BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate.org is too American oriented

While it may be wiser for debate.org to expand its scope to the international use, the idea that the website is "too American" is purely subjective. The only individual able to make that distinction is the owner, who makes no promises to do anything with his or her resources, and established website, than what they want to do. Moreover, while the Mission statement of debate.org states in part: "The mission of Debate.org is to create a global online arena..." There is no timeline, criterion, or objectives for the fullfillment of this mission. Only, then, can those with a vested financial interested decide. Lastly, while debate.org may take any number of steps to improve functionality, it remains a fact that the people who come to the site tend to be American. Debate.org cannot be expected to make quotas or any other restriction on what type of debate users are allowed to post. So only by improving international DEMAND at the site can it be expected to change.
Debate.org is too American oriented

When I first signed up for debate.org, I was given the choice of country for which I was from, not just which US State (I am not American). It is also on the world-wide web and by no means has it ever stated on the website that this is "Americandebates.com" or "arguments relating the US issues". Yet when one goes to make a public profile and checks at the issues there are several that are just regional things relating the America like the proposed Border Fence, Dubya, the missle shield, etc. These are issues generally regional, and do not cater to the entire debate.org community. In addition the parties one gets to choose from are exclusivly registered in the United States political system and there is a slot for which US presidential candidate one gets to choose for. Although tha majority of this website's patrons are probably Yanks, the website is generally too regionally oriented.
Debate.org is too American oriented

Again, many of my arguments are unaddressed. My opponent favors broadening profiles. >"the best way to create productive debates is for the profiles to reflect the general values of each person, which can cross mere national divides." But specifics tell more about a person than generalities. Following your round2 example, who would actually support doing more to encourage illegal immigration? It thereby tells you nothing to say that they want to discourage it. >"There are many global issues that can be talked about, and shouldn;t we be thinking about philoshpies, moral issues, tax ideals, social programming, and other issues ratehr than regional quarrels?" There are indeed Global issues, but not many want to talk about them as regularly as they want to talk about homegrown arguments. And broader philosophies are better placed with specific and understandable tangible specifics, otherwise "debate" because mere academia. >"You also asser that there is not much manifested demand, but many non-Americans are signing up for this as this fourum grows... making them feel welcome will come along way in opening more markets." But if people are signing up, then debate.org arguably is already fostering a global community, as per their mission statement. Whether profiles ought to be changed accordingly is thereby arbitrary, for two reasons. 1) Bulk of members remain U.S. 2) People around the world follow U.S. politics, more than they follow any other country than their own. Consequently, debate.org should not be considered too American.
Greeks are Better than Romans

It is no use saying that the Romans probably would have done those same things first if they appeared first. The fact of the matter is, the Greeks came first and so the romans used their ideas. We can argue hypothetical scenarios for years and not get anywhere. In making that statement, you are acknowledging that the Greeks came first. This means that the Romans could not have had any impact on the Greeks, and so by using my science/religion argument I am not debating in favor of the Romans. You made two contradictory statements saying that the Greeks came first, but that the Romans influenced the Greeks and not vice versa. The Romans did not just simply do what they needed to do to thrive. The Greeks managed to thrive without taking over most of the known world. The Romans were deliberately conquering other people and forcing them to abandon their way of life and join the Roman Empire, or die. Hit it home in the last round, gaberz24
Greeks are Better than Romans

Many of the things Greeks did probably would the Romans have done first if they had appeared first. The Romans did simply what they needed to do to thrive, and thriving is a key factor to being better than something else. Also, philosophy, science, and even a hint of religion had a powerful impact from the Greeks by Romans, so if you wish to argue that, then you are also arguing for the Romans even more. You're obliterating me :D Keep it up, bat9581
Greeks are Better than Romans

Although the Romans had a better land military, this was the only thing that they excelled at. As I said before, the Greeks had a better navy and created many of the foundations for modern math, science, engineering, medicine, philosophy, and Government as well as in other areas. The Greeks had the best of both worlds. They had military might in Sparta, and the arts and sciences in Athens. No matter how powerful your military is, somebody will defeat you eventually. Next, The Roman Government didn't actually have seven kings, this idea came from Roman mythology and the story of Romulus and Remus, which was based on Greek mythology. Rather, when they first started out, they had two Consuls (who controlled the military, the taxes and the laws), a Senate (that advised the consuls, it was mostly made up of wealthy families), Tribunes (people representing the poor families in the senate), Prefects (people who ran the city - court cases, the port, the market, etc.) and the Assembly (They voted on whatever the Consuls told them to, such as going to war, and elected Prefects, Senators, and Consuls). Later they kept the Consuls and the Senate, but the Emperors had all of the real power. This Emperor system is when Rome was at the height of their power. Although the Romans did get all of this land, there was no purpose for it. They did not use it to advance their technology, art, or culture in any way. They simply wanted the land just so they could say that they had land. it was not beneficial in any way, shape, or form. Next, all that the Romans did was copy the Greeks mythology. The used all of the same Gods and heroes: Zeus vs. Jupiter, Hera vs. Juno, Hermes vs. Mercury, Poseidon vs. Neptune, Heracles vs. Hercules, the list goes on and on. They kept all of the same people and stories, and simply changed the names of the Gods. Finally, I would like to point out that you never mentioned the fact that the Greeks created many of the foundations for modern math, science, engineering, medicine, philosophy, and Government as well as in other areas. Therefore, that argument flows through. Good luck, gaberz24
Greeks are Better than Romans

I noticed how you brought up the Romans had a better military, but their tactics aren't used today. The world was different in the time of Romans than modern day, their military tactics did outdo the other countries, and that is what the Romans wanted. Next, according to the legend, Rome had 7 kings, which prioritized in land, so Rome did get what they wanted most. Next, Rome used religion in their favor, and Greece came before them, so if you think about it, Romans just changed the Religion to where it suits their country more. Good luck next round, bat9581
Greeks are Better than Romans

The Greeks are better than the Romans for numerous reasons. The first reason is that the Romans based almost all of their mythology on the Greeks. They simply changed the names of the Gods and Goddesses and the Heroes. They kept all of the original Greek beliefs. The second reason is that the Greeks created many of the foundations for modern math, science, engineering, medicine, philosophy, and Government as well as in other areas. For instance the word "Democracy" comes from the Greek word demokratia, from demos- "the people" + -kratia "power to rule.' The word "Alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Greek alphabet: Alpha, and Beta. There are many other examples of words that come from Greek roots. Without the Greeks our current world would be very different, and could potentially be decades behind where our current technology is. The only thing that the Romans did was have a large empire and a large military. All of those military techniques are outdated and have not benefited us. No matter how effective they were at the time, they would not work using modern weapons. As technology improves, military strategies have to follow suite. The Romans had little or no navy, which is essential for a Mediterranean nation. The Greeks had Triremes: the state-of-the-art naval technology that could outgun and outrun any other ship at the time. Although the Romans had superior military might on land, the Greeks excelled in all other aspects of life.
Nationally accredited schools are just as good as regionally accredited schools

Hello. Thank you for accepting my challenge to debate whether or not nationally accredited schools posses the same academic quality as regionally accredited schools. Please note that my position is that there is no difference in the quality of education when making a general comparison of nationally accredited and regionally accredited schools. For additional clarity and focus, I would like to place the emphasis on the college/university level. Based on your response above, you sound more like a supported of the topic instead of against it. In this debate, I am prepared to show that students who receive both under graduate and graduate degrees in nationally accredited colleges obtain the same level of quality that students in graduate and under graduate programs receive in regionally accredited colleges. It is unfair that many regionally accredited universities do not accept transfer credits from nationally accredited universities because of the perceived inferior quality of education. It is unfair that hard working students who have earned their undergraduate degrees from nationally accredited colleges are not able to enter graduate level study in MOST regionally accredited colleges. There are schools that are accredited and school that are not accredited. ALL accredited schools in the United States are accredited by official accreditation agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education. Those institutions that cannot stand up to the academic rigor (and financial power) required of these recognized agencies do not receive accreditation of any kind. If this statement is true, why is there discrimination on the part of regionally accredited universities? The arguments for continued discrimination are not supported by the facts. Therefore, it is unreasonable to continue to perpetuate the myth that regionally accredited universities/colleges are superior to nationally accredited universities/colleges. The arguments for supporting this myth is unsustainable; thus, the discrimination should end now. There is no difference when comparing the quality of nationally accredited colleges and regionally accredited colleges. I will ask my debate partner that if there is any evidence which supports the academic superiority of regionally accredited colleges over nationally accredited colleges, I make the challenge to present them now.
Nationally accredited schools are just as good as regionally accredited schools

Nationally accredited schools often gain more funding from the government, sponsor of sports teams and international students. With this money they pump back into the school getting more high tech classrooms and higher qualified teachers. These private schools also run on a lower student to teacher ratio. This is due to having more money too pay for these luxuries. It is shown statistically that with these key qualities the students gain higher grades. This generation connects well with technology and with information being so readily available, when provided with these essential learning tools, they are able to learn more efficiently and therefore gain higher grades. Public schools do not have these luxuries, as normally they do not have the money these nationally accredited schools have. With out these luxuries Generation Y is stood with there thumb in their mouth, and lost. The proof is in the statistical reports of schooling across the globe.
The Lack of Time Between the 2nd Bomb Dropped on Nagasaki Was Against International Humanitarian Law

First and foremost, my Round 3 speech did directly engage each of your arguments. I didn't quote said arguments due to character limit concerns, but if you read your paragraphs in order, each of my paragraphs is a direct engagement of what you said in yours, the two sections of yours I quoted, were left in due to the size of each quote, and to show reference for the reader as to where I was engaging. In terms, of winning, I engaged you point for point, and gave sources, while you may not agree with said sources, that is fine, however to attack the source, instead of the argument remains Argumentum ad Hominem. Given that I had a tiny amount of free space, and while defense of my arguments must wait until the this section, defense of my sources is not restricted to final arguments. In conclusion, I have clearly shown that even by the conditions given by my opponent, this attack was in no way a violation of IHL. -- He required a warning, warning was given, not only to the government of Japan, but to its civilians by way of leaflet campaign, and radio broadcast. -- The bomb was no more damaging than other attacks of the war, in particular we can draw attention to the bombing of Tokyo, wherein 100,000 people were killed in just one raid, the same number of people that were killed in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. -- On balance, the conservative estimates of Operation Downfall were in excess of 500,000 people just on the allied side of the conflict. -- The Japanese military had already shown willingness to impress youths into combat roles, such activity would likely have happened in the invasion of Japan proper. -- Nagasaki was a military target, having a population that was 15% military, when the entire Japanese military was less than 10% of the total population making it a 50% higher concentration of military forces, in addition the port was a major Japanese shipyard for the handling of war materiel. -- The atomic bomb, contrary to what my opponent alleges, was not recognized as a WMD until years later. I believe, that I have clearly made my position, and that my opponent, has misinterpreted sources, claiming US regulations as international definitions, claiming international law from treaty organizations, and in general failing to present his case. I would ask that you vote for me.
The Lack of Time Between the 2nd Bomb Dropped on Nagasaki Was Against International Humanitarian Law

I feel like I should win this debate due to the fact that 1.) In his Round 3 speech, which was supposed to go against my arguments. My opponent basically just stated almost everything he stated in his first speech. 2.)My opponent said that all his information from Wikipedia is public knowledge. Just because it is public knowledge does't mean he can use invalid sources. There are probably some people that don't know a lot about this subject and debate is all about education and learning. So if you come and state facts from Wiki, then some of it probably isn't true. Thank you for accepting. This is my first debate and I really enjoyed it! Again thanks.
The Lack of Time Between the 2nd Bomb Dropped on Nagasaki Was Against International Humanitarian Law

For a roadmap, I will be going against my opponents arguments in order. As well as discussing site information. I will list the argument that I'm going against. [1]First, I would like to point out that the bombs used in Tokyo were illegal AND against IHL because it's considered a WMD. The atomic bombs did plenty more damage than any conventional bombings. There were 35,000 tons of TNT used in both bombs combined. Now you can't say that's not a lot because it is a lot. [3]There were barley any military targets in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Over 85% of Hiroshima were civilians. That means only 15% of Hiroshima were military. [4] According to the article that turned into a book "Hiroshima", the Japanese had air raid sirens go off EVERY DAY, so when the air raid sirens went off in the morning, they thought nothing of it, so they had no clue that it was coming. [9] There is no proof that just because we used nuclear weapons in WWII that it stopped a major attack. We can't time travel so we wouldn't know. Now onto site information. My opponent got information from five invalid sites. Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anyone can go on and change things. He also uses a blog. How is a blog a reliable source? All it is, is opinions. That goes to prove a lot of his information is invalid. I will list my sites from my first arguments and round as well as this round: [1] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... [2] hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MuhammadKaleem.shtml [3] http://www.ijrcenter.org... [4]http://ic.galegroup.com... [5]http://www.authentichistory.com...- against/ [6] http://www.atomicheritage.org... [7] http://www.aasc.ucla.edu... [8] www.history.com/.../5-facts-about-pearl-harbor-and-the-uss-arizona (I don't know why you can't click on 2 and 8 but you can type in URL by yourself I believe) With that, I now give my opponent the time to argue my points.
The Lack of Time Between the 2nd Bomb Dropped on Nagasaki Was Against International Humanitarian Law

I will be arguing that the lack of time between the 1st and 2nd atomic bomb WAS against IHL (International Humanitarian Law) Definitions: I don't think that definitions are need for this debate round but if you believe there is, post it in the comments and I will provide a definition as well as a source as soon as I can. Rules: 1. ) Round One is for acceptance 2. ) A forfeit of concession will not be allowed 3. ) All arguments and sources shall be posted in the round. If challenger does not have enough characters, send them in a outside link. 4. ) Debate resolution, definitions, and rules can not be changed.
Death Penalty

well this is kind of a sad debate...there was only one real rebuttal. So i guess all i'm going to do is clarify my arguments. My first argument, being that the death penalty is contradictiory: "Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show people, that killing people, is wrong?" Death penalty is contradictory, we dont want you to kill--but wait, we can, as long as you do it first... Also, as i said before, if i had a loved one murdered, i would rather have the killer face a real punishment instead of getting off easy. My Second Argument was that the death penalty puts a price on Human Life. A huge reason for the death penalty being favored over life in prison, is that life in prison costs more. But what if the person is innocent? You've killed them anyway just to save a couple bucks--okay it may be more than a COUPLE bucks, but it's still only money. And finally, to clarify my last argument. It's not a fair punishment. It takes some insanity to be able to bring yourself to kill another person with out remorse. So my guess is that person would mind death themselves--and also, you never know if thats the case, so why give them what they want when its supposed to be a punishment. Life in prison gives a person what they really need: time. Time to think, regret what they did, and what they should have had all along- true guilt and remorse. Which is what a punishment is supposed to do, make a person regret what they did wrong.
Death Penalty

Sorry, I had been out of town and didn't really have access to a computer with interent. Anyway, i'd like to say that i am against the death penalty mainly because of it's contradictory-- The saying that best relates is "why do we kill people, who kill people, to show people, that killing people is wrong." death penalty does no good, and calls for no remorse. The person simply waits to die. Personally if i had a loved one die i'd rather have them suffer the way they made said person and those affected by their death suffer. Not only that..but with the death penalty you've put a price on HUMAN LIFE. This shouldn't happen. You cant put a price on human life. I mean this as in all the innocent people who are wrongly accused and prosecuted. Pro may say that with the death penalty we save money, but with other options such as: life in prison..we save innocent LIVES. My third argument is that it's not a fair punishment..obviously you have to be a pretty twisted person to kill another, and most know the consequences that could come of it, so if they don't care and do it anyway..or just don't mind death...what's the point of the death penalty. I think life in jail is a better punishment because it actually would give the criminal what they need: remorse and regret and an actuall punishment for what they did.
Death Penalty

My opponent has forfeited her opening argument. I don't know if her method of argument is strictly apathy, she lost interest in the debate itself, or if she encountered a difficulty in reaching a computer to input her opening argument. Nevertheless, she has forfeited, thus giving me the edge in the debate. I cannot add much to an argument if there is nothing to contradict or prove being thrown at me, so I will repeat the reasoning I gave in my opening argument; I believe the death penalty is an appropriate form of justice in dire situations, such as murder, based on the axiom that it is just to give an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. I await my opponent's rebuttal-if any.
Death Penalty

I am in favor of the death penalty. I believe that it is a proper form of law, effective punishment, and an appropriate way to serve justice. While I am in favor of the death penalty, I believe that it should also only be brought down on the convicted person under certain circumstances; severe ones, at that. Such as murder. The death penalty brings up an interesting axiom in life: An eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth. In this particular case, I'll take an eye...and maybe a tooth as well. I await your first rebuttal.