BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Israel does not have the Right to Exist

INTRODUCTION If I am not mistaken, my opponent's resolution is that Israel does not have a right to exist. My aim will be to negate this resolution. Because refuting this argument does not mean proving that Israel has a right to exist, that will not be my focus here. Instead, my argument will focus almost entirely on the theoretical and philosophical foundations of what a "right to exist" actually is, how (if it is even possible) it can be justified or negated, and what the practical (that is, real-life) consequences of these conclusions are for Israel and this debate. RIGHT TO EXIST In R1, Con left the concept of a "right to exist" without a clear definition, and I assume he did so because it is such a controversial and undeveloped concept. There have been many important philosophers and public intellectuals who have explored the concept, many who have called it into question, and many others who have made attempts to justify its existence. My argument is simple. I contend that a "right to exist" is ontologically subjective. This means that the concept itself requires subjective experience to exist. It is not an observer independent category or concept; it is socially constructed. As a result, it cannot be proven that Israel "does not have the right to exist." This is all I will say for now. In the coming rounds I will elaborate further depending on how my opponent attempts to refute this argument. I end this round with a quote that drives my point home: "The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist" [1]. This is from Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man." What it basically shows, or argues, is that the category of a "right to exist" emerges when people associate with other people and thereby produce a government. It shows how the "right to exist" is ontologically subjective and socially constructed, and as a result, that we can say any government produced by a group of people associating with each other has this "right to exist." And while the main point here is that my opponent cannot prove that Israel does not have the right to exist, Thomas Paine's quote does suggest that Israel, by the mere fact of its existence, has a right to exist. [1] http://en.wikisource.org...
Sarah Jessica Parker is unattractive

"Her eyes may be a light color although the area around them appears dark giving them a racoon-like appearance. And also they are squinty like someone staring into a light." You have not proved this or provided pictures as evidence. This argument is void. "Her death grip is seen here on a poor defenseless water bottle:" It is clearly not a death grip. She is merely holding the bottle to display it for others. "Some cougars may be attractive, but not this no good sir, yes she isn't attractive to cougar standards:" What are cougar standards? My opponent does not provide any proof or argumentation regarding what cougar standards are and how Parker may not live up to those expectations. "Also I would like to point out her male eyebrows and stone-cut chin :" This is merely one picture of Parker. My opponent does not explain what makes her eyebrows "male-like" or why a stone-cut chin is unattractive. I have refuted my opponent effectively. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Sarah Jessica Parker is unattractive

I have made a grammer mistake, I do apologize for that. Anyhow: Her eyes may be a light color although the area around them appears dark giving them a racoon-like appearance. And also they are squinty like someone staring into a light. Her death grip is seen here on a poor defenseless water bottle: http://images.askmen.com... Some cougars may be attractive, but not this no good sir, yes she isn't attractive to cougar standards: http://images.askmen.com... Covering up wrinkles doesn't make them not there. Also I would like to point out her male eyebrows and stone-cut chin : http://www.exposay.com...
Sarah Jessica Parker is unattractive

My opponent supposedly affirms the resolution, "Sarah Jessica Parker is unattractive." However, in his argument, he states: "I believe she is attractive in these ways..." That creates a contradiction. Further, my opponent list his characteristics of her implying a negative connotation. Therefore, I will assume my opponent still wishes to affirm the resolution. Hence, I shall negated the resolution, "Sarah Jessica Parker is unattractive." Definitions: unattractive - not attractive attractive - providing pleasure or delight, especially in appearance or manner. Here are several pictures of Sarah Jessica Parker: http://images.askmen.com... http://www.babble.com... http://images.fanpop.com... Rebuttals: 1) Her eyes are a pleasing color and provide pleasure and delight in the sense that they are not irritated or red. 2) She may be elderly looking, but some cougars are attractive. She still has a nice body and pleasing facial features. 3) She does not have bony death grip fingers. Prove it. 4) Prove the wrinkles. Even with wrinkles, she can cover them up, which she does frequently. Thank you.
PETA has done more bad than good (See full res. below)

I'm new here so I'm jumping right in. I hope I don't mess this up. To begin I agree with the principles that PETA stands for, however I am against many of their methods, which is what I believe we are arguing. You already defined PETA. The only definition I will give is that I believe destruction is not limited to actual physcial harm, but also to mental pain and suffering. Contention 1: A Holocaust on your plate This was an advertising campaign that PETA used to get attention for the horrors of eating meat and the brutal practices of some factory farms. This campaign was used many times over the Thanksgiving holiday. It juxtaposed images of concentration camps with images of meat processing. These images hurt and offended holocaust survivors. I don't have an opinion poll to back me up on this, but I know that my friend Keith's grandfather was a holocaust survivor and he found it utterly disgusting. I use this reaction to mirror other typical reactions from people that had to live through this horrific offense. The point is that PETA (like Howard Stern) believes that "shock value" is more important than being socially responsible people. I often equate PETA with those who kill abortion doctors. Just because you are against abortion it doesn't mean you must go to the extreme. I could post other instances of PETA going overboard, such as putting up a poster of Rudy Giuliani (after he had been diagnosed with cancer) with a milk mustache that said "Got Cancer" and explained how drinking milk has been linked to some forms of cancer. I could post many others as well but I believe we are all aware of the extreme measures that they take and how they are harmful to people mentally. Contention 2: PETA has done very little "good". PETA has failed in their goal to stop factory farming, meat processing, the eating of meat or the killing of animals at shelters. PETA has lofty goals but it seems they are more concerned with making news than making a difference. For instance, PETA protesters have been sighted around the country in front of animal shelters. They are protesting the euthanasia policy of most shelters. However, how many of these protesters walk away with animals? The answer, very few of them. If they spent their time adopting animals the problem of overcrowded shelters would be much less severe than it is.2.8 percent of Americans are vegetarians: http://findarticles.com... Here is an article from the New York Times from 1987:http://www.nytimes.com... The Times article correctly points out the fad of vegetarianism in the late 1980's. What happened? Vegetarianism is certainly not taboo but it is not really popular. PETA has done nothing to change the popular opinion about eating meat. It has done nothing to stop factory farming. In fact, factoring farming has only grown. PETA has had no impact on the cause of animals. The only impact it has had is on the people that it offends with its contraversial campaigns.
PETA has done more bad than good (See full res. below)

"Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more desruction to the well being of all living things than positive impacts" I negate. Rules: -My opponent cannot be InfraRedEd -Stick to the resolution -Address both sides of the resolution -Place arguments in Contention format (Claim, Warrant, Impact) -I'll let the Aff propose framework (definitions & observations) but if it is abusive I will decline it and propose my own (aka, don't present biased or B.S. defintions) I will spare my initial arguments for the time being, the affirmative will present its constructive at this time. Good luck and thanks to accepting this debate. Don't forfeit any rounds so we can keep this debate popular! As for everyone else, click "like" on this debate!
PETA has done more bad than good (See full res. below)

Response to Guiliani argument: He did not give consent the likeness used on his poster was used without consent. Response to the failings of PETA: The fight might be ongoing but they have made no progress whatsoever. In fact, as I stated, there are more factory farms now then there have ever been in the history of the United States.http://en.wikipedia.org... The reason I showed the "old" article that you talked about was to illustrate that vegatarianism was a fad that has ebbed and not a lifestyle choice influenced by PETA at all. You say that the Holocaust is comparable to the plight of animals, I say that is your opinion. You are comparing the slaughter of animals (which many people believe are only on Earth as a food source) with the deaths of six million human beings. Most people value human life above animal life. My claim is simple. PETA does more harm than good to their own cause with their radical tactics. Not only does this mean they do more harm to society but it also means that they hinder any impact they have on changing opinions on the issues of animal treatment and animal consumption. Thus, on the whole, they do much more harm than good not only to the world at large but to their own cause.
using the SCOTUS logic, a marriage with multiple people should be allowed everywhere

con contineus to deride polygamy as slutty. im sure many have choice words for gay acts. con eveen admits polygamy is natural, so why does he deny them a marriage? he says love is usually between two people. that's the norm, sure. but if it was mroe acceptable, it wouldn't be as much the norm. besides, regardless of if it's natjural or teh norm, it's about treating everyione the same, marriage for all according to their own standards. why stop at gay marriage?
using the SCOTUS logic, a marriage with multiple people should be allowed everywhere

Clever trying to slaughter my name, But Dairy did I ever say that Gay Marriage was natural? I don't recall Perhaps by biblical terms it is unnatural, However seen both our some of our animal cousins ,and in us. The act of love is usually between two people who love each other. Having multiple partners seems like being somewhat of a "Sluttish "thing and I mean that in a way that you have many partners you have sex with not in the offensive way same for "whore". when you share a love between many partners that can also be unfair in many terms of the other partners. And, I'm nor a(n) "Arbiter" for whats natural. And yes humans are polygamous I have researched it. Nor am I withholding rights. I have an opinion Dairy. But Multiple partners would just seem...not as official to me. Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. It just doesn't seem hmmm let me think (Because seems you get offended easily) ...fair to everyone in the marriage.
using the SCOTUS logic, a marriage with multiple people should be allowed everywhere

con is using his own perspective of what is natural and unnatural. to him multiple partners is "whoring around". yet, other people might view gay marriage as unnatural. why is con the arbiter of right and wrong? nature is the best indicator, and that shows that humans are slightly polygamous. a test is the width of the shouldars of the ape, and humans are on the slightly polygamous side. a gay man is withholding rights to others, who'da thunk it?
using the SCOTUS logic, a marriage with multiple people should be allowed everywhere

Tsk, tsk people like you sir...Okay I accept this and best of luck. I am a gay man. Being that it as it may, the whole "GRAINS" of marriage is" NOT" a man and woman who love each other very much to live together and make a baby. If your a Christian extremist you may argue to differ, however its quite comical because I'm guessing you had no idea. Actually same sex couples have already been "Married" and living with each other for years in secrecy. Just now they can get it on paper. The LGBT has been fighting for this for years, facing DEATH, IMPRISONMENT,DISCRIMINATION,ABANDONMENT even SUICIDE. And yet people still can't let them do what they want. Let me tell you friend at the end of the day there going to live there lives weather you except it or not. As for the multiple partners you just out counted your self "humans according to their body types are polygamous, with a bend towards limited partners, granted." According to there body types so how could this be natural for everyone? Unless your of a different countries religion preferably third-world-ish or poverty stricken. To me and many others that seems of a way of whoring around for lack of a better word. And that my friend I think is worse then LGBT marriage Checkmate
using the SCOTUS logic, a marriage with multiple people should be allowed everywhere

only people who are for gay marriage should take this. they say gays should be allowed to marry, cause others are allowed to marry. equal protection and liberty clause of the constitution. if we allow that, why shoujldn't it be allowed for a marriage with multiple people? after all, humans according to their body types are polygamous, with a bend towards limited partners, granted. this would be the most natural state of marriage, even moreso between on woman and one man, and obviusly more natural than gays.
Deepest Quote

I am guessing that the "Hillary will be lynched for her crimes" was a quote? Maybe? If so then technically you have already broken the rules in which I clearly said the first round is only acceptance. So that quote (if it was your quote) shall not count. This is my "deep quote" for this round: "I'm scared to death that I'll never be afraid" -Owl City aka Adam Young in his song "Alligator Sky". To me, this quote means that there maybe a day in the future that you realize that you've lived your whole life in safety in comfort and you would realize that you have not lived life the way it was meant to be lived; when you are afraid to do what you never thought you could do and you do it.
Deepest Quote

This is not a debate that should be taken seriously. It is just a light-hearted competition to see who can come up with the deepest quote, so do not join expecting a fight or a heated argument. What I mean by "deepest quote" is a quote that makes you think or makes you feel a strong emotion to a particular subject. My profile picture is a example of what I call a "deep quote". Do not accept the debate if you have any questions. Ask the question in the comment section and I will answer. If you understand what the rules are and you have no further questions please accept. I hope we have fun. First round is acceptance. Rest of rounds are quotes we shall put up attempting to beat our opponent.
The States are Sovereign. That is why they're called States

my opponent has forfeited the round... I would like to apologize for my plethora of spelling errors in my last post, I was typing on a tablet. It was tougher than I thought it would be. I maintain my position and will just add the following links that indicate not only are the States not Sovereign they are not recognized by Wikipedia, the United States of America, or by the United Nations as Sovereign nations. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.state.gov... (3)http://www.un.org... sky55anchorage I sincerely hope you can find time to respond to this debate, I am really looking forward to hearing you defend your resolution that "The States are Sovereign."
The States are Sovereign. That is why they're called States

Thank you sky55anchorage for the oppertunity to debate this topic, I accept this debate and will be arguing that the States are not Sovereign, but are to some degree autonomous. "Sovereignty, in political theory, is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation. In layman's terms, it means a state or a governing body has the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies."(1) Consider, 1: Section one article ten of the United States Constitution. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."(2) "States may not exercise certain powers reserved for the federal government:"(2) 2: McCulloch v. Maryland "This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government." (3) "the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution." (4) 3: Conclsion If sovereignty means a state that has full right and power to gover itself without outside interference, and the following is true that: The States are limited in several ways by the tenth article of the first section of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme court has ruled in favor of the Federal government haveing power over the States. States are subject to a higher Federal Government as is eperically evident by the civil war. Then the fifty states that make up the United States of America are not indepedently Soverign. Sky55anchorage, I look forward to your arguements, and good luck. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.infoplease.com...
The States are Sovereign. That is why they're called States

This is my first Debate. In order to get a feel for this site I've decided to start my first debate with something that I've studied for years and am deeply intrigued by. On July 4 1776, Thirteen Colonies declared Sovereign Statehood and broke away from their oppressive government. Shortly after winning their war for secession they enacted the Articles of Confederation which, not only reinforced their Individual Sovereignty, prevented the creation of another oppressive Central Government. Over the following short years it became known to all States that in order to work together more efficiently, a more powerful Central Government was needed. And on June 21, 1788 the US Constitution was ratified by all current States and became the new Law of the Land for the US. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution created a newer, stronger, more powerful, and (most importantly) more efficient Central Government. But did this new Constitution mean that the still newly formed States are no longer sovereign? Is the US one nation, or the Union of 50 Sovereign Nations? Debate Topic: Are the States today still sovereign whether or not it is enforced or believed? Rules: This is my first debate on Debate.org - Quite frankly I'm just experimenting to see how this works. As for the rules I have 1 and 1 only: Be Respectful. Not because simply because this is a debate to which all opinions must be respected, but because we are all adults and must act in such ways.
It is less advantageous to have no friends rather than have backstabbing ones.

There is obviously no gain in having no friends.My opponent does mention that having backstabbing friends is beneficial so that the person will be able to outsmart any future backstabbers. It is a fair point however, I do contend that backstabbing friends could pretty much put your life in ruins temporarily or permanently. For instance, Let's say a person (John) has a girlfriend and a backstabbing 'best friend' (Bob). Bob could convince the girlfriend to break up with John. John will feel be extremely emotionally distressed from breaking up, not to mention the additional pain from realising he just lost his 'best friend' Bob, considering John finds out about the betrayal which is the key factor of Pro's argument of being able to spot out future betrayers. Alternatively, John can never find out about the betrayal to save him some depression, causing pro's argument about being able to outsmart betrayers to go away.Of course, this is just one scenario. There are countless others but I think I made enough of a point.Furthermore, even if having backstabbing friends does prepare you for outsmarting other backstabbing friends, it would make more sense to just have no friends and prevent the whole backstabbing thing in the first place.In other words, Why fight a war which does not need to be fought?I mean, nothing good can possibly come out of having backstabbing friends other than the experiance to deal with other backstabbing friends. Let me put things in perspective by presenting both mine and pros arguments this way:Let's say you have 2 kg of gold with youA robber steals 1 kg of gold from you but now you can never be robbed of your other 1 kg of gold again. - This is pro's argument.I suggest let no robber come close to you in the first place to take that gold, you still now retain your 2kgs of gold with NO losses. Which sounds more reasonable and beneficial?
It is less advantageous to have no friends rather than have backstabbing ones.

My opponent added the word 'traitors' in. This wasn't the resolution.If one has no friends, they not only lose out on experience on social interaction but they begin shutting off the opportunity to branch out and find valuable allies in times of need. If one has no allies at all, they are inevitably vulnerable so the social predators' whims. On the other hand, if one has backstabbing friends, it is very likely that they can use this nature to their advantage by pitting one against the other. Additionally, having such friends is good training in how to become one of them for later reference.There are times in life where the only person you can rely on is yourself. Both the situations are examples of this. The difference is the mutual friends you will have via befriending backstabbers and the social power you can have once you learn their true nature.There is no gain of having no friends, but there is very much gain in having friends that are not only training you in how to spot and outsmart other backstabbers but also valuable stepping stones to get in touch with mutual friends who may well be trustworthy despite the connecting friend's persona.