BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War on Terror

Ok, If you read the comments you would see I corrected myself. And if you also read you would see I stated "Terrorists can be anywhere" And yeah, we may have pulled out now, but this in general, 9 years for what?! Whether its Iraqi Freedom or the WOT was it not all stemmed from one event? We never would have been involved if 9/11 did not give us a reason to. And theres nothing wrong with trying to gain control on oil, but why are we wasting our time due to the governments insecurities instead of actually doing something productive? The middle east has been in control of oil much like we have control of trade, so let them be and continue to trade. Why waste our time when our country already has enough problems and bring everyone home. We did not need to save the kurds from anyone, that had nothing to do with the attacks made on us. Like I said, I understand why we got involved years ago but enough is enough whether we withdrew or not, still there..
War on Terror

I'll start by clarifing that the mddle east isn't the only place with terrorism. There are enemies of nations everywhere >There has been no link made between the Middle East and Taliban -I have two points on this arguement a. Did he really say that, they are based, and from afghanistan b. Taliban isn't terror, it's insurgency >Terrorists can be anywhere Exactly why they created the WoT, to counter terror everywhere >The targeted group seemed to have diverged from Taliban to all of the Middle Ea - 9/11 was planned by al queda, not the taliban >The threat we had from Iraq was exaggerated -We needed to go in to save the kurds from their despot ruler > gain control over the oil in the middle east Why is that bad? >Risking the lives of our people for own selfishness instead to better Iraq -News flash, we pulled out >more problems. I'd like an example >wish to promote a stable government That's op Iraqi freedom, not part of the WoT
War on Terror

1. There has been no link made between the Middle East and Taliban. Terrorists can be anywhere. Saddam Hussein is the connection we had made to the Middle East but our government never found what Saddam Hussein had to do with the 9/11 attacks. The targeted group seemed to have diverged from Taliban to all of the Middle East. 2.The threat we had from Iraq was exaggerated. After the 9/11 attacks, we had every reason to try and stop terrorism. Our pursuit to stop terrorism became an almost "hide and seek" approach to finding the terrorists, creating more problems. 3.Government reasons for continuing war versus American people/soldiers. The American people in Iraq wish to promote a stable government for the people in the middle east. But the government really just wants to gain control over the oil in the middle east. So the American people and soldiers involved have a totally different reason aside from government. Risking the lives of our people for own selfishness instead to better Iraq
Abortion

Pro did not answer any of my questions. Pro says a human cannot be a person if they are connected to another. Again, a 2 year old baby is also dependent on its mother for food. A new baby leaving the womb is still attached to the mother until the umbilical cord is cut. Can a newborn baby still be killed before the umbilical cord is cut? Pro says a baby doesn't become an individual until it can eat for itself. Babies can't eat for themselves for the first year of life or more! They require milk, baby food, etc... it appears Pro would be fine killing 1 year olds, according to their definition. As a grand finale, Pro says a fetus "isn't even alive yet." Yes, yes it is alive. That's why it grows. Pro has no evidence for their claims.
Abortion

Let me be clearer... a fetus is not a person until it has left the womb. It is not a person when it is conceived, nor is it a person when it is 8 months into pregnancy. I define personhood as being an INDIVIDUAL person. A fetus in a mother"s womb is not individual, it is connected to its mother. It gets all the food its mother gets. The baby becomes an individual when it leaves the womb and can breathe for itself and eat for itself. Therefore the fetus growing inside a woman is not a human being and cannot be murdered. Abortion is termination of a woman"s pregnancy for a variety of reasons, not murdering a fetus that isn"t even alive yet. For these reasons I support abortion and only a woman can decide what to do with her own body.
Abortion

You are making claims but provide no reason or evidence to back them up: "I believe it is considered a human being and is given all the rights we have when it leaves the womb" - why? What is it about physically leaving the womb that conveys rights and personhood? Why is abortion ok 1 minute before birth but not 1 minute after? "Abortion is not murder because the baby is not a person yet!" - What is your definition of personhood, and why should we accept it? "Fetus' cannot live without the assistance of their mothers and therefore they are not living, breathing people yet!" - A 2 year old baby also cannot live without assistance, so is it not a living, breathing person? You as Pro must provide evidence for the claims you are making.
Abortion

I am FOR Abortion. Abortion should be legal at all points during pregnancy. I believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with HER body. A fetus is not a human being when it is conceived; I believe it is considered a human being and is given all the rights we have when it leaves the womb and enters the world. Abortion is not murder because the baby is not a person yet! Abortion should be legal in every case, such as when having the baby will kill the mother, or even if the baby is just an inconvenience and the mother does not want it. Murder is killing anyone from the day they LEAVE THE WOMB to the day they die. Fetus' cannot live without the assistance of their mothers and therefore they are not living, breathing people yet!
Debate.org has some serious problems, ladies and gentlemen.

Alright, second time I've been put in this position! Yay... I feel my opponent is probably the kind of person who would wait till the last round to post his entire argument so that I will not be able to respond. I ask the voters to please disregard such an action should my opponent wish to do so. My reasons being: 1. I have no chance to respond, this moots the point of debate. 2. Its a slimy tactic that should have a precedent set against it on debate.org. Please extend my points, thank you.
Gravity is Realt

Ok, I'll it take your just joking but if your IQ is as high as you say you should know what dimensions are. ( this is a quick video if you don't know https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=SJJhHknEDPY ) though on to my argument The best way to model gravity is on a 2D plane, Einstein's theory of relativity said that instead of the 3rd dimension being a solid plane it is malleable. So putting gravity into 2d dimensional perspective, If you put mass on a solid sheet of aluminum, Wood, Iron that would represent a solid plane Einstein suggested a plane that is stretchier like spandex or rubber. So if you have a sheet of spandex stretched out, Nothing on it and nothing under it (nothing touching it except at the edges holding it). And if you put marbles of different masses onto it, You'll find the largest marble will create a larger indent than all of the other marbles, Which also are creating smaller indents in the stretchy spandex. The smaller marbles will be attracted to the larger one due to the indent it is creating in the spandex. I could go into it deeper but i don't feel like it so here's a picture that should represent what my point is https://3c1703fe8d. Site. Internapcdn. Net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2016/1-howstrongist. Jpg
The US should distribute/lease federal lands to the poor

I. The BLM, USDA, NFS, and FWS hold plenty of unused landThe Bereau of Land Management and US Department of Agriculture, hold 100's of millions in acres of land. As most people know, when the US government attains property, the government puts it up for sale like any other transaction. The US government is sitting on these acres of land, and what are they being used for? Absolutely nothing! That's right, this land is being say upon for future development, although it could be used now. II. 6% unemployment with no earned income Right now, over 6% of Americans are not earning any income. This is a serious problem, and a economy isn't healthy if it isn't sitting around 4% at minimum. These acres of land are being unused, and we have people hurt now. I strongly contend that these people should be given land held by the US federal beauracracies. That way, they will be able to earn income, recieve justifable welfare, and begin to pay their taxes. III. The USFG can still administer distributed lands I do fully acknowledge the importance of preserving land for future development and extraction, but the hard fact is, we don't have the money, resources, or investors to make full use of all the deposits were sitting on. With that said, there is no reason US citizens can't be distributed land and still have that land controlled by the federal government.We can easily lease free land to our people, and claim it back later, once its needed. Can my opponent provide any evidence to the contrary? IV. Why hasn't this already happenedI am only bringing this point up to deter my opponent from making a "why don't they now" argument this round. I'll tell you why. Because big sharecropping companies like Kelloggs and Tyson fear having millions of workers operating private farms for free. It creates competition, which helps the economy. They do not like competition, as it hurts them.The only reason this hasn't passed, is because the US corporate lobbies prevented it from happening. This initiative would produce billions in revenue through levies by the US, and will stir economic competition among US corporates. This wont cure unemployment, but it will ensure that there is always a job oppurtunity, whether it be fishing, ranching, or farming. All at no expense to the US government or the people.Thanks for the debate! Cheers!
Profit within Capitalism is a result of the exploitation of the workers

I've been discussing this issue of the theory of profit lately, particularly with proponents of the Austrian School of Economics and I'm interested in having an actual debate on this subject. Particularly I'd like to see an consistent explanation of the profit within Capitalism that can avoid the exploitation problem, that is, the fact that the wage-worker retains less than he creates while the rest goes to the Capitalist. To be upfront about this: I am also currently in an ongoing debate on the same issue over at convinceme.net but I am disappointed about the debate format possible there (not round based, no good enough voting system etc) but my opponent refused to be limited in the character length used here. Thus I am opening a challenge here instead for anyone who wants to argue another PoV about the origins of profit (Doesn't have to be the Austrian Economics position unless you wish to) I will be arguing from the Libertarian Socialist perspective: That profit is the surplus value created through human labour that is not retained by its creator. This act, of a worker getting less than the value they add, is exploitation. --- The only way that humans know how to create new value, that does not naturally occur in the earth environment, is to expend their labour to mix and modify available materials to create it. Since the creation of money and markets, people have hitherto been selling the commodities produced thus for an income (Artisans & Farmers). The concept of profit however did not occur until the onset of the Capitalist mode of production, by which I mean the concept of someone working for a wage while owning neither the productive means (Capital) nor the end product (Wage worker). Within this mode of production, the value that is created is still through the expenditure of human labour, much like it happened for ages, but the big difference is that the creator does not get to retain it. For example, if a commodity is produced that is sold for net gain of 100$ (so 100$ are left once raw materials have been paid), an Artisan would retain the full amount and use it for whatever purpose he deems necessary. However a wage labourer creating the exact same commodity will get to keep (say) only 40$ of that (his wage), while the leftover 60$ will go to the owner of the productive means (Capitalist). This is profit. So: Profit = Selling Price - Wages - Raw Material costs - Overhead (Maintenance etc) My argument then is that Profit originates from the surplus value (ie what is added to naturally existing value) that human labour creates. It is the new value that workers create but do not get to retain.
Internet Being Considered a Right Instead of A Privilege

Broadband Internet non availability is a critical issue in America. Though 2/3 of the country has what is considered "broadband", 1/3 is still lacking this speed. That's 100,000,000 Americans that cannot serf the Web or download/upload videos and photos. Broadband is starting to become universal and it needs to be available to everyone. Education is also a matter. Students that wish to study or hop on Apex for extra learning need sufficient Internet to do so. Internet needs to be available for students if we want this country to progress, including the ones who cannot get fast Internet or Internet whatsoever. Internet needs to become a right, with the First and Ninth Amendment behind its back.
Internet Being Considered a Right Instead of A Privilege

Con has made some excellent arguments in his turn. I agree with a majority of what he is explaining. My core intention was to the citizens that wanted Internet, but could not get it. Are they entitled to that right, or is it something that they have to move to a different location accordingly to the provider they wish to receive service from? I believe that people should be entitled to their wants and desires in this country (presuming that the desire is sane and feasible). If someone is willing to pay the fees it takes to receive service, aren't they entitled to service? Con has said who will pay for installation, etc. and my answer is the company. They are drowning in billions of dollars that could be spent on their customers for increased satisfaction. Once all is said and done, would not the companies get all of that money back from the obscure fees they send the customer's way? To me, it's not hard to set up service to those in need when you have the billions do it.
Internet Being Considered a Right Instead of A Privilege

To start off my argument, I would like everyone to look at that number (pertaining to the number of Americans that do not have what is considered "broadband" internet). The average broadband speed is, at minimum, roughly around 5-6mbs, which stands for "megabytes per second". 100,000,000 Americans do NOT have this speed, which is absolutely appalling. One reason is because of the companies that offer broadband are not wanting to come down the individual's road. A reasonable excuse for someone who lives a good mile or so from the nearest cable, but even that is absurd. We live in a technology-driven world. How is one supposed to be apart of this new society when he/she does not have the necessities? In a world where South Korea is about to release a 1GB download/1GB upload speed, companies need to provide the minimum 5mb package. Also, one could say that it is becoming a right to have it. How is one supposed to get an education online when they don't have the option to do so in the privacy of their own home? Colleges, school, and education are becoming popular online and students must have sufficient internet access to participate in those activities. I am not forcing the companies to come down. It's practical. It is feasible. How can people get television and even land-line, but not Internet? I sit so hard to spend an extra million to get the job done when they have $600 million in their free amounts to spend at the end of the year. Companies can save money by placing the lines over phone-lines and cables. Mega wifi hot-spots are also an option that could be taken into consideration. Placing them to be provided in every city is feasible. I would like to propose that not having fundamental access to internet violates both the First and Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We as Americans have a natural right to the world around us. A right to have fun; A right to learn; A right to speak on what one loves, like we are doing today. How are we supposed to be informed (assuming that newspapers and mail are becoming outdated and electronic mail and words are becoming current) when we do not have our information? I am not proposing an excessive amount of download speeds so that people can upload pictures to Facebook faster. I am saying that EVERYONE deserves the right to what they are entitled to, and I believe that internet is becoming implied for everyone to have with the Constitution backing up my claims. . http://www.wiscnews.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://itsaboutthestory.wordpress.com...
Religion is a bad thing

Thank you for your argument, Pro. 1. You said that "religion is used to cloud our judgment" and then went on to use the example of Muslim Terrorists. Terrorists are not doing what they are doing for Allah, even though they would like to think Allah would approve of their actions (in reality, their killing very much goes against Islam's message of love and peace). They are doing it because they are xenophobes who are scared of the westernization of the Middle East. Their conception that they will get into heaven may serve as compensation for their suicide missions, but there have been thousands of people throughout history who have willingly given their lives for a purely secular causes with no promise of heaven, and these extremists are just as passionate about keeping the Middle East completely according to traditional lines. 2. This isn't a debate over whether or not God exists or not. If you would like, I can give you theological reasons for all the examples you gave, but you didn't actually disprove that religion encourages morality and makes people happy. 3. How does God's existence contradict science? God created the universe with its laws of nature. Some things that haven't been explained by science that would be explained by the existence of God. What causes Gravity? Strong force? Mass? The concept of "energy"? All of those fundamental forces of physics can be explained by a divine force's presence. God even plays a role in evolution. One of the base premises of evolution is that random mutations happen in an organism's DNA. What causes those mutations? Science doesn't explain the concept of "chance". Science is the discovery of God's Creation, while Religion is the process of trying to reach God. They have pretty much nothing to do with each other and thus, aren't mutually exclusive. God's existence itself cannot be proven using the scientific method, but that is only because God is metaphysical. He is a divine consciousness. Not a material concept that can be revealed by simple experiments. He can only be revealed when he himself chooses to do so. And he done so to billions of people in the form of spiritual experiences. You concluded that our world is too developed to keep believing in God. However, billions of people do exactly that perfectly well; they believe in God at the same time as believing in science and all other standards of modernity. I eagerly await your next argument :)
Religion is a bad thing

1. I'd like to point out that whilst many of the world's religious war's do have underlying meaning such as politics or social causes, I would like to argue the fact that religion is used to cloud our judgement of what some minoritys consider acceptable. Take the Jihad regime for example. . they believe they are natural born fighters and that if they die, it does not matter as Allah has a better life waiting for them ahead. For a lot of people, this is used as a Pro if you'd like when they are coaxed into commiting a suicide bomb attack, this way of thinking is not acceptable as there is not a life after death as far as can be proved, 2. Whilst religion has encouraged moral behavior and gave people a sense of direction and purpose, you have too see the bad side to these things. There are a lot of people who turn to their God in their worst time of need, and do not believe they get the response they deserve for putting faith into God. When you actually think about it. .. What has god done for us? Did God cause the recent Typhoon in the Philippines? Did God cause the 60 tornado's that happened in America not too long ago? No, he did not. Natural disaster's created them two awful things that happened in this world, yet God could not stop it, nor create it. 3, When you say "The existence of God doesn't contradict science at all, and thus does NOT promote the rejection of education" can you elaborate on this? The existence of God completely contradicts science in it's self. We have proved science is the creation of life, science is the creation of this planet and everything around us mechanically and structurally. The plagues that happened in Egypt in the Bible, can all be explained as a natural act of science. I in no way deny the fact that people should be allowed to believe in God, or their own religious beliefs, but i do believe it is a bad thing that we let religion decide so many things for us in life. In other countries, HIV is a enormous concern as a lot of people believe contraception is ludicrous. When actually, it could be contraception that saves the lives of many. In some countries people fast and starve themselves for religious seasons, and in other countries people are not allowed out of a Sunday. Our world is far too economically and scientifically developed for our judgement to be clouded by a belief, not a fact.
Religion is a bad thing

I believe that religion is not a bad thing at all. My main 3 arguments are... 1) All "religious conflicts" throughout history actually had underlying political, economic, or social causes 2) Religion has given people a sense of purpose, direction, and fulfillment for ages, as well as encouraged moral behavior 3) The existence of God doesn't contradict science at all, and thus does NOT promote the rejection of education I'd also like to clarify that the majority of theists do NOT take scriptures such as the Bible and Koran literally. They view them as books of fables (short stories with morals) and believe in science, separation of church and state, and all modern standards of morality. I look forward to hearing your argument.
Religion is a bad thing

I don't really have anything else to say; I already expressed all my arguments in the last round. But since this is the last round of the debate, I'm going to go ahead and reiterate them: 1) All religious conflicts actually have underlying political, economic, or social causes 2) Religion encourages morality and has given billions a sense of personal fulfillment 3) You can easily believe in religion and science at the same time, as many theists do
Rhythmic or Artistic gymnastics are better than any other sport

Sure thing. Many sports, such as football, baseball, and basketball, do not require a large amount of endurance to excel in. While they do require a higher endurance level than that of the average person, compared to some other sports endurance is not as emphasized. Rhythmic/Artistic Gymnastics, however, is a different story. The amount of continuous, intense power that gymnasts need to continually exert requires not a only a high level of strength and flexibility, but also large amounts of endurance. After all, nearly any athlete could do a small portion of a gymnast's routine with little difficulty depending on their strengths, but to do an entire routine requires more endurance than most other athletes have. The only other mainstream sports that I can think of that also require high endurance levels are soccer, water polo, and certain other types of gymnastics. Hope this helps!