BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Left should have supported the Libyan intervention

4 key points I would like to make on why the Left should have supported the Libyan Intervention. 1) The intervention had multilateral support (unlike Iraq): The Libyan rebels asked desperately for the World to help them [http://www.independent.co.uk...] The Arab League supported the intervention [http://www.nytimes.com...] The call for war was spearheaded by Britain and France, not the US. [http://www.time.com...] The UN Security Council approved the intervention [http://en.wikipedia.org...] 2) The intervention was legally & morally just: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is norm in international law that sovereignty not a privilege, but a responsibility. The objective of R2P is to prevent or stop genocide and crimes against humanity. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Qaddafi's forces were guilty of a long list of war crimes. The rebels didn't begin resist violently until Qaddafi's forces began to open fire on unarmed protesters. [http://www.nytimes.com...] During the civil war Qaddafi's forces engaged in murder, torture, rape, kidnappings, and the shelling of residential areas. [http://www.reuters.com...] Before NATO's intervention Qaddafi's tanks were headed towards the rebel stronghold Benghazi. Threatening to end the resistance by quickly and brutally crushing it. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...] Samantha Power wrote a pulitzer prize winning book "A Problem from Hell" about genocide and the moral failure of the international community to stop it. In the book she asks "Why do American leaders who vow "never again" repeatedly fail to stop genocide?" [http://www.amazon.com...]. Now Power is currently serving as the Senior Director of Multilateral Affairs on the Staff of the United States National Security Council and is a special advisor to President Obama. On Libya she said that a failure to intervene would have been "extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience." [http://www.nytimes.com...] 3) Lefties aren't always against intervention Many Leftists volunteered to travel and fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War out of "international solidarity" [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://www.bbc.co.uk...]. The Left were firmly on the side of the Allies during WWII. And a generation of 60's radicals would later in life lead the call for intervention in Kosovo [http://www.nytimes.com...]. One of those radicals was Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and member of the typically pacifist Green party. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] 4) There was no other humane or practical alternative It's not enough to just state what your against, you must also state what your for. Those who oppose the intervention either A) Believe it is better to be spectators to massacre than take any risk to try and stop it. Or B) Believed the international community was trigger-happy and that Qaddafi's tanks could have been stopped peacefully from advancing on Benghazi. Or C) That the Arab League should have intervened instead, despite not having the political will or military capability to do so.
The Left should have supported the Libyan intervention

Throughout the Western world the political Left was split over the Libyan intervention. It is my position that those on the Left who supported the intervention were right and those on the Left who opposed it were wrong. I'm expecting an opponent who will argue against the war from the Left. RULES: 1) No semantics 2) A forfeited round = an automatic loss of the debate 3) PRO will argue why those on the political Left should have supported the Libyan Intervention. 4) CON will argue why those on the left that opposed the intervention were right to do so. I hope this debate will be a good one. I await your challenge.
is it ethical that people fake their qualifications in order to get employment

I think it's important for us to remember that one's own personal interest are the only ethical standard we can rely on. No matter what you believe, a human constant is that we serve our own interests. We eat, we drink stuff, we have fun, and we don't like doing things we don't want to do. Even people who give and serve other's self interests are usually doing so because it makes them feel good or fulfilled, or they want something in return. Either way, it's still self-serving. My opponent made this debate; because, he wanted to express some emotions that were built up inside of him. I accepted, because I know I'm going to enjoy this. So anyway, my opponent doesn't really have any sort of ethical system to back up his claim that faking qualifications is wrong. I have provided you at least an argument tell you the "why" behind what I'm saying. Anyway, I was just trying to make this round a short explanation of my points, since that seemed to be what my opponent did. I'm going to hand the debate back over to my opponent.
Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans

Pro claims that greenhouse gases are unrelated to global warming. a comparison of co2 concentration and earths temperature clearly refute this point. If you look on the graph provided on source 1. you will see an obvious connection between CO2 and earths temperature. Pro cites the 1940-1970 period of cooling to disprove CO2s effect. This conclusion clearly contradicts our long term date. It seems much more likely that this cooling was caused by a factor unrelated to greenhouse gases and human activity, such as the 1940 eruption of Mauna Loa (2) which released volcanic ash into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and creating a cooling effect. looking closely at the graph in source 1 you see that by the natural cycle earth should be cooling. Using excel i graphed earths relatively recent temperature and found that we probably should be cooling by the natural cycle. 1) http://blogs.edf.org... 2) http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org...
Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans

*cracks knuckles* Cool. So this is my first debate. If I do something wrong, please tell me. I have to admit that at the start of this debate, I was neutral on the issue and selected the most radical opinion I could think of that can be actually defended (intelligently). Now how do I start off...? *** It is my position that Global Warming is occurring. I believe that is caused by the natural cycle that is climate change, and not by CO2 emissions created by humanity. There is no clear warming trend that shows human interference in climate. Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can be a change in the average weather or a change in the distribution of weather events around an average (for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth (1). The Earth's climate has always changed throughout history due to natural cycles. For example, the Medieval warm period and the subsequent little ice age were caused by climate change (2). Like then, The Earth is currently peaking in an inter-glacial warming period, before it will inevitably enter another ice age. It is natural to expect warming during this period, and not caused by human interference in the climate. Warming trends show no consistent increase in temperature. In the last century, much of the warming occurred between 1910 and 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. In fact, most of the warming that has occurred in the last century occurred in between 1910 and 1940- when C02 emissions by humans were low. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s (this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC). (3)" This trend shows that greenhouse gasses did not have anything to do with the current warming we are facing. An easy to observe temperature record of the world can be found here (4): http://en.wikipedia.org... Sources: (1): http://en.wikipedia.org... (2): http://en.wikipedia.org... (3): http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com... (4): http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans

I'll start this off with a background of the issue. *** Background: Some disagree on the degree to which global warming might also be caused simply by natural changes in the earth's climate. Some claim that humans are the chief cause of the warming that has occurred over roughly the past century, while others claim that our role has been relatively insignificant as compared to natural forces. Therefore, the debate roughly defined here centers on the question of whether human are the "chief" or "most significant" cause of the recent global warming trend seen over the past century and today. This debate is important in the way of determining policy responses. If, for instance, the human cause of global warming was concluded to be relatively minor, then some would argue that policies attempting to address these human causes (carbon emissions regulations. .. ) are misplaced. Conversely, a conclusion that humans are the chief cause of global warming would provide valid support for efforts that attempt to stem these human-causes. Of course, conclusions that humans are, for instance, 30% of the cause would create a more challenging set of questions in the way of how to prioritize a human response. Still, the undeniable fact that the earth is getting warmer leads to a range of separate debates that need not consider the underlying cause. *** (Start off borrowed and edited from Yvette) Start off, Thank you for accepting this debate. If you accept this debate, you agree to the rules and formats of the debate. Breaking the rules and formats of the debate is considered forfeiture. I will claim the burden of proof. However, we must both prove or show evidence of our claims. Rules: 1. No insults or ad hominem. 2. The scientific position that no thing can be proved 100% and can only be shown to be closer to the truth and/or more likely to be true is the basis of our discussion. 3. The purpose of our debate is to determine whether or not is is reasonable to say that the phenomenon known as Global Warming is not caused mostly by humanity. There may be evidence both ways showing reasons why it is likely or unlikely. It must, on the whole, be more likely than unlikely. 4. The CON must argue that Global warming, the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation, is caused by human action. 5. No arguments will be presented in Round 1. As the burden of proof is on me, I must make the first argument. My opponent must simply agree to the rules in Round 1.
Kids should have a say in who gets custody.

Yes your opening statement slight contradicts your true message but I will continue. Of course it would be foolish for a kid to say he want to go with a parent because he or she is cooler but what about all the other factors that are not so obvious to a child. Having a child get their word will more than likely get their point of view of what is best for them currently as opposed to what's best for them in the long haul. For example, a child might say a particular parent is mean or unfair or he/she hate that parent , but in reality this parent could be doing what's really best for the child.Children shouldn't be involved in adult decisions because they are not adults and don't know everything that evolved in the decision.Here's what Shendl Tuchman, PsyD said regarding this issue"Asking a child to make a decision, even when the child believes they would like to do so, is often detrimental. I have spoken with many adults who, as children, “got to choose” where to live when their parents divorced. In retrospect, they regretted having made a decision that was honored, feeling guilty about the parent they did not choose and feeling the tug of loyalty between the two people who brought them into the world. Anecdotally, this appears to be true whether they had a good relationship with the unchosen parent or not." http://www.goodtherapy.org...
Kids should have a say in who gets custody.

I see what you're getting at, but I didn't mean that kids should decide who they should be with by themselves, though the message that I was putting out slightly contradicts my true message. I didn't mean that the kids can just say, "I want to go with my dad because he's cooler." That would be foolish. I mean that kids should at least be able to say something in a courthouse, like if there is a child whose mother stays out until 3:00 am, hooking up with men or partying with friends, acting way too immature for their age and status. Some parents might go without feeding their younger children because they care more about their social lives than their children. I think that a child who is at least a teenager should be able to sit at the witness stand, and give small snippets of what each parents habits are. I don't mean habits like being strict, or not serving dessert. I mean habits like substance abuse issues, angry outbursts, or leaving for long periods of time, which are all things that are putting their child(ren) in physical danger. Also, If the only time a parent can look at a child of their own is when they're drunk, it could cause the child to become hurt on the inside, and out very frequently, for people sometimes become emotionally unstable during drunkenness, and may cause physical or emotional harm to the child. And this alone won't let the child chose which parent they go with. This will just be some weight in the decision, unless the judge and/or jury aren't swayed by the child's testimony. If that happens, the child will be of no weight at all.
Kids should have a say in who gets custody.

Lets have a great debate.My Rebuttal: I would disagree that kids should have the right to who they stay with. They are kids for a reason. Adults for the most part will know what's best for the children. Of course no system is fail prove but to give kids the right to decide who they spend the rest of their childhood it reckless.If I was a kid I would choose to be with not the better parent and who gives me the best chance of being a successful adult but who I would like to be around the most. Because children do childish things.Kids for the most part don't chose their diets, schools, TV shows, the city they reside in and the list goes on, why should they be left with such an important decision. These kind of decisions are for adults kids can decide kids sized decisions, what kid of lunch box they want, what kind of shoes, what Friday night movie. They are only children why should they have that burden put on them. Its unfair.If kids were giving this right to decide where would it stop? What other decisions would kids have? Would you let a child decent what job you get? What house you buy, what street etc.
Wiz Khalifa is the best artist in the rap game today

Anyway you put it Aubrey Drake Graham is the raining champ of the rap game. His estimated net worth is 35 million, more then Wiz can "believe in make believe". Drake his the hardest work ethic in the game today. Selling out arenas Mean while Wiz is doing local fairs and bars with his posse the "Taylor gang".After stuck in a biding war between young money super star ill Wayne and rap king Jay-z. Signing with young money proved his raise to the top as the #1 rapper.
Wiz Khalifa is the best artist in the rap game today

Wiz Khalifa may not have the most awards or fans on Twitter, but he is the best rapper today. His tours never seem to end as he's always traveling around the world, making hundreds of thousands of dollars each show. During all these tours he still finds a way to write new songs, appear in top artist's songs as a feature like Payphone by Maroon 5, and still rap about relevant topics and spit rhymes that people can vibe to.
i dont know=i have to imagine it

The last post by the opponent only clarifies my earlier positions. The unconventional equations used would only prove that if he believes what he is actually saying, that he too would need to believe in imagination. I will hold true to my argument that his own discursive and obscure, yet engaging ideas show that the imagination is present and does hold true. Furthermore I would like to point out that the ideas posed consistently sway away from his original ideas of "imagination! Thank you
i dont know=i have to imagine it

belief is false and know is true belief=false=future=ON=possible know=true=now=IS=absolute knowledge=truth=past=OFF=impossible future is the opposite of past, true is the opposite of false and truth, and now is the balancing point between future and past information is the opposite of matter, and matter is true. the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now matter being real, the only distance that MATTERS is what's reachable by my physical body, not by my imagination know=Personal physical experience of now language is advanced math cause+effect=logic(is) natural cause=random(not intended) randomness+logic=chaos(all natural change in eternity)
i dont know=i have to imagine it

Pro- ("imagination is false and the absolutes are true its true that my imagination is false, I know imagination is false, as there is no other option=absolute") Your above theory is a profound reason to believe that the imagination is an absolute truth! Your ideas are based on an axis of the mental constructs of the imagination. There are no mathematical boundaries to your assertions, no algorithms to support your assumptions. Just clear and present imagination at work. While a concept derived from the imagination may not be fully sound, there is also equal reason to believe it is not false.
i dont know=i have to imagine it

Most everything Pro has put forth is a contradiction! You first claim - (false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now ("imagination is false, and beyond what I know is what I don't know") You then move on to point out: ("absolutes are true even if I imagine them") So I simply point out that you have made it clear that imagination is true and absolute, yet false? Or is it just my imagination....running away with me? As far as the rest of this debate, it is all over the board. I feel addressing most of it would not advance any cause.
i dont know=i have to imagine it

you have pointed out no contradiction thoughts are actions belief=false know=true knowledge=truth future now and past, now is the balancing point between future and past, and future is the opposite of past. the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now absolutes are true even if I imagine them, liquid is always wet. infinity can never be destroyed, cuz then it had an end so its destruction not infinite know is true, so I can know the absolutes even if I have to imagine them, but any liquid I imagine is false, as anything I imagine is false close your eyes and read on, or keep them open and admit I am reasonable in giving this advice unless you don't want to read on
i dont know=i have to imagine it

Because Pro has claimed there are "no contradictions", I again would simply like to point out the aforementioned difference clearly scene above with the topic subject and that of his first statement. This could easily lead to confusion. As Donal Rumsfeld put it:There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.Donald RumsfeldSource - http://www.brainyquote.com...In reply to Pros second response (Pro -"know=physical experience of now")You are claiming that what YOU know is true. You have begun to create a dichotomy between thought and action. What you are perceiving as "physical experience" cannot be separated from the imagination. (Pro - "know=physical experirience of now")-One could claim there is no now, as it has past and future only remains. Through your own empirical knowledge gives you what you know. Cast that into a big vat of subjective experience or knowledge, and you have nothing more than imagination. (Pro -"imagination is false, and beyond what I know is what I don't know")This type of logic is a slippery slope into circular reasoning. In responses, simply put;-If you claim there is something beyond what you don't know, you then are revealing that it exists. Therefore it cannot be false.
i dont know=i have to imagine it

To continue, your debate topic in comparison to your opening comments, seem to contradict themselves. If you would elaborate more on your thoughts, I feel It would make for a much more meaningful debate. TOPIC: "I dont know=i have to imagine it" FISRTS POSTED COMMENTS: "I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, as I don't have to imagine it, and know is true" One states that you do have to imagine as the other claims that you do not. Thank you
Obama is the best choice for president.

Since my opponent is affirming his own opinion as factual rather than hypothetical he has accountability of proofing his claim with an argument and supportive citation. Without further ado, I will define the argument formally as my opponent has dictated. 1. Obama is the best presidential candidate. 2. The bill H.R. 3590 or The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is currently and has previously offered protection to people of America. 3. Mitt Romney is fraudulent. 4. Romney's interest does not involve that of the American's. I remind my opponent that in the nature of this debate that he must fulfill evidence to prove his claim. If he fails to provide such of these assertions are invalid, his entire debate is faulty. To concede is also a failure to support his argument. When provided further details concerning 3, "...Americas best interest at heart" I will proceed.
Obama is the best choice for president.

Obama is the best choice for president. Mitt Romney is unbelievably fake and does not have Americas best interest at heart. The health care bill is constitutional and protects the people. Make you argument on why you believe president Obama is not the best choice. Any topic that you think applies is on the table. But FYI.................................... If your a fox news fan then your arguments will be based on hate and you will never win them. 1.................................2............................3....................... Go :)
Obama is the best choice for president.

http://duel-citizen.com... This explains Obama Care for all the ignorant fakes that don't know what the heck they are even angry about,,,, :) Obama is a great president he is doing good things for our country, but main stream media (FOX News) is attacking everything he is doing, because fox's news job is to get a republican back into office. THERE NEWS Organization is pushed only by a political agenda, nothing has any rely value from what they say, they just logical fallacies to prove there points. How is it possible to never have anything good to say about the president of the united states of America? He is the effing president for Christ's sake, he deserves more respect then what he gets, its such bs, Barrack Obama is an amazing president! Everyone who thinks otherwise are just too stupid to see how the media is playing you. But I'm guessing since you forfeited that means I WIN MY first debate?? WoooHooo !!!! :)