BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The issue of Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War

Random House Websters College Dictionary's definition for The Civil War: The war in the U.S. between the North and South. Note: By North and South I mean the North Eastern and South Eastern part of the United States. By issue I mean controversial issue. There were a few causes for the Civil War: - Slavery - States Rights. - Sectional Divide. -A need to keep America One Nation. Slavery was the main cause, because States Rights issues,issues of Sectional Divide and a need to keep America one nation, were related to the issues of Slavery. In the South the economy was mainly agricultural, and depended on slavery. In the North the economy was mainly Industrial and there was a paid workforce. The South exported it's cotton to the North, and the North exported it's products to the South. Many people in the Northern States people began to oppose slavery and abolitionists called for it's end, while southerners saw their way of life being threatened, and saw abolitionists as dangerous. Abraham Lincoln was opposed to slavery, and Southern states threatened his election would make them sucede from the Union. Before he was inaugurated, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas already seceded from the Union. After Lincoln was sworn in as President came Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee, all suceded from the Union. Sectional Divide and States Rights were, in this case issues related to slavery. Southern States seceded from the Union because they felt the Federal Government wouldn't recognize their State Rights, in regard to slavery. The issue sectional divide, was because the Northern vs. Southern bitter sectional divide was caused by southerners feeling threatened by northerners who wanted to end slavery and visa versa. The need to keep America united was something that wouldn't have caused war if eleven southern states hadn't seceded, which wouldn't have happened anyway if the issue of Slavery or freedom wasn't an issue at the time. So to recap my logic: If states rights on the issue of SLAVERY was a cause of the Civil War, If sectional divide on the issue of SLAVERY was a cause of the Civil War, If a need to Reunite the U.S. after secession for the reasons above where SLAVERY is the primary factor, then the issue for slavery was the main cause for the Civil War. I stand by for the next round.
Talking to women inappropriately on the internet is the same as cheating.

IF you talking to them like friends...Not Cheating Flirting= Cheating Dirty Talk = Cheating Imagine if you were in her shoes...how would YOU feel if she talked to other men on the internet?? Not a nice feeling is it..? Its like just like txting someone only on the internet.. Flirting (or coquetry) is a playful activity involving verbal communication as well as body language by one person to another, indicating an interest in a deeper relationship with the other person. Usually, flirting is therefore, either seriously or jokingly, intended to be interpreted as a romantic or sexual overture. A female flirt, especially a young one, is sometimes called a coquette; a male one, a womanizer or player. Flirting usually involves speaking and behaving in a way that suggests a mildly greater intimacy than the actual relationship between the parties would justify, though within the rules of social etiquette, which generally disapproves of a direct expression of sexual interest. This may be accomplished by communicating a sense of playfulness or irony. Double entendres, with one meaning more formally appropriate and another more suggestive, may be used. Body language can include flicking the hair, eye contact, brief touching, open stances, proximity etc. Verbal communication of interest can include the vocal tone, such as pace, volume, intonation. Challenges (teasing, questions, qualifying, feigned disinterest) serve to increase tension, test intention and congruity. Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation. The rules infringed may be explicit, or they may be from an unwritten code of conduct based on morality, ethics or custom, making the identification of cheating a subjective process. Cheating can refer specifically to marital infidelity. Someone who is known for cheating is referred to as a cheat in British English, and a cheater in American English.
Talking to women inappropriately on the internet is the same as cheating.

According to Divorce magazine, only 46 percent of men believe that online affairs are adultery and 75 percent of married people believe it's okay to visit an adult site online. Other sources suggest that: 57 percent of people have used the Internet to flirt. 38 percent of people have engaged in explicit online sexual conversation. 50 percent of people have talked on the phone with someone they first chatted with online. 31 percent of people have had an online conversation that has led to in-person sex. Other interesting facts about infidelity: About 10 percent of affairs are a one-time and one-day event. About 10 percent last more than one day, but less than a month. Approximately half of affairs last more than a month but less than a year. The remainder of the affairs last longer than a year, with only a very few lasting four or more years. Very few affairs end in marriage. According to one large study of business men who had affairs, only 3 percent of the men married their lovers. According to Peggy Vaughan, author of The Monogamy Myth, most people who have affairs started by age 40, a surprise to the common wisdom which suggests that affairs begin later in life as marriages grow stale. Two out of 3 women and 3 out of 4 men admit they have sexual thoughts about people at work, according to Playboy Magazine. Most people know when their partners are cheating. Statistics show that 85 percent of women who believe their partners are cheating are correct. Fifty percent of men who believe their partners are cheating are also correct. menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html
The Bible states that their is "a time to kill"

Hello Scissorhands, our last debate seemed to get the attention of debate.org users, but I doubt this one will. This shall be as simple as it gets... The debate name was The Bible states that their is "a time to kill" My defense of this is simply this: ECC 3 v 1-3 reads: 1There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a (A)time for every event under heaven-- 2A time to give birth and a (B)time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted. 3A (C)time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up. This can be read in its full form at: http://www.biblegateway.com...; Even if kill in this context isn't referring to a physical form, "there is an appointed time for everything" Now, lets see the scissorhand magic.
The Bilderberg will set you free!

Extend out my definition of you being indicitive of the user known as Zaradi (i.e. me). Extend out the reasons I said to prefer my definition, neither of which were responded to. This means to win all I had to do was show that I'm one of the 500 million that the Bilderberg would set free. I did so, by saying that I was one of the 500 million they would set free. My opponent did not refute this. How "selfish" I am is irrelevant to the fact that the Bilderberg will set me free, thus affirming the resolution. GGWP
The Bilderberg will set you free!

My connection to the Bilderberg isn't something I can disclose. While I'm a public member and am free to disclose my affiliation, my colleagues who introduced me are not, and thus I must remain silent.Extend out my definition of you as indicating the user known as Zaradi (i.e. me) as well as the reasons I stated to prefer my definition. This means that all I have to do is show that I'm one of the 500 million that the Bilderberg will set free. And I have. My opponent only asks how I'm connected, which is something I answered back for. Just like somoene can't explain their connections to the CIA or any other secret society, I can't really explain my connection to the Bilderberg. Surely you understand :)
The Bilderberg will set you free!

I accept. Since Con didn't define any terms, it falls on me to do so. you - The DDO user known as Zaradi (. http://www.debate.org...), i. e. me. Prefer my definition because a) It's the instigator's responsibility to interpret the resolution so that a clear debate may be had. Short of that it falls on the contender (i. e. me) to fulfill this responsibility, and b) the resolution is making a directed statement toward one party in particular. The only identifiable party would be the contender because if we were to say a voter or a viewer, it could be any number of thousands of people, which becomes an impossible burden for both sides to fulfill. One clear person (i. e. the contender) makes the resolution debatable. As such, the argument I will present is that the Bilderberg will set me free. This is because I am one of the 500,000,000 people they have chosen to populate the earth. Therefore, they will set me free.
Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran

Indeed Pro has still not shown how 'Israel is a greater threat to international peace than Iran'. Pro also strangley believes that it was Israel who initiated *all* of these wars--which I've shown to be incorrect. Its wars with neighboring states have all fought in retaliation and/or self-defense. It's rather strange that Pro refers to history when they entirely neglect the fact that history is all about context. Evidently there is a strong bias in Pros stance as they have also wholly misrepresented the *facts* surrounding Israel's War of Independence. [1.] IT was attacked. [2.] Palestine was not a sovereign or recognized state prior to the establishment of Israel. Therefore it was technically nobodies 'home'. Jews had additionally been living in the land for centuries. Now to the 6 Day War, because closing the Tiran Straits was an 'act' of War, Israel was lawfully justified in making *pre-emptive* strikes against Egypt. Israel had waited a number of days for Egypt to re-open the straits but after continual refusal and threats to attack Israel, the government at the time concluded there was no other option. Pro *tries* to argue that all of Iran's modern conflicts have been in self-defense. however this position is also easily taken with Israel. The source was to demonstrate that Pro made a blatant error in stating that Iran had NO wars during this last century.Obviously it is Pro that has no real understanding of history as they have failed to display any evidence in support of their argument and instead rely exclusively on bias. The fact they believed that Iran had not engaged in any conflict in the last 100 years is clear proof of that. To deny historical fact [such as stating that Israel was *not* attacked by its neighbours in 1948] is quite simply astounding. Link 1 explicitly verifies that it was Israel who was first attacked and therefore fought a War that is categorized as one of self-defense. So, it's still on Pro to fulfill their BoP. Good luck again ;)
Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran

My opponent claims that I did not provide evidence when i showed history in which Israel attacked another country. I have listed the wars in which were waged in list to which the rebuttal is "It's Justified" when history shows us who actually invades who. Israel's war of independence was instigated by themselves when they colonized the area (Thank the British). The people who attacked were resisting foreign occupiers at the time. Showing up into someones home as a foreign occupier, and shooting up the place in the name of self defense, is absurd. You say: "The Six Day War occurred when Egypt made an *act* of war against Israel by closing the straits of Tiran. In this case, war was in fact the last resort for Israel. " Just because a nation gets spooked by someone's "act" doesn't negate the fact that invasion was done by the one who "saw some activity" and got scared. Israel was the invader. Here is the record... "Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields on June 5" https://en.wikipedia.org... You do understand that the history off ALL those conflicts you posted Iran being involved in were all defending its sovereign borders and was not the invader starting those wars in the last 100 years. Not a track record that can be shared by Israel. Also you say: "Its most-well known [modern] conflict is that with Iraq in the 1980's which lasted 8 years." You understand that Iraq invaded Iran. Not the other way around. They fought... but that was only after Iraq invaded Iran. "The Iran"Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980" https://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent seems to not understand what historical facts are, about who, actually invaded who.
Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran

Opening Argument: Firstly, I'd like to note that so far Pro has not yet provided *any* legitimate example of Israel being more of a threat to world peace than Iran. Moreover, these examples should be disregarded for the basic fact that the *context* of each one has not been considered or taken into account. Additionally, these very were much domestic and/or regional affairs that in reality have little impact on the world as a whole--which is what is argued in Pros resolution. Not once has Israel had to attack or defend itself against any other nations in the world except Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian authority; which is still not fully recognized as a national state. Another significant fact is that the majority of these wars were *not* initiated by Israel but rather other countries and other entities. Israel's War of Independence for example, was a war of self-defense when Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbours [1.] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... All Intifada and Gaza conflicts have occurred as a result of Israeli citizens being attacked and directly under threat. Such as the 2014 conflict, which began after a barrage of rockets were fired into Israeli territory and armed terrorists were caught infiltrating Israel through underground tunnels. [2.] http://www.jpost.com... The Six Day War occurred when Egypt made an *act* of war against Israel by closing the straits of Tiran. In this case, war was in fact the last resort for Israel. As for Iran, a look at its wars in the past century can be found here [3.] https://en.wikipedia.org...; Its most-well known [modern] conflict is that with Iraq in the 1980's which lasted 8 years. It is also currently involved in the Syrian conflict and has military intervened against ISIS in Iraq.
Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran

Thank you for accepting. Today I would like to prove "Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran". Thankfully to understand who is a greater threat to wold peace we need to look at history. When we look at history we can see how many wars each country has instigated in the past century. First lets examine Israel. Israel in the past century: Israeli war of independence (November 1947 - July 1949) Reprisal operations (1950s - 1960s) Suez Crisis (October 1956) Six-Day War (June 1967) War of Attrition (1967"1970) Yom Kippur War (October 1973) Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon (1971-1982) 1982 Lebanon War (1982) South Lebanon conflict (1982"2000) First Intifada (1987"1993) Second Intifada (2000"2005) 2006 Lebanon War (summer 2006) Gaza War (December 2008 - January 2009) Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012) Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014) Iran in the past century: None I think this makes my case very clear. Thank you.
Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran

Pro has once more *failed* to provide any substantive evidence and instead keeps repeating their claims. Simply giving a list of wars that Israel has been involved with does NOTHING to show that Israel 'is a greater threat to world pace than Iran'. In order to prove such a claim, Pro would actually have to demonstrate 'threats' that Israel has made to the world or highlight actions it's made that have directly put the world [I. E planet earth] in jeopardy. Once again, listing a few wars with certain groups--such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and some neighbors hardly proves anything; as they do not constitute the whole world. Iran, for example, actually has made threats against countries [without any legitimate reason to] and threatened to use nuclear. [4. ] . https://www.middleeastmonitor.com... Pro also again overlooks the fact that Egypt closing the Tiran Straits was an act of war. An act of war that many other countries would have responded to immediately. However, Israel waited a number of days for it to be re-opened [once more: a key shipping port for them] but the refusal continued--as well as the threats to invade Israel. Therefore, Israel was technically justified in launching a pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Pro states that they have been using 'evidence' for the whole debate, however, I have seen none. Aside from a rather useless list of wars and 2 wikipedia links, there has been absolutely nothing of anything value that has been provided by Pro. And and I have reiterated, wars that 'a' country 'has' been engaged does not affirm or even remotely support the resolution. As I have shown that according to law and genuine threats made against a country, that country has the right to act in self-defense. This example can both apply to countries acting unlawfully or groups that are entering another territory and/or killing its civilians.
Isreal is a greater threat to international peace then Iran

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to wrap up this final round and conclude "Israel is a greater threat to international peace then Iran" "Pro also strangley believes that it was Israel who initiated *all* of these wars--which I've shown to be incorrect." I listed the wars, and my opponent tried to refute these claims, from which I proved that they were changing historical fact. How insane must it be to claim "Israel launching a preemptive strike" is not the attacker. Could you imagine what kind of world we would be living in if every time someone launched preemptive strikes it is justified on the basis of getting spooked. If this is the mentality my opponent endorsing it is very easy to question whether this is the "dogma" we want in obtaining "international peace" "It's rather strange that Pro refers to history when they entirely neglect the fact that history is all about context." I never once said it's not about context. In fact I have been putting the evidence in context this entire debate. The context of historical fact. Empiricism. The Scientific Method. Denial of historical facts is absurd. It's at the same same level of the denial of gravity. In conclusion, I have made it very clear, providing evidence in my case but my opponent keeps saying I don't provide proof. The kind of world my opponent is defending is anyone has a right to kill someone if they get scared. If that's the case for Israel I would be worried. Thank you very much and good night!
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.

in the usatoday article previous mention above P1 researchers such as Wintemute, did in fact did not see a correlation between guns and violence P2 but he said I " believes gun policies are important and can drive rates of violence down " (Alcindor, P.1,2013) P3 and also admits that his research is " very minimal" funded P4 if the researchers' research is under funded, then most likely it cannot be a credit source P5 because a research must be well funded to understand the correlation between gun and violence conclusion 1 therefore, the article proves the second amendment influence violence because most states have lenient gun laws Issue: whether the Second Amendment influence violence because of the lenient gun laws
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.

This is the 2nd time you've changed your argument.If you had read your own article, you would have come across this "researchers did not establish a cause and effect relationship between guns and deaths."The article states that Massachusetts has 3.9 gun deaths per 100k. You say this makes Mass safe.However, Mass is one of the most dangerous states in the US. In 2004, it ranked the 19th most dangerous, with 460 violent crimes per 100k.West Virginia ranked as the 38th most dangerous state, with only 272 violent crimes per 100k. This is a state where licenses, registrations and permits are not required, and residents may openly carry their firearms in public. There may be less gun related deaths, but people will be homicidal regardless.
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.

I beg to differ. According to " usatoday.com", States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower" (Alcindor, p.1, 2013). It was retrieved online at http://www.usatoday.com.... P1 This quote shows that stricter gun laws do in fact lower violent crimes. P2 states that have stricter gun laws have less violent rate conclusion The second amendment influence violence because most states have lenient gun laws Issue: whether the Second Amendment influence violence because of the lenient gun laws
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.

You have ignored the original argument. I will argue the new issue.Your second point is a fallacy. You are wrong in saying that nations with stricter gun laws are less violent than the US.A Harvard study indicates that there is no correlation between gun control and violent crime. Nation Murder Rate Gun Ownership Rate Russia 20.5 4,000 Luxembourg 9.01 0 Finland 2 39,000 Germany 0.9 30,000 US 4.7 89,000 If the US bans gun ownership, guns would not disappear. Criminals would own guns, law abiding citizens would not.[1]http://www.law.harvard.edu...
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.

Although it is true the Second Amendment does give us the right to bear arms, this Amendment does more harm than good toward the citizens in this country. P1 The right to bear arms made guns more easier for people to get access too p2 since people have easier access to guns in the U.S because of the second amendment, there are more violence occurrence here than other countries that have strict guns laws Conclusion Therefore, the Second Amendment does more harms than good toward the citizens in this country because of the lenient gun laws that is enforced in this country. issue: whether the second Amendment does more harm than good toward the citizens in the United States.
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.

2nd Amendment of the United States Bill of RightsA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.For the purpose of this debate, Arms will be a reference to firearms.IssueWhether or not the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual the right to own firearms.P1In the wording of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights (to be referred to as 2A), the individual right to own firearms is guaranteed in the following clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"∴2A guarantees the individual right to own firearms for citizens of the United States.