BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States is too involved in Middle Eastern affairs

I had not cherry picked arguments, I stated there are multiple definitions one involves an ideal social structure. you claimed this was false and it was only a government. I proved you wrong. That is not cherry picking. The Location in which you are born is an arbitrary function of the random circumstances of your birth. What makes up an individual is their genetically inherited traits which for that individual is an uncontrollable function much as the color of their skin. Being born to a middle eastern family in Iran is just as probable as being born to a middle eastern family that has immigrated to america. It is arbitrary. A sovereign nation is a political function. Rights are universal. The universality of those rights in affect give the authority to those who benefit from the rights to ensure that the rights remain universal for even the smallest reasons as preserving the self identity of the society. You are correct that the US has payed less attention to other areas of the world. This is because no other countries have harbor as many criminals who destroyed a world economic center in the largest city of the united states. You are correct that governments are there for THEIR OWN people. This means nothing when I've clearly laid out the fact that it is the society that pushes for these changes. The USA is the hammer which the people. Any action by the government can be a reflection on the people and it is up to the people to use the government the way they see fit. It is a way of collaboration and to create change in the place they live (e.g. earth) History has proven to us that authoritarianism is bad and it must be squashed by any means necessary. The united states is not committing imperialism as it is engaging in liberating oppressed people. Imperialism is what Britain did in china or in India like the opium wars. They created a dredge in the society and took advantage of the misunderstandings of foreign people. The United states has removed oppression and replaced it with nation building and return the power back to where it belongs, in the hands of the people. By doing so protecting the universal rights that all members of the human race deserves.
The United States is too involved in Middle Eastern affairs

The United States is most certainty a governmental body which attempts to reflect the ideals of a Democracy. A Democracy is government run by the people where there is no distinction between the peoples whole the government serves. Every individual has the same rights as the next person within a democracy therefore creating a system of government where there is an equal ownership of the rule of law by all people. Under the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution the United States has declared that all people, whether they be under the rule of law of the Democratic government or an outsider has self evident rights. These rights which we hold to be self evident create the core values on which a Democracy operates. Being that these rights are universal to all humans it is the responsibility of a Democratic nation to protect these rights even if they are being infringed in another sovereign. If a Democracy fails to protect these rights or ignores the fact that these rights are being infringed upon, then it erodes away the core values that make the government what it is. In the middle east the people are being oppressed by their governments in many ways, such as governments limiting free speech or the liberty of the people or even committing genocide which is taking the life of the people whom the government is there to protect. When these instances occur, it is the responsibility of a free democratic nation to intervene and protect these inalienable rights. These rights must also be protected even against the will of the people whose rights are being infringed. This is true because if a democracy would not protect these rights then these rights would not be inalienable or self evident. By doing this the democratic nation would lose its core structure and basic principles and would suffer from an essential identity crisis. The United states involvement in the middle east cannot be seen as an over reaching imperial body, but must be viewed as the protection of the fundamental principles it has sworn to uphold. To protect the life and liberty of all humans not just those who happen to fall within arbitrary lines in the sand
Abortion before six months of pregnancy is moral and not murder.

Alive: being in a state in which the organs perform their functions http://www.biology-online.org... Since neither of us had given a definition of what constitutes being alive, I have taken the liberty of providing one. In this definition, abortion would not considered murder, as to murder someone they would have to be alive first. So then to be alive, ones organs would need to be functional and a fetus still cannot breathe on it's own until out of the womb. Therefore, until the fetus is born and takes it's first breaths, it does not fill the definition of being alive. So, one can terminate a pregnancy without taking a life as the fetus is not alive. "It is not moral, and should be considered murder to abort a pregnancy before six months." You say it is murder to abort a pregnancy before six months, does that allow for terminations after six months and after birth?
Abortion before six months of pregnancy is moral and not murder.

My pro position will be that, as the title suggests, if an abortion is carried out before the six month mark(when the fetus can live outside the womb, it is now a "baby- http://www.nytimes.com...)it is not immoral and is most certainly not murder. The con position can either argue that this is murder or is not moral or suggest a later or earlier time where abortion should be allowed or discouraged. Let's begin with definitions: Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. http://dictionary.reference.com... Moral: conforming to the rules of right conduct http://dictionary.reference.com... Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... round 1: concerned with defining the terms in the resolution and firmly establishing the meaning of the resolution round 2: both parties will provide their arguments in favor of their stance round 3: both parties will attempt to refute each one's arguments. round 4: both parties will provide final arguments or refutations
Division 1 college basketball is better than the NBA

I was speaking about the current nba, as that is all I have been able to watch and I apologize for not mentioning that in my first argument. The blocks I will concede but honestly players nowadays go for the block too much which is why they fall for pump fakes so much. Just keeping your hands up and not leaving your feet will make the shot very difficult still but you won't lose position if you guess wrong. Kobe was a defender and he played in an era where there were some great defensive players. (KG is one that comes to mind). But nowadays stars don't play defense, they are almost all offensive superstars. (1) Here is a list of the nba all defensive team, and here (2) is a list of the mvp finalists. As you can see only one mvp finalist was on the all nba defensive team, because defense doesn't sell. Let me ask you this con, would young kids watching (3) rather watch a dunk/ a deep 3, or a great defensive possession? Obviously the offensive play and this leads to players caring more about those offensive plays because that is what they are getting paid to do. Now that we have established that the nba focuses more on offense we can switch back to the college game and discuss how they focus more on defense. If we look at the scoring college games are lower scoring. (4) Here you can see the points per game for each nba team and the median is at 105 points per game, while the median college score is 72.4 ppg. (5) There are some reasons to explain this, such as the longer game time and lower shot clock, but a 30 point differential can only really be explained by one thing, more defense. Another reason why college basketball is better is because of the postseason. There is no better postseason than March Madness, single elimination, huge upsets, everyone loves watching it. I have never heard someone seriously say that the nba postseason is better. 1. (http://pr.nba.com...) 2. (http://pr.nba.com...) 3. (http://opendorse.com...) 4. (http://www.espn.com...) 5. (https://www.teamrankings.com...)
Division 1 college basketball is better than the NBA

My opponent in R2 first sentence is indicative of an anecdotal argument which stems from personal bias, which is fine which holds no more weight than someone claiming the Denver Nuggets is better than the Lakers. I would have to question my opponent regarding defense if he/she is referring to the current state of the NBA or if he is referring to NBA of the past. My opponent has not made it clear if he/she is referring to the current defense of the NBA. Following this argument, my opponent then states that when it comes to perimeter defense although mediocre, upon being beat the defense is non-existent to which the opponent may score. I noticed that my opponent sumbits a vine link in support of his argument so in response, I will submit a YT (YouTube video) regarding some impressive defense. To support my argument I submit the following link(s) of both past and present perimeter NBA defenses: 1) We can see in the first link the example of Kobe Bryant and perimeter help defense See: I also submit some exciting defensive blocking from past to present in the following link which provides subsequent proof that not only do NBA players of past and present play defense, they also play transition defense as well. Although there are far too many individual games I could submit, I will provide some highlights of some of the best NBA defenders See: I also submit some 2015 clips of some great defense See: Finally we can see some of the individual efforts of Dennis Rodman in the early 2000's on Shaquille O'Neal in the following clip. See: Depending on the team, a lot of teams may switch to zone converage or box and 1 (that is a zone coverage with one man free to defend one good scorer). The NBA of the past tend to vary depending on the type of player certain teams may face. For example, there really was no person that could stop Michael Jordan so a lot of teams tend to play zone coverage, but sometimes teams would run man to man. My opponent states in the final sentence that the NBA is more about entertainment than about integrity. Well, again, that is personal opinion as opposed to actual fact. Depending on one's perspective, this may hold true but to others it may not. I would say that the NBA All-Star games are more entertaining considering it is a game of the best players in the league but as far as regular season, there are teams that actually play great defense and transition defense as well. I finally submit an example of this of the Boston Celtics:
Division 1 college basketball is better than the NBA

I will be arguing that the college basketball game is better than the NBA game as it has more defense and the players play the game the right way. In the NBA there is some perimeter defense but once someone beats their man everyone just moves out of the way and the person dunks. The NBA is more designed for entertainment and less about the integrity of the game of basketball. (1) What the hell is this? Both of the players near the basket should step in and make a play there. (2) This is a 6 minute video of an all star and an Olympian who looks clueless on defense. 1. (https://vine.co...) 2. ()
Hockey vs Soccer

The con recognizes that the pro reserves the right to change the the criteria of the debate as long as the pro provides them within Round 2 and no further. My opponent's argument against hockey falls for 3 reasons:1) He fails to prove causality. Salaries may be dependent on other factors.2) The figures presented ("40k up to 100k") are wrong. Christiano Ronaldo was paid 15.645 million USD last year.3) Soccer is empirically more dangerous than hockey. Forces are up to 160% greater in soccer.GLHF.
All Accused People Should Have the Right to Name Suppression Until They are Proven Guilty

I will briefly lay out my con position for this debate. 1. Our US court system is open to the public. This is the basis for our legal court system set up under the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense". There have been SCOTUS rulings allowing suppression of information during a court case. However, this is not automatic (unless the defendant is a child), and must be done for a good reason and ruled on by the Judge. Either side of a trail may request a Closed Proceeding and/or Name Suppression. Typical it is only granted if the publication of certain information posses a threat of harm to those involved or related to those involved, or if the publication of information with jeopardize a fair legal trial. 2. Freedom of the press is Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment. The government does not have the right to prevent the press from publishing court information during a public trail. 3. The press must report and/or publish court information 1. Fairly 2. Accurately 3. Without Malice. If the press violate these guidelines they can be subjected to a defamation suit by either the persons involved in the case, or by State or Federal Government (depending of the type of trial). 4. There are many instances that charges are bought against an individual prior to that person being in the custody of the law enforcement. In these cases a warrant is issue by a judge for the arrest and apprehension of the suspect/defendant. The public knowledge of this information is 1. in the best interest for the safety of the public 2. the public can assist in providing information leading to the arrest of the suspect.
All Accused People Should Have the Right to Name Suppression Until They are Proven Guilty

I believe that people who are accused of a crime and tried with their name told to the media have many life opportunities ruined if they are found not guilty. These people are likely to be shunned by friends and society even though they have done nothing wrong. My opponent will be arguing in favour of the current system, where the name of any person being tried is released to the media. My opponent will be arguing that this system should be kept in place, and does no harm to anyone. Round 1 is for acceptance only. Rounds 2-4 are for arguments and rebuttals. Round 5 is for closing statements.
Islam is inherently a religion of peace

Resolution: - Topic: wether Islam is, or is not, a religion that promotes peace & coexistence. - Terminology: > Religion = scripture, law, theology, & thought. > Islam = the religion founded by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) & revealed through the Qur’an. > Promote = encourage, advocate, advance, foster, nurture, develop. . . > Peace, since the concept is broad & abstruse, I’ll define it broadly as = a state of freedom from injustice or oppression. It must thus considered distinctly different from ‘pacifism’. > Coexistence = to live in peace with each other especially as a matter of policy [*]. Rules: - No forfeit, no disrespect, no bare assertions & no shotgun argumentation. - BOF: the burden of proof is shared. > Con’s negative case: { Islam Is Not A Religion That Promotes Peace & Coexistence. } > Pro’s affirmative case: { Islam Is A Religion That Promotes Peace & Coexistence. } - Sources: authentic & authoritative, whether within the same round or at the end of the debate. In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts. [*] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Islam is inherently a religion of peace

It seems that Pro has decided to completely ignore using the format that I laid out in Round 1. Round 1 was to be for acceptance. Round 2 was to be for arguments. Rounds 3 to 5 were to be for rebuttal. It was made very clear in the opening round how the debate was to be structured. At no point did I concede to altering the structure of this debate, and at no point did Pro make any attempt at asking if the debate format could be changed. Pro simply changed the rules for his own gain; to have 5 rounds of his continuing argument. Pro has continued to act as though the debate was of his own design, which it was not. We are not “in argument”. Your format was not agreed upon, you never contacted me to agree upon such a drastic change in my opening format and therefore you forfeit the debate.
MiniDebate #1 (Death Penalty)

P states DP =/= Murder; I nullify this as the ones who make rules can alter them to immoral benefit to themselves.P's entire attack on life sentence was parole. This is now moot.P agrees killing an innocent is wrong, DP saves no one more than imprisonment.DP risks killing inn. but non-DP has zero lack of saving inn.P's only attack is parole lets Mur. loose; This is parole issue, DP is not required.P doesn't explain DP for rapists. http://pi.vu...I raise Par. in R2 to give P chance to defend.
MiniDebate #1 (Death Penalty)

C states that all are innocent until proven guilty. DP is still OK, as it would be for those we have proven guilty as much as we can. C says false conviction is always a problem. This doesn't affect the DP as innocents would be punished anyway. Killing an innocent is wrong, like C says. From my args in R1, DP would save more innocents than it kills. C talks about parole issues. This is unrelated to everything, so this is invalid or he was trying to rebut my round, a violation of the rules.
MiniDebate #1 (Death Penalty)

All are innocent until proven guilty; it is a Human Right. http://pi.vu...False conviction is impossible to stop regardless of Forensics technology.http://pi.vu...http://pi.vu...http://pi.vu...Combine these to you see that with DP innocents would be killed prematurely whereas they would have lived to see their freedom had they not been killed.Taking 1 innocent's life is invaluably wrong to do, imprisoning live cirminals is not remotely so.DP does not solve Parole policy issues.
MiniDebate #1 (Death Penalty)

I am arguing that the death penalty(DP) is OK.DP is not immoral as it prevents more murder. Criminals would likely relapse.DP is better than life sentences. http://goo.gl... and http://goo.gl... show that many criminals are released on parole, even those w/ life sentences. They are useless because of this.DP is not murder. Murder = http://goo.gl.... B/C DP is not illegal, it is not murder.DP has been ruled constitutional, as seen at http://goo.gl.... Supreme Court ruled it legal.
MiniDebate #1 (Death Penalty)

This is a MiniDebate. 500 characters only.RulesDO NOT ACCEPT THIS. IT SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. Leave a topic in comments. I will choose who gets it.Voters will not give points for S&G because of the 500 char max, unless one person FFs and voter is awarding all points to other person.Source links can be shortened w/ a service like https://goo.gl......, but don't post huge text docs on another site to get around the 500 max.R1 acceptance, R2 opening, R3 rebuttals. That's it.
Legalization Of Marijuana

Being a naive person, I heard about the legalization of marijuana and was horrified. It seemed simple at first glance. Why legalize something that does such terrible things to your body? It seemed dangerous, addictive, and can wreck havoc on society. I laughed at the people who wanted to legalize it, thinking of them as addicts. But I was wrong, and I"m very sorry for having such prejudice. Then I researched a bit. Legalizing it was right all along. Here"s why: Weed is addictive. No it"s not. It"s less addictive than coffee. And I see you sipping on that mug as you read this answer. Weed is dangerous. Alcohol is 114 times more dangerous. Weed causes an increase in crime. In Colorado, crime has fallen by 15%, murder has fallen by 50%. Weed will cause teenagers to get hooked. Once again, in Colorado, less high-schoolers are taking it up. Weed will still be sold, whether you legalize it or not. This is the most important point of all. If you don"t legalize it, people are just going to get it from their local drug dealer. It doesn"t change anything. People will find other sources. You might as well boost the economy with the taxes on it and provide people with a safe place to acquire weed. I hope this changed a couple of your minds, like it did to me. Trust me, do some research into this and you will see my opinion.
God Does Not Exist

First of all, let me just say that no one has ever proved that God is real in the first place. No solid scientific proof has ever been delivered supporting this claim. Now personally, I believe in evolution and I know that many religious people might also believe in it. Is evolution a theory? No it is not. Scientists have proved that evolution is real by discovering fossils, comparing them to modern skeleton structures and through other geological means. Is there any sort of these kind of things supporting the existence of God? No. If there is and I don't know about it, feel free to present it and enlighten me. But to sum it up, this is what I'm trying to say: No one has ever proved that God existed in the first place so don't tell me to disprove it. There is no solid evidence that is reliable. So I say to you: Prove to me that God existed in the first place before you tell me to disprove it.
God Does Not Exist

I accept: Lets first establish one contention; while as I agree that the bible has been twisted into many false words, there still remains One true Word. (Psalms 12:7) "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." My belief is that the King James Version is the only begotten son of God. (John 1:14) "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." The Burden of Proof is on you to show material evidence to the effect that the One True Word is not truth.
God Does Not Exist

Hello amigodana, I saw your debate "god is false" and the fact that I am a strong atheist compelled me to challenge you to this debate.My first argument is that the bible is based of letters that were written 2 thousand years ago and were changed through history. I'm not saying that I disagree with the moral guidlines in the people (eg. Do not kill) but I'm saying that the Bible is unreliable when it comes to historical facts.
God Does Not Exist

I have not agreed with you on anything, what I say is that the bible is truth. The Word is truth. So dont twist my words hoping to slide a lie into this debate. You would think that an atheist would have rational thought on this matter. If you want to know WHO someone is then you go to His words. And in order to determine if He exists you must know who it is you are looking for. There is only one rational way of finding that out. And since we have determined and you have not disputed that God is described by the definition given; (1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Then you also bare witness to the fact that God the Word does exist. It is just as simple as that. I guess you have never heard of the textus receptus? We have always had the Word, passed down through different tongues and ages.