BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War on Terror

1. Con bring up that fact that we have terrorist attacks at home. So we should bring our troops home. Yet this is simply not a good idea. If we pull out completely then there will be power vacuums in those nations. The reason we should keep on fighting this war is simply. We are being treated by them and so are our allies. We have been being treated by terrorist groups sense 911 really. They attack us at home, yet you are saying it is a good idea to leave them along overseas? What about the weaker nations, the ones who can not stand up to them and win? What about the millions that will die because we did not act fast enough? They will still fight us, they will still kill Americans even if we pull back. This is due to them threaten our very values. They kill anyone who does not agree with them, they sell woman into slavery(usually into being a sex slave). They have little to no woman rights what so ever, they kill anyone who is Christian and if you are a minority group you are in even more danger from them. They will hate us and try to kill us until either they are gone or we are, there is no in between in this matter. They want war we shall bring war. They will attack us even if we do not attack them, so isn't better to fight and end them before they cause even more civilians to die? 2. True this war has coasted us tons of money, but you must understand what we are fighting for. We are fighting for our allies, we are fighting to end a threat to our nation, we are fighting to protect those who need us. Millions die, tons are in slaved due to them. They have killed American civilians and us allies civilians. The un even said they are a threat and every nation and should be stopped. There is a link to the un and it's stance on those issue of Isis in my second round. 3. We have tried to get local powers to fight. Turkey hasn't done what is needed and is more afire of the Kurds then Isis. Jordan might fight but would need help, Iran might aging help but I simply do not trust Iran, the gulf states pulled out of this issue a long time ago, Saudi Arabia will not even try. The on,y ones really fighting them on a local level is Iraq and the Kurds and Syria and Syrian rebles. The Syrian rebles are not strong enough, the Syrian government is just as bad as Isis in many aspects, the Kurds do not have enough troops to push Isis back, Iraq is just not sting enough and doesn't push them back enough when they do it is amount never major victories. 4. So to round up where the points will go is really who had the best arugement to defend there stance on the war on terror. I think every voter should carefully look at both slides, and hopefully they vote pro. Now back to con http://www.amnestyusa.org... http://www.cnn.com...
War on Terror

Rebutalls1: Pro makes mention of national security and cites that terrorists attacks still occur in the U.S. However, this only gives us a good reason to focus on national security, not fight war overseas. These groups Pro talks about, are groups that are now strong and powerful due to intervention from the past, so why should be continue to fight these groups? This argument is really of topic, because Pro doesn't give us any reason as to why we need to fight a war, to stop these terrorist attacks from happening. Might I add, that since we intervened, the terrorist attacks have only been increasing, not decreasing.2. Pro fails to use proper English grammar, so I'm confused what he is saying in his first sentence. If Pro is trying to say terrorist attacks costed us billions of dollars, then fighting this war costed us 1.7 trillion dollars.3. Pro needs to understand that we should only help our allies, if they ask for our help. Just because they got attacked, doesn't mean that gives us an excuse to fight a war in another country. We should only go to war if our nation is attacked, and we have a Congress to vote for a declaration of war for a reason. 4. Pro seems to assert that by continuing the War on Terror, we will save lives. This however is not the case. Nearly 1.3 million lives have been lost due to this conflict.http://www.commondreams.org...5. Why should we stand back? Because getting involved will likely make it worse, if we look at our previous interventions. What we need to do, is encourage other local powers to step in and intervene, and not do it all ourselves. To be honest, I don't really know how to respond to this, because Pro never actually specified anything in his resolution. Simply it was a Pro or Con thing.
War on Terror

1. First off Isis formed in Syria and quickly spread to Iraq. One of the reasons they took so much land in Iraq so fast was due to us leaving to fast. If we had stayed just a couple more years it could have made all the difference. The area was actually becoming a bit more stable before we said okay guys it is time to pack up and leave. Simply put the Iraqi army and government was not ready to take control of there own nation, and needed more training for there army and needed more experience. There was no Isis in Iraq when we where there, yes there where terrorist attacks but those to where going down until we started the massive withdraw of troops from Iraq. When we did this it made a power vacuum in Iraq, the Iraqi government didn't fill it so Isis did. 2. Our wars are always costly, more so when it lasts longer and we send more troops. Yes the war on terror has cost tax payer money. But every war we have fought has cost tax payers money. The reason this war costs more then others is due to how much we put into it, the bombing raids, sending troops, and economic aid for other nations, and doing this on a world wide scale. 3. So here is the question you must ask yourself are you willing to let terrorism go unchecked. Because the war on terror costs include the money we use the fight Isis and for the Kurds and others fighting Isis. If you want the war on terror to end then that means all the lives we lost overseas we for nothing, all the money we spent was for nothing, and let's just give up. That is really then,got her option to give up and hope someone else wins. Even if we have the power and money to stop them you do not care. //therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11986 https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://fas.org...
Apple Is a Terrible Company

1) Labor Sweatshop labor, child Labor and employee abuse. Apple abuses labor that can be classified with each of these descriptors. “'We have to work too hard and I am always tired. It's like being in the army. They make us stand still for hours. If we move we are punished by being made to stand still for longer.’” [5] “'We have to work overtime if we are told to and can only go back to the dormitories when our boss gives us permission,' says Zang Lan. 'If they ask for overtime we must do it.” [5] “10,000 aged between 16 and 20 working in crowded production rooms doing the same tasks as adults. But some were paid less and others did not have their wages paid on time.” [6] “Apple continues to source from Pegatron factories despite serious labor rights violations. That Apple has made promises on the conduct of its suppliers means that Apple is complicit in the persistence of violations at these factories. “[7] Again, in attempts to maximize profits, some will attempt to dismiss this company’s abysmal record dealing with manufacturing facilities. Regardless of profit, it is hard to call this anything but “terrible”. Profits may be good, but allowing for this level of mistreatment is terrible. Forfeit
Apple Is a Terrible Company

The eternal debate, MAC vs. PC, has been raging since my earliest days in the industry. I have almost always taken neutral ground, lacking the “my team is better than your team” gene. Each has always had a place, and when consulted on what to buy, I tend to evaluate need over sentimentality. I will address the “cult” aspect little in this debate, I am inclined to leave that battle asideThe corporation itself has had its ups and downs. Throughout its history it has been successful as well as near death. It has been maligned and beloved. I will address the current incarnation of the company as much as possible, with only enough history to provide proper context.The primary points supporting “Apple is a terrible company” follow:Corporate1)Tax Avoidance2)Labor3)Litigation4)EnvironmentTechnical1)Market share2)Restrictive user policies3)Security vulnerabilities4)Dropped support (short cycle / no announcements)5)No server hardware line6)Not a enterprise company7)Lack of hardware options8)Gaming sucks / business software limitedCorporate1)Tax AvoidanceApple has been ticking off government’s around the globe for playing fast and loose with tax avoidance. The US looking to repatriate over $100 billion dollars, while Apple balks - to the point of blackmailing congress for a special deal [1][3]. The UK declaring the tax chicanery state aid [2]. Mr. Shay of the Harvard Law school evaluated Apples taxes in Ireland below 1% [4 ~1:20:00]While it’s hard to blame a company for attempting to pay as little in tax as possible, this activity hurts competition and the market as a hole as well as the people of the country’s Apple hides its taxes from. The overall effect, making Apple a terrible corporate citizen of the countries it operates in with respect to paying fair and equal tax. More in next rounds provided no Forfeit...
Foreign Aid Does More Harm Than Good

Consider whether wealthy nations should be increasing foreign aid in a world where over 3 billion people live on under $2 a day and where the ills of underdevelopment (e. g. civil strife) can have global repercussions. The debate will also explore the poor track record of state-to-state foreign aid in increasing GDP, the support it can provide to dictators and tyrants, and the potential for freer and fairer trade to lift up developing nations. As con, your burden will be to prove that foreign aid is beneficial to developing countries. Mine is to prove that foreign aid is not working and is detrimental to developing countries. Foreign aid will be defined as money given to one nation from another for the purpose of economical stabilization and relief.
Foreign Aid Does More Harm Than Good

A FF? ? What a shame, this had been a good debate. Since I have no points of Pro's left to address I'll make my case directly for voters why a vote for Con is justified. S&G: Con had better spelling and grammar, since there were a number of errors Pro made throughout the debate - two of which Con even took the time to even point out. Conduct: Because of the forfeit, conduct should automatically be awarded to Con. Argument: Con's case was made clear by the use of examples as well as solid explanations of why aid data (at least in the short term) is confusing and sometimes contradictory. Pro did not use her round to counter any of these points, so they all stand. Therefore arguments should go to Con. Sources: Con used 8 cited and linked sources, while Pro only 5. Although one of her links didn't work, and it was ambiguous what her round 2 links were supporting since she did not make that clear, to her credit Pro also used several citations from books, so a tie vote for this category could be justified. Thank you for your attention, and I hope you've enjoyed the discussion.
Common Core Education. Foreign language yes or no

I disagree with my opponent. Foreign languages ought to be required in all school in the United States. First I will be providing my own arguments, then I will rebut my opponent.Pro's Case: Foreign language ought to be required for all schools in the United States. This is for a variety of reasons, but today I will be focusing on two. Personal, and National concerns.Contention 1: Personal BenefitsLearning a foreign language can be of massive use to an individual, especially one in the United States. The United States. The US census Bureau conducted a study and found two shocking facts. First, that only 80% of the US population speaks solely English (with 95% stating that they speak English "well" or "very well", although it should be noted that people tend to over estimate themselves), and that roughly 20% of Americans don't speak English in the home, meaning that some other language is their first [1]. What all of this adds up to is that to connect with an entire fifth of the population better, and at least one in twenty at all, one needs to speak another language. Learning another language opens up new shops, friends, professions, and entire communities to a person. As a natural born Southern Californian, I know first hand how useful Spanish is. People talking on the street, in shops, at swap meets, at friends houses, it truly is invaluable. Taking into account all other languages, this effect extends to people in all of California, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and any state with a significant cultural minority. Which is all of them.Contention 2: National BenefitsThe United Sates is in trouble education wise. International Bossiness Times reports that the US is now ranked 17th in global education rankings [2]. This is coming from a nation that was once a top contender. This is in no small part due to the fact that the rest of the world needs to know two languages. People across the Netherlands, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Switzerland and Finland all know English, in addition to their native tounges. We can see that to be a competing educational power again, we need to teach other languages.My previous contention was a great side benefit, but the reality is that when making national policy, national interests have to be kept in mind. These measures keep national interests afloat. Now onto my opponent's case.Con's CaseCon's case seems to revolve around the "waste of time/real world" argument that is frequent in anti-intellectual, anti-philosophical circles everywhere (not saying my opponent is part of said circles, merely that his arguments are commonly found there). The fact is that, like philosophy, when you learn a language it becomes a part of you. How you operate, how you view things, how you take actions. It is not simply a skill to be learned and then thrown away, it's a part of your life.Thank you for the debate. I am obliged to ask you vote Pro.Sources:[1] http://www.census.gov...[2] http://www.ibtimes.com...
religion=to rely on

Thank you, vi_spex.Negative CasePlease extend this argument.Rebuttals"know=Matter=true=now=physical experience=transformation"This is not relevant to "religion=to rely on"."if they can not exist without each other they are the same"Just because things are dependent on each other, it does not mean that they are the same. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that what he wrote is the case."how can you be in a religion without having to rely on?"There is a difference between "be[ing] in a religion" and religion itself. The resolution specifies "religion", not being in a religion. Hence, my opponent's argument here does not fit the resolution.
religion=to rely on

Thank you, Vi_spex, for instigating this debate. My counter-argument is short, but I am the one who is sweet. Negative Case Religion is a noun [1]. “Rely on” is a verb [2]. Therefore, my opponent’s claim of “religion=to rely on” cannot hold true because the terms involved are not of the same type. You cannot ‘religion’, nor is that a ‘rely on’ over there. References [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The TSA needs to be abolished.

I will answer all four stock issues in this debate. 1. Bill of Rights 1a. Gun Rights (2nd Amendment) This point comes down to two things. One, should the TSA be abolished for allowing preventing gun use on a plane. My opponent states my example of a school and a courtroom being places where guns are acceptably prohibited is faulty an nontropical. He says the reason why is because both places have valid reasons to prohibit gun use and a plane isn't. Again, I'll refer to the fact that a mass shootout in a plane will harm more people than if only the pilot and crew were armed. One huge flaw with my opponent's Wild West in a plane idea is this. The very second a bullet opens a hole in the plane (and there isn't enough metal to prevent this, not even considering windows), everyone in the plane is dead. Why? Oxygen doesn't exist in high plane altitudes. Humans need oxygen to live. Bullet gunfight = Very likely plane damage = Everyone dies. And again, the best prevention is to just have no guns. Guns are not hidden to metal detectors, so the scanners in this argument isn't even an issue. Two, my opponent says that mass panic wouldn't happen as well. We can't know for sure, but we can be sure that the above situation is likely in both scenarios. 1b. Unreasonable Searches Again, this is post-9/11. Searching is completely reasonable and most people would freak out if they knew someone on the plane had passed screening. On that note, my opponent says we should use other methods of searching. Ok. I agree. My opponent's right. The problem, though, is that my opponent thinks these things would be done by a completely new agency. This would be a complete turnaround on a set in stone government backed system. If there were to ever be a change in procedure, it would still be through the TSA. 2. Money-wasting. My opponent says that getting rid of the TSA is going to help the national debt and we have to start somewhere. The TSA's $6.8 billion dollar budget takes up 1/19117.64 of the current national debt. Nothing. We are abolishing one of our country's lines of defense for that much of an increase. 3. Ineffective I'll go ahead and say that my opponent's right with his alternate methods again. However, we still can't just abolish the TSA. Abolishing the TSA gets rid of everything that could be done to prevent a terrorist. The Department of Homeland Security already monitors the TSA, and having airlines monitor themselves will not work. Some airlines will be more slack on rules then others. Compromise one, you compromise the skies, which in turn compromises America. 4. Causing Terrorism My opponent says that if another 9/11 will happen, it will happen. I firmly believe this to not be true. Doing so means that government has failed in it's most high duty, which is to protect it's citizens. Note: Government. Not the TSA. My opponent is basically saying we should not even try with this statement. Again, I'd like to think my opponent for this debate and the spectators for following. I urge you all for a Con ballot. Thank you.
My actions are predetermined.

i have not been enjoying the formal debate. i had felt that i would at least sit one debate through, to the end, before i would decide whether to continue or not. the meticulous accuracy in which every argument must be laid down feels so burdensome to the development of personal philosophy, that i believe, perhaps, it is better for me to take the risks involved with developing my ideas through my own criticism than to spend time communicating them to somebody else. i have not decided that the formal debate is inadequate, but simply that it wasn't the tool i was hoping for. coincidentally, when developing my argument for this debate, i came to decide that no matter how much involvement an environment has with the decisions of a consciousness, there is not yet evidence to me that a free will has no presence in a consciousness' decisions. my stance has changed at the momment. for what its worth, a portion of my argument has been posted below. sorry to daniel_t for ending this prematurely. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will define free will as: the ability of a consciousness to independently exercise control over their actions. Under these terms, there needn't be any existence other than a consciousness in order for free will to exist, and no aspect of the environment has complete (if any) control over the decisions of the consciousness. I have begun to notice the importance of explicit definition in the formal debate. My definition, provided above, is the free will of which I do not believe in. If this definition far differs from what daniel_t expects, then my stance in this debate may have become undermined. I always would be pleased to hear a more learned opinion of free will. I feel that I must begin my argument with an analysis of the properties of free will. As per my definition, free will requires, and may inhabit, a consciousness that might be the only other existence "within a universe". To some extent, free will has a reliance on the environment; it's capacity for decision is shaped by the environment (quite regularly, a consciousness in possession of what might be described as a free will makes decisions differently when in a forest than when in an ocean.) This is not to be potentially mistaken as evidence against my opponent's position, as, to my knowledge, it is no infringement to my definition of free will.
My actions are predetermined.

Thank you molluskscommawetha for this opportunity of a "teatching debate." I am relatively new to the forum too, and this is the first debate I have accepted as the contender. Hopefully, we can learn together. First and foremost is to establish the burden of proof. You have made a claim that the universe, specifically our behavior, works a certain way. As the claimant in this debate, it is up to you to now prove your claim and it is up to me to show any and all flaws in your proof. If you fail to prove your claim to the voters satisfaction, they will (hopefully) vote for me. Points are also awarded for grammar and spelling, as well as reliable sources, so try not to be too lazy about this. At least do a little searching for web-sites or papers that support your position, and proofread your work for obvious spelling and grammar problems (for example, make sure you capitalize the first word in each sentence.) This will hopefully be a lot of fun for both of us, and considering my record around here, you have a pretty good chance of wining. :-) Since we have five rounds in this debate at 8,000 words each, let's let this debate unfold somewhat gradually... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You have claimed that I was, "... sculpted entirely by their environment and the genetics that built the brain that makes their consciousness. their actions are driven by genetic responses, in conjunction with the memories derived from previous genetic responses. any 'free will' that my opponent experiences is a fabrication." As theLwerd warns in the comments, the definition of "free will" is very important here. Since you are the one making the claim, I will give you the opportunity to explain what you mean by this phrase. Since your claim is empirical, the first thing you will need to do is explain what the difference is between someone who's "free will" is a fabrication, and someone who's "free will" is not a fabrication. In other words, define "free will" as something who's existence is falsifiable [1], and show that it is false. Good luck and glad to have you on the site. [1] http://science.jrank.org...