BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Those responsible for Benghazi where Four Americans Died should be made to answer for the debacle.

lookingattheissues... 1-30-2015 What really happened and who those were who were to blame for Benghazi will only be discovered if we can determine what led up to that day and why American officials allowed the tragic incident to occur in which the countries embassy and its citizens were abandoned and left to their fate. As a consequence, the American embassy was destroyed and four Americans lost their lives at the hands of this countries enemies. Another serious consequence of America's government officials not sending immediate military aid to the Americans who's lives were needlessly lost was the stain on America's soul and on the dignity of the countries people by the image cast by America's passively accepting what happened in Benghazi. The blame for what was allowed to happen and what did happen there lays squarely on the Obama administration and certainly on the state department officials who were in charge at the State Department. j25;September 21 -- Hillary Clinton "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans." But time has pasted and no one has been made to answer for this debacle. "The administration's response to the events in Benghazi is completely incoherent, and has been from the start." "CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend reports that a law enforcement source told her that "from day one, we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack." Obama and his State department knew but didn't hold anyone accountable. "Republicans have said that the Obama administration's changing talking points, and the inconsistent nature of the White House's explanation for the attacks, is evidence of a wide-reaching, potentially criminal cover up-" ".....-Obama thought that terrorist involvement in the attack on the embassy would reflect badly on him, so he and members of his staff did whatever they could to hide the truth...." "In fact, the State Department and the Obama administration's flip-flopping, and the scrubbing of references to terror from the talking points, makes their goal quite clear--to avoid inconvenient questions about the responsiveness of the White House and the State Department..... to reports of (an Al Qaeda-related threat before the attack), and, it follows, potentially fatal negligence on the part of those involved." ("Al Qaeda-related threat before the attack, and, it follows, potentially fatal negligence on the part of those involved." Quotes from a Fox News article By Douglas E. Schoen Published May 16, 2013
Those responsible for Benghazi where Four Americans Died should be made to answer for the debacle.

Dear Pro. Thank you for posting a debate and sharing your opinion and I accept your debate and look forward as to how you will justify your opinion and make you claim. I also look forward to debating this issues as it had been repeatedly talked about ad nausea and no one I know personally shares the same opinion so it will be nice to examine your point of view. My only question would be you started off with "my opinion" however what specifically is your "claim" Nathan
People should be allowed to own firearms

Ok by accepting this you have stated that you are against all citizens owning any sort of firearms. This country was born out of people who thought that a well armed country (citizens) was te only way to protect against an out of control government that tries to take away our freedoms or against foreign countries (example of this is japan in WW2, japanese generals refused to attack the mainland of the US because "behind every blade of grass is a an armed citizen"). An armed populace is essential to the security and well being of this country an others as well. My second argument is: How fo you expect me, or thousand of others every year, to defend ourselves against criminals (burglars) who could potentially break into my house with a firearm and kill ne and my family? I own a gun because i know that even though it is not likely to happen, i may need to defen myself from a tyrannical government or an armed madman who is threatening my safety.
People should be allowed to own firearms

That is a horrible reason for people to not be able to own firearms. They will take advantage of the situation? Its hard for me to understand what you meant by your argument but i believe you said that just because a select few criminals commit crimes with guns, that means nobody should be able to. Lets say the government confiscates all firearms... You think those select few criminals will just hand them over? No, and neither would i because all that does is take guns away from law abiding citizens while criminals still have them. People always say that gun violence in america is staggering. But deaths by people killing each other with hammers, knives, and their bare hands is much higher every year. Does this mean we have to confiscate hammers and knives? Of course not.
People should be allowed to own firearms

First I just want to tell you that this is not my personal opinion I'm just here to debate for the challenge of it and I'm here to do my best. I do not think people should be allowed to own firearms because it can be very dangerous and unfortunately not everyone is like you someone who will own a gun will take advantage of the situation especially if its allowed. I will serve many points in my third I was actually wanting more points on why you think this should be allowed due to very low reasons why u feel that it should be allowed we are going to do this debate without rebuttals and plead out case on the round 3 without me rebutting your claims and ill plead mines I want more explanation on why we should be allowed
Airpower can hold Land.

Lexington, Concrod, and Bunker Hill are interesting examples.. I think the smoothbore muzzleloader might be a little overmatched though when met with laser guided munitions dropped from a high. As for CON's last point, I do not dispute that ground forces are sometimes more effective at occupying land than Airpower; however Airpower today is so advanced and so fundamentally lethal, it can in fact prevent land from being captured by enemy ground forces. Massive ordnance delivered accurately and on location -no matter the weapon system used- can rout away any army; which is why a continental army from the revolutionary era would lose in one single arclight bombing run. I appreciate CON trying, but I don't think there is still yet any reason to doubt why a continuous no-fly zone over a given area of land cannot permanently deny its capture by enemy ground forces. In order to continue this discussion, one must provide evidence that proves modern day examples like The Battle of Ia Drang or the Siege of Khe Shah are the exception and not the rule to Airpower theory, and that large deployments of ground troops are still needed to maintain territory in today's wars.
Airpower can hold Land.

Alright, I will begin by structuring my debate into three examples, then explaining how they convey my argument. Then, I will seamlessly tie all my ideas together, to form one conclusion paragraph. I will start by defining hold- to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal. In a war type situation, this would mean that aircrafts are not capable of possessing land, it may be able to give us this land, aircrafts are not capable of holding land. To begin I would like to state that all of my arguments will be pulled from the past, seeing as to those seem to be where the best examples are- mainly because that is the only place where examples exist. I will also pull from historic battles, one that everyone is somewhat familiar. 1. The American revolution. The American revolution was fought between America and the British. At the time, the British had the most powerful army at the time. America fought long and hard, and under great leadership, came out victorious. This is an example where air power did not hold land, but leadership did. Aircrafts cannot hold a piece of land for a nation, people have to be there to regulate it. To state that aircrafts can hold land is not true. People on the ground, who function in the area hold the land 2. I will also dive deeper into the battles of the American Revolution. For this contingency: The Battle of Bunker Hill. The Battle of Bunker Hill was arguably one of the most important battles of the American Revolution, if we are talking about holding land. The battle went down over the dispute of a piece of land. America needed it to stop the British, and the British needed it to win over America. Long story short, no one really "won". Britain took the hill, but also had roughly 1,054 casualties. The land conquered was not won with aircrafts, nor was it maintained by them. And Britain kept that land for a long time. 3. The battles of Lexington and Concord. Here, this was the first battle of the Revolutionary War. This was the point where the British understood the Americans were more than just a group of rebels. Namely because they Americans won this battle. The British had lost the battle, and retreated. America was able to hold their position without the need for aircrafts. Finally, I'll slap up my arguments. Overall, the battles presented showed that aircraft is a non-necesity when were talking about controlling land. This is because airpower cannot do this. It can only gain access of land. All air strikes can really do is win us the land. But to maintain it, boots have to be on the ground. Just delivering troops/resources does not count as "holding land". Bombings also do not count as holding land. This counts as conquering land, but were not here to talk about that. Thank you, I am open to rebuttals
Airpower can hold Land.

This is an interesting topic, so thanks for starting it! Now, I'll start of with my argument, seeing how there are only 3 rounds. To begin, I will state that I believe air power can hold land, however, like you stated, my job is to prove, "Con will have to prove that winning major wars still requires a ground component and that boots on the ground are vital for its success" Which I entend to do next round. Thanks!
Airpower can hold Land.

A simple two round discussion about whether or not air forces by themselves can hold land. I intend to show through historical examples and modern warfare theory that the air forces of today can indeed complete the Army's role of 'clear, secure, and occupying land' without needing large battalions of ground troops for support. Con will have to prove that winning major wars still requires a ground component and that boots on the ground are vital for its success. This debate is open to anyone with a knowledgable background on military history, technology, and air-land battle doctrine.
The Marxist vision of a communist society is unrealistic and impossible.

The first thing wrong with Marxism is the idea of a moneyless society. This can't be implemented because trading goods and services is done much better with money than without if it was all gone trade and production would come to a grinding halt the economy of the world would cease to continue without money. Second a stateless society is a terrible idea because without any central authority no one would keep order or enforce laws which would lead to Chaos and a power vacuum. These are just a few reasons why it's unrealistic and impossible.
The Marxist vision of a communist society is unrealistic and impossible.

Thank you for being open minded- Karl Marx was a remarkable philosopher, and his works are still well studied today by many scholars. Needless to say, academic Marxism (where interpretations of Marx's works are rigorously standardized) is rather different from your average Communist today, who most likely espouse some variant of Maoism or Marx-Leninism (or even Trotskysm once in a while).
The Marxist vision of a communist society is unrealistic and impossible.

Thank you again for presenting an interesting topic of debate. Now, on with the show- Since Pro has not defined the terms used in his opening argument, I will take the liberty to define. Con presents this definition for Marxism and Communist society: Marxism is composed only of explicit statements by Marx himself on his ideal society (as otherwise, we would be left with dozens of various variants and interpretations of "Marxism", ranging from Marx-Leninism to Maoism). So, what did Marx say about his ideal Communist society? Let us first start by addressing the political system proposed by Marx: something he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat [1]" or as Engels, Marx's partner in the creation of the Communist Manifesto put it, "the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat [2]" Would Pro, in saying that Marxist society is "without any central authority", mean that a democratic republic has no central authority or means of order? In any case, Marx was a firm proponent of democracy, as he saw it as the best avenue of ensuring the working class had control over their own work and livelihoods. Not to mention that Marx wanted a strong government run by the proletariat that would instate the "extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. [3]", all of which would require large amounts of central power. Therefore that point is refuted. Next, let us examine the fiscal policy proposed by Marx, and the claim by Pro that a Marxist society would be money-less. Marx, in his work The Communist Manifesto, rather clearly writes there is to be "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly [4]", not complete dissolution of money. Therefore, that point is refuted. As both of the Pro arguments have been refuted, the resolution "The Marxist vision of a communist society is unrealistic and impossible" is negated. Footnotes: 1. Section B of https://www.marxists.org... 2. A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891. Marx & Engels Collected Works Volume 27, p. 217. "If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat" 3,4. Pg. 26 The Communist Manifesto: http://www.marxists.org...
Evolution

Counter to Premise 1: The evolutionist rebuttal still stands. Theories of biogenesis are theories of biogenesis. The theory of evolution is a theory of evolution. They are two different concepts entirely. Also, even if biogenesis was an important part of evolution, it's ok to not know the answer yet. There is no more evidence for intelligent design than there is for abiogenesis. Counter to Premise 2: The silver fox experiment (and other artificial selection processes) presents a good artificial example of natural processes. Yes, evolution is generally slow. However, there are examples of evolution that we have witnessed naturally in the wild. Examples are the peppered moth, cane toads, Darwin's finches, and Italian wall lizards. Neither of your premises are related to the theory of evolution.
Evolution

I will argue against evolution. Debate structure: R1: Opening premises only R2: Rebuttals/new arguments R3-5: Rebuttals and conclusions, Opening Premise 1: The Biogenesis argument (redone) Many Young Earth Creationists will argue against Darwinian evolution by claiming that an ancestor came from non-life, and therefore directly violates Biogenesis, the law that life can only come from life. Although not in direct violation of Biogenesis, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, but simply claims that all organisms alive today come from a common ancestor. Not trying to explain how life came to be on planet Earth leaves it in indirect conflict with Biogenesis. Since life can only come from preexisting life, then how did even the simplest life form come to life if there was not already life on earth? Because of this, the law of Biogenesis remains in the question, despite the evolutionist rebuttal that "it states no such thing." Opening Premise 2: The Silver Fox Experiment: Why it Does Not Support Evolution In the Silver Fox experiment, DNA was injected into animals to show evolution, which means that the "evolution" witnessed was a man-caused evolution, not a naturally occurring evolution, which means that it does not give us the most accurate results as it was witnessed as evolution is supposed to be a slow process. The same logic is applicable to any case in which evolution was observed.
Evolution

My opponent has evidently failed to understand the following: 1. If something points to a creator, it points away from evolution. 2. If something points away from evolution, it points to a creator. My opponent has made two statements that have no support whatsoever. Creationism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive, and NOT the only two options. This is a false dichotomy. Pro does not concede. By calling the silver fox experiment "artificial," you negate the first half of your second response. I am well aware that the silver fox experiment is artificial, that is why I said it. My point was that it's a good illustration of a natural process. The second half of my response points out that there are NON-ARTIFICIAL examples of evolution in the wild. The silver foxes are irrelevant to your argument. Because evolution is generally slow, it should not happen fast enough, even in the wild. GENERALLY slow means that there can be SPECIFIC instances that it occurs quickly. And this has happened. I gave four examples. Plus, the "evolution" witnessed there could be merely a stronger will than that of others to survive mixing with the animals' psychology and/or brain chemistry so the brain would command all the DNA to simply evolve much sooner. Is there any known biological process that allows the brain to exercise command over DNA? Is there any known substance called "will" that can mix with neurotransmitters? I believe the answer is no. This would, therefore, not be intentional evolution, which would disqualify it from counting as evolution. I'm not sure what you mean by intentional evolution. "Intention" does not exist in evolutionary theory, because it doesn't need to. Yes they are. Such a statement is analogous to saying that a single letter in a cryptogram is not related to the rest of the cryptogram. It is not the whole cryptogram, but it still helps solve the cryptogram It is not analogous because your arguments are not letters in the cryptogram. They are letters that are somewhere else entirely. Artificial selection and biogenesis/abiogenesis do not exist in the theory of evolution. The fossils do not show any change at all in each species. They show near-perfect matches, indicating that they did not evolve at all.[2] Obviously fossils of the same species match. They're from the same species. Using new technology, researchers have actually found organs that were once believed to be useless and disposable were seen at hard work That doesn't debunk evolution. It debunks the view that tonsils are vestigial. There are very many examples of vestigial organs in the wild, like whale fingers. Darwinism Refuted is not a credible source.
The biblical God probably doesn't exist.

"The thing is that God is all loving to people therefore he could not kill the evildoers because in doing that would not be loving therefore the only way to be all loving is to let things play out."But God is omnipotent, so why couldn't He simply make the evildoers good? "P.S no offence just stating my belief on this I think God dosent like pizza. I think his favoratie food is lamb."I don't see how that would offend me...how does this pertains to this debate?My opponent failed to counter my arguments or propose any of his own, so I will extend my arguments for this round.
The biblical God probably doesn't exist.

The thing is that God is all loving to people therefore he could not kill the evildoers because in doing that would not be loving therefore the only way to be all loving is to let things play out. Good point he could do so but he can also make anything as hot as he wants and still eat itP.S no offence just stating my belief on this I think God dosent like pizza. I think his favoratie food is lamb.
The biblical God probably doesn't exist.

Ad hominem is when you insult someone to prove their argument wrong. My opponent didn’t choose God’s ‘omni’s, so as the rules clearly state, you will argue that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists. The Evil/Suffering Problem Suffering and evil are present on Earth. Since God is omniscient He knows evil is happening, He is omnibenevolent so He must end all evil, and He is omnipotent so he has the power to end all evil. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. Omnipotence Paradox Since God is omnipotent, he can do anything, right? Can he microwave a piece of pizza so hot, that he himself can’t eat it? My arguments are short, but sweet. I will add additional arguments to the following rounds if needed.
The biblical God probably doesn't exist.

By Pro, I am arguing that God probably doesn't exist. For the purposes of this debate, God shall refer to the Judeo-Christian deity. God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority Exist - To have actual beingRules: The burden of proof shall be shared. No arguments in the first round. Con must state in Round 1 if God is also omniscient and/or omnibenevolent. If Con doesn't choose, I will assume God is both. Any ad hominem attacks will result in disqualification. You may quote and use the Bible as a source, but I will not accept it as proof. Example: "Genesis says this, and it is much more reliable than fossils!" = BAD"Ezekiel 23:20 is an example of how the Bible is family-friendly." = GOOD If you have any questions, or would like me to change the rules in any way, please comment or message me. Thank you!
The Adam of the bible was God Himself.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I am in no way, shape, or form a biblical scholar, and I have no knowledge of Hebrew. I have read the Bible though, in case anyone was wondering.My opponent doesn't appear to know the definition of formed, so here it is.Formed- bring together parts or combine to create (something)[1]I would like to address what my opponent said about the virgin Mary."however virgin Mary only had sex with the Holy Spirit to birth Jesus Christ." Maybe I'm confused here, but wouldn't that mean Mary wasn't a virgin? Doesn't human reproduction work that way?Now I shall answer my opponent's questions.1. Begotten is the past tense of "beget," which means: (typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction. [2]2. Walking? What walking?"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." -Genesis 2:8-9"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LordGod commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." -Genesis 2:15-173. Is this even relevant to whether or not God was Adam?I don't even know what else to refute. I've made my case that has yet to be refuted and Pro has pretty much just quoted the Bible. Eagerly awaiting some arguments.