BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War on Terror

I receive this all the time, the US media has portrayed every prison guard or member of the Military evil after one event that was seen on TV. I was also at Guantanamo, even though I wasn't responsible for watching prisoners the entire time like 31D I still had to make sure and give prisoners received meals and the guards received the equipment they need. I saw prisoners who where well treated most of the time. We had to make sure they where fed Hall' al meals. Hall' al meals are similar to Kosher meals for Jewish people. We had to give them the ability to pray five times daily with prayer rugs we had to specially order. We had to provide them with Korans for study they received specially cooked meals so contrary to what you think it wasn't torture that is comparable to anything the Nazi's did. There is nothing I can do to convince you that the current war that we are in is not something that can be solely blamed upon the Bush Administration because the facts are their we had the Clinton administration telling US that Saddam and his regime where priority one. With the polarization of the Country you stated that we should have attacked China, North Korea, Sudan or some other nation with a dictator that was comparable to Saddam but it would have came to the same situation we are in today, half the country condemning the Bush administration. If we attack terrorists with as much passion as the media and more than half the country attacks Bush we would be done or near that point. I do not support Bush in all he does I would rather have him leave the war too the generals who where trained in strategies lead us to victory but much like Vietnam we are winning as long as the media doesn't beat us Bush and the War on Terrorism will go down in history as a just cause. Thank you for the discussion cherrychocolate hope to see you around and please whether you approve of the President or not do always believe that all of US in the military torture prisoners or treat people with disrespect.
War on Terror

First of all I would like to tell you although I disagree with your opinion I will gladly defend your right to have your opinion. Now as you can tell from my picture and my profile I am an independent conservative that serves in the US Army. This does not make me a Bush bot (honestly until the troop surge he was miss managing the war). I too dislike the term "War on Terror", but call it what you will we are doing the right thing. Their where ties to Al-Qaeda pre 09/11 existing in Iraq and our job was to dethrown an evil dictator in Sadam and remove all remaining terrorists. We are currently their trying to prevent terrorist attacks, teach tactics to Iraqi police and provide security until the government can be established. Now you made valid points pertaining to Guantannamo about civil liberty abuses. it is true that these terrorist are not given fourteenth and sixth amendment rights, but you have failed to state the fact that those rights only pertain to American CITIZENS or events that occur on American soil. I am really stunned that you would use the Geneva Convention in this argument because terrorist combatants do not fall under Geneva laws because they do not wear uniforms and they fight in civilian areas with the attention on propaganda. I would like to question the fact you state we torture, would you be able to give an example of torture tactics we use and the nimber of casualties from these supposed tortures. Thanks for taking your time to read this and I will patiently await your response
War on Terror

What exactly is a "war on terror" supposed to mean? And furthermore, when does it end? When no one hates anyone else anymore? Isn't that a little idealistic? The way I see it, this "war on terror" is really just an excuse to start defying those pesky little rules like our Constitution, the Geneva conventions even the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. Things like torture of prisoners, suspension of habeus corpus, and suppression of the freedom of expression as (supposedly) protected by the First Amendment are all justified with that handy phrase, "we're at war." "With whom?" one might ask. "With terror! Hadn't you heard?" So now we're in an interminable state of warfare, and therefore such offenses as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and so forth will be infinitely justifyable. Anyone else a little worried yet?
"Men and Women can be friends"

My opponent had forfeited. Another thing,love causes addiction and the more you are closer to your opposite sex friend the more you"ll be attracted to him,but it doesn"t mean that you couldn't stay friends with him.Remember that nothing is impossible,we can achieve all things but it have a requirement. Lindsay / United States Yes, I think opposite sex can be best friends. My best friend happens to be a male and is not my husband. Of course, my husband is one of my best friends, but the person that I rely on for friendship is a male, and I don't think it makes a difference. Katia / Mexico I absolutely think that a man and a woman can be good friends or best friends, even though they're married to other people. Friendship doesn't have a gender, so I really don't think that would be a problem if a man and a woman are best friends. Matt / United States I think that once you get married that that person you're married to is going to be your best friend for life. So, with that in mind, yes, man and woman can be best friends for life. Warren / Canada I think it's possible, but really unlikely. Naturally, I believe that the relationship between a man and a woman usually has other connotations than it would be with two guys or two girls. Sarah / England Men and women can be best friends for life. In my opinion, I don't see what the difference is between a man and a woman being friends, and a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. If one's the same, I don't see why gender should be an issue when it comes to friendship. . .Nothing is impossible please vote for Pro(for) :) Reference: http://www.elllo.org...
"Men and Women can be friends"

Since it's there let's just continue. I will just defend his case and then I will present my case. :) My opponent said:if this had been true that two different genders are good friends then no love stories would have began. ~Actually you are wrong because the word used in our topic is "can" not "can only". My opponent said: If we will look around we will find almost every one agreeing with this view as it actually happens in reality. ~My opponent gives an opinion,a saying that comes through her own thoughts. ~There is no single proof that supports your argument ~Since sentence A is false and sentence B supports sentence A. Then,. sentence A and B are both wrong. *My case A study team from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire recruited 44 pairs of college-age guy-girl friends, separated them, and asked each a series of questions about their attraction to their "buddy. " The average length of the friendship was two years, though some had been friends for 10 years or more. ~base upon study man and woman could be friends but attraction have high percentage,it's up to you if you break it. ~Everything that you choose is upon yourself. It's up to you if you let yourself fall in love or not. :) I'm hoping for a great refute Ms. ritambhara. Reference: . http://news.menshealth.com...
"Men and Women can be friends"

*I want a reasoning debate for this topic. Some say that men and women cannot be friends because it will turn into lovers eventually.I disagree with that . :) definition:friend [frend] Show IPA noun 1. a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard. 2. a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter: friends of the Boston Symphony. 3. a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile: Who goes there? Friend or foe? 4. a member of the same nation, party, etc. 5. ( initial capital letter ) a member of the Religious Society of Friends; a Quaker. *I took the pro side,I will argue that Men and women can be friends.My opponent will take the Con side and must argue that men and women cannot be friends. *This debate is maximum of 2,000 characters only *First round is for acceptance. I'm hoping that this will turn into friendly debate,Good luck to us. :) source:http://dictionary.reference.com...
obama... just as much if not more merit, against the surge and for troops in afghanistan

The truth of the matter is, if we had sent the surge to Afghanistan instead of Iraq than Iraq wouldn't be in the condition it is currently in. Yes Iraq's army was forming but it was, and still is in a very fragile condition. Afghanistan is a very mountainous region, if we sent the surge their then the enemy would have simply moved to Pakistan. Therefor the surge was correctly placed in Iraq. We currently do not have the political support from Pakistan to insure that the scenario that i previously stated wouldn't happen. Thanks for reading my points!
obama... just as much if not more merit, against the surge and for troops in afghanistan

the position is being compared to mccain's. there was an addition in 20000 troops to iraq, to make it 1.8 or so instead of 1.6 hundred thousand troops. the iraqi government was already, before the surge, coalescing its own troops. 20,000 troops is negligible given the overall number already there, and the force the iraqis were forming and had. that the generals in iraq wants more troops, only shows they want to win there, and hte better way to win is to have more troops. but there can only be so many troops in either iraq, or afganistan. even if there were more troops to add to the total in both countries, which there's not many more, whatever is in iraq, is by definition not in afghanistan. afghanistan is in bad shape. so, the surge and even some iraqi brigades should have been put to afghanistan, probably, as it would have had more effect there. (this is only a fact finding mission mostly, this debate, to see if there's a way to know what would have happened, and if there's more than just the rhetoric i'm putting out, and that i expect will be given back. my judgment says the above is right, but i think more info is needed, which i seek, mroe facts. if you think the above position isin't even possibly right, but irrefutably wrong, i'd like you to focus more on that. more than just rhetoric, if possible, please)
Dropping the Atom Bomb on Japan was unnecessary to end WWII

Thanks for accepting. I The Japanese were prepared to surrender The Japanese had sent out feelers to negotiate terms of surrender, one being that they be allowed to keep their emperor. These gestures were rejected as America wanted nothing short of complete, unconditional surrender, no matter how many more people were to die. "Japan's Prime Minister Suzuki spelled out the problem of "unconditional surrender" well for doves and hawks alike when he publicly announced on June 9, 1945, "Should the emperor system be abolished, they [the Japanese people] would lose all reason for existence. 'Unconditional surrender', therefore, means death to the hundred million: it leaves us no choice but to go on fighting to the last man." "1 The real Irony is that the Americans ended up allowing Japan to keep its emperor after surrender. II Russia entering the war The Japanese knew that the Russians invading Manchuria was the end of their war. Russia invaded manchuria the same morning that the second nuclear bomb was dropped. The japanese saw this news, that of the Russians opening another front, as the final straw, not the second nuclear bomb. After all, America had been leveling Japanese cities for weeks through conventional bombs, so to the Japanese command another city was just another city. Whether it was by one plane and one bomb or a hundred planes and a thousand bombs. III Top brass, 5 star Generals and Fleet Admirals disagreed with using the bomb These were the top military commanders in the country and the vast majority of them disagreed with our use of the atomic bomb in the manner in which it used it. Those opposed being George C. Marshall 2 Douglas MacArthur 3 Dwight D. Eisenhower 4 Henry H. Arnold 5 Ernest J. King 5 Chester W. Nimitz 5 William D Leahy 6 IV Invasion of the mainland was unnecessary The universal argument for using the war was the U.S. lives that would be lost during an invasion. This, however, is a false dichotomy. Ernest J. King, Commander in chief of the U.S Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, said that "The President in giving his approval for these [atomic] attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but King felt, as he had pointed out many times, that the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials." 5 Sources 1 http://www.spectacle.org... 2 Microfilm 1108, RG 77, Harrison-Bundy Files, file 100, Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, Thursday, 31 May 1945, National Archives 3 Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71 4 Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 5 http://www.colorado.edu... 6 William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
University should be free

Yes but it's con because it is not possible. America need's more intelligent people but doesn't wish to care for the educated. Having free university would be useful to some extent but it could easily flaw an economy, the way secondary school's work, even diplomas and such. "Due to your last point. To be able to have free universities, people pay more tax." Tax has been a problem for the last few decades. Who will be paying the most tax? The rich? The poor? The middle class? You expect everyone to afford higher tax, when it's been so high for years? I understand your concept but that's not enough to have free universities around the globe. Thank you for this debate! It was fun!
University should be free

Technically your argument is pro for free universities because in one statement you say "I do agree that we should have free university membership but I disagree at the same time because you can simply snap your fingers and allow universities to be free", I know what you meant, but you still said it, I mean I have got the evidence. So you do agree with my point that universities should be free. Due to your last point. To be able to have free universities, people pay more tax.
University should be free

We need more intelligent people in this world and having a free university would help a lot. But it's nearly impossible. I live here in the United States and we are too far in debt to start allowing students to join educational schools for free. Universities allow you a much better opportunity to succeed in life. You're expecting that much of a commitment to be free? Besides, different colleges have different standards between grades, scores, gender, money and much more. If college was free many colleges would have to expand their practices and classes and there would be much more flaw in the system.
People should be allowed to carry guns with them.

As my opponent did not state any opinions, or anything at all, I hope that he/she states some in the next round. The order of this has been destroyed. Now, the last round will be for counter-arguements. To further my statement, most people with guns will not know how to use them, so the threat of more potential violence is decreased even more so. I truly wish I could argue with my opponent's statements, but they do not exist.
People should be allowed to carry guns with them.

A primary concern of people carrying guns is the possibility of violence, which, admittedly, sounds plausible on the surface. However, there is one human aspect that almost guarentees that violence would not occur often; fear. Fear is a crippling human aspect which stops us in our tracks. How likely is someone to pull out a gun when potentially dozens of people also have firearms? Not very. This would also cause an increase in a want for firearms, thus creating new jobs in the gun making and selling businesses.
Slavery is not wrong

For your information, Pro, the 'constitution' I was referring to was THE US CONSTITUTION. Pro has stated that man has a right to sell themselves into slavery.A) That is illegal under the constituion and the universal declaration of Human Rights (UN.org, Constitutioncenter)B) Selling yourself into slavery is an indentured servant, as I stated earlierPro uses wikipedia as a source. That source is unreliableI was not morally judging slavery I was judging based off the fact that THE US CONSTITUTION outlaws slavery.According to Statista, 99% of Slave owners under the universally accepted definition of slavery whipped their slavesThe 1% is a vast minority and it all is unethical and unmoral. I have more reliable sources then Pro, therefore, vote for me.
Slavery is not wrong

indentured servant is one form of slavery.... See.....https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Yes, man is born free not as someone properties. But if you say so, is it a man right to sell their self as a slave? If you say that slavery is wrong....then if someone willingly sell himself as slave you will say that this man is do something wrong....what is your logical reason for this? Constitution can outlawed anything either it is morally bad or not. Lets take smoking weed as example some 'constitution' consider it as bad some consider it as legal....so if someone ask 'is it smoking weed moraly bad or not?' then you will get confusion which 'constitution' that you will use to gauge moral....
Slavery is not wrong

I am describing slavery...... slave by definition is a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another or a bond servant. http://www.dictionary.com... it does not say that a slave is person who is forced to be property of other it does not say that a slave is person who is beaten up everyday it does not say that a slave is person who must overworked beyond their limit People find slavery is wrong because slave owner often treat slave less human and badly....so the fault is not on the system but on the person....slavery itself like the definition states does not required someone to be badly mistreated....
Bags of Funyuns should have more Funyuns in the bag.

1. This wouldn't fly with other snack foods. I just can't imagine ever feeling happy about purchasing a bag of Oreos and upon opening it discovering that only 2 1/2 of the 5 sleeves are filled with cookies. We put with it from Frito Lay because we assume there is some purpose for the half empty bag, but I will show that there is not. 2. The half-empty bag only serves to raise the price, it doesn't preserve the chips. The air in the bag is not part the preservation process. While some argue that the gas in the bag is in actually nitrogen, which as an inert gas assists in preserving the chips from the oxygen outside of the bag, this makes no sense. The chips are protected by the vacuum seal, which doesn't require the internal nitrogen (if that is even what it is). Further you don't need the gas to cushion the chips, as this is unnecessary with other brittle snack foods and they do just fine (see pretzels, cookies, etc).
Bags of Funyuns should have more Funyuns in the bag.

1. As it stands we pay (let's say) $3.00 for half a bag of mass produced corn chip rings. A gallon of gasoline is $3.50. I think they owe us the other half of that bag for the price we already pay. 2. Your argument about a food losing it's taste after a while is meaningless. If you don't enjoy your ice cream, you put it back in the fridge, you don't gladly pay more for less. Put away the Funyuns when you are sick of them, at least if there is a full bag you will have some when you want them again. 3. My opponent has no good reason for the wasted chip real estate in each bag of Funyuns, therefore Pro's point is made that the wasted space should be filled with chips. Even if this raises the price incrementally, it's just more efficient. 4. I predict that my opponent will forfeit the 2nd and 3rd rounds in recognition of my triumph. If this comes to pass, there can be no alternative to voting Pro.
Bags of Funyuns should have more Funyuns in the bag.

I ACCEPT!!!and for my first argument i shall say this. first off if there were more chips in the bag that will probably bring the price up insanely much. so instead of one dollar for the small bag of funyuns it would become a dollar-fifty just for a few more chips.second by having the back half full it makes it taste better, let me explain.if someone gave you a bucket of vanilla icecream at first you would think its delicious but after a bunch of it, it would lose its taste.seeing as theres no more time this is goodbye
Columbus Day

I will continue my argument by responding to my opponent's statements from the last round. I agree that just because a certain group (in this case Italians and Catholics) lobbies for a holiday to be named after someone, it doesn't mean that they do not deserve it. However, when I look at how Martin Luther King lived and how Christopher Columbus lived, there is no comparison. King fought for the rights of a race that had been oppressed since Africans first came to the Americas. He protested peacefully, never harming a soul, and was successful in bringing many reforms during the Civil Rights era. Columbus did not set out to help people, but rather for his own glory. During this Age of Exploration, his voyage was more for personal greed to try find the quickest route to Asia. Besides his intentions for his voyage, his treatment of the natives was cruel and inhumane. I find it hard to believe that Native Americans see Columbus as a hero. But as with the rest of U.S. History, we fail to realize or even care about the natives and how they were effected. When I spoke of the deaths of the natives, I was referring to the natives on the islands that he conquered, not the natives of the modern-day United States. Of course I do not blame him for the invasions by the British, Cortes, or any other group of people. There are first hand accounts of murder, rape, and slavery of the natives by the Columbus' men. I have heard the arguments "Columbus did not actually commit these acts himself...it was his men." Columbus may have not partaken of these acts himself, but he definitely oversaw them. He did nothing to stop the abuse against the natives. Hitler never personally killed the Jews, so why do most people call him a murderer? Because he oversaw it, approved of it, and never stopped it. Columbus did the same. He may have not participated himself, but he never did anything to stop it. After all, he was the man in charge. If he had not approved, he could have stopped these acts at any time. In this regard, Columbus is no better of a man that Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Besides these horrible acts, Columbus set off to conquer this land, not share it. He renamed the islands in the name of the Spanish and turned many of the natives into slaves. If he had come to bridge the gap between the two worlds, his accomplishment would be worthy of praise. However, he came to conquer. There has been proof in recent years that the Vikings arrived in the Americas long before Columbus, but they did not even stay to conquer the land. It is pretty bad when the Vikings are more humane than this man we "celebrate".