BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
American Intervention in Syria

Point 1: Syrians should fight their own revolution.Rebuttal 1: The Syrian people aren't so much fighting for their own government as they are fighting against an abusive one. On several occasions, the Syrian government has killed democratic protesters, abused human rights, and recently, it has been revealed the the government has used chemical weapons against its own people, a violation of international law. To say that the Syrian people should fight their own battle is akin to saying that a rape victim should fight off her own rapist. But this is nonsense. If you were walking down the street and you witnessed a woman being raped in broad daylight, would you attempt to help the woman? Or would you casually walk by and say, "She needs to help herself"? Provided you're averse to sociopathy, it seems as if you have a moral obligation to save lives, not let them be. In the international community, there is no effective police force and so countries in a position to help the suffering have a moral obligation to do so.Point 2: The failure of American intervention in Libya.Rebuttal 2: It wasn't a failure. The goal was to have Qaddafi removed. Qaddafi was removed. The intervention was a success.The other subpoints are weak. Almost all weapons in the Middle East and Northern Africa can be traced back to the First World. So what? Africans have been fighting among themselves for decades. It just so happens that a particular group of Africans found some abandoned weapons. That hardly justifies negligence which has led to the death of 100,000 Syrians, many of whom weren't even combatants. Some of the fighters who killed Qaddafi were terrorists who might use the weapons against Americans? So what? The US military has been dealing with them and their antiquated weapons for over a decade. Yeah, some Americans have died, but none of the numbers are even close. In North-West Pakistan, for example, 15 Americans have died while 27,370 militants have died. Our battles tend to be one-sided.Point 3: Some of the Syrian rebels are anti-American.Rebuttal 3: Again, so what? The only weapons we've given them are assault rifles that they were never trained to use and dumb rockets for which we have armored tanks, better than anything the Syrian government possesses. In what way are such useless weapons a serious threat to us? And how does your subpoint justify negligence which has led to the deaths of 100,000 people, many of whom were noncombatants?Point 4: The Benghazi AttackRebuttal 4: Northern Africa is a very violent, uncivilized place. People are massacred on a daily basis, and there are often random explosions. The attack on the US embassy was significant only because the media chose to talk about it. Because as we all know, the death of a human being is none of our concern unless that human just happens to be American.References:http://www.satp.org...http://icasualties.org...http://www.smallarmssurvey.org...
Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.

Hello again, mongeese, good to have you here! "As long as we have not proved any origin theories, any theory is acceptable as long as it is not proved wrong." Hmm. I have a theory that every species originated from a refrigerator placed in Africa. Every species that has ever existed just crawled right out of the refrigerator. I will call it Causal Fridge theory. Should that be taught in textbooks? In public schools? No. It's a crackpot theory I just made up! Of course not! It has no basis in science. BUT, it can't be proved wrong. You cannot prove that to be wrong. I may not be able to prove it right, but you also can't prove it wrong. ID may not be able to be proved wrong, but that has nothing to do with its scientific merits. In fact, it has NO scientific merits. It is not based in science and therefore, cannot be taught as science. You sidestepped my criticism that it is religiously motivated. It very much is and you seem to actually agree with that by saying "People have used the Bible to predict the time of the beginning of the world to the very hour." Firstly, the predicted time from the Bible is that life started 6000 years ago. 6000. How old is the earth again? That's ridiculously recent and entirely inaccurate. Secondly, you have just conceded that ID is just, in fact, the Bible in disguise. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, and therefore, it should not be taught in science classes. I hate to say that's the end of the debate, but it looks bleak if you have already conceded that ID is definitely religiously motivated. I would ask you to please give some scientific hypotheses from ID. Tell me some things that ID claims to have the answers to. "A flood, language distribution," etc. What are all these in terms of origins of species? How does ID explain it? How does ID explain things such as vestigial organs/parts, like the tailbone of a human? The extra toe bone of a pig that is entirely inside the leg? How does it SCIENTIFICALLY explain any of these? The list goes on... Evolution explains all of these things quite easily and is a very comprehensive scientific theory. It IS science. ID is not. It is a thinly veiled religious doctrine that has been forced upon public schools in the hope that this faux-science will keep children from believing in evolution.
Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.

ID is laden with religious undertones and is religiously motivated. If it is religiously motivated, then it is not constitutional based on the establishment clause of the Constitution." Intelligent design is a valid theory. So is evolution. As long as we have not proved any origin theories, any theory is acceptable as long as it is not proved wrong. My textbook two years ago listed Intelligent Design as one of the possibilities for the existence of life. "It is also not real science. It puts forth no ideas about how to prove a designer, or how old the earth is, or anything else. All it does is criticize evolution but it has no legs to stand on of its own. Just because evolution is wrong does not make ID correct. Also, evolution isn't wrong. It is the most comprehensive and correct theory we have today regarding the origin of species." People have used the Bible to predict the time of the beginning of the world to the very hour. It has its own legs, including a flood, language distribution, animals being introduced over many "yoms". Just because evolution seems correct doesn't mean that we can dismiss Intelligent Design. They are both valid theories. "I will go into more detail in the later rounds (if there's anyone brave enough to take me on ;) that is). More arguments will also unfold as the debate does. Thank you to whomever accepts this challenge!" Bring it on! Thank you. Here's a fact that some people might find interesting, from Mark Steyn's "America Alone", page 66: "He's also the fellow who helped devise the three-week Islamic awareness course in California public schools, in the course of which students adopt Muslim names, wear Islamic garb, give up candy and TV for Ramadan, memorize suras from the Koran, learn that 'jihad' means 'internal personal struggle,' profess the Muslim faith, and recite prayers that begin 'In the name of Allah,' etc." Dwell on that for a while.
Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.

Intelligent Design theory is not science. It should not be taught as an alternative to evolutionary theory and it has no place in schools. For this argument, I will say public high schools/elementary schools in the United States, to be more specific. Again, Intelligent Design (ID) should NOT be taught as an alternative theory to evolution. ID is laden with religious undertones and is religiously motivated. If it is religiously motivated, then it is not constitutional based on the establishment clause of the Constitution. It is also not real science. It puts forth no ideas about how to prove a designer, or how old the earth is, or anything else. All it does is criticize evolution but it has no legs to stand on of its own. Just because evolution is wrong does not make ID correct. Also, evolution isn't wrong. It is the most comprehensive and correct theory we have today regarding the origin of species. I will go into more detail in the later rounds (if there's anyone brave enough to take me on ;) that is). More arguments will also unfold as the debate does. Thank you to whomever accepts this challenge!
Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.

The idea of geocentric universe was around for thousands of years too. That doesn't make it correct or a valid theory anymore. Should we teach the geocentric universe theory because it has been around for a while? No. The longevity of an idea has nothing to do with the validity of it. You can believe the world is flat for as long as you want, but that doesn't make it so." The geocentric theory has been proved to be incorrect since it was discovered that the Earth revolves around the Sun. "Evolution is not responsible for explaining how life appeared, so this 'origin of life' argument is invalid." Well, Intelligent Design is not responsible for explaining why organisms have vestigial organs. "You have not at all proved that ID is science. It simply does not fit the definition." It is science in the fact that it is a theory of abiogenesis that, in fact, has much scientific support. It has been discovered that: -genetic diversity was stronger in the past than in the present -it is possible to form fossils in five to ten years under proper conditions, such as a great flood -if there was in fact a large amount of volcanic activity in the past, sedimentary layers could form extremely quickly -millions of years ago, the magnetic field would be too strong for the Earth to support life -evolution scientists predicted 54 inches of dust on the Moon; there was only 3/4 inches -by the current measure of the rate of reduction of the size of the Sun, Earth would have boiled millions of years ago -current organism populations are similar to a model in which reproduction groups started 10,000 years ago This proof that the Earth did not exist millions of years ago disproves Evolution, as it requires millions of years to occur. They are scientific facts, giving ID scientific legs to stand on. These facts are, of course, disputable, as are the facts that support Evolution in the first place. Now, here is an idea: representatives of every religious group, including atheism, go into a meeting, and decide what to teach a student of each religion or lack of religion. Evolution could easily be considered to be taken from an atheist perspective, as ID is considered to be taken from a religious perspective. Shouldn't "separation of church and state" apply to "separation of lack of church and state"? Finally, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org... Phil Phillips (two L's) is a minister, preacher, and studier of creation science. Thank you.
Smoking Ban

Big thanks to Tejretics for posting his round, now I'll go on the rebuttals. I'll be short on this round. I: Con is mistakenCon is really mistaken here. First of all, I brought no plan. I didn't do it. At all. But Con says "Pro's Plan" Unless he thinks of banning smoking as a plan, he is mistaken here, because I did not bring any plan in my arguments. The Harm Principle shouldn't be the main point of the debate; I was just using it to just more structure to my arguments. Con is basically showing that it is the MAIN point of the debate, when it is actually not. He gives one source on this, and first it's a book source. It's rather hard for someone to get that book, read it in 3 days. So the source doesn't really count. The government must reduce and prevent harm unless the prevention makes greater harm. Yes, I know that. But there are no harms after a smoking ban, I even showed that there is a reduce of smoking, so that point just helps me. II: Individuals have the right to choose whether to use tobacco in their own propertyI'll right going on to the main point here. Of course individuals won't smoke in their own property. It's dangerous for them, and can harm their children, etc. Next, smoke is a gas. Remeber science? Gas can move, and flow. It will probably move out of someone's property, and go to someone else's, which will still make second-hand smoking, or non-smokers dying. And the main point, think about the chances that someone will smoke *only* in their property. They'll likely also smoke at public, which would cause secondhand smoking. Argument refuted. III: Total tobacco bans encourage the creating and strengthening of violent criminal activity, and criminal networksRemove criminal activity and networks here. Con doesn't say *anything* about those two things. He says about the black market, so let's go onto that. And second, I don't really get this argument. IF smoking is banned, then the companies will be banned too. CON is totally not saying anything about this, because he knows that his argument will be refuted. If the companies are banned and stopped, that means that there will be no cigarettes remaining. Then most people would just use what they had left. There are no cigarettes left, so that means none will go in the market. And the government can just pay using money, and get the market rid of. It's much better than making the border fence, or launching on more space shuttle, and it'll be close, or it'll be cheaper. Argument refuted. IV: ConclusionIn conclusion, I have successfully refuted Con's plan and his arguments, and show how Con is mistaken.
Political Parties are Counterentuitive to the progress of the United States

The resolution is that political parties are counterentuitive to the United States. I have never suggested otherwise. This is supported by my argument that the two party system are ineffective, because an ineffective system can only hurt an institution. Ineffective systems work against government, and hence, unless revised, political parties are counterentutive to the United States. I will now refute as many claims as I can.1. My mathematical example is flawed.Yes, yes it is. I don't see how that's relevant. I did not cite any sources when I gave the example, and my opponent should hence assume that I'm making numbers up. I was. I was giving an EXAMPLE of a POSSIBLE scenario. As my opponent has proved, that particular example is not particularly true, but I hope the people reading this debate understan what I am saying. I'm saying that there are issues that are that slanted: the economy for example. And the two party system IS the political party system at the moment, so if that fails to give voters the results they desire, WE DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY. I hope I make myself clear.2. Above.3. I fail to see how I am arguing to moderation. Lenin declared that a middle ground between information and misinformation is not an acceptable compromise. I can completely agree with that. The compromise between purchasing a computer and not purchasing a computer might be buying half a computer. That doesn't make sense either. Having to choose between two political parties: gay rights and stimulus and abortion, and no gay rights, no stimulus, and no abortion is a bit extreme. There are, in fact, people who believe that the first and the last are dead wrong, but the one in the middle is perfect. My opponent claims that having to accept several things you hate is necessary to not argue to moderation. I just can't see where he's coming from. He speaks as if these issues are simply issues with absolutely nothing important about them. Abortion is an important issue. War funding is an important issue. Being forced to accept one or neither would compromise the integrity of many Americans. Apparently, that's okay. I don't see it that way.4. Whatever.5. This quote is supposed to be relevant, but I don't see how, nor do I care.Here are a few relevant ones:"As citizens of this democracy, you are the rulers and the ruled, the law-givers and the law-abiding, the beginning and the end." -Adlai E. Stevenson"Democracy is supposed to give you the feeling of choice, like Painkiller X and Painkiller Y. But they're both just aspirin." -Gore Vidal I am done.
Political Parties are Counterentuitive to the progress of the United States

The problem with my opponents "case" are multiple: His mathmatical example is flawed. He doesn't argue the resolution. His defacto example is flawed. He doesn't answer objections effectively. Views compromise as negative thing. 1.His mathmatical example is flawed: Its not practical to say that every issue every majority will get what they want regardless of the party system. Priority setting is important in any democratic society. Furthermore removing the party system won't change this for example: Pro life campigners come to house to house and get more pro-life people out to vote yet the majority of people are in actuality pro-choice this leaves my opponent with a diliema even if the party system is removed. It absolutely improbable that only 5 percent of democrats are pro-choice(actual figures about 32% from Gallup). There is no way that a issue could be so heavily slanted that the majority of people would get what they want if it is a priority in the election. For example the majority of people aren't concerned with abortion in this election however if this was a major issue it would favor Republicans but this doesn't certainly doesn't guarantee the victory to one party or the other. When parties debate voters weigh their priorities they decide what they need to compromise on something's. Refer to Part 5. 2.The resolution states:Political Parties are Counterentuitive to the progress of the United States My opponent argues two party systems as they operate in the United states are ineffective. It is aganist the rules for a poster to change the resolution mid-debate. He needs to revise his case to argue the resolution or concede defeat. 3. Opposite doesn't equal extreme. What the opposite of Dualism? Physicalism. Neither are extreme positions. He again has commited the same fallacy of arguing to moderation. For example(Changing Minds.org): Environmentalists want us to recycle everything. Capitalists want us to buy everything new. I think we should recycle some things. The left wing want to help the poor. The right wing want to minimize taxation. We should have means-tested benefits so only the poorest people get help. Jim wants to go North, Fred wants to go South. So lets go West X and Y are opposite alternatives. So Z, a middle path, is the best choice. Avoid extremes. Seek compromise through a moderate, middle way. Take averages. Assume that any polarized view is automatically wrong. This is fallacious. 4.He doesn't answer objections effectively. He doesn't argue my refutations therefore accepts them as legitimate problems to his case. 5.A principle is the expression of perfection, and as imperfect beings like us cannot practise perfection, we devise every moment limits of its compromise in practice. Mahatma Gandhi
Political Parties are Counterentuitive to the progress of the United States

I thought that my premise should be clear, but I suppose I could make my ideology more clear. I believe that the two party system works against government because a government is supposed to serve the people, and the two party system, the system currently being used in this country, does not do this effectively. The two party system does not do this effectively because the interests of the majority will not be served by that system. The interests of those people will not be served because the candidates for political office will have to align themselves with one of two opposing parties. The parties are opposite, and hence by definition, are extreme. The members of those parties do not agree with everything their friends do, as my opponent has conceded. Any system that forces people to compromise on important issues is not a good system to follow, because such a system will make many many people seriously unhappy. It is impossible to please everyone, but moving to a new way to elect public officials that would allow for a more diverse choice in which policies are ennacted would be a good start. As for my opponent's argument that saying winner take all politics is synonymous with democracy, it's not. As an example, let's say 60 percent of people vote for the Republican Party, and of those people, 68 percent are pro-life. The Republican Party then takes control of the legislature and pro-life procedures are enacted. How many people are happy? .6 x .68 is just under 41 percent. Even after adding in 5 percent for pro-life Democrats, we are left with 46 percent of people happy about this development. Democracy is majority rules. In this very plausible case, the two party system fails to provide democracy. And he's right, other parties are free to usurp other parties in elections. Even it is the smart thing to do, it will never happen, though. It is not because the two party system is a well thought out system, or that the Democratic or Republican Parties work well. It is because so many people are unwilling to make such a large change. The majority of people who actually work are Baby Boomers, who remember when America was prosperous. I'd venture to say that such people do not want the government to change much. They want different results, but aren't willing to have their government change. In short, please vote PR
Political Parties are Counterentuitive to the progress of the United States

First: I do not oppose the party system, but I do oppose how the party system is being used in America. Hence, political parties are, at the moment, working against the idea of a democratic country. In a democratic country, of course, the people governed decided how government works. Anything that works against people having a fair say in how they think the country runs is hence counterintuitive. I'll address your points one by one.1. Political parties don't force anyone to vote any specific way. True, but what I'm arguing is that political parties effectively force people to vote a certain way: for two extremes. Furthermore, my local senator shares some of my views. Her opponents also share some of my views. There is no realistic chance of a person from any other party winning the election. No matter what happens, I lose something.2. There are factions within parties. In a perfect world, you would actually be right, and I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. However, despite the presence of factions in many elections, the most important election, the presidential election does not have many candidates that diverge enough to fit a lot of people's views. A concrete example: I heard almost every person speaking at the Republican National Convention mention a fight to keep the 'traditional family'. That works against almost every socially liberal conservative. I know a lot of them. The Democrats are passing off the same candidate as last election. No chance for a more moderate candidate there. So in effect, I see no real factions in this presidential election, nor do I expect any candidates to be more moderate in the next one.3. Political parties are not that extreme, you used counterintuitive wrong. The people that compose the parties are not that extreme as a rule, I'll grant you that. The party, however, is a very different story. You mentioned that you believe a party means uniting even when you disagree with some things the party supports. If every person in the Republican party were to unite with their party while they fought in the legislature, every measure the Republican party supports will get passed if they hold majority. That seems pretty extreme to me.4. You don't have to vote, or you can vote for a different party. If I don't vote, I won't feel as if my interests are being represented in my government. And the fact of the matter is, is that if I vote for anybody other than the Democrat or the Republican, my vote will be thrown away. Very rarely does a third party candidate win a legislative election, and a third party candidate has never won the presidency. It probably won't happen any time soon either.