BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Federal Government Should insert ground troops into Iraq to Fight ISIS

The AFF should win because the plan has the most net benefits to the U.S and Iraq. 1. Women's rights will be protected 2. This is not America alone, the other nations contribute too In the neg's world, we have an Iraq where we there is unfree and all the lives America lost in the first Iraq war was lost. In the Aff's world we have an Iraq with no central governent. This is not a new arguement because I am refuting the Neg's arguement. First off all. The neg's view is very unrealistic. We are already involved with airstrikes. As for the significant gains. The neg's idea of ethnocentrism is wrong because it the U.S's duty to the United Nations to fight ISIS. Going back to advantage 4, We can fight ISIS as another country. It will not be another Iraq war. This will benefit the U.S going back to advantage 6 because once Sunni-Shiite violence is down, we can trade with a stable Iraq because ISIS has been selling oil through the black market.This in turn will effect the U.S by raising prices because much needed Iraqi oil. Vote AFF because AFF has the most net benefts.
The United States Federal Government Should insert ground troops into Iraq to Fight ISIS

Advantage 2 Harms: ISIS has taken half of Iraq and is getting close to baghdad. If we let this go on, the money and lives will be made void and it will cost. And you cannot put a price on human life.We have already started air strikes against them but we will never truly defeat them unless we take back Iraq. Solvency: Having a military presence will help stabilize Iraq Impacts: It will be cheaper to insert ground troops now then to re-invade Iraq. Advantage 3 Harms: In the previous Iraq war, the U.S went in with very limited foreign support. Solvency: This war is worth American attention because the international community will contribute too. Impacts: The Iraqi people will see that the entire world is trying to raise them out of oppression. Advantage 4 Harms: ISIS is not a terrorist group but a group of revolutionaries trying to take Iraq and have already formed an Islamic state. Solvency: We can quickly defeat them because we will be fighting another country, not a non-state combatant. Impacts: Iraq will be free. Anti-western sentiment will go down because we will bring rights for all along with freedom from oppression Advantage 5 Harms: Women's rights are being affected and they do not have rights under Sharia law. Solvency: Women's rights will stay in place under the constitutional government instead of an a theocracy. Impacts: Women will be able to read, write, and vote freely in a free and independent Iraqi society. Advantage 6 Harms: Sunni and Shiite prejudice will continue fighting Solvency: When the U.S gets rid of ISIS, a free state where all have equal rights will drastically bring down sunni-shiite violence Impacts: Sunnis and Shiites can live in peace. This is in turn will make the government more stable.
The United States Federal Government Should insert ground troops into Iraq to Fight ISIS

I accept I strongly negate the resolution aiming to insert United States ground forces into Iraq in order to combat ISIS aggression. The definitions I will be using are the same as my opponents. OBV 1. I would like to state that the Affirmative party in this debate must prove that their are significant gains that the United States will be giving upon the completion of the desired action, that will counter the plethera of losses that the United States will also be accumulating. Contention 1: Not our Job As a Nation we must ensure that any war partaken in, must have a justifiable cause or reward. To simply put it there is neither a single thing that warrants U.S action against ISIS or a specific reward that would come from a war against ISIS. Contention 2: We must learn from our mistakes. I will be referring to the Iraq war for the bulk of this contention. The first Iraq war actually had a warrant for U.S action but was still an economic disaster that the U.S was not ready for. Why should we be putting ourselves in the same situation for a war that doesn't warrant action. Next round we will take a more in depth look to the issue.
The United States Federal Government Should insert ground troops into Iraq to Fight ISIS

The format will be- 1AC - 1st Affirmative constructive 1NC- 1st negative constructive 2AC - 2nd affirmative constructive 2NC- 2nd negative constructive 1NR- 1st negative rebuttal 1AR- 1st affirmative rebuttal 2NR- 2nd negative rebuttal 2AR- 2nd negative rebuttal Resolved: The USfg should insert ground troops into Iraq Observation 1: As the Affirmative, I define USfg as the United States Federal Government I define ground troops as any combat unit meant for fighting on the ground I define Iraq as the middle eastern nation near Iran This will be a policy debate The criteria will be net benefits and proper policy debate procedure Observation 2: Background: Iraq has been attacked by a terrorist group called ISIS ISIS has taken the city of fallujah and has almost made it to Baghdad Observation 3: Plan Plan Text: The U.S military will insert ground force into Iraq Agent: United States military Enforcement: USfg Funding: USfg (taxpayer dollars) Timeframe: Right now Solvency: 1. This will get rid of ISIS 2. This will get rid of anti western sentiment Advantage 1: Harm: ISIS is in Iraq Solvency: U.S forces will go overseas from bases all over the middle east Impact: Iraq will be free Advantage 2: Harm: Iraq is close to losing it's independence Solvency: With U.S forces freeing Iraqis from ISIS anti-western sentiment will go down Impact: There will be less hate for America, thus less insurgents
Resolved: A 12-0 Boise State team should play in the national championship

I am sorry for not reading the format correctly and I am also sorry for not posting my round 2 or 3 argument for I have been really busy. Now that Alabama lost I will ditch my effort to prove them BCS worthy and give that title to Oregon. Oregon has won all of its games by 10 points including a game against then #9 Stanford. Also if Oregon wins out they will also have beaten two top 25 teams in Oregon State on the road (a rivalry game in which anything can happen) and Arizona. They also have to go to USC (South California) which no matter how good or bad the team is it is very difficult to win in Pasadena. Ohio State is a great team lead by a Heisman favorite, would have went undefeated with a tough schedule, and 34 others agree with me (34 first place votes in the AP Top 25). With OSU going undefeated they would have been then ranked Miami, #18 Wisconsin, #15 Iowa, and have stopped Denard Robinson which has looked next to impossible so far this year. There is yet a 3rd team I feel would deserve it more... Nebraska. Nebraska has blown out their easy schedule with the smallest margin of victory being 14 points. Nebraska is 2nd in the country in rushing yards, and 4th in points allowed. If they go undefeated they will have beaten to top 25 teams in Oklahoma State (away) and Missouri (home). TCU would even deserve it more of Boise. TCU beat then #24 Oregon State by 9, and crushed the rest of their schedule with a smallest margin of victory of 17 points. After an undefeated year, they would have beaten #11 Utah (away) and #23 Air Force (home). TCU, Nebraska, Ohio State, and Oregon if went undefeated will deserve a BCS National Championship more than Boise State.
Resolved: A 12-0 Boise State team should play in the national championship

Just to extend a bit, this week in college football proves my warrants even further. Boise has not fallen pray to the upset while Alabama just has. This "quality" Penn State team they beat is now 3-3 with a blow out loss to Illinois. Florida fell as well. Miami can no no longer be considered a quality win for Ohio State after being destroyed by Florida State at home. Bose State's win over Oregon State is looking a lot better after the latter defeated number 9 ranked Arizona on the road. Since my opponent forfeited his round I will not refute anything, only use this week to prove and furthen my points.
Resolved: A 12-0 Boise State team should play in the national championship

If Alabama, and Ohio State don't lose any other games Boise State doesn't deserve to play in the BCS national championship game. Alabama has already beaten top football programs in Penn State and Florida by at least 21 points, and beat Arkansas by 4 (1). Ohio State has already beat a top 25 program in Miami and then the last three games against strong programs in Penn State, Michigan (has added pressure due to the rivalry), and Iowa (2). Boise State's strongest opponents this season are Virginia Tech who also lost to I-AA James Madison(3)(4), and Oregon State who has lost to all its tough opponents (5). (1)http://www.rolltide.com... (2)http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com... (3)http://www.broncosports.com... (4)http://www.hokiesports.com... (5)http://www.osubeavers.com...
Resolved: A 12-0 Boise State team should play in the national championship

This will be my first debate on this site, so I look forward to a great round. Before we begin I would like to set some guidelines for the round to avoid a debate about what exactly we're arguing. I ask my opponent to either agree with them or offer their own and then allow me to present my case first. The resolution is referring to the 2010 season. It assumes that Boise has blown out its remaining competition, which it likely will. My opponent may choose whether or not to add an Alabama or Ohio State loss into the mix.
H3h3 is a ------.

Hello Sakushi. Thanks for accepting my challenge. I must be honest, the inspiration for my proposition was somewhat psychoanalytical. As implied, we are looking for a six letter word. What do you think would be appropriate? Your suggestion demands psychoanalysis!.........Only joking. What ever alternative you propose, I will debate in round three. Please make clear the reasons for you new proposal. Here is a clue to my suggestion. An interaction of light or other electromagnetic waveforms. I hope that you will provide a second round, as I think your response could be very interesting. Regards.
I support Ayurvedic medicine for the ailments of every disease.... which one do you support

Yeah as my co debator said... chineese medicine is almost the same as Indian Ayurveda. Chineese medicines has been researched and practiced for like the last 2500 years. That is quite a large chunk of time indeed. yet, ayurveda in india has been researched, expirimented and is being practiced for more than 5000 years. There is not much arguments that i can provide to you in this field coz am not soo aware about the TCM. visit www.mannalilayurvedahospital.com for info about ayurvedic treatments
I support Ayurvedic medicine for the ailments of every disease.... which one do you support

In this modern world where almost every one of us are using medicines one way or the other and each of us has some kind of health problem, we usually uses drugs prescribed by modern medical practitioners... These medicines are having side effects and its ruining our health one way or the other. In this case we have AYURVEDA, the gift from India, believed to be passed on to humans from the almighty GOD himself. These are effective to us and can cure every diseases. Though it takes a bit more time to start the effect on our body as compared to modern medicine, it is not having any sort of side effects as it is using nature itself to cure the health issue that we have. So i thing AYURVEDA will be the best option even better than the modern medicine that makes our condition worse one way or the other with every usage.
The double o in "root" such as root beer is pronounced like "oo" not "uh"

First off, the resolution suggests that we attempt to eradicate some of the cultural diversity for which America is known. America is a nation of many languages, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds. Most indicative of these differences are the beautiful and unique dialects found in each region of the United States. The Minnesotan pronunciation of root beer is a product of their native dialect. By suggesting that we undermine this dialect, my opponent is devaluing the regional culture. Further, my opponent provides no legitimate proof for the resolution. The company has no right to dictate the pronunciation of root beer. They were not the creators of root beer, merely marketers of it. Kleenex can proclaim the pronunciation of "Kleenex" but not of "tissue". As my opponent has provided no proof, and I have demonstrated the negative cultural influences, I urge a Con vote. Thanks for the debate, and thanks for reading.
The double o in "root" such as root beer is pronounced like "oo" not "uh"

I live in Minnesota and everyone around me pronounces root beer, "ruht beer". This pisses me off because every single root beer company spokesperson pronounces it the way I do and if the company pronounces it a certain way, that is the correct way for you to pronounce that product. Here are some links to root beer commercials (sorry that there are multiple a&w's): This site shows the youtube videos but you will have to follow the links to the other ones. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.stupidity.com... http://www.retrojunk.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Who is the worst president ever? YOU DECIDE :D

You start out saying that President Johnson allowed states to enforce the Black Codes. Black codes did come into his existence under his presidency, but he did not allow them to be created. The codes were adopted by the southern states one by one, it did not come up as a bill in congress that president Johnson had to then sign into law. He was not against the North declaring War on the South to end slavery. He was a senator from Tennessee prior to the Civil War, a state that joined the Confederacy and supported slavery. When the South did secede he did not go with them, he chose to remain with the North and became a War Democrat, a southern Democrat who believed that the North should declare War on the South and restore the Union. He showed patriotism for the United States when he could have easily shown loyalty to the Confederacy at a time where EVERY OTHER SENATOR IN THE SOUTH DID JUST THAT. You then mention about some of his presidential appointments being evidence of why he was a dreadful president. Any person that is appointed by the president always has some skeletons in their closet or something that makes them controversial. The men you picked who were appointed by Johnson was a soldier who had troubles with general Grant, known for pushing his soldiers hard and suffering many casualties while in the war. Another was a relative and friend of general Grant, but that really scandalous enough to condemn Andrew Johnson for being the worst US president ever? You also say that the entire country condemned president Johnson, but accurate public opinion polls have only been around since the 1950's so if you do have evidence of his approval ratings during his term please state your source. President Johnson was not impeached because allegedly the entire country despised him. President Johnson wanted to replace one of his cabinet secretary of war, Congress then passed a bill saying that he must inform congress before he does so and then they must approve of his decision. The bill was passed and President Johnson still disposed of ONE of his secretaries, and that was what triggered his impeachment. He missed being impeached by one vote, and the law he violated that triggered his impeachment was later disbanded in 1887 by both Republican and Democratic senators. I fail to see why an unjust impeachment process qualifies Andrew Johnson as the worst president ever
Who is the worst president ever? YOU DECIDE :D

He allowed the Southern states to replace slavery with "Black Codes", which furthered the discrimination against the former slaves by reaffirming the notion that they were inferior and had essentially no civil rights. He was against them when the north had a whole war just to free the slaves. With reconstruction, he barley did anything when the U.S needed him the most, He also tried to pass a law that would send money to help reform the confederacybut here are some more aruments for Johnson.He failed, and failed utterly; failed so miserably that, in the last weeks of his Administration, he could only revenge himself by absurd attempts wantonly to vex his successor. He nominated to the Senate for consul to Havana a soldier who was conspicuously the enemy of General Grant, and for minister to Chile, General Grant's brother-in-law and friend. Mr. Johnson's Administration has had, however, the good result of proving the character of the people. At every moment of his evil career it has been evident that the country condemned him; and undoubtedly it anticipated his removal when he was impeached. There verdict against him failed of the necessary two-thirds vote.
Who is the worst president ever? YOU DECIDE :D

ANDREW JOHNSON "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men." -- Andrew Johnson, 1866 Johnson was the worst president in U.S. history. It's not because he created Jim Crow, although he did. It's not because he fought passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, although he did. And it's not because he failed to create a way forward for Southerners of all races, condemning the South to over a century of poverty--though he did that, too. No, it's because he did all of this because he could. He wasn't a wartime president; he faced no new terrorist threats. He just inherited the presidency and used it to push his own prejudices. History has never forgiven him for that, nor should it.
The United States government should stay out of my online poker business.

I feel that I have successfully proved my argument that the US government has, not only the right, but the obligation to act as they have in shutting down the online "real money" poker industry operating illegally in the United States. Once again, the law has been official since 2006. And, the companies purposefully, and willfully, set up dummy companies to process players funds in order to defraud the government. Open and shut case. Not only did I prove my point in that case, I also proved that Poker is, in fact, Gambling. For my opponent to argue that it's not gambling because it involves a certain amount of skill is saying that black-jack, craps, horses-racing, etc. aren't gambling either. They all involve some amount of skill to be successful at, also! ! I could give more examples to prove either point. However, I don't feel it's necessary. In my opinion, I have successfully argued my "Con" stance, and proven that the government should be intervening in these "off-shore", unregulated, poker sites. I really haven't even mentioned the numerous incidences of cheating that have been proven to occur on these, unregulated, sites. According to MSNBC, one cheater had illegitimate winnings estimated at between $400,000 and $700,000! [1] In my opinion, online gambling should be legal. But, currently it isn't. While I would like to fight to have this law changed, as it stands now it IS the law. I have to obey it, just like everyone else - including off-shore online Casinos. Thanks again for the opportunity to debate this subject. [1]. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
The United States government should stay out of my online poker business.

It seems that my opponents sole argument is that poker isn't gambling, therefore it should not be subject to the, "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act". I beg to differ from him in this assertion. Let's take a look at some of the definitions of "Gambling": "Gambling is the of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period". -en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling "An activity characterized by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance". -en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gambling "Play games of chance for money; bet" "Bet (a sum of money) in such a way" "Take risky action in the hope of a desired result" - Google Dictionary All of those definitions describe the game of poker. As any professional will tell you, there is a huge amount of luck involved in the game. "I guess if there weren't luck involved, I'd win every time." - Phil Hellmuth, holder of a record 11 World Series of Poker bracelets.[1] "It's hard work. Gambling. Playing poker. Don't let anyone tell you different." - Stu Unger, winner of three WSOP main events.[1] Clearly, poker is gambling. Therefore, it should be included in the activities covered by the,"Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act", which it is. Hence, the Department of Justice is being reasonable in enforcing the law by preventing the companies involved from continued operations within the United States. Just because they don't like the law, it doesn't mean that they can devise methods of circumventing it. Which, they clearly DID do. [1]http://www.viewonpoker.com... http://www.fdic.gov...
The United States government should stay out of my online poker business.

At the end of the second round, I told the voters what my opponent would attempt to do to discredit my stance. So far, I've been right. I cannot rebuke my opponents use of the laws that have been passed because there obviously is a law in place against online gambling. However, my opponent has either failed to read my case for the second round or wants to drop the fact entirely that poker is NOT gambling. Gambling was defined according to Wikipedia by myself in the previous round of debate. Nowhere in that definition does the game of poker fall in to play and nowhere in my opponents second round rebuttal does he try and prove that poker is in fact considered gambling. Is it wrong that poker sites are run out of places like the Isle of man or Barbados? I don't believe so. If I could own a company anywhere in the world I think a nice island would do just fine. My opponent has used these places as if they were "shady" locations to make the voters assume that there is devious things going on when in fact, every location that said internet poker sites are based out of are quite beautiful and respected locations. My hopes for round three are that my opponent can finally rebuke the facts I've laid out in round two. Especially considering that I am using the same defense that the poker site owners will be using during their actual trial. If he cannot then this will surely be a victory for myself and the poker sites that millions of people in America put their skills to use on.