BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Should Send Troops Into Syria

First of all you have to realize that we would not be in danger if Syria or any other country in that region had missiles and tanks. We live across a huge ocean and can easily block any Incoming missiles. Now what you said about conquering the Middle East is ridiculous. We are not in a period of time where countries just go out and conquer other countries, this isn't Ancient Rome. We also stand little to know chance conquering such a large area. Look at what happens when you try and fight a war on enemy soil. Vietnam, we sent huge amounts of soldiers in yet still were forced to retreat out of the country. What do you think would happen if the U.S. just decided to go and try to conquer the Middle East? Other countries would attack us and create WWIII. Most countries would fight against the U.S. because of how large a debt we owe. You also talk about sending a hellfire out to bomb Syria. This would also result in a world war that we could not win. You have to realize that people in the Middle East have no interest in forming a government like ours, what if china invaded the U.S and decided that we would be better as a communist country? Would we just blindly accept? No, the same goes for middle eastern countries. In the end sending troops to Syria is just putting us further in debt to other countries. We would not accomplish anything and could hurt relations with countries around the world.
We Should Send Troops Into Syria

Then what do you suggest? We pull a Egypt and send them guns, missiles, and tanks. Oh yeah good idea, so when they win the battle against Syria they can go off on us. Sounds like a horrible plan! We need to conquer the Middle East. Every last bit of it minus Israel. Go on a full stream of attacks from Egypt to Iran. Otherwise the cycle shall contine. More radicals running around like crazy people firing at other Muslims then Americans. We have to handle this ourselves just like we had to handle the Nazis and Germany. Its time we end this B.S. and go take control of Syria and its Islamic partners. We need to do this now, it will be worth the money...oh and BTW, we just need to cut the stupid stimulus spendings Obama's throwing out, then maybe we we can send a hell fire out their. Trust me, if we want to keep Americans and the world safe, its time to take down the Islamic regimes and establish a free region like America. That is our job, that is what Washington said, we will be here for those that need us, for we were rebels and we won independence...so we shall help those who seek independence. In this case the Catholics, the Jews, the non-radical Muslims out their in the Mid-East. The rebels are radicals too, so i don't support them, but nor do i support the Syrian crazies. Its time to take matter into our own hands.
Steps should be taken to preserve minority and dying languages.

I think you took apart my sections vey nicely, but I have more hard facts to offer up. I like to keep my closing statements short, so lets go for it. I also want to point out that some of your debate was opinion, which was quite interesting but still unneeded. actually more from our favorite cambridge debater! "Language is a type of cultural heritage. We already recognise the right of groups to preserve parts of their history by granting money for museums and the restoration of buildings of historic value. There is considerable cultural capital stored in languages. Understanding a language is often the key to appreciating the full meanings and allusions of a group's heritage; for example, Aboriginal history is predominantly oral. Allowing a language like this to die out would cut off a people from their past." And this is not what we want to do to a society. This is what i meant when I was talking about the culture ebing made orally and by voices. My final point is that the pros for keeping these languages outweighs to cons by a few. Thus proving that it is MORE beneficial to preserve these "Cultures" (haha) than not. Thank you and I await your final argument.
Steps should be taken to preserve minority and dying languages.

Thank you for accepting, Yraelz, and from what I have seen you are quite good. First I would like to bring up one of your points. "multiple languages is always a possibility there are far to many out there to learn Thus the better solution would be to create a global language that only had to be learned once. This would be one step closer to a global government that would take care of people as a whole over our current multiple government system in which each government portrays separate interests and sometimes hurt each other." This passage is slightly confusing, but I understand waht you are getting at. I disagree, because a language is not only a language. It is a culture, something that goes along with a lifestyle. For example, the people that only know Maori do not lead the same lives as those that speak Piraha. The following is research taken from Harriet Jones-Fenleigh, and She is the winner of the 2004 International Mace and 2004 Oxford IV. Harriet has represented Cambridge at the World Universities Debating Championships, as well. Language is a central component of cultural identity. It acts as a binding force and marker of group identities. For example, the definition of "Basque" is "those who speak in the Basque tongue". Likewise, the Roma, who have no land and no clear defining characteristics, rely on their Romany language to maintain a cultural identity. The same is true of the Orang Asli in Malaysia. By helping to forge these communities language contributes to social stability. A shared language aids social cohesion by providing speakers with a ready-made support network. This in turn has been linked with reducing feelings of social dislocation and related problems, such as crime. I completely agree that languages make a culture, and vice versa. I wish to qoute more from her next round, pertaining to your rebuttal. Thank you and good luck.
Steps should be taken to preserve minority and dying languages.

Sure, I will debate you. My advocacy is the opposite of yours. I advocate instead that steps should be taken to create a global language so that all of earth can understand itself. Minority and dieing languages only further the barrier between humans and while only like 7% of human communication is done through speech this is still an extra 7% that is denied many people around the world. While learning multiple languages is always a possibility there are far to many out there to learn Thus the better solution would be to create a global language that only had to be learned once. This would be one step closer to a global government that would take care of people as a whole over our current multiple government system in which each government portrays separate interests and sometimes hurt each other. The benefit of lessening the language divide is much greater than increasing the divide.
Steps should be taken to preserve minority and dying languages.

As i do not want to use up all of my resources, I will keep my opening statement quck and easy. There are hundreds, even thousands of minority languages that are on the decline. The globalization of the communication industry is lending itself to the elimination of smaller, lesser languages, such as france in Canada, or some of the hundreds of tribal languages in the backlands of New Zealand, or the languages in the central amazon river basin. These are all very important things to consider when thinking about the globalization of the communication industry. The point of this debate is to see if anyone will disagree (or accept for the sake of debating) that someone or some body of government should NOT step in and intervene in the preservation of these languages. Thank you and good luck to my challenger.
environmental protection

Nowadays protection of the environment is very important as the world is moving into a new era without considering any of the major problems of pollution with rapid industrialization. The best way to protect the environment is conservation. Conservation is the philosophy and policy of managing the environment to assure adequate supplies of natural resources for future as well as present generations. Tropical forests are being destroyed at an ever-increasing rate. Estimates of the extent and rate of loss vary, but it appears that nearly half of the world?s tropical forests already have been lost, and the remainder will all but disappear in the next two to three decades. The loss is incalculable. These forests provide habitat for an estimated half of the world?s plant and animal species, provide water and fuel for much of the world?s population, and influence regional and global climate.
There is no God. All religions are wrong.

There is probably no god. All religions are probably wrong. "Wrong" being as subjective a quality as any other brain generated concept. You and I may not have been conditioned to accept the existence of a god. However we can no more prove this to be a correct assumption, Just as someone conditioned otherwise cannot prove their assumption to be correct. Presenting such a decisive statement is a dangerous premise. Probability easily negates this premise. I am an atheist who argues in defence of rationality and not in defence of religious theory.
School vouchers are unconstitutional because they go against the separation of church and state.

First, I'm personally undecided on the issue of school vouchers. But this looked interesting. My First contention is this: If parents have to get school vouchers to send their children to religious schools this violates the separation of church and state. People should have the freedom to use religious facilities (mainly schools and churches) without interference by the state. If they are required to get certification from the state then it is no longer separate from the church. Therefore school vouchers are unconstitutional. Second contention: school vouchers are a prerequisite unconstitutionality. Once the state has the power to choose whether or not a student can go to a religious school versus a public school then it has the power to significantly violate the separation of church and state. For example, the state could choose to deny a voucher for a student who wanted to go to a muslim school and then grant vouchers to every student who wanted to go to a catholic school. This would certainly violate the separation of church and state. Rather than giving the state this power we should simply leave parents free to choose which ever school they want. This ensures the separation of church and state. Third Contention: requiring parents to get certification from the state to leave a public school is a violation of the separation. If parents can't get a voucher than their forced to keep their kids in the religiously neutral environment. But the neutral environment is in fact a suppression of religion within students. If students cannot grow up with their religion then they may begin to leave it behind. In this respect voucher programs violate the separation of church and state by suppressing religion. My alternative is that rather than trying to ensure a neutral environment schools should simply let differing faiths co-exist without intervention.
School vouchers are unconstitutional because they go against the separation of church and state.

Some people have claimed that because school vouchers can end up with government funding a child to go to a religious school, it is unconstitutional. I think that this argument is false. Note that I am opposed to school vouchers, but I use arguments other than the one above. I want someone who is against school vouchers for reasons including the one above to accept this debate and defend the point, and a debate will then follow. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. Good luck.
Nuclear power is a good idea

Today, for the first time in his whole presidency, I was severely disappointed in President Obama. He announced over $8b in federal loan guarantees for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in nearly 3 decades, and promised that it was "only the beginning." [1] He claimed that nuclear power would be beneficial to the environment and the economy. However, even in praising, he admitted that it had "serious drawbacks." He said that they would try to remedy that problem by having leaders find a safer and more secure way of storing nuclear waste. I'm going to tell you now. There is no way to permanently and securely store nuclear waste. Furthermore, the more we produce, the more we'll have to store. It doesn't go away. Even if we seem to not be having problems, eventually we will have a bunch of nuclear waste and nowhere to put it. That is horrible. How would you like another Chernobyl? Finally, the president said, "And what I hope is that this announcement underscores both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge — and our willingness to look at this challenge not as a partisan issue, but as a matter far more important than politics." You are completely correct, Mr. President. This is just as bad for Republicans as it is for democrats. You are correct that the environment is far more important than politics (no political issue will matter once we're all dead). So, Mr. President, if you respect the environment, then why are you funding these horrible polluters? I am looking forward to someone taking this debate! 1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
abortion

My post this round will be EXTREMELY short because my opponent hasn't given me much to respond to. My last rebuttal in this debate will be my opponent's contention regarding an adult who has no limbs and/or consciousness should be killed. This is a completely different argument than that of abortion. I'm arguing that it's possible to determine if someone will end up like that when they are still in the womb. If they are yet to be born and they will never develop consciousness it's best to put them out of their misery. I did NOT and will NOT endorse killing a LEGAL person that has already been BORN regardless of consciousness. Since my argument of mental and physical deficiencies was based around morality it was definitely my weakest contention. My illegal abortions and the life of the mother arguments were far stronger, so I understand my opponent's suspicion of the deficiency argument. I would like to thank my opponent one last time for the debate. :) It was fun. Note that I wrote this last round in my iPad so please excuse the rushed fashion that this was written in and any sloppiness regarding sentence structure and grammar. SOURCES http://www.slate.com... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com... http://www.alternet.org... http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...
abortion

hm. thank for the tips- but with the fetus, you said that some babies are born with no lims and some dont even know there alive. well. if a person who doesnt know there alive, but is age 42, is it ok to kill them? no. it is still wrong. as seeing this is the 3rd round. i give thanks for this doing this debate with me. i know i dont have a strong argument, but i am new. thanks for debating with me!
abortion

1- sorry, im am new to this... 1 debate! 2- i am a boy.. back to the debate here is a study done by docters on how many abortions are done-Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2011: 54.5 million+ 234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control) Abortions per year: 1.2 million Abortions per day: 3,288 Abortions per hour: 137 9 abortions every 4 minutes 1 abortion every 26 seconds ---------------------------------------------------------- and when you said it is up to the mother for the abortion. so it is ok to have a abortion( killing you baby) before he/she is born. yet after he/she is born it is not ok? so the mother can just decide to kill there baby. i dont think that is right.
abortion

Her opening arguments were quite brief, so I will keep mine to a minimal as well. I will go far more into depth in the following round. Notes/Tips Some advice I'd like to give my opponent is the following: don't create debates where instigators are con and the contenders are pro. It is meant to be the other way around so I'd suggest rephrasing for your next debate. It makes the decision on who has burden of proof confusing. For now I will have to assume it is shared. Opening Statements In round two I am going to argue that abortion should be permitted in cases where the mother's life is at risk, where the baby will undoubtedly have major physical and/or mental handicaps, and before the fetus develops consciousness and the capacity to feel pain. Another key argument I will make is that the fetus cannot make rational choices, so it is up to the mother, who can make rational choices, to decide the baby's fate before consciousness and brain activity sets into the fetus. I will hand the debate back to my opponent and I would once again like to thank her for instigating this debate. I look forward to a cordial and insightful debate.
abortion

abortion is wrong. and this is how ill prove it! 1- have you ever killed somebody? i hope you all say no. and you know why you didnt kill anybody. its wrong, its evil, and its against the laiw. so wy isnt abortion wrong? its just killing the person before he/she is born. ive heard people say," it isnt wrong to kill it," well guess what! it is a human being not a it... it is not some foreign alien. it is your child that you are murdering. question, if ou would abort it why did you even have it in the first place? you could do millions of things to stop it. of course you could have a good excuse. like my husband left me with the child. well, just becuase he left doesnt mean you make your child die. you cant kill someone just because your in pain. it isnt the childs problem. they will have a life, and you just ruined it for them. shame. it is wrong, i know you readers know it. abortion is another way of saying," i am sad, i am a bad person, i dont want this thing." so dont get a abortion.. its sooo wrong.
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.Anger is a strong passion or emotion of displeasure or antagonism, excited by a real or supposed injury or insult to one's self or others, or by the intent to do such injury. 2.Frustration is not be confused with anger, for it is a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence by a wrong or wrath of and individual or object. 3. According to Aristotle anger changes a person"s feelings and state of mind, because it effects their mental judgement. Therefore in response to your premise (2) anger does force a person to react in response to it since it alters a person"s judgment. 4.Medea is not responsible for killing her children, because she is insane due to the actions of her husband driver her crazy mentally. 5.Medea was compelled to commit the crime of killing her children by an irresistible force of god guidance, making her action become a sacrifice rather than a murder 6.Medea"s husband forced her to kill her children by first frustrating her which led her to the discomforted and motivation of anger causing her mind to seek revenge to plot a plan to save her children from the torture and pain her husband had put her through by killing them before he could to it to them. 7.Medea is not responsible for killing her children, because she did it out of the mental judgement of anger. Angered from her husband"s conspicuous slights, Medea had no choice but kill her children to put them out of the miseries of life she knew they would have had to face and the conspicuous slights from their father. 8.Medea is mad, which means she is not responsible for her action of revenge in sacrificing her children
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.The definition of anger is a strong passion or emotion of displeasure or antagonism, excited by a real or supposed injury or insult to one's self or others, or by the intent to do such injury. 2.Anger gives a person motivation to act upon revenge when slighted, but the action of taking revenge does not have to be physically, just as long as a person is thinking about the revenge. 3. Medea was angry but she could have reacted with the thought of revenge with killing her children and not actually physically kill them 4.The emotion of anger does not have the ability to force anyone to do anything they do not want to do. 5.Medea did not want to kill her children when she saw them, but it was her decision to go through with it making her responsible for their deaths since she knew murdering them was wrong 6.Seneca says, there is nothing useful in anger, and that it is not the solution to solving a problem, for it is only a temporary fix. With that being said killing her children out of angers revenge and spit is not a logical solution. 7.Medea should have chosen to listen to reason, but instead consciously decided to follow through with her vengeful plan. 8.Therefore, Medea is fully responsible for her actions.
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.Madea was basing the murder of her children as a good deed to sacrifice them to god and not to the devil living on earth as she stated. So in this case madea did not commit a sinful murder but a righteous sacrifice of freedom from hell for her children. 2.Sacrificing is an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure. Many religions believe in sacrificing, which is no longer seen as murder but a deed for god. Madea believed she was doing the right thing so she is not guilty of murder but of sacrificing. 3.Madea husband did not have to be physically there to assist her in killing her children, because he was mentally there in her mind. This goes to show that madea is suffering from insanity because the mental abuse from her husband caused her to do what she believed was right in her head.
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.Madea doesn"t have to react off of her subconscious thoughts and judgement. Madea did not have to react of impulse from her brain to kill her children for example: There are a lot of things a person wish they can do or want to but they can"t do it and won"t do it simply because they know it"s wrong. 2.How do we know exactly that madea judgement was based off a good deed? Madea only states that the world is filled with torture and corruption. For all we know madea could be the one putting her children through this torture, by killing them and robbing them of life. 3.Madea decided to take action and murder the kids herself leaving her with the full responsibility of their deaths, which should not go unnoticed or unpunished. Medea"s husband was not physically present in assisting her in the act of the murders. Therefore I stand by my argument that her husband did not force her to murder her children. Madea killed them herself without her husband"s guidance or help making him not guilty and her a murderer 4.Madea took it upon herself to come up with the vengeful plan of murder and is simply using her religious background and hardships of life to make since of it as a form of and excuse 5.Murder in any form is wrong whether it is painful or not. Innocent children did not deserve to die by the hands of their own mother. 6.Madea could have choose a better option in dealing with saving her kills, but she choose to commit a crime and murder them which is wrong.