BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banks should be nationalized in the United States

"I very well understand the recession we're in right now and how bad it is. and as i said in my case something this huge can't be caused by one thing it might very well be fueled by the banks but it is not soley their Fault." I'll make this as simple as I can for you. Banks invested in "toxic" assets to make more money, those assets fell through. Banks have mucho debt and the economy stops. As I said before they are the FIRST domino to fall and once they go down everything else does. When the government controls the banks there isn't that incentive to invest in risky loans; there's no greed incentive. If you'd like to show some legitimate evidence contradicting this then by all means go ahead, but just saying "the war" and "the stimulus " is compete nonsense. 2)States States might not control the banks but they are the one in charge of checks and balances and if we let the government take it into their own hands the problems will just get worse in the overall run. What are you talking about? They're in control of the "checks and balances"? "if we let the government take it into their own hands the problems will just get worse in the overall run."? I'm dazed and confused, what are talking about? Your argument is thin and unsupported and most of all it lacks sense. "Throughout both his speeches thus far he is just trying to show that their is an inherent problem, he's not showing how nationalizing the banks is going to solve all this so his arguments really don't stand unless the resolution were to state "their is an inherent problem with banks right now". " See ---> When the government controls the banks there isn't that incentive to invest in risky loans; there's no greed incentive.
Banks should be nationalized in the United States

ARGUMENTS 1)Economy I very well understand the recession we're in right now and how bad it is. and as i said in my case something this huge can't be caused by one thing it might very well be fueled by the banks but it is not soley their Fault. 2)States States might not control the banks but they are the one in charge of checks and balances and if we let the government take it into their own hands the problems will just get worse in the overall run. NEW ARGUMENTS 1)Solvency Throughout both his speeches thus far he is just trying to show that their is an inherent problem, he's not showing how nationalizing the banks is going to solve all this so his arguments really don't stand unless the resolution were to state "their is an inherent problem with banks right now". Thank You
Banks should be nationalized in the United States

My opponents ignorance on the current recession astounds me. "giving out stimulus for no reasons and the war" First of the stimulus was a response to the our current situation so it's complete crap to call it one of the reasons it caused the collapse. "the war" Really? How does that effect banks giving out risky loans? And that's what banks did. They gave out loans to people that couldn't pay they back all in the name of making more money. In other words, GREED. People started walking away form these loans that BANKS CONVINCED them they could pay (in other words in the name of more MONEY). This irresponsible behavior caused a multitude of problems. On one hand your stuck with a house (or bunch of houses in some cases) which you can't sell because people can't get loans from the bank because banks have no money to give because they lost in on the HOMES! People can't get loans for other things, stock prices start falling, unemployment rises, their are less people to spend money (unemployment) with mean companies have to cut employees to save money and the whole cycle starts again. In the end it's the innocent guy gets the short end of the stick. This is just starching the SURFACE of this VERY serious problem. As you can see banks are the first domino block in this, which shows you how much trust you have to have in them to make sure the other ones don't fall. That's why it's insane to put trust that kind of trust in these private companies where they'll screw the guy next to um' to make a quick buck. On to your other points )States power If we were to give the government power over the banks then it would be alot closer to a communism because the government would be taking away power from the states when it should be the states job. States don't run the banks.
Banks should be nationalized in the United States

ARGUMENTS 1)Economy Pretty much his whole argument can fall under the fact that the economy is failing and it is soley the banks fault and no one elses and this is totally irrational thinking something doesn't just come crashing down because of one thing. In my opinion it was the mixture of giving out stimulus for no reasons and the war. it is by no means at all one persons fault, it might partially be the banks fault which is probably the case but even nationalizing banks won't solve for our economic crisis or even to help it that much at all. NEW ARGUMENTS 1)States power If we were to give the government power over the banks then it would be alot closer to a communism because the government would be taking away power from the states when it should be the states job.
Banks should be nationalized in the United States

This financial crisis proves beyond a doubt that privatized banks fail. The problem lies with the "greed" within banks that go unchecked. We should not trust these banks that end up holding such a integral part of our economy. When these banks failed we were at their beg and call and came to bail them out. With nationalized banks this would not be the case. Greed would not be a factor and the investments in these toxic assets would have never happened. I look forward to my opponents response!
The CIS was more justified

And now my rebuttal. Yes having a clone army is immoral, but I do not believe they had no choice. In Star Wars Rebels clearly Rex and those other clones joined the rebel alliance. In Legends,(BTW legends means it could have happened, not that it didn't happen.) 2 clones known as X1 and X2 both seemed to have choices. X1 took command of the empire after Sidious' death and Vader's redemption. X2 fought for the rebellion. Also was it not in Palpatine's/ Dooku's minds to build the clone armies in the first place out of the DNA of Jango Fett? Also I believe it is also important to note that the republic was also like this during the time of vitiate.(like I said, legend=could have happened) Many planets wanted to break off because the republic wasn't taking action against the sith. However once a jedi consular assisted in many tasks like assisting the liberation of Balmorra, they decide to stay. Yes and also one of those same surviving CIS planets known as Hypori (this is in legends) helped two criminal networks. First Jabba the Hutt, then Tyber Zann, two notorious criminals. This gave Tyber Zann, one of the most notorious criminal the galaxy has ever seen, the destroyer droids. The CIS also even wanted to win criminals on its side through deception. Having Jabba's son, Rotta the hutt, kidnapped so that they would be against the Republic. Now that's sneaky. Now the battle of Ryloth. Once again, Twileks are the victims, this time by the CIS. Conclusion: The CIS made many good Twileks die and stole Twilek treasures. What was it for? Control over the system, and treasures. http://starwars.wikia.com...
The CIS was more justified

It is important to note that the sith manipulated both parties in the war, so we should not take into the account sith machinations and focus on what most people though the war was about. For example, many didn't know Dooku was a sith. The CIS was formed as a response to the total incompatance, regulation, and taxation of the republic. It is so big that it is ungovernable. Palpatine even complains it's the bureaucrats that hold power. That's is why so many planets wanted out of the republic. The CIS had it's own parliment, that voted to pursue peace negotiations with the republic. Both Dooku and Palpatine worked to stop these from succeeding though. Also, while droids do the fighting of the CIS, the Republic has the clone army, possibly one of the most immoral things in the star wars universe. The clones are genetically modified to be more obedient, and then trained from childhood to be killers. They have no choice in how to live their life, they are simply created to fight and die for the republic. In a final argument, it should be known that CIS planets that held out joined the rebel alliance.
The CIS was more justified

OK let's start this of. I believe the republic was more justified than the CIS in the Clone wars. The beginning of the war itself was the Naboo crisis. The introduction of the clones came in through the battle of Geonosis. I will start by showing CIS leaders actions caused many deaths of people who didn't necessarily need to die. "Finally the Trade Federation lost patence and took drastic action. They chos the small watery world of Naboo and blockaded it.(a few pages later)Nute barley hesitated before he pushed the button down. The gun fired, and the republic cruiser exploded. 'That was easy enough, and now for the jedi'" -The Phantom Menace novelization Clearly more than Darth Sidious wanted Naboo and were willing to even kill people. It wasn't necessary for Nute Gunray to kill the crew of that republic vessel. It was right in the hangar of a battleship. I doubt that ship had many proper defense on board besides the jedi who already left expecting a simple meeting. A few battle droids with blasters would have gotten that crew to surrender. If the crew tried to fight back, then it would be justified to kill them. Afterwards, the jedi, the gungans, and the Naboo guards had every right to fight back. Darth Maul attacked them later and killed master Qui gon Jiin with mainly blood lust as his justification. There is only one place were bloodlust is justified and that is for the sith. Count Dooku, second in commend of the CIS defected to the sith because Darth Maul killed his former student. I can not see how that is justified. If a sith soldier kills a student of yours, you stay a jedi so that the sith are later defeated by you. Howeve Dooku thought that he had to be a sth to remove the galactic Republic from power and help cause the death of millions- billions along with it. The battle that showed the strength of the clones was the battle of Geonosis. The Republic's reason to attack there was because droid factories were producing armies of droids ready for war, only a few years after the same droids with the same were attacking Naboo. Grievous' attack on Florrum, didn't seem to have much purpose, but to add a planet to their collection. I would say more, but I'll wait for your argument first.
The CIS was more justified

I have chosen my opponent and the topic is that the CIS was more justified than the republic in the clone wars. Rules 1. Standard DDO rules 2. I wouldn't count sidious as an argument as he was the leader f both sides and in my opinion the same exact result in the end would happen if sidious favored the CIS more. 3. justified- having done for a legitimate reason 4. I am going to say Bane's rule of two happened because otherwise I haven't seen an apprentice master line to lead to sidious
Health Care

You will indeed be upset. But probably not. You have failed to address any of my other points from round one besides the cheese. And ALL CHEESE IS LUXURIOUS PERIOD. NO TAKESY BACKSEYS. If He cannot address any other of my points and is wring about the cheese then I am victorious. But say I lose this debate, this so-called "debate.org" is obviously biased and not open to new revolutionary, state-of-the-art idea's. But, in the end, my fair friends, I will win. But probably not.
Health Care

YOU DARE TRY TO CHALLENGE MY LOGIC!!?!?!?!?!? A CHALLENGER APPEARS!! French cheese is some of the best cheese. French food stuffs are luxorious. Your nonchalant attitude is monotinos. As do you. Except for the fact of turtles. Turtle- 1. U.S. water- or land-dwelling reptile: a water- or land-dwelling reptile with a body protected by a bony shell, e.g. a tortoise or terrapin 2. U.K. Same as sea turtle And since you challenged me you just lost the battle over conduct. That is derragatory and vile. I hope my fellow Debate.org/ers see the monstrosity's you have committed by challenging me. I would also like to cite these video's as proof as to why you are wrong in this debate and wrong for challenging me. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Health Care

I'm just getting this off the challenge list. I assume: "Resolved: Cheese is a luxurious item." Cheese- a food consisting of the coagulated, compressed, and usually ripened curd of milk separated from the whey Luxurious-of the finest and richest kind Item- an object of attention, concern, or interest From Merriam-Webster Cheese encompasses a wide range of dairy foodstuffs. Some, like E-Z cheese, are certainly not the finest of their kind. They are a base foodstuff. Further, with such a wide range of foodstuffs, not all can constitute the finest of their kind, as some MUST be baser than others. Thus, not all forms of cheese are luxurious. Resolution negated.
Health Care

Cheese is a luxouriouse item. I spelled that wring. Luxouriouse I mean. And now wrong is wrong. Well, it's actually wring, but it's meaning is wrong. Wring- twist something forcibly and painfully: to twist something such as an animal's neck forcefully, usually causing pain or death I guess I was wring on that too. I wonder if anyone will challenge this. Probably. I wonder if I will lose. Maybe. Horrifying. Inciting. " This debate is pointless and should be removed." Shut up. No-one said that. Yet. Prove me right. Or wrong. Probably.
Mankind is the incarnated race of Holy and Unholy Angels

My opponent seems to misunderstand the difference between know, and believe. This means that all those passages my opponent mentioned are what people believe, and not accounts proven to have actually happened, and thus invalidates any of the claims he was making when giving a large amount of evidence from passages that have not been proven to be right. Hopefully my opponent does not fall into the fallacy of circular reasoning in his future arguments. Furthermore, my opponent tries to opt out of falling into the fallacy of hasty generalization by simply reiterating what he stated in his previous argument in a long-winded fashion, and yet he still does fall into this fallacy because in the end, the claim is still there: lunar tetrad falls on Israel holidays at a time of technological inferiority, therefore metaphysical intelligence. Finally, I think I should mention how ridiculous my opponent's claim sounds, since the very topic of this debate he is arguing for goes against scientific research, study, and theories that have been tested for centuries, and seems to confident in evidence that are unproven, and frankly untrustworthy, since there are many examples of contradictions and immoral acts within the Bible that has been supposedly written by god. My opponent also seems to not understand the difference between irreducible complexity from cause and effect. On a final note, I would like to point out that my opponent falls into the begging the question fallacy, since he is assuming a claim that has not been studied scientifically and not been proven to be true, and is verging on falling into the argument from ignorance fallacy since he might be betting on the fact that his claim has not been proven true, and simply cannot be proven true due to a lack of evidence and due to the fact that apart from religious scriptures, not much is known about Israel at the time that the Bible takes place.
Mankind is the incarnated race of Holy and Unholy Angels

My opponent in no way shape or form links any of his arguments to the title of this debate, and only seems to be following the blood moon prophecy. Simply put, your claims clearly follows the fallacy of hasty generalization: lunar tetrad falls on Israel holidays, therefore meta-physical intelligence. By calling out on your fallacy I have proven, or dismissed whatever pseudo-scientific claim you are making and invalidated your non-existent argument, since you are yet to provide any arguments for the title of this debate. How can this debate be related to the topic you are trying to argue, if you are not clearly stating your arguments relating to the topic in the first place? I am tempted to accuse you of using the red herring fallacy, but I shall hold my words.
Mankind is the incarnated race of Holy and Unholy Angels

The God of The bible is true in that there is an esoteric or supernatural constant all humanity can observed that links to the establishment of Israel as a nation which surpasses the purview of what humans call "science". John Hagee noticed 4 red moons and wrote a book believing it was the end of the world. He was wrong. Moreover there is other things pertaining to these red moons Few ever touch upon. We are not talking some partial shade of red or lunar anomoly, we are talking about 100% full tetrad. If any human has seen a *full red moon they are lucky because there have only been 8 tetrads in 2000 years. The New Testament age. These 4 consecutive red moons only fall on Israel's holidays, Rash hashanna, Passover, Feast of trumpets, etc... So even when Israel had their exodus and by some chance this group of slaves started their holidays on what are known to this culture as a Bloodmoon, we cannot start thousands of years ago and predict them, that is the bloodmoons that make up the tetrad strictly landing on Israel's established holiday dates over all time from that recorded era. This most consistent cosmological constant known to man Proves the establishment of Israel with a means surpassing "Science" which now in this debate is proven not to posses the ability of objectivity to answer all things from a current worldview. You now must embrace the reality of meta physical Intelligence correlating straight back to Biblical Israel. It would be by definition, supernatural, unless of course those were "phsychic slaves". Let me know if you would like a video presentation.
Mankind is the incarnated race of Holy and Unholy Angels

It is important to mention that my opponent's 'red moons over Israel, therefore 'God' is not referring to the example of hasty generalization I presented in my earlier arguments, and still falls into this fallacy, even though my opponent tried to justify his claim by saying 'they fall on those holidays as per the instruction laid out for Israel to observe their signs', which I should say is based off of a book which has not been proven to be true and no documentation of any dates of when the books where written. The book's claims, I should mention, has been tried to be proven through millions of dollars spent on archaeological excavations to even see whether there is a sliver of evidence found for chapters such as Exodus. Basing justification on something which is not factual, is not objectivity, since by definition objectivity is not based on personal feelings and opinions. My opponent also seems to have the idea that I accused him of using circular reasoning, when in fact my previous argument states that it would be unwise for my opponent to use circular reasoning for 'future' arguments. Also his 'paying the electric bill' comparison is not quite true since the reason you pay the bill, or get the bill in first place is purely for an objective reason which can be proven from figures of electrical usage. Comparing something objective with something that is not, as I mentioned before, is simply the false analogy fallacy. Perhaps humorously, I find it charming that my opponent accuses me of a claim that I have not made, and calls it fantasy and conjecture, even though his initial claim (which is the topic of this debate), is factually a conjecture in itself. Again, I must mention that the reason I did not answer my opponent's claim of irreducible complexity is simply because it is not irreducible complexity, thus invalidating any reason to answer a false claim. Also, my opponent tries to undermine biological progress by introducing the Creationist claim of 'genetic entropy', and this can be rebuked. To emphasize, the 'genetic entropy' argument is based off of a paper Alexey S. Kondrashov and James F. Crow wrote stating that a certain postulate led inexorably to the idea that all organisms were doomed to extinction in a relatively small number of generations, and this would lead to the invalidation of evolution due to it violating the second law of thermodynamics. This argument and other arguments that claim evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics are complete misinterpretations of what the second law actually states, which is that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, simply because of the fact that life is not a closed system. My opponent is yet to tackle my accusation of him falling into the begging the question fallacy and the argument from ignorance fallacy.
Man injects a woman with HIV: should he gotten death row

Yes I am sorry about the whole four round confusion I accidentally did not add the fourth round, and because of that reason we will be skipping the conclusion and will be ending this debate with the rebuttal. Anyway getting back into the topic. Death Penalty Definition: A death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death). The death penalty, or capital punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury trial in capital crime cases. Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com... Using that definition meaning that what u do to one other person u should have done to yourself but in a more humane way. I believe that many things should come back at u almost a karama effect. In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place. There are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderer"s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal"a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on. Source: http://listverse.com...