BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Iraq should form a federation

Thanks james for your reply and yesh Iraq was under a dictotor called saddam who killes thousand of kurds and those people today do believe they should have autonomy over their own territory. I believe in unity and the only way to achieve that in iraq right now is by giving each group the govern to govern itself while you have the central government in bangdad to control the borders. During saddam time, the sunnis had more power, kurds were tortured and never felt happy and today we have the shiets who are the majority and if there is any election they will win and that is not wanted by the us and the iraqis themselves because they will have helps from their brothers from Iran. No one is ready to let the other govern and that is the problem. in this case the federation is necessary and this the means to bring unity because everyone will have its own territory and rules. Secondly this will be the only opportunity for America to leave Iraq. Today we have more violence going on in Iraq among the three races or groups. we also have attack on the us army because the iraqis do not really believe the us anymore and want them out by any means. That is why i say the UN is the right one to take care of this problem and we have recently seen the un sending its representatives to study the situation. Pakistan and Indian were one and they had to be separated when it was necessary and many other countries. if that was possible, why not a federation in iraq. So james, could you please show the progress being made now in Iraq. I believe it becomes worse everyday. secondly who do you think should then unite these countries and how is your system gonna help? Thank you
Iraq should form a federation

I think that the splitting Iraq into three separate states would not be wise because they should try to work together to keep their government running smoothly and effectively.What we need to do is bring the Suni's , Kurds and the shiites together to form one government which we are in the process of doing now. I also believe that the government was previously under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein,and that a lot of Kurds were killed.
Iraq should form a federation

i believe that the status quo is not working and is not going to work in the future. there has been no improvement at all and it is better for the UN to do the jobGive statistic on how many people die almost everyday, more suici because the iraqis are not willing to listen to america. ABOUT THE MECHANISM: I think it is better to choose the UN to do this and yeah there is an incentive for them to do so. It's time to become realistic. The only way in which these three warring factions can be kept together under a single ruler is by an authoritarian strongman like Saddam Hussein, or by outside military control which the U.S. is exercising and tell to the house that you don't want that at all. So as the government, I propose the federation of three separate states: one in the predominantly Shiite region; one in the Sunni region; and the third in the Kurdish area of the north, all loosely joined together in a single nation of Iraq. I am not talking about splitting the country into three separate nations as in the case of Yugoslavia, but trying to have some of the advantages of a single nation while preserving the separateness of the communities. This can be done by creating three separate states within the Iraqi republic. On oil, there is no reason that revenues can't be shared throughout the country. After all, the issue isn't who controls the oil, but who retains the revenue. The U.N. could create an entity to collect and distribute net income from the Iraqi oil industry.
Imaginary Sonic Character Rap Battle

I apologize for the inconvenience, but it seems as though I won't be able to do this debate. I actually did write a good chunk of my debate, but when I got back it was gone. It would take me a while to gather everything back, as I was prepping the entire time I was waiting for someone to accept. (thank you for that, by the way). GG. I will count this as a forfeit. Good day. When I have more time (and when I copy it down somewhere) I will reinstigate this if you want to.
Imaginary Sonic Character Rap Battle

A little different from what I normally do. Basically, it's an ordinary rap battle, but we pretend to be our imaginary Sonic character (wow I'm such a geek XD).A couple of rules:-Before you rap, you need to post a short bio on your character's abilities and such.-No forfeiting. -My opponent can choose to either rap right away or use the first round as acceptance. Keep in mind that if you rap straight away, you don't rap on the final section, to make it fair. -No characters that have no weaknesses, godly powers, etc.( They can have powers, just not too op.)-No trolling (but i honestly don't know how you'd be able to do that)Let the nerd games begin!
EU is a failed project

Hello, I am from Bosnia and Herzegovina, And I believe that the EU as a project is something that will fail in the next 50-100 years. In my opinion, It has taken a form it was never supposed to, Being more of a political union than anything else. With things like the EU President and an EU Commission, It has gone too far from the economic union it was supposed to be. Of course, Economically, It makes sense, It is about a lot of countries being able to trade freely, But things that I have mentioned plus the free movement of peoples, A part of no other trade/customs/economic union, Will be the downfall of the European Union. One of the things that I have against the EU is that it takes too much power from the national governments, And claims that the EU Parliament or the Commission know what is better for individual countries than they themselves, Which is all kinds of wrong. The reason why countries and people from those countries that have been in the Soviet "sphere of influence" (actually, It was complete control) most oppose the monster EU has become, In my view, Is because they lived through another authoritarian monster and they like their national sovereignty, That is being taken away step by step from the EU. There are many other arguments against the EU, Like the Euro and the handling of the migration crisis, But I will address them fully in the coming rounds.
Increase Social Services for persons living in poverty.

===> Intro <=== Unfortunately, due to the nature of the policy debate format, the affirmative's forfeiture makes continuing this debate impossible. ===> Inherency <=== I would point out to the judges that my evidence for inherency is more recent and should be preferred. The affirmative has not countered any of my arguments, so inherency should go to the negative. ===> Solvency <=== As I said, evidence for student loans and rising tuition would come in the 2NC [Singell, et. al. '05] "Private colleges' tuition, and public colleges' out-of-state tuition, increased by roughly $800 for every $1,000 increase in Pell recipients' average grants." Again, the affirmative did not respond to any negative arguments, so solvency should automatically go to the negative. ===> Disads <=== Affirmative has not refuted, all points go to the negative. ===> Counterplan <=== Part of subpoint 3 of the solvency was cut off (even though I was within character limits). The evidence should read: [Flynn, '02] "Despite the recession in public spending on social services beginning in the mid-to-late 1970s—between 1977 and 1982 federal social service spending declined almost 30 percent in real terms the number, revenues, and employees of social service agencies could continue to grow. The reason was marketization, the sharp growth in the financing of social services to a broadening client base. From 1977 to 1994, government spending on social services declined 15 percent while philanthropy grew by 33 percent." Again, the affirmative has not refuted any points. ===> Conclusion <=== The debate clearly goes to the negative. I hope to have the opportunity to debate this some time in the future, or even to try running my affirmative ; )
Resolved: Forcing religion upon children is immoral

Id like to start of by stating that within the first three lines my opponent seems to have already contradicted himself. By stating that this child was destined to be a scientist before he was born would mean that he would turn out to be a scientist. But as later stated this child does not become a scientist but rather a priest, making it impossible for him to be destined to be a scientist. The point that I would like to argue today will be moral. As children we are not capable of making the correct decision at all times, had I been allowed to do whatever I wanted I would only have eaten candy and never gone to school. Its blatantly obvious that children need to be taught how to act, converse with others and respect all. Parents sometimes have a hard time getting the point across so they bring religion in not only to have a common connection with their kid, but also to bring this moral guidelines into the picture. In this specific debate I will refer to the Roman Catholic Bible, even though I'm sure the same standards exist within all religions. First I would like it say there is no better way to teach moral then to read a book to your children based on a person that does only the right thing. On top of that, such things as the Ten Commandments create a moral framework that is known to be applicable to non-Christians. Being forced into religion is in the best interest of the children, where as not teaching them religion would make the incorporation of a moral framework much harder. A religion is not like a contract, there is no binding clause stating that a person cannot leave. When the child is old enough to make the decision on his/ her own then they can drop the entire thing all together, but the moral framework will still be there because its what they were raised on. I'm not going as far as to say if religion isn't used that all kids will be immoral, but rather that the institution of religion is helpful in the expansion of morals early on in childhood. It is moral to teach children the difference between right and wrong. this is a correct and effective way of doing so.
Resolved: Forcing religion upon children is immoral

It was never forced on me as a child, though I was given the opportunity and chose atheism. I turned out ok. Lets think of it this way. What if... a child was born, and was destine to be a scientist, had the IQ, the drive and determination before he even exited the whom (graphic I know) However, because as a child his parents forced religion on him which then set him on a track to being a priest instead of a successful scientist, who if hadn't been forced a religion could have cured cancer, 50 years from now saving countless lives. Not to mention being remembered by the entire world as the person who cured cancer. Instead because he was forced to "believe" he is now known as one of those old creepy guys, who you need to watch around your kids now. All because his/her parents forced this idea that religion was right and essential to live a successful healthy life.
Resolved: Forcing religion upon children is immoral

Zorro seems to think that having religion forced on you as a child will turn you into some religious whack job rather then leading a "normal life" this is not the case. Over %50 of scientists are religious, more then likely as a child they were taught teaching from religions such as christianity. By simply stating that all children will become preists is an asinine statement and is not plausible what so ever. Im not sure what Zorro is referring to by "friendly preist" i can only assume with the current issues that he is meaning a pervert touching little kids. If that is infact the case i believe it is irrelivent and should be saved for a different debate. Onto the subject of this "amazing baby" that has be created to save mankind. As i previously stated, just because you are forced into a religion does not mean that you are going to turn out to be a priest. All that this religion is doing is implementing a moarl structure that parents might not be able to fully cover on their own, no where do i imply that they will be brainwashed into the priesthood. Whenever religion is the subject, many people insist that it must be taken at face value and means everything. If you were to ask any priest about the bibles interpritations they would all agree that it is ment for the morals within and not supposed to be taken literally. I am not saying that religion is why we exist, but it implements moral guidelines. In no way can learning how to act hinder anyones life. It will not lead them away from what they are supposed to be. Heck, you dont even have to stick with it forever but regardless of your standpoint, you will have been brought up learning about morals and abiding by them.
supreme court wrong: no individual right to a gun versus state

thanks to my opponent for being well informed on this subject. "to bear arms" as unmodified refers to the milita as con seems to accept with hesitation. the only reason it has any modification suchas "the right of hte people" is because a sentence must have a predicate and a subject, something must be doing something. that is not the sort of modfication that clarifies something as not militia related.... such as "to bear arms against your neighbor when he attacks you". as far as the "the people" being an individual right in every other case, this has already been discussed... and bottomline, it is an individual right only so far as you are in the militia as everyone happened to be. note, they only happend to be in the militia, not mandatory and the state was the decider. i can't find the quote from madison in the link, if that's what i'm suppose to be looking for. i shouldn't have to read a bunch of articles to get opponents points they should be up front and center presented. but regardless, we have those quotes from mason which as discussed could be viewed as militia related, such as everyone being in the miitia onlybecause everyone happend to be in the militia, not because they had to be and it was up to the state. as to the other quotes, im sure you can find some strong evidence that some thought it was an individual right.... but you will find plenty that thought it was a militia right, such as even that mason quotes. im sure if you had a court case of what an amendment means with even the framers being the judges, you would have a difference of opinion. if con thinks the 14th amendmnet is sufficient to give rights for guns, that too his just his opinion. that's all one can ask in whether an issue is a fundamental right, opinions. but it could just as easily be a right such as the right to privacy created via that amendment with no bearing on the bill of rights... it doesn't have to rely on the second amendment to be created as a right. and id argue it isn't relying on it cause the second amendment protects the state militias only. con ignores the history of jurisprudence as if the amendment meant one thing to courts for hundreds of years, until modern scholars finally saw the light and what the history of jurisprudence didn't see? id trust them over
supreme court wrong: no individual right to a gun versus state

ask any run of the mill libertarian and he will tell you the bill of rights is an indictment against the federal government. why does the second suddenly apply to the states? the only way it could is if it was incorporated as a civil right by the 14th amendment. if you have to resort to that, you are basically admitting that the amendment doesn't guarantee rights on its own merit as suggested. even if you used it, plus the 14th amendment guarnatees only the most fundamental of rights, and when states are wanting a say in how to deal with gun violence, i dont see it as such a fundamental of a right like something like speech. con says "the people" indicates it meant every individual in existence. the problem is the bear arms clause was modified by the militia clause. that would indicate that every individual in the militia is protected. con says the mason quote says the people of the militia were everyone. that's the point though, the militia was only everyone usually cause that's what the states dictated. if the states dont dicate everyone is in the militia, then they aren't protected. plus as a last thought, if you were to protect only those traditionally in the militia, you would only be protecting males as females werent included. does that mean the amendment only protects males?con just glances on touching on the "bear arms" phrase of hte amendment. as cited in the opening post, bear arms is a militia term, and even guncite says so. so, taken together, all of the clauses taken together of the amendment protect state militia rights. con asks why even codify the amendment if it doens't protect the individual. that's easy, to protect state militia rights. con ignores that the history of hte second amendment jurisprudence found that the amendment protected militia rights as cited in the opening post, not individual rights. how does history suddenly get it wrong but we are to trust someone interpreting it hundreds of years later?
Young Earth

Replies: 1) http://apps.usd.edu... 2) Okay. 3) Then give me another source. 4) 1 year of water will not carve out a canyon thousands of feet deep. If this was true why aren't the oceans deeper than they are? 5) They don't assume carbon dating is the same. Evidence replies: 1) This is irrelevant because I don't think that humans have lived 185,000 years before agriculture began. 2) Source (because you asked for it) https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com... Read it. Basically, supernovas happen about 1 every 50 years. We are unable to see the "remnants" because they have faded. They are only visible for 10's of thousands of years, they don't just stay there. I apologize for my lack of words in the last argument. I think we had a good debate. Thank you and good luck.
Young Earth

1) If you read my statement, I said AVERAGE. Of course, it varies but the average is only around 1,300 ft. I would like you to provide evidence for your statements. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu... read this. 2) Okay, Magnetic field and moon recession have been ruled out. I will provide 2 new pieces of evidence in its place. 3) Irrelevant and useless. Also, Answers in Genesis is based on scientific studies and research if you scroll down to the footnotes. 4) False, read Genesis 7 and 8. The waters were on the earth far longer than 40 days and 40 nights. According to the Bible, the flood was on the earth for 1 year and 10 days from when the start of the flood to when it dried up. Plus, a global flood that covered mountains could probably create an entire canyon. 5) I would like to see evidence of your claim. If it is proven, why don't they include it in carbon dating? Why do they still assume the carbon rate has always been the same? Evidence: 1) Not enough Stone Age Skeletons "Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas." https://answersingenesis.org... 2) Too few supernova remnants. Galaxies see 1 supernova every 25 years. The remaining gas and dust from said supernovas expand rapidly and should remain visible for over millions of years. Nearby parts of our galaxy which we observe these gases in contain only 200 supernova remnants. With this evidence, the age of the earth comes to around 7,000 years.
Young Earth

Rebuttal to First Point. 1) The sediment on the ocean floor varies widely. You state the Earth cannot be older than 12 million years because of the amount of sediment on the ocean floor. That is just a simplistic look and doesn't take lots of factors into play. However, the oceans don't have consistent sediment layers but varies considerably. And not much of the sediment does get to the ocean floor, but lots get stuck on ocean shelves and in large deltas. Over time, these places can accumulate kilometres of sediment while other places become undersea mountain ranges. The erosion isn't consistent, and cannot be a good "clock" to measure time. 2) Yes, however, the magnetic field was much stronger in past years. This theory was introduced long ago and used outdated models of the earth. They also used an exponential curve rate, instead of a linear curve, which is now realized more accurate. A source here quotes: "By using outdated models, their theories are rendered irrelevant. If they are to prove that Earth is indeed only thousands of years old, they will need to analyze the fluctuations of the magnetic field from a new perspective. Likewise, scientists will need to continue their research of the dynamo model until the mysterious energy source is identified." http://apps.usd.edu... 3) That source is a "biased" site. You need to verify your sources and look at some other examples. That is just one, not everything is accurate. 4) The Moon doesn't retreat at 1 steady rate. Also, the people who wrote that theory, once again, used old research, (back in the 80's) that are now easily proven unreliable. Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org... 5) (Grand Canyon) The bible says 40 days and 40 nights, the flood lasted. Yet you say that the flood created the grand canyon, 6,000 feet deep, in that amount of time? We can easily disprove that with today's science. 6) "Sun Activity proved to alter carbon decay rate." It proves us both wrong. No response to that at this point.
Young Earth

Rebuttal: 1) Radiometric dating is not proven to be correct. a. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as assuming there have been NO contaminations and assuming the rate has always been constant. If it wasn't assumptions, why did scientists originally say the earth was 1.6 billion years old? As you said, rates change. The earth has not always been the same. https://answersingenesis.org... 2) I never said it has been decaying at a constant rate, But if you look at the graphs, you can see that it still decays a lot. Over billions of years, it would be gone. 3) The moon rocks were analyzed using radiometric dating which I have mentioned in my first rebuttal. Also, the moon rocks have been dated from 4.44 billion years old to 3.16 billion years old. It completely on assumptions. Why don't we have a single answer, why is there a 1.28 billion year gap? 4) Radiometric and carbon dating in my 1st point. 5) 4,500 ft. of exposed rock is in the grand canyon. Also, if the thickness of sediments was deposited over 500 million years then there should be boundaries between layers that show evidence. The flood created the grand canyon, that's why we see layers of rock in the grand canyon. Water can change rock in minutes, especially for a global flood. 6) "Sun Activity is proven to alter carbon decay rate." 1. I would like to see a graph. 2. That proves my point. Carbon dating is false because their assuming the rate has always been the same, so you have just proven yourself wrong.