BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Sahel region should have development over military aid by the USA

Aff The US is actually increasing Islam tension Crisis group 2005 The prospects for growth in Islamist activity in the region - up to and including terrorism - are delicately balanced. Muslim populations in West Africa, as elsewhere, express opposition to U.S., policy in the Middle East, and there has been a parallel increase. The U.S. military is a new factor in this delicate balance. To avoid creating problems it needs to be folded into a more balanced approach. If this keeps going there will be more violence leading to US death. Sahal is a very poor region fao.org September 2013 The combined threat of drought, high food prices, displacement and chronic poverty have affected the livelihoods of farmers, pastoralists and agropastoralists in 2012. Today, more than 10.3 million people, including those who did not receive sufficient support for their livelihoods, are food and nutrition insecure, and extremely vulnerable to external shocks. To counter this we need to provide early, rapid action is needed to prevent further deterioration of the food security situation and avoid further deterioration of livelihoods in the Sahel. In addition to emergency and rehabilitation activities, medium to longer term interventions are required to reverse the cycle of food shortages and crises in the Sahel and address structural vulnerabilities. If we can do this we can provide as reported by fao.org a safe and healthy enviroment. US entering hurts economy Think Africa Press February 12 2013 Peter Dorrie US interest is more recent and has to be seen largely in the context of the post-9/11 War on Terror. With its large, sparsely inhabited and only loosely governed spaces, the Sahara was always seen as a potential terrorist haven by military planners in the Pentagon. This impression only hardened with a string of kidnappings by groups, some claiming ties to al-Qaeda, starting in 2005. This resulted in at least $500 million being spent by the US on training and supplying regional military forces, as well as the deployment of spy planes and " to a limited extent " Special Forces operations. The US, for its part, has made it known that it will dispatch drones " unarmed and strictly for surveillance purposes " most likely from an as-yet undefined location in Niger. The US military will also likely step up its efforts in training and supplying its regional partners, including Mauritania, Niger and Nigeria. This will cost takpayers 500 billion dollars in an already weak economy.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

I'm not black myself; but honestly I just find this quite racist. It's not like as if the blacks are the only people causing trouble in America, whites are too. Seriously what is this are we going back to the Jim Crow Laws? Do you think America was better back then in the 1950s and 60s? Of course not, it was much worse and so many fights and political issues happened back then because of segregation and the whites were gaining more superiority than the blacks. Sadly there still is racism happening today. If this new 'law' is gonna be implemented in America, then that's just gonna lead to more issues, and the society will tear apart. And your solution to extra black families is to throw them in prison? Are you serious? That's just discrimination right there. Imagine if every neighbourhood had one african family and they are all taken up, where are the remaining ones going to go? To prison?
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

I believe that there should be a limit of one black family per neighborhood. Black people, as we all know, cause trouble and inflict violence on to American society. Schools and the workplace is much better off segregated by race. Similarly, while society shouldn't entirely be segregated by race, there should be a strict of one black/African family per neighborhood. If there are extra black families, they will be sent to live in prison, as a solution to overpopulation. Here are the rules for the debate: 1. Teens and elderly people are welcome in the debate and they can comment. 2. Black people are accepted in the debate. 3. The n-word is absolutely not allowed in the debate. 4. Jews can enter unfortunately.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

I have never seen anybody so racist like you, you white nationalist. First you say blacks now Muslims?! Are you freakin serious?! And since when did I say there are Asian terrorists, I never even mentioned Asian First of all, terrorists aren't even considered as Muslims; in Islam a person who goes and fights and kills innocent people aren't even considered as Muslims; stop trying to link terrorism to Islam, we even condemn terrorism. Islam preaches peace and unity not violence and racism like you You Americans have all the weapons and sell them to terrorist groups just for the sake of making loads of money So what if those remaining Muslims and black people were innocent? It isn't fair to just chuck them into prison and treat them badly when they haven't even done anything wrong. AND NO THERE SHOULD NOT BE A LIMIT OF ONE BLACK OR MUSLIM OR ASIAN FAMILY PER NEIGHBOURHOOD, NO MATTER WHAT COLOUR OR NATIONALITY OR ETHNICITY THEY'RE FROM BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HUMANS AND DESERVE TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND THE FREEDOM TO LIVE IN ANY NEIGHBOURHOOD WE WANT. We don't need white nationalists like you who wanna tear up the society and make it a white society; we're not living in the 20th century anymore.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

This is our last debate, so we're going to determine who is the champion of the game. Okay. So, you said that there are white and Asian terrorists too, as well as possibly Hispanic. But it is much more likely that a Muslim or a black person will be a Hispanic. So adding on to my original claim, there should also be a limit of one Muslim family per neighborhood, and they will not be allowed to own weapons and each Muslim will have their current weapons confiscated, so they won't be able to attack others for not being a Muslim. All remaining Muslims will have to be sent to prison, along with remaining black people. Well you are thinking: come on, man; just let them live on the streets? Bad idea. You know that they can still terrorize people and cause destruction, right? Furthermore, throwing those people into prison will also prevent and eliminate violence, curb overpopulation, and save the environment because those black people and Muslims won't be there to pollute, once they are in prison. Don't you see why there should be a limit of ONE BLACK FAMILY PER NEIGHBORHOOD?
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

There is white violence too that exists in this world. Haven't you heard of the terrorist organisations done by whites? As I mentioned before, there are many black people not just in America but in other parts of the world who are civilized, it is only the ones that have been raised differently. Preventing black violence by simply throwing them in prisons is injustice.. just look back in the early 60s wasn't there white violence against the blacks?! seriously you people keep claiming that white people are ALL good and all just. People today in general majority of them are violent; whether it be whites or blacks or yellows or whatever. What has this world basically come to.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

Either way you're still being racist and dominating the whites over the blacks, no wonder your profile pic is a white bear. You can't assume that all blacks are the same. First you say there should be a limit to one black family per neighbourhood, next minute you say to chuck them all in prison till there is a neighbourhood with no black family living in it. So if you let them out of prison where are they gonna go? Throwing them into prison is not a good solution and it's still immoral, and I bet if white people did crimes you'd treat them differently compared to blacks You are being racist. You're just another Pauline Hanson There are many black people who are educated, get employed and are civilised. It just depends on the way they've been brought up. Same goes for whites; if I was ever attacked by a group of young black teens it's not like as if I'm gonna blame them just because of them being black; I'll blame them because of the way they've been raised by their families. And also, African Americans only make up approximately 14.5% out of a total population of approx. 323.1 million. So it isn't that much, even if you remove them your country is still gonna be overpopulated.
The United States ought to stop being the world police

Well pro brought some okay points he gets a little off topic, we starts talking about illegal immigration. While that is fine we never really links it to the topic at hand. That point does not matter due to it does not address the topic the untied states ought to stop being the world police. How does illegal immigration relate to this topic, he never enplanes it. 1. Right now we are the leading super power military and ecomicly. We have gotten involved in tons of nations though many different means, sometimes though aid, becoming allies, military interventions. We have done good though though our willingness to stand up for what is right, and protect our allies. So if you want us to stop being the world police then we would scale back our global involvement across the globe. This would leave a massive power vacuum that would need to be filled, must likely it would be filled by Russia and China. Many nations near those two nations need the USA for military protection, some such nations are Japan, and the Philippians. If we pull back now it could result in massive military build ups around the world, and new, heavy fighting. When the major military power falls it amount always makes a power vacuum. So in to wrap things up in this point, many nations need the USA for there protection and support. If we give up now and pull back it will must likely leave a equally massive power vacuum. 2. We have done a ton of good though our actions throughout the world. We give tons of forgin aid to nations in need, we have helped set up some of the must powerful and free nations in Asia. These nations being Japan, and South Korea. Both of these nation the people have a great deal of freedom, and the nations are thriving currently. So why stop now when we have done so much good, sure people have died due to our actions, but it was for the greater good. Because if we never act then many more would die and the world would be worse of. Having the USA as the major military world power is simply the must logical choice. If we never acted the south Korea would be part of north Korea and they would be oppressed right now by that government. Of we never acted then world war one would have must likely been a central powers victory. You choice to see the USA in a negative light in this matter, I choice to see the bright slide. The peoples lives that we changed for the better, and the nations that we have saved from falling into choas. So many more lives would be lost if we pull back now, it is better to stand up for what is right and help our allies. Now back to pro, oh and pro when people say vote for me they usually do it on the last round this wasn't the last round. http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org... http://www.crf-usa.org... http://academic.evergreen.edu... http://academic.evergreen.edu...
The United States ought to stop being the world police

Intro: The police must obey the law while enforcing the law. Earl Warren I have 3 topics I want to talk about. 1: Why we are helping people. I think the bill of rights in the link following this statement makes it the most clear. We have rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Basic and fundamental rights. What we need to realize is that we as America are trying to force our thoughts onto other countries. We call it protection. We need to put boundaries onto how much help we can give. . http://www.founding.com... 2: Others before ourselves. In the following link is a list of refugees from July of 2014. The total is around 1.5-2B refugees. We are giving them free healthcare, jobs, and homes. Whereas, instead we have nearly 50k of our own people on the street that fought in wars for us. The people that defended us are sleeping on the ground. Second link gives statistics. . http://www.state.gov... . http://nchv.org... 3: Solution. Make the following link bigger to the point where no one can enter illegaly, or to the point where no one can enter until we get ourselves back in the work. . http://www.nytimes.com...
The United States ought to stop being the world police

Rules: 1. Provide resources 2. Stick to round layout 3. Have fun 4. Result of breaking any rule automatically results in forfeit of all points to me 5. If you accept this debate then you accept ALL terms and conditions stated Rounds: 1: Acceptence, rules, round layout 2: Opening statements 3: Questions for opponent 4: Answers 5: Rebuttals and closing statements. I accept and good luck! Let the debate begin!
should homework be allowed

I think homework should be allowed for two main reasons: it's beneficial to the students and banning it would be ridiculous. Firstly, it's beneficial to the students. Homework helps kids understand what is being taught by giving them experience. It also helps kids remember what they were taught earlier by making them use what they've learned. Secondly, banning homework would be ridiculous. Are we seriously going to make that a law? The government is already a little too involved in the private lives of it's citizens, and this would go beyond even that. Also, banning homework would demand that you enforce that in not only public schools, but also with private schools and home-schoolers. Telling a private school that they can't issue homework would be unreasonably interfering with a private institution, which the government has no right to do. As for home-schoolers, one could say that all the work they do is homework, as it's all done at home! In conclusion, homework needs to be allowed for two main reasons: it's beneficial to the students and banning it would be ridiculous.
Is Hell Forever? (In Christianity)

"Also eternal doesn't really mean "lifetime or an era". Think about it. According to the Bible, God literally created everything. He created the universe and even time. And the thing is, God may have said "eternal" in his perspective because He's the one who created everything. Continuing on, we know that God will never die because He's a perfect being. So this could literally conclude that eternal must mean forever. (However, the only way to eternal to die is if God dies. But God would never die, so basically we could see that eternal literally means forever.) " This statement has no proof backing it up... It is merely your opinion.. I did think about it... But that would be useless.. I didn't think about it, I researched it and proved you wrong and me right.. :) OK so... The original bible was written in Hebrew, Then translated to Greek.... then all these languages now.... In Hebrew there is actually no word for "Forever" there is literally no word for it.... The word actually used was "olam" which basically describes a long duration of time.. With an unknown length (http://jewishroots.net...) (that is a Jewish website explaining the word) that word was translated to to the Greek word "aion" which means a life, or a lifespan... "It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word P01; ^5;O84;a4;_7; (ho aion), from the archaic ^5;O84;b9;a4;_7; (aiwon). In Homer it typically refers to life or lifespan. Its latest meaning is more or less similar to the Sanskrit word kalpa and Hebrew word olam." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org...) So basically the use of "eternal" and "forever" in the bible does not actually refer to an eternity.. Merely a specific period of time.. Once this time is over there will be nothing left of you... Please prove me wrong on this point You keep saying Im contradicting my argument.... I am not... I am saying it is eternal because you are destroyed... No coming back from it... Eternally not existing... Not existing in itself is a punishment... Destruction means just what it implies you still can't back up your argument of destruction and suffering forever are the same thing. Please don't just state your opinions state facts
Is Hell Forever? (In Christianity)

First and for most, yes destruction and suffering aren't the same things. However, in the Bible, they have the same concept. In hell, you do feel destruction and suffering FOREVER. (This could basically be seen as pain.) You also said, "I think that is punishment enough..." Please don't write what you think. Nobody really cares what you are thinking in a debate. You also said "Some of the dead sea scrolls described roman emperors as 'eternal'... The term eternal in Greek can mean for a lifetime or an era." Please give a source to support that claim. Also, you said, "There punishment is ceasing to exist, forever." Look at this statement. That statement is again, completely absurd. Why? Let me explain. First, you completely contradicted your argument of "hell is not forever". You have ADMITTED that punishment is forever in hell. (And what is punishment in hell? It's basically suffering and being separated from God.) Also, even if there may not be punishment in hell, at least the people who didn't believe in God are separated from God. And that was the purpose of hell in the first place. To be separated from God FOREVER. Jesus Himself said "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life "(Matthew 25:46) Jesus made clear that hell is eternal and forever.Also eternal doesn't really mean "lifetime or an era". Think about it. According to the Bible, God literally created everything. He created the universe and even time. And the thing is, God may have said "eternal" in his perspective because He's the one who created everything. Continuing on, we know that God will never die because He's a perfect being. So this could literally conclude that eternal must mean forever. (However, the only way to eternal to die is if God dies. But God would never die, so basically we could see that eternal literally means forever.)This could conclude that my hell is indeed forever.Best wishes,Jason
Prisoners Should be Allowed the Right to Vote in Politics.

Prisoners Should be Allowed the Right to Vote in Politics. Prisoner: "a person legally held in prison as a punishment for crimes they have committed" Allowed: "Let (someone) have or do something" Right: "a...legal entitlement to have or obtain something..." Vote: "a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot" Politics: "the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power" 1st round: Simply greetings and acceptance. 2nd round: Main arguments 3rd round: Rebuttals/counters/additional points 4th round: Rebuttals/counters/final points Rules: - No abuse of semantics. (This is standard since I gave definitions) -No trolling. - A forfeit is an automatic loss. -Cite sources. Sources: -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Weak Governments Should Be Overthrown

One thing that really stood out from your response was this: "Every leader who is not a tyrant and is voted in has a certain number of years as their term. In the U.S. every four years we deprive an official government of their power. I cannot comprehend why you think of this as bad, it prevents tyrants from dominating a government for life..." Yes, while it is true that the US uses a government election system where the person voted into power (the president) is given four years per term, that does not have anything to do with tyranny, it is a moderation of how long someone has to rule the country in fairness to other politicians wishing to run it. Overthrowing a government is terrible because it can cause more than necessary chaos. And as I had mentioned countless times, if you overthrow a government through resistance and revolution, this will cause a massive amount of chaos and can cause high death toll. It can cause the country collapse, poverty and fear. No one will feel safe, and so the government will lose control of their people and what is going on in their country. People will die out. No one should be killed because they were caught in the battlegrounds of revolution. And in response to your remark about Hitler's tyranny, yes there were revolts and people killed for Treason. Why do you think the first people locked up in Concentration Camps were Hitler's political opponents? Not only were they opposing politicians, they were also Soviets and other Nazi Revolt groups. That's why Stalin made a pact with Hitler; so many soldiers were being arrested and put into camps. Soon Stalin had his military officers executed fearing they would turn their backs--Hitler went through a similar situation, when he first came to power he feared revolt. But his disciplinary ideals grew to hurt the masses of Germany. And on top of that, Hitler did not win the election through revolution. Hitler won the election through propaganda posters put up around Germany. Adolf Hitler won through convincing the people. And yes it is true, he was arrested for Treason after trying to overthrow the Weimer Republic. But it was not the revolution that sparked an election. Even still, Hitler lost the election...the person who won was German President Von Hindenburg.
caveman debate

I stand in negation of the resolution, whatever the resolution may be pertaining cavemen and simulating them, for one major reason that will be the crux of my case: cavemen do not have sauce.WITHOUT SAUCE YOU ARE IN A STATE OF ONTOLOGICAL DAMNATION BECAUSE WITHOUT SAUCE YOU ARE LOST. WE HAVE ACQUIRED SAUCE BUT ARE NOT LOST IN THE SAUCE. THEY CLEARLY HAVE NO SAUCE. DON'T VOTE FOR ANY OF THEIR ARGUMENTS UNLESS THEY ACQUIRE SAUCE BECAUSE THEY ARE LOST. THEY CANNOT ACQUIRE THIS SAUCE BECAUSE THEY ARE CAVEMEN. THE ALT IS TO GIVE THEM SAUCE, SOLVES THEIR ONTOLOGICAL DAMNATION. THIS OUTWEIGHS POLICY ARGUMENTS. GO HOME. OVADOSE OF SAUCE. Gucci Mane 2012 in an interview with Vice: when I ain't had no money I still had sauce ... when you don't have sauce ... you lost ... you can also get lost in the sauce ... I'm sprinkling sauce, droppin sauce, everywhere than we sweet mane ... OVADOSE OF SAUCE ... YOU CAN'T BE BORN WITH SAUCE ... I was born without this sauce, I had to acquire this sauce
should we exterminate white people

Actually, the white people don't cause other people's deaths, its the other way around. Other people start getting aggressive and start wars, and then the white people have to shut those people down. Though it is true the white people end up killing a lot of other people, those people really brought it upon themselves didn't they?Also, most white people don't like killing others. This causes the white people great grief to kill anyone. (that includes me even though I'm Asian.)
should we exterminate white people

It is true that "whites" are "meaner" to "blacks".Why am I using quotation marks on the words, "whites" and "blacks?"This is because genetically, there is not a single difference. It is just skin color. If you think about it, and/or research it, if a white person stayed in Africa or near the Equator for some amount of time, his/her skin would grow darker. After one or two generations, the grandchildren of the first white person would have completely dark skin and would be unrecognizable from a black.Interesting isn't it?If you decided to "eliminate all whites," you would have to kill off every single person on Earth.I really don't think you'd want to do that.