BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Israel has no choice

The full text of the resolution is "Although Israel's position in the West Bank is mutually undesirable for Israel and Palestinians, Israel has no choice in the matter, because there are no reasonable alternatives." Cons job will be to suggest an alternative solution that does not increase the risk of harm to Israel, Israeli citizens, or the Jewish People. This debates definition of unreasonable includes, but is not limited to, anything that results in that. My opening points assume three options for Israel: 1) Assimilate the West Bank. This would mean annexation, and full Israeli citizenship for all occupants. It seems highly unlikely that the Palestinians would agree to this, and the average Palestinian would probably reject citizenship. Even if this were not so, it would be highly unsafe to assimilate an openly aggressive population into the country. Even if this were not so, Israel would likely risk losing its Jewish majority, and be subject to an the whims of a historically unfriendly regional Arab majority. 2) Two state solution. This proposes an Palestinian state in the West Bank. The trouble with this is that Israel could not safely defend itself from its 1967 borders, and no one who could make a lasting commitment to Israeli security from a potential state will make one. Israel could withdraw to newly drawn, defensible borders, but such a move would mean annexing certain parts of the West Bank, an illegal move that would likely provoke war with neighboring Arab states without impossible-to-get Palestinian approval. 3) Population shifts. This remains illegal and immoral. Most other suggestions are subject to some of the above objections; Con will have find one that isn't refuted by them, not just unlisted. I look forward to your response.
Israel has no choice

My humblest gratitude to my my esteemed opponent for her most punctual response. I must confess, I am unaware of the precise location that I remarked insults would not win anything. I do not deny the validity of that statement, but its difficult to understand how I am a hypocrite, if I, in fact, never condemned the behavior my opponent accuses me of engaging in. Additionally, I would like to clarify my statements regarding my opponent's spelling and grammar. I was not trying to insult her, merely pointing out that her arguments were rendered incomprehensible due it. This was relevant, because, as my opponent would know had she read the rules of this website, spelling and grammar count towards the final ranking on this debate. I am also confused by her claim that a new keyboard caused the mistakes. This would account for errors in grammar, not a total lack of it. Regardless, I feel compelled to inform my opponent that we are not instant messaging or texting each other. There is a 72 hour time limit to respond in. She can review her response before posting in order to correct the errors. Given the length of her arguments, this surely would not take too long. My opponent then forfeits the debate. I'll assume this was a mistake, since she does say why she is doing this. If she wishes to post a response, I will ignore the forfeiture and continue to debate. However, I must request she actually address the topic of the debate. Which brings me to final point; My opponent defends her status as a debater by citing a first place ribbon for debating she won. If my opponent is, as she claims, a champion debater, I must ask a simple question: Why has she not yet addressed the debate topic? The challenge was relatively simple. All she had to do was choose an alternative course of action for the Israeli government, and defend why it was reasonable. She did neither. I don't mean she did it incompetently, or illogically, or was in a way that was refuted or rejected. I mean she never even addressed the debate topic other than asserting I was wrong. This is not the action of a master debater. This is not even the action of someone who as ever seen, let alone engaged in, a formal debate! So, if you really want to prove to us you are a debater, then respond to me, and in your response, address the topic of the debate. I assure you, that impress everyone far more than a ribbon. I eagerly await, and encourage, your response.
Israel has no choice

ok i was not inplying that they go suck butt as an alternative i said the choice may suck butt please do not try to re-word my answer to your debate and second self-genoside are you insane cant anyone ever just be happy so ur poor do that mean you get to a school bus?? no and your sick well that is the way to cookie crumbles they need to tell israel "you can cathc more flies with honey that a freaking bomb"!!!!and lastly your jewish aren't you
Israel has no choice

I will concede the point that iseral has done nothing good for neither me nor my opponent, and therefore understand her viseral condemnation of it. However, I don't follow why it is my obligation to screw it, as she suggests. Nonetheless, iseral's crimes do not reflect, in my opinion, on Israel's political situation and certainly do not address the grievances of the Palestinian people. Additionally, I disagree with my opponent's assertion that sucking butt is a valid alternative to Israel's occupation. Certainly, if Israel were to suck butt, it would still face existential threats, and I doubt that the Palestinian people would be able to satisfy their desire for nationhood with such a action. I will agree, however, that there is always a choice. For example, Israel could engage in self-genocide. However, this would result in harm to the Jewish people. I have not been convinced of a reasonable (and recall my definition for reasonable in my first arguement) alternative. If anyone else wants to discuss this, if think I'll repost this debate in a few days. Look out for it after the weekend. I eagerly await my opponent's counter-arguments.
Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised

I accept this challenge to debate upon the fact that the minimum wage should be raised. It is unjust in my opinion that millions of the working class will have to partake more than one job to support their families. I will be arguing on the basis that the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2009. And the fact that numerous citizens will have to survive on meager means from the minimum wage pay. I acknowledge you for providing this debate so I can provide my opinion on the issue at hand. Okay, that sums up what I'm gonna do.
Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised

I will be arguing for a stable federal minimum wage in the United States. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be abolished altogether, as I believe in almost nonexistent government intervention in business. However, I am arguing that we should not increase the minimum wage any higher then it already is on a federal basis. This comes from the fact that Seattle, NYC, LA, and Chicago have all raised their minimum wages to an exorbitant amount, which will eventually end up in loss of jobs and working hours. First round will be acceptance and an overall statement of your intended debate, as well as any definitions you shall use for your debate. If you feel that a word or sentence is vague, please define it using a common dictionary, and then list the name of that dictionary in your overall debate. No trolling, no usage of profanity, and all statements that are not opinionated but are not backed up by sources will be looked over, as I will not believe it unless I see a credible source.
fdr's new deal

You really think the poor didnt attempt to get back on their feet and earn money to actually survive and feed themselves. You think they wanted to be POOR to the point where they had to live in cardboard boxes! No. FDR did have in mind to attempt to help the people but let's be realistic here, he failed. Those spending programs from the New Deal in reality didn't do any good. They didn't increase the number of jobs because the money was coming from taxpayers who had less money to spend because of high taxes. Sure we could see the jobs being created by the New Deal spending but could see the jobs being destroyed? No! The worst thing was that money was being taken away from the south where as we know was the poorest region. Most of the money was being put for the political states in the West and East where the incomes were at least 60% higher than in the south! So don't say that the New Deal helped because what it really did was just have the majority of the people's hopes crushed. It worsened their economic situation in ways that would also affect their health, their family, and life! --->http://aam.govst.edu... The result was horrific!
fdr's new deal

well I say the poor people should have at least tried i mean many people have different talents that can get them started and to be successful in life if they really tried. Depression made the unemployment rate reach a peak of 24.9%. FDR had 3 goals in mind when he took office. They were to relief, reform, and recover, the three R's. He established acts to help with his goals and most were successful like the Emergency Banking Act; which put banks on holidays which gave time for them to get things together and reopen, the Federal Emergency Relief Agency; which increased unemployment assistance and put the government in control of the welfare, and the Glass-Steagal Act; which separated banks according to their business and insured deposits up to $2,500 and greatly increased bank reliability. FDR just wanted to help different aspects of the economy, so for 1 president to accomplish these act and many more that were successful is an extremely remarkable thing to do. so.. have fun challenging this muahaha! :) love ya lili lol
Fluttershy is cutest pony

I present as counter evidence the episode "One Bad Apple", where the Cutie Mark Crusaders find themselves under attack from someone they thought was their friend, and how adorable and cute they are when they are trying to get Babs to stop, and then at the end the genuine heartwarming happiness they and Babs feel when Babs is officially inducted as their fourth member. We also have the episode where the CMC go camping with Rarity, Applejack and Rainbow Dash and we have Scootaloo's absolutely adorable attempts to impress Dash in light of her sheer admiration of her.
Fluttershy is cutest pony

That only happened once with fluttershy when she went crazy angry, but that was because the animals of the canterlot garden wouldn't go towards her for some odd reason, in the first episode, fluttershy is extremely adorable when she meets twilight and spike, in the last episode of the third season, fluttershy is cuter than anypony can imagine when she starts trending the animals and singing in harmony with twilight
Fluttershy is cutest pony

The Cutie Mark Crusaders still however tend to outmatch Fluttershy for cuteness, especially during their debut episode where they are established where we find out the troubles Applebloom is especially is going through with the tormenting she is receiving and her adorable wish to just find out she's actually recognisably good at something. Likewise, there's also an episode where one of the Cutie Mark Crusaders is trying to help out Pinkie Pie with her baking of cupcakes and is absolutely adorable when she realises she's failed. Also, against Fluttershy there is the use of her "Stare" against her chickens, and pretty much anytime where she goes psycho crazy angry.
Fluttershy is cutest pony

Since my role as Con is to argue that Fluttershy is NOT the cutest pony, and since my opponent gave a very brief argument, I will counter by pointing out that Pinkie Pie becomes especially cute when she is in an especially happy mood, and of course the Cutie Mark Crusaders have oodles of cuteness thanks to their adorable quests to gain their cutie marks, and of course Twilight Sparkle must win special kudos in terms of cuteness in terms of the bigger episodes of MLP and the things she goes through (getting to a point where she initially faces Nightmare Moon and Discord in her final battles with them by herself before managing to get her friends with her via her capabilities, so to speak). I hope Pro will expand on his argument.
Regulate the Sales of Legal Highs and Educate Young People of Dangers Of Legal Highs

Well since my opponent seems to have forfeited the rest of the debate I will be short. In summary, to repeat that even if the intent behind criminalizing drugs may seem good, It is still wrong to oppress the freedoms of others just because you believe it is in their best interest to do so. I would also like give you the second half of that C.S. Lewis quote I used in my first argument. Why? Because I like it and...why not? ".... They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."- C.S. Lewis Thanks for taking the time to read this. Please vote for me.
Regulate the Sales of Legal Highs and Educate Young People of Dangers Of Legal Highs

I would however like to start off with addressing something I wanted to get to in the last round but was not able to and that is I wanted to clarify the rhetoric behind the words regulation and legalization. To be clear I am arguing for the legalization of drugs that does not mean that it should be a completely unregulated issue. Just like anything else there needs to be some level of control like with the FDA. Regulation as my opponent sees it, is a means to a end, to quote "the action needed is to reclassify them as illegal [although] we need to first regulate the sale of legal highs" As you can see my opponent views the word regulate as a way of controlling and restricting the legalization of 'legal highs' and eventually making them illegal. I on the other hand make the argument that we regulate the use of drugs like we do any other substance to the point of 'legalization'. It is my view that it is not a government's or individuals place to decide what others can and cannot do even if it might be against the persons well being. A consenting adult should have the right to do what they choose. We do not regulate how much food a person can eat even though over eating has proven to have adverse affects on ones health. Why should drugs be treated differently? We do not regulate how much alcohol one can drink even though over drinking can lead to death. Note that we do regulate what you can do under the influence of alcohol and the age at which you can buy it. I am not arguing against that type of regulation because it ensures that an individual is of the legal age to make a informed decision about alcohol and it also deters engaging in activities that may effect others. Likewise, there is an appropriate level of regulation when it comes to prescription drugs which in some cases can be just as addictive and harmful to ones health when abused as their illegal counterparts. This graph of the Cumulative Lifetime Incidences of Drug Use probably best shows the ineffectiveness of criminalization and restriction of drug use given the fact that in it the united states has one of the highest in all areas despite spending around $15 billion annually on the war on drugs: http://www.plosmedicine.org... My final point is that if the only reason you wish to regulate drug use is so that you can re-criminalize them and continue the war on drugs then I would ask you; when exactly is this war going to be one? Never. The truth is to have a war you have to presumably have a way of determining whether or not you have won. The real issue is that of addiction and the only way to fight that is through treatment rather than criminalization. To quote Russel Brand in a 2012 debate over the War on Drugs, "...the inevitable social and the criminal problems that come from drug use are as a result of its criminalization." (http://www.intelligencesquared.com... )
Regulate the Sales of Legal Highs and Educate Young People of Dangers Of Legal Highs

The issue is that this is not a problem that one can simply tackle. If history has proven anything its that the criminalization and regulation of drugs legal or otherwise has only been effective in creating systems of mass incarceration. The idea that the ends will eventually justify the means is a false and terrifying one because there is no end, there is only means. Even based off of your information, which I would point out I have no way of checking it's validity given you left no source of where you are pulling the info, based off of your claims it is clear that drugs are a ever changing and evolving issue and as you put it "new and novel" substances are inevitable. Most of which are using products that are 'legal' such as hand sanitizer, prescription drugs, and so on. So, how then do you suppose one is to regulate something that is constantly growing and constantly evolving? You simply can not. Although you can try but I would argue that the emergence of "new and novel" substances are the direct result of regulation. Once you make a certain substance illegal people will look for some other way to achieve the same results, using substances that are often much more harmful than criminalized substances but easier to obtain. Simply look at The United States who has been fighting the war on drugs since 1969. But despite being the birthplace of the global "war on drugs and having some of the harshest drug penalties, the U.S. Has the highest marijuana and cocaine use rates in the world. I would point out that I do not see how including the number of drug related suicides is relevant. If anything that is more a issue of mental health than a drug issue. It is not as if you are suggesting we regulate the sale of over the counter prescription drugs like Tylenol, which could be used to achieve the same effect? Another point, what then of other 'legal highs' such as tobacco, alcohol, sugar, caffeine, cough medicine and so on? How would you regulate those? Keep in mind that regulatory legislation like we saw during prohibition didn't work out that well. You argue that we should be educating the youth about the dangers of "legal highs " and drugs In general. To that I would point out the fact that history has proven time and again the ineffectiveness of anti-drug education programs. I would also point out that this study by the national Center of Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) shows that ""between 2007 and 2009 there was a 37% increase in the percentage of 12- to 17-year-olds who say marijuana is easier to buy than cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs(19% to 26%). (http://www.casacolumbia.org...) Let me be clear I am not advocating for the drugs to be legally given to anyone under the legal age. I am strictly arguing against the regulation of substances to consenting adults. I apologize if my argument is not as clear as it could be. In order to avoid forfeiting the round I may have rushed a bit.
Regulate the Sales of Legal Highs and Educate Young People of Dangers Of Legal Highs

I believe that regulating legal highs and educating the young people is the best way in wich to combat this major issue as an MSYP for my constituency , i have been asked to solve this issue by hundreds of my constituents. so here is a comment by Jackson Carlaw "This is clearly a problem that is getting worse, and we need a plan of action to tackle it" Jackson Carlaw Scottish Conservatives also to look at the breakdown figures for scotland for hospital admissions Below is a regional breakdown on legal high admissions, from the health boards who collect the information: NHS Ayrshire and Arran " 164 NHS Lanarkshire " 13 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde " 33 NHS Shetland " 16 NHS Tayside " 92 NHS Western Isles " 5 Scotland " 323 Below is the annual breakdown for Scotland for legal high admissions: 2009 " 15 2010 " 58 2011 " 28 2012 " 61 2013 " 139 2014 so far " 4 Other (where health board couldn"t disclose actual year) " 18 Total " 323 also Legal highs were present in 36 drug-related deaths in 2012, a study published today has revealed. The analysis of nearly 500 fatalities found a growing incidence of "new and novel" substances being found in the deceased individual"s system. ISD Scotland said the rising problem of legal highs like mephedrone was of "increasing public HEALTH CONCERN". earlier this year how hundreds of people have been admitted to hospital over the last four years because of the emergence of these new substances. The National Drug-Related Deaths DATABASE also revealed 52 of the deaths were as a result of suicide, while more than a third of those who died in 2012 were a parent. Nearly all of the drug-deaths studied involved the taking of more than one substances that is why they need to be regulated and the children and young people need to be educated on this major issue
Regulate the Sales of Legal Highs and Educate Young People of Dangers Of Legal Highs

Regulate nothing! We should not regulate the sale of 'legal highs' because drugs shouldn't be illegal. Let me be clear, I am not advocating for the use of drugs by any means. I am simply arguing that it is not the government's, or anyone's for that matter, job to decide what people can and cannot do. Even if the intent behind criminalizing drugs may seem good, It is still wrong to oppress the freedoms of others just because you believe it is in their best interest to do so. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience..." -C.S. Lewis
Regulate the Sales of Legal Highs and Educate Young People of Dangers Of Legal Highs

as many people are aware , legal highs are dangerous and can often cause death they may say not for human consumption but people take them anyway. they get around the law by stating that they are either plant food or bath salts and that is just outrageous although the action needed is to reclassify them as illegal we need to first regulate the sale of legal highs and also educate our young people in the dangers of legal Highs