BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Should Confront Saudi Terrorism Sponsorship

I will be arguing against Pros affirmation "The United States Should Confront Saudi Terrorism Sponsorship" The reason the United States should not confront Saudi Arabia for terrorism sponsorship is because there is no evidence Saudi Arabia is sponsoring terrorism. There are many things that the US State Department has addressed with the Saudis including their exceedingly harsh punishments for ordinary crimes and the difficulty in tracking how money is being spent by wealthy individuals who wire funds to places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. The State Department has even raised concerns that some of this money may end up in the hands of terrorists. But to be clear - this is NOT the Saudi government sponsoring terrorism. In their opening statement Pro uses statements like "as most people know" and "it's a well known fact" in regards to Saudi Arabia's supposed sponsorship of terrorism. But when we check the source Pro provided to support these claims (Wikipedia) the article clearly states that Saudi Arabia is a " secondary source of funds" (meaning its individuals not the state) and that any direct sponsorship is "alleged". Allegations are NOT grounds for international commendation or sanctions. If we are to confront Saudi Arabia with such a damning charge than we are going to need - at the very least - concrete evidence for such sponsorship that can be verified by independent parties.
The United States Should Confront Saudi Terrorism Sponsorship

Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Ending Arguments As most people know, and how it is backed by evidence, Saudi Arabia has a serious history of their people and their federal budget to endorse groups of the mujahideen in a war against the Civilized World. Understandably, the United States had interests in Saudi Arabia that extended from cheap oil prices to combating Russian influence that had taken form in Iran and their Shi'ite allies, even if it was controversial, it was reasonable. Now that Iranian normalization of relations has begun and fracking has turned the US into a path of energy independence [1], Saudi Arabia's role as an American 'friend' is diminishing. I believe the United States should confront Saudi Arabia with the already well known fact that they endorse radicalist terrorism against all nations with any non-Sunni ideals in international organizations such as the United Nations Security Council [2]. If Saudi Arabia denies, sanctions and isolationist policies will be introduced pressuring Saudi Arabia to stop their endorsements. After all, these is no logical argument to allowing a nation to fund groups that are known for targeting civilians through kidnappings, ransom, murder, bombings, and mass executions. The United States had once followed "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but the United States should have known that while Iran and Saudi Arabia may not be American enemies, Saudi Arabia is definitely not a friend. Sources: [1] http://dailycaller.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Obama is worse than Gorge W. Bush

Hi, I want to argue that Obama is worse than Gorge W. Bush and I will list the following reasons: 1. Obama ordered drone strike on unarmed civilians(American citizens) without a court order or any statement. 2. Obama expanded the patriot act which is to spy on anyone even though, the Iraq war is over. 3. In Obama's first term he has increase America's debt twice amount of the Bush Administration combined in 2 terms. 4. Obama takes way to many personal vacations and these money come from the government. (look at these expensive hotels.) 5. Obama-care, joke, is costing Americans their healthcare and premium. 6. Obama-care, proposed by Obama, is actually an extreme cooperate care. 7. Obama is trying to hurt the American constitution. 8. Obama is increasing tax on people. 9. Obama is trying to take firearms away. "To Conquer a Nation, First Disarm its Citizens" - Adolf Hitler. Well, Obama is trying to do the same because he is looking for a third term. Yes, according to the constitution presidents can look for a third term but, many president wants to follow the Gorge Washington path, 10. Obama is working with NSA to spy on people "too much". I mean certain amount of spying is necessary until, it get pass the line. 11. Obama is taking away benefits for veterans. 12. Obama is trying to take away social security for elderly people. 13. Obama doesn't require everyone on welfare to show proof that they have been trying to look for a job. (So we can stop having welfare abusing jerks) 14. Obama has a secret kill list. HE WILL KILL YOU WITHOUT A TRIAL! 15. Obama's administration welfare percentage increased. 16. Obama increase taxes on cooperation forcing them to go to other countries where taxes are lower. 17. Obama won the lie of the year award. 18. Obama claims he support illegal immigrants but, statically there are more deportation in the Obama Administration than the Bush Administration. (and no, I hate illegal immigrants) 19. Obama wants to "create" Jobs by debts. This means that he is "creating" jobs by increasing the debt. 20. Obama's principals is based on totalitarianism. Got any counter argument? Go for it!
Schools should give grades

I said, "It is, however, merely a post hoc justification for a system that was developed for other, more pernicious, reasons." Then you said, "In effect, every student is given the same classes, same material regardless of personal interests so that conformity is present to perpetuate the workforce. Are these the "pernicious" reasons you are referring to?" It seems we've gotten sidetracked from the original issue, which is grades. The grading system was not designed to prepare students for the workforce. If there is a similarity between the way schools work and the way the workplace works, it is pure coincidence. We use the current grading system only because it is the most efficient system we have for pigeonholing children. What I meant by "pernicious" is that this pigeonholing is not for the benefit of the children, but for the benefit of everyone else. It is pretense to argue that grades are designed to help prepare children for their lives. If grades did help children, and I don't think they do, it would be purely accidental. "School is hardly equivalent to a rock music concert. There are exponentially less people and, moreover, the people in the classroom are not an audience. Rather, they are your peers." Again, we've gotten sidetracked from the issue, which is grades. In a classroom, the audience is not your peers, it is your teacher, principal, parents, prospective colleges, future employers... Everyone you will ever encounter in a professional setting is judging you, right now, while you're trying to learn new things. It may in fact be hundreds of people. "Con even admitted that my real world experience argument "is a strong [one] and is difficult to counter." Given my refutation, this is probably my strongest argument so far and also the voters' best reason to vote for my side." Yes, it is difficult to counter, and yet I seemed to have countered it. In any case, I didn't come here to grub for votes, I came here to find the truth. "That is the student's fault. There is a name for that: laziness. Alternatively, the politically correct term is "shallow learning". ... There is no excuse for a student to fail in this case." This "shallow learning" is not laziness, nor is it even failure. It is success, and that is the problem. Our idea of success in school, as a society, is making A's, and it is possible to make A's (that is, succeed), without actually learning anything. The problem is that we as a society accept this and go along with it. If we all accept it and encourage it, how can we expect the children to go against it? We can't. This girl, if she continues on this path to "success," will learn nothing from school, and will be no better equipped, on account of school, to deal with the challenges of work and life. However, she will still get into a better college, and therefore get a better job and earn more respect, and thus achieve actual success, all thanks to her A's. Learning factors into this nowhere. That is the problem.
Schools should give grades

Thanks for providing the background. I think I'll begin by briefly addressing your arguments. You argue that a system with letter grades is superior to a pass/fail system. This is irrelevant to the discussion in my opinion, because they are both grading systems and I am arguing for no grading system at all, not even pass/fail. As for grades being the status quo, you are very correct. Other structural changes to our schools, as well as changes to society's attitudes toward school, may be necessary in order for a grade-free system to work. So much for your arguments. Now for your refutations. First, you've misquoted me. I never claimed that grades are feedback for children, I only said that people think that grades are feedback for children. So on refutations 1 and 2, we do indeed agree and I don't think we need to go there anymore. To paraphrase your refutation #3: "Schools should mirror what the real world demands so that students will better understand the expectations upon their graduation." This is a strong argument and is difficult to counter. It is, however, merely a post hoc justification for a system that was developed for other, more pernicious, reasons. I'll return once more to the guitar lessons metaphor. Suppose you were learning to play the guitar because you wanted to become a rock star. By your logic, the best way to prepare yourself for the rigors of a rock performance would be to carry out all your lessons on a stage with a microphone in front of hundreds of people. At the very least, you would be so self-conscious that you would not be able to focus on the work at hand. You would also feel a pressure to hurry up and impress somebody, so you could not take whatever time is necessary to learn the instrument properly. As I said earlier, learning cannot be a performance. To paraphrase your refutation #4: "In more objective classes (like mathematics and hard sciences) the teachers' biases are largely irrelevant." This is absolutely not true. Even if there is exactly one right answer, it is still possible for a student to infer the answer from the teacher without understanding why it's right. The other day I was tutoring a sixth-grade girl who needed to solve a difficult algebra homework problem. She had seen the teacher perform similar problems and knew the motions to go through to get the solution, but it was clear from the questions I asked her that she did not understand what any of it meant. She will turn the assignment in and if she gets it wrong, she will try again until she gets it right. Anyway, what little she does know she probably will forget in a few weeks, and in the future it's unlikely she will be able to solve even slightly different problems. What was the point of all her hard work then? You say that you believe the grading system can be reformed. Can you describe your ideal grading system? I might take a stab at demonstrating why even a reformed grading system is inferior to no grades at all.
PRO will not win this debate.

Ok, I'm sorry. You cannot definitively prove something in all cases. However, for a debate, you have to show that one's reasoning is better than your opponents. Let's get back on topic here. The resolution is that I will not win this debate. My opponents job is to show, with superior reasoning to mine, that I will win this debate. My job, as the opposition to him, is to negate the topic. Lets review the debate: My opponents arguments: Nonexistent. He has made no argument about why I will win. Since he has not shown anything, we default to my side. My arguments: 1. My opponent has to prove it. 2.Impossible to prove 3. I win by default.
PRO will not win this debate.

Seriously? What about debating the right to bear arms? What about debating things like abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc.? There is no right or wrong in any of these topics, and thus, you cannot "prove" one side right or wrong. You can give logical arguments to support your reasoning, but you cannot "prove" you are right. "Well, in the first place, proving the existence of gravity isn't a debate, it is a scientific fact." Gravity is a fact? No, it isn't. It's a scientific law, but it's not a fact, and that's because it hasn't proven. According to your logic, if you can't prove gravity exists (which you can't), then you would lose a debate where the other person is saying gravity doesn't exist, especially since he just has to sit there and watch as his opponent is unable to prove that gravity exists. Conclusion: My opponent believes that in a debate, the winner must prove his argument in order to win. This makes no sense; if one side can prove his argument, then there is no debate.
PRO will not win this debate.

Let me get this straight. You claim that we can prove nothing in a debate, and still win??? NO logic in that statement. You have to prove something to win. Since you can't prove anything in this debate, you cannot win. My job is merely to negate the topic. The meaning of negate is:to deny the existence or truth of. Meaning that I have to deny everything you say, since you are trying to prove the truth of me winning this debate. I merely have to deny it, and refute what you say. I don't necessarily have to prove that I will not win this debate, since that is not my full job. A lot of my job is to refute your arguments. Well, in the first place, proving the existence of gravity isn't a debate, it is a scientific fact. However, there are ways to argue that gravity doesn't exist the way we think it exists. If the neg can show enough doubt in voting aff, then we default neg. That's basic debate. Look. You have started this debate. In traditional debate, that means that you are affirming the topic. However, since you wanted to screw with things, you have chosen neg, and changed the topic to match your wishes. The topic should be interpreted, "My opponent will win this debate." That is what you are trying to argue. Since you have taken it upon yourself to argue this, you automatically are affirming the topic. Therefore, I am negating the topic, since I have no burden of proving something. Fine. this is a debate. Now get around to actually debating the topic. Why will I win this debate? Conclusion: My opponent has forwarded no arguments as to why I will win. He has to prove that I will win. He has not. Therefore we default to me. If you don't buy that, which you should, then look to my many arguments arguing why he will not be able to prove that I will win.
PRO will not win this debate.

"If you can't prove it, the assumption goes to my side." "There is no objective way to prove it, so I automatically win." Not really. You don't have to definitively prove something to win. Not proving something definitively doesn't mean the other side wins. If that were the case, we wouldn't have debates, because one side would always win. What about gravity? Do you think it exists? If I made a debate with you where I said gravity exists, would you say it doesn't because I can't definitively prove it does? "I have to prove the negation of me not winning. " No, you don't. The resolution is "PRO will not win this debate"; by accepting the PRO position, you have to argue that you will not win this debate. "PS This debate was mainly taken just to get it off the challenge screen. There is no debate in this. But my opponent has decided to try to make one out of it, so he has the burden." What is your definition of a debate? Here's one, of many: "Contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; esp." from the online Oxford English Dictionary. We are most certainly having an argument; we are certainly contending against each other; there is definitely a dispute; there is clearly controversy; we are discussing all of these things.
PRO will not win this debate.

If I get this straight, you are trying to prove I will win. I have to prove the negation of me not winning. ' 1. You have to prove it. If you can't prove it, the assumption goes to my side. You took on the debate, you took on the burden of proving it. 2. There is no objective way to prove it, so I automatically win. You can't prove that I will win or lose, in any objective sense. You may be able to influence the vote depending on how you debate, but you can't objectively prove it. Therefore I win. Thanks for the debate. PS This debate was mainly taken just to get it off the challenge screen. There is no debate in this. But my opponent has decided to try to make one out of it, so he has the burden.
Fearless Girl Statue

First off, I am outstanding to find someone to debate in favor of the statue that would actually debate. Second off, the reason wall street is corrupt is the egotistical people. You bring up a fair point with the legality of the Fearless Girl, but the statue's creator doesn't say it was put up because of anti-corruption, she created it to represent the power of women in business. If that were the case, she could've at least talked with the Charging Bull creator to work together to make a statue.
Fearless Girl Statue

Although I agree the charging bull statue was made to symbolizes the bull market and I agree original intent of making it was to symbolize the capitalist society which wall street centers around, in recent years, especially with the 2008 collapse of the housing market, people have come to associate the charging bull statue with the corruption that infests wall street. The fearless girl statue is supposed to symbolize marginalized communities standing up to this corruption and was built legally.
Fearless Girl Statue

I am against the Fearless Girl Statue because it stands in the way of the Charging Bull statue. The Fearless Girl Statue is said to show the power of women in business, but the Charging Bull represents aggressive financial optimism and prosperity for both males and females. The Charging Bull represents the bull market which is a period of generally rising prices in the stock market, which is a good thing because if you sell the stock you bought during a bull market, you get more money.
Resolved: Prostitution Ought to be Legalized

Resolution: Prostitution ought to be legalizedDefinitionsProstitution - the act or practice of engaging in sexual activity indiscriminately especially for moneyOught - used to express obligation Legalized -to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction toRound StructureRound One - AcceptanceRound Two - Opening StatementsRound Three - RebuttalsRound Four - DefenseCitations[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]https://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]https://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Unholy Marriage

The issue with your response, Yet again, Is that you assume that all marriages follow the rules and guidelines of the Bible. As many couples consider unfaithful and dishonest marriages as unholy. Whether or not this is unholy through the eyes of God is irrelevant as the debate topic is not what is an unholy marriage under the eyes of God but, What is an unholy marriage? Clearly, You ignorantly believe that an unholy marriage is one that does not follow the rules of religious scripture which in most cases isn't true.
The Unholy Marriage

According to the Bible, Unfaithful and dishonest marriages do not mean that they are considered unholy in the eyes of God if at least one is a believer. If the believer is caught up in sin, They will repent. The scriptures do not teach that their marriage itself was unholy in the eyes of God while they were sinning. Many people have been mistaught that a physical external act performed upon them or a verbal saying upon them makes their union now holy before God. The scriptures say different and they have never changed (no matter how much the church/s may have changed) that the word of God produced in the 1st century.
The Unholy Marriage

While instead of actually attempting to refute the claims I made in my argument, Pro has decided to criticize my approach to the debate by calling it "casual conversation. " If you have no response to my arguments, Instead of complaining why not forfeit the debate. Furthermore, Despite what you may claim, I have also fulfilled my role as "con" in that I have argued "against" your ridiculous argument. However, If it is examples that the con wants I will provide such. Examples of an unholy marriage that do not fit your narrow definition yet still applies to many couples in progressive societies can include: -Unfaithful Marriages - Dishonest Marriages, Etc. This time in your rebuttal instead of wasting your turn actually provide an argument that can be discussed further throughout the debate.
The Unholy Marriage

This is a formal debate. Not a casual conversation. If you didn't want to engage in a formal debate you should not have signed on to do so. Since you did, Your task is the Negative (Con) and you must address the things within the parameters of the Proposition. (The thing or things that make a marriage unholy) The implication of the Proposition is that God instituted marriage and revealed to us what is a holy and unholy union in His eyes. . . . . Not anyone elses.
The Unholy Marriage

The issue with your argument is that you assume every marriage is built on a religious structure. To understand what a holy marriage can be considered we must first understand the multiple meanings both marriage and holiness mean to individuals. For example while for a considerable amount of individuals the definition of holy can be: - something dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred. For many people, Holy can also mean: -morally and spiritually excellent. Where in this case of the definition it does not have to fit within a religious context, Including, The Bible, The Torah, Or any other religious text. Furthermore, For many, Marriage can be something other than just a religious relationship. Marriage can also simply be a legal contract between two individuals in a relationship. This is shown throughout the world as many couples choose to hold their weddings in places of worship or have a religious figure like a priest conducting the wedding. In conclusion, While your definition of an unholy marriage may very well be correct for many couples. It is foolish to assume that an unholy marriage can only be what a religious text dictates it as many couples choose not to live their lives under the law of a religion or religious text.
The Unholy Marriage

To know what an unholy marriage is, I think it best to first know what a Holy marriage is. In (1 Cor. 7:13-14) we read; 'And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, And if he be pleased to dwell with her, Let her not 'leave' [aphiemi- of divorce] him'. 'For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, And the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: else were your children 'unclean' [akathartos- in a ceremonial sense] but now they are 'holy' [hagios- prepared for God]. The Israelites of the Old Testament were in covenant with God through male circumcision. (Genesis 17:10) This physical act made the male and his wife and children holy in the eyes of God. There was no guidance as to divorce till many years later when they came under the Law of Moses (Deut. 24:1-4). According to the New Testament, We get into the New Covenant [which is to be in Christ] by having our spirit circumcised; 'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, In putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circucision of Christ. ' To be Spiritually circumcised involved our having been 'born again' (Jn. 1-9) and 'Not by works of righteousness which we have done, But according to His mercy He saved us, By the washing of regeneration, And renewing of the Holy Spirit. ' (Titus 3:5) Whatever marriage does not consist of this, We know is an unholy marriage.