BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should people boycott Israel for inhumane acts against arabs? (BDS)

1. I do not deny that Israel receives 3 billion dollars in american aid. Second sentence makes no sense. Also 3 billion dollars is very very little. 2. My source may have bias, it is called the israeli times. However I was citing an article which discusses an unbiased report. You were claiming that the IDF were terrorists because that was the quote from the article you sourced: " Read the full quote before you argue Since September 13, 2015, 30 people have been killed in terror attacks including a Palestinian, an American and an Eritrean." -Pro. I would like to draw the attention of the voters to the word terror attacks, which can only come from a terrorist or terrorist organization. "It clearly states with the source I mentioned was the Israeli army." -Pro. That concludes that you were implying, or your sources were implying, that the IDF is a terrorist organization. However your sources were not implying that. 3.5,000 is also a relatively small number and when you tell a population for their entire lives that a sky monster will torture them for a millennia if they don't follow every word, then they will do pretty much anything. 53% of palestinians may want to separate, however they clearly aren't motivated enough to do so as they have yet to accept any peace or two state solution. 4. I argue that a maybe biased source cites a non-biased report that refutes all of your claims. I did not find any contradictions in the article so a quote might help. The explanation they give as to why the U.N. report is invalid is that they claim that it was done by the wrong people. Keep in mind that this report was done by retired high level military officials, from numerous countries, which don't include Israel. Here is a video explaining much of this from the standpoint of another high level military officer: I would also like to point out that those sources get their information from either the PA (Palestinian Authority) or Hamas, which as you can imagine would prefer that news agencies report about their suffering, not the suffering they have inflicted on innocent Israelis. 5. Yes racism is a factor in apartheid, however just because there's racism, does not mean there is apartheid. Discrimination also does not mean apartheid. The government was not regulating discrimination against palestinians in communities (I discussed possible reasoning for this in round 2). Again I would like to point out that apartheid is when a palestinian and an Israeli aren't allowed on the same side of the street. That's apartheid. 6. The use of citizens as human shields does negate your points. It proves that Hamas is a horrendous organization with no respect for anyone, including palestinians. It also proves that Israel is not capable of avoiding killing innocent civilians. The video I sourced above goes into more detail on this. 7. I have said numerous times that I am in support of a two state solution. It is palestine itself that has rejected EVERY SINGLE offer ever put on the table.
Should people boycott Israel for inhumane acts against arabs? (BDS)

You did not deny that Israel receives 3 billion dollars in American aid.https://www.bing.com... receives 100 billion in aid. 1. Your source has bias, and I was not claiming that the Israeli Defense Force were terrorists. Hamas also does commit terrorist attacks, but you cannot deny that Palestinians support Hamas, and not Israel. 2. 5,000 Palestinians are willing to commit terrorist attacks just to separate from Israel. You cannot dispute this. Also, why would you compare 5,000 to Israeli citizens. 53% of Palestinians want to separate. 3. You argue that a bias source refutes all my claims. The source also states that that there are retired generals and "experts" that conducted this report. This is also cited y timesofisrael which seems to cite a lot of studies that contradict one another. They do not explain how there reasons for the negation of the UN study is valid, and is most likely has bias. I have stated multiple sources that have said that the Israeli army has murdered innocent Palestians. 4. Racism is a factor of an apartheid which I do not think you got. If you read the article, you would notice that there was multiple acts of discrimination to that family. The government was creating laws which made it harder for Palestinians to buy houses. If there is already discrimination against a minority, than there rights are not bound to be heard. This is common sense. 5. You also claim that Hamas was using citizens which again do not mean anything to negate my points. The idea that Israelis do not get is that there is a problem with Palestinians being driven to the point to supporting Hamas. There is a problem with the Germans supporting the Nazis. Usually, extremist organizations rise when people are angry at an institution they view is holding them back. Palestinians are angry, and polls prove this. Final Point: I go back to my original benefits that my opponent has not disputed. Let the Palestinians have there own state. Israel obviously has not been successful in dealing with the Palestinian community. If Israel keeps suppressing Palestine, than the world will have an increasingly negative view on Israel.
Should people boycott Israel for inhumane acts against arabs? (BDS)

You're examples of atrocities do not take into account all information. I will rebut all examples: 1) Misquote. You said "since September 13, 30 people have been killed by the Israeli army." The actual quote: " Since September 13, 2015, 30 people have been killed in terror attacks." The video you linked to is real, however you did not mention that the Israeli soldier was sent to prison for the act. http://www.timesofisrael.com... 2)No citations were given for some of the facts. The correct number of incarcerated Palestinians is 6,066. Ther is no evidence to show that these prisoners will likely be exposed to illegal torture. http://m.btselem.org... 3)Something that most people who take your side on this do not understand that Hamas is both in control of Gaza and a terrorist organization. Hamas, while not forcing civilians to stay in the line of fire, does store rockets in civilian buildings. The Israeli army does everything in its power to alert civilians of an upcoming attack. As for the list of Geneva convention infractions: Israel does not target civilians, they target Hamas controlled weaponry, which is sotred in civilians buildings. Israeli does everything in its power to worn civilians. The West Bank is still Israel, it just has a terrorist organization living there. Israel is moving civilian poulations out heowver. They are not unnecessary. These are violent areas. They use force on people that attack them. Not civilians. They do not occupy the West Bank and Gaza, it is theirs. It is still Israel. They have not been expanding as much lately and this is not illegal. Where they expand may be however Israel bought the land they reside on or they won it in a war. The "apartheid" wall was built to stop terrorists from running into Israeli settlements and blowing them up. After the wall was built, the suicide bombings stopped. The wall did what it was supposed to do. Also Israel is not an apartheid state. You can have an Israeli and Palestinian on the same side of the sreet. Israel has not denied the right to return to anyone. You are probably thinking of the refugees that have not yet gotten land back. These are the great grandchildren of the original refugees and are likely well enough off that they do not need any land in Israel. No Muslims have gotten the seat of prime minister becuase Israel is 65 years old. That is not a lot of time to expect a Muslim to be elected. The Palestinian voice is heard. There are multiple Palestinian parties and any Palestinians that are citizens have every right to vote for these parties. An apartheid is only when it is illegal for the races or nationalities to mix in any way, hence the Afrikans word for apart. Therefore Israel is not an apartheid state, becuase a Palestinian can go into the same buildings as any israeli. The two state solution, is likely the best option, however Israel has not done anything wrong to the Palestinian people. Only the Palestinians themselves.
The Winchester 1873 is much more deserving of the title "Gun That Won The West" than the Colt 1873.

The Winchester 1873 was most definitely THE gun that won the west. It outclassed the Colt Peacemaker in every aspect and is much more deserving of the title. First things first, The Winchester could fit a massive 15. 44 cartridges in its tube magazine. The Peacemaker could fit a measly 6. Not only could the Winchester hold more than double the amount of bullets, But it still held a. 44 round. The Peacemaker also held. 44 rounds, So there was no power/capacity trade-off. Secondly, The Peacemaker is a revolver, Meaning that as the trigger is pulled, The resistance causes the hand to wobble as more force is applied to the trigger. This did not occur in the Winchester, Instead allowing all the loading for the ratcheting of the lever. This leads me to my third point. That the Peacemaker was both slow to fire and slow to reload. The Peacemaker was a single-action revolver, So for those of you that don't know, It only fired one bullet before requiring the hammer to be cocked again. The lever on the Winchester allows for rapid firing at close range, As well as the marksman abilities of a long gun with vastly increased fire rate. Also, When reloading, One simply had to feed more bullets into the side gate, Vs the slow chamber-by chamber reload of the Peacemaker. Also, The Winchester can be reloaded with bullets in the chamber, Or with many in the magazine - all of this completely without any opening of cylinders for reloading, Whereas it is so much harder with the Peacemaker. Also, The Peacemaker requires ejection of bullets, But the Winchester BOTH ejects and loads at the same time with one action. This is solid evidence for how much better the Winchester is. Granted, The Peacemaker is smaller and can be put in a hip holster, But at close quarters, The Winchester can fire rapidly and switch back and forth between long, Mid and short ranges with ease. The Peacemaker is clunky, Inaccurate and VERY hard to reload, And the only way to get close-quarter firing is by fanning, Which is itself a challenge. Not to mention a bayonet or knife can make the Winchester into an effective spear, Or even a club if none are present. The ONLY way the Peacemaker would be useful in close-quarters is in grappling range, As once it runs out of bullets it is brutally hard to reload. To conclude, No matter what benefit the Peacemaker brings, The Winchester easily Trumps it. Let me leave you with one final question. If two people of equal skill were along in a field a hundred meters from each other, Who would win - a man with a 15-bullet lever action Winchester 1873 Repeating Rifle or a man with a 6-bullet single action Colt Peacemaker 1873?
Abolish the Electoral College

The Electoral College system of electing the President of the United States of America should be changed to a popular voting system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US system of voting to elect the President is done through the Electoral College. This is enumerated under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It was established in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention. During that time, it was impractical for Presidential candidates to travel trough the country campaigning. Votes were counted in each precinct; carried on horseback to the state capital, and then, each elector reported to the nation's capital to cast their vote. Furthermore, the President was elected indirectly. This was meant to prevent the general public from voting for someone they did not know. Each state is responsible for determining their voting procedure. At the time this was established, reasonable justification was present for that system. 221 years later, those justifications are not valid. Widespread media enables candidates to disseminate their message to the millions of voters with televisions, radios, computers, and other forms of media. The election process is computerized in many states, making the tallying and computation of the winner much quicker than it was in years past. Additionally, voting rights have been given to a much broader spectrum of voters, making equal representation a question of civil rights and freedoms. I contend that the Electoral College, in its current form in today's U.S. Federal Government, is unnecessary using the following points in this debate: 1.The Electoral College limits American citizen's access to Presidential candidate's media and attention, making their votes seem meaningless. 2.The Electoral College discourages voter turnout in non-swing states, thus affecting concurrent elections for other races. 3.Faithless electors can cause the non-representation of voters in the states they serve. 4.The electoral college undermines the intelligence and integrity of American voters by assuming they do not have the capability to make and informed, educated decision, and 5.The electoral college has failed to represent the popular vote of American citizens Determining the President by a popular voting method would give greater accountability to individual reporting districts, and equalize the power that swing states and large electoral vote states have over the Presidential election process.
A Christian Should Vote Conservatively

I feel this debate has become spoiled as my opponent has taken a completly biased side of the resolution, favoring that his god is the only god and the most important god (again avoiding the U.S. constitution). This should undoubtly effect the voting into the con direction, but for the time being I will still attack my opponent's attacks. Contention 1: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those three things are granted to you by the United States constitution. My opponent brings up that voting Nazi party would be wrong, I am not advocating we vote for the Nazi party, but what I am advocating for is that people get to choose weather they want to vote for it or not. My opponent says this would be a sin, but by who? The bible. The constitution which governs this country says the inidividual citizen of have the right to liberty, and free choice of such, which my opponents wishes to remove. He says that gay rights and evolution being taught in school is againsted the bible, but this is irrelavent since it comes down to liberty. Contention 2: I am going to leave this alone (not forfeit it) since me and my opponent will never come to a conclusion since neither of us have meet or spoken with Thomas Jefferson so we cannot put forth the reason that this was put in there.Contention 3: "we should vote the way Jesus would vote." again my opponent is suggesting we give the life for Jesus, and that is every Christians goal, and again I argue for liberty that liberty must exist to aid the United States constitution. To this he is saying that the only possible way Jesus would vote is conservatie but yet he says that gay rights are an abontion and that is upheld in Christian values, but the bible says that we should love everyone including the gays. "For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.". This may not be the only way Jeus would have voted if he truly was god's son, since god loved the entire world including the gays, if they believed in Jesus. So I present the argument that some Christin have the right to believe that the conservative way is not the way of Jesus and the way of god.
A Christian Should Vote Conservatively

Contention 1: It is true that you can vote for anyone you want as a Christian but that doesn't make it morally right. You can vote for a Nazi and I believe that would be a sin. If the government supports killing of innocents, gay rights and evolution being taught in the school, that would go against the beliefs in the Bible. Contention 2: Separation of Church and State meant when originally written that you can't have a government church. Thomas Jefferson put it in there because the Dansbury Baptists didn't want to be overthrown by a government denomination. Contention 3: God also wants you to obey him and we are to be living sacrifices to him and we should vote the way Jesus would vote.
Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US best interest."

Becuase my Opponent has not posted anything i do believe that i have won this debate because he has not argued aganist any of my contentions in this round thank you for this wonderful debate. so they still stand. all we are trying to do over in Afghanistan is restablize there government and let them help them selfs by feeling confident to fight there own wars and let them deal with there problems till they get back out of hand. and this way they can count on us and the same way around. thank you and all i can see in this debate is a AFF ballot my contentions still stand firm and untouched thank very much and have a nice day
Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US best interest."

i would like to point out that my opponent has not attacked any of my Contentions so they all stand and can not be dismissed from this debate. And my opponent states things back all the way from 1979. So I believe that this evidence should be discredited because everyone has changed from the year 1979. We are more advanced and better equipped in this year of 2010. also my opponent says that they are landlocked that is true but because of that our enemies can pin point where our supplys are coming from and that helps out alot cause if we were taking a river they could just pick a point and wait for our troops to arrive while useing air craft has many transportion routes along with land craft. From--Douglas Birch, Moscow Bureau Chief, on December 3, 2009 " i think we wasted eight years under the bush administration just wasting time and making things worse," said Gregory Feifer, Author of " the great gamble: soviet war in Afghanistan. " From CNN, December 7, 2009 "Afghanistan is certainly, historically, a difficult place to conquer and to rule, and the "graveyard of empires" does suggest some thing that are true, but they need to be strongly Qualified. " said Porter. Though empires tend to fall after their Afghan skirmishes, he says, for the British this was largely down to World War II, for the soviets, it was ideological crisis in eastern Europe and for Alexander the Great it was a failure to ensure the stable succession of his Asian empire. "The notion of a "graveyard of empires" is actually a false extrapolation from something that is true, that there is tactical and strategic difficulty," says porter Also Gen. Mccrystal stated that he needed 10,000 to about 80,000 troops, but they agreed on a happy middle of 30,000 troops. Also Gen. Mccrystal said i can end this with just 10,000 to 80,000 more troops. Also i would just like to say this many in America and around the world have wondered about MR. Obama's personal dedication to winning the war. The presidents speech offered a qualified answer. He said he must "weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces," and argued against a more expansive commitment to Afghanistan "because the nation I am most interest in building is our own. " But he also described powerfully the threat posed by "violent extremism" and said; "it will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. " with obvious reluctance but with clear-headedness, Mr. Obama has taken a major step toward meeting that test. this is why i can only see a AFF ballot in this debate
Is third wave feminsim still feminism

For reference this is what feminism means from several sources: Merriam-Webster - the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes https://www.merriam-webster.com...... Dictionary.com - the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. http://www.dictionary.com...... Oxford - The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...... Feminism is about equality of the sexes, that"s it" as I posted in the first round. When you say third wave feminism or intersectional feminism or whatever other label you add to feminism to try and discredited all you are doing is trying to change the meaning so you have a strawman to justify your sexism because you can "defeat" feminism if you make it about more than just equal rights. Next let"s talk about Fallacy of composition. It"s where you infer that some small portion of a group (like the ones who say that men should be eliminated) and judge the whole group on that small subset of data. It"s like saying all men are rapist because there are men that rape. It has no bases in reality, and it"s dishonest. 85% of women believe in equality for women. There are roughly 160 million women in the US, that means 136 million women believe in equality for women, but because of BS like what you are doing to smear feminism, and make it a dirty word only 18% of women identify of feminist. So even though they have very valid proof that the world is not equal for them (as I proved in the first round that you have not refuted any of" I mean ANY of, you just ignored it completely), they have stop fighting for equality" And response to the 5-8% wage gap is the very heart of the problem. You see a sexist wage gap, and rather than thinking it needs to be fixed" you think it"s ok she should have to work harder. You think it"s fine that a woman gets paid less than you to do the same work. You spout about how there is no need for feminism, and you have NO problem screwing women out of money they deserve. And as I"ve already show it"s not just pay, there is a gap in many different fields. Sure, it"s close, but it"s not equal, and it just pisses you off that they won"t shut up and just be happy with getting close, right? Look I get it Vincent. You are a guy, and now women want to be treated equal to you, and that chaps your butt because it makes your life harder, so you corrupt their movement to get equality, and make them out to be the bad guys even though they have facts showing that you are the bad guy. Finally, after you"ve beaten them down enough, most of them getting tired of fighting, and think just like you" it"s close to equality. And they think, is it worth all this hate just to get a few more percentage points? So, they give up, but that"s nothing more than being a bully, and that sure doesn"t make you RIGHT. They do NOT have equality, and you are NOT the victim in this scenario.
Is third wave feminsim still feminism

While there maybe certain "labels" of feminism i disagree with your statement that feminism is still the same. The evidence to my argument is publicly available on a majority of pro feminism YouTube channels and blog posts. There are women that literally belive that eliminating all men is the best way possible to create a "equal" world. There still is real feminism left in the world but there are very few women doing things to combat the kinks women face everyday. But like i said very few as to the majority is sitting around the buzzfeed offices complaining about video games or pushing fat acceptance or other sjw/liberal ideals. Reguarding the wage gap, i like that you pulled up actual statistics of men and women working the same job and position. But my counter argument is that 5 to 8% doesn't stop women from becoming leaders of the household. If in a well paying job that woman had to work her butt off for as much as the man did to get there that 5 to 8% becomes small as the woman can still provide for the man and the house aswell the kids.