BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Boston Tea Party

Well said i must say; however, two wrongs do not make a right. What is admirable to some, is a terrible transgression to many. You claim they were not the few, but the majority of colonists were against this agression, and thought it nothing more than a waste of tea, which led to, by the way, of colonists forced to scavenge from native shrubs roots to suffice for tea(thus common name for the shrub New Jersey Tea) which added a bitter(mind the pun) taste to an already unbearably hard lifestyle. The onset of the King's intolerance which followed, brought about the wealthier class of colonists(our founding fathers of renown)to revolt in bad form, exploiting the less fortunate citizens in their ignorance(still used to this day)and putting them in harm's way, in hopes of taking the entire nation for themselves, which is exactly how the unfortunates were rewarded: with a republic disguised as a democracy, and nothing more than an ogiarcy which still survives today. It's all pretty to talk of freedom, liberty, and throwing off the oppressor, but is nothing but political reteric that has been improved upon and utilized until this very day. In fact, the founding fathers knew, that a self government by the people and for the people was an absolute bad strategy, for they knew it wouldnt be long before those self governing citizens would be hanging them, and the king was the least of their problems. Therefore, hide the facts with reteric, and make the constitution in a fashion that could not be changed readily, only by themselves. They were not looking to the future welfare of the country, but their own good position. Observe how they crafted the Electoral College and the election of delegates, the difficulty of changing the Constitution, just a few items in which they conspired against the people. The declaration of independence was not a letter to the king, but a letter to the people, who in fact had no idea they were being oppressed, or even that they were being taxed without representation. In fact, we are taxed without representation to this day, more than then. Nice words like liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and throwing off said government, was merely a ruse as it remains still. The Boston Tea Party was treason by any stretch from any frame of reference. Didnt your mother tell you dont pick up stuff that does'nt belong to you? They were instigating public fear and hatred of the crown. They needed this diversion to hide their true motive, as always; more money. It is a sad story, but now that we know the truth, lets not hide it under a bushel, let us bring it into the light, and not place these common thugs on a pedastel, but impale them on the truth where they belong.
The Boston Tea Party

At an early age, we Americans are taught the story of the Boston Tea Party from first grade. It is implied as a patriotic stance against the tyranny of taxation without representation; however, when it is studied in a less propogandic frame of reference, you observe this uprising, as no more than a few individuals mindlessly instigating ill will between already economically challenged citizens after a night at the tavern, shamefully dressing up like local natives(cowardly attempt)so as to focus attention on the blameless, and the empire who so many obviously admired. It was illegal, blatently traitoris, and led many too an untimely and uncalled for demise. I would like to extend my apologies to the British, as well as the Indians who subsequently incurred such irreparable damage.
This is not a debate

My opponent's arguments were in latin and he dropped all my points. This is still a debate, however a very poor one. Nice/clever try though. My opponent attempted to write something completely irrelevant so this is not a debate. Follow my logic -The point of this debate is to show this is not a debate -I brought my arguments forth, and my opponent left behind all my arguments -He did not argue against my points, however him not rebutting WAS his argument to show this was not a debate -He still argued, therefore making it a debate
RAP BATTLE SEASON 14 EPISODe 5

I got BIG spirit in me im f.cking ghostly, Rush me, cause you ain't gonna live to roast me, can't touch me cause im holy, dont let ur devil touch me, u dont gotta touch me to be a pedo, ur a f.king skinhead nazi u a f.king cancer so get kemo, pull up a gun to u u turn emo, To do war and try to bring my crew back down I'll never stoop to that level to do that now I got a new cat This time I'm pulling two gats out with bullets I finally got something to shoot at now
The "Irish Potato Famine" was a genocide against the Irish

While I do concede that the blight, not the British, my opponent clearly does not understand this debate. I am not arguing whether the Brits caused the blight, I am arguing whether they turned it into a famine. The Arguments made by the negation have not answered my primary points about how the famine was a natural disaster that was then used as a tool of oppression and murder. While the blight caused the famine, only the Irish Catholics were affected, according to one of my Earlier sources, Karl Marx, who visited Ireland during the famine to see the effect of British oppression on the Irish people. In addition the Negation claims that I have only presented one source, however I have presented multiple sources which are listed below. Gregory Stanton's 8 stages of Genocide Das Kapital by Karl Marx Peter Duffy http://www.irishcentral.com... How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill An Gota Mor by Tim Pat Coogan The Everything Irish History and Heritage Book by Amy Hackney Blackwell and Ryan Hackney 101 Things You Didn't Know about Irish History by Ryan Hackney Given this I can see no reason but a vote for the Affirmation
The "Irish Potato Famine" was a genocide against the Irish

The denial of aid, forcing the Irish to either leave or die is a form of systematic extermination. My main example is Holodomor, which is literally Ukrainian for Extermination by Hunger. This is the exact same as what happened in Ireland. According to How the Irish Saved Civilization, a popular book about Irish history, while the blight may have caused the potatoes to die, it was the British that caused the Irish to die. The Brits, much as Saddam had done to the Assyrians and Kurds during the food for oil program, denied aid to Irish Catholics, and other lower class peasants. According to the late historian Howard Zinn, the Irish were subject to complete extermination policies by the British government. My opponent also acknowledged that the aid did reach Ireland, yet it did not reach the Irish. The British used nature and bureaucracy, rather than guns and massacres. During the Famine the London Times had called for the starving Catholics, not to be converted, but left to die, or even shot. In Tipperary, according to the well known Irish Historian, in County Cork, the landlords had done this to their tenants, and had soldiers shoot those who could not pay their rent. Even if the British had not caused the famine, their response of neglect and eviction caused far more deaths than the famine wold have caused if the Irish had received the aid they were sent. In addition the treatment of the Irish in the years prior, follow 7 of Gregory Stanton's 8 stages of Genocide. 1. Classification -People are divided into "us and them"-The Irish were treated as second class citizens through the Penal Laws 3. Dehumanization -"One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases."-The Irish were referred to as "Papists" and "left footers" 4. Organization -"Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."-The Royal Irish Constabulary was established in 1826 to enforce the Penal Laws on the Irish, and they did so with brutal force 5. Polarization - "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."-The London Times calls for the death of the Irish people. 6. Preparation -"Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."-This had been done through the the Corn Laws and the expansion of the Penal Laws 7. Extermination -"It is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human"- Coogan states that many in Britiain called the famine an "Act of God" and said that the Irish were just Papists and left footers 8. Denial -"The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes.."-The Genocide is now called the potato famine, and has become the punch line of anti-Irish jokes. Finally the Negation has refused to cite any sources while I have cited multiple sources. This should be interpreted as the Negations arguments are not reliable and therefore invalid.
The "Irish Potato Famine" was a genocide against the Irish

Even though the British didn't allow the Irish to own land, they didn't start a genocide. The definition of genocide is:the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation. "Not to mention that when the blight struck Scotland, the Scots were given copious amounts of aid, while in Ireland the Irish were given less than nothing. The Brits allowed Starvation and disease to ravage the country and claim over 1 million of the Irish people, and force another 70% of the population to leave, of which only 30% of the emigrants survived. The Irish Famine was one of the worst genocides in world history and should be taught as such." The British didn't see the the Phytophthora infestans coming. The didn't intend to wipe the Irish out. In fact they did the opposite. They sent relief to the Irish. Queen Victoria herself gave 2000 pounds to the relief effort. This shows that the British didn't intend a genocide. If the British intended genocide why did they allow relief to reach Ireland? Why did they give money and food to the Irish? This just shows that the the British didn't intend genocide. Also if you look at a world map, Scotland is closer to the U.K than Ireland, this is the main reason why relief reached the Scots first. "While the British did not create the blight it was their actions that cause the famine. The Irish had no food to fill their bellies when the potatoes died, as they British had taken their land, their rights and subsequently their food." As I said earlier, the Brits didn't see the famine coming, they were just trying to get the Irish to become Protestants. There means were normal for the times, try to show the Irish that they would be better of if they were Protests. "The Holodomor in the Ukraine from was a 2 year famine that killed nearly 3 million in the Ukraine. It is recognized by many nations as a genocide as it targeted Ukrainians and Cossacks. In Ireland it was in essence the same as the Holodomor as the Irish Catholics were treated as second class citizens and denied aid when it was needed. The British had built a system so that the Irish would be unable to come out of such a catastrophe." The Holodomor was caused by the unfamiliarity with new crops, this was not the case with the Irish potato famine and storage issues. They had been growing potatoes for a while and there storages were fine, a fungus caused the famine. Also relief reached Ireland while it didn't reach Ukraine. Also your source is a CONSPIRACY BOOK. These are unreliable theories that are backed by little to no proof.
The "Irish Potato Famine" was a genocide against the Irish

To begin, I said that the Brits COULD NOT have engineered the blight to kill the potatoes. The genocide was through the economic systems put in place by the British forced the Irish to rely solely on the potato for sustenance. In addition the British governments response meres the soviet governments response to the Holodomor The Holodomor in the Ukraine from was a 2 year famine that killed nearly 3 million in the Ukraine. It is recognized by many nations as a genocide as it targeted Ukrainians and Cossacks. In Ireland it was in essence the same as the Holodomor as the Irish Catholics were treated as second class citizens and denied aid when it was needed. The British had built a system so that the Irish would be unable to come out of such a catastrophe. Historian Peter Duffy stated that the famine was a "landlord-engineered replacement of tillage plots with grazing lands". Karl Marx also said that "The potato blight resulted from the exhaustion of the soil, it was a product of English rule." and in Das Kapital he said that "The Irish famine of 1846 killed more than 1,000,000 people, but it killed poor devils only. To the wealth of the country it did not the slightest damage". While the British did not create the blight it was their actions that cause the famine. The Irish had no food to fill their bellies when the potatoes died, as they British had taken their land, their rights and subsequently their food. Not to mention that when the blight struck Scotland, the Scots were given copious amounts of aid, while in Ireland the Irish were given less than nothing. The Brits allowed Starvation and disease to ravage the country and claim over 1 million of the Irish people, and force another 70% of the population to leave, of which only 30% of the emigrants survived. The Irish Famine was one of the worst genocides in world history and should be taught as such. http://www.irishcentral.com... http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com...
The "Irish Potato Famine" was a genocide against the Irish

The British were not the cause of the potato famine. A fungus was. Are you saying that the British were capable of engineering a fungus that could target potatoes when they didn't even know that Bactria could cause a disease? In the 1800s biology was in its early stage. The first time a person managed to successfully genetically modification something was in the 1970s, this leaves out the idea that the British developed the fungus. Also the British were not dumb. They wouldn't send valuable scientists to make a fungus to attack Irish potatoes just to kill. They controlled Ireland, whats the point of killing them if the Irish weren't in rebellion? Also the fungus originated from Mexico or the Andes(the orgin of the potato), these are were never controlled by the British. This is proof that the British never made the fungus.
The "Irish Potato Famine" was a genocide against the Irish

This debate is a debate concerning whether the Great Famine in Ireland meets the definition of a genocide. I am debating whether the Famine was an engineered by the British to evict and/or kill the Irish Catholic population. I am not saying the blight was a bio-weapon, but the economic policies implemented in Ireland forced the lower class Irish Catholics to rely solely on the potato for sustenance.
It is probable that God exists

Thank you to thett3 for a challenging and wonderful debate! None of these statements are new arguments, per round 1 rules. This is merely a summary of the debate from a round 1 perspective. Round 1 notes: "I will accept the burden of proof in proving the existence of God. " Pro has not met her burden. Not only has her burden not been met, but her very definition of God is flawed and illogical. "My opponent can present his own arguments if he pleases, but he is under no obligation to do so. " Despite this rule, pro challenged me to offer another explanation, which I did: Pro: "If theres another explanation Con must offer it, if not you vote Pro" (See round 3) "My advocacy will be defending the conception of God as the powerful, sentient creator of the Universe, by showing that both scientifically and philosophically it is more probable that the Universe was created by God than that it arose naturally. " The power and sentience per pro"s definition were shown to be fundamentally flawed. Also, scientific "proof" was countered with my scientific "proof. " I showed pro it was impossible to know what was before the big bang.
It is probable that God exists

As the affirmative, I will accept the burden of proof in proving the existence of God. My opponent can present his own arguments if he pleases, but he is under no obligation to do so. He is obligated however to attack my arguments in the 2nd round. My advocacy will be defending the conception of God as the powerful, sentient creator of the Universe, by showing that both scientifically and philosophically it is more probable that the Universe was created by God than that it arose naturally. If my opponent disputes this definition he should comment before accepting and we can work out an agreed upon definition there. The debate will begin in round 2. Standard rules apply, no new arguments in the last round ect. Debaters are permitted to put citations in a separate debate to save space.
Israel is the One to Blame for the Gaza-Israel Conflict

I have a very hateful anti-semite in my other debate about Israel. Anybody who messes with Israel is messing with God. God has used other nations to punish Irael at times, but those nations receive greater punishment for any cruelties agaisnt the Jews. I'll forfeit all of the rounds so you can have the win. Feel free to make arguments and state your case. I accepted the challenge in haste, I always defend Israel quickly, and at a glance it looked like your position was agaisnt Isreal, Try again, but be prepared.....you are likely to get a very hateful anti-semite arguing wiith you. People like that think they are right no matter how many Jews and/or Christians they kill, and no matter if they hold babies in their arms as they shoot to kill.
Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

"Global climate change" means the climate effects, whatever they might be, of humans introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."US" is the United States of America."US energy policy" in this debate means prohibitions or incentives provided by the US government with regard to the US development or use of carbon-based fuels for energy. This includes outright prohibitions on the development of oil, oil shale, tar sands, natural gas, and coal, as well as disincentives and obstacles aimed at minimizing their use. Energy policy includes subsidies and mandates for use of non-carbon alternatives. Restrictions or incentives aimed at other purposes are not a subject of this debate, nor is the funding of research projects.The US does not have an official energy policy, but it has many laws and regulations that constitute a de facto policy. The laws and regulations are at issue.A "major factor" is one that may determine a policy outcome, as distinct from factors that might either accrue as side benefits or weigh as disadvantages of a policy.Standard dictionary definitions are used, with the context used to select the appropriate definition.In this debate, "flow through sources" are allowed. If a blog, book, popular article, or Wikipedia is used as a reference, and if the data cited is referenced from another source the implication is that the original source is referenced. Sometime a blogger plots some data in a convenient form for presentation, so it's helpful to reference the graph. The data is argued from it's source. Cited opinions stand or fall on their individual merits as being authoritative or not.Reference lists or arguments beyond the debate 8000 character limits are not allowed.The first round is for acceptance and definitions. There are a total of four rounds.
Gay marraige.

Sorry about that first argument- I accidentally posted my first draft... I never meant to say "what". Marrying your pig would be...*shudders*. No. I understand the line, and what makes marriage special. Sorry for the slip-up. What I DID mean to say is that marrying who you want is the basic right of a free American. Love is love is love. You don't have the right or authority to determine what kind of love is right- and which one is wrong. Whatever people do in their own bedrooms is THEIR BUSINESS, and, like I said before, you (or God [like there is one]) do not have the authority to determine what it is. Marriage is a sacred institution- you marry who you love. Is a gay person supposed to just be *partners* with their lovers until they grow old? It's exactly like a gay person saying "Straight people shouldn't marry someone of the opposite sex because that would defeat the purpose of a marriage- it's the wrong kind of love." ...Right? You do not need to apologize for my mother- she is actually bisexual, thank you very much. I have a father and a mother, a step mom, and I have *way* more love in my life than you, if you don't mind me saying, and also not to brag. And my parents are divorced, it's not a polygamy/gay relationship. My life is perfectly functional- I am a star on crew, lost over 30 lb. since the beginning of September, am on my school's debate team, am a runner, and can clean-and-press 100 lb.. My mom's sexual preference does not, and has not ever affected my life to the negative, though it HAS affected my passion in this debate. In summary, no one has the authority to tell someone that they love "wrong", and my mom's sexual preference has never affected my life negatively.
Gay marraige.

It doesn't matter what or who you marry, and it is really no one else's business if you love someone in a special way. If it's not hurting anyone, why is should it be illegal? I am (very) straight, but my mom isn't, and she has taught me from when I was, like, two that we should respect others for who they are, and not care if they want to be (or just are) something different than what you are. I'm for love, no matter what shape or form it's in, because with all this hate that is happening, how could a little love hurt anyone? It's ridiculous that people refuse to tolerate or at least appreciate gay love when gay people could just as easily write us straight people off as freaks. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I believe that discriminating against people who love differently than you is invalid and superfluous.
God isn't real

You don't get to correct my definition. You specifically stated that I make my claim. So I did. You don't get to have buyer's remorse now. It's my definition. You don't get to tell me how I define my PERSONAL CREATOR. {In abstract form} If you're talking about all gods in general, Then one of your rebuttals should rebuttal my definition, So which one is it. Where's the rebuttal for the god I defined? Okay so you looked up a definition and didn't understand it, What's your point. Real = matches reality Exist = takes up space. If you use type 2 - 4 existence, Then yes real and exist mean the same thing, But then you're really screwed because by that definition literally anything you think up exists including god so I win then too. It doesn't matter what you meant by the title. You placed the title without defining your terms and then said "build off opponent's argument" So you got yourself into this mess. That was actually the point of my definitions if you pay attention to my R1 you'll notice that. My point is that your debate topic is a truism because all things we can imagine are real but simply fictional. Now if you had defined real before the debate, This wouldn't be a problem. But that's not what you did. So faults on you bro. You said "On top of this, I would like to request one thing from you: One piece of evidence to support that "god" (what ever god you choose) is real. " Sure. Just look at my R1 statements, They are set up using logical statements and have valid structure, The definitions match and that makes the conclusion true. You see you think I'm saying that got id actually here with us. I'm not. I'm saying god is not true, But the concept of god is a concept and concepts are real. That's the huge hole in your topic that you didn't realize.