BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America should strive toward self dependency

Think of employment. Factories will open up in America. People will be employed by these factories. Yes, the banana industry may decrease. However, the United States has all it needs to continue producing food for its population.No, both nations do not end up better off. A guatemalan is employed to pick bananas, while a person in America looses their job picking oranges because people like bananas better. That person was put out of work by a Guatemalan and is now on unemployement. One of the things you mentioned, nuts and fruits, actually helps my point. America has plenty of land dedicated to nuts and fruits. Imagine if what is imported stopped coming and nuts and fruit industries increased. Lowered unemployment(and fresher fruit). While it may be cheaper, the US companies lay off people because Chinese people can work for pennies on the dollar. The US citizens lose their jobs and go on unemployment which causes tax surges. This causes people to have less money to spend on American goods. All this could be solved by simply making America self sufficient. Again, think of employment opportunities for an Iron industry in America versus somewhere in Asia. In addition, this will prevent the economic expansion of the competitors of the US. Especially China. The threat of China surpassing us would decrease dramatically when they no longer produce for the US.
Obama is a Believer in atheist Dogma -- Not a Muslim

Dear Purushadasa, I am sorry for the accusations of yesterday. I hope they did not convince you to leave the site. Debate.org is a welcoming community of people to orderly debate amongst themselves in courteous manner. I hope you read this. Though I may disagree with you, my previous actions were inexcusable and I hope you and debate.org will forgive me. Thank you for your time and patience and please acknowledge that I am sorry for my actions. -AppleAddict439
Obama is a Believer in atheist Dogma -- Not a Muslim

Thank you all for so many kind and intelligent posts. My engagement on this site was intended, from the beginning, to be a nothing more than a temporary experiment. I didn't know specifically when it was going to end, until this evening: My girlfriend, Bhaktin Caroline, said something to me that inspired me to make tonight the end of the experiment. Bhaktin Caroline matters much, much more than this website. If you are still feeling overly attached after I leave, I apologize, but I will still be leaving nonetheless: I won't be engaging in any further debates, arguments, or conversations on this site, and nor will I be reading any further posts uploaded by its kind and intelligent members -- starting now. You can argue amongst yourselves, from now on. Good-bye! =)
Obama is a Believer in atheist Dogma -- Not a Muslim

Okay first of all: what is the debate even about? Muslims are the spawn of devil and we should join right-wing white supremacist groups? I have to put my foot down and say NO. This argument has no evidence, links or facts to back it up. Even after the majority of at home terrorist attacks are carried out by extremist whites, you still say it's somehow "their fault" and point the finger at the racial or religious group of your choice. whether it be "Atheist dogma" or Muslims, you somehow act like the schoolyard bully of debate.org and back up political right wing extremism. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a neo-nazi either, taking into the fact that you are blaming, common everyday problems on one racial minority who on the whole is mostly innocent people just trying to live their lives. Just like Hitler did. Your whole argument on a whole is biasing and stereotypical a whole religion, with no facts and no real "proof" to back it up. All in all, if anything, your entire argument is just internet bullying with no purpose whatsoever except to follow the lies of Fox News, Make people feel angry or hurt, or just confuse and meddle with people's understanding of the Muslim religion. Of course you will probably back yourself up with some more biased, unfactual, "evidence." Purshada, a good debater should be able to debate on BOTH SIDES. However, all you seem to debate about is what you "specialize" in: right-wing neo-Nazi Bull$hit.
Obama is a Believer in atheist Dogma -- Not a Muslim

Muslims are against abortion. Obamas & Clintons are in favor of abortion. Muslim women are required by their religion to cover their heads. Obamas & Clintons do not cover their heads. Muslims are required by their religion to be against homosexuality. Barack and Michelle Obama are a gay couple, one of which is a transsexual. Muslims are forbidden by their religion to eat pigs. Obamas & Clintons eat pigs. Muslims are required by their religion to pray five times a day. Obamas & Clintons do not pray five times a day. Muslims are required by their religion to abstain from drinking alcohol. Obamas & Clintons drink alcohol. Muslim men are required by their religion to wear beards. Obamas & Clintons do not wear beards. Muslims are political conservatives. Obamas & Clintons are political liberals: Obamas & Clintons are believers in atheist Dogma, not Muslims.
pirates vs. ninjas

I'm going to ignore your ignorance and racism in that last post and continue with my argument. Pirates are the victor of this debate not only because they are cool, but also because they own ninjas in every way. In the words of a famous rapper "ninjas ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks". Ninjas are hoes because they are always snooping in your business. They are tricks because they can turn on you if you eat their won tons. To pirates, ninjas ain't sh*t.
pirates vs. ninjas

Tom Saladin does posses this terrible power but he still cannot stand up to the awesome ninja Tom Johnston. He and his fellow Israeli pilots will bomb Tom's boat until it is further beneath the water than Osama Bin Laden where the stench is not effective. Pirates are generally clumsy and must fight in packs like all the home dog thugs in the projects. This is because they lack the proper fighting skills to stand up for themselves, and they need all their buddies to help them out so they don't get turned into rice and eaten by the sensei.
pirates vs. ninjas

You raise a good point but ninjas can also fly and are also immortal. Ninjas are the founding fathers of blunts and get more hoes than a scrawny pirate stuck on a boat with sea men. Spending long times in the galley with men, sleeping on a boat with men, cleaning other men, eating with other men, and being gay with other men are common to these savages you call pirates. If ninjas are gay I politely disagree in the simple fact that pirates live their whole lives with men and have nothing better to do but diddle each other all day. There is a reason Two Chains states that all his ninjas look "rich as f**k", and it is because the are. The only booty a pirate gets is that of his fellow sea men.
pirates vs. ninjas

1. Pirates eat meat. 2. Pirates can fly. 3. Pirates can go through walls. 4. Ninjas are gay. 5. Pirates can eat their own flesh for mana point regen. 6. Pirates listen to heavy metal. 7. Pirates drink scotch, and lots of it. 8. Pirates are immortal. 9. Pirates could kick Obama in the nuts if they wanted to, that is. But they wouldnt, because Obama himself is a pirate, and the Pirate Code forbids kicking another pirate in the ballsack. 10.Pirates have been known to raise hell. Oh yeah, they also rap about blunts, hoes, and bling-bling
pirates vs. ninjas

Ninjas have so much speed that the pirate would not be able to get the ninja in his sights long enough to shoot him. The ninja also has the ability to be stealthy and catch the sea men with their pants down where they would be forced to walk the plank and turned into captain crunch for the sharks in the ocean. The ninja has been a tradition and honor that has been evolving for many lifetimes and will always find a way to come out on top of his enemy. The ninja may have squinty eyes but at least he does not wear an eye patch that restricts his vision. No ninja will lose to your filthy butt pirates.
pirates vs. ninjas

I disagree with you the pirates are better than ninjas. Ninjas have a wider variety choices of how they would take down the pirate. He has swords, knives, chopsticks and a thug black suit. The ninja would use the pirates eye patch to his advantage and strike where the pirate could not see it coming. Once the pirate is mortally wounded the ninja would remove the pirates peg leg and politely shove it up the pirates poop deck. Bruce Lee would take down Jack Sparrow with ease.
pirates vs. ninjas

Pirates are the obvious choice when it comes to the ultimate swag and overall awesomeness. Pirate accessories are beyond cool. A fresh hat, leather jacket, and eye patch are necessary to be a pirate. Pirates also have lots of wenches, while ninjas usually stick to same-sex relationships. pirates have a fresh ship so that all of their homies can come and party, and ninjas are usually shy and do not have friends. Captain Jack Sparrow could destroy any ninja in a fight with his superior attire and his pirate crew.
Ranch, Alfredo, and Mayonnaise Should Be illegal

Guns also have brought death to a large amount of orphans and people all around the world. If what you are claiming the sauces to have done is true, then we should do to those sauces what we do to guns. Make it harder to get. Not illegal. Make stricter laws. Even with those laws there will still be mistakes when it gets into the wrong hands. Everything can be used for good when it is in the hands of good people.
All Snails Should be Slaughtered

Okay. Pro is basing his argument on the assumption that the bible is in authority over all humans and snails and that god exists. Not everyone believes in god or the bible. So to state that we should listen to your proposal based off of a questionable authority isnt going to work nor is this argument going to hold any weight. Also why must one be religious to be a absolutionalist? You dont need relgion to have a desire to be in control.We all know that this person is not the leader of DDO. Snails are not a threat to this world whatsoever all they do is move around slowly and leave mucus everywhere. How is any of there actions evil or showing any intent of evil. So since pro want to say the geneva convention was made to protect people, and since he wants to use this crazy line of logic lets etend this logic. What it would mean is every single animal on earth could be justifiably killed in the name of the geneva convention. Absolutely not. Also the geneve Convention was made to protect prisoners of war.[1] In its implimentation no where does it say this applies to animals.[2] So lets ignore this entire segment because its not relevat whatsoever.About the devilish thing. One this would only hold ground if one believes in the devil witch not everyone does. Two devious and devilish are not synonomous and to add on right and wrong is bas upon perception and is subjective anyways thats another topic.How is pro going to make snail seekin missles? Missles seek out heat not individual objects. He cant do this. Adding on this problem would extend beyond DDO. DDO has nocontrol over bazookas.Nor does DDO have authoritative control over the world. Even if he had authority over DDO he would have no control in the say so of how people would use these weapons. We humans will mostly cause urselves to become extinct. So snails dont deserve to die neither do they deserveto become extinct. Pro has yet to prove why snails are a danger to us and we need to justifiably exterminate them therefre he has not met his BOP. A con response to this resolution is very logical.
All Snails Should be Slaughtered

"There is no law or doctrine in existence that says humans have dominion over snails"Would you prefer it the other way? Anyway, there is. It says in the Bible that I have supreme power over snails. Where you may ask, well in Genesis. Look: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground", therefore meaning that we must dominate snails. Another one is "Any absoltutist attitide is a religious attitude, and in whatever respect a man becomes absolute, there is his religion". Meaning that if I have an absolutist attitude for human safety, then it will become my religion, and my job (as Prime Leader of Debate.org) to save the human race by destroying the evil slugs-with-spines from the planet with bazookas. "Geneva Convention applies to humans not animals"The Geneva Convention was created for the purpose of protecting people. That still applies today and it is a violation of many other laws to intentionally cause harm to another person. Several animals throughout history have suffered the fate of being punished and even imprisoned because of their crimes, such as that dog who ate someone's leg, or the mass-murdering gingerbread, an especially well-known one is the ninja squirrel who killed 50 people in the space of just two consecutive days. If other animals have been punished, then why should snails be any exception? "Snails don't have the cognitive ability to understand right and wrong or devilish purposes so how could they be devilish?"If someone who is mentally challenged cannot understand right or wrong yet they continue to be devious in everything they do are they devilish? Yes, they are. "Unless pro can prove these bazookas will be used only on snails then this resolution has to fail because what is the purpose of having gun laws when we all can carry bazookas?"As supreme leader of Debate.org I have actually already planned for this. What I do is simply make snail-seeking-missiles. If it hits someone else then that isn't a problem because we can accuse them of being traitors and exchanging secrets with our enemy (the snails). The fact is, that without these weapons snails would rule the world and there would be no way to stop them from doing so. We have to make seven billion people carry bazookas for their own safety. "With all of these things being said pro has not justified his posistion or his burden of proof"Who gives a monkey's?
All Snails Should be Slaughtered

I will underline my opponents statements and prove why pro cannot meet his burden of proof.Snails who rebel against us can prove to a huge problem.there is no law or doctrine in existence that's states humans have dominion over snails. So with that being said why should they listen to us.According to the Geneva Convention, we are supposed to leave prisoners alone and respect them, etc. This is all a waste of time if you want to have a good day.Snails are not our prisoner because they cannot violate a law because they have no law to abide by. Also the Geneva Convention applies to humans and not animals in this case snails.Every single day snails invade and capture properties which they then use for their own devilish purposes. We must put a stop to this and there is one, very clear, way to do it.Snails cant capture anything mostly because they cant fight. Also snails don't have the cognitive ability to understand right and wrong or devilish purposes so how could they be devilish?It must be made law that everyone on the planet must always carry a bazooka, so that if they ever run into Man's Most-Evil Enemy they can protect themselves.Wow. This would create alot of dead humans. Unless pro can prove these bazookas will be used only on snails then this resolution has to fail because what is the purpose of having gun laws when we all can carry bazookas? Also this would create a world wide middle east and I would rather let the middle east stay where it is and let soldiers deal with it in a somewhat controlled area and not a global fight.With all of these things being said pro has not justified his posistion or his burden of proof.
All Snails Should be Slaughtered

Snails who rebel against us can prove to a huge problem. According to the Geneva Convention, we are supposed to leave prisoners alone and respect them, etc. This is all a waste of time if you want to have a good day. Every single day snails invade and capture properties which they then use for their own devilish purposes. We must put a stop to this and there is one, very clear, way to do it. It must be made law that everyone on the planet must always carry a bazooka, so that if they ever run into Man's Most-Evil Enemy they can protect themselves.
Gangster Rap should be banned

"Gangs, murders, and drug transactions happened before the gangster rap. Gangster rap may make this more popular but the problem is caused by outside influences. I play Halo and don't kill people like many A students in school have Pink Floyd's "Another brick in the wall" on their ipods. The drug revolution happened in the 70s making a sudden increase in drug use. Drugs affect poor people the most. Blacks were mostly poor." By popularizing it, children get in contact with it by their family members and/or older siblings. Getting in contact with it at a young age will of course corrupt the child's developing mind and would make the child incapable of sufficiently telling the good from the bad of things because he would have been hearing about shooting, stabbing, brawling, sex, and crime at such a young age. Yes they do need to know that these realities do very exist in the world, but there are certain ages that they need to hear about these when their minds are capable of comprehending. By banning this more aggressive genre of music, it would be much more easier for a child to not come in contact with it. On the side there will be 2 videos, from top to bottom it begins with Pink Floyd's "Another Brick In The Wall", then 50 Cent's "*%#! You". Unfortunately I was unable to post the lyrics due to 50 Cent's constant use of foul language, so I posted up the videos. Now, which one would a child most understand? I myself would be able to understand the words like "#%*! You" compared to "education" if I was a child, my younger brother would most likely agree..... He just did. But, I still did not understand 50 Cent's song through the lyrics nor through the music video. But I would say this..... I like the background images from 50 Cent's music video from 2:00 - 2:05, what a wonderful image of not promoting guns. As guns, drugs, and violence becomes more popularized by Gangsta Rap, more and more youths become involved in the world of gang violence and I just do not want the record companies and artists to constantly make money off of this. I would like to thank my opponent for putting up a very difficult debate, but I would like to apologize for not posting my argument up sooner for now I do not have enough time to reply to all of your arguments. I sincerely apologize for my very late timing. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Gangster Rap should be banned

1) "It is certainly their freedom of speech, but I am stating that Gangster Rap should be banned due to its strong influence in corrupting the behaviors of teenagers." The idea of freedom of speech was made for the purpose of protecting things like this. If corrupting behavior is the argument then people can argue that Rush Limbaugh must be banned and so they can asked to banned video games and movies. Gangster rap isn't really forced. People have the decision and parents to listen to the music. Gangster rap does influence bad behavior but so does so much other things. Banning this will lead to more bans that you might not consider. 2) "Should there be Gangster Rap on children's television networks to promote the artist's freedom of speech? A mother would certainly not allow such profanity to get to their children's minds but unfortunately it has spread like an infection and seeped into the streets in forms of gangs, murders, gang and drug transactions." The beauty of freedom of speech is that people don't have to listen to other's speech. Disney will not want to put gangster rap on its shows because its audience hates that stuff. The audience will likely leave the network. Gangs, murders, and drug transactions happened before the gangster rap. Gangster rap may make this more popular but the problem is caused by outside influences. I play Halo and don't kill people like many A students in school have Pink Floyd's "Another brick in the wall" on their ipods. The drug revolution happened in the 70s making a sudden increase in drug use. Drugs affect poor people the most. Blacks were mostly poor. 3) "I am not saying that I want to eliminate sex, drugs, and violence themes which of course will be an impossible feat. But I would like to eliminate gangs from causing terror..." Gangster rap isn't any worse at promoting sex, drugs, and violence than rock music. Rock music was the original promoter of this stuff. Getting rid of gangster rap will not get rid of gangs in these neighborhoods. Gangs always exist where the illegal trade is. That trade is normally, in the United States, drugs. The culture came before the music. 4) "do know they are realities, but wouldn't you want to eliminate any realities that are harmful to society." Banning gangster rap will not get rid of the reality. I will say this that we put children in a glass bubble. Protect them from the idea of violence and addiction. They need to know this reality before they enter the real world. Banning something doesn't get rid of the need only cultural changes do. Gangster rap will just become another underground market like drugs and prostitution.