BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cutting off funds to Palestine after Hamas took over was a mistake.

The international community should have never cut off Palestine from international aid after Hamas took control of the Palestinian parliament in January, 2006. The dramatic increase in poverty has had a direct affect on the increase in violence that we are now seeing. Rocket attacks, hostage takings and now a gun and bomb attack in a Jerusalem school...these are all directly attributable to cutting off the democratically elected government in Palestine. The administration's handling, as well as the western world's handling of the 2006 Palestinian election, was incredibly short-sighted and has only made Israel, and the world, less safe. For one, we missed an opportunity to moderate Hamas by allowing them to have power and have to operate on the world stage. Fatah was once considered one of the primary terrorist groups in Palestine, with Arafat even considered a terrorist himself until his death, yet they are now the prefered partner for peace talks. Fatah, as the primary party in charge of the Palestinian authority, was the party responsible for negotiating the Oslo Accords in 1993, as well as the Camp David Peace talks in 2000, despite being considered a terrorist group. This relative moderation was due primarily to their political control of Palestine. It is the party that is not included in power that is the danger. In addition, it is hypocritical for Bush to push for democracy in the Middle East, yet drive an already poor people to even greater depths of poverty because they voted for people Bush didn't like. Hamas's militant wing has done more horrible things than anyone can count, but they were democratically elected nonetheless. Hamas as a whole is not altogether bad either. Their social wing does a lot of welfare-type activities that the Palestinian Authority has been unable to provide. Cutting off international funding doesn't just hurt the militant wing, it hurts everyone, which will only spur more violence. Because of this, the Bush administration has lot all credibility in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as across the world with regard to spreading democracy. This has hurt our presence in Iraq as well, as if we could look any worse there. I think that's a good start for now. I eagerly await someone taking this debate.
Abortion is killing

While Abortion being flaunted as birth control is something I'm strongly against; as I believe that the babies potential to do something great is very possible. I do believe that abortion isn't actually murder of the fetus. There's crimes for killing fetus's too, and criminals can go to jail for a long time for it, but when the mother chooses to abort the child, for whatever, reason it's not technically killing. Think of it like this: You have a farm. The chicken lays an egg. That chicken could have had some key genetic material in it that could have been revolutionary to science. We go ahead and cook and eat that egg with big smiles on our face. In a sense, it's wrong, and not right and a little messed up even. But it is not animal cruelty. You should not go to prison for eating an egg. That's the best analogy I can give to shed light on the subject. While it's very wrong to do so, for there are other options, it is not murder due to it not having the same, rights as a chicken does
Abortion is killing

While I am heavily against abortion, there's definitely some good arguments for abortion. Would it not be the government killing a woman if abortion was the only way for the lady to survive? When there's legitimate reasons for abortion, it is okay because the woman should be allowed to live more so than the child...If it was an issue of rape then that's not really acceptable, as the woman can just put the child up for adoption. Although, let's say abortion was made only legal if it meant the life of the woman carrying the baby. Then you'd not only save 1 life by taking 1 unborn, you would be providing a whole new realm of research for scientists to help cure disease and prevent things like the preganent woman from happening as often. Cancer, genetic disabilities, and several flaws could potentially be treated with the study of fetuses. By doing it you're not only saving 1 life, your saving others and removing need for abortion by preventing disorders that prevent birth. Potentially
Should girls be able to hit a guy and expect not to get hit back? (please speak in general context)

Simply stated, I will start off with the argument that although guys are generally physically stronger than women (There are few exceptions of course), many girls believe it is okay to hit a guy. I don't think guys should ever hit a girl without a good reason, but if a girl unintelligibly hits a guy who is stronger than her, like if a man picks a fight with a bear, you should expect consequences. It's ridiculous for girls to take advantage of the socially accepted fact that "guys shouldn't hit girls" and hit him without expecting to get hit back.
Should girls be able to hit a guy and expect not to get hit back? (please speak in general context)

Your lack of being open minded is what makes you think my arguments further your own. Now there comes a time when everybody slips up with a burst of anger and hits someone who stronger, for example if a girl hits a guy, it's a natural lapse of judgement. Even now there are some girls who refuse to believe that most guys are stronger than they are therefore, like any male species would do in this situation, they will show how big they truly think they are. Now the males job is to 1. either show how much stronger he is by grabbing her arms or wrists if another attempt is made or 2. walk away from a hit that really didn't affect him at all.
Should girls be able to hit a guy and expect not to get hit back? (please speak in general context)

Interesting. When you say "bigger man", you mean the "more mature" human being by not hitting the girl back. In that case, why shouldn't the girl be the intelligent human being and understand the difference in strength? Why can't the girl just not hit the guy? It's completely opposite of what it should be. A girl shouldn't hit a guy because she should understand that he is stronger than her. Not hit him because he "can't hit back". It's ridiculous. I believe your arguments haven't succeeded in furthering the argument in anyway.
Should girls be able to hit a guy and expect not to get hit back? (please speak in general context)

You're failing to recognize the point of the argument. It is not "should I guy be allowed to hit a girl". I do not believe anyone should be hitting anyone in the first place. The argument is whether a girl should be allowed to hit a guy and not expect to get hit back. It's taking advantage of our "manliness" or whatever you'd like to call it, and acting like a spoiled brat. Women want to be "equal" but decide not to take responsibility. (Most women) There are plenty of respectable women. Just not as many as there are who feel the way you do.
Should girls be able to hit a guy and expect not to get hit back? (please speak in general context)

As a guy if a girl hits you then you should be considerate of the amount of strength compared to the amount she has. Rather a girl is being playful or not the guy still has no right to hit her. Most likely the punch didn't hurt to the point where using your own physical strength against her was necessary. Therefor no guy nowhere has any right to hit a female even if she hit him first. Be the bigger MAN and take the pathetic hit like a MAN and don't be a little boy and hit her back.
Should girls be able to hit a guy and expect not to get hit back? (please speak in general context)

While I completely respect the attempt to justify a girl hitting a guy, you merely explained one situation where the girl hits the guy without the intent to hurt him, and the guy is oblivious to the fact that the girl was being "playful". In that case, the man was obviously just clueless. I was debating on the general statement that a girl should never hit a guy with the "expectation" that she shouldn't get hit back. In most cases, if a girl is just playing around, a guy isn't going to slug her. This is common sense. But then again, no matter the intent of the punch/hit/whatever, most women should think about the action before hand a little. My original point still stands. If she were hitting him with the intent of hurting him even a little bit, is it justified just because she's a girl? Why shouldn't she get hit like a child gets hit if they do something bad. Consequences. Girls want to be equal. Act like it.
Should girls be able to hit a guy and expect not to get hit back? (please speak in general context)

Girls have a specific way of showing a guy that they either like him or think he is cute. While guys may not understand most girls only playfully hit. Therefore there is no need for the guy to hit back with such force. Also even if the girl does hit him with the intent to hurt him, most guys are ten times stronger than most girls meaning that unless she was as strong as a guy it couldn't have effected you to the point where you need to punch her like a dude.
Edward Teach/Thatch [Blackbeard] was more of a Hero then a Villain.

Blackbeard is a pirate and always will be a pirate. He is a murder and maniac he justify everything he does evening killing by it was fate. He killed his best friend for the yami yami fruit. He captured his 2 commander of the white beard pirates then gave him too the government to b executed. Then he had the guts to kill his former captain White beard (Warder Negate) luckily white beard died standing up.After that he took hi former captain territory then became One of the 4 Emperor of the sea. He is the villain. http://onepiece.wikia.com... http://onepiece.wikia.com...
gay marrige

Because you have forfeited this round as well as round 2.I will get on to my conclusion. IN conclusion I say that Gay marriage should NOT be legalised.Because its offensive to lots of people around the world.Statistics show that most of the WORLDS population are in fact religious, so gay people are offending most of the WORLDS population. Now im NOT saying that I don't care about gay people.In fact because God loves them I care about them (love) Now you may be thinking if God loves people including gay people,then why would he not allow them to get married. Well God loves the sinner not the sin.We are all sinner you me and everyone! We have all sinned.But God still loves us but he doesn't love the sin that we do. Thank you for letting me debate with you.(For the 1st round at least.) I hope you comment on the 3rd round. Thank you and good luck :)
gay marrige

Because you have forfeited this round I will get on to some points for round 2. My 1st point is health.If gay couples were meant to be they would be able to have sexual activity the right way to create a baby.Now I wont get in the whole children bit because this point is on health.The behind of a man should NOT be penetrated because the behind can NOT handle it.The muscle will rip causing infection,diseases and even cancer.But if there were two straight people this would NOT happen because the woman's FRONT can handle it.Yes straight people can get diseases such as STDs etc. But Homo sexuals have more risks of getting diseases or a higher chance due to the way they have sexual activity. Also you said that you have yet to find a reason why gay marriage is bad.Well im telling you those points. Gay marriage is bad because of there sexual activity,They can NOT reproduce kids,They weren't meant to be for reasons I have said in round one and in this round.Also being gay really offends people,because its against MOST of the world populations religions and it IS causing chaos in countries such as France and around the world.
gay marrige

You said gay people cant have kids which is good because there is a huge case of overpopulation and nothing is bad about it. Which is true.But the reason why I say this is because if they were really meant to be then they should be able to have kids. Now I don't really know what else to say because what you said doesn't make sense so I couldn't really read it. Now you did say that it SEEMS unnatural when really it isn't natural at all! I can prove this. Being a boy or girl is in our DNA you can never get this out.So if you fall in love with a man and your a man and you wish you were a woman so you get a sex change you will still always be a boy in the inside because its in our DNA .Humans were made to fall in love with there opposite sex so it was full on natural,and then homosexuality came in the 1800s. But if it never came then we would not be having this debate right now. So in conclusion I say that gay marriage is not right.
States should have more power than feds

Federalism allows both the states and feds to have equal powers, but since society has been changing the feds ended up with much more power than they began with. With that said, lets go over the supposable powers that each SHOULD have and the powers that they ACTUALLY DO have (just examples). Powers feds SHOULD have: -Upholding currency -Creating a military -Regulating interstate trade -Regulating foreign trade Powers states SHOULD have: -Upholding education -Upholding healthcare -Regulating elections -Conducting marriages Now, these are just examples but it seems like the feds have been stealing states' rights and powers to the point where they will all be taken away if they haven't been already. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of states having more rights: Advantages: 1. Inexpensive -Have you kept hearing politicians talking money in the billions and trillions spectrum? And when states talk money they refer to millions, and most local governments talk thousands. This isn't a coincidence, the lower level that the government has the cheaper its operations are, therefore taxes would be lower. 2. Most states know what's best for them -This is a very cheesy example, but a good one. Let's say that the feds pass a law saying that all farmers had to grow oranges, this would work better for people in Florida but not in Alaska (assuming there's no greenhouses). Passed laws by the feds wont benefit everyone since each state differs in its politics. 3. Can be regulated by the feds -This would be helpful in a case of corruption or a state is lacking improvement, the feds can do their job and do WHAT THEY"RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, and uphold lawsuits and regulations when the states do something wrong. It seems like the feds try too much to do things outside their business, but that's my "lousy opinion". Disadvantages: 1. Corruption within the states -This wouldn't be different from the feds, but this problem can once again be fixed by the feds if they do their job. Their constitutional purpose is to regulate the states so that they do their jobs correctly 2. Chances of inequality -Because each state would have its own powers and rights, they will have a chance to use them as they wish. Some states may not treat their people fairly, this problem can be solved by emigration from those states or federal lawsuits (even though these things can become complicated). http://www.heritage.org... http://www.etap.org...
Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself....

The Government is not the USA. The USA is the people. The People have no Duty to preserve the boundaries or legal dispositions that are placed over and around them. The People have no right, to put others less than equal to them, because they are external to those borders, based on homeland, language, culture or beliefs. - an amendment*** America, does not have divine authority to Own the USA, nor does any individual of that nation of an excuse to Preserve THE United States of America. It is not their Right nor Duty to do any such thing. (*and you brought my character into the debate, let me remind you. And you failed to desist: in regards to that remark, and your debate, Which YOU proceeded to prove me right: with the mention of said amendment.) As a note: Happiness and Satisfaction are not the same thing. And the pursuit of happiness or satisfaction as an ESSENCE, is not relative to any isolated individual's personal desires. America. Does not have the right or duty to exalt itself nor it's population [specifically,* a population; of non renewable resource grass cutters; monolinguals; drug addicts; perverts; and Bigots], They have the right to defend their population from oppression, the World from desolation, the children from corruption or Delusion, and the citizens from social instability. I feel that all of these rights are what you are actually fighting for. and as I had stated in the comments, after my first post: Of course America can reject unwarranted immigrants on account of creating economic strife, *which scientifically leads to criminal behaviour internationally, regarding drugs, violence, theft, prostitution, abuse, neglect, bigotry (a social crime), and desolation. But that is a reference to Illegal immigration, or uncontrolled immigrants.
Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself....

( A ) Con replied,' "Don't go self-righteous, making falsified claims. it's not supporting your character, and it's counter productive to your debate. One must remember in a debate also, they are not obligated to continue, IF honestly they are aware they have no grounds to do so, and should desist lookingattheissues ( A ) This pontification you delivered was just a diversion and in the end, served no useful purpose. As far as the issue of Character, my character nor your, for that matter, is a part of this debate. ( B )GoOrDin ," One must remember in a debate also, they are not obligated to continue, IF honestly they are aware they have no grounds to do so, and should desist..." (B ) lookingatthe issues2 response .. The challenge you have offered so far hasn't proven too much of a task to respond to and I feel quite equal to the debate with you but thank you for the option which I with equal amenity offer to you. My topic was,"Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself. " ....Governments provide the parameters for everyday behavior for citizens, protect them from outside interference, and often provide for their well-being and happiness.." Above Quote ....AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Then the Declaration of independence refers to the purpose of government Declaration of Independence " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...." "Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself." Government,".....deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...." being the representatives of the citizens, charged with defending the rights of citizens who have established Government has "the duty and the right to preserve itself."
Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself....

"You obviously believe by what you posted that America is the only country where crooked and unscrupulous public officials reside and that its citizens are the worst scourges of all societies and believe that if it weren't for America, and its people it would be a perfect world." that, don't do that. Don't go self-righteous, making falsified claims. it's not supporting your character, and it's counter productive to your debate. One must remember in a debate also, they are not obligated to continue, IF honestly they are aware they have no grounds to do so, and should desist. I do acknowledge, Openly that what Mexico does concerning the neglect of it's citizens infiltrating America is Criminal. Obviously. As a Nation they identify the land and thereby those in it as their own on account of applying authority there. The Government of the USA is elected by the Demographic of the people within it's boarders to protect their interests. It is not the Duty of the People to elect such a government, Nor is it there Duty to protect those boarders, More over, nor is it there Right to decorate their Government with Ultimate Authority. The USA, has no right to claim the Country for it's current population. It has no Duty to provide obstacles for those coming into it. As a Government, the USA has an obligation to protect the security of the citizens, as it was elected and PAID to do by the population, who it serves, not the other way around. This includes from foreign criminals, and people who confound society creating conflicts enabling criminals, Or subjugating honest people to hardships of economic grievances concerning the transfer of funds to bigots, arrogance swine, drug addicts, perverts, loafers or the miserly WHOM farmers and workers alike have not consolidated to provide services for.
Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself....

lookingattheissues2 response, to GoOrDin The Swiss philosopher, Emmerich de vatel opined, " Self defense is a natural right.Every nation, as well as every man, has, therefore, a right to prevent other nations from obstructing her preservation, her perfection, and happyness that is, to preserve herself from all injuries.....and this right is a perfect one, since it is a given to satisfy a natural and indispenable obligation: for when we cannot use constraint in order to cause our rights to be respected, their effects are very uncertain. It is a right to preserve herself from all injury that is called the right to security." Injury to a nation can be inflected by a varity of methods, for instance, Mexico and other nations knowingly, and willfully, allows its citizens to inflitrate America's borders and flood this country with these aliens. This massive flood of illegal aliens overwhelm the countries welfare system, its public educational institutions, housing, its prisons, and its medical treatment facilities using welfare that was paid for and intended for Americans. You obviously believe by what you posted that America is the only country where crooked and unscrupulous public officials reside and that its citizens are the worst scourges of all societies and believe that if it weren't for America, and its people it would be a perfect world.The History of the world however tells a different story and refutes your claims against America. America's past conduct will stand up against other countries very well. We have never collected Jews up and sent them to gas chambers nor any other ethnic groups of people like Germany did under Hitler,nor did we, like the Russians murdered and buried others in mass graves nor did America send those citizens who expressed opinions that the government didn't agree with off to re indoctrination camps. Yes, America's record of past conduct will stack up very well compared to other countries past sorted history. Plato understood well the condition of human short comings, he said," ....for every one will do evil if he can. And he who abstains will be regarded by the world as a fool for his pains..." Plato. The Republic Obama has chastised America and its people by saying, That's not who we are as a people," as if he thought that Americans were a noble people but then in the next breath, apologizes for its citizens conduct to foreign nations. The apology ,if America owes one, to any other nation should be for its misjudgment in who we have elected to high office.