BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democrats do not Have What it Takes to Halt Terrorism

I appreciate your open mind, Its good to debate a fellow GOP :-) however, Princeton defines the term "liberal" as "characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance". this is carried out by Liberal theory better known in the scope of international relations. I at no time in my previous argument classified current day liberals as bad people, however, I do believe that their foreign policy is so broad that they are incapable of persevering over something as detrimental as terrorism. History shows this trend as recent as the Clinton administration Examples: 1. Black Hawk down in Somalia 2. In August of 1998 al- Queada destroyed our embassies in nairobi, and tanzania 3. the Uss cole 4. the 1995 Bombing in riyadh Saudi Arabia 5. The first attack on the WTC 6. Khobar towers ALL of the above assaults were carried out by al-queada operatives, or their connections ( Not including Somalia) In total over 3,000 people died, and after every attack Clinton said who ever was responsible would pay!!!......but, at the same time he claimed that Al-queada was not a threat. Liberals today, and I use that term broadly, are too worried about appeasing other nations, rather than taking care of problems before they grow. The terrorists would love nothing better than to see a Liberal in office because the only changes that they truly want to see are high taxes, and universal health care. Best case Liberal in office barack Obama immediately removes the troops from Iraq and places them into the "most dangerous region in the world" PAKISTAN!...our future looks dim..some one might want to let Obama know that Pakistan is one of our few allies in the Middle East?
Democrats do not Have What it Takes to Halt Terrorism

Hello. To begin, I am conservative. I am really conservative. I do not want a democrat to win the election. However, I do not like people saying liberals are bad people (except for me of course) So this is why a liberal can stop terrorism liberal is defined by Websters as a political philosophy associated with change. So when you use liberal in this sense, anyone who is striving for change is a liberal. Using this definition, here is why a liberal can halt terrorism 1. change is needed Iraq is in shambles. Terrorism has NOT been stopped. We need a new plan. The current war, I support, but we are going about it the completely wrong way. Either follow more peaceful attempts, or go, as my history teacher said, "world war 2 on them." We need a stricter stance against terrorism that we do not have. So any change can better halt terrorism. I am assuming that you did not know (because I did not know until I looked it up) that liberal meant change. So I am assuming you meant liberal as in the democratic party? If so, here is why a democratic candidate can halt terrorism 2. U S A!!! Whoever wins the election has control of the greatest army in the world. Any chance that a republican has at ending terrorism, a democrat has. But democrats have an advantage. Congress is held by the democratic party. Imagine if all of America was behind ending terrorism the democrats way! There would be incredible force in every action 3. Plans This is a cynical way of looking at it, but democrats could end terrorism Scenario A: Obama is president. He withdraws from Iraq. This is bad. Terrorism goes un-punished. America is attacked again. Obama must do something. He brings the war back to the enemy, with support of Congress and the people. Vietnam was called the only war America did not win. Why? Because the people did not support it. If we have renewed support to stop terrorism, why might do something.
Democrats do not Have What it Takes to Halt Terrorism

Recently it has become the United State's main interest to bring a halt to terrorism at its worst. While terrorism has been a threat to US for many years liberals in office have time and time again cast a blind eye towards Al- Queada, the Taliban, and Islamo-fascism all together. As the strongest nation in the world can we allow another Liberal to take office in the 2008 election? This may appear to be rhetoric, but history reveals the truth. Liberals can NOT handle the task of halting terrorism.
Do you Believe the zombie apocalypse will happen

If they were coming up with a zombie apocalypse, wouldn't it have already happened? Throughout history, seers have declared the end of the world. Here are some examples:http://www.dailyhoroscope.com...http://www.abhota.info...https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.britannica.com...http://rationalwiki.org...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.mnn.com...Pro, please explain why you said "we"; unless if you work at one of those facilities, or for the government, you shouldn't be saying we when talking about that. Secondly, unless if you do work there, please tell how you would know that they are zombie-research labs. Doesn't it make more sense for those to be military-bases or labs for other things that would be dangerous to the general public?
Drill ANWR

I'm sorry that you felt the need to forfeit the last round. A simple "don't have time" or "don't have anything more to add" would have been a little bit better, but I don't know the reason. I will keep this short for the sake of the readers. Two quick points 1) I think that the fact that RogerOut forfeited should be proof that he had no more to say or saw, himself, that my argument was stronger than his. Either of those reasons should be a sure vote for the Pro side. 2) The facts and figures about the price per gallon that I used earlier, were adjusted to the time that they applied. This would negate the point that was brought up in the comments about sitting on the crude oil and waiting until later. The longer you wait, the less that same amount will be in the world's production. That being said, I don't really feel the need to re-summarize my argument from round 3. Thank you.
Drill ANWR

So I apologize for the briefness of this post. I had completed a long drawn out argument, hit submit, and it asked me to log on....losing it all. :-( I really don't feel like typing everything out again so I will summarize (please take that into account). Claims: 1. The amount of oil is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if it will help America. 2. The environmental risk is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if it will help America. Rebuttal: 1. 10 bil gallons may seem like a lot, but by 2030 it will only be 1% of the worlds daily production. This will result in only a $0.41 to $1.44 off per barrel or $0.01 to $0.03 per gallon. 2. The death of countless caribou is not worth $0.02 off a gallon (average). Although spilling has decreased over the years it is still way to high. Since 2000 (with "better" methods) there has been over 150,000 tonnes spilled worldwide (or 1 million barrels or 46 million gallons). One of the smaller spills in Prudhoe bay (Alaska) was caused by a dime sized hole in a 34" pipe. It spilled over 850 tonnes and destroyed over 2 acres costing millions of dollars in lost profits. This was a relatively small spill. If it was anywhere close to the famous Exxon Valdez incident (37,000 tonnes), imagine the damage it could have done. Conclusion: The potential destruction of part of ANWR is not worth the mere $0.02 off a gallon. Although the organisms that live in the proposed drilling zone may be living peacefully now, if a spill were to happen, it would kill everything it touched.
Drill ANWR

I think we can reduce this debate to two points: 1. The Amount of Oil in ANWR: I said there is "a lot" because I don't think the estimates are relevant in determining whether or not to drill. This is because even the low-end of scientific estimates put it in the tens of billions of barrels (The United States Geological Survey has estimated ANWR holds a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil.). Whether or not that would "provide relief" to global prices is irrelevant - the point is that's an enormous amount of oil that would clearly benefit American industry and the American consumer. 2. The Environmental Risk: As stated, I think this has been wildly exaggerated, on two fronts. First, even if drilling in ANWR resulted in the deaths of some unique caribou, it's still worth it. In short, billions of barrels of oil outweigh protecting a small number of unique animals. This should not be controversial. We are not obliterating the rain forest. This is an incredibly remote area where virtually no one - not even scientists - ever go. A relatively small number of animals may justifiably be sacrificed for 10 billion barrels of oil. If you disagree with this statement, we should focus on that. Second, it is a mistake to equate "drilling for oil" with "geological disaster." Even assuming no technological progress in the last 30 years, drilling is not the same as firebombing the area. However, drilling has become remarkably more self-contained. Additionally, these environmental fears have been empirically disproven: "North Slope caribou herds have remained healthy throughout previous oil development. In fact, the Central Arctic caribou herd, which is located in and around Prudhoe Bay, has increased 10 fold in the last 20 years." - Weyrich
Drill ANWR

While I haven't personally made up my mind on this, I do lean more toward the pro side. However, I'd like to take the Con side and see how it comes out. Maybe changing or solidifying my stance. First, I'd like to propose some assumptions. 1. The part of ANWR that we are talking about is the "1002 area" (referred to as simply "1002"), which was deferred when Congress created ANWR. 2. The rest of ANWR is off limits (most of the "proposed" petroleum is in 1002). 3. Canadian land isn't under consideration either (US Gov't doesn't have a lot of pull and most Canadians are against drilling) Second, I will dispute my opponent's points. 1. I'd like to get a definition of "a lot". That being said, current estimates (USGS) of 1002's petroleum supply is between 5.7 and 16.0 bil barrels with only 4.3 and 11.8 bil barrels being technically recoverable. That compared to the estimated 120 bil barrels still undiscovered in the lower 48 is quite a small number. 2. Agreed 3. While I'd like to see some actual statistics for B and C. Third, I will propose my own arguments. 1. By 2030, close to the estimated peak of refinement in the area (2028), ANWR production will be between .4 and 1.2 percent of the total world oil consumption. This would provide little relief for prices and/or supply. 2. ANWR is no desolate and barren as many assume. It is teaming with unique species and environments. As opposed to my opponents argument (3C), the US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated, "Here [in ANWR] lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes." and "The physical and biological components of this area [1002] are unique compared to the rest of northern Alaska. I conclude that the cost vs. benefit ratio decisively rests on the side against drilling.
Drill ANWR

The US government should allow oil companies to drill in ANWR. Here's why: 1. There is potentially a lot of oil. 2. Drilling for oil is not mutually exclusive with investing in renewable energy. 3. The environmental risks are wildly exaggerated. A) The area that would be drilled is less than 1% of the 20 million acres that comprise ANWR. B) Drilling is not nearly as environmentally damaging as it once was. C) Compared with a number of current offshore drilling locations (i.e., the Gulf), the remote and desolate ANWR is a gift to those concerned with environmental contamination.
better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally

Job creation is much more than a business expanding and in need of more workers. Investor are the reason for new companies to exist. Investment banking that are to the use of sales of bonds and stock and commerical banking that give out loans to small business these are to different types of investment along with the private investor, jobs do get created. These are in the form of small business. It is a fact that the average small business owner had to get a loan (a form of investment) from a bank. This is of course do to the average savings per household is 6000 USD http://www.score.org... The number of small businesses in the United States has increased 49% since 1982. http://www.sba.gov... This shows the work of investments.
better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally

"It would not be better to give tax breaks to one or the other as they are both needed for an economy to work" this seems to be the essense of con's argument. he earlier says that investors in general "spend on items they need and want and this helps the economy". i don't dispute this. all i'm arguing is that it's better to give tax breaks to those we specifically are creating jobs and new businesses, as that is in society's better interest than investments in general. other investments would obviously be made, given people will always want profit... even if they are not made as much. what we will have on balance is more jobs and new businesses (more stimulant for the economy) per dollar the taxpayer spends. con has not shown why it's better to spread a set money around to everyone, as opposed to focusing it on job business creators more specifically. he just asserts some benefit that would be caused if we did, not giving an over all picture.
better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally

I accept my rivals challenge My challenge as I understand it is to defend the tax cuts of those who invest in industry. Investor in industry in America use money to build up many type of businesses. Many of these businesses are small up and coming "shops" that exist only do to the investment of others. These investor contribute to forming many new businesses which in turn hire other people as employees. These people then use the money they earn to spend on items they need and want this helps the economy. I argue against my rival in the idea that tax cuts on both parties are needed to create jobs in the private sector. It would not be better to give tax breaks to one or the other as they are both needed for an economy to work. Maybe even more so on investors part.
better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally

this debate is about which is better... taxes to those who create jobs and new businesses, or to people who invest money generally. which is better use of tax payer sponsered (funded?) tax breaks. this isn't about cutting taxes every where and gutting government spending etc. We should stop giving general tax breaks to people who merely invest in general... and give all that money more directly to people who create jobs and new businesses. This would be in society's overall best interest, compared to just giving breaks to anyone who simply invests. example. do we want to give money to a business who simply buys more computers, or puts more in their bank account. this will only enrich computer makers more, and perhaps to some small degree, might eventually make a job or two, as a figure of speech. if we direct the money to those who actually create jobs and new businesses, more will benefit in society as more jobs will be created per dollar invested. (the investment is by both the business owner, and society in terms of not getting as much tax income) we can't give breaks to everyone when we are going into debt as a country.. we have to choose. why not choose what's in society's best interest? and it'd work just as well, and is fairer. Capital gains investments are often taxed at 15%. We don't need to give people more money to invest... they'd invest anyway, because they want more money. Warren Buffet often points out that he pays 15% on taxes while his secretary pays 30+ percent... and it should just be at the very least, more equal
The Sky is Blue

You are welcome.... The sky is black in the night because as the sun goes down we see space which is dark and black. Since the sky is transparent, the space or universe can be seen. therefore the sky in the night is black. Also during thunderstorms or rainy days, the sky is blue in the day or black in the night. It is just the sky is fill with clouds with water molecules (rain) makes it look dark, grey or black. Hope this clears out our problems.
The Sky is Blue

Thanks! Concessions and rebuttals: -I concede that the sky is "made of layer of gases. These gases such as Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, Argon, etc" -I concede that the sky is "transparent unless there is a substance such as smoke in that air" -I concede that "The sun reflects the lights absorbed by the ocean which is seen as THE SKY IS BLUE." Rebuttals: My rebuttal is that the sky is not always blue. Sometimes it is black. Therefore, saying that "the sky is blue" can't always be a true statement, because only some of it is blue. Like when the sun isn't up at night, the sky is black. A car that is equal parts black and blue is not a "blue" car... it is a black and blue car. The same with the sky, which is also black and blue. Thank you for debating me! This was my first try at it here!
The Sky is Blue

The Sky made of layer of gases. These gases such as Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, Argon, etc., are transparent unless there is a substance such as smoke in that air. The Sky is therefore transparent. The Sky and the sun's light reflects the colour of the ocean (blue). *Though the ocean is actually transparent, it is eutrophic bodies of water. This mean that the ocean is with high contents of nutrients. That is why the ocean looks blue. Back to topic.... The sun reflects the lights absorbed by the ocean which is seen as THE SKY IS BLUE. * I think I will do great in Gr.10 Biology this year. YES!!!!!!!!!!
The Sky is Blue

(ok.... use the vocabulary words...clearing throat) This house denies the resolution, which states that the sky is blue. I ask that my opponent affirm the opposite, which is that the sky is blue. Definitions: For this debate, these definitions will be used. The Sky. (I don't even know how to define this. It's the sky.) Is: a constant state of being Blue: The primary color on the color wheel between red and yellow. The designation of "blue" excludes other color families, such as green. "Blue" does NOT rule out the family of related colors, such as cyan, royal blue or sky blue. I want to argue that the sky is not blue in keeping with these definitions. Please don't use both rounds for debating, because I can only use one. This is my first real try at instigating a debate, so yay! Please let me know if I need to change something.
"No prisoner should have the vote"

My argument is simple we live as part of a democratic society. We all have free choice and are able to express our opinions and choices in a variety of ways, for example we are all free to express our interests by being allowed to go and take part in Sunday football games, play golf, go fishing we can also express our wishes for who we want to lead our society by voting. When we lock people up we effectively withdraw them from society just like they are not able to partake In their chosen recreational activity they should not be allowed to express opinion on who should run a society in which they are no longer part of. You say "" the voting restriction, purely on the basis of being in prison, is discriminatory."" No it is not they committed a crime. They understood the consequences when committing the crime and yet still went through with it. You say it is not fair that someone who committed fraud should not be allowed a vote. But let me ask you why should someone who has willingly misled someone so he can benefit financially have the same right to decide how our society I run as someone who has worked honestly and hard for there money ?. "" Whilst to lock someone up is to further limit their freedom of actions"" To lock someone up is partly to stop their actions. However an important part of prison is to deter others from doing the same thing and as such act as a deterrent by taking away their voting right helps the deterrent.
"No prisoner should have the vote"

I will be arguing against the motion that no prisoner should be allowed to vote. Some key terms; "The vote" - the right to political, democratic representation. Be warned, this debate will be fairly Anglo-centric; bear this in mind before accepting it. "Prisoner" - a person tried and found guilty of a crime, to whom prison time is conferred. "No prisoner" implies an absolute blanket ban on voting; the pro position must argue for this, but the con position is not an argument for every prisoner to have a vote. It is the view that some prisoners may be given the vote, and this right may be conditional. This first round is for acceptance. (This is my first debate in this format, so if I've missed anything out please let me know/provide it.)
"No prisoner should have the vote"

You claim that "" We may, however, exercise without limitation our right to freedom of speech"" This is not true. For example we are not able to express our views fully. Racism is a prime example, if someone is being racist they are exercising there freedom of speech however they can be prosecuted. So yes we have to a certain degree of freedom of speech as shown with my example it is not a fundamental universal right. You claim "" it cannot be justified to take away their vote"". Well prisons contain on average 800 prisoners with the largest in the UK containing 1665. This means that in one constituency there would be 1665 votes from prisoners a very significant number indeed. This would therefore mean that inn constancies where there are large prisons the say of the prisoners would have a significant impact on the vote. This could lead to politicians pandering toward the prisoners. "" My point, when claiming preventing people who are imprisoned for fraud from voting is unfair, is that there is no proportion in punishment of this nature."" As argued previously they knew they would not be allowed to vote if caught before they committed there crime. They still have chosen to go through with It so it is not disproportionate in fact if they have still willingly gone through with the crime there should be a greater deterrence not a reduced one as you suggest. Summery The uneven distribution of prisons thought the uk will lead to distorted election results. They knew they were doing to lose the right to vote before they omitted the crime. Punishment not a deterrence we therefore need stronger deterrent not a weaker one.
Evolution is well supported by scientific evidence

Okay, I guess I stepped into this argument without knowing what you meant by evolution. I was thinking I was debating against macro-evolution. Also, the dictionary definition of macro-evolution is as follows: Major changes in a living being produced by evolution. I guess that in your view that is micro over time. Your pictures on that site do not contain anything that is really solid pictorial evidence, I want to see the fossils. Sorry if I misinterpreted your argument, but if it is unable to produce offspring with the original species, wouldn't that make macro either relatively fast or make the species eventually die out? Thanks for the good debate so far!