BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Today, the Syrian side of the Syrian civil war is more justified

I will of course be arguing pro Syrian government. Now first let's get the sides out of the way. On Syria's government side we of course have Syria. There is also Russia and Iran supporting them. On the rebellion's side, we have ISIS and the rest of the free Syrian army. They are being supported by America and much of its allies. Now I will admit one thing. At the beginning of this war I was pro rebellion. However then I learned. I learned that Assad is a necessary evil in this war. The true evil is ISIS. The largest terrorist network in the world with an army stronger than many countries. They claim to be good, but are almost anything but in many people's eyes. Recording executions of people who refuse to become Sunni, and then posting it online. Assad is at the very worst is a threat to a few Middle Eastern countries. ISIS, at the very worst, is a threat to the world. Assad causes many deaths in a country. ISIS causes many deaths and has the potential to cause many deaths globally. They have killed people beyond countries they own. They kill Americans, they kill Franks, they kill Egyptians, and they have and will kill more given the chance. Its not just ISIS that is doing wrong, Some people who escape Syria claim the women were harassed by the rebels, the rebels were robbing markets instead of fighting. Also the western countries aren't even doing their jobs right. America tries to train Syrian rebels, but in reality does practically nothing and wastes money better used elsewhere. They aren't even united at the moment. While the US and other countries are supporting Iraqi Kurds, Turkey is bombing them. As allies America didn't even choose a good side to help fight ISIS. Those Kurds aren't the best bunch of people. So the western side of the war pointlessly tries to stop ISIS, Iraqi Kurds, and Assad at the same time. ISIS claims It is bringing order to Syria and Iraq. However they are doing in in a morally wrong way. Killing non-Sunni's while recording their deaths on video camera is not how you you bring order efficiently or morally good. What would be more morally good is to kill them if they believe they are a threat to them. People who aren't your specific religion are not a threat automatically. So the rebellions biggest asset, does many unnecessary immoral acts. At least some of Assad's immoral acts were a bit more necessary. http://time.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Today, the Syrian side of the Syrian civil war is more justified

Counter argumentsPro has made justified claims against ISIS in their first argument. As I mentioned however, the vast majority of human right violations come from governmental forces, not the rebels. As I stated in my previous argument, the Rebels don't have the cleanest record. There is misbehavior of some rebels here and there, but there are many rebels who have not done these acts. Even so, they are the most justified side in the civil war, ISIS and the Assad regime have done much more attrocities. Due to this, it is the best reason to support the Free Syrian Army in fighting ISIS. I am unsure about what Pro is implying in their 2nd paragraph, the west has in fact used effective training to strengthen the Free Syrian Army. One country that isn't as powerful as USA, France and UK bombing the Kurds should not be much of an issue. Since me and Pro seem to be in agreement against ISIS, I will not refute his final argument. Counter-counter arguments1-2. While peaceful protests can certainly turn violent and go wrong, the excessive government force used by the Assad regime is taking it too far. They have used military force and killed or used weapons against their own people over protests. This excessive force is not at all needed, and it's only going to lead out to more protests from this oppression. Paranoia can't justify what the Assad regime is doing, saying a word against the government will lead to one getting killed. 3. While it is true that the US tortures people, the US does so a lot less. Many torture victims in US prisons are usually terrorists whom have been plotting severe terrorism. The Syrian government has been known to torture people over things as little as speaking against the government, and it does so much more often. While the Free Syrian Army captures people and does use torture occasionally, it does so to a much lesser extent. According to amnestyusa. org and hrw. org, the vast majority of torture and other human rights violations came from the Syrian government. 4. As I mentioned before, the government is using excessive force. While a more authoritarian government might be used during times like a violent civil war, the Syrian government is taking it much too far. There is no need to arrest or kill people over the smallest things, it is not a major threat to national security if people critic the government here and there. The oppressiveness of the Assad Regime has been the main reason for the syrian rebels and ISIS rising up. 5. While the rebellion may have been responsible for ISIS invading Syria, it is important to note that it began in Iraq. The rebellion from the Syrian government is justified due to the oppressiveness I have explained in my previous argument.
Today, the Syrian side of the Syrian civil war is more justified

Now I will begin my rebuttal. 1. Of course people are fleeing. It's a war! If your country is undergoing a civil war and you don't want to fight, wouldn't you want to get out of there until peace is restored? I know I would get out of there. Along with my point. If there is a war, humans get paranoid. Peaceful protest don't stay peaceful always, look at Ferguson. Paranoia causes people to panic and do things they normally wouldn't do. 2. Same as I said before, peaceful protest usually don't stay peaceful and it doesn't take much for a peaceful protest to go violent. Also, The Free Syrian army also captures people and holds them for ransom. There was even a video uploaded on Facebook about that! 3. Let me say something, the US tortures people. Do you hear it every day when someone talk about politics on the news? No. Do the rebels torture people? Yes. As much as Assad does, we don't know. 4. They have a reason to do so. When half your country has been taken over you do anything to prevent the rest from falling. 5. The main reason ISIS popped up is because of this rebellion. This makes ISIS look better giving people a reason to go to join them Good argument, you may start to sway me a bit. http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.nytimes.com...
Eleventh and Twelfth grade should be earned.

"My opponent cannot deny that being on a military base or with other military personelle where there is possible access to weapons is not more dangerous for a troubled child to be in then a classroom in a school where there is not a gun allowed within 100 feet. " First off allow me to define troubled. I, and maybe others, are confusing troubled with emotional problems. Troubled - A cause or source of distress, disturbance, or difficulty. "Military schools are most appropriate for children and teenagers who do not have any underlying emotional or behavioral problems. " Yes they are within weapons most of the time but not with ammo. While on bases within the states Military Police are the only people with loaded guns, also which is considered a moderate risk. The only time these young individuals would be using a gun would be boot camp. Boot camp is meant to teach these kids the discipline they need in order to be able to handle any such responsibility they encounter including handling a gun. As to the classroom connection you are partially correct. Yes the guns are not allowed within the school limits but it does happen. Such examples as Columbine. My opponent said, "Please elaborate on how this is a more rewarding way for tax payer's money to be spent on. " A student who leaves a publicly funded educational establishment with nothing more than a diploma because the staff did not want to deal with the student is a waste of funds. Such students also who waste time of teachers and students and disturb the learning process are a waste of funds. Such students, again, hurt others ability to learn. While in the Military such students can be of use by reasonable means as ordered by their superior. The title of this debate is Eleventh and Twelfth grade should be earned. As I have mentioned in my opening argument; Questionable about their learning: Blatant disregard to fellow students and staff. Fail to do any work even when helped is offered by staff. Constantly interrupt the teachers dug lessons. Constant refusal to do anything productive within their environment. My opponent brings up a point of pacifism. Certainly a person who is pacifist will not fit in any of those problems above. He has also brought up the points of religion. According to their teachings, if followed, than those students would not fall into this category. The bases of the argument is that students that are questionable about their learning and their attitude be sent off to the Military.
Eleventh and Twelfth grade should be earned.

I asked my opponent why giving troubld children a stake in national security will solve anything. My opponent responded with: As I mentioned," There are certain restrictions I would propose such as they are NOT allowed to go into combat or near it and any job that is considered high risk. " End result being that are more responsible for maintenance or even janitor duties. My opponent cannot deny that being on a military base or with other military personelle where there is possible access to weapons is not more dangerous for a troubled child to be in then a classroom in a school where there is not a gun allowed within 100 feet. //"You are correct by saying that public funds also go to the Military. Public funds also go to housing inmates on petty charges that cost more than a child's education. [1]"// This is simply a red herring. This debate is not regarding whether people should be detained for petty crimes but whether or not people should be sent off to the military for behavioral problems. //"One way or another these students will cost the tax payers money but which choice is more rewarding to the people paying the bill. Clearly I argue that the Military offers a much more worth while end result."// Please elaborate on how this is a more rewarding way for tax payer's money to be spent on. I would also like to brig up another point against my opponent's plan. It is the issue of pacifism. Many religios such as Buddhism or Christianity can be interpreted to mean that one musts commit to absolute pacifism. This means that they cannot commit a single act of violence or asist anyone who commits a single act of violence. Forcing one to jon the military can contradict their philosophical and religious beliefs and thus violates the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" As you can see forcing one to assist the military in any way is a violation of the Constitution and is thus illegal. I now pass the debate back to my opponent.
Eleventh and Twelfth grade should be earned.

Also would like to apologize for not stating, yes I am referring to the American school system. "My opponent says that if a student does not take school seriously then putting them in the military and consequently giving them a stake in this nation's national security will fix the problem. " I see where you are going with this statement. The Military is not only a national security position but it is also a job. As crucial the Military is to our security it is not reliant on a single person. Their job within the Military determines their part in national security, to an extent in my suggestion. As I mentioned," There are certain restrictions I would propose such as they are NOT allowed to go into combat or near it and any job that is considered high risk. " End result being that are more responsible for maintenance or even janitor duties. "My opponent believes that giving a problem child a stake in the U. S. military, which is publicly funded just like the public school system, will somehow take the burden off of the American taxpayer. " You are correct by saying that public funds also go to the Military. Public funds also go to housing inmates on petty charges that cost more than a child's education. [1] One way or another these students will cost the tax payers money but which choice is more rewarding to the people paying the bill. Clearly I argue that the Military offers a much more worth while end result. There are, in the Marines, eighty different job types and that is not including sub positions in those jobs. [2] At first glance that may seem small but the Marines are meant to be the smallest branch and they employ which is approximately 180,000. "My opponent has yet to show why taking troubled children out of the educational system and giving them a stake in national security will solve anything. " Correct I have failed to provide aqueduct information towards nation security. Below will explain more. "Military schools are most appropriate for children and teenagers who do not have any underlying emotional or behavioral problems. " [3] Students without emotional problems, as elaborated on in cite three, assist in their discipline. Discipline is one of the crux's of my argument not nation security. Yes nation security is always a concern but young students would not be on the front lines or any other high risk areas, I would also take the liberty and say Intel job would be off limits. [1]. http://www.insidehighered.com... [2]. http://www.aspeneducation.com... [3]. http://usmilitary.about.com...
Eleventh and Twelfth grade should be earned.

My opponent brings up some good points as solutions for children who are clearly a drain on the public education system. Below I will quote my opponent's proposed solution and refute it. I also assume my opponent is talking about American public school as when one looks at his profile it says he is from the U.S. I would also like to wish my opponent the best of luck on his first debate. My opponent's resolution of which he is defending. "The bases of the argument is that students that are questionable about their learning and their attitude be sent off to the Military." I accept my opponent's definition of questionable students. My opponent says that if a student does not take school seriously then putting them in the military and consequently giving them a stake in this nation's national security will fix the problem. //"Such students are a liability to other students who wish to further themselves but are being held back. By sending them off to the Military they can be taught discipline and skills according to the job they get in service."// My opponent believes that giving a problem child a stake in the U.S. military, which is publicly funded just like the public school system, will somehow take the burden off of the American taxpayer. Taxpayers already pay over 655 billion dollars every year on the military budget not including veteran benefits or the "war on terror"[1] My opponent has yet to show why taking troubled children out of the educational system and giving them a stake in national security will solve anything. [1]http://www.warresisters.org...
Eleventh and Twelfth grade should be earned.

From my personal experience in the Education system I am quite certain eleventh and twelfth grade where useless to others and myself time. To add insult to injury to the current system most students I have interacted with not only think the same way but completely neglect the resources to learn and just sit back and wait for the timer to run out. For me I started sitting back during those last two years and ever since it has impacted me and made me careless. The staff at the school I have attend know who these students are and I am certain teachers all around can spot those such students. Students like myself contributed nothing to the class room and only cost the tax payers money without the people getting their worth. Those students that embrace the education system should be allowed to further their learning career in any manner they wish. The bases of the argument is that students that are questionable about their learning and their attitude be sent off to the Military. Questionable about their learning: Blatant disregard to fellow students and staff. Fail to do any work even when helped is offered by staff. Constantly interrupt the teachers dug lessons. Constant refusal to do anything productive within their environment. Such students are a liability to other students who wish to further themselves but are being held back. By sending them off to the Military they can be taught discipline and skills according to the job they get in service. There are certain restrictions I would propose such as they are NOT allowed to go into combat or near it and any job that is considered high risk. They could be useful in other jobs throughout the Military. Two years of Military service would also provide for a much larger job base for those with no skills such as private security. Those that embrace it could get skills that may assist in other areas of work and further their lives. High level education should be earned not given. Give to much than it may be taken advantage of and mocked.
The Bible Says Plainly that Homosexuality is a Sin

When someone kills another human being, who determines it to be a sin. For example: If a soldier defends his country and kills other men, is this a sin? If a man kills another man for no reason is this a sin? What about if a father kills a crazy man to defend his children? What about the death penalty, do the people killing the offender also committ a sin? The bible may clearly state that killing is a sin, however are all these instances sins? Do all soldiers go to hell? It saddens me that throughout the history of Christianity, fellow christians have been attempting to play the role of God with their condemnations of others actions. While I'm sure my opponent can display very accurate quotations suggesting that homosexuality is a sin, I ask her to remember the parable of Jesus and the whore. A local whore was about to be stoned by a group of villagers. Jesus intervened saying "Let him who hath not sinned cast the first stone" Obviously there is only one person who has not sinned, and only one judge up in heaven. Some Christians seem to be under the delusional notion that it is there job to judge the living and the dead. Unfortunately there is no human except Jesus who has the power and responsibility to declare an action a sin. Things you nor I can possibly comprehend go into judging whether an act is a sin. Personally I think it is rather ridiculous that we as humans feel that we can judge whether something is a sin based on the Bible. The Bible wasn't written to be a rule book. If you have the slightest perception that it is such than you are blind. The Bible is a tool left behind so that we may more easily follow God's will in our lives. It is more a personal book for everyone who reads it rather than a list of rules for other christians to condem people with. Homosexuality cannot be judged to be a sin by anyone other than God at judgement day. Not by Christians who so pompously judge others when they ignore the faults that lay within themselves. It is for God and God alone to determine sin, not humans.
The Bible Says Plainly that Homosexuality is a Sin

On reading my profile, one would observe that I have debated this topic several times in the past. I enjoy debating this topic mainly because I feel very strongly that homosexuality is a plague to society, that it is one of the cancers that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and that it can do nothing good for this country save aid in its destruction. It pains me enough to see society accepting this minority as perfectly normal, but what most baffles me is that and increasingly large number of people claiming the name "Christian" also openly support homosexuality. Frankly this appals me. The Bible could not be more plain in stating its condemning laws concerning homosexuality, and I am more than willing to prove it. Remember, this debate is strictly scriptural. I am not, and will not debate what will be accepted according to the culture, or what should be accepted according to the laws of the land. I am debating whether or not the God, in the Bible, condemns homosexuality as a sin. I will ask no forgiveness for the way I speak concerning homosexuality. I am commanded to love all people, and have no problem loving homosexuals as individuals created in the image of God, but I despise the sin of homosexuality, and in no way will I ever look on it lightly. Thus, in speaking sharply against homosexuality I speak only against the sin. Thanks! Renzzy
iPhone's are made by Apple

What did you just say about me? I"ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I"ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I"m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fvck out. I have precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with saying that sh1t to me over the Internet? Think again, fvcker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. Youre fvcking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and thats just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable @ss off the face of the continent, you little sh1t. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fvcking tongue. But you couldn't, and now you're paying the price, you g0d@mn idiot. I will sh1t fury all over you and you will drown in it. Youre fvking dead, kiddo.
iPhone's are made by Apple

Firstly you placed a random apostrophe in iPhone's (it is meant to be iPhones) I also think it's important to realise that what you meant to say was officially they make them. you have no evidence that for Blackberry's personal research they didn't make thousands of iPhones (but never sold them) for the purpose of understanding the technology and how to manipulate it.You failed to meet your burden of proof that all iPhones are made by Apple.
I'm SO Misunderstood!

Well, you may think that you are misunderstood, but I have respect for you. Completely because you have been upfront with your opinions. From what you have said, i say that it is understandable for what happened to you. When I joined ddo, \i lost my first three debates (I think...). But I like it so much that I decided not to abandon DDO.You say that you are misunderstood but that is subjective. I can disprove to you by saying that I do not misunderstand you. You are perfectly clear to me. You have done nothing wrong.P.s.To voters,If you look in the comments, my opponent says that he doesnt want to do this debate anymore.Ergo,Vote Me!!!