BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 Election

My ArgumentsI. Front-Runners AttackedMy Opponent talks about the Joe Biden vs. Paul Ryan debate, but misses two things. First, Biden will likely not be the only Democrat running against Clinton. Second, candidates learn their lessons from previous debates. That debate will help Vice President Biden in the future because he will have more debate experience. This also goes for any mistakes he made in his 2008 debate with Sarah Palin. Hillary Clinton campaigned and went into debates during the Democratic primaries, but by now that experience is gone. Biden has more recent experience with debates and this will help him.A perfect example would be Former Governor Mitt Romney. Romney debated in 2008 for the Republican nomination. He lost, but that experience carried over to 2012 where he won. He then won the first presidential debate against Obama, but lost the two later ones. This is because of his debate experience. II. Republican CompetitionThere does not need to be a leader between the Republican nominees. That is why there is a nomination process. Who should be the leader? Also, Hillary Clinton is not exactly the leader of the Democratic Party. That title belongs to President Obama. Also, my opponent never attacked my arguments on the candidates' appeal to minorities and their lives in battleground state. Then, my opponent flat out lies and said that Romney did not win a single battleground state. North Carolina was a battleground state and he won it. In addition, he took back Indiana, a state that voted for Obama in 2008. My RefutationsI. Media InfluenceMy opponent believes that the media's overhwhelmingly liberal stance hands Clinton the victory. This is simply not true. Let's look at the modern presidents (1969 to the present):Richard M. Nixon - RepublicanGerald R. Ford - RepublicanJimmy Carter - DemocratRonald Reagan - RepublicanGeorge H.W. Bush - RepublicanBill Clinton - DemocratGeorge W. Bush - RepublicanBarack Obama - DemocratWhat we see here is that there have been five Republican presidents and only three Democratic ones. This means that the media does not guarantee victory to one side. Because of this, they can be ruled out as not a game changer. II. PollsMy opponent believes that I was a wrong sites Steve Forbes who gave a wrong prediction. Forbes simply had a wrong prediction. This does not mean everyone had a wrong predicition. This simply means Forbes was wrong. I don't really get what my opponent is expecting.III. UndecidedsUndecideds are unpredictable, that is why they are undecided. You never know what is going to happen. Typically, undecideds go for an incumbent, but there is no incumbent in 2016. My opponent then starts talking about demographics and issues from the 2012 election, but this will be different in 2016. Finally, my opponent forgest to mention that the main editor of Elephant Watcher has been through a tragic accident and thus the site could not continue. That is why its stuck how they are.ConclusionI have proven my opponent wrong on many levels. I have been able to hold my arguments while my opponent gives outdated information that will not matter in 2016.
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 Election

My Arguments I. Front-runners Attacked My opponent never properly attacked my point here that front runners are always targeted and are vulnerable. In 2012, many Republicans were vulnerable for lacking conservatism. According to Elephant Watcher, one of the top election sources in history: "Voters seem to make positive assumptions about their candidates. Simply by virtue of a candidate's presence on the stage, voters assume that the candidate--barring evidence to the contrary--is a "legitimate" one. A proper Republican candidate is both conservative and electable, and voters presume that anyone on the stage possesses both qualities." [1] In the case of Hillary Clinton, she holds many criticism that liberals don't like such as her support of the Iraq War which led to Barack Obama becoming so competitive. At first, the Democrats will be drawed to Clinton because she appears to be the perfect choice. She will then receive attacks from other Democratic candidates, even Vice President Biden if he takes the option to run. This will lead to a situation similar to the 2008 Democratic primaries. We know Biden is likely to be an opponent because he has expressed interest in the race. [2] II. Republican Candidates It opponent seems to try to attack me here by looking at several polls, but now is far too early and the polls are not reliable now. They will only be reliable by 2015 when the race is on. The Gallup poll is a poll among adults, not likely voters. Elephant Watcher has pointed out likely voters polls are more reliable: "The difference matters. In presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. This is not an expected or potential bias--it is a known bias. By the time the election is imminent, nearly all pollsters will switch to polling likely voters rather than registered voters in order to eliminate the bias and increase accuracy." [3] Because of this, the adults polls place a three point inaccurate advantage on the Democratic candidates. Sources 1. http://www.elephantwatcher.com... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3. http://www.elephantwatcher.com...
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 Election

As for the Democratic frontrunner in early polls there are only 2 http://en.wikipedia.org... and Joe Biden Clearly Hillary Clinton is a much more favored candidate while 9% of Americans have never heard of Joe Biden just in case your one of them. http://www.gallup.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... Clinton was favored by 12 percentage points over Rubio, 11 points over Paul, 16 points over Bush and 3 points over Christie. Biden trailed the New Jersey governor 46 percent to 43 percent but held a 14-point edge over Rubio, a 9-point advantage on Paul and an 8-point lead over Bush. Source: http://thehill.com... Hilary's odd have skyrocketed since 2008 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...... Mrs. Clinton"s credentials as secretary of state, as a United States senator, and as a politically engaged first lady would be hard for any of her Democratic or Republican rivals to match. She would have little trouble raising funds or garnering support from the Democratic officials, and she might even come close to clearing the Democratic field of serious opposition.
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 Election

I. Front-Runners Attacked The front-runners are the immediate targets in the primaries for both the Republicans and the Democrats. In the 2012 Republican primaries there were several front-runners. First, it was Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, but she couldn't not capitalize on victory in the Iowa Straw Poll. Then it was Governor Rick Perry, but he proved hopeless in debates. Next was businessman Herman Cain, but he suffered from sexual harassment allegations. After him, there was former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who was attacked for serving as a lobbyist. Finally, former Senator Rick Santorum was proven to not be a conservative. The GOP was stuck with former Governor Mitt Romney, an uncharasmatic man with a moderate record who was attacked for being a vulture capitalist and overseas bank accounts. While the race is closed, it is possible that another candidate could have done better. This goes into the next race. If Hillary Clinton runs she will likely be immediately attacked for the same things in 2008 except now she carries Benghazi baggage. This hit her in the 2008 primaries and resulted to her drop out. It's likely this will hit her in 2016 as well. This makes Clinton's position weaker than ever. II. Republican Candidates Traditionally, the country goes more conservative after a liberal presidency. After Woodrow Wilson, the country elected Warren Harding. After Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, the country elected Dwight Eisenhower. This will be likely in the case in the 2016 election. Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry are likely to run again. In addition, Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are likely to join them in the primaries. Another possibility is former Governor Jeb Bush. Either way, all these candidates are in a good position to win the election than Hillary Clinton. The three formers have more recent campaign experience and Santorum will win over his home state of Pennsylvania. Clinton does not have a battleground state luxury. The latter three also have so,e battleground state luxury and appeal to other groups. Clinton just stands as the establishment Democrat that was favored in 2008, but failed to prove herself. Conclusion Hillary Clinton is in a dangerously weak position in 2016 and will likely lose even if she wins the primaries.
Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law

Throughout my opponent's entire case and summary, he continuously makes the mistaken belief that vigilantism is the only way to achieve justice. In his example, he states that there is no one left to catch the criminal and uphold the law. This is simply not true. As I stated with plea bargaining, a government can CHOOSE to purposely not enforce some laws in order to ensure a greater justice. The government would LET THE CRIMINAL GO if the criminal produced information that is helpful towards catching more dangerous criminals. In this case, the law has NOT been upheld (plea bargaining is not part of the law) because the government has not punished the criminal at all. Yet justice is still being achieved because the government now has the ability to catch a more dangerous criminal. If vigilantes responded to this situation, found the criminal who was not punished by the government, and beat/kill the criminal, other criminals would no longer want to plea bargain in the future. Therefore, vigilantism is clearly NOT justified in this situation and would only harm both the government, and the justice that the government is trying to achieve. Even in a case without plea bargaining, vigilantes have NO WAY of knowing who is, and who isn't a criminal. Vigilantes can only act on belief, which may cause them to harm innocents. Now, on top of the previous criminal, citizens also have to worry about vigilantes. This only adds fuel to fire, and causes more chaos, more harm, and no justice. My opponent states that I do not offer any other choice. That however, (according to LD rules) is not the job of the Negative. All that the negative is suppose to do, i s prove how the Affirmative offers a more chaotic world with less justice by justifying vigilantism. My opponent has clearly dropped all my refutations to his points, making my refutations valid. He has no ground left to debate on because he clearly does not achieve justice. Therefore, I urge a negative vote for the following reasons: 1. The Negative has shown exactly why vigilantes do not use due process and is unable to give out the rightful punishment for crimes. This would lead to harming innocents and violation of justice 2. There are no checks on vigilantes so there is nothing to prevent them from going bad. Affirming today would be opening the door for vigilantism to occur and will only lead to situations like current-day Nicaragua. 3. Vigilantes would undermine the government in cases of plea bargaining and would prevent the government from upholding the greater picture of justice. 4. The Affirmative has nothing going for him any longer because he has dropped all my refutations, and, because silence equals consent in LD, he has agreed with my refutations. Thank you
Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law

Since this is an LD debate, I am unfortunately only allowed to go over values and voting issues. Good job to my opponent, and I wish him luck in his debating season. What must be seen in today's debate is that my opponent and I both value justice, the equilibrium between the freedoms of a citizen and the restrictions of a society. Therefore, whichever side better upholds justice, wins the debate. If you affirm the resolution, you are in fact affirming justice. My opponent values justice, but does not want vigilantism. This is a bit of an oxymoron given the resolution. Consider the following situation: A criminal breaks the law. The government has failed to enforce the law. The law is broken. Who/what is going to uphold the law? How will equilibrium be achieved? I offer vigilantism. My opponent offers nothing. If he does not like vigilantism, then what does he propose? If you negate, you allow for the direct violation of the law with certain knowledge that it will go unpunished. Is that what we really want for society? How is that just? Because my opponent has failed to show why, the affirmative better provides for justice, and thus wins the debate. Thank you.
abortion

(you kind of didn't follow the rules but whatever). I see where you are coming from, but the fetus doesn't feel pain until 20 weeks(https://www.livescience.com...). If it is past 20 weeks then I agree with you, but before 20 weeks is fine. There are other things to factor in here, such as rape, incest, or underage sex. The victim shouldn't have to give birth because they were raped. Who would care for a disfigured baby due to incest? A teen shouldn't have to raise a baby if they aren't ready. Thank you for taking the time to read my side, I look forward to reading yours.
abortion

Yes you are right about the whole underage sex, rape etc. But what if some people agree to have sex then they abort their child because there are some people like that they want to have sex but they don't want a child thats were im coming from see if you want to have sex but not have a kid use a condom but condoms are not 100% accurate there can be a small hole and your sperm can reach into your spouses egg cell but anyways some people agree to have sex but don't want the child so that is why not to be judgy but i dont like those kind of people if you dont wanna have a kid use a condom and that is why i think abortion is not right. Thank you as well Hope we can debate some other time
Please don't solve this riddle

Really bossy? I know I hate riddles, but even this one is really easy. I can do this one myself.Okay, so since I play soccer I run a lot. So I'm running and I'm running and I'm running. And sooner or later I start to get more and more winded and out of breath. So I have to try and get some air into my lungs again but I have to keep running to stay in the game. So I keep trying to breathe while still running and it never really works out.So what am I failing to catch while running faster and faster? My breath.*locks in answer*
Is racism wrong

Thank you for your response, Pro! Killing people is immoral because life is a right and nobody has the right to take a life that does not belong to him. Racism, on the other hand, is a natural result of the evolution of races and a valid belief for one to have. It does not violate anyone's rights. What does violate one's rights to believe what they choose to believe is to demoralize one's beliefs because we do not agree with them; that is immoral. Back to you Pro!
Is racism wrong

Forgive me i misinterpreted your response as you agreeing that racism is morally wrong i believe you have a valid point that it will eventually lead to a ethnic society but allow me this comparison killing people is good for population control and will help lead us into a world where more food and land is available for those who are left that does not mean killing people is morally right racism may very well be good for us in the long run but that does not justify its morality i am not saying that non violent raciest people are bad or have less morality than anybody else but i will say that the notion of racism in an of itself is morally wrong
Is racism wrong

What Racism IsRacism is the acknowledgement of the existence of other human races, the acknowledgement that, statistically, because of factors like the culture, some races have different abilities and characteristics that make them better than other races at some things without denying the existence of exceptions, and the desire to live amongst those of your own race. What Racism Isn'tRacism is not the belief that any race has the right to subjugate, exploit, or exterminate any other race.Why Racism Is GoodExploitation only happens in multi-racial societies, not in ethnic societies. Racism is the force driving us toward the creation of ethnic nations which will result in the end of racial violence and oppression which exists in multi-racial societies. ConclusionRacists have the right to think whatever they want to think of other races; what is morally wrong is to demoralize them if they are not hurting anyone. On the contrary, their belief of ethnic societies could be a good thing for the human races. Thank you for your time. I eagerly await Pro's rebuttals.
Is racism wrong

1. Hello I will be take the stance that racism is wrong morally and con will be taking the stance that racism has some eccentric value format will consist of 1. introduction and opening statement 2. rebuttal 3. final rebuttal and closing statement Now I will forfeit that yes racism has been a natural part of human evolution since the begging of exsitience and even in other species they stick with like minded/sophistical equals Now i will be arguing that we has humans are evolving to remove racism from our nature
Can a God Possibly Exist 2.0

I graciously accept the challenge. I will, however, begin by outlining that I do accept the definition of god being "Any being or entity with an absolute control of everything", and will argue against this being possible. I also would like to point out that the instigator has made a linguistics error in defining the positions. The position of pro is defined by the instigator as possible meaning "It is not impossible". This is an equivocation fallacy, based on the assumption that not being able to demonstrate something as impossible is the same as stating it as being possible. I will demonstrate this is unfounded. The attempt at defining the position of con as requiring an argument that it is impossible for a god to exist, is therefore, shifting the burden of proof to the negation of the original claim. The instigator's claim is that it IS possible for a god to exist, for which I will argue he cannot sufficiently demonstrate is a reasonable assumption, and therefore has failed to demonstrate his point.
Can a God Possibly Exist 2.0

Unfortunately, all ChristianGeek has done is state "there is an unbreakable chance of [god's] existence". A statement he has made without ever having shown a single reason to be true. As such, his attempt to redefine or replace his initial argument with "Can a being or entity with an absolute control of everything not be possible to exist" is a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. As I demonstrated in my opening argument, one cannot simply claim that something is possible without demonstrating it to be such. In this debate, the very topic is one of the unknown, not of the known. As such, we have no way of knowing if such a god is possible, and ChristianGeek's failure to demonstrate as such means he has not demonstrated his position of the debate "Can a god exist". Also, I have demonstrated that a being in absolute control of everything is rather contradictory. To be in absolute control of everything would mean that he is in control of all the evil, destruction, and every action that opposes him, and his plan. Such contradictory behaviour demonstrates no reason to assume there is a chance such a being exists, and if there is no reason to assume he could exist, then there is no argument to be made in support of the idea of him being possible. Thank you very much for taking the time to have read through this debate. I hope that my words have clarified my position well. I look forward to your feedback and votes.
Diablo 3 is superior to Diablo 2

I accept and will be arguing that Diablo 2 is superior to Diablo 3. I assume we are talking about playability, storyline, equipment, skills, enjoyment, etc. I will not argue that the technological aspects (such as graphics) of Diablo 2 are superior since obviously game technology is far more advanced now than it was in 2000 when Diablo 2 was released.
Diablo 3 is superior to Diablo 2

Hello everyone! INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONSThis debate will be focusing on the Blizzard's Diablo series, particularly Diablo 3 (released around 15 months ago) and Diablo 2 (released over a decade ago, but still with an active community). Just some clarifications; when I say 'Diablo 2' I am speaking of course of the game as it is today (1.13d), including all the updates that have taken place over course of the game as well as the awesome expansion pack Lord of Destruction that was released around a year after Diablo 2 itself was released. Likewise, when I says Diablo 3 I am speaking of it as it stands today (1.0.8), not as it was on release. When I say 'superior' we will take into account all aspects of the game and while yes, a lot of factors are going to be largely subjective such is the nature of almost all debates and we will leave it up to our good audience to judge for themselves who had the better arguments.
Evolution should be taught in public schools

Sorry I forgot some definitions. Fact-a thing that is indisputably the case. Science-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Evolution is science It is not a secret that evolution is science. It has been proven by extensive research by both observation and experimentation. In science class, we are taught biology. It is very difficult to explain the reason why the trachea is covered with ringed cartilage and the esophagus is not without the theory of evolution. Without teaching evolution we are obstructing learning in the classroom. No one is opposed to the water cycle being taught in class, that is science. Evolution is also science thus should be taught. Theories are taught in science class You may or may not have heard of molecular theory which is the theory that when an object reaches it's boiling point it's atoms become energetic and spaced and the object becomes a gas, when it reaches he melting point the atoms slow down and become a liquid and when it reaches the freezing point the atoms come close together and become a solid. This is a theory meaning that it has been through extensive research and all or most test come back confirming this. We cannot see these atoms moving about, but we know they're there. If you believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection should not be taught in class because it's just a theory you agree that we should not teach molecular theory as well plus all the other theories that they teach in science class. There's nothing wrong with theories[1]. Theories are not guesses that we fail to double check, they are extensively researched and tested. There are no credible scientists that have poked a major whole in the theory of evolution. Many christian youtubers have tried as well as many unaccredited scientists, but none have found substantial evidence that proves evolution to be flawed. A few people opposing something is not an argument for halting the flow of knowledge If a parent of an obese family came to the school asking for physical education to be stopped because it makes his little Jimmy tired should we let them? If you answered yes I'd like to challenge you to another debate if not then you'll understand that it is the same thing with christian parents. Because a few christian don't like evolution being taught in schools should we end the process for all students simply because a few parents are offended. Those parents have the right to send their child to a private school or home school them, but every person in the district or state shouldn't have to suffer because a few people don't like it. Citation: [1]