BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

Hamas has not always refused truces with Israel. In 2008, Egypt brokered a truce between Israel and Hamas which resulted in a 6-month lull where no rockets/mortars were fired into Israel. Hamas resumed firing due to border conflicts. For example, between '05 and '08, 1,735 Palestinians were killed and 8,308 were wounded in border conflicts. Israel's military expedition into Gaza during Op. Cast Lead was not humane. It was an illegal response to rocket attacks caused by Israeli injustices.
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

Despite all the civilian deaths in Gaza, Hamas is still firing rockets into Israel. Since 2001 12,800 rockets have been fired in to Israel from Gaza. Some of these rockets can contain up to 200 pounds of explosives, and can travel over 46 miles. Ruffly the same distance between NYC and NJ Israel has time and time again tried to come to terms of peace, but Hamas refuses at every corner and continues to fire rockets into Israel. Leaving Israel with no other choice, but to fight back.
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

If Israel's goal was to stop rockets from being fired, they tried to do it at the cost of homes and civilians lives. However, as noted earlier, rocket fire intensified during Israel's invasion. These rocket attacks occur to this day. Israel did not "do so as smoothly as possible", since rocket attacks into Israel did not cease due to the IDF intervention. Finally, war crimes are war crimes, whether Syrian or Israeli. 1,400 civilian deaths over the course of 22 days is no small matter.
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

Israel goal was to stop rockets from being fired.They did so as smoothly as possible.If you want to talk about war crimes you should consider the US military in Iraq.The death toll of civilians has claimed over 100.00 deaths.Maybe look at Syria and how their gov.dropped Sarin on Ghouta suburbs of the Markaz Rif Dimashq district around Damascus,which painfully claimed over 1,000 lives. What Israel did was to stop rockets from being fired into schools,houses,hospitals which put civilians in harm
Israel's 2008 military intervention in the Gaza Strip was not executed humanely.

On June 17, 2008, through the arbitration of Egypt, Israel and Hamas came to a ceasefire agreement. Almost immediately afterwords Hamas continued to lob rockets from Gaza into southern Israel. Hamas successfully fired over 300 rockets into southern Israel,while Israel honored the treaty until December 27,2008. Under article 51 of the United Nations, Israel had every right to defend itself against Hamas's, which contradicts your BBC article. http://www.nato.int......
Anthropogenic global climate change.

Round two arguments.First, the science is settled, this is a political debate that deniers try to make look like a scientific debate. Fact: There is a 97% consensus on climate change. Climate scientists are the experts of experts in their field. A consilience of evidence, social calibration, and social diversity exist. Myth: 31,000 scientists signed a petition so therefore there is no consensus. Fallacy: Fake experts, as the expertise increases so does agreement. Co2 is at the highest it has been in over 800,000 years. Tempatures are rising. Glaciers are overall losing mass. Humans fingerprints show humans are extremely likely to be causing these events. Burning of fossil fuels and the released Co2 is the main driver of climate change. Thank you.
Anthropogenic global climate change.

In my debate I will be trying not to persuade you that humans are totally responsible for global warming, but the major cause is from animals etc, with still little help from the humans. It would be totally biased if you wanted me to defend humans completely out of global warming for such as a fart contributes. At the end of this debate I hope to have abolished the Anthropogenic title from your moot, and (as seen from the previous debate) from your stubborn mind. No need for any clarifications. Thank You and good luck!
Anthropogenic global climate change.

I will contend that anthropogenic global climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropogenic global climate change is non-existent.StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 Arguments, don't respond to opponent's arguments yet.R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument.R4 Defense respond directly to opponent's three argument. Burden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.Anthropogenic " Caused by humans" [1]Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. The science is settled, this is a political debate, that my opponent will most likely attempt to make look like a scientific debate. Sources.0. http://www.debate.org...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

Pro has forfeited my response to why politics is rather useful, instead he wants me to question his use of the word "because" or something. .. .. Now the Pro is trying to use any debate in general (not limited to a website) to try to justify his argument and tries to use my made up example as actual evidence. If the Debate subject though was "The US should not withdraw from NAFTA" and the opening arguments were "I like cheese" and "cows make noise" both arguments would be invalid: tie.
It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

Reasons why politics are not useless, 1) Politics are the activities that are associated with the governance of a country or area, to say such activities are pointless is saying that the governance and maintenance of order of a country or area is pointless. 2) Politics in some cases are a field of study that allow people to explore how government itself works, if politics are pointless than the study of politics would be pointless and thus knowing how the government works, according to Pro, is useless. 3) Politics within the government is the system used for sparring parties to make decisions. If politics is pointless than decision making, according to the Pro, would also be pointless. All 3 of these things are products of politics and are necessary to continue running the city you live in, the county you live in, the state you live in, and the country you live in. Politics is not pointless. You cannot imply you were referring to another debating site as a last resort to try to avoid losing the argument. If I tried to argue right now that I was referring to another debating website that was shut down after 2 years, and in that time no debate was won by a side that forfeited 4 rounds, then that would be irrelevant.... I fail to see how you believe that "I Like Cheese" is a valid argument but "Cows make noise" is not a valid argument. In A debate on this website, the instigator introduces a debate with a topic, the instigator then states their reasoning in the first round but introduces any evidence or arguments until the next rounds. The challenger meanwhile accepts this debate, states what they will be arguing, and then the first round ends. After that if either side forfeits the remaining 4 rounds then they have failed to provide evidence or logic to reinforce their arguments and thus would lose or tie the debate because 1) They have failed to produce any logical arguments 2) They have no grammar or spelling and therefore could not be given any points 3) They have no sources and therefore could not be given any points 4) They showed no conduct to even post an argument and therefore would not be given any points... If the challenger did the same, then neither side would get points for anything and then that would result in a tie which would mean the side that forfeited 4 of 5 rounds cannot win.
It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

Pro continues to think I am denying that he has classified this debate under politics and has ignored my questioning of why politics is indeed pointless... As for the voting on debates, if a majority of the voters are of sane mind when reading a debate when someone has forfeited 4 rounds then the person who has forfeited those 4 rounds would lose. I invite the Con to try to find one debate on this website where someone has forfeited 4 rounds and they have won. If the Con cannot find a single debate then that would mean there are NO DEBATES where one person won a debate after forfeiting 4 rounds. This debate applies to this website because 1) He classified the debate under politics, this site has a politics topic, so it relates to this site 2) He talks about forfeiting 4 rounds in a 5 round debate, he created a 5 round debate, so it relates to this site 3) He posted this debate on this website, so it refers to this website This debate relates to this site through 3 different ways, so I assumed that he was referring to this site, if the Pro wanted to argue this applied to any website then he should have clarified that at the start of the debate, not halfway through. "Con forfeits all 5 rounds" - Con cannot forfeit all 5 rounds as I have already stated. "Con produces invalid arguments, thus leaving Pro's argument unchallenged, Pro wins by default." - But the Pro would also be unable to challenge the Con's arguments and thus both sides would not be able to counter the others arguments. That would result in a tie.
It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

I am not questioning that you chose to categorize this debate under politics, I am questioning your logic of why. You admitted that your reasoning of why you believe politics is useless is flawed, therefore that argument goes to me."the former statement's subject was of my decision, not of the reasoning."Pro claims that his own statement was based on his decision, not of any rational thinking, common sense, reasoning etc. That means that Pro's idea that "politics are pointless" is flawed, and therefore is wrong. Argument goes to me.I agree to your definitions of possible, impossible, and words that imply certainty. However I will still argue for why you cannot win a debate if you forfeit four out of 5 rounds because of the nature of how debates are won on this website.If you forfeit 4 out of 5 rounds, then the one round that you did not forfeit must be the first round. The person who creates the debate provides an opening argument in round 1, the person who accepts the debate must give their stance over an issue in round one. If they do not the debate is cancelled and does not proceed and that is just how the website works. Therefore the one round you did not forfeit must be the opening round, and thus rounds 2,3,4, and 5 are forfeited so that the person forfeiting 4 rounds would not be able to offer any response to any of the points the other side makes.It is the voters who decide who wins an argument. If the voters read a debate and all the arguments are forfeited by one side, then the arguments given by the other side ultimately determine the debate. If one side does forfeit 4 rounds then 3 scenarios can happen...1) If Pro forfeits 4 rounds and Con provides good arguments supporting their side based on facts and sources, they win the debate because of points they would receive for Conduct, Arguments, Sources, and Grammar.2) If Pro forfeits 4 rounds and Con provides weak or biased arguments, no sources, and issues poor conduct, then the debate will be a tie since Con does not have better Arguments, Conduct, Spelling, or Sources but Pro also didnt have any of these. 3) If Pro forfeits 4 rounds and the Con also forfeits 4 rounds, then the debate would be a tie since both sides gave no arguments, no sources, no grammar, and had no conduct in the debate.So to summarize the results of these 3 scenarios if one side forfeits 4 of 5 rounds,1) If the Con wins, the Pro loses2) If the Con ties, the Pro ties too3) If the Con ties, the Pro ties tooTherefore it is impossible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds because there are only two possible results that will come from it, a loss or a tie. I underlined those two words because if you look at the Pro's definitions for these words then it proves how you cannot win if you forfeit 4 of 5 rounds in a debate....
It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics. => Con will be arguing that I have not decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics. => Con will not be arguing that politics are not pointless, as the former statement's subject was of my decision, not of the reasoning. ==>Seeing as I have categorised the debate as politics*, in doing so, I have DECIDED to categorise the debate as politics, rendering my argument ultimate. Definitions of possible: 1) that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.: a disease with no possible cure. 2) that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary: It is possible that he has already gone. => Opposition: impossible Definitions of impossible: 1) not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc. 2) unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.: an impossible assignment. 3) incapable of being true, as a rumor. 4) not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety: an impossible situation. 5) utterly impracticable: an impossible plan. Words which imply certainty: => 1) unable => 2) unable => 3) incapable => 4) not => 5) utterly To negate certainty, one must produce an alternative explanation. This alternative explanation is that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds. I have suggested a possibility, which, in itself renders my arguments ultimate and which negates the certainty of a formerly possible impossibility. *http://www.debate.org... http://dictionary.reference.com...
It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

Pro argues that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds. Con argues against that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds. I have posted this debate, because I want to win a debate of which I hardly take part. I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.
Tyrants do not accept messages as they know it all already.

No, it might be that they just don't like to answer messages. What they voice their opinions on has nothing to do with tyranny, unless they're an authoritarian, and they have no authority over you whatsoever on this site. You could argue for their aristocracy and bigotry, but not tyranny. Maybe they don't want to answer you or debate you because it's been debated by them before. You say "almost always". How much of a percentage is that? What would you consider "most", and how could you tell if they are self-righteous? Your argument appeals to emotion, not logic. You have made an ad-hominem argument as well. Please, do not invoke emotion into your arguments, or use logical fallacies.
should federal government establish a foreign policy limiting use of weapons of mass destruction.

First off, this is not a real argument. All you do is present your resolution and then give a definition of the policy. This is not a real argument for the resolution, you give no reasons why your policy option is better. So my argument is twofold: First, we already have policy limiting the use of nuclear weapons. It has always been a top priority of this country to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in any venue. The U.S. has never taken a stance to promote the use of nuclear weapons and have made many deals to prevent the use of nuclear weapons on friend and foe alike. Second, the USFG should establish a foreign policy to prevent the proliferation of WMDs. This is the most important part of the issue. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who would wish to harm us is the most important thing we can do. Also, the less nuclear weapons out on the market the less of a chance one would be used on us or an ally. The US should work to totally eradicate the threat all together.
should federal government establish a foreign policy limiting use of weapons of mass destruction.

Resolved should Federal government establish a foreign policy limiting use of weapons of mass destruction. To me the answer is in its self (read topic).A "policy" is very much like a decision or a set of decisions, and we "make", "implement" or "carry out" a policy just as we do with decisions. Like a decision a policy is not itself a statement, nor is it only a set of actions, although, as with decisions, we can infer what a person's or organisation's policy is either from the statement he makes about it, or, if he makes no statement or we don't believe his statement from the way he acts. But, equally, we can claim that a statement or set of actions is misleading and does not faithfully reflect the "true" policy.
The US Should Subsidize Nuclear Power

Since I haven't found an opponent yet, anyone can accept this now.First round is acceptance only & no new arguments in the final round. Burden of proof is shared.Definitions:Subsidize: Support (an organization or activity) financially. (1)Nuclear Power: The use of nuclear reactors to release nuclear energy and thereby generate electricity. (2)1-https://www.google.ca...2-https://en.wikipedia.org...
Prosperity of government through capitalism

Capitalism has served some sectors of our economy. However, it is a dangerous force under which the needs of all citizens must be considered. Though the first argument centers primarily on the economic outcomes of capitalism as a market force the full spectrum of ramifications must be considered. As a market force: Capitalism assumes everything is a commodity, which is why it has failed the United States in the past. The system demands profit, and therefore treats labor as a commodity. At the turn of the century this meant deplorable working conditions. In the modern age it translates to jobs of all kinds being exported to foreign countries. We use ‘Made in America' as a prideful statement, but it is becoming ever rare. Many times, those with American pride are the very individuals propagating ideals of capitalism, and the two realities are frankly at odds. When other countries have the manpower to create goods at a lessened cost, capitalism will always choose that option. Eventually, power will shift to other nations and our own economy will pay the price for it. We are simply unable to match the competition, as we should be. Our own history has taught us the cruel reality that results from purely capitalist society, and we should shy away from any future that repeats that devaluing of labor and resources. As a social force: Capitalism promotes production of goods. The more willing the consumer is to purchase new items, the more a business will make, and the more that consumer will eventually obtain. It is a cyclical relationship which has escalated to new heights. Materialism has always been a problem with society; He who dies with the most wins. Unfortunately, this mentality fosters detachment and lack of empathy. When we become so concerned with ourselves, it is easy to lose sight of others' needs. This flaw in human nature is visible under all conditions, but is particularly fostered by capitalism. To lessen the evil one must not give it extra room to grow. Capitalism and the ensuing materialism thrive on the idea that those who do not have enough got that way through their own means. Though this may be true in some situations, it is unfair to judge all by the standards of a few. This leads to further social degradation of the poor, and a lack of empathy (brought on by social acceptance of said empathy) which is crippling to those in unfortunate situations. In an ideal world, individuals in positions of power would lend a hand to those in need of service. In lieu of this, the government must provide services such as welfare and subsidized housing. I concede that there is mismanagement of the funds directed towards some of these programs, but that does not inherently mean that the programs themselves are without merit. A reallocation of these funds may be necessary, but that is not capitalism. There may be some middle ground to be reached, but the ultimate striving towards capitalism is not the answer. The long-term health of a nation resides in its ability to provide for all of its citizens. Capitalism itself leads to further stratification of classes and crippling economic conditions.