BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
World War I was far more brutal than World War II

First of all I would like to point out that my opponent here did not use valuable sources. In my debates I do not tolerate Wikipedia. It"s an unreliable source. It"s a good start but not what to use as your back up information. So as I forgot to add, (Which I added in the comments), this is from a soldiers view of the war. My opponent had a good argument indeed. But still haven"t convinced me that WWII is more brutal. Just because of the death rates does not make it more brutal. We got to see this at a smaller picture. Pay attention to smaller detail. People mostly miss the littlest details in the picture, and those little details make the picture what it is, so what I"m getting at is that WWI is the little details in the big picture of World Wars. WWI Was known as the Great War. Shaping of the 21st Century; a.WWI brought terrorism to other countries. Indeed there were terror attacks before WWI, but WWI established it to go further. b.WWI made America a great world power. c.The road to WWII started from WWI, because Hitler gathered all the blamed Germans and made them turn against the Jews and other races. d.Even though WWI being resolved, there were issues leading to WWII. e.WWI got the theme as the Brutal War So back to having WWI being the most brutal. Since this is my last argument post, I shall do my best to convince the readers to lean on my side. Trenches; They had permanent ones and not permanent one, anyways from both they were horrible to be in. Graves; The majority of graves in WWI were not buried as well as WWII, So you would still see body parts sticking out of the ground. Shelling; The shelling was unbearable for the soldiers, with every shot many bodies were exploded and body parts flew everywhere. It was a bloody mass. Hospitals; They didn't have such great hospitals back then in WWI. You got shot they cut that body part off so you may survive. Their medication was also not that good, making the survivor levels drop. Soldiers were in the hospitals with burned faces from the gas and the flame throwers. Everything was devastating. WWII they did not use flame throwers, or mustard gas, because it was outlawed. Which, these weapons that were cut out of the WWII had made it a lot less brutal for soldiers. I give all my honor to those who survived and died bravely for our country in WWI. This concludes my debate. Please vote fairly. Thank you for taking the time to read and vote on this debate. Sources; http://www.pbs.org... Some pictures of WWI; http://t2.gstatic.com... (Conditions in Trenches) http://t3.gstatic.com... (Hospitals) http://t3.gstatic.com... (Mustard gas effect)
Hamas is more at fault for the current suffering of Palestinians than Israel.

Note that since this is an empirical debate motion, the Burden of Proof lies upon the opponent to prove. Hamas, although at fault, cannot take more blame than Israel; note at this point that Israel deliberately created Hamas to destroy the Palestinian Liberation Organization; the creation of a sectarian group was deliberate attempt to destroy Palestinian unity. The PLO was secular, and if a secular non-apartheid state was installed, then this crisis would have never happened. This is a brief outline of the main fact that my entire argument will be based on. Good luck and have fun! I would like to thank the opponent for letting me debate this issue. Note that since this is an empirical debate motion, the Burden of Proof lies upon the opponent to prove.
Hamas is more at fault for the current suffering of Palestinians than Israel.

I said Hamas in the title and that is the focus but this also includes other terrorists like them such as whoever was responsible for the murder of the three Israeli teens. By current I mean in the last few months. Just to be clear it is still permitted to bring up an occurrence before if it is relevant. Other than that I think the title says it all but I will define fault. Fault- Responsibility for a problem, mistake, bad situation etc. source: Merriam Webster dictionary. 1st round is for accepting the debate and to what I said above. And a side note please don't accept if you are just going to forfeit or respond with a few sentences because that has happened with me before. Good luck and I look forward to a thought provoking debate.
Criteria to vote should not exist in debates.org

First of all. Thank you Pro for accepting my debate. My reason for this debate is to understand why is it necessary to keep conditions for voting. This is not actually a debate. However, My understanding is as follow: 1) They should remove these conditions because it may affect the privacy right of ever DDO member by asking about their identity. You know not everyone would be comfortable in giving their mobile number to a site. Which makes it very very hard to 1) trust that site and easy to 2) give up the idea of voting and inorder to win a debate we need people who can vote because when you debate we need GENERALIZED opinions and voting, not just who are allowed to. This is kind of making newbies seem backward as well. 2) The need for completing 3 debates does not make sense if you want to vote on any other debate. It's just like saying that! "Hey I know you want ice-cream, but I will feed you pasta instead!". Makes no sense. This is why either they have to impose other REASONABLE criteria or have no criteria at all. THATS ALL FOLKS!
Gay marriage should be allowed.

Good luck to PRO. I'll start with my opponent's contentions. ::Their life let them live it.:: This is preposterous. We restrict autonomy all the time. I can't tell a cop who has pulled me over for driving down the wrong side of the road stark naked and completely stoned with no seat belt that it's my life and he should 'let me live it'. ::Why can't they be happy.:: I know gay people who are happy. My opponent's premise that marriage is a prerequisite to homosexual happiness is undeniably false. ::Who says that a Male and a Male or a Female and a female cant get married:: This is nothing more than my opponent's beliefs on right and wrong. My personal belief is that all those who instigate debates entitled "Gay marriage should be allowed." have committed an unforgivable sin and should be promptly executed. His belief is no more well warranted than mine. ====================================== My position is that homosexuals should be allowed to have 'civil unions'. Even if my opponent wins any arguments at all (which is doubtful, given that they are no more than a long list of opinions) this solves back every problem my opponent talks about. It provides a distinct benefit in that it appeases those, namely the South, who are deadset against the idea of gay marriage rather than causing outrage, and (believe me) the result of legalized homosexual matrimony would not be pretty in my neck o' the woods.
Gay marriage should be allowed.

First of all I would like to define the following with the help of the "Webster's Dictionary 2008" Gay: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals Marriage: The uniting of two people together. My three main contentions for this debate are as follow: 1. Their life let them live it. 2. Why can't they be happy. 3. Who says that a Male and a Male or a Female and a female cant get married First, Its their life let them live it. People have the right to be them selves with out being judged, but they are judge and not allowed to do certain things or not able to get a job because of the sexually orientation. They need to be looked at the same way you an me are being looked at. They need to be equal in the way we are. We got to the point where it was legal in some states but they stopped but those people that were married were not affected in the result of them stopping the marriages. Why would those people get the hope and then all of a sudden get shut down? Second, Why can't they be happy. We as human beings need to be happy sometime in our life time and be with the one we absolutely love, why are they punished because they are attracted to the same sex? They can't be happy if all they do is being shut down by them being gay. Third, Why can't a male marry a male and a female marry a female. If t=you think about your past and your parents have told you it was wrong. But if you think about it, it is your religion that has told you that you will be damned to hell if you are gay. But if you are happy and don't do anything wrong such as killing another human being or committing a crime I believe you will be fine. You have just been told that it is horrible but I don't see anything wrong with marrying some one the same sex you are. For those reasons I urge the audience to vote aff.
Zimmerman should of beat raped then shot travon martian

But martian started the fight being all weired and sucpiscious. If someone come and try to rape you do you say treat how you want to be treat and let the guy jizz up in you? No you try to kick his balls.Martian dropped his life and liberty the second he started being all weired and suspicious. He also cooked meth and synthetic heroin with skittles which is why he was bying them,
Zimmerman should of beat raped then shot travon martian

To quote the Categorical Imperative, second formulation: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." If Zimmerman had done as suggested by the instigator of this debate, he would definitely have used Martin as a means to an end, and shown no regard for his right to life and liberty.
Hunting should stay legal

Your argument is tangled. I can't understand it. Plus, I say of experience. Hunters go to areas called Reserves, where game is identified. Where I live, the game is marked with flags and paint. And there is a limit to how much you can hunt and what is and isn't game, to the point to having to prove the sex of the game. We do care of the environment. Hunters say that we are controlling the population of certain animals, and the we watch for what we hunt. If it's turkey season, and we find pheasants(not plausible at all), we aren't gonna shoot the pheasants. Hunters have something called a license. It shows what we hunt at what time of year.
Hunting should stay legal

Sure, its not good to use a gun. But when you want to hunt down something for the cause of a major situation that will hurt a specific place than you have to. Also if you want to get some good meat that you believe should be killed in a certain area than hunting it down in that area might be necessary, its all about your way on hunting down the prey, for the protection, the shot, plus the good ability with moving targets. And even so, the majority of the animals presence on earth can kill us in a minute! at least self defend and do it for your life to end it in being endangered with a chance of you being the animals next meal. Even if you have never experienced one, there is a chance. Experience it and then you will understand.
Hunting should stay legal

For those who are against hunting, what are the facts? Here is one, we don't kill for fun. That is called poaching, and hunters will frown upon that. We don't hunt cause we want to see something inferior die, unless you have a superiority complex, in which case, get your facts checked. I do cry when I see a downed deer, still breathing. So, I make the choice, shoot it at the base of the ear and be done with it, or let it suffer. Put it out of it's misery is the right choice. So, please, don't say we are killers. We are hunters. And we love nature. We just don't make love to it though(that last bit was a joke).
Hunting should stay legal

Ah, I see this guy doesn't know the terminology. When I say "game", I mean the animal being hunted. And what you see as "killing the environment", we don't go around killing everything in sight. That's horrendous. No, the reserve mark the game we hunt. So, anything that isn't marked is out of bound. And if the reserve doesn't mark game, then we have to assume what we find is what is in season. And when I say season, the hunts are separated into seasons, which vary in time. Turkey season is coming up on the 18th, and ends May 31st. So that is the gate of when to hunt, and what to hunt. Some reserves have a specific sex of game. And exactly what is wrong with hunting? How is it setting a bad example? And how specifically is it killing off our population, or are you speaking of another population? Show me the facts!
Marriage should be legally recognized by the US government

1. Marriage is a tradition that is steeped in religion and mysticism. It was upheld by religious institutions from generation to generation. The United States considers itself a secular state; therefore it should associate itself with the tradition of marriage. 2. Marriage, holistically, does not benefit the government. One could argue that it produces offspring... But not necessarily. Unmarried people can do that, too. Anyway, people like the elderly and infertile get married, as well as gays now, in certain areas, such as NY and VT. 3. Marriage can be maintained without government intervention. If for the sake of culture, marriage can be accepted... But not regulated and recognized by the government.
The jury system should be eliminated for the criminal trails.

I will start out by thanking my opponent for this debate. The jury system is an important and vital role in criminal trials. Whether or not the Jurors take it seriously could not possibly be proved. I have been on a jury before, and I took it seriously. I would like my opponent to prove that Jurors do not take the matter seriously. Jurors get paid.(1) Jurors are told to be impartial and indiscriminate. An extensive juror screening process is upheld, and a wide variety of jurors are chosen. This ensures that even if a few are partial or discriminate, the results are not affected, because the Jury system goes on unanimous vote, which means that ALL jurors must agree. I do not understand what my opponent means by "Layers". I would like to ask my opponent what possible system could replace the Jury system. Source: 1. http://apps.leg.wa.gov...
Best method of stopping gun violence

The best method and most effective method for stopping gun violence is to make an example of the culprit and their entire family. Since half of America is in love with guns and they will never get rid of their guns, Because of the beliefs of the tyrannical government, The militia Waco types, And the fact the 2nd amendment (which is 300 years old) says they should have guns, Therefore these people will never give up their guns, They would rather go down in flames like Ruby Ridge or Waco than give up guns, I propose a better alternative of eliminating gun violence. Since most gun lovers and enthusiasts will use any excuse to keep their guns, (it's the mentally ill, Better security checks, Stricter rules, Limit of type of guns, Etc etc) anything to keep their guns, Yet the gun violence is still increasing over the years and the spree killings record keep raising from Columbine, To Sandy Hook, To Virginia Tec, To Las Vegas, We are up to 58 dead after that one, And because of the staunch opposition by the gun enthusiasts, I have come up with the best method of gun control. Making examples of culprits and their families. To elaborate more on this I propose, For every gun violence culprit, Since they usually kill themselves after the shooting, I propose we kill 10 family members of the culprit to set an example to all future suspects. You want to go shoot up a place, You might think twice when we kill you and 10 people of your family, Your father, Your mother, Your grandparents, Your brothers and sisters by government run lethal injection, To make an example of you. Since most gun owners/shooters always get influenced from family, The family should be just as responsible for the heinous acts committed by the shooter. People don't just go out and buy guns without some type of influence. Most gun owners can attribute their passion of guns from their parents, Sometimes generations of family members pass down their weapons to children and teach them to shoot. Therefore they are just as responsible as the shooter for the killings. The Columbine shooters used their parents guns, The Sandy Hook shooter used his mothers guns, , Eric Fein used his fathers gun, The family members are just as responsible for these deaths. Therefore you kill people, We kill you and 10 family members to set an example to society. Just like during Nazi Germany, If one prisoner escaped from a concentration camp, 10 or 50 other prisoners were killed in retaliation and to set an example and to stop future escapes. I say we kill 10 family members of the culprit to set an example for future shooters. "Hey you want to kill people, Well we will wipe out your entire family for it" They probably influenced the shooter anyway by handing him a gun or having guns in the home. The culprits might think twice about starting gun violence when they realize that when they pull the trigger, They are essentially pulling the trigger on 10 family members. This needs to become the precedent for gun violence.
Best method of stopping gun violence

Like I said before in round 2, Parents are the responsible guardians of their children until they become adults. Also adults were shaped by their parents growing up. All the ideologies of people come from their parents. People are descendants of their parents and most have some type of ideology stemming from their parents views. Therefore parents are ALWAYS to blame for those peoples outcomes. Like a serial killer, He became that way because of the way he was raised in the dysfunctional home. I agree with you that once the shooter decides to pull off the shooting and sends his manifesto off, He is not thinking about his family at that point, But we need to look at the origin of his hate and cause for the shooting, And it's always the parents that it starts with. Parents are also the first point of contact for that shooter, They are the first to see the anger manifest in their son. The Isla Vista massacre, The parents knew their son had issued, Yet waited until the day of the shooting to go to the police, That's too late, And therefore they should be executed. Parents are directly responsible for their kids and the upbringing of their adult children. As for the mentally ill, Well the parent brought the retard into this world, You are still responsible for it. Don't blame mental illness for tragedies, It's still that person and they are the product of some parent. Either way the best method for lowering gun violence is by execution and elimination of possible retribution by other family members of more gun violence, By execution of the entire family. This has already happened in Russia, China, Japan and other countries in the world. This method is highly effective and if you look at crime statistics for those countries, They are way lower than what we see in the USA. Therefore I believe this is the absolute best method of stopping gun violence. Make the parents accountable, Maybe then they will pay more attention to their dysfunctional, Degenerate kids and see the signs sooner before the manifesto is posted and innocent lives are taken mic drop
Same sex marriage being legalized.

If humans were meant to marry their same sex, there would be a way for them to reproduce without using the other sex. If gay people are married, it is impossible for them to actually create children. Soon, the overall population would decrease, making America less influential and prosperous. Also, it is psychologically proven that a child needs both a mother and a father to be psychologically unscathed. Also, it's not about the bible, it's about the lives of both gay couples and children of future generations. Many researchers have proven that gay couples have higher risk of physical and mental diseases. Homosexuality will not affect your daily life in any way. We live in a free country. If a person has the freedom of religion and speech, among other rights, why can't they have the freedom to marry who they choose? Legalizing same-sex marriage communicates to millions of people across the country that gay relationships are of equal value to straight relationships, thereby helping to reduce intergroup prejudice and supporting cultural diversity. The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create and most childres will have a place they can call home. The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Also It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society. They will think its something acceptable and follow in there foot steps and slowly the United States population will go down.
Taxing the rich will benefit our economy

Obviously, due to my forfeit and my opponent's two forfeits, the nature of this debate was altered from the format that Con laid out in round 1. We never fully addressed the second position argument, and never had a round solely confined to rebuttal. With that said, we both got to argue our first positions fully, and we both cross-examined each others positions, and therefore the debate is complete enough for voting. I believe my last round sufficiently made the case for why demand is essential to economic stimulation and that by using tax revenue to stimulate demand, the economy would improve faster than with rich people hiding their fortunes from the markets. Therefore I have no further points to contend, and I thank my opponent for a debate which, at times, was quite interesting.And to the voter, I ask this: although we all have our opinions about Keynesian economics versus Supply-side economics, please refrain from voting for a position because you already agree with it. This seems to happen too often. Just vote on the arguments' merit. I know this is assumed, but it happens surprisingly little.
Taxing the rich will benefit our economy

Finally! Thank you for accepting! In this debate I will show how increasing the wealthy's tax rates will hurt the U.S economy. First argument: Taxing the super rich ($250,000+) reduces job creation and company expansion. It is the wealthy, who primarily create jobs and provide capital for business expansion. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking, the wealthy account for the majority. Obama classifies the "super rich" as having a $250,000+ salary. These are the people who are trying to expand their business. By increasing their tax rates, we reduce the necessary cash flow needed for expansion. Second argument: There is no way we can tax those in excess of "super rich" without discouraging all other Americans from investing. There are two types of income, earned and unearned. The warren buffets of the country (who far exceed Obama's "super rich" classification) do not have much earned income. They have unearned income, which is systematically withdrawn to receive special taxation, called capital gains. The only way to tax those who far exceed "super rich" is to increase capital gains rates, which discourages the rest of America from investing.