BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust

I contest each of his arguments: C-1: Let me define "Palestine" more clearly-by this I refer to what is now Israel, the Occupied Territories and Gaza, or the pre-1948 Mandatory Palestine, except for what is now Jordan. There is nothing that prohibits Palestinians born and living within the borders of Israel from runnin for office, voting, etc. , true. However, Israel prohibits by law unification of families. Palestinians in the West Bank possess no say in the Israeli government which rules them, while Jewish settlers to a person automatically possess citizenship, can vote and hold public office. The demographic rise of Palestinians citizens of Israel (or "Israeli Arabs"), with the fact that Palestinians could legally gain majority power if those on the West Bank had the vote, etc. , prevents this. I do not propose this, realizing it would destroy the Israeli people, but advocate two separate, independent, sovereign entities for both. C-2: Allow me to clarify. By the Israeli Foundation I mean just that-how Israel was founded, on what principles, what methods were using in so doing, the stated goals, etc. I do not use the Israeli Government synonymously, although criticize them also. While Israel has a parliamentary democracy, as I stated above, it rules a huge population to which no voice is given, while allowing Jewish settlers on the West Bank this. C-3: I completely reject this argument, while acknowledging that it touches upon the problem. This Biblical and Koranic story has no basis in known history. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have no basis in fact. I should mention that in the Koran it was Ishmael not Isaac Abraham offered in sacrifice, and they believe his descendants (Arabs) were promised the land. Neither of these impresses me. They are not justifications for either side, though used for them. Both sides believe they were given the land by God, much of the reason for such intractable, bitter conflict. I believe that living on and using land gives possession of this. Jews therefore had no claim to land they were expelled from in centuries past, nor right to disposses any resident. Conversely, though unjust in the beginning, the current Israeli residents may not be dispossessed, except where land has been taken by force they benefited personally from (within their own lifetime) referring spefically to house destructions and settlements in the West Bank. I note that my opponent so far has not addressed much of my argument, particularly stated goals of Zionism that involved removing all Palestinians, nor the lack of Palestinian representation, the reality of peace deals, etc. I look forward to hearing more from him.
Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust

Overview: I will look at the resolution in three parts. First, Palestine should be free. Second; the Israeli Foundation. Third; The occupation is unjust. DEFINITIONS: Palestine: a former British mandate on the east coast of the Mediterranean; divided between Jordan and Israel in 1948 an ancient country in southwestern Asia on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea; a place of pilgrimage for Christianity and Islam and Judaism wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn Unjust: unfair: not fair; marked by injustice or partiality or deception; "used unfair methods"; wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn I will reserve the right to define or redefine as necessary in later rounds. C-1: Palestine is already free. There is nothing that prohibits "Palestinians" from residing within the boundaries of what is known as Israel. Israelis allow and encourage "Palestinians" to run for public office. C-2: Due to lack of a definition, I am assuming my opponent is using the terms Israeli Foundation and Israeli Government synonymously. What specifically makes the government of Israel unjust? There are identified parties with identified platforms that compete in elections. C-3: The argument over the land goes back to Sarah & Abraham's sons: Isaac & Ishmael. Isaac's son Jacob was later named Israel. The land in question was given to the children of Israel (Jacob) by the God of the Talmud. The fact that they wish to occupy this land is completely justified because as they see it, it was given to them to possess by the God they recognize as the supreme being. SUMMARY: I will attack my opponent's case further as the need arises. In the eyes of the Jews, Palestine is free, and the government and occupation are just. Thanks
Spiderman would beat Batman

Again I'm so sorry about my time run out, thank you for your patience. Okay to start I'm going to, again, back up the statement of Spiderman's villains proving his advantage. Spiderman has encountered and won many battles in which his smartest, strongest enemies were all fighting together, against him. This is impressive because it shows how he can handle any situation or battle on the spot. Moving on... My opponent stated that Spiderman would likely "make up a plan in the moment" and that is one of the most important skill to have. We all know that Batman can have a plan ahead of time. But what if his plan doesn't work or something goes wrong. Spiderman will have his own plan that he is improvising that can really help him in the long run. Also my opponent used an example of the hob goblin using a gas to eliminate his senses. The reason why this is irrelevant to this debate is because gases don't affect Spiderman's powers unless they are made specifically for Spiderman. And considering that Spiderman is one of a kind and there are no other situations like his that Batman could research off of to create the gas, his argument is weak. The hob goblin could do the research because he has been around Spiderman for so long to obtain the information. But considering that Spiderman and Batman aren't even from the same universe, you could guess Batman doesn't have the same experience with Spiderman as the hob goblin. For the next portion where my opponent counters my statement: "Maybe if he only had one or two out of all of these, it would be easier to eliminate them, but he doesn't only have one or two. He has all." I think he has misunderstood me. I didn't say that he relies on his powers for fighting and winning. My statement meant that it will be unlikely for Batman to eliminate his powers because there are so many that he can use all at one time to prevent Batman from having the opportunity to eliminate them all. The next thing that I would like to say is that even if Batman enclosed Spiderman into a building, he could hide and know where Batman is. He can sneak into a ventilation system and look down on Batman or just in a room or anything. The Spidey sense leaves Spiderman aware of his surroundings when he is in danger. So he would be able to locate Batman easily. Finally my opponent mentions that Batman would be able to keep up with Spidermans slinging along buildings with his Batcopter. In this case, Spiderman could sling onto the Batcopter and fight from there, which he has the advantage because Spiderman is proven to be more agile than Batman, which will help him in a tight space. I understand that this is my last post so I want to say good luck to my opponent. Also for anyone reading and that wants to vote, please vote fairly by the arguments and information we provided, not just because you like one more. Also as my last and final argument, I just want everyone to watch the video I put, it proves Spiderman would defeat Batman. http://www.youtube.com... Thanks again to my opponent and thank you to everyone who read this debate.
Spiderman would beat Batman

To start off, I will review my opponent's arguments and put my thoughts in. 1.) "He is smarter" Batman is a genius, there is no denying it. However you must keep in mind that Peter Parker is a science whiz. Also I would like to point this out. Spiderman's IQ: 250 Batman's IQ: 192 Spiderman also has a great amount of intelligence when it comes to strategic combat as well. That can also be proven in many of his fights against The Rhino, Electro, Venom, The lizard etc.. http://wiki.answers.com... http://wiki.answers.com...'s_IQ 2.) "He has More Resources" Batman has a lot of money and gear, and Spiderman has nothing? Wrong. Spiderman's resources are his powers. Spiderman has super strength, his webs, agility like no other, he can climb anything, his Spidey senses and much more. Those are all in place of Batman's gear and gadgets which makes up for his lack of being rich and having equipment. 3.) " Hand to Hand Combat" Spiderman has hand to hand combat that could beat Batman easily. Spiderman has super strength that makes him stronger than Batman. Also his webs can be used for defensive and offensive combat. Finally, the Main reason of why Spiderman has an advantage in hand to hand combat is because of his Spidey sense. That is like being trained by ninjas times 100. He knows where and when Batman will hit and he can use that to his advantage. I will now post my arguments of why Spiderman is better than Batman: Spiderman: Can climb walls can shoot webs has super strength fights actual super villains has to face the difficulties of being a teenager and young adult gets his girl Batman: Is rich Knows martial arts (very original) Fights crazies and drug dealers Doesn't get his girl Also, anyone can replace Batman if they become super rich and their parents die. However there is only one Spiderman. Good luck, I look forward to your response.
Spiderman would beat Batman

Since my opponent has not specified any ground rules for debate structure, I'm just going to get started now. I believe Spiderman and Batman have certain things in common that would bring them even in a fight, if not for certain things Batman has going for him, that push him past Spiderman in a fight. That is what I will be showing: the things that Batman has better, or is better at, that will allow him to beat Spiderman. 1) He is Smarter Batman is called the Greatest Detective in the World for a reason. Certainly, Batman can get down and brawl if he needs to, but even when he does, he tends to fight with his brains[1]. Many of his fights that he knows will be against a formidable opponent are fights that he makes a plan for. The best example of his plan making abilities that come to my mind are: his fight against the Super Mutant[1], his plans against the JLA[2], and his fight against Superman[3][4]. You will see in all of these his forethought and intelligence in combat. 2) He has More Resources It's obvious, Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, and Peter Parker takes pictures for the newspapers. Batman can whip up whatever he needs for a fight with all of his money, Spiderman can't. 3) Hand to Hand Combat Batman excels at hand to hand combat[5], he was trained by ninjas[6][7]. Spiderman has no combat training. Certainly, Spiderman has super-strength, but Batman has never been incapable of overcoming an opponent who is stronger than him[1][3]. Batman with his intelligence could either plan out a way to get Spiderman into hand to hand combat, or figure it out on the fly. The point is, this is a major weak point for Spiderman in a fight against Batman. I'll bring up more aspects of Batman's fighting abilities after my opponent posts his arguments. Thanks for reading, and enjoy the videos! Sources: [1] . http://www.youtube.com... [2] . http://www.youtube.com... [3] . http://www.youtube.com... [4] . http://www.youtube.com... [5] . http://www.youtube.com... [6] . http://www.youtube.com... [7] . http://www.youtube.com...
Gun control in America.

I would like to debate for gun control in America. I am a firm believer that we need to work towards protecting our citizens, and this idea should outshine all else. The first round is for acceptance only please. As I know this is a very heated debate, remember to keep debates in the debate world and do not let it carry outside of that. Also, a word to voters- please try to put your bias aside and only vote for who made a better case. Thank you.
Islam is not a religion of peace

This is a debate I've had one too many times with family members- not separating culture from actual religious text. For this debate Islam = the Quran, As Quran and the words of Muhammed (which make of the Quran) are the religion. Nowhere in the Quran is FGM mentioned at all - this is, Unfortunately, A cultural issue in various parts of the Muslim world which is terrible and must be stopped (but not part of Islam). Now, In the Quran it DOES mention anti-gay sentiments, And this is unfortunate, But plenty of Muslims have worked their way around that. The fellow Abrahamic religion of Christianity also mentions homosexuality and how it will lead to eternal burning in hell - ". . . Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, Which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, Serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7)" Similar sentiments apply in Judaism - " "[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, It is a תועבה toeba ("abomination")" (Leviticus 18:22)" The stated punishment for willful violation of this is the death penalty, By the way. Is this a flaw? Yes, But something that all of these religions unfortunately share. ISIS waves the Islamic flag, But they don't represent the true principles of Islam- inner and outer peace. Thank you for this debate opportunity by the way, One step closer to my 3 debates required before I vote :)
The muslim extremist need to stop making threats towards depictions of muhammed

The reason Muslims attack cartoonists who draw Muhammed is because we warned people not to. We don't draw our prophets, and we don't want you to do that. Let's look at South Park. Our prophet in a bear costume? It's insulting to me seeing my prophet portrayed as a man in a bear costume. I can't see the Danish cartoonist's drawing because it's part of my religion not to see that. However, the story says that he was asked by his newspaper. Now I'm against violence BUT I am supporting lawsuit or any other sort of action on the newspaper. I see you are saying that because Christians or Buddhists don't get mad over drawings, we shouldn't. I don't see the correlation. Should we obey the other religions? Should we draw our prophets because they drew Jesus or Buddha? I don't see any respect or morals in making fun of another religion's prophet.
The muslim extremist need to stop making threats towards depictions of muhammed

Everyother major religion's prophet can be made fun of except for Islam's prophet, Muhammad. I wouldn't normally say made fun of but in southparks fight to show Muhammad on ComedyCentrals network. The following two videos is part of a two part episode. It shows different celebreties trying to get Muhhamed's "goo" that makes him impossible to be made fun of(1 and 2). But in the third video (which is the uncensered version of kyle's speech at the end) shows that south park is admitting that the only reason why comedy central did not show muhammad or speech his name is because south park was threatened by violence. They say that the muslims dont do that because of their ability to create violence. The muslims even threatened south park afterward because they showed muhammad in a bear costume. And it didn't even end up being muhammad, it was santa. In another instance, a danish cartoonist did his job by drawing muhammad and later on got attacked with an axe.(4) thats not right. I garauntee you that if that was jesus or buddha he would have been concidered a great cartoonist. This is my point exactly, innocent people who are doing nothing but their job creating a little laugh on a saturday morning get killed because Muslim extremist can't accept seeing muhammad. (1)http://pollystreaming.com... (2)http://pollystreaming.com... (3)http://m.liveleak.com... (4)http://www.theguardian.com...
The muslim extremist need to stop making threats towards depictions of muhammed

I saw a comment and I thought I clarified this at first. I'm not in anyway saying that violence should be used towards depictions of our Prophet. I am arguing that a violent reaction is natural. A society has its short-tempered and patient, crazy and sane, peaceful and violent. So you ought to not give those people an excuse to be violent in the first place. You see what happens everyday but you still ignore reality hoping that someday they will "change". While I'm just sitting here waiting for you to learn the lesson.
The muslim extremist need to stop making threats towards depictions of muhammed

You don't see anything wrong with drawing Jesus or Buddha. But we don't have to be the same as you. It's a matter of respect. Why do you draw the prophet of some people who don't want you to draw him? "People have the right to free speech in america. Americans can say whatever due to the first ammendment" First of all, these are man-made laws. Meaning that people can change the rules to their likings. If you are granted the right to free speech, you don't abuse it. The same way you are allowed a car but you aren't allowed to abuse it. "South park would not have of drawn muhammad in a bear costume if it was ok to draw him normally." Well maybe you shouldn't draw him anyway. Change the script. Everyone knows what happened to the Danish painter and what an extremist did to him. Why repeat the same thing? "The main reason why south park peobably did that was to show that they are not scared of muslim extremists and their weapons." If you want to challenge someone. Don't complain because he reacted. You claimed they challenged the extremists. Same rule applies.
The muslim extremist need to stop making threats towards depictions of muhammed

As a christian, i do not draw jesus. I dont want anyone else to draw him. But it still happens. People have the right to free speech in america. Americans can say whatever due to the first ammendment. But muslim extremist are taking that away just as violently as they took away the twin towers. South park would not have of drawn muhammad in a bear costume if it was ok to draw him normally. On a different episode were they were about to show muhammad. But he got cencered out (obviously). So afterward south park said that he was normal and that it wasnt so bad to show him. (1)If you dont support violence, then why are the extremist creating violence and threating people. Christians, buddhist, mormons, etc get just as mad as muslims when they see their prophet (south park had the Buddha snorting cocaine for goodness sakes) but they do not create unnececary violence. If they want that to never happen again they will do peaceful protests. The main reason why south park peobably did that was to show that they are not scared of muslim extremists and their weapons. (1)http://pollystreaming.com... (19:40-20:40 should do, but you can resf of it)
should we continue to fund NASA

I affirm the resolution for 2 reasons 1) NASA Is cheap 2) NASA provides imesurable benefits for the US contetion 1) the US spends about " a percent of its 3.4 trillion dollar budget on NASA to put that in perspective that about half a penny of every tax dollar. So we are not going to solve our 16 trillion dollar deficit by cutting NASA we won"t even make a measurable dent but to top that off where already spending 10 times less than we did during the height of the Apollo program so cutting NASA for economic benefits simply doesn"t make sense. contetion 2) NASA provides the US with benefits diporpotinate to it's cost benefit 1- NASA Provides us with essential information about our world and the universe. Beyond advancing human knowledge which I think is a worthy goal in its own right NASA has given us vital information such as knowledge of global warming by studying other planets such as Venus. benefit 2- NASA tracks asteroids that pose a threat to are very existence and formulates plans to prevent these asteroids from hitting earth. benefit 3- NASA tracks solar flares that may pose a threat to our satellites or even are entire electric grid. benefit 4- NASA creates practical consumer goods let"s take a look at all the things we wouldn"t have if it were not for NASA. Microwaves, laser surgery, UV sunglasses, GPS, advanced solar panels, advanced thermometers and the list goes on benefit 5- NASA might actually pay for itself- recent study actually found that from 1966-1981 there was 181 billion dollars" worth of sales as a result of NASA inventions that"s money that"s being taxed and actually helping to pay for NASA"s already miniscule funding. thus i negate the notion that the US should cut off funding for NASA
Euthanasia

Cancer isn't always even deadly. In fact I know someone who was expecting to die from brain cancer, whose cancer is going into remission. I am religious, but for the sake of this argument (For which most people for euthanasia are not religious) I will be arguing from a secular point of view. Even if it was, or we are talking something with truly no chance of survival, death isn't a cure. Death doesn't stop pain. Death just ends it all on a low point and is an abandonment of any hope. If someone is dying or in pain, then I would argue because it is new pain the individual isn't in the proper state of mind to make a decision regarding their own life, and it is certainly not fair to the individual to let someone else decide.
Euthanasia

Honey, really, my opinion on almost everything stems from the same basic thing that I am bored to explain right now. In short(sorry to disappoint you, figured I could answer even in short), there should be some seeeerious checks for people to be able to do this if they are not in extreme physical or emotional pain. I don't know if you are religious but I will suppose you aren't because I am reaaally bored of stating obvious reasons that counter your religion-related beliefs for euthanasia, if you don't connect them and are religious, great. So I was saying those things, but let's suppose we have an 80 yo granpa that has, dunno, cancer or sth, and he's 80 yo okay, he's lived his life pretty much right? Wrong, physical state has nothing ro rather CAN have nothing to do with your mind, or even soul or however you call that unmaterial thing we are supposed to have, though nobody can really prove it, but even without that, you got your mind and your imagination and your wants, you don't just click a button at some age and cancel will and wants and needs(not physical ones). For myself, as much as I know that I am pretty suicidal, if I ever reached that age and only improved mentally or stayed the same(prob not), even seeing the sun would be worth it, I'd die in the end anyway. But being the suicidal person that I am, I wouldn't really want ANY responsibilities because I won't care if the sun is worth it then. Get my point? Every case can be so extremely different or similar and no doctor or psychologist or whateeever(haven't researched whether psychologists are considered doctors without the whole doctor-of-the-soul thing) or doctors can ever be sure of the real deep want of any person to decide whether this 80 yo granpa that has cancer indeed doesn't want to watch the sun 'till he dies, even if his daughter hates him because she was mind-washed by a probably racist or sth phobic in general guy(just a senario). And nobody can say he's in pain so let's help him die. Because of what I said, that is. You can never be sure about anything, that is the base of all my opinions that I won't analyze. You can't even prove logic, 'cause you surely can't use logic to prove logic. So basically I am proobably against it but I will probably never be able to simply justify it or justify it with strong reasons completely. I might be for it too. I don't know enough stuff, I don't have the info, you get me? So I would like to hear your opinion and be aware that I have never talked about this issue, only heard and thought of it. I am not For Euthanasia, I have this opinion and it doesn't match with both sides, sorry.