BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama will win the South Carolina primary tomorrow on the Democratic side.

Barack Obama stands a high chance of losing tomorrow because the Clintons are crooks. We saw the same situation in New Hampshire and Clinton pulled out a victory but rigging the election. She has shown that when there is a critical election, her people will find her a way to win, just like NH. Your points are all well and good. But, they carry no weight in a world where Hillary bars people from the polls, hacks electronic voting machines, and commits dozens of other instnaces of voter fraud. Obama can have all the support he wants, if Hillary feels she needs to win SC she will get it done, reagardless.
Barack Obama will win the South Carolina primary tomorrow on the Democratic side.

I predict that Barack Obama will win the South Carolina primary this Saturday, January 26, for a number of reasons: - Nearly all recent polls show him with superb, double-digit leads over his nearest rival, Hillary Clinton. It is very unlikely that either Hillary or Edwards will muster enough support by tomorrow to turn this race around. - As even other campaigns in the state acknowledge, Obama has the best organization. This will prove crucial in turning out the vote and gives Obama a distinct and notable advantage. - His support among African-Americans has skyrocketed after he won Iowa. In South Carolina tomorrow, he should easily carry the vast majority - probably more than 75% - of the African-American vote in the state. African-Americans make up at least half of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, and their decisive push for Obama, accompanied by the relative apathy of white voters, who have not rallied behind any one candidate, should him see through to ultimate victory.
Communism is the best solution to most of the world's problems

I'd like to start by welcoming my opponent to DDO, as I see he is a new member. This debate is in response to the opinion question posed by Guardian_Rock: . http://www.debate.org...My opponent seems to strongly favor Communism. I'd like to give him an opportunity to elaborate on why he thinks Communism is the best economic system, and to provide warrants, examples, and credible sources to back up his position. As Con, I will be arguing that Commuism is not the best economic system to address the worlds problems. Whichever debator most convincingly articulates their position should get your vote, rather than just the person whose side you agree with. Any forfeits are an automoatic loss of conduct. Pro may present his opening case immediately in round 1, but to keep the rounds fair he'll need to leave the final round blank. Failure to do so is to forego the 3 points for arguments.
Communism is the best solution to most of the world's problems

This round, as you all know, had originally been intended only for my use, and Pro was to leave this round blank. He got the first word, and I would get the final word. There has been a development, however; you may have noticed in the comments section that my opponent posted his inability to post his arguments due to technical problems (I have on occasion had problems with this as well).Rather than have the entire debate become compromised, what I propose is to allow him to use this round to post his argument rather than leave it blank as was previously agreed upon. I would then be allowed to shift my conclusion into the comments section of this debate, and with both of our consent this would be considered legitimate for voting consideration as long as I limited my response to 4 messages (a total of 2,000 chars each). I'd begin each of the official comments with the label at the top indicating order: "Con's Conclusion Part 1, 2, 3, or 4".I have not yet heard back from my opponent as to whether he accepts this solution. If he does accept, I invite him to post his arguments in this round instead of leaving it blank. Thank you all for your interest, and thank you Pro for what has been an interesting debate thus far. We've both worked hard on this, and I'd rather not walk away from that effort if a simple solution is available.
Should elected officials be allowed to seal their records/ papers

I don't deny anything you have posted, but repeat my previous statements that for the greater good of the citizens the polititians represent, some records may need to be sealed (for national security). I don't deny that in general records should be open to the public, but it can be in the public interest to have them remain sealed. You have failed to refute my previous argument and I have provided a counter-example to yours. To win this debate you need to demolish it.
Should elected officials be allowed to seal their records/ papers

" Character is what you do when you think no one will find out what you did...." " It is easy to appear to have good character when others are around, but it is what you do when no one is there that really defines your character...." Ronald Reagan once said,"Trust, but verify...." The citizens are entitled to know and should know about a person who is asking for the voters to trust them. and when that person has their records and papers sealed a red flag goes up indcating that that person isn't exactely who they're claiming to be. Wouldn't it be a easy matter ,for instance if when a robber or a embezzler was caught, all anyone would have to do is ask them,did you do it, and they would immediately give you a reply that you could be assured was the truth. No one woud accept these people's word as to their guilt. But when it comes to politicians we not only accept that they are who they present themseves to be we permit them to seal up evidence that would actually reveal the truth about them. When one thinks about the general run of politicians they are not shy about letting the world know of their accomplishments and publicly tout them but strangly, they wish to hide some aspects of their past by having their papers and records sealed from the public. Now some politicians have used other methods of dealing with records and papers that might reveal to the public what they had done and who they were, for instance, Sandy" Berger was the Assistant to the President Bill Clinton, for National Security Affairs from 1997 to 2001 who later absconded with records from the National Archieves and destroyed them. There are other methods of hiding information about a public figure and its used quite often, to the politicians benefit, that method ,"sanitization," .....The traditional technique of redacting confidential material from a paper document..." But who makes the decisions on what printed material should be subject to "Sanitization, redacted, from the printed records material, is it done by a committee from both political parties or is it done by those with the most to lose if certain information was available to the public. If printed records, the material that is subject to ""Sanitization," by the political party who's records are being "blacked out, thus denying public scrutiny, isn't this the same as removing evidence about a robber or embezzler and just taking their word whether they were guilty or not.
Should elected officials be allowed to seal their records/ papers

An elected official (eg Polititian) has the job to look after and represent the interests of their people.This is not always compatable with full accountability, as for national security reasons some sensitive dcuments may have to be 'sealed' to avert catastrophe and to allow the nation to acheive its foreign policy interests more effectvely.Therefore an elected official might be dong a better job if they do 'seal' some of the records from their time in office, for 20 or 30 years as you stated (foreign policy issues can last a very long time). This is why defence organisations such as the CIA in the USA generally have files that remain private (concerning 'elected officials').
Should elected officials be allowed to seal their records/ papers

Only predators, thieves, and politicians to whom darkness and subterfuge are their best friends like to practice their trade and prefer to remain anonymous but those who have asked the citizens to place their trust in them have a obligation to reveal anything that would reveal their history and who they really were. Politicians not being permitted to have their records and papers sealed would shine a light on them. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said," Sunlight is the best disinfectant..." While it may be presently legal for politicians to seal their records and papers from public view it isn't to the benefit of the country nor its citizens to permit public officials to seal their records and papers for twenty or thirty years from public scrutiny .What do politicians have to hide, wouldn't the country be better ran if the citizens knew.
Should elected officials be allowed to seal their records/ papers

Should officials be allowed to have their records/ papers, sealed People who are in public office or running for elected or appointed office shouldn't be allowed to seal their records from the public. The records and papers of people who are asking for the citizens to place their trust in them shouldn't be afraid of what their records and papers might reveal and instead should be proud of what they've written or done in the past and want people to know about these things. The citizens should be able to review their records which would shine a light on who these people really are and whether they're who they claim to be, therein lies the rub, perhaps these people who are asking for the people's trust, don't deserve it and the politicians know it..
Feminism is used against men.

Missed third round. Sorry. All feminists believe the patriarchy. The patriarchy states that men are in control of everything, from child care to authority. Feminists believe that all cases of inequality have favored men over women. So then how is domestic violence irrelevant? Almost ANY PSA about domestic violence shows feminists saying how bad it is, and the amount of physical/psychological damage they go through (even though women are also at fault of this, yet it is rarely mentioned, since people usually view the man as a coward). Now onto pregnancy. So the man automatically doesn't get a say in the matter because he had sex? Why isn't the women at fault of this all of a sudden? She has the choice whether to have sex or not. But no, you're implying it is the mans fault only. I "Lol'd" hard at you argument for child support. It's called "manning up and being a man"? Isn't that completely contradicting the entire idea of both sexes being equal? Also, circumcision being a religious right for Jewish people? Even though you're not considering the fact that it goes against Human Rights, and is usually performed on non-religious people? Also, the same argument can be made that Female Genital Mutilation is a religious right! Anyways, new arguments. Men are constantly falsely accused of rape. Usually, the man is arrested and the "victim" gets money, even without evidence. You can even search up falsely accused rape on men and find hundreds of stories. Here's one that was sentenced at age 16. http://jonathanturley.org... and even AFTER she admitted she was lying (years later) she KEPT the money. Whenever a man tries to file for rape, he is viewed as weak or laughed at. Women constantly complain about being sexualized in media (primarily, films and music). Women complain that the women in films are giving a false portrayal of what women should be like (usually very attractive, skinny, etc.) and call out sexism even though men in films can be considered giving a false portrayal (six pack abs, etc.). I would post more, but time constraints aren't allowing me. If you want more, check AmazingAthiests videos on feminism
Feminism is used against men.

To Begin one thing I’m definitely going to make clear, the resolution be nothing other than “Feminism is used against men”. I could successful still school my opponent arguing “Feminism is selfish” but I’m not going to make that a goal of any kind, I accepted a debate challenge knowing nothing other than the resolution was “Feminism is used against Men” and I expect and demand to keep your honor by sticking to the resolution of the challenge that YOU issued Pro. So for anyone to vote for Pro in arguments he must prove the resolution that “Feminism is used against Men” not because of any arguments he makes that it is “selfish”. I have no problems with your definition “a collection of movements to raise the equality between men and women” so we can press on from there Domestic Violence: Domestic Violence is a non-relevant issue to what feminism is or is not used against. Domestic Violence is caused by people being evil, not by human movements. Feminism does not cause it and it certainly does not promote it. Pregnancy: Uh, the man already had his choice when he chose to have sex with her. He doesn’t want a kid than he shouldn’t a planted his seed. That’s really case closed to that argument. Child Support/Welfare: This is not an issue of feminism either it is an issue of justice and responsibility, if you have a child you should support it in someway, its called “manning up and being a man” if you’re a man like me. No human activist movements change that fact. Child Custody: Your source with the statistics on child abuse percentages is fascinating. Although it does not help your case. Of course they are going to be higher for women there are more homes with women in them because fatherless homes are becoming a huge problem. And the factors going into this problem are not feminism but rather what I would attribute the extended age of adolescence that is showing up in young men, forcing younger women to grow up faster. http://www.joshuakennon.com... http://www.thedailybeast.com... Circumcision: Circumcision is a religious right of Jewish family’s and has nothing to do with sexism. At the best you could start a debate over details to consent involved in this to ageism (disregard of the concerns of youth and prejudices toward youth) as we grow up adults get to make our “consenting” decisions for us for quite awhile and we do not start to truly get the legal status to grant our own consent until we are about 16 years old. So it seems I have refuted each of my opponents arguments thus far to support the resolution “Feminism is used against Men” thus leaving him yet to prove it. If he cannot come up with a way to do so in the remaining rounds you should all vote Con! I await my opponents response
Impromptu 5

1. The British Army was truly the best in the world and still remains incredibly powerful (Among the top Five) to this day. Without the aid of much research, thus impromptu, I concur with topic #1. Definition: Great Britain = England, Scotland, & Wales. United Kingdom = Great Britain & Northern Ireland. CONTENTION 1: At some point in history, Britain has without a doubt, been the strongest military force. It is difficult to precisely dates the beginning and ending, but with a built in degree of enigmatic ambiguity, they have unquestionably been the premier force for some unspecified period of time. CONTENTION 2: Being a former military member, I would say that I have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the world forces. Having studied history in school, and observed the world events, I would have to say that Britain remains one of the top five powers in the world today. I would venture to guess a rough ranking system as such: 1. USA 2. China 3. Russian Federation 4. Great Britain 5. Israel Honorable Mentions (Others receiving votes :o) Canada, Germany, Iran, Australia, France, India, North Korea, South Korea While many nations have enjoyed periods of prominence, Britain has persevered for centuries, and continues to be recognized as a world power. British weaponry is featured and heralded in Jane's, one of the leaders in military information. Further, some of the most regarded leaders have come from Britain. William the Conqueror, William Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher just to name a few. Further, how can any debater think of Britain, and leave out John Locke? Impossible! CONCLUSION: Yes, Britain was and continues to be a military power.
Impromptu 5

Good luck, TW! Firstly I will note that I choose the topic, "People over 68 shall not be allowed to drive an automobile." Next I grant my opponent the following three choices: 1. The British Army was truly the best in the world and still remains incredibly powerful (Among the top Five) to this day. 2. President Obama should be impeached. 3. The United States and UN should pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban alone. Hence you get Military, Politics and Controversy. Have fun!
The Eagles won the Super Bowl fair and square

Firstly, I do think that the Eagles are a fair team and they play very well. One of the best. I just want to bring up the fact that many many people were complaining that the NFL was getting boring since the Patriots went the Superbowl 6 times in a row. The views were going down and they were losing money. What if it was on purpose they lost? Again not putting down the Eagles, they are a really good team as well and it was a good game. Just examine this idea and think about it. It makes a lot of sense. If they were losing money they needed to give the viewers what they wanted. Mix it up. While yes, why would they fake it now is the question. Seems suspicious. Every year for example there is a scandal involving the NFL or a team. Also, players like Aaron Rodgers gets hurt somehow every year when the team is doing okay. If the NFL is hiding something I think a debate should made to determine that. What is the next scandal?
fish are important to the world

Hello, I will now finish off theawesomeguy2 and win the debate. BTW, that guy copied my name, and he's a friend, so yeah. For my rebuttal of his first point, he stated that fish are completely useless. Not true! Fish help the economy, they help animals and the Eco-system, they help everything almost! So when my friend states that people are stupid when there's over fishing, they have a point to be hysterical! Why would we care about sardines? Because they taste good (not for some people) and they help the economy. For his second point, he stated that if there were no fish in the world, we could suck up the water and use it for future generations. This was one of his demises. First off, if you do suck up all the water, you have to realize that the elevation is about -700 feet and above! How are you going to get down to your house? We can't all use helicopters to get ourselves out of our home. For the second rebuttal again, it's not only fish that live in those seas. Dolphins, sharks, squids, octopus, plants. And they will all die because you sucked them up in this machine, which leads to my other rebuttal point. How do you suck up all the water in the world? No technology is advanced enough to suck up all the water in the world and spit it out. And where will that water go? To Mercury? To our moon? And then he said that we could of found MH-370 if there wasn't any water. But imagine this. Another plane comes flying along, and then it breaks down right on top of the Atlantic ocean. Even if we could get all the water out and houses in, the plane would go splat on these peoples houses! Then my opponent stated that fish have 70,000 bones in them. Then he stated that non boned fish cost a lot more money to buy. Well, if your friend almost died on a fish bone, would you rather die chocking on a bone or spending that extra 2 dollars on some non boned fish?? Another problem with that point is that is has nothing to do with the topic. Our topic is that fish are important to the world. Does stating that fish have 70,000 bones prove there not important to the world?? Not at all. To summarize my points, fish help the economy, fish impact the food chain and they are healthy to the human body. Dear readers, this is why Pro must most definitely win. Thank you, and my friend, it was fun challenging you to the debate! Thank you everyone who read this and commented!
fish are important to the world

Hello. Time for me to post my rebuttal's and win. For my opponents first point, they stated that fish help the economy. Sure they do, but the economy wouldn't change that much if we lost the fish in the world. If it does, the government can just print of thousand of billions of dollars and give it to everyone. For my opponents second point, he stated that these fish help the food chain. Sure, but sharks and dolphins don't just eat fish. It's not like there going to die if there isn't fish. For my opponents final point, he stated that fish make the human healthy with protein and strong. Well, vegetables can give almost all of the good stuff you need. Also, eggs give you protein. Steak gives you fat. Fish are not important to the human. Now to summarize my points, I said that fish do absolutely nothing, except for swimming around and eating things. What happens when there's "over fishing?" People are like "oh no, no more fish," when they should be saying "Yay, no more useless fish!" For my second point, if there isn't any fish, we could suck up the water and use the land for future generations, because we all know that humans will run out of land in like, 20 years. For my third point, Fish have billions of bones. Bones are especially dangerous, considering my friend almost CHOCKED eating a bone filled fish. And the non boned fish like salmon are a heck of a lot more expensive. Dear friends, it is for these reasons why this resolution must, most definitely fall. Thank you, and make sure you vote based on who you think won, not by personal opinion.
fish are important to the world

Hello. For my next two points, my first point is that fish affect the food chain. Think about it. Without any fish what-so-ever, what will dolphins, shark, and just about 300 more animals eat? Fish are one of the most important species in the world. For my second point, fish are important because they positively affect us. Full of protein and other good stuff, these little fish can make us healthy and strong. It is for these reasons why I must win the debate.
fish are important to the world

For my next two points, we don't need fish because if every fish in the ocean and seas died, we could take out all the water and make land for generations to come for humans. This is useful because everyone knows that humans are going to overpopulate. We could of also found MH-370 if there wasn't water. For my second point, if you eat fish, they have 70,000 bones in one single fish. The non boned fish however costs way more money. Good luck in refuting theawesomeguy!