BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What political party has anarchists, Communists, rioters, as backers of its political agenda

lookingattheissues response: Jan.14Th.2017 on Debate.org,, under Politics to tumeric ( Anti war protests of th 60s ) and who some of the radicals were and where they ended up doing later on in their lives Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton, 1965-1969 1969 Student Commencement Speech by Hillary D. Rodham (now Hillary Rodham Clinton) May 31, 1969 Wellesley College "......The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago...." 1965-1969 Democrats, Bill and Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton president Hillary Clinton, First lady,1993-2001 ( Anti war protests of th 60s ) and who some of the radicals were and where they ended up doing later on in their lives. Bill Ayers " Spouse Bernardine Dohrn Bill Ayers: Bernardine Rae Dohrn (n"e Ohrnstein; born January 12, 1942) is a former leader of the Weather Underground, Bernardine Dohrn - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org...\l " Bill Ayers William Charles "Bill" Ayers is an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in the counterculture movement who opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his current work in education reform, Bill Ayers"....He is a retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago..." Radicals/democrat professors and teachers in public education __________________________________ SNOPES Commentary WALLSTREET JOURNAL Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools By Stanley Kurtz Updated Sept. 23, 2008 12:01 a.m. ET " Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists....." __________________________________ Confirmed: Bill Ayers Hosted a Fundraiser for Obama /tipsheet/tipsheet/guybenson Guy Benson | Posted: Nov 30, 2011 "......there's the pesky fact that Obama and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund for three years"and continued to do so even after Ayers was quoted in the New York Times fondly recalling his days as a bomber, and despairing that he hadn't "done more." (This quote, the Obama fact sheet reminds us, comes from an interview that just happened to be published on 9/11"Ayers had made the incendiary remarks earlier. I don't know about you, but that makes me feel a lot better). The funds Obama and Ayers helped control at the Woods Foundation funneled thousands of dollars into both Khalidi's organization and the now-infamous Trinity United Church of Christ..." Reverent J. Wright Obama's pastor for 20 Years, said, " No,No, not God Bless America, but God Damn America....." And which political party did these radicals belong to, The democrat party.
What political party has anarchists, Communists, rioters, as backers of its political agenda

The democratic party, at present, represents an America of civil society, a trustworthy marketplace, and civil rights. Meanwhile, the republicans have become an unhinged stomping ground of un-American grievance, anarchy, and authoritarianism. How can a party be both anarchistic and authoritarian at the same time? By systematically destroying the idea that facts exist. By electing a man who claims that he didn't say things that are recorded on video. By doing so, republicans are attempting to erase accountability, because they trust that the net aggregate of uninformed personal opinion will land on their side. Mob rule with the force of law. Who goes around talking about "second amendment remedies?" Who goes around claiming that the second amendment is some kind of kill switch for democratic governance? Democrats respect voter opinion because we believe that a plurality of voters should decide an election. Not the guy who got 3 million fewer votes than Clinton. We don't rely on arcane accidents of history, such as the electoral college, which Pro cannot even explain the legitimacy of, to "win" an election.
ISIS is an accurate representation of Islam

ISIS does indeed kill Muslims, but mostly because of the traditional Sunni vs Shia conflict. ISIS is Sunni and have been known to hunt down Shia. (1) They view Shia as non-believers and will also kill Sunni who they believe don't follow the word of Mohammed correctly. In this way, they are still obeying the word of the Quran. 1. https://www.theguardian.com...
ISIS is an accurate representation of Islam

Islam, like any religion, has a variety of interpretations. The Quran speaks constantly of fighting in the name of Allah, making extreme sacrifices, and using violence to spread ideas. According to the Quran, followers must have an unrelenting loyalty to their religion, even if it costs lives. That is the strictest interpretation of Islam. The strictest interpretation of any religion is going to result poorly. In the strictest interpretation of Christianity, for example, even the mildest sins are met with barbaric punishment. An example of a true Christian would be one who believes that gays and adulterers go to hell, etcetera - in other words, one who strictly and literally interprets the Bible. This could even result in terrorism. Therefore, a true Muslim is one who believes men and women are not equal, non-believers deserve death, and all thieves should have their hands cut off. True Muslims believe the strictest interpretations of the Quran and Sharia law, where violence and bigotry are advocated. Therefore, ISIS is indeed made up of true Muslims; they are an accurate representation of Islam as a concept and ideology. This is not to say that moderate Muslims are not true Muslims; they simply do not follow their sacred text as strictly, which is for the better.
Music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists

Refutals:All these...sit at a computer and put one track..And I could very well say violinists are people who rub a stick on four strings; saying things as such implies nothing.Talent is when simple recipes and formulae are used to create something unique that people enjoy. I...can imagine them performing it live;The only logical conclusion that follows from this area) Probably, that type of music suits PRO's taste.b) PRO's imaginative senses are going berserk and needs medical help.I assume it's the former, but that doesnt show why olden music is 'better'.however...aren't actually performingThis is quite surprising PRO, cause when I hear dubstep I feel like they literally radiate energy especially during the drops.It takes immense skill to create music that has such effect on the listener and modern artists need to be appreciated for that.PRO's R3 only implies that the page got visited by comparitively more fans.Anyhow, I give links of two modern albums that got 4.9 and 5 in comments.
Music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists

I'm going to be using results from Amazon customer reviews for the albums 'Sinatra: Best of the Best', and 'Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites' by Skrillex. Both of these albums were released in 2011. (See the links in comments) From the customer reviews, Sinatra's album received 4.8 out of 5 stars. This means 96% of people liked the album. From the customer reviews, Skrillex's album received only 4.4 out of 5 stars. This means only 88% of people liked the album. Although 8% may not seem like a big difference, like Con said, this is in a time where modern music 'appeases a wider section of people.' Shouldn't that mean that the modern albums should have higher ratings than Sinatra's album, which contains music from the 50's. So clearly Sinatra is better, as 60 years on, his songs sell more than new songs. I have posted the links in the comments as I would have run out of characters if I posted them here. I await your response Con.
Music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists

==Variety==With advancements and enchancements of musical instruments modern music is filled with varieties of songs and genres that wasn't seen during earlier times(for this debate lets say the 1950's).New instruments introduced have helped create songs with such unique and different styles that such songs have been assigned to totally new genres(dubstep,electronic music,etc). Hence, modern music appeases a wider section of people with different tastes and preferences.==Probability for appeal==The sheer overwhelming number of songs produced per year,in comparison to the olden days, is enough to empower superiority to modernn day produced music.Songs are just an artistic combination of different vocal tunes that may be found appealing to a person while not to another.Given the plethora of music produced today there exists a higher probability of songs being created with combinations that satiate more specific likes of people than in earlier times. Rebuttals in R3.On to you,PRO
Music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists

Thanks for accepting Con. I feel that Frank Sinatra's music is better than music from people such as Skrillex. I have more than one reason for this, however the one which stands out most to me is the lack of passion which I feel modern artists, such as Skrillex, have for their music. When you listen to music from Sinatra, Dean Martin, Nat King Cole etc. you can tell just how much energy and passion they have for that particular song. When I hear their songs I can imagine them performing it live; however when I hear music from people such as Skrillex, I can't see any passion or energy, because they aren't actually performing. All these artists do is sit at a computer and put one track over another. Where is the passion in that? I await my opponents reply.
Music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists

Resolution is 'music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists'.So in order to win this debate I will be required to show that modern music is better or atleast in par with 'older music' like that of sinatra's by either negating PRO's arguments or making them unsound.Def:Better: "superior to another (of the same class or set or kind) in excellence or quality or desirability or suitability; more highly skilled than another"With that said I graciously accept this challenge and am looking forward to an interesting debate.On to you, PRO.
Music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists

I have a love for all kinds of music. However, my music taste seems to be favoured towards older music. I like music from 70's artists, however I also love the music from people such as Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin etc. I hate modern music that all of my friends seem to like, such as Dub step and modern pop music. There just seems to be a lack of passion in the artist when you listen to the music; completely the opposite to Sinatra. I'm looking for a person who likes modern music such as Dub step to debate my proposal that the music of people such as Sinatra is better than music from the people like Skrillex.
Marriage should not be a legal concept

It is my contention that marriage should not exist as a legal concept (nor should "civil unions"). In its place, we should have a simple "union", which confers all of the legal rights and status of marriage, but is not by design in any way dependent on the nature of the relationship between the participants. For example, if I have a completely platonic friend whom I trust to work with throughout life, I should be able to have a "union" with him/her, thus allowing us to file taxes jointly, be considered defaults for medical decisions in the case of incapacitation, etc. This is based on two claims: firstly that by having such a concept, the government shows bias against those who remain single. And secondly, that by being involved in personal relationships, the government obligates itself to make decisions which inevitably trample on the rights of individuals.The first point is clear: being married gives obvious and practical legal and financial advantages. As the government is a being who derives its power by gathering it from the people as a whole, giving more advantages to those who are married comes at the cost of those who are not. This is thus a form of enforced, unjustified payment by single individuals to married ones.The second point can be best illustrated by an ongoing example: the gay marriage debate. By taking on the role of allowing or disallowing "marriage" to couples, government has assumed a social responsibility it has no business managing. Religions, social circles, and political organizations all have their own definitions of marriage, and can and should be able to individually choose what they do or do not recognize as marriage. By assuming the role of "marriage certifier", and further coupling its own certification with very real societal advantages, government has erred both in unifying a concept which should not be unified, and in trampling individual rights by the very claim that any of the legitimacy of their personal relationships can be defined by the state.A gay couple should be able to get a "union" the same as any other group of people, which does not innately carry any implications as to their relationship. They can then have whatever ceremony and recognition is appropriate for those they consider their peers. Those circles opposed to recognizing this union should be able to continue not doing so. None of this need involve the government.
Project Mogul is NOT the Cause of the Roswell Incident

A flying "something" crashed on a ranch outside of Roswell, New Mexico in early July of 1947. Whatever it was that crashed, it was not Project Mogul (The Air Force's final, official explanation for the event). This debate does not concern speculations of what may have crashed in Roswell, but whether or not what crashed was a Project Mogul balloon train. I will concede the first round and allow my opponent to state his case for Project Mogul first. I will then provide a rebuttal in round 2 and summary in round 3. I suspect that many readers (voters) have their own preconceived notions of what may have crashed in Roswell that fateful night, but I respectfully request that you fully read and carefully consider my position and provided evidence prior to any votes being cast. Thank you, and I look forward to a spirited debate.
Dissection Is Wrong

"From an educational perspective, there"s almost no downside to dissection. The only downside would be if someone has a personal objection to it," Mr. Patrick Lindsey, AP Biology teacher, said. Well, it is O.k. to have opinions. Also, their is a downside because the school is using more money then they need too. "There are other alternatives available for students, such as online virtual dissections, where an animal doesn"t have to die over and over again and one can still study the parts of its body. Some students find these alternatives positive and effective substitutes" (from the same site as above). Confused why you posted this part?? "Although opponents of animal dissection point out the cruelty to animals, I believe the benefits outweigh the negatives. Studies point out the fact that students retain 90% of what they physically perform and only 10% of what they see and hear." Yes, although that may be true, but I and many other people who prefer not to dissect are willing to do more because we care for the animals. So overall your points are fairly true, we are willing to learn more to save animals lives and the school should enjoy this because then we are saving them money! Your response!!
Dissection Is Wrong

"From an educational perspective, there"s almost no downside to dissection. The only downside would be if someone has a personal objection to it," Mr. Patrick Lindsey, AP Biology teacher, said. TAKEN FROM: http://milkenroar.com... "There are other alternatives available for students, such as online virtual dissections, where an animal doesn"t have to die over and over again and one can still study the parts of its body. Some students find these alternatives positive and effective substitutes" (from the same site as above). "Although opponents of animal dissection point out the cruelty to animals, I believe the benefits outweigh the negatives. Studies point out the fact that students retain 90% of what they physically perform and only 10% of what they see and hear." TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING SITE: http://humanbiologylab.pbworks.com... http://www.youtube.com... (Video)
Dissection Is Wrong

Before I start I just want to say good luck to my opponent. I believe dissection of an animal is wrong in almost every way because their are many other humane options. The only time I believe dissection on real animals is O.K. is if the animals are road kill, but their is obviously not enough roadkill of the same species for that. So to me every time you dissect an animal, it is wrong. Dissection is inhumane to the animal because their are three main ways they get the animal. They buy pets and strays from the pound, the buy from animal mills, and the buy from filthy faculties that raise these animals even worse then pet mill, where these animals are raised just for dissection. Their are many other alternation human ways to dissect. If you search online you can find great quality and even free dissection programs. An example of one my school lets some of us use is ScienceWorks which feature frogs, cats, rats, and ect. Another reason dissection is not the answer is that it cost more money. The price of one ScienceWorks is $200 which can be downloaded over and over again for years. While the average cost of one cat for dissection is $36.65. So you could buy one ScienceWorks for $200 that should work for about 10 years instead say you have 40 kids in a class and each two get one cat, instead of spending $7,330 in ten years!! that is just cats. The average dissections you do a year throughout your whole middle and high school is 2 1/2. Another thing is dissection involves some sharp tools where people can make mistakes or be foolish. So that is my debate on why dissection is the expensive, inhumane, messy, and unnecessary way instead of technological options which are cheap, clean, and very humane.
There should be a law that only allows abortions before the end of the first trimester

-----Why? Why do you believe this? Why should we believe it? What is significant about three months? -----It's not a baby yet. It's not an unborn child either. Why don't you call it an unborn adult? Or an unborn English teacher? I wasn"t really going for terms but if you want to get technical the unborn child. It is a human being the moment the egg is fertilized it starts to produce cells at a mass rate and by as little as five weeks its heart starts beating. Meaning by five weeks the unborn child is in fact now alive and growing. By three months the unborn child goes from being called an embryo to a fetus, meaning that it now has limbs and such. This fetus if allowed can now be born and grow up to be a very successful person. -Why not start your rule four months sooner? "There should be a law that you have to have sex every night. Otherwise, you're punishing innocent sperm cells!" Sperm Cells are not things that will achieve a heartbeat or mind of their own alone. You aren"t punishing them because there is no them. Until they fertilize an egg they are only there. Your body can create much more. -----I doubt that. I doubt that your belief is based on the thousands of women who can't conceive. Would you change your mind about abortion if new fertility treatments fixed them? Would you change your mind if you saw orphanages with children that nobody wants? If forbidding abortions didn't fix the baby deficit, would you require more conceptions? "Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant for at least 12 consecutive months): 1.5 million" this is a copied statistic from the CDC Home Website as you can see there are indeed more than thousands in the united states alone that cannot conceive. Not all women are comfortable with fertility treatments and would rather just adopt a baby they can raise as their own. Not require and not trying to fix only trying to save the lives of those 50 million aborted babies that had no say in there unlived lives. -----And even if that's your true motive, why should one woman get to force another woman to have a baby for her? Not forced but just made aware that her unborn child can live its life being loved by a mother who never had the opportunity she has. -----But if we don't pass that law, then maybe they'll adopt older kids, kids who are people, and who already exist and need parents. If you favor forcing women to have children for other women, why don't you favor forcing women to adopt kids they don't want? Those children that are older have a choice already on how they choose to live and if they want to be adopted to a certain family or person where as those unborn children don"t. They can"t yell out or say they"re mind yet. As a "FREE" country shouldn"t EVERY LIVING beings have its right to live? They aren"t being FORCED to have anything? You don"t force them to have sex, they did that on their own free will but at least take responsibilities and think that this child could change the world, become president, be the next pope or a great philosopher.