BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
obama's got enough experience

Closing arguments: Military experience doesn't decide who is president, though it certainly helps. You say that he has the only candidate who matters beat (which I assume is McCain), which is not even close to being correct. McCain has far more experience than Obama, both military and Legislative. The latest polls from Gallup and Rasmussen have Obama up by 1 and 3, respectively. That is far from being "beat". I am not saying that legislative experience does not matter, because it does. However, 143 days of it does not warrrant saying that Obama has seen enough of the Senate and needs to run for president. I don't know about you, but I don't measure experience in years. I measure it in accomplishments, substance, and judgement (which sort of ties in to substance). And Obama has clearly shown that he lacks any major feats as a senator. He has also shown that he lacks substance, as I have previously shown. Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, his communist childhood mentor, Bill Ayres, the list goes on. He disowned Wright, Rezko, and Ayres when it was politcally convinient for him. While Senator Obama is in the middle of a campaign, this does not excuse poor judgement. You also failed to answer my question. Does that maybe show that you have no retort to my question, that Obama really lacks the judgement, experience, and bipartisanship to run the country? I'm sure this is "flawed logic" as well, but the facts remain: Barack Obama, though he has as many years in public office as Bill Clinton, has not done enough in those years to prove he is ready to take on the role of POTUS. Captain America
obama's got enough experience

"By your logic, anyone with any sort of state or US Senate experience is pretty much qualified to be leader of the free world, regardless of their record." you must have bad logic if that's what you're drawing. of course it matters what they do. if they shoot someone etc, or just suck real bad at politics and policy, then it matters. i never said it didn't. i was just pointing out that he's got time in under his belt. if you'd have given the reasons he sucked in the legislture,,, maybe your conclusion would have more merit to it, but you didn't, other than to simply say he was a legislator only. "Even if McCain was involved in the Keating Five, that doesn't make it right for Obama to do what he did." also, i didn't say it makes it right that mccain is in the keating five to justify obama. i was only saying obama is not as bad as mccain. again you're drawing illogical conclusions. "Also, my argument does not boil down to Gov. v Legislator. It boils down to what he has done as a legislator in the Illinois state senate, which isn't much. I am simply countering your comparison of Obama's experience to Clinton's." you didn't mentin anything bad obama did. all you did was say that he was a legislator, whereas clinton was a govenor. only now do you mention it. as per his experiences... whether to go to war in iraq or not is a huge issue. (actually,, he never voted on that issues, you got the facts wrong but it's a huge issue nonetheless. i'm just meeting you at your level) "The debate is NOT ABOUT MCCAIN." i started the debate talking about mccain, so i don't see how you can say it's not about him. i'm saying,,, if mccain's decision on intenratl etc sucks (which is a huge issue that obama arguably lacks), then his experience doesn't count for a whole lot,,, and if obama's decisions and calls have been good,, then while obama's not got it all in the military etc,, he's at least got the only person that matters beat. and that indeed does have to do with experience, at least the way i framed it, which is the way that matters for this debate.
obama's got enough experience

So, correct me if I'm wrong, your argument as that he has been in the state and US senate long enough to be president. Ok. By your logic, anyone with any sort of state or US Senate experience is pretty much qualified to be leader of the free world, regardless of their record. Senator Obama has had little to no impact on any major legislature, he flip-flops on many issues, (The surge, Marijuana use, Public Financing, etc.) and he has shown from his handling of his radical associations like Jerimiah Wright that he lacks the judgment to lead, he is still qualified to be president, in your view. "But Jeremiah Wright didn't matter!", cries the Left. It does matter, because if Barack Obama would have had good judgment, he would have left Trinity after he heard Wright say "GD America". But he didn't. He left when people really started catching on as to how racist his pastor was. He left when it was convenient for him. Even if McCain was involved in the Keating Five, that doesn't make it right for Obama to do what he did. Also, my argument does not boil down to Gov. v Legislator. It boils down to what he has done as a legislator in the Illinois state senate, which isn't much. I am simply countering your comparison of Obama's experience to Clinton's. Bill Clinton had to make big decisions as Governor of Arkansas. Barack Obama recently said that the biggest decision he ever made in his life was the decision to vote 'yes' or 'no' on going to Iraq. I don't think he knew how much of a fool he looked like when he said that. He has made no life-or-death decisions in his life that I'm aware of, no record of bringing people together, and no record of anything that would properly prepare him for the Office of President. Spending time in the state senate does not prepare you to be president. Spending a 143 days in the US senate certainly does not prepare you to be president. Now explain to me how he can take office and have the judgment, experience, and the bipartisanship necessary to run this country? Captain America PS: With the quotes, it's pretty simple to counter. The debate is NOT ABOUT MCCAIN. It is about whether Obama has enough experience, and I fail to see how McCain wanting to bomb Soviet ships has anything to do with Obama's experience.
obama's got enough experience

obama's been in the senate for more than a year for one. he's been in it for a number of years in fact. that's combined with his state experience equals essentially clinton's experience. people debate whether govenor or legislator is better. each has a unique twist to it. one is taking the overall look,, the other is trying to figure out solutions closer to home etc. is this the essense of what your argument boils down to, gov v. legislator? cause i dont' see how you could say the pastor thing is fatal. he probably never liked the pastor completely,,, obama said he was just part of the community and there werne't many. you dont have ot leave for every bad statement. plust the statement was rare from him. it'd be like faulting someone for following pat robertson and those ilk. they're nuts time to time. but you can still follow them generally. he can leave for political expediency, but that's just playing politics, you can't really fault him for that. they all do it. mccain does it. mccain in fact has been part of scandals himself like the keating five scandal of funny money stuff. that's dishonesty there. not where you happen to go to church. i didn't mean,, obama's leading, as per your reference to the polls. i meant, he's leading in military decisions being made, in my opinion. you post that the bomb iran stuff was beating a dead horse. i can take it as a joke, it's the totality that's concerning... you forget about him literally wanting to bomb the soviets as i mentioned, and most agree would start WWIII. and he ocntinues to mock them and take a complicated situation into an us or them situation with the georgia conflict. and so ultimatley the only thing you bring is a distinction between goveneor and legislator,,, which most don't think matters much. te other things you bring,,,, are things that are trivial,,, they don't have to do with experience so much as your personal issues with him. even if i conceded that he should lose bc of the pastor thing for example,, it doesn't detract from his experience. me talking about mccain's bad experiences was mostly just a side point,,, not hinging on it. and at least these issues deal with politics and issues and not somethin dumb like what your pastor said once. and you didn't even address the fact that most presidents should be said to be unqualified for president now, as per saying obama's not, as per internatlaity and military experience. if they're qualified, then obama is. (if you dn't think they're qualified, you shoulda said so, but did not) you only bring a trivial point abot his pastor, and bicker about something no one would find meaningful unless they're trying to find a reason to not like him as per experience, about gov v. legislator. the bottomline is that obama's been in politics long enough, and is old enough, to warrant saying he has experience necessary.
obama's got enough experience

Hi, this is my first debate, so I hope to make it a good one. To start off with, you contend that Senator Obama has enough experience to be leader of the free world. You also state that Bill Clinton had just as many years of experience as Obama. I will start with these two points 1. Senator Obama has been in the US senate for less than a year. Before that he was in the Illinois state senate. This, in my opinion, does not qualify one to be president. Also, Senator Obama has shown not only from his controversial associations, but also from the way he handeled them, that he does not have the judgement to be President. For example: When the Rev. Wright issue first came about, Obama was quoted as saying "I can no more disown Rev. Wright than I can disown the black community". About a month later, he did just that, saying he was not the man he knew 20 years ago, and that he was leaving Trinity Baptist Church. That move was pure political expediency. Also, notice how Obama always stutters when he has no lines in front of him, whereas Senator McCain states his words calm and confidently. 2. This is really quite simple. It is true that Senator Obama may have as many years as Bill Clinton, but Senator Obama spent close to all of those years in the state senate of Illinois, whereas Clinton was the governor of Arkansas. There is a significant difference between being a state senator for 7-10 years and being a governor for that long. You also state that it's the "Media Zombies" (which I guess I would be considered one, I'm not sure) spouting that Obama is inexperienced. This is patently false. I have done the research myself and come to my own conclusion. You imply that he "has the competition beat". Also untrue. Today's (August 16) Rasmussen and Gallup polls have Obama only up by one point. And the RCP average is less than 4 points. Now I understand that polls have been wrong before, but if this election is really as lopsided as you think it's going to be, don't you think at least one of the recent polls would have Obama up by more than 10 points nationally? Military experience gives one moe credibility in elections, but it's not necessarily required. Sure, McCain may have played the "War Hero" card one too many times, I'll give you that. But for each time McCain has played the "War Hero" card, Obama has played the "Change" card 10 more times. The "Bomb Iran" song is pretty much a dead horse being beaten at this point. It was a joke. I'm sure if Obama said something similar, you'd find it hillarious. McCain isn't perfect, but McCain isn't the subject of the debate. Obama is, as stated in the title: "obama's got enough experience". I await your rebuttal. Captain America
Macedon was a Greek Kingdom

Okay now let's get into the subject. Now we all know that Greece and FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) are arguing about the history of Macedonia. Now with Greece's views, it has been known that the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon was clearly a Greek Kingdom due to Hellenic style of the Kingdom, the Ancient Macedonians also spoke a Greek dialect known as Attic Greek! It has also been discovered that the Ancient Macedonians originated from the southern part of Greece close to Sparta and they considered themselves as descendants of Hercules (who was a Greek God). The mother of Alexander the Great was in a belief that her son was the direct son of Zeus and not Phillip II. Now the views of the people of FYROM. They claim that Macedon was a separate Kingdom and the Ancient Macedonians conquered the Greeks and the rest of the world when it was only confirmed that Alexander the Great and his Macedonian army conquered the Persians and the Indians. They start covering up their lies, claiming that Greece committed an unknown genocide and did an ethnic cleansing of the "Macedonians". They even used false pictures to confirm this. Let me explain an example, they used a picture supposedly showing 2 dead "Macedonians" surrounded by angry Greeks, but then thanks to some smart Greeks, they analysed the photo and zoomed it out and saw a Greek sign confirming that the bodies were actually 2 dead Greek communist supporters who both died during a riot in Athens, Greece.
Capital Punishment

Sure, men and women of law enforcement are people just like you and me, but i do think that they are more valuable. My reasoning is that they risk their lives every day, for low pay i might add, to keep us safe from the criminals in our country. I never said that i had the right to judge people, nor have i tried to do so. Also as a Christian i completely agree with you that God is the only one who does have the right to judge. But for the purposes of my argument, i do not believe that sentencing somebody to the death penalty is in anyway judging them. When any criminal, no matter the crime, they have a trial for sentencing. Now, do you believe that we are judging them too? Why would our society be a complete disaster if the eye for eye logic was used? As i said before, when a person kills another they have taken their right to live. So that person should give up their right. By putting them in prison for life they don't give up that right. Also our prisons in this country are to crowded already. The techniques used in executing these people do not cause them any pain. Abortion is murder, no matter when it is done. The embryo is a living human organism. By having an abortion you are taking its life.
Capital Punishment

Capital punishment (death penalty) should be the, with out a doubt, punishment for murder. Especially for the murder of the men/woman of any branch of law enforcement. Capital punishment should not be considered cruel and unusual punishment; but if you still believe it is than take into consideration that the person who is on trial or sentenced to the death penalty had no respect for the right of whom ever they murdered. When the criminal decided to take the life of another human, he took that persons right of security entitled to him by the constitution, and also the murderer took one of the victims "natural" rights of life, which is a right of which you are born with. The BIBLE also says that we should treat others, the way we want to be treated. In history, the punishment fit the crime, as in the statement "an eye for an eye". I am not surprised at all that the crime rate back then was almost none. That is because the people knew exactly what would happen to them if they were to commit the crime. Capital punishment is a necessary punishment for the crime, because of the extremely high crime rates. Put your self in this situation before you reply back, what if someone were to take the life of a family member? How would you react, and what how would you want that person to be punished? Before I'm done, i have a rhetorical statement pertaining to one of your past articles on another topic i feel very strongly about. You said that the death penalty is no different than abortion. There is a huge difference, a baby is completely innocent, a murderer is a criminal.
Guiliani Is Not Qualified To Be President

james94, First let me thank you for inviting me to debate you on this issue. It has been fun. I am sorry to say that I do not believe that you have proven your case. Your points are not supported by any documented facts and most of them are not relevant to the topic we are debating; which is whether Giuliani is qualified to be President of the United States or not. Personally, I think that most of top Republican candidates are "qualified" to be president on some level, but it is irrelevant as to whether they are more qualified than Giuliani because that is not what we are debating. To sum up my argument, Giuliani has a proven track record running a successful government. He is experienced in fighting crime and picking up the pieces after a terrorist attack. He has experience managing teams of individuals and a budget all the while decreasing taxes and continuing social reform. Besides Giuliani's practical experience, he is a likable guy who is globally respected as a government leader.
Guiliani Is Not Qualified To Be President

Crystal Looking back on previous rounds I will restate my case. I think thatI have proven that Giuliani is not qualified to be president,for three reasons The first reason is that he doesn't have foreign affairs experience. The second reason is that as I stated in previous rounds Richardson and MCCain had more experience than Giuliani. Third is that cutting taxes would be a poor decision because of the deficit. Crystal, You have stated that Giuliani has been to the United Nations this is un true for 2 reasons.First and foremost the United Nations is for world leaders not for Mayors. Second he has limited access to foreign affairs documents which brings up the point of him not being qualified . Let's talk about Giuliani.As stated in previous rounds I still believe that the tax cut would bring us to an all time high when it comes to the middle class. Corporate America would benefit from this more than the middle class. IN conclusion to this debate I feel that we as Americans need a strong leader who will fight for what is right and just.Also I believe that I have demonstrated that Giuliani is not qualified for the job as president. Thank You for this candid debate.
Guiliani Is Not Qualified To Be President

I would like you to explain where the weapons of mass destruction were found. Thank you for correcting me on the spelling of Mr.Giuliani's name. Getting back to the topic of Mass Destruction Weapons I still do not know where the documents were given to the general public as they were not revealed. Mr Giuliani has limited knowlege as to what is happening in Iraq. This also brings me to my next point of view. Mr.Giuliani has no knowlege of foreign affairs due to the fact that he has limited access to the governmental powers. Governor Richardson has had more experience in foreign affairs than Mr.Giuliani due to the fact that he has been overseas.Senator McCain has been in Iraq and has had first hand experience seeing for himself what the men and women go through every day. Mr.Giuliani does not have this hands on experience. This is just one more example of why Mr.Giuliani is not qualified to be president.This brings me to my next point of view. Let's talk about 9/11/2001 I fail to see where you get off saying that Giuliani was in the trenches with the rescue officials.He was no where in sight when the twin towers fell. I still believe that he cut and ran.Due to this fact he I think that he would cut and run if the going got tough.On the left hand Senator McCain and Governor Romney would stand up and fight for what they believe in,more than what Giuliani would.This birngs me to the next point of view,and last topic. When Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani he lost alot of supporters.Mr.Romney is the number 1 contender in this race on the Republican side . With regards to cutting taxes we would not be paying our deficit off but would be increasing the expenditures of the working middle class families. Also we would be cutting off funds for children for after school programs to keep kids safe. I feel that Corporate America is exempt from paying higher taxes which puts a burden on the middle class families who are paying taxes. I violently disagree with cutting taxes, because it will benefit the rich not the poor families, or the middle class families.
Guiliani Is Not Qualified To Be President

I commend the statements that you made on my three statements. First let's talk about the Iraq war .In our military we have men and women dying every day risking their lives for our freedom,but not for the lack of training but the lack of weapons.Due to the war the deficit has increased to almost triple the amount.This came from our government.We are not there for the terrorists but for the oil. If you recall there were no weapons of mass destruction found under Saddam Hussein 's presidency .He was tried and executed due to the president finding him guilty of genicide. He also threatened the current presidents fathers life. This and oil are the reasons we are in Iraq today. Let's talk about Guiliani's qualifications. First and foremost he is not looking out for the children of families on welfare. If he had cut taxes as you have very openly stated the rich people are exempt from paying higher taxes than the middle class .I believe that it is the middle class that is supporting the country not the rich ,since we pay higher taxes. Giuliani did not clean up the mess in the state of New York it was the new mayor who handled this proceedure.I believe that Guiliani cut and ran when 9/11 occured. He then took the credit for the clean up and rescue missions,which were not accomplished by him,but by the new mayor. Pat Robinson endorsed Giuliani, and now he is not front runner for the republican party.If you check the polls Romney is the front runner ,which brings me to my next point of view. I believe that we as young voters should get involved in the government . We need to tell the congress to let us voice our opinions on the big issues. Mr. Guiliani has never asked his constituants what they think, so that they can express concerns and comments.
Guiliani Is Not Qualified To Be President

Thank you for clarifying the status of the president . I still find that we as constituants of the USA we should be heard on the bigger issues concerning the welfare of the people. We are not being asked what we think. Rudolph Guilliani was endorsed by Patrick Robinson which will take votes away from him and which will give votes to other running candidates . Mr.Guiliani for the war in Iraq ,Due to the fact that heis for that he will not!get my vote. I have made an informed decision as should the American people.I think that as a young person who is going to vote I should be well informed. Due to the fact that he was Mayor of NewYork City he lacks the senatorial experience to hold such a high office. He would not be supportive of the middle class of people who go to work every day and try to eek out a living. Mr.Guiliani would carry out the former presidents policies which are royally stupid.I believe that he would not win the presidency because his points are too weak.