BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2016.

My opponent claims that I have not substantiated my claim that corporations have not taken control of the American government. I would argue that I have but I will lay out as much evidence as I can here. How the System WorksCorporate Personhood Corporate personhood is the result of a supreme court decision to allocate the same rights (but not the same liabilities) given to humans to corporations [1]. Corporate personhood means that a corporation can donate money to politicians through lobbyists [2].Citizens UnitedCitizens united allows for unlimited money to be spent by people (and thereby corporations) in there lobbing efforts, this means that corporations can effectively buy off politicians [3].Dark MoneyCorporations can now hide the money they are sending to politicians through lobbyists by hiding it in so called charitable entities, this is commonly known as dark money [4] Results In large parts because of this US politicians have been constantly performing favours to those who can pay them legalised bribes in the form of lobbing. A good example of this was the keystone pipeline where over a million dollars was spent in "lobbing" efforts targeted at individual politicians [5].How Hillary Clinton Relates to thisI don't think there is any doubt that Hillary Clinton is a corporatist, for a start she has started to model herself on the republican candidates especially in relation to Crimea where she compared Putin to Hitler [6]. Hilary Clinton has attempted to put herself to the far right of the democrat party and does support the status quo of legalised bribes [7] [8] [9] [10].Rebuttal QualificationsI actually agree which much of what you are saying here, yes Hillary Clinton is probably the most qualified candidate in the 2016 election but let me ask you the question: Can a candidate be suitable for office based solely on qualifications? Hillary Clinton seems to be a supporter of many of Obama's policies which have caused massive problems because Obama has been so hesitant to push forward important changes [11].Foreign PolicyYou say that Hillary Clinton "promoted American ideals and values that restored international faith and trust in the United States" I don't know if this is really true, under Hilary Clinton the abuses that lead to the Snowdon revelations were taking place [12] which stretched foreign relations [13] and I doubt foreign heads of state would take her seriously. [1] http://reclaimdemocracy.org...[2] http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu...[3] http://www.buffalonews.com... [4] http://billmoyers.com...[5] http://www.bloomberg.com... [6] http://www.theguardian.com... [7] http://www.marketwatch.com...[8] http://californiamwananchi.blogspot.co.uk...[9] http://thehill.com...[10] http://nader.org...[11] http://www.newyorker.com... [12] http://techpresident.com... [13] http://www.chathamhouse.org...
Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2016.

RebuttalsI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I appreciate his argument and I will now rebut it. I will also make a few additional arguments. I would first like to rebut my opponent's "corporatism" argument. He claims that "[t]he biggest problem in this country is how the corporations more or less control the government." I would like to make my opponent aware that he has not yet provided sufficient evidence to support this claim. I do not believe his evidence to be enough and therefore encourage him to elaborate on his point. Also, there is no evidence to support that Hillary Clinton has anything to do with this. My opponent's final sentence is a sentence fragment for it is incomplete. It is grammatically incorrect and therefore it is invalid. Once my opponent makes stronger arguments, I can make stronger rebuttals. I await his response.
Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2016.

Main Argument CorporatismThe biggest problem in this country is how the corporations more or less control the government, in 2010 there was 3.51 billion dollars spent by lobbyists buying politicians [1] because of supreme court decisions such as corporate person hood and bills like citizens united. Hillary Clinton has been a proponent of corporations slowly taking over the government and helped them along, marketwatch. com says:"The two camps are the “corporatists,” ably represented by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their entourage, who have largely shaped the policies of the Obama administration, and the “populists,” whose current champion is Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. " [2]With the highest ever spending by lobbyists and corporations [1] (this source still applies here) including hidden money sent through "charitable" funds [3]. In fact many controversial projects such as the keystone pipeline were passed only because of lobbing efforts supported by establishment democrats like Clinton [4]. Stopping Other CandidatesIf Clinton runs other smaller candidates whose views more represent that of the american population such as Warren [5] as she has the majority backing of the sponsers and the current regime. [1] . http://www.financialsense.com... [2] . http://www.marketwatch.com... [3] . http://www.naturalnews.com... # [4] . http://www.bloomberg.com...[5] . http://www.ontheissues.org... (bearing in mind this guy was elected with the majority vote on these promises even if he failed to fulfill them, Obama ran on a platform of change which was accepted by the american people).
Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2016.

I look forward to debating this topic with him and I am enthusiastic about the arguments he may have. I will make my main argument in the section below and I will site all of my sources using the MLA format, as stated in the rules. I would like to remind my opponent of this rule and I would like to make the voters aware of this too. Without further ado, let's begin. Main Argument Hillary Clinton, as you have already acknowledged, is a qualified woman. You stated that there are better candidates. I would like to see you tell me of these people in the arguments to come. Of the Democratic Party, I could see Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, two very qualified people, running for the office of President. I do believe, however, that Hillary Clinton is more qualified and that she is what we so desperately need. First of all, we desperately need a female president. The nation, whether you accept it or not, still has a spirit of sexism within it. We can overcome this spirit by electing a qualified, strong, reasonable woman to the presidency. We cannot ignore what occured regarding Benghazi. However, this event is overcome by all of Clinton's accomplishments in her career. First, she was the First Lady of the United States of America; the wife of one of our greatest Presidents. When she was in the Senate, she endorsed bills that will ensure 9/11 relief, promoted safety, passed resolutions in order to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site, "to establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program, and to recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. " Economically, Hillary Clinton didn't do much in her Senate career. However, when she was First Lady, she was a very active woman and endorsed her husband's policies. Bill Clinton's policies, you cannot deny, were great and positively influenced our economy and our country. I am not Conservative by any means, but some of the policies from the Clinton era would positively influence the economic issues we have today. Hillary Clinton, who is very qualified, would ensure a comeback of these policies and innovation, growth, and reform in order to create, what Lyndon B. Johnson called, "The Great Society. " When Clinton was Secretary of State under Barack Obama, she promoted American ideals and values that restored international faith and trust in the United States that was destroyed during the administration of George W. Bush. She did a great job at diplomacy and foreign policy was much better than it once was. She promoted economic programs, proposed by President Obama, that greatly benefitted us. I could go on and on about the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton, but I believe I have made sufficient arguments to support my claim. Therefore, I will close this argument now and enthusiastically await my opponent's opening argument. MLA Citations "5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State Tenure. " PolicyMic. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.policymic.com...>. "Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments. " Buzzle. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.buzzle.com...;
Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2016.

I will argue that Hillary Clinton should run for President in the 2016 Presidential Election. I believe she is a qualified, resilient woman who would be a magnificent Commander-in-Chief. I look forward to debating anyone who disagrees with my view.The debate structure will be the following: Round One: Acceptance & Stating Your StanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Final Rebuttals / ConclusionI will implement a few crucial rules into this debate:1. Sources, if any, must be cited.a. MLA will be the only acceptable format in this debate.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.a. Occasional errors will be acceptable.3. Proper conduct will be utilized. a. There will be no trolling.b. There will be no forfeitting.I look forward to this debate.
Reindeers are better than people.

Rebuttal's: 1--The point of them moving their heads is because they can use they antlers dexterously providing for the better defence. 2--A human is not going to be able to beat a reindeer in a race assuming the reindeer is motivated to do so. And there is no way a person is going to catch up to a reindeer. The only reason being is that they get to an safe distance then let their guard down and that is when humans sneak up and kill them. 3--In their natural environment reindeer very, very rarely get stuck in small spaces. 4--reindeer use their instinct constantly, therefore it is much better. And humans use reasoning instead of instinct. 5--the environment was doing fine regulating itself until humans. It takes an outside force (humans) to ruin it therefore reindeer aren't capable of doing so. And about your family emergency it is completely fine, you are excused. (hope everyone is ok)
Reindeers are better than people.

Humans can "move their heads easily" just the same as reindeer can, if not easier due to the lack of antlers on a human skull. According to Popular Mechanic's website, "Compared to other land mammals, humans are remarkably good at running long distances. Very few other animals can sustain such distances, especially at the speeds that top human athletes perform." I will provide the link to the mentioned website at the end of this argument. Antlers can also cause many problems for reindeer. Antlers prevent reindeer from entering many small spaces that humans can easily fit into, thus allowing humans to avoid predators (the few that we have) if needed by hiding, compared to reindeer having only the option to run away from their many predators (and don't forget, reindeer can't even run as well as humans can). Humans rely on instinct more than you would think. Many basic actions and reactions to situations in everyday human life come from adaptations from our basic instincts. I agree that humans are ruining the environment, but reindeer are also capable of doing this. Overpopulation and a lack of predators in an area can allow a large group of reindeer to turn a lush, grassy area into a sandy desert. I apologize for not providing a round 2 argument, I had a family emergency that took up most of my time and focus and this website got pushed to the side.
Reindeers are better than people.

Whatever it is forgivable. And don't worry i knew what i was doing when i made this debate. I will be the first of many challenges for you. 1---ignorance is bliss 2---humans are making a mess of the earth 3---reindeer are biologically superior. 1::they don't have high stress, intelligence, or regrets. Its hakuta matata for them. They don't have to get to work each day. They don't need government. They can sleep in as long as they want to, and the outdoors are thier home they don't mind rain or laying down in dirt or mud it's all the norm' for them. Do you want to be able to run and rest all you want all day every day? They do and it isn't boring fir them they are used to it, they don't expect anything else in their routine. They are as happy as can be as long as we aren't taking their land. They don't need the joy of opposable thumbs. 2::humans are sorta jerks, we are destroying the environment and we are building things everywhere, reindeer don't do that. Global warming, deforestation, acid rain, exhaustion of resources, depletion of the ozone layer, and hunting to extinction are all examples of human fault. 3::if we take the features of a reindeer and human we can see for everything exept intelligence reindeer exell in. a. Antlers b. Speed c. Defense d. Maneuvering e. Instincts f. Strength a. --they can use antlers to attack, they extend far. b. --reindeer are much faster. c. --reindeer can move their head easily and jab plus they also can get on their hind legs and kick with the front. d. --reindeer are made for running and jumping over things, they can also turn quickly. e. --they naturally use and rely on instinct as humans do not, We can trust them but don't use them regularly. f. --reindeer run and walk a lot more than we do plus they bar bigger and require more muscle in the first place. Therefore based on points 1, 2, and 3 reindeer are infact better than people.
Reindeers are better than people.

There are several reasons why being a reindeer is inferior to being a human. Let me start off with some achievements that humans have made that reindeer are not capable of doing, along with some basic features that make humans superior. I will begin with basic features. 1. Opposable Thumbs. Reindeer never have and never will be able to experience the joy of having not just four wonderful phalanges attached to their palms, but also a fifth digit that enables humans to grasp things with great ease. Reindeer hooves have no similar feature. Thumbs are an incredibly useful part of the human body that give humans a large advantage over reindeer. 2. Adaptability. Of course, reindeer have adaptability as well, enabling them to survive cold winters with little food. They do not, however, have the great capacity to adapt in as many ways as humans have. Humans are among the only species in the world that are capable of changing the environment around them. This is not always a good aspect, but it does provide many advantages. Humans are the only species that can survive literally anywhere in the world, thanks to the great invention of shelters, heating and cooling units, high-technology devices, etc. Now let us see some achievements of the human race. 1. Humans have understanding of the world around them. We question things, we want to learn more about the world around us, we desire to know more about our surroundings. This leads to innumerable great advances in our society. Reindeer, on the other hand, do not strive to make things better- they eat grass and appear in the occasional holiday commercial. 2. Humans have invented things. I need not even elaborate on what things we have invented, because invention in itself is something that reindeer are not capable of, save for the occasional tree being used as a scratching post. Humans have of course created some terrible things like bombs, weapons of war, and so on, but we have also created many great things like medicine and even simple pleasures like TVs and phones. I thank my opponent for this rather interesting debate topic, it made my day a little brighter when I scrolled down and saw this. This is also my first debate on this website, so please tell me if I have broken any etiquette or missed some guidelines. I am looking forward to continuing this debate with you.
Reindeers are better than people.

True, reindeer use instinct constantly which may make their instincts stronger or perhaps better suited for their purposes, but humans do not even need to use instinct because humans have, what you said, reasoning. Human reasoning allows humans to decide what they want to do, while instinct says "you must do this or else x consequence happens". Reasoning gives us individuality, character, and beliefs. If humans had only instinct and no reasoning, we would be a bunch of illiterate fools incapable of even speaking because we'd be too busy running from the "danger" of the unknown which very well could be a huge discovery capable of changing the world for the better. To your point about the environment keeping itself in check before humans caused problems, I would like to quote PHYS.org, (http://phys.org...) which says "At some point food is going to get so scarce that a very large portion of the animals die of hunger," due to the population of reindeer in the area growing on its own to be "6 times larger than it should be". Humans, on the other hand, have actually been fixing this problem via the use of authority-issued hunting licenses, which allow humans to use reasoning by bringing the population of the reindeer back to a number that will not harm the environment, while also not over-hunting (again because of reasoning on the part of licensing officials limiting the number of reindeer that a license-holder can bag) which would potentially also harm the population and surrounding ecosystem. Also, according to the second law of Thermodynamics, closed universes or "systems" (or more specifically, populations) will continue towards a state of maximum entropy, or maximum disorder and problems, unless acted upon by an outside force. This means that within the population of reindeer on this earth, if let be the reindeer would not ever make the world any better, they actually would end up making it worse- unless an outside force, such as humans, came in and changed it (hunting to control population, researching diseases common in reindeer, protecting endangered species etc.). In response to your third point I see how absurdly funny it was when I said that reindeer would get stuck in small spaces. I realize now that there are very few spaces out in the wild that a reindeer would be around that cause a reindeer to get stuck. Rare as it is, however, any species of animal with antlers can end up being "stuck" to another fellow member of said antler-bearing species if they were perhaps fighting to impress a mate and bashing antlers together. There is an ample amount of pictures on the web of deer with their antlers intertwined and completely stuck to each other, incapable of doing much of anything at all. Thank you for your concern about my family, and yes everyone is fine now.
All countries should have signs in English

You are definitely correct that putting up these road signs would create jobs. This seems very insignificant, seeing as jobs could be created improving the quality of the road system, or elsewhere, in education or justice. If a government were committed to providing jobs they would seek to do it in a more long-lasting way, or a way which creates greater improvements. I agree with you that having these signs would make it easier for English speakers once they are in the country, but I disagree that this will actually bring in English speakers, or make them more likely to go there rather than to another country. Since the point of contention is 'all countries should have signs in English', the only thing that would make more English speakers go on holiday abroad is a change in the price or accessibility of these holidays, not having slightly more convenient street signs everywhere.
All countries should have signs in English

I agree that while this may not be the cause of an erosion of national or regional culture, it is a very noticeable symbol of the erosion that is already underway and is likely to continue due to increased globalisation and the continued dominance of America. This, rather than encouraging tourists may make them feel they haven't become immersed in the 'other' that they sought abroad. A significant number of people do speak English, however, many also speak French, Spanish, nearly 1 billion speak mandarin, and yet English is considered the one language of choice? It seems a little strange. Also, just because English is the official language of a country, doesn't mean that this is the majority language spoken there - as is the case with India. Although some English speakers may be inticed to a country because of its street signs, perhaps the governments of these countries could be spending the money better elsewhere. The opportunity cost of paying for street signs might be foregoing the training of the workforce, perhaps educating them in the English language.
All countries should have signs in English

(To be honest I totally agree with you, but here's to playing devil's advocate!) English is the first language of over 380 million people, and the second language of many more. It is the official language of 57 countries and 27 non-sovereign entities. I think it would benefit countries in the long run, because although it would cost a bomb initially, it could bring in much more tourism. People may avoid going to countries due to fear of getting lost or not being able to communicate efficiently enough to find vital places such as their hotel, restaurants, hospitals or shops. I don't think it would remove any culture from the country as they are just signs. How many countries are famous for their signs? I don't mean like plaques and stuff on historical buildings, just road signs, street signs etc.
All countries should have signs in English

Although it would doubtless make it easier for English speakers on holiday in foreign countries to have signs in English, it would not be a good thing overall. For the government of the country involved, there would be a strategic problem of doubling all the signs, as well as a large cost incurred. The measure is a little over the top, in most countries with a strong tourism industry, because in these countries tourists most often come seasonally, for example in the spring for skiing or in the summer for a beach holiday, and so these signs would be largely useless for the rest of the year. Also, it is not very difficult for English speakers and readers to understand signs in foreign languages that use the same alphabet, and it is also not difficult to acquire a map in English, to understand where to go. There is also a point of a loss of cultural identity for the country attracting the tourists. For some countries, with a strong historical culture, for example Italy, an erosion of this culture, which could start with English street signs would detract from the experience for tourists, and create a situation worse for both English speaking tourists and the country they are visiting.