BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

What is embarrassing is my opponent thinks he is being clever but is in fact being the opposite. He posted 3 sources for this ridiculous argument. 2 of which are debates initiated by him. He argues this ridiculous notion about propositions being true, and in both debates he is losing. By his ridiculous argument I could argue Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister because that is also a proposition. If it is true that Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister it must also be true that he was not a bad Prime Minister. Just give up. Either forfeit or debate.
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

Every proposition is true. (1)(2)(3) "Tony Blair was not a good British Prime Minister" is a proposition. So, "Tony Blair was not a good British Prime Minister" is true. Therefore, Tony Blair was not a good British Prime Minister. Sources Cited: (1) . http://www.debate.org... (2) . http://www.debate.org... (3) . http://www.debate.org...
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

I would like to start my argument by saying that I am not arguing Blair was the best Prime Minister Britain has ever had, but that he was a good Prime Minister. During his ten years in office Blair achieved many things. He got unemployment down from about 8% to 5%. He took child poverty down from about 27% to 17% meaning he took over a 600,000 children out of poverty. He did something very similar with Pensioner Poverty reducing it by over a million. Overall poverty also reduced during this time. He was also incidentally the first Prime Minister since Jim Callaghan who avoided a recession while in office and brought about the lowest period of sustained low inflation since the 60's. In public services he invested record figures into the public services. He hired over 14,000 more police officers, 85,000 more Nurses, 32,000 more Doctors and 36,000 more teachers. He got heart disease deaths down by 150,000, Cancer deaths down by 50,000 and he cut crime by 32%. In school we saw record levels of literacy and numeracy. He build 2,200 sure start centres. He introduced the minimum wage and then raised it to "5.52, something Britain had needed for a long time and this contributed to the steady rise in wages seen in Tony Blair's premiership. He legalised same-sex relationships and civil unions. In terms of issues like Iraq I am sure we will come to those later in the debate. . https://en.wikipedia.org... sorry i cant insert one of my sources but just type into google 50 best achievements of Tony Blair and its the word press article. I now await my opponents response.
The United States Federal Government should Significantly Reform its Policy Towards Russia

Thus his points that our people are more important crumble. Now, you're probably wondering about ethanol subsidies. The reason I use ethanol as my funding is because ethanol causes inflation, hurts our national security, its cost exceeds its benefit 3 billion per year, and it's overall a waste of money." Ethanol is a renewable recourse and it is made in the U.S. Ethanol will do four things improve economy, create jobs, secure energy independence and protect the environment. Jobs&Economy- In one year of construction it will cost 60 million to build, the local economic base will increase by 110 million per year. Ethanol production will generate 19.6 million in house hold energy annually. There will also be an increase of 700 permanent jobs around the area of the ethanol plant. Tax revenue for local and state government will also increase 1.2 million per year. From the information above you can see that ethanol plants are expensive to build but they will create jobs and improve our economy greatly. energy interdependence-Ethanol can reduce our need on oil that is shipped from over seas and help us save money. The currant 6 billion gallons of ethanol produced could reduce gas imports by more than one third, extending gasoline supplies when in full production. The production of ethanol were to increase to 7.5 billion we could reduce our oil consumption by 80,000 barrels per day. Ethanol could also reduce our trade deficit on crude oil, which has been steadily increasing. environment-The use of ethanol could reduce environmental impact cause by fossil fuels. Ethanol could reduce the amount of carbon monoxide emissions by 10%-30%. Ethanol has helped decrease the amount of smog by 25% since 1990. The use of a 10% ethanol blend will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases by 12%-19%. Ethanol is more biodegradable and it is better for the environment. My opponent states that Ethanol is costly and not very efficient. He is proposing that we take money not from the government but Ethanol. What he does not realise is that he is adding more trade debt by importing oil and choosing to take away from Ethanol subsidies. I ask that you vote CON because ethanol subsidies are more important than Russia's well being. Look at what Ethanol can do for the U.S. and we cant help produce it without these subsidies. Thank you for your time reading
The United States Federal Government should Significantly Reform its Policy Towards Russia

Thank you for accepting and responding. Sadly, all of Con's points were based on a misunderstanding of what we're debating today. You see, in a policy debate like this one, we debate status quo vs. plan. Con is status quo, I am plan. What Con has done is used the logical fallacy "false dilemma" by stating that this money could be better used on us orphans. You know what? I totally agree that US orphans and US HIV/AIDS is more important. You're probably sitting there laughing at me. The reason I agree is because that's not what the status quo is doing with this money. Let's look at the funding: ethanol subsidies. The funding isn't "Money funding US orphans". In other words, in the status quo, US orphans are helped with who knows how much money. With this plan, that remains untouched. The only thing changed is ethanol subsidies. Thus his points that our people are more important crumble. Now, you're probably wondering about ethanol subsidies. The reason I use ethanol as my funding is because ethanol causes inflation, hurts our national security, its cost exceeds its benefit 3 billion per year, and it's overall a waste of money. (. http://oilprice.com...) Mmhmm, Ethanol subsidies are bad. It's an advantage on its own: taking money from ethanol subsidies is good already. What makes it even better is taking it and giving it as foreign aid to Russia. The amazing thing about this plan is that it causes no debt. It's not adding 1 billion in spending, it's DIVERTING 1 billion in spending. No extra debt for the US, but our national security is increased and lives are saved. If you're sitting there thinking "why on earth would I care about Russia"? Advantage 3 is why. National Security for the US. I agree it's sad that there are US orphans, but the status quo isn't spending this 1 billion on US orphans. It's spending it on wasteful ethanol subsidies. So ALL of Con's points fall apart. They are based on a misunderstanding. Con, I would ask that you bring up new points that are valid. Your points in Round 1 are fallacies.
The United States Federal Government should Significantly Reform its Policy Towards Russia

Mandate 1. The US will supply one billion per year to USAID to be used for aid to Russia" The United states has there own problems to worrie about such as orphans, STDS and other things that we need to control. This 1 billion per year that we will be providing to Russia could be used to help ourselves. The United States always puts other countries problems before there own and this is another example. HIV/AIDS Combated- We have our own AIDS/HIV epidemic to worrie about in this country. We need to focus on our own peoples well being before we help other countries with something they are responsible for dealing with. The prevention that we may try to teach may fail and it would be money wasted that we could have used for something else down the road. National Security- Why would a countries attack us simply because we refuse to give aid and take our our own problems into consideration? ? You have innocent people dieing in the U. S from disease, hunger poverty and being homeless. What is the sense of national security if a third of our population keep dieing all because we decided to help another country before our own. Helping Russia would be a waste of resources that we need in order to improve things in our own country. I could see if we gave Russia money here and there but 1 Billion is way to much money that we don't have to give them.
The United States Federal Government should Significantly Reform its Policy Towards Russia

http://www.ethanol.org... Here is the link that I have used and will continue to use throughout this round. "There are other types of energy available. Nuclear, for one. We don't have to completely rely on Ethanol." Although this is true there are some things that nuclear will not power. You have cars, boats, planes etc. that would be too complicated to modify for nuclear power. Ethanol will help keep the cars that run on gas on the roads while making them more Eco friendly. I am simply tired of my opponent throwing all of these quotes out and not giving the speaker credit. Sure you have a source, but how do I and the readers know who said them and if they are reliable. I am not going to readdress what I have already stated in my last argument, I will however make my point on national security. The U.S. is dependant on oil from over seas that we must import in order to function. This gives those countries a way to hold us by the collar simply for the fact that we need oil. Ethanol would reduce the chance for us to be held down by our need for oil. I do not see how the U.S. not helping Russia would compromise our national security. We already have adoption agencies that span the world to adopt kids from places such as Russia. My opponent states that he is only taking 1 billion from a 7 billion dollar subsidies. What if that one billion is needed in the future? I would also like to point out that ethanol is relatively new which makes it more expensive to produce. The more popular it becomes the less it will be to produce. I ask that you vote CON because the U.S. will benefit greatly from ethanol, and every cent helps a cause. I know that my opponent has worked to construct his debate to the best of his intelligence and for that I thank him for his time. I would also would like to thank the readers and voters. You read the arguments and you decide witch is better plan or status quo.
Social Media is bad

I'm aware that cyberbullying is bad, but schools around the world have been teaching teens on how to prevent cyberbullying (here is a site: http://cyberbullying.org...). This has helped teens become more aware of what could happen on social media and has also decreased the possibility of someone being cyber bullied. It's a persons' choice to be more talkative through social media (to people that live far away) than talking to people around him/her.
Social Media is bad

You are welcome Damian. Allow me to share this quote " Face your problems, don't facebook them." Anonymous. And this is shockingly true. Social media has single-handedly created a new form of bullying: cyberbullying. And when we post our problems, everyone sees it, except for the people that need to. We think things will change when we post it. They don't. Also, when you say they connect us with everyone, it's not necessarily true. It brings those who are far away closer, but those who are closer further.
Social Media is bad

Thanks for being my opponent on our first debate Luca. There are many reasons why social media is good for people and not bad. I would like to start off with this quote, "Smart phones and social media expand our universe. We can connect with others or collect information easier and faster than ever." -Daniel Goleman. With social media we are able to see what every person on this world (that have some type of social media of course) is up to with their lives. Your able to talk to friends/family that live far away, doesn't that amaze you? I look forward to seeing your response.
Social Media is bad

Sup Damian. We gonna start with 2 rounds. K? So, here goes. Social media is bad because: There is a lack of privacy. Most people do not have their accounts on private, so whatever they post isn't private. Even if it is embarrassing and you want to take it off, there are so many people on, lots of people already saw it. Also studies have shown that people who write badly on social media tend to also write this way in other places.
Anti Vaccination is non sensical

If that's what you would like to believe then that's fine. I have no problem with that, but have you ever looked at the ingredients? Many vaccines are made with a Mercury drived preservative or one of Aluminum base. Both Mercury and Aluminum once taken into the body become a neurotoxin or a toxicn that kills the brain cells. These 'harmless' vaccines are given to small children whose brains are just developing. Giving neurotoxins to children must make a lot of sense to you then? Whoa and you're calling me the nonsensical one. Vaccines fail all the time so these basic illnesses are running ramped anyway. The whooping cough outbreak in Califoinia is just one of the many failed attempts at sussesful vaccine making. Only three percent of the population was unvaccinated. The rest were vaccinated and still got sick. They got sick from the vaccine that they were given. Best part is that it lasted longer in those who got the shot. I was required to get the shot for school. I was sick for one-hundred and thirty-two days. The rest of my unvaccinated family never caught it The Whooping Cough. Or at least if they did had a much milider case of it with no symptoms and no fever. They are all now immune to whooping cough. I am not. My immune system never took to the shot and left my body shell shocked.
Anti Vaccination is non sensical

There is a plethora of reasons to be anti vaccine. I accept this challenge. Looking at it from my view even someone who is anti vaccine for personal or religious reasons is viable. Although I'm going to stick to the thought of medically exempt children and adults. Being medically exempt means according to a certified and usually specialized doctor that a person or persons cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. These children and adults include people with cancer and , auto immune. These people's lives they matter saying there medical reasons are non sensical is bogus. We don't have one size fits all genetics. Why do we have one size fits all vaccine schedules. These people could die from a vaccine. A life, many lives would be lost if these people were to accept a vaccine. Not only that but patients of chemo drugs can't even be around a person that has had a live vaccine. It makes complete sense to me to protect a child or a loved on by not being vaccinated. To help ensure that something else doesn't happen to them. Seems perfectly logical to me, as a sister and as a friend of many vaccine injured and medically exempt children and adults.
When Automation Goes into Full Swing Poor People will be Killed Off

tbh cars a cool as crap my man. If yall think Obamas trying to take away our car rights yall as wonky as a stinky dinky burning barnyard. My gold ferrari yaint killin nobody, my dude. And like tbh us rightful citizens are paying for the U.S governemnt by buying cars, so our money goes to taxes which is given to poor guys. Ya so plz stop abusing peoples car rights thank
When Automation Goes into Full Swing Poor People will be Killed Off

For clarification, "automation goes into full swing" means people in the future will no longer need to do menial tasks which take almost zero cognition to perform since robots will perform the tasks for humans. "Poor people will be killed off" means execution by a government authority. This is a hypothetical and the arguments is based human nature. There is no scientific basis in my claims. In the future, automation will take over because that seems to be the natural progression towards the evolution of society. In order to anticipate poor people being out of work a universal basic income (UBI) will be implemented. With UBI, poor people will have free time in order to pick up a marketable skill that can contribute to society. However, it is my belief that a majority of poor people will not take up the opportunity to obtain or contribute knowledge to society with the freed up time. I base this analysis off of the fact that humans are inherently lazy since it's in our best interest instinct-wise to conserve energy whenever possible; it's an unconscious reaction in most people. Initially, all social classes will reap the benefits off of automation. People will gorge themselves on a constant flux of dopamine by watching TV/movies, video games, drugs, socializing, and other activities that people find fun. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these activities (except some drugs) since having fun is important to moral and well-being. However, without the need to work in order to live there will be no drive to constantly self-improve. The bare minimum will be comfortable enough for the standard of living. With that in mind, you might ask why I think poor people are most susceptible to this behavior? I think all humans are susceptible, but the first to be targeted in this society as leeches will be the poor or people getting by solely on UBI. Even the wealthy could eventually fall if generations of kids do nothing. The main focus of this argument will be on the easiest target to remove which is the poor. I think a cleansing and eugenics in society is inevitable as time goes on. I do not condone murder, cleansing, or eugenics in any type of society as it is my belief that all humans have a right to live and reproduce. When a cleansing actually happens, then people will start to do more than the bare minimum which leads to a fear-based self-driven society. Unless it becomes incredibly easy to colonize other planets, the natural resources on Earth will dwindle as automation become more efficient on top of a growing population. The dwindling of resources with a growing population will lead to another cleansing which will start off with removing the "least productive" humans from society. A cleansing will be based off how much money the person has taking age into consideration. This is all conjecture. If you have a solution towards this problem then please elaborate. If you don't see a problem in this hypothetical future then please explain the error in my logic.
Barrack Obama is/was a good president (economics)

We will be focusing on JUST the actions of President Obama and not the effects of global macroeconomicsBefore we look at the economic success of President Obama we have to look at the failure he inherited from Bush As we can see President Bush took a 200 billion surplus from President Clinton and turned it into a MASSIVE deficit. Unemployment under Bush took a similar story with the spiking of unemployement to almost 8 percent. Now that weve understood the terrible economic desicions of President Bush lets look at the economic descions President Obama has made1. The Deficit A common republican arguement is that obama is a big spender however this is the opposite from the truth. As we can see Bush spiked the deficit with the Iraq war costing americans billions. However thanks to Obama's economic leadership we saw a steady decrease in the deficit which decreased almost every year.2. Unemployment This graph shows from the time period of Feb 09 to Feb 13. Now Barrack Obama has almost led us down to a 4.5 unemployment rate as of January 2016 (1). Thanks Obama.3. Job Creation/Growth Job growth under Obama has been incredible. Not a single study shows that Obama has been negative in his job growth since the 2009. He had some negative growth before 2009 because he was still cleaning up the mess of Bush. President Barrack Obama has created over 15 million jobs since his time as president (2)4. Oil Production Oil Production is a really clear indicator of america's economy. It makes up for a large amount of America's exports. As we can see President Bush is declining sharply when it comes to oil production however when president Obama takes over we take a great lead in our oil production. I will start rebuttals and some more arguements in the following roundIf you have any trouble reading a graph feel free to visit my pictures to see them in more detail (. http://www.debate.org...)Graph Sources:. http://www.energytrendsinsider.com...http://biggerfatterpolitics.blogspot.com...http://www.franken.senate.gov...http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com...http://aattp.org...http://www.msnbc.com...Sources:(1): . http://www.tradingeconomics.com...(2): . https://ourfuture.org...
The Theory of Evolution is correct.

Your thought experiment certainly doesn't point directly to evolution. In fact, it has absolutely no correlation to it's direct process whatsoever. The way I see it, evolution is just a fairy tale used to explain what science cannot. If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero. Further, there is no observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. In fact, over time, organisms LOSE genetic information. They DON'T gain it. This clearly refutes the theory itself to the point that it is laughable and childish. I could continue to list points, but I would be here all day. I await your "argument".
The Theory of Evolution is correct.

The evidence for the Theory of Evolution seems too obvious, for me at least. While I don't want to go hunting on the Internet for specific pieces of evidence right now, I want to share a thought experiment that makes it easier to side with the evolutionary timeline. (This might not even be a thought experiment, more-so just explaining an idea). The basis of it is this: there are fossils in the ground of organisms that aren't alive today. There are organisms alive today that there aren't any fossils of in the ground. So this means that there were different species alive, say, 20 million years ago that aren't today. There are also no species alive today that were 20 million years ago. Therefore, life changed between 20 million years ago and today. Think of it like this: let's say on imaginary Planet X there are fossils of tail-less lizards in the ground that date to 10,000 years old. There are now only lizards alive with tails. There are no fossils of lizards with tails. So taking these into consideration, a logical conclusion would be that the lizards evolved tails. Now what's on Earth isn't nearly as simple as it is on Planet X, but the basis is still there. There were creatures alive long ago that aren't today. There are also creatures alive today that weren't long ago, the conclusion being that life changed between then and now. Evolution meaning change over time, one can see how the Theory of Evolution makes sense in theory. (ha, get it?) I could go on and on about this, but I'm more interested about what my opponent says in response (if I get one).
Open Debate (Relaxed)

Mods aren't responding so I think its best if I say you can not play the game, I portray yo momma lesa-gay yes, yo momma made of hay must I go on, if I may its a nice a day flatstanley's earth is cray cray con has no way of winning v wolfy.j! i'm untouchable like Reverend Loveday You sh1t on like horse hay you can not stay give me debts, you must pay yay