BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: On balance, violence is a just response to political oppression

Hi whiteflame! Not sure if you forgot about this debate, that we talked about starting today. I'm not sure if you are busy are anything, so it's alright if you decline.The rounds will go as follows: Round 1 con: States rules Round 1 pro: Presents his case Round 2 con: Presents his case and rebuts to pro's case Round 2 pro: Rebuts to con's case Round 3: con: rebuts to pro's case Round 3: pro: Rebuts to con's case. Good Luck.
the war in iraq is not our war and obama should end it and bring our troops back

She doesn't actually attack any of my points, merely restates her own without any further proof. I will have won this round then because of the lack of offense coming from her second round. A wise teacher once told me that silence is compliance, so everything she has not argued can extend through the debate, because she must agree with them. So since she agrees with so many of my points, then I will have won this debate by default, if only for the severe lack of offense. I can say the sky is purple, but without any evidence or logic behind it no-one is going to believe me. So without any evidence or logic behind her argument, I will have won this debate because I show clear, thought-out arguments to rash non-responsive ones. I will also have won this debate in the grammar category because, apparently, my opponent has not heard of spell check or periods. Overall, the deciding factor of this debate ought to be the sheer irresponsiveness of her arguments to mine which allows you to extend them throughout the debate and, by default, make me win. I have nothing more to say that will help my chances of winning, but I hope that you voters will pick con for this argument. I also thank my opponent for the fun debate and wish her best of luck in the future. Thank you
the war in iraq is not our war and obama should end it and bring our troops back

To start off with, I will first be doing a resolution analysis, then be disputing my opponent's case. The resolution states that the war in Iraq is not our war, and Obama should end it and bring our troops back. By literal definition of her statement that the war in Iraq is not our war, just by simply proving that we are fighting in it, it belongs to us and is therefore "our" war. Another meaning for it would be that she meant this is not our war to fight. To win that I will have to prove that we do belong in this war and destroy that argument. The resolution also states that Obama should end the war. This doesn't say end the war for America, but rather end it in general. To win that argument, I will only have to prove that Obama shouldn't/can't end the war in Iraq. Since the phrasing of bring our troops back doesn't provide any specific numbers, I will have to assume that it means return ALL troops back home. This means that if I can disprove my opponent's statement of bringing all troops back home, I will win this round. My opponent has stated that the war in Iraq would not exist, specifically, if president Bush was not an idiot because Iraq was one of the only countries in the middle east not to plan the attack. However, the United States didn't declare war on Iraq until March 20, 2003. The US did, however, declare war on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, less then a month after the September 11th attacks. So her logic behind that we invaded Iraq because of 9-11 is completely false, if only by looking at the date alone. If you do not buy that, then I will be going over the origins of the war in my case. My opponent states that we should not be forcing a way of life on those who do not wish for our way. However, that's not the case. We are merely giving them the opportunity to live how they choose to live, and not just be ruled by a homicidal dictator. If anything, their former leaders are the ones forcing this because they are the ones forcing us to invade and liberate them. She says that if the war doesn't end soon that it won't end for 100 years, because it is a fight that we cannot win, without any true purpose. She however provides no reason for why we can't win, and I have proved that there is a purpose for this war, so that argument should immediately fall. She states we should be fighting one of the countries that actually bombed us, which we already are in Afghanistan, so that argument is completely inaccurate. Finally she says that Bush is using the bombing as an excuse to go to Iraq, but I can't really make an argument to that, due to lack of specifics of what "bombing" she is talking about. Now I will be going over why Obama shouldn't/can't end the war. First off, Obama doesn't have a plan to end the war(. http://www.tnr.com...) . Merely taking all of our troops out wouldn't end the war. If anything, it would just make the war more disastrous in the long-run, because the terrorists would see it as them winning, and would gain much more moral and support, possibly enough to form a major threat against the United States. :)
the war in iraq is not our war and obama should end it and bring our troops back

the war in iraq would not exist if president bush was not an idiot because iraq was one of the only countries in the middle east not to plan the attack we should not be forcing a way of life on those who do not wish for our way and if this war dose not end soon it will not end for a hundred years because it is a fight we cannot win and a fight that has no true purpose. we should be fighting one of the countries that actually bomed us. bush is using the bombing as an excuse to go to iraq.
Marriage Equality

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass and implement a marriage equality amendment to the US constitution.--------------------Hello, DDO community! I've the pleasure of initiating this debate with hilton16 and will be taking the Pro side that marriage, in the eyes of the State, should be considered equal for straight couples and homosexual couples. Just a few things to get out of the way:StructureRound 1: acceptance onlyRound 2-4: debate (new arguments allowed)Round 5: closing statements (new arguments not allowed)Breaking the structure results in conduct loss. In the case of new arguments from the last round, an automatic seven-point forfeit will be awarded to the opponent. If anyone other than hilton16 manages to accept the debate, it is an automatic seven-point forfeit to Pro.BoPWhile the legal BoP is on Pro to change the status quo, Con has the BoR to prove the harms outweigh the benefits.SourcesSources are not necessary, but if used, should be used as a reference. Just keep in mind, a detailed government/organization website is far more credible than twenty anonymous blog sites.Definitions1. Marriage: the formal recognition of a relationship between two consenting adults by the State.2. Marriage equality: regarding same-sex marriage as equal to any State-recognized relationship.ConcessionsConcession of an argument by either Pro or Con means concession of that argument for the debate. However, they are free to argue other aspects of the debate should take priority.--------------------If Con has any questions regarding the structure of the debate, feel free to ask in the comments section. If there are no questions, I await Con's acceptance.
Marriage Equality

Like "Pro" said "I appreciate those who stuck it out with us until the end. It's been a fun debate, and I'm hopeful the DDO community will look at the arguments set forth and consider the merits to each of them. "I'll let every read and decide on the several merits "Pro" listed instead of talking about how i did well and how i should win this or that. I'll just like to say that all my debates were written on word document and i used the spelling check to fix it. but u claim i got alot of grammars and spelling errors and you don't so you get that "win. " but like i said i'll leave it to our voters. Also i note taht "pro" talks about my sources you if you look at his sources you'll know some has to do with just "picture" and "definition" but yet he tries to talk about my sources. It's funny how things go. "Con gave a few sources, but none of them added substance to the debate. " I will let the voters be the judge of that! Thank everyone for viewing this debate and thank "pro" for proposing this debate! It is with heartfelt!
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

I am now going to refute what my opponent has said. For my opponent's point 1, this plan, people giving back their weapons to the government, works. Like in Australia, where they had this sort of system, total intentional gun deaths fell by half. For my opponent's point 2, what would a lock safe do to self-defense? An attacker comes into the home to try and steal your things and/or hurt you, you can't take the time to open a safe and get your weapon. Limiting the reachability of the gun just makes it harder to get in times of need. For my opponent's point 3, this may be true. However, it is not as easy to get other firearms, and they aren't allowed in more places, and melee weapons aren't nearly as effective. These other methods will not be as easy as the handgun, so murder would still be reduced. For my opponent's point 4, first of all, they provide no source for their claim that "many people that own a handgun own some kind of rifle, shotgun, etc. as well". This makes it invaluable in this debate, as one can just make a claim without any evidence. For my opponent's point 5, who would enforce this? How would they know when to enforce it if someone can just hide a handgun and not allow anyone to see it? Since my opponent has not directly refuted any of my points, this is all I need to do in this speech.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Hey. My name's Ben. If you're interested in this topic, please accept, I'd like some practice. First round is for acceptance only, and here are a few other rules. 1. No forfeits 2. Sources may be provided in the comments 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. First round is for acceptance only 7. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss Thank you.
Perception is reality

Thank you for expressing your opinion, pro. Though that was a fair explanation, I would like to particularize that a "person's reality" and the "actual reality" are two disparate things all together. So as my opponent spoke briefly of schizophrenia, according to Google the meaning of schizophrenia is: "a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behaviour, leading to FAULTY PERCEPTIONS, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation." So in other words, schizophrenia is a disorder that causes hallucinations to occur to a person, because of which a person would be INDISTINCT between his/her imagination and the reality, therefore as a conclusion, it cannot prove that perception is reality. I would like to mention that perception, opinion, reality and imagination are totally DIFFERENT TERMS and that they express DIFFERENT MEANINGS, though they are commonly mistaken to be similar.
Perception is reality

I appreciate my opponent taking time out to entertain this debate. I also find these questions interesting because we haven't developed the method/instruments/knowledge necessary to reliably test, measure, or quantify such new thinking. And, yes, I should have elaborated on my definition (or perception) of 'perception'. This actually illustrates the point I wanted to bring up. I define perception as everything an individual experiences; literally, everything (i.e. your senses and ideas). As my opponent mentioned, what if someone sees a steel door and another person sees a metal door? Well, according to you (the individual), the door is steel. That's YOUR reality. The only reason we call a door a door is because everyone (or VIRTUALLY everyone) agrees that it's indeed, a door. If that doesn't make sense to you, consider individuals with schizophrenia. Their perception (what they see/hear (hallucinations/delusions)) is their reality. The only reason this isn't also OUR reality is because we'd disagree that there's a dragon in the microwave, for example, because we simply do not perceive (sense (via sight or sound)) that there's a dragon in the microwave. So, my opponent is exactly right when he stated that "perception is highly dependent on a person's opinion." Not only is it dependent on a person's opinion, but also his or her mood, personality, childhood, etc. This list goes on and on because it's a list of what a given individuals reality is comprised of. In other words, what we experience (via sensory input) is the only thing we can be certain exists. But even then, we can never actually "prove" anything because things can only be so objective. If this doesn't make sense to you consider the following. A rat gets food every time he turns left in a maze and soon becomes a left-turning rat. This is a lawful observation (conditioning). But would laws like this exist if no one were here to see them?
Perception is reality

I accept. This is my first debate so please go easy on me... Okay so to the main topic- Now when you talk about "perception" I don't know in what context you mean, so here is what I think of perception: According to the Google word meanings the meaning of perception is 'the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.' So want to say that- what if the interpretation is wrong and the reality is different? Also what a person regards and understands depends on the particular person, like for example: If a person thinks that horror books are bad he/she with the mindset of thinking that books are bad would eventually regard/understand/interpret that adventure books are bad as well, but are adventure books bad according to you? Maybe or Maybe not. So I feel perception is highly dependent on a person opinion and the person himself/herself and that perception is NOT reality. There is another meaning of "perception", taken from http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., which states: "Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory." but there again my question follows- what if the memory is messed up? Then how is that reality? To make my point clear I would like to use the help of an example: What if a person had seen an iron gate and thought it was a steel gate, now since he/she considered it to be a steel gate even a day later he/she would have his/her memory which says that he/she had seen a steel gate. Now just because memory says that it was a steel gate does the iron gate become a steel gate? Will that be reality? And the gate was detected by the person's eyes-his/her sensory organ. So -again- I say that perception is highly dependent on the person and what the information he or she gathers from their sensory organs and NOT on reality. Thank you. To the pro.
Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Thank you for your courtesy and for a good debate. Like promised, I shall try and summarize this debate using the famed "They say... I say" format. I shall paraphrase my opponent's arguments in their strongest formulations. ------- HE SAYS, I SAY---------- My opponent says that a democratic society that deprives any of its members of the right to vote is not a democratic society. I say that democratic societies still retain their essential character even if they remove some voting rights, as in the case of children, the insane and the jailed. HE says that all citizens are equal and equally deserve the fundamental rights of a society. I say that citizens are created equal but distinguish themselves with their actions. He says that the loss of the voting rights of millions of felons is a grievous loss. I say giving the benefit of the doubt to the felons of the society rather than to the law-abiding members is a grievous loss. He says felons already fulfill their debt to society through jail time. I say that felons fittingly lose their right to the social laws that they flouted, just as drunk drivers lose their driving licenses. He says that the felon's past actions are simply a "scar in the past", and have no effect on his voting decisions. I say that actions are an indicator of judgement and that the felon's actions are like the grade F on the student's transcript that denies him many job opportunities. He says that a felon, like a non-felon, would have to choose either candidate A or B. I say the political reality is that out of candidates A....Z, the drug dealer can likely pick out someone who supports the legalization of harmful drugs. He says that we should assume felons possess the judgement required to vote. I say we should assume that felons lack the judgement to vote, until they prove otherwise. He quotes J.S.Mill. I do not quote J.S.Mill. He says we must give felons the chance to prove they're reformed. I agree, which is why I proposed the Pardons Commission in Round 1. ---------- Reader, as you vote, keep in mind that Pro, despite my explicit request, has failed to provide any concrete policy implications of his position. I have already demonstrated what my position would entail practically, giving the example of Mississippi, but you lack any idea how Pro's positions could be implemented. A vote for Pro would be a vote for something you do not understand concretely. To recap: Even in democratic societies, the right to vote is alienable. Felons should lose their right to vote as a form of punishment and to benefit society.
Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Generally, PRO goes first. However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first) Felony disenfranchisement is the term used to describe the practice of prohibiting people from voting based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony. I stand against felon disenfranchisement, convince me otherwise [...]
Anime Needs a Bigger Airing in America

As I said earlier people always have the option to watch anime if they choose to but they don't. Not only that but people not only just watch reality tv, they also watch movies, documentaries. Some excellent movies like Titanic and The Pursuit of Happiness are some of the most thought-provoking movies of all time. Even some animated movies like The Iron Giant and Wall-E really brought out emotion out of the viewers. I've even watched a movie called Hector and the Search for Happiness, and it really makes you think and brings out your true emotions about what really does make you genuinely happy. Documentaries like Planet Earth show the beauty of our planet and make you truly marvel at the genius of the world. There are many great shows, movies, documentaries that make you click. I think that's why most people don't watch anime that often. They focus on reality, instead of using their imagination they try to make their life like that. They try to truly fulfill their lives instead of imagining it in our brains. Instead of longing for something, they try to fill the gap. I watch anime and I truly believe that it is beautiful but its hurts that most of it is fiction, and that it will stay like that forever. And if they don't like they can always switch to a channel with anime or stream it online. But most of the time the ones that are being showed might be action and I don't think action anime will really evoke any emotion. And most of the time the anime that will be streamed on tv, are mainstream anime such as Naruto or Bleach.
Anime Needs a Bigger Airing in America

Anime does not need a bigger airing in the US. As of now the citizens of the US already have access to anime, from multiple channels which they have an option to subscribe to. I get that anime for you maybe a good form of entertainment, but I would like you to remember that Anime is widespread in the world and many people know about it, especially the US citizens. It is their choice not to watch anime and instead watch the animations that you have mentioned above. Lets also not forget that the citizens of the US derive more pleasure from watching reality TV shows instead of animations. I get your desire for anime to be more known and prominent but as I said before, Anime is already known universally around the world, and if their interest in anime does ever click. Then a simple push a button could give them access to anime either via the TV or the internet. It all really comes down to preference.
Anime Needs a Bigger Airing in America

Anime as in Japanese animation, belong in the US with a larger ability to view it. Many times you see anime and it's on late night or you have to have a special provider television wise to be able to view it. Anime is a great form of animation as it is a very thoughtful, fun, funny, and often well done story lines unlike many animations that have been done presently. My basis for argument is that the US needs more anime that is easy to access and more prevalent in television now.
The word "terrorist" is inherently biased and should not be used by governments.

Unfortunately, my opponent did not show up for Round 2. I will just restate that while I agree governments should be very cautious in using the word "terrorist," there is no other word for a group like Al Qaeda. What else would we call them? The way the word is used may be biased, but the word itself isn't "inherently" biased. Words do not have inherent qualities. Subtext arises from the manner in which the words are used. Final argument: The word "terrorist" in America means one thing, while its meaning in say, England, is slightly different, based on the context it has been used in each land. The same goes for every other English-speaking country. My point is that it's presumptuous to ordain that all governments should avoid using a word, based solely on an American's perception of how the word is used in America. And what about non-English speaking countries?
The word "terrorist" is inherently biased and should not be used by governments.

Your contention is that "governments" should not use the word "terrorist." Of course, "governments" themselves cannot speak. Representatives of those governments may speak on their behalf, so I can only assume that it is your contention that these representatives should not use the word "terrorist" in an official capacity. This is the point of view I will be arguing against. First, let me say that you've used the word "governments," plural, which I can only assume means not only the governments of the U.S. states, counties, cities, and the federal government, but also all foreign governments as well. Is it merely your opinion that representatives of these government bodies should not use the word, or should action be taken to prevent them from using it? Should there be, for example, federal laws prohibiting officials of the federal government from using the word in public, and also prohibiting the word's use by all governmental officials on down to dog catcher? What about public school teachers? They are technically government officials. Should the word be banned in the classroom? Where do we have the right to tell other foreign governments what words they can use? Do we need to determine the "correct" translation for "terrorist" in every imaginable language, and enact penalties for nations whose leaders utter the words? What should the penalties be? Finally, I will close by saying that there is a generally accepted meaning of "terrorist" that goes beyond the murky definition you've presented. Terrorists are typically seen as representing no state or government. Our government uses the word to mean other things (such as the Revolutionary Guard of Iran, which is tied to the government), but I think the word "terrorist" is a good adjective for supranational groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. I would agree that government officials should exercise extreme caution before using the word, and that its definition should be refined. But I see no benefit in restricting free speech or enacting politically correct rules as to what words can be said.