BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hillary Clinton's honesty relative to other politicians.

My opponents argument is filled with nonsense fallicies and claims thatare just flat out innacurate. Let's start with the Chinagate scandal, my opponent claims that this is a conspiracy theory from infowars, but that's just- wrong. Firstly because infowars was founded in 1997, whilst the book "the year of the Rat (1996)," which I used as a source, was written in 1996. Secondly, claiming that if nfowars said it it must be false is just about as logical as saying that if it came from infowars it must be true- my opponent is trying to discredit this fact by stating that infowars reported on it, so this is pretty much an ad-hominem attack. Finally, the people who wrote "the year of the rat (1996)" are actually pretty credible people, William C. Triplett II, for example, served in the intelligence community during the Reagan Administration. {1} Edward Timperlake served during the Bush Administration, {2} these guys are jst about as credible as you can get. If Alex Jones came out and said that Barrack Obama is a President, it doesn't diminish Obamas credibility as a President. In regard to Whitewater, my opponent doesn't have a rebuttal, other than that Hillry Clinton wasn't charged. John D Rockefeller wasn't charged for the Ludlow Massacre, but he still did it. It's still just as bad, and just as dishonest. How many politicians do you know of that stole houses from elderly people?And just because Russia paid Hillary through her sush fund "Clinton Foundation" rather than to her directly doesn't mean anything either. Most money launderers funnel their cash through a fone buisness or slush fund. It' still illegal, she still accepted the money, she still violated the constitution. {1}. https://docs.google.com...{2}. http://www.sldinfo.com...
Hillary Clinton's honesty relative to other politicians.

The Email Scandal is only a tiny slice of Hillary's scandals, take for example the Chinagate Scandal, when Hillary Clinton sold US military technology to China to fund Bill's reelection campaign in 1996. {1} Or whitewater when she stole elderly peoples homes in a real estate scandal, {2} or the Uranium One Scandal, when she sold Uranium to Russia. {3} She also accepted 10-25 million dollars from Saudi Arabia {4}, which violates Article 1 Section 9 of the UStitution:"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."In fact, she has committed treason against the United States, because Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution states:"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."She sold our military technology to China, and sold arms to ISIS, {5} that's 2 instances of treason right there. {1}. The year of the Rat (1996){2}. http://www.washingtonpost.com...{3}. http://www.washingtonpost.com...{4}. https://www.clintonfoundation.org...{5}. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...
Hillary Clinton's honesty relative to other politicians.

Hillary Clinton's honesty relative to other politicians. In my previous debate I found we had trouble agreeing on what would be the criteria on which to grade Hillary Clinton's honesty. It is easy to make blanket statements all politicians lie so therefore are dishonest. Even if the above is true, this seems like buying out. Hillary is way above average for a politician for honesty. Therefore, to state Hillary is dishonest paints her with the same stroke as other much more dishonest candidates. This is the essence of unfair. If as average person turned into a politician they would probably be less honest than Hillary Clinton.As you can see from the chart Hillary is one of the most honest politicians since 2007. [0] The emails are frequently used to bash Hillary, but none of them were properly marked as classified when sent or received. Only three of 55,000 had any markings showing the email to be classified. 110 out 55,000 contained classified information when sent or recieved according to Comey. [1]"Let’s unpack that. Out of 110 emails that Comey testified contained classified information (which constituted only 0.2% of Hillary’s 55,000 emails), only three had any markings indicating the presence of classified material. And Comey conceded that those three were improperly marked. He further testified that it would be a “reasonable inference” for Hillary to assume that those three emails were not classified." Sources.0. http://www.motherjones.com...1. http://bluenationreview.com...
Copying is not theft

Copying is stealing. It is benefiting from someone else's work without their permission. Take this example: If you invent a car that runs on water instead of gas, and I copy your designs and sell the car (or give it away), I've taken all value from what you probably spent a lot of time and money working on. I from you every dollar that you would have earned, and even if I don't get to keep it, you still don't get to have it because of my actions, so I have robbed you by default. If you write a book and publish it, you've spent weeks/months/years of your life putting your ideas into words and crafting your masterpiece. If I copy that book and sell it or post it online, I'm stealing from you - stealing your reputation, stealing your income, stealing what you have earned.
Copying is not theft

Copying is not theft. Stealing a thing leaves one less left. Copying it makes one thing more; that's what copying's for. Copying is not theft. If I copy yours you have it too. One for me and one for you. That's what copies can do. If I steal your bicycle you have to take the bus, but if I just copy it there's one for each of us! Making more of a thing, that is what we call "copying" Sharing ideas with everyone. That's why copying is FUN!
Debaters should defend only those positions with which they truly agree.

Look, all I'm saying is it never is a waste of time to take the other side just once. You can put your place in that position and actually defend it for yourself, not just reading what some one else wrote. I read alot of the opposing veiws, thats how you defend the opposition. Where we disagree basically, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you think it is a waste of time to debate as an "imposter" because you could be defending your own point. I say by allowing yourself to open your mind and attempt to understand the other side through defending it, it makes your argument smarter. That is why professors and high school teacher use this meathod. >>This page is from a high school teacher talking about his results using my meathods: http://www.paulnoll.com... >>This website written by Glen Whitman, Associate Professor of Economics California State University, Northridge: fromhttp://www.csun.edu... My point I believe is prooven. The art of debate is more vast than my opponet has determined. You can't block yourself out from the other side. It's kind of like the old saying "Keep your freinds close, your enemies closer.", or "Keeping an eye on the enemy." In this case we need to understand where the enemy is coming from. How do they see their conclusion? Why do they believe this? What attracts them to this argument? Thank You.
Debaters should defend only those positions with which they truly agree.

My point in saying that you will learn to mimic the arguments of the other side was to advise that you save the time developing those arguments and read the ones already posted. That way you can learn faster. It's a win-win. You don't get involved in a debate as an impostor, and you learn faster by reading at your leisure instead of waiting for your opponent to respond. The method of arguing your opponent's viewpoint is old school. Teachers would use this method because they were short on opponents and also because it used to be quite difficult to get in the minds of your opponents. You'd have to check out books at the library and use a card catalog. Now, with the internet (and especially this site), it is quick and easy. Some people do learn faster when writing instead of reading, but that's why I recommended the scratch paper.
Debaters should defend only those positions with which they truly agree.

You see, I only said to sharpen debate skills, defending the opposite veiwpoint can help you understand how to debate your own against others. It is only unnecessary if you don't want to become a debater. How is it impolite to defend another veiw if you go about it respectfully and intelligently? You said: "If you were really good at taking the other side, your arguments would likely mimic those of the other side at best" --Well this is my piont isn't it? To mimic the other side to understand where they come from so, in theroy, your argument will be stronger. As I said before, if you can fully understand where your opponet is coming from than you know all the loop-holes and ins-and-outs.
Debaters should defend only those positions with which they truly agree.

"it makes you a better debater" If so, it doesn't make it polite. I personally believe it is unnecessary. If you were really good at taking the other side, your arguments would likely mimic those of the other side at best. On average they would probably fall short and/or lack conviction. By the looks of your debate handle I'd say you have way more experience in arguing on behalf of social programs that do I. I am free to research the opinions of you and others like you on this site and elsewhere. If that does not suffice, and I need to invent my own left-wing arguments, I can do so on a piece of scratch paper, as apposed to wasting someone else's time.
Debaters should defend only those positions with which they truly agree.

Well I understand your point. It is pointless to debate someone who is only there to waste your time. My only argument is, in my opinion, it makes you a better debater (and speaker) if you are able to defend a topic you don't agree with. For example, I was assigned an opinion essay to write for my high school newspaper on the topic of tortrue. In order to make a well concluded argument I had to anaylze the other side. I ended up writing a draft deffending the use of torture as "interrogation techniques". I have to add that this was not easy for me, as I am a bleeding heart liberal who in no way agrees with torture at all. Anyways, I wrote my essay, and if I do say so myself it was very well done. People who had all different opinions on this subject read mine and gave it some thought. I was also able to add some Colbert-like jokes in it to give it some character. My point, if people can debate something they don't agree with, they can undestand the topic from their original point of veiw alot better.
Debaters should defend only those positions with which they truly agree.

Note: It goes without saying that I'm looking for an opponent who actually disagrees with me on this. I'm tired (and I'm sure others are) of whittling a topic down to its nuts and bolts just to find that my opponent really does not agree with the position he is defending. It usually comes at a point where the more effective debater has his opponent surrounded. The opponent will finally come out with his hands up claiming they didn't really believe in that which they just spent 4 days defending. That's frustrating. The main reason I dislike this approach is that many start debates in order to expose and rebut invalid arguments endorsed by their true political adversaries. Most of these invalid arguments and ideas are rooted in emotion rather than reason. When one takes a side just for the sake of honing his debating skills, he typically lacks the emotion needed to bring forth such arguments and/or defend them with any vigor. I want to know what makes people of opposing viewpoints tic. I want to become familiar with (and expose) the hopes, fears and personal biases that influence their arguments. An impostor cannot accurately offer these insights. I, fellow debaters, and readers are robbed of a valuable learning experience when someone hijacks a debate because he has nothing better to do.
USC football is better than UCLA football

First, on his 3rd round and then voting issues. In response to my refutation, he says that we must look to events in the past in order to see the present. However, he provides no reason why and this is just an assertion, which holds no weight. Further, my response is that I can look at what a team is made up at this very moment without knowing how many championships they have won in the past or how many Heisman trophy winners they have had. He says that I have yet to refute his points, however, the reason I did not refute them is that they do not hold any weight, and he conceded this by not responding to my refutation. There is a character limit of 4,000 in this round, he had plenty of room to challenge this in the 2nd round. He then accuses me of hiding behind grammatical uses. This argument does not stand because he worded the resolution and had ample room in his other rounds to challenge my interpretation, but he chose not to. It is ridiculous for him to accuse me of semantics when he waited until the last round to challenge my "semantics" and he himself worded the resolution. It was clear to me that it was in the present tense, and I assumed that the instigator would want to debate his own resolution. Next, he says that I have not offered any case of UCLA being better. This is not true. In my opening argument, I showed that UCLA was inherently better because they currently have the ability to go to a bowl game. This argument goes conceded because I showed how the bowl ban is still in effect in the present tense so the future doesn't matter and the likelihood of it being removed is extremely low, which he failed to refute. He also conceded that this is the highest impact in the round. Voting issues: Conduct: CON- In his third round, he accused me of being cowardly and that I could not overcome his argument, which is very smug. Spelling/Grammar: TIE/CON- This goes whichever way, although he did have several capitalization errors and spelling errors such as spelling "semantics" as "symantics" in his person attack against me Convincing Arguments: CON- He provided weak refutation to my contention and I made two responses to it. I also conceded that its impact was the highest in the round. So, at the point in which he has conceded that this is the highest impact in the round and he has conceded the contention itself, he looses Sources: CON- He used zero sources, while I used ESPN, which is very legitimate regarding sports. Thank you and I urge a con ballot.
USC football is better than UCLA football

My opponent hasn't even responded to my two arguements. He says that he doesn't even need to respond to my arguments because that i don't use the "present tense" in my contentions but that i focus on past things USC has won but really he is just saying this because he doesn't know how to rebuttal it. You have to bring events up from the past to determine who currently is a better team, which I am doing. My opponent has yet to refute my points, therefore they still stand. My opponent is relying on pure symantics instead of argumentation. He knows he can't overcome my argument so therefore he is cowardly hiding behind grammatical usage. He has not yet offered his case of UCLA being better. My case still stands and he does not even have a case to stand on.
USC football is better than UCLA football

Observation 1 goes conceded. This means that we are only talking about things in the present tense. When you extend this observation, it takes out his new arguments because they are talking about the bast again. Even if you don't buy that, he has conceded that the impact of the bowl game ban is the highest in the round. At this point I don't even need to respond to his arguments and all I have to do is uphold my own. His response to my argument is that USC is appealing the bowl ban. However, right now, in the present tense, the bowl ban is still in effect. Thus, it does not matter because we are not concerned with the future in this debate. Even if you don't buy that, the bowl ban appeal is unlikely to be appealed, according to an ESPN article[1]. Thus, I outweigh because it is more likely that the bowl ban stays than is reversed. [1]http://sports.espn.go.com...
USC football is better than UCLA football

Well right now USC is appealing the bowl ban and the NCAA is in the process of deciding if they allow USC to play in a bowl and during an appeal a probation is irrelevant during an appeal process. Usc got the fourth best recruiting class in the nation this year which is better than ucla well last year ucla didn't even make a bowl game and USC destroyed ucla 28-7 to knock ucla out of bowl contention. Since ucla didn't make a bowl USC was 8-5 last year compared to ucla at 5-7.USC beat ucla 4 straight times. So USC is coming off of a better season than ucla and USC looks better this year than ucla
USC football is better than UCLA football

Observation 1: The use of "is" in the resolution implies the present tense. This means that the past success does not matter because we have to look to the present. Observation 2: The con reserves the right to say that the football teams are not comparable. Contention 1: USC has a bowl ban According to an article from ESPN[1], USC has faced a bowl ban which will last for the upcoming season, meaning that it is occurring in the present tense; hence, it is relevant to the resolution. The impacts of the bowl ban are threefold. First, it negatively impacts recruiting, as the source provided explains. Second, players were allowed to transfer from USC to other schools because of the ban. Third, bowls are an important source of revenue and USC will go without this. UCLA still can participate in bowls. This contention is the highest impact in the round because a bowl game victory is the ultimate goal of a collegiate football team, therefore it has the highest magnitude. Further, its probability is certain. Because it is impossible for USC to achieve this goal and UCLA can win a bowl game I urge you to negate. On my opponent's case All of my opponent's arguments are not relevant to the present tense. And, even if they are, they have no impact and no warrant. [1]http://sports.espn.go.com...
Video games: Immersion/Realism (pro) or Fun/Interactive (con)

Hey Pro! Thanks for your points, and for supporting your side as well as contending with my points. I agree with you that realistic games allow people to escape to a reality that looks similar, but is not their own life. It allows them to live as another, similar to movies. However, I do not think that escapism is simply for immersive games. Fun games allow the brain to unwind, while challenging the senses and distracting the player from tribulations outside the game. They also do not require that the user submit to as many restrictions in gameplay (such as having to earn better equipment) or feel as much stress (such as hyper-challenging and realistic shootouts). So, while I agree with you, I think your point is something both kinds of games address. Games have multiplayer options, but these are mostly online. Headset conversations, as all gamers know, do not carry the same context as conversing with those sitting next to you. For every group of people I see using the headsets to work as a team, I see ten other groups using the headset as a shield of anonymity to scream and curse at their enemies. Fun games offer multiplayer options and multi-controller options that encourage social gaming. I agree that gamers are diverse. However, my wording was this: "The stereotype of a gamer is gravitating strongly towards the single man playing alone on his PC". Not an argument that this is true; simply an argument that it is dangerous to allow this to become to assumed norm of gamers, quite obviously for the contentions you expressed. If developers only see that stereotype when making games, that harms many gamers. I see fun games as more appealing to these large crowds. I'm glad you still game with friends. Keep doing that. But my argument is that fun games encourage that more. 20 people talking over headsets is, again, not the same as being together in a room. I'll check out Dying Light. Far Cry 4 looked great. That's all from me!
Video games: Immersion/Realism (pro) or Fun/Interactive (con)

Hi you made some good points. I believe that realism games are more attractive to people as players can relate to what is happening in the game, it allows players to immersive themselves in a fictional role in a believable world. For instance a player can become the spy they always wanted or race car driver etc. For the average working human to escape the trials and tribulations of life for a short while. The more fun nitendo games are more for children, fun characters and easy gameplay. These are not for the hard core gamers who have a more detailed and gritty storyline to really get involved with or even a horror tale to become scared in. Allowing the game creators to tap into more senses and feelings overlooked in fun games. As for the one man playing alone, I disagree nearly all of the games nowadays have vast multiplayer options. For instance grand theft auto is the realist game you can get. But i have many times driven around the city with lots of my friends talking in my headset. For you to say the single man playing on his PC is naive. There are millions of female players around the world. The are tons of people playing call of duty, working in teams, talking to each other, trying to overcome obstacles in a real world environment. If anything these games force human interaction and develop communication skills. Also realism games such as call of duty i play many times split screen with my friend who will come over to play with me, thus enforcing our bond and causing us to communicate and have fun at the same time. This game also offers a huge amount of bang for your buck as you say because the multiplayer has alot of ranks and upgrades to get. Other huge multiplayer games such as battlefied etc have games with like 20 people which is more than you could have in your average house. Far cry 4 is amazing game with lots of coop available and competition play. One game I am playing at the moment is dying light which is incredible coop!