BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America had the right to revolt against the British Empire

At the time of the American Revolution Britain had just fought a war with several nations, and most importantly, France. With North America serving as their battleground the Seven Years War (French and Indian War for fellow Americans) raged throughout the region. Started due to Americans making incursions into French territory, this was a tough and expensive war, fought to protect the colonies from French domination. After the victory, Britain needed to earn more money to pay its war debt. So the monarch looked to the Thirteen Colonies, and issued the Stamp Act. Americans up until this time had enjoyed little to no British involvement in politics, including taxation, and upon hearing this new law, were outraged. They were outraged that they had been given a great gift of automatous government for decades and now England has the audacity to....do what every country does with its colonies?This is where the American logic is flawed. Britain had been a gracious protector and now that it wanted something in return Americans felt they had the right to refuse? America was greedy, unwilling to pay their share into the Empire, while still expecting all the perks. Colonists felt that they had the privilege to choose whether or not to assist the British Monarch. But they did not, for they were colonist, British citizens who lived abroad, avoiding tax for decades. But when they are requested to do their part as a citizen in the Empire, they rebel.The moral reasoning is also non existent. A moral person would humble themselves, not be greedy and refuse their duty as a Englishman (or Scot, or Welshman(?), or whatever) to give back to the nation to pay a debt created by them. A moral person would also not tar and feather a man who is only doing his job to put food on the table back in England.Viel Gluck! Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut, Ich habe ein zweijährig Klasse (It has been a while, so my grammar is terrible, I take Latin in school now. I really do wish to learn German and visit some time however!)
America had the right to revolt against the British Empire

I accept your challenge and would like to lay down some defenitions. Justify- Show or prove to be right or reasonable: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable: -Best or most appropriate for a particular situation: -Restore to a normal or correct state: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Therefore, I, Pro, have resolved that I have to prove the moral obligation of the Independence movement to be justified. Con has the burdan of proof that the Independence Revolution was in no way morally correct, Justified, or reasonable. Thank you for offering this exxelant debate and I am looking forward to your arguments.
America had the right to revolt against the British Empire

The American revolution was justified due to these reasons: Taxation without Representation Con talks of Rights, and that the Revolution broke laws. But since the 13 colonies where not represented in the English Parliament, they argued any law passed such as the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act where direct assaults on their rights as Englishmen. (From the English Bill of Rights in 1689) "no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes". So since the 13 colonies where not present in parliament, that tax was deemed unlawful. " It is humbly conceived, that the British colonists (except only the conquered, if any) are, by Magna Charta, as well entitled to have a voice in their taxes, as the subjects within the realm." (http://www.u-s-history.com..., http://avalon.law.yale.edu...) Too much interference The British government has always pursued a doctrine of not getting involved with the Americas, and therefore had let them to their own devices for much of a century. But the as soon as the British need something, namely money, due to the wars they where pursuing, they promptly turned to the Americans. Clearly a "commonwealth" can not turn to people just for the sake of gaining something. In the definition of a commonwealth, it says "a political community founded for the common good." clearly if the commonwealth fails to address he common good, i.e. in this case the good for the 13 colonies, they have the right to revolt. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Right for self-determination. Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. The Americans where not contend in how they where being governed, they had the endowed right to govern themselves and seek independence. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) How can you "really" make a revolution right? By definition, it is an illegal act of sedition until it succeeds, when it immediately becomes a noble struggle of the people for liberty. So therefore the American Revolution was justified since it succeeded. Natural rights During the Enlighment, the Idea of Natural rights where developed. these ideas where major inspirations for the Insigaters of the rebellion, and a major inspiration was John Locke. He said " Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created. Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right." So therefore, from the moral, natural and human rights perspective, the Revolutionaries had the right to fight for their independence due to certain rights endowed to the as members of the human race, the right of liberty. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
The goofy debate

Let's kick it off with a fail scary story from Creepypasta - the classic "Day of All the Blood". "THIS IS THE STORY OF A DAY WHERE THERE WAS ALL THIS BLOOD. A MAN WAS WALKING AROUND AND BLOOD STARTED COMING OUT OF HIM EVERYWHERE. THERE WAS SO MUCH BLOOD THAT IT FILLED UP AN ELEVATOR. HE WENT TO THE STORE AND THERE WAS JUST BLOOD ALL OVER THE PLACE! PEOPLE WERE SLIPPING IN IT AND THEY WERE ALL GROSSED OUT. HE TRIED TO GO SWIMMING AND ALL OF THE SHARKS WENT NUTS AND BITTENED EVERYBODY. HE GOT CHASED BY ALL THE VAMPIRES EVER. ONE TIME THE BLOOD GOT A KID AND A DOG. AT THE END OF THE DAY EVERYONE DECIDED THEY WOULD SEND HIM TO SPACE SO THAT HE WOULD STOP GETTING BLOOD EVERY WHERE. THE SCARIEST PART IS THAT THE MAN WAS YOU!!! (OR HE WAS A LADY IF YOU ARE A LADY) AND YOU FORGOT THAT THIS HAPPENED."
Same sex marriage

Note for my opponent: Before I go into my opening statement I would like to remind my opponent that there are indeed ways of ascertaining information regarding your challengees opinion on the matter of same sex marriage (I happen to agree with my opponent). Opening statement: My opponent must either accept or reject this verse in Galatians 3:28: For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. If my opponent accepts this verse then it stands to reason that same sex marriage exists according to Gods law. Since men and women are one and there is no distinction made by God, then we are already openly marrying a person of the same sex (since male and female is, according to God, a distinction without difference). If my opponent rejects this verse then it stands to reason that God's law is not consistent and cannot be trusted, therefore any such claim that same sex marriage is wrong according to God may be discarded. I look forward to a response. Thank you
Same sex marriage

My opponent is correct in saying that Galatians 3:28 does not speak specifically about marriage, or sexual union. But what my opponent is missing is that Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that there is no difference among the sexes in the eyes of God. If there is no difference in the eyes of God, then it stands to reason that same sex marriage already exists in the eyes of God (and therefore by His law). The exegetical analysis of this verse notwithstanding, my opponent must present her reasoning as to why God's law should be followed if: (1) She has presented no evidence for God or His laws. (2) She has presented no evidence as to why people who do not believe in God or His laws should be indicted for not keeping them. (3) According to the God of whom she speaks, we are not saved by observing the law but rather by grace.
Food is a choice PART 2 Electric Boogaloo

Did you even look at my source in the old debate? It contained a lot more information supporting my point. Https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=OucCLslw4J4 1/2. Drugs are bad, But so is food. However, We should live with the slightly bad effects of food. Saying we can and should give it up is promptly ridiculous. 3. I do not do drugs. I do use food, Which for some reason you are against? If you really wanted to not offend me, Stop saying that food is a choice, You need food to survive. 4. Now you are contradicting your own argument. Yes, You need food to live, Because it is the way to get nutrients. You say food is a choice, But then you say you need it to live. 5. Exercise does not generate energy or nutrients, So it can't replace food. 6. The reason we eat fresh food is to stay fresh and not rot. Food is NOT a choice like you say because you need it to prevent leprosy. 7. It is not inaccurate that many get nutrients from the sun(Vitamin D) Your suggestion that the sun could replace the consumption of food is clearly false and very ignorant. 8. Food is not life, And if it was, How could it be a choice if it is life? 9. Everyone does eat, And it should continue to be this way. We should not give up food. 10. How could eating food be the wrong choice? What is wrong about it? 11. I just dislike some foods, That's all. Making up lies about food causing nuclear war does NOT prove your point. It has nothing to do with food being a choice and is a lie anyway. I am still open to why you believe food to be a choice, But your past arguments as to why food is a choice have not been great.
Food is a choice PART 2 Electric Boogaloo

Okay whatever. With that being said, This debate is now over. Voting rules: everyone, Technically I'm Con and he is Pro regarding this whole argument, So keep that in mind. But for voting purposes, Just vote as this debate describes us (him being Con and me being Pro) To everyone watching, Hope you enjoyed the debate, Minus all the unnecessary back and forth & trolling. Sorry that this took a wide turn. Anyways, I'm glad it's over.
Food is a choice PART 2 Electric Boogaloo

Is this what this debate has come to? The only way your point can win is by you accusing me of TROLLING you? I think you are the one trolling me. First, You say food is a choice, Then you send me a Rainbow 6 memes video as your source. Fair enough. The video was showing the effects of food on your brain. As you could see, It was very similar to drugs. I think food and drugs are a fair comparison. I am not saying people should eat coal. Let us take a look at plants. Plants use the sun to create their energy. We have started to do the same with solar panels. I believe we should be using the solar panels not only to create electricity but to also transfer energy from the sun into humans. 1. I believe that all food is bad in some way or another. If you have too much of any food, The risks are insane. The main cause of most diseases can be linked back to food. (Source: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=fVUSMOOrE4o) I do believe we should be living with the bad effects of food. Your proposal that we should give up food entirely has no evidence backing it up, And if I didn't know better, I'd think you were a troll. Call it what you want, You are still using the food. People are trying to make it sound different the using drugs, But it really is not. However, That does NOT mean we should give it up permanently as you said. 4. I have literaly no idea what you are talking about here 5. The calories have already done their permanent organ damage, Getting rid of them won't change that sadly. . . 6. I'm glad you see my point 7. WE HAVE SOLAR PANELS DUMBO 8. You need energy and nutrients. Just because food has that does not mean you need food. Saying you need food to live is just propaganda made up so that companies can sell more food. 9. I think the idea of giving up food is ridiculous. The reason I am debating you is that you clearly think it could work. Humans could NEVER give up food, That is ridiculous, And I don't know why you even think that it is a possibility that food is a choice. Food is a need, Not a choice. 10. I think eating food is the right choice! That is my ENTIRE argument! We should EAT food, NOT GIVE IT UP. 11. Literally, You said nuclear war check the debate. "The main cause of all nuclear war is the food we eat, And that is why I believe we should give it up for a better energy source. " Your the one who thinks food is a choice. Your on the pro side, Not me. Stop acting like you are on both sides, It is extremely immature.
Conspiracy II: September 11, 2001

Responses: Here's an image that took me about three seconds to work with in MSPaint that immediately casts serious doubt on the "nose-out" theory. Original: http://bonez.us... Edited: http://students.millikin.edu... Obviously, the shapes of the "noses" are not even remotely the same. If the image was a fabrication where the same model of the plane was accidentally shifted to the left, the shapes of the noses would be... exactly the same, which they are not. >> "I do have more videos of fake witnesses but I think the point is made" Of course the ones that are obviously fake are posted on the internet in big bold letters. For every video of people saying there were no planes, there are videos of people saying there are planes... 1) http://www.youtube.com... 2) http://www.youtube.com... >> "How could a structure with a cast concrete core fall at near free fall speed.? impossible !" This one is very easy to refute. If you actually watch videos of the collapse, you'll see large pieces of debris that are not attached to the building falling MUCH faster than the collapse: 3) http://www.youtube.com... 4) http://www.youtube.com... This clip, which is 18 seconds long, doesn't even show the entire collapse. The tower starts to fall at 0:02, and still isn't done 16 seconds later. Absolute free fall for the 417 meter tall tower is 417 = 0.5 gt^2 (g = gravity; t = time)... do the math and you find that free fall is about 9.2 seconds. 5) http://www.youtube.com... >> "I can place a member of the Bush family who had overall control over electrical security" Someone in control of electrical security would hardly be in a position to mask a demolition crew. Consider that teams would need to enter the building with hundreds of pounds of high-power explosives, sneaking past the 50,000 daily workers and 200,000 daily tourists (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Can you imaging trying to hide the arrival and setup (including drilling into walls beams, etc...) of a building that size? Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say I'm in charge of all things electric in a building. I can turn on/off lights, cameras, elevators, etc... but I'm still of course limited to the physical electrical layout of the building - meaning I can't shut down the lights or cameras in 1 area without killing power to other things there as well. How do I, master of electricity, hide a team of demolition experts and their hundreds of pounds of explosives, wires, transmitters, drilling gear, etc... from 250,000 people?? >> "The evidence is overwhelming." On the contrary - when examined 911 conspiracy "evidence" points towards one of three things. First, making mountains out of molehills as in the case of the few people that say they saw no planes. Second, simple mathematical inaccuracy as in the proponents of free-fall for the towers. And third, inaccuracy, or worse, lies, as in the case of the "nose-out" theorists, or the video from the first round that purported to show a gap between the towers that was actually the reflection of the morning sun on the East faces... NEGATED.
Conspiracy II: September 11, 2001

I don't think my prophesy video link worked in the last round so here it is again, sorry for that. http://www.flixya.com... It's obvious we are not going to agree on what are real images and what are not, I'll post some videos to counter my opponents idea of reality. http://www.livevideo.com... http://www.livevideo.com... http://www.livevideo.com... My opponent brought a very good point, "There are literally thousands of eyewitnesses that describe the towers being hit by planes",, but unfortunately as we seen in the first video (posted in first round) these consisted of employees of the TV broadcasting companies, Allow me now to expose what else they have been up to, would you believe that they employed low grade professional actors to sell their lies around the world ? http://www.livevideo.com... http://www.davidicke.com... http://www.livevideo.com... I do have more videos of fake witnesses but I think the point is made Next subject:- How could a structure with a cast concrete core fall at near free fall speed.? impossible ! I can place a member of the Bush family who had overall control over electrical security, Which provided a source of access to wire the WTC for demolition. you'll find it around the half hour mark. http://video.google.co.uk...# The evidence is overwhelming.! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Conspiracy II: September 11, 2001

Responses: >> "Proof that planes hit the WTC. " There are literally thousands of eyewitnesses that describe the towers being hit by planes. There are hundreds of video images that show these planes from dozens of different angles. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... (0:27) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... (CNN filming unrelated event catches sound of 1st plane) http://www.youtube.com... http://img508.imageshack.us... http://911research.wtc7.net... http://patriotic.jimrlong.com... Just a couple problems with the video my opponent posted that "proves" edited video: 1) The camera angle purports to show a gap between the towers, but the space identified as the gap is the sunlight's reflection off the North tower. Considering this egregious errors, all other speculation from this camera angle is useless. 2) The video does not take into account the other tall buildings in Manhattan that could cast shadows on the second plane, especially considering how low it was. 3) The movie obscures many difficulties by jumping to conclusions far before all the possibilities have been exhausted. For example, when considering the zoom in on the South tower, the narrator does not take into consideration that before the zoom, the resolution of the camera was too poor to pick out the plane's approach. During the zoom, similar problems would have prevented one from seeing the plane. And in the last section, the plane enters the frame because the camera "zoomed over" it. < > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | < >
Conspiracy II: September 11, 2001

Unfortunately, much of my opponent's rebuttal is meaningless. However, he does deliver several positions near the end that are somewhat salient. I must also remind him of the caveat from the first round limiting debate on this subject to the twin towers, and not the Pentagon. Also, I'm out of town at the moment and will be unable to respond to my opponent's first "argument" until tomorrow. However, posting a 90-minute movie is not an argument. In rebuttal, I suggest my opponent read the entirety of the 911 Commission Report. Post individual points, not movies.
Conspiracy II: September 11, 2001

Why did it take me five rounds of reading my opponents post before it hit home that he wasn't even paying attention ?. No electrical shutdown ?,, obviously he didn't watch the video,, Also I received no reply to the video showing Dollar bills with the twin towers under attack and collapsing. I can debate all day with someone who pays attention, but when it resembles talking to a lamp post with no lights on, it's time to call it a day. I recommend infowars.com for anyone who wants to hear real news, instead of the rubbish that's being broadcasted. Planetprison.com for information relating to 9/11,, 7/7, and much more, including what to expect in the future, from our nice squeaky clean US Government.
Conspiracy II: September 11, 2001

Responses: >> "The image posted by my opponent (MS Paint) shows the plane with a square/flat nose, ?" The image is a composite of the frames from your video. If the plane was actually inserted in the manner described by the video, the images would be identical, which they clearly are not. The comparison done in Paint proves that the nose-in-nose-out theory is simply wrong. >> "And we're to believe that two planes just melted into buildings ?" This computer-generated simulation with data regarding the actual structural strengths of materials shows exactly how the plane "melted" into the building (1 - http://www.youtube.com...). The plane turned to debris as it went in... This link (http://www.purdue.edu...) describes in detail the creation of the simulation, and how the weight from the fuel in the plane was what actually caused a lot of the structural damage as the plane entered the building. >> "do these people know the difference between a jet and a winged cruise missile flying at speed ?" Let's ask the readers... Boeing 747: http://www.air-and-space.com... Tomahawk Cruise Missile: http://www.aerospaceweb.org... Can you tell the difference? I mean... they look SOOOOOO similar . >> "How do I, master of electricity, hide a team of demolition experts and their hundreds of pounds of explosives, wires, transmitters, drilling gear, etc... from 250,000 people?? Answer below, and youtube video. posted as Proof ! http://www.livevideo.com...; This video has nothing to do with electricity or explosives... >> "I found this very interesting, never before has a steel structure fell due to fire, then all of a sudden we get 3 in a single day" False - WTC 1, 2, and 7 all fell due to structural damage. In the case of the WTC1 and 2, the severing of some of the core columns by debris weakened the floor where the plane impacted enough that the weight of the floors ABOVE that area caused that specific floor to collapse. And of course, the kinetic energy from the collapsing floors added significantly to the impact weight as it hit the next floor down, causing a runaway collapse. >> "http://911-harley-shirt-guy.blogspot.com...... http://www.youtube.com...