BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama is a good president

1. President Obama ended the war in Iraq. If McCain would have been elected, the war would have gone on much longer. Especially since McCain said the war could "last a hundred years or more." (Obama may have ended the war but this doesn't mean we are in the clear, tension in Korea might start another war, so far Obama hasn't prepared for.... As well you accuse McCain to be a war hawk which is clearly faulty, as you may notice McCain is not president for all you know he would have ended it as well. Also his statement was clearly taken under a pretense that he was saying he would increase the time we had in Iraq, However this is an assumption.) 2. President Obama repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is a major civil rights issue, and now gays and lesbians can serve their country openly. ( Ok for one this did not need to be repeal as in was not a violation of civil rights in the first place in the military you are there to do your job nothing more that includes romantic entanglements with your fellow soldiers, gay or heterosexual..) 3. Obama is turning the country around. We are slowly but surely heading in the right direction. The stimulus package created about 2,000 jobs! ( Objection!!!! baseless conjecture you have no sources nor proof.... I will also add that 2000 jobs at the cost of millions of dollars the costs out weight the benefits) 4. The President passed National Health care so that the large insurance companies will have something to compete with. This means they can no longer rip us off. (Objection!!!! national health care has not even been decided upon in congress, Further more baseless conjecture no sources) Case: 1. Obama has demoralized the U.S people to cause tension between south and north again as the south has more religious people than the north cause segregation. Namely gay rights issue which has cause this tension... And racial tension.. 2. Obama fanatics which I really hate, accuse any person who criticises him is automatically consider racist... Honestly when he was elected I went to school every black person in school where pretty much rubbing their black power in my face. When the subject ever came up I would say I dislike Obama I was harassed and almost assaulted, they would not even let me explain why I disliked Obama which they in itself were being racist I am not racist but I do enjoy pointing out ignorance..... most Obama fanatics are ignorant only voting for him because he was NOT white or if they were the smart ones which is a rarity actually liked his views. 3. Obama's S.T.A.R.T program is weakening our country by the reduction of nuclear arms, in modern ages we need modern deterrence, plus were do these nuclear weapons go, were are they disposed of?Obama said either all nations give up nukes or no nation gives up nukes but it seems we are the only ones giving up nuclear weapons S.T.A.R.T doesn't apply to other countries but Russia and the U.S what about Korea? China? Pakistan? Etc?
Barack Obama is a good president

I will be arguing that Barack Obama is a good President, and Con will argue that he is not. I'll go ahead and start. 1. President Obama ended the war in Iraq. If McCain would have been elected, the war would have gone on much longer. Especially since McCain said the war could "last a hudnred years or more. " 2. President Obama repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is a major civil rights issue, and now gays and lesbians can serve their country openly. 3. Obama is turning the country around. We are slowly but surely heading in the right direction. The stimulus package created about 2,000 jobs! 4. The President passed National Healthcare so that the large insurance companies will have something to compete with. This means they can no longer rip us off. If there's anything else my opponent would like to add, then I would like to say for him to feel welcome to do so. Good luck!
Nuclear power plants should be torn down forever

I'd to thank MarquisX for stepping up to the challenge as I will try to say why Nuclear power Plants are bad. 1. Nuclear power plants use Uranium as fuel which is scarce and will run out in 50-60 years. Therefore Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy 2. The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). 3.High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature. 4. A meltdown in one of Russia's power plant had a MASSIVE leak of radiation in Chernobyl. the people there we're quarantined until all of the radiation could be removed. It would take 50 years maybe. That was roughly 20 years ago. Thank you. I wait for my opponents argument.
Nuclear power plants should be torn down forever

I am not an expert in nuclear energy; however I did touch upon it once in school. First I would like to clarify some terms Nuclear:–adjective 1. pertaining to or involving atomic weapons: nuclear war. 2. operated or powered by atomic energy: a nuclear submarine. 3. (of a nation or group of nations) having atomic weapons. 4. of, pertaining to, or forming a nucleus. 5. of, pertaining to, or like the nuclear family: nuclear bonds. –noun Informal . 6. nuclear energy: switching to nuclear as a power source. Since you say Nuclear power plants, I assume we will be using the 6th definition with nuclear as a noun. Correct me if I'm wrong in your argument. By tear down I assume you mean destroyed, demolished etc etc. Ok Good things about Nuclear power. Well without it we would be using 'fossil fuels' which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A nuclear power plant uses a controlled nuclear explosion to produce heat. When this is done its entirely enclosed and releases no exhaust fumes whatsoever. Back to you Pro
Nuclear power plants should be torn down forever

"Cost is also one of the major disadvantages of nuclear energy. It costs between three and five billion dollars just to build a nuclear power plant. Maintenance and operating costs are also high because lots of money must be sent on safety systems in case something goes wrong." This is entirely wrong. Nuclear power generators are expected to cost $18 billion by 2013 However the coal and gas industry will cost $85 billion by the same time. Which would you rather pay taxes for? "2.One of the most feared disadvantages of nuclear energy is the potential for weapons. Each year, every nuclear reactor is capable of making enough plutonium to build over thirty nuclear bombs. Nuclear plants must be secured well enough to prevent this material from falling into the wrong hands." True but banning Nuclear plants won't take defeat the possibility of nuclear weapons. If anything it'll raise the potential for Iran or North Korea to make nuclear bombs. All that Uranium has to go somewhere. "And finally 3.Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years." The first nuclear power plant was created in 1954. It still stands to this day. You do the math. So,Con this is a question for you: Would you live near a very dangerous nuclear power plant that might someday explode and leak with radiation leaving maybe millions people dying without and hope of surviving until their 60? I look forward to your argument,Con Add me! Uh yes. Again we don't have a better alternative. Look Nuclear power is not as dangerous as the hippies thought it was. Want proof? The U.S Navy developed nuclear power for the purpose of propelling submarines and aircraft carriers. To this day they have an unblemished record in nuclear safety. So its cheaper, last longer and doesn't pollute the air that we breathe, yet you want to ban it because of one major incident more than 20 years ago? So what do we do then, when the world's supply of fossil fuels is exhausted. And that's in about 50 years. Nuclear power IS the future. Good debate pro. And I wish you the best of luck in the voting period. I would also like to remind you that voting for yourself is bad conduct.
Nuclear power plants should be torn down forever

Well done Con but you see I still have a few tricks up my sleeves. Let me rephrase the part of: "Nuclear power plants use Uranium as fuel which is scarce and will run out in 50-60 years." The 50-60 years was just a guess because it might change depending on the actual demand of uranium. Let me rephrase point 4 from round 2. Automobiles and Nuclear meltdowns are two very different disasters. When cars crash and people die its a disaster yes? But the Chernobyl accident is much more disasterous. 93 people die everyday in the U.S but thousands died from the radiation leak and i dont know if its the right count but it may be in the 10,000's. would you be in a car accident or spend the rest of your life cut off from the rest of the world until you die from diseases like Cancer. And now for some points 1. Cost is also one of the major disadvantages of nuclear energy. It costs between three and five billion dollars just to build a nuclear power plant. Maintenance and operating costs are also high because lots of money must be sent on safety systems in case something goes wrong. 2.One of the most feared disadvantages of nuclear energy is the potential for weapons. Each year, every nuclear reactor is capable of making enough plutonium to build over thirty nuclear bombs. Nuclear plants must be secured well enough to prevent this material from falling into the wrong hands. And finally 3.Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years. So,Con this is a question for you: Would you live near a very dangerous nuclear power plant that might someday explode and leak with radiation leaving maybe millions people dying without and hope of surviving until their 60? I look forward to your argument,Con Add me!
Nuclear power plants should be torn down forever

"1. Nuclear power plants use Uranium as fuel which is scarce and will run out in 50-60 years. Therefore Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy" I don't know where you are getting your information but Uranium is effectively inexhaustible. As a matter of fact we can run for 80 years just on the Uranium we have now. Scientist do speculate that we will run out of fossil fuels in about 50-60 years though. Maybe you are confusing the two. "2. The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). " In this case you are absolutely correct, but only when Nuclear fission happens. Nuclear fusion's reactions are much safer and generate much less waste than fission. "3. High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature. 4. A meltdown in one of Russia's power plant had a MASSIVE leak of radiation in Chernobyl. the people there we're quarantined until all of the radiation could be removed. It would take 50 years maybe. That was roughly 20 years ago. " Again you are absolutely correct. There have been nine nuclear power plant related incidents and I believe there will be more. You can not make anything 100% safe. Lets look at automobiles. Just in the U. S alone 93 people die per day. Do we ban automobiles? No, because we don't have a better alternative, so we work at it till it gets safer and safer. And that's what should happen with Nuclear power stations. Back to you pro
Whether Women should be entered in the Military Draft

I would like to put out the disclaimer that I'm personally against the draft, but this has nothing against this debate.I would like to remind my opponent that a simple register for the draft does not mean they will be called into service. We haven't had a draft in years since the Vietnam war. Registering for the draft does not mean much of anything, so my opponent's arguments are blown completely out of purportion in this debate.
Whether Women should be entered in the Military Draft

If Women are allowed in the military draft, what would happen to those few families that lose both their mother and father? Especially those with children involved. The children would have no job and no money. Even if they did have money they would not know how to use it. I agree with you that they can be put in the front lines, or anywhere, but they should not be forced to register for a draft if a war was to occur. Honestly, I don't think Men should have register either. Women are always screaming for equal rights, when really it should be the Men. It doesn't make any sense to draft people unwilling to fight. If they wanted to fight they would join the army themselves. There are women in the military, and they are great, but they just are not built for combat. If they join willingly, sure, but a draft, no.
Whether Women should be entered in the Military Draft

This round will be a bit short on mind end due to such a hectic schedule. Contention 1: Allowed into the frontlines. The one thing that we need to focus in this debate is the wording of the resolution in terms of allowed. We can see that many opponents of the resolution use arguments of harms of women injured in the frontlines and so forth. The resolution isn't a forcing of females into the frontlines, but a permission and the opening up of the role to women. Does this mean that all women would become infantry grunts? The answer is simply no. We currently are not aware of the numbers that would occur with the women being permitted into the frontlines, but we have to realize that this only opens the avenue for women to acquire MOS's that are in relation to frontline combat roles. For all we know, women might not elect to join the frontlines or military officers may discriminate to bar them from entry, but legally they are still able to acquire and apply for these roles. Contention 2: Female numbers One thing we cannot deny is the simple fact that women are a rising force in the US military. They currently make-up 14% of the military and do many other things for the US military to include nearly 16% of officers are women [1]. They only account for 2.7% of all frontline operations. We would have to see that looking at many arguments here that there are very little numbers here to be susceptible to harms in the military due to the fact that they are such a small number of frontline military, but they do make up a huge portion of officers, so we have to permit their lines here to see that there would be hindrance of the military operations if we fail to allow them in the frontlines and since their numbers aren't the largest, we could see that any harms would be mitigated. Contention 3: Don't ask don't tell In another argument, we can see that in 2011, that President Obama lifted Don't ask Don't tell. Many of the similar arguments against openly gays being in the military were similar to those of women, with sexual assault, troop sexual attraction, and so forth. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is a lead into the repealing of these archaic laws against women in the frontline. Sources 1. (http://www.cnn.com...)
9/11 was a made by the government so they could invade another country for oil

Now i am going to flaw the government on how they perfected 9/11 1. War Games US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon 2.Pentagon strike How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command? 3.Demolition Hypothesis What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? And finally 4. Awol chain of command It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers But dont give me credit for these arguments i got most of them from a 9/11 truth website so thank them for these reasons and more vote.......... Pro! thank you
9/11 was a made by the government so they could invade another country for oil

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I would like to remind you that this is about the validity of the US' involvement in 9/11 and not about the effects and need for the war on terrorism/Afghanistan/Iraq. I will not address the validity or invalidity of the statements you have proposed on such issues. If America was behind this as you suggest, it would be illogical considering that Afghanistan isn't even in the top ten countries in oil production (http://www.mapsofworld.com...). I'm pretty sure the US government would be smart enough to attack a country that had higher oil production. In regards to the terrorists that attacked us on that terrible day, the idea for the attacks was conceived by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed years before the actual attack. He was a personal friend to Osama Bin Ladin and a member of the Al Qaeda. HE planned the attacks himself after being inspired by the attention that the bomber involved in the 1993 parking lot bombings that occurred in the World Trade Center as well. The selected attackers were all well respected Jihads in their community. They were hand selected by Osama Bin Ladin himself. Therefore, none of the things you are putting forth in regards to the US' involvement in these heinous crimes have validity because 9/11 was an attack on the US by terrorist organizations based on the presence of US in Saudi Arabia, the support of Israel by US troops, and the sanctions against Iraq. Sources: http://www.mapsofworld.com... http://www.9-11commission.gov... http://www.slate.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://english.aljazeera.net...
9/11 was a made by the government so they could invade another country for oil

S goverment took a couple of people from the middle east to stage an "attack" on the world trade centre, an airplane crashing into the pentagon and another one in a field to make the people in believing "terrorists" are attacking the U. S and rally them up so they can invade another country for its oil since the oils supply in the world is decreasing. i'm not saying that all Americans are evil just George Bush because when 9/11 happened Afghanistan was invaded by the Americans and it continues till this day. what the people in afghanistan will say" thanks for letting me walk through my own roads in my own country". And when they defeat the "terrorists" that "attacked" America, the military have just made things worse and just completely fucked things up even worse then when they werent there and still they are there making things worse. in maybe a few years the U. S will have turned Iraq and Afghanistan into a land of which no one can go to unless wearing a radiation suit and the U. S would of just took their oil and left laughing after another triumphant victory over nothing. Thank you
9/11 was a made by the government so they could invade another country for oil

Is this legitimate? Are you saying that 9/11 never happened? I'm pretty sure the 3,000 people dead and over 6,000 injured proved that. If I'm misunderstanding the purpose of this debate, please let me know. But if your saying that 9/11 never happened and it was made up by the US government then I'm ready to talk this one out.
Madonna should set up her own clothing factory

I thank cAnDiShOpLaDi for her considered contribution and would like to respond as follows: I concede that Madonna's clothes may not to be everybody's taste and may indeed only appeal to blind Sunday school teachers, deaf librarians, mute accountants and the like, but these people still have to wear clothes – I don't think it would be very appropriate for a Sunday school teacher to preach Christian values to little children in the nude, do you? The point is that Madonna fans are paying far too much for her gaudy t-shirts but if they were made by child slaves in her own factory in Guantanamo Bay she would be able to bring the price down. Thank you.
Madonna should set up her own clothing factory

Madonna is one of the most successful Italian-American female singers to come out of Bay City area of Michigan in the 1980's and she is still hugely popular to this day. That's why she can get away with charging ï¿½30 for a crappy t-shirt with her name printed on it. (1) As there is no evidence to suggest that Madonna is a rip-off merchant exploiting her fans' loyalty by selling them cheap tat at hugely inflated prices, we must assume that the t-shirts are so expensive because she pays the manufacturer the best part of thirty quid to produce each one. However, she could sell these t-shirts for a fraction of the price if she made them in her own factory using child slaves from Africa to keep the labour costs down. Unfortunately though, Madonna lives in the UK and British law prohibits both child labour and slavery. Regrettably, the legal situation is similar in her native America too. But these laws should not concern Madonna unduly. That's because instead of buying children from African slave traders, she could legally adopt them just as she has done in the past. (2) So the only question that remains is where to locate the factory. Well, President Obama has repeatedly promised to close down the controversial detention centre at Guantanamo Bay and because human rights laws do not apply there, the former prison camps would be ideal for conversion into a factory that uses children to produce merchandise for aging pop stars. (3) Since the USFG will still be paying Cuba to lease the land in Guantanamo Bay after the camps are emptied of detainees (4) I'm sure President Obama would be more than happy to save the taxpayers' money and rent the space out to Madonna. Therefore, for the sake of her many fans, I affirm that Madonna should set up her own clothing factory. Thank you. (1) http://madonna.officialmerchshop.com... (2) http://www.cnn.com... (3) http://www.utrechtlawreview.org... (4) http://www.historyofcuba.com...
Muhammad was prophecised in the Book of Isaiah

I'd like to clarify that I am a progressive Christian, meaning I value the Bible and Christianity primarily for its personal spiritual value, not ultimate truth about reality. I also find great spiritual enrichment in Islam. As such, this is not about "which religion is right. " I don't think Judaism, Islam, or Christianity have it figured out. Instead what the author of the passage my opponent will bring forth meant is important to me, not how religions interpret it. It's a question of historicity. I look forward to this debate. May Allah grant us wisdom and enlightened minds in our discussion.