 5:30 pm on Sunday, November 17, 2013 the New Orleans Saints are leading the division by one game over the Carolina Panthers. New Orleans has been playing extremely well and superstar Quarterback Drew Brees is having another Pro Bowl caliber season. With the teams defense improving greatly under new Defensive coordinator Rob Ryan the team looks likely to be a serious contender for the Super Bowl. With the reemergence of a strong defense for the team, which recorded the worst defense in the 2012-2013 season, the Saints look poised to make another Super Bowl run this season and the outcome could very realistically end very similarly to that of Super Bowl XLIV when the Saints won their first Super Bowl. The team's defense in both the 2010 Super Bowl season and this season are noticeably similar. The defense was really the only thing that held the club back in the 2012-2013 season when they finished 8-8 recording the worst defense in the NFL" EVER. Finishing 8-8 with that pulling them down is an immense feat, speaking to the talent on the offensive side of the ball. With this turn around I see no way that the Saints can not at the very least make, if not win Super Bowl XLVIII.
Donald Trump will "Make America Great Again"

Thank you for the chance to debate about this topic. Donald Trump will not make a good president. Simple. Sure, he would make jobs, and that's a good thing. But his plans to deport undocumented immigrants back to Mexico along with their "anchor babies" (every time I use that word I cringe a little on the inside), and his plan to bomb ISIS make no sense. As much as I dislike Obama, he doesn't rush in and make callous decisions based on what he wants to do personally. No he thinks about the greater good, not just what he wants. Truman made the correct decision to save American lives by dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How many lives did he save by choosing to do that? Ever since we pulled out of the Middle East (for the most part), you haven't heard many reports about American soldiers being killed in the Middle East. How would bombing ISIS save a significant number of American soldiers? I would like to say my heart breaks when I hear of an American killed in action. Secondly, Trump wants to deport all undocumented immigrants, and their babies, back to their home country, and build an entire wall spanning the border. How long would that wall take to build, 50 years? And we don't have the resources available to use. I understand how he wants to deport the parents who immigrated illegally to the USA. He is right. But the fact that we do again, not have the resources to deport them. And, he would not have the power to deport the children back to their native country. In the Constitution, it says that any baby born in the US, born to American citizens, or illegal immigrants, is a legal citizen of our nation. To deport them, he would have to have another amendment to the Constitution, or the Supreme Court would have to make a ruling saying that he can. Both are highly unlikely. If he did somehow deport millions of people, some of which would be legal citizens of the US, he would be impeached before he could be told that he was fired. Lastly, he has been saying that if he does not get the Republican nod for the election, he would most likely run as an independent. Why? Just so he could become president? I know he wants to change the way we live, work, and play, but that just seems a bit desperate to me.