BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
everybody likes to argue about their FAVORITE MOVIE!!!!

My opponent only really focues on clarifying himself in this last round. He briefly explains why Amadeus and LOTR won their awards at the end. His explanation of why they won is in bold. Although he doesn't even go into detail on the plot, character development, cast, etc. For this last round I will once again post why Red Dawn should have won "Best Picture" award. Red Dawn has a cast full of diversity and different acting abilities. The cast trained for 8 weeks in an intense military program in order to fill the role of guerilla fighters. They learned how to shoot multiple weapons as well as act the part of warriors. The devotion to the movie and the training program really showed its colors in the filming. The acting was very believable. The cast drastically changes from civilized, normal teenagers to barbaric, naturistic warriors! The development of these changes is greatly detailed throughout the movie. The plot of Red Dawn is easily obtained throughout the first 30 mins. of the video. Following the plot is quite simple. There is a clear point to the movie and a steady plot line. As you watch this movie your patriotism and pride swell. You begin to feel the pain of losing family members and being alone in the wilderness fending for yourself. Later on in the film you begin to feel the anger and hate showed toward the Communist invaders. (Movies show the acting, hate, and emotional sides of the movie.) (The third video has terrible quality but it shows the emotional ending.) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... In the end I showed way more evidence of my film being a better candidate for "Best Picture" than my opponent ever did. Hopefully, you, as the voters, can see that and vote for Pro! My opponent is aggressive and seems to concentrate on making me look like the enemy rather than sticking to why his film was better. Therefore, he ultimately loses this debate. But I shall let the judges make the decision! Plus, I'm sure we'd all much rather watch an action movie than a movie about Mozart... WOLVERINES! Thanks for the debate. PRO
President Obama is mostly at fault for the 17 trillion dollar debt.

first of all if the congress men vote along party lines for the budget then you should be mad at the congress men for not doing their job. 2. Congress was unable to pass their own budget period. which means that Obamas had to be the best budget option. My opponent will try to continue to point out obamas democratic majority in the first two years, however the fact that the democratically controlled senate and house couldn't pass a budget themselves shows that not all congressmen vote on party affiliation when it comes to the budget. Also my opponent states that congress has not passed a budget in 6 years. This is obviously wrong. The United States has a budget passed and approved by CONGRESS EVERY YEAR!! And we can both find links on each side of the issue that it does or does not cut the defecit. Your link is for reasons.com, sounds very reliable. I have government and administrative links to prove it does, however my opponent will argue that they are invalid due to the fact that it is a government website. I have attached this link below People, it is time to blame congress! Congress is to blame for our outrageous spending and defect. Stop using the president as a scapegoat!! Look at the facts. Congress has this power. And f you believe that this deficit is caused by party affliliaton voting then it is congress men that are voting with the democratic party. Etiher way congress is to blame vote con Links: http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.whitehouse.gov...
President Obama is mostly at fault for the 17 trillion dollar debt.

First of all, President Obama used the word unpatriotic. Secondly, today in politics, a massive majority of congressmen and women vote along party lines. While this is unfortunate, it is true. I do not blame Congress for not passing a budget. The House has passed several possible budgets, but they were defeated in the Senate. The Senate too has passed budgets. The House refused those. But the President has never had one of his budgets pass, not even with a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. You are also false to say that Congress has passed a budget. While President Obama has been in office, a budget has not been passed. The responsibility falls on him because he is the Democratic Party leader. He has the largest influence among legislative agendas in Congress. If President Obama wanted to pass a budget in 2009 or 2010, he could have easily, but he didn't. Lastly, the Affordable Care Act does raise the deficit. See link below: http://reason.com...
President Obama is mostly at fault for the 17 trillion dollar debt.

in regards to my opponents statements/contentions 1. i did not mention any other president other than Obama and i never used the word unpatriotic 2. We can not take projected deficits into account for this debate becasue the topic covers the current debt not future debt, also those are predictions and can be wrong. 3. Yes the president may present the budget to congress but it is congresses job to view and approve the budget. Just because Obama had a majority of democrats the first two years has nothing to do with the budget. All congressmen, parties aside, should focus on approving a satisfactory budget which they have not. It is their power not congress and they need to be held liable. Also, congress for the last 3 years has not been democratically dominated and still these budgets get passed which means it has nothing to do with partly affiliation 4. The Reform Bill does not create revenue but merely cuts costs which in turn cuts our deficit per year. 5. You seem to be angry that Obama has not proposed major cuts, but once again congress should be held liable. They are in charge of the budget. The president has become a scapegoat for congress for years and it needs to end. People need to learn the powers of congress and that not everything has to be spoon-fed to them from the president. Lastly, my opponent is bringing up future costs that have no real relevance in this debate because it covers current deficit not future
President Obama is mostly at fault for the 17 trillion dollar debt.

I would respectfully disagree with my opponent. Barack Obama was president when over six trillion was added to the deficit in four and a half years. If we continue on the track were on, we will have over 20 trillion dollars in debt my 2016. He stated that it was "unpatriotic" for George Bush to add five trillion dollars to the deficit in eight years, which it was. But our president has done nothing to help the problem. My opponent is correct that traditionally it is Congress's job to pass a budget. However, in recent years, the president usually presents his budget to Congress. He had a super majority in Congress for two years, and our deficit did not go down. Health care reform did little to help control the deficit. Any additional revenue in the reform bill went to health care, not our deficit. We should hold our leader responsible for things like this. He has increased spending, and taxes, but has proposed no major cuts in any program that can be taken seriously. The House and the Senate have passed their own bills numerous times, but the president's budget has not been. His newest budget raises next year's deficit by about one hundred billion dollars.
President Obama is mostly at fault for the 17 trillion dollar debt.

My opponent and i both agree that Obama was not president when the most debt was compiled. That is basically all i have to prove to win this debate. The debate is not whether Obama could have lowered the debt or been more responsible with money, but who was more at fault. We can not blame Obama for debt that was already their when he took office. My opponent also says he did nothing to help the deficit while democrats controlled congress. I disagree with him strongly. Obama targeted healthcare and was successful. Healthcare is what we as a nation spend the most money on. So indirectly he did help the deficit with the reforms but it does not have an immediate impact. Obama was not mainly responsible for the debt. I would also like to point out that the president does not have the power to borrow money or set the budget and that is a power of congress.
President Obama is mostly at fault for the 17 trillion dollar debt.

Although Barack Obama has not been president while a majority of the debt was compiled, he has had four years to lower it, and he has not. He also added about seven trillion to the debt. Whether you think that we should raise taxes, cut spending, or a combination of the two, you should realize that the president had a super majority for his first two years in office. He could have done anything his heart desired, and he refused to lower the debt. He is not totally at fault, but he is mostly to blame.
Christian Anarchy is Just and Peaceful

thank you. first what about the people who aren't christians? It isn't anarchy when you're worshiping somebody when you do whatever that one person tells you to do. In fact I would say god established a form of totalitarian gov't. people bringing him their goods sounds like god has figured it out threaten with death and give a chance at eternal life hell maybe I should be christian. :p My opponent said "Examples of the resolution being true would be the old testament period of the judges, HITLERS GOV'T SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED, and what paul truley meant through romans 13." As I understand it weren't judges imposing authority and didn't they rise to power during times of war like military leaders? the books says they gave up their power when it finished but I think it's lying maybe it was like the romans they put someone to power during times of war like Caesar unfortunately for them he never gave up that power. R1 The idea of anarchy I like to believe from time to time isn't that of rebellion or that of defiance it's wanting to have a sense of freedom from a gov't that either oppressive or moronic. Wanting to abolish all gov't and implement a system of "god" a being that supposedly made a bet with the devil to see if a man would still worship him after god took everything away. The man lost everything and god won a bet god sounds like a hella of a guy.
Christian Anarchy is Just and Peaceful

It is not to provoke a revolution by christians. There is not human head only a God head. (1) Government: Ayn Rand defines the State/Government as a legal monopoly on the use of physical force over a given geographical area(2) Extras, Questions, Notes: only accept this if you are intersted in this debate and are serious about it. Sources: 1) . http://christianandstate.wordpress.com... 2) . http://aynrandlexicon.com...
you will get bit

Based from your prior debates, I felt that the poetic artistry to place my point across was required. let me refrase to my "Blunt side".Bluntness - What purpose is a snakes warning, its entire purpose of said warning is solitude, why would it even waste the effort to 'warn' the handler, or even in the wild - Unless it is used ironically, i.e "But i even told you so?"Either it warns all, thus debasing its purpose of being dangerous, or it uses it so that to us 'intelligent' creatures who get bit say "well it even has a rattle, you should have known". Snakes refrain from biting runners, even when the feet strike next to it - though others do not.The warning itself is a parody "Look at me, but im letting you know dont look at me, and stay away" - That is horrible, any predator would mistake this as weakness, and attempt to exploit - or the passive creatures will simply continue what they were doing, as prior they either were not aware of said snakes existance, or had no purpose to bother the creature in the first place.The warning is inherently useless while being incredilby useful to justify such a defensive position to a potentially unbiased 3rd party.Snakes have no warning, they simply are arse-holes, or aren't.Human equivalent of the above "Yeah i shot the guy, but my gun has a saftey, so you guys have to agree that my intention here is self defence, not aggression".
you will get bit

Me neither; I have only seen rattle snakes in movies - but we weren't discussing locations, were we? I even said "And i am no snake"----- ----------------- --------------------- If you are a snake, and so dangerous - why must you have warnings?Is it for pity, a chance for prey to escape - do you not wish for meals?Do you simply not wish for fights?Within your potential pacificst warnings, are they simply to deter stronger opponents...... or given to any and all who approach, warning of your want/need for solitude?Or is this some cruel prank, used to claim as a warning, but to instead use simply before you strike.... followed by a "But I even told you so"?Are you rightous, or are you insidious whispers - nothing but smoke and mirrors?I pray you don't break my heart.
Ban islam

its anti racist to disagree with the ban of islam is to be a psychopatchic terrorist and a pedophile.. well im saying we need to ban it, cuz at some point we will have to kill them, if not they get us first. all muslims are terrorists.. they are forced to follow the quran or they will be killed, and going even deeper into it they can not unsubmit to the rule of islam that is fear of pain and death, so even supporting islam out of fear makes you a muslim.. only by standing for the ban of islam can some one be sane, besides if he is oblivious of islams existence you need to kill yourself or stand for the ban of islam..
Ban islam

This statement is extremely racist and discriminating. I even disagree with the idea of banning them, let alone taking their lives. 1.Killing all Muslims would be an attempt to wipe out an entire race. Sound familiar? That's right, wiping out an entire race of human beings is exactly what Adolf Hitler tried to do to the Jews during the Holocaust. So by doing this we are stooping down to the level of the Nazis. What horrific method were you considering we proceed with to "kill all Muslims"? Just think about the Holocaust, and all the individuals hurt, separated from families, and killed in terrible ways. The bodies burned, and kids younger than 5 being gassed to death. You really want to be on the side that's carrying out with that process? 2.Not all Muslims are bad people. By killing all Muslims, we may be wiping out some awful people with hideous intentions; but it also means we are harming innocent beings who are already in poor condition. The extremist are out enemies; not the common Muslim person. Imagine if a another country started killing our race simply because of a group of bad people that take an innocent religion to the extreme. For instance, just because a handful of sunflower seeds are rotten, you wouldn't throw away the entire bag. 3.That would ruin our reputation. Our allies remain our allies mostly because we've always been the good guys. We liberated the concentration camps in Germany during WWII. We fought against the awful tyrant ruler of North Korea in the Korean War. Throughout history, America has really been a good role model for other countries. If we attempt to mass murder an entire race; filled with a lot of innocent people; our allies would see us as evil. This could lead to the downfall of America. Thank you so much for taking time to read my argument, and good luck to my opponent.
Ban islam

Dear Opponent, thank you for responding; however most if not all of your points are invalid. You don't know enough about this topic to be debating it 1.You claim that "all Muslims are terrorists." That statement is not only wrong; but also discriminating. There are good Muslims who mean no harm to other races. You are basing this entirely on religious difference. Just because someone is Muslim, doesn't mean they are a terrorist. Note that this is the definition of Muslim/Islamic religion: the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah. Nowhere in there does it say "blood thirsty terrorist." Unless I'm missing something. 2.It doesn't mean we will be killed if we don't wipe out the Muslim race. Although ISIS and other Islamic extremists are out to kill us; it doesn't mean they can march right into American and eliminate the entire American population just like that. We have allies, we have a wonderful military, and we are working on destroying ISIS right now. If it was a situation where they were the ones with more power, that'd be a lot different. But we are still strong as of now; and we are on our way to stopping terrorism. 3.You can't fight fire with fire. In my opinion, killing all the Muslims is a form of terrorism itself. Think about it. You're trying to get rid of terrorism with a holocaust-like terrorism process. That will just cause more problems, and alliances would start to form against what we were doing. We don't want America to end up like the Nazis did....
The Ancient Egyptians were Black (African).

Hello Cherokee15, Counter Argument 1)My username does not describe me like what you stated. If you wanted to argue about this, I will state that you should be a Cherokee Indian and that you are about 15 years old from your username: Cherokee15. 2)In response to your counter argument 3, you stated, "I would like to ask my opponent who he thinks the egyptins race was." Therefore, your argument about the "The mummies are not "Half animal half man" and you have no proof to support this theory" is false. You stated " I would like to ask my opponent who he thinks the egyptins race was" 3)You stated, The Ancient Egyptians were Black (African), therefore, you cannot argue with me about "the majority." Were. Key point. That means all. Defined: was all. 4)In response to counter argument 1, I already gave you one, about Zahi Hawass. The ancient Egyptians were not Arabs or Africans. 5)In response to counter argument 2, you never even explained how it relates to the topic. So how was I supposed know what you were saying? 6)In response to counter argument 4, you are just being rude, okay? 7)Responding to counter argument 5, Recent DNA tests show King Tut was mostly White(99.6%). 8)Responding to counter argument 7, the Nubians painted them as dark, but this is an artistic convention stereotyping a nationality, therefore, there were no dark Egyptians at that time. 9)Responding to counter argument 8, I will give you a taste of your own medicine. You stated before, "Read my first speech about 5 times," so, I will tell you, "read my speech about five times." Then you will understand it. 10)Responding to argument 1, read my counter argument 3. 11)In response to argument 2, rephrase that. Are you saying that the worldwide view today is that everyone thinks they aren't black or African? If you are, thank you. You agreed to my points. 12)In response to argument 3, read counter argument 1. 13)Responding to argument 5, or your last point, you stated, "One point i would lie to make is that…." You stated, "I would lie…" Lie. Therefore, you are lying when you made that point. 14)Responding to argument 5, where did you get that point? Any sources? ______________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1)I do not know what you are basically saying, so I'm pretty much guessing what you mean. Use spell check. 2) Recent DNA tests show King Tut was mostly White(99.6%). 3)In Islam, anyone who speaks Arabic is considered as an Arab, therefore, the Egyptians are Arabs, not Africans. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1)http://www.africaguide.com... 2)http://dictionary.reference.com... 3)mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/.../egyptians-are-not-arabs-they-are-egyptians/ Thank you. I give thanks to Cherokee15 and the voters. Special thanks to Cherokee15 for making an exciting debate.
The Ancient Egyptians were Black (African).

Greetings Cherokee15, Counter Arguments 1)For his long first counter argument, I will note that about the "Ammianus Marcellinus: "The men of egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny and desiccated look."". He said "mostly". Therefore, not all of the ancient Egyptians were brown or black. 2)For his first counter argument, I should say this, "Some of the quotes are well of topic." Such as: "Aristotle states, "The hair of the egyptians is curlier than other nations." That meant that the egyptians had tightly curled hair." What does that have anything to do with the topic: "The Ancient Egyptians were black (African)?" 3)For the end of the counter argument about "I would like to ask my opponent who he thinks the egyptins race was.", I think that the Egyptians were half- animal, half- human. (You will know why in my arguments.) 4)For the voters: Note my opponent's improper grammar. He is 23 years old and he still doesn't know how to spell Egyptians. He writes it as "egyptins". 5)For his argument 1 about King Tut, I have the evidence. The proof is http://en.wikipedia.org... 6)For his argument 2, what does the topic have anything to do with Qustul censer? It is obviously off-topic. 7)In response for his argument 2, the ancient Egyptians had a skin tone that was from light to dark. Therefore, not all Egyptians were African or black. 8)In response for his argument 3, this has something to do with the ancient Egyptians of skin tone. The UNESCO researched about the ancient Egyptians; therefore, it has something to do with the topic. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1)This is a follow up on my number 3 counter argument. The Egyptian gods were half- animal, half- human or immortal, therefore, not all of the ancient Egyptians were African. 2)As stated in http://answers.yahoo.com... , the ancient Egyptians were not defined as African. 3)The hair of the ancient Egyptians was similar to the whites, and uncommon to other races. It's like saying that the ancient Romans were Germans, because the Visigoths conquered part of the empire. LOL. 4)I would like to note that my opponent has not stated much sources, therefore, he or she could be using logic instead of facts. Most people think that the ancient Egyptians were black because they live in Africa, but this is false because of the facts that I listed. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1)http://answers.yahoo.com... 2)http://en.wikipedia.org... 3)www.answerbag.com/q_view/374780 4)www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/eg.htm I give thanks to my opponent for making this exciting debate. Thank you to the people who are reading this.
The Ancient Egyptians were Black (African).

Greetings Pro, Counter Argument 1) My opponent has stated, "The Egyptians were of black origin." This is clearly false because, "[Ancient] Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa." ~ Dr. Zahi Hawass. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) King Tutankhamen, aka King Tut, was not black. Therefore, the ancient Egyptians were not black (Africans). 2) Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs or Africans, even if Egypt was in Africa. So, the ancient Egyptians were not Africans. 3) In the UNESCO's international Cairo Symposium, the majority view was that ancient Egyptians were not black or white. Thank you.
Germany SHOULD be blamed for the outcome of World War I

I don't mean to come off as a rapacious nationalist, I've just been paying extra attention in History class, and would love to debate over this topic. First I'd like to address the matter of the word "Outcome. " Of course all of the countries involved would have contributed to the Outcome of the war, I only say outcome because I am not as into english as I am history, and cannot find a word to replace outcome. When I say outcome, I really mean that, Germany IS at fault for World War I. It is in my personal preference to say Outcome, I apologize if you were anxious to argue otherwise.