BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolution to long. Posted in Round 1.

The president of the United States is an honorable position, but what the president does, however, may be less than honorable. Allow me to trail back to President Wilson, our president during WWI. His entire campaign was "No More War! " just like Obama's pretty much was. However, his actions resulted in the sinking of the Luscitania, killing 100+ American troops. General Willam's even warned him about being in a sub zone. This also resulted in the Zimmerman Note, a telegram to Mexico to request housing for German troops for a preperatory attack on the US. His stated intentions won him office, but his actions belied him. Therefore, we were thrust into WWI. The purpose of this story was to open up the possibilty of dishonesty in politics. I do believe we have all heard some story or another of some politicion's scandle, so this isn't a concept that is "far-fetched. " Now, let's review Obama, since this would pertain to him. His plan is to send many, many troops to Afghanistan to secure it and supress insurgency. A part of his plan is also to have them back within 18 months. HOWEVER: The number of tropps have (over) doubled since his position in office back in January! Most of the nation doesn't want to be in war right now anyways. Since this nation was "by the people, for the people" you would think that he would take some heed to the public's opinon. Surprisingly, he hasn't. He claimed he would start pulling troops out, but he hasn't. He's actually sent more! This is a major contention of mine that I would like to stress, and it is irrefutable. Even our military is against it. How many attacks have been conducted on America since 9/11? None. We were over there to caputer Osama bin Laden, but it quickly shifted to securing oil refineraries and searching for signs of Weapons of Mass Destruction (haven't found any). Now, we are trying to fix their nation. Here's where I'd like you, please, to pay undivided attention: This war will ultimatly help them. It may help us, indirectly, but not without hurting us more by losing TRILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives when we are already in a depression. It will hurt us more than help us! This war has had, in my opinon, no positive effects except uniting the people. However, it is bad when we staned united. .. .against our own government! !! !
Resolution to long. Posted in Round 1.

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. Debating will begin in Round 1 with AFF. This is for my partner and I's public forum tournament at James Logan Highschool in January. I would like to ask my opponent that we debate in Public Forum style. Provide 2-4 contentions. Then refute mine. Thank you very much for whoever accepts. This debate will essentially help me, so I don't mind if I win or lose.
Resolution to long. Posted in Round 1.

In contrary to what my oppent believes, I will persist that I have won this debate through that single quotation of his. What has been said so far and what this debate is about, holds absolutely no meaning if my oppenent agrees with me, which he did. (Off the record of this debate: My opponent is correct in the sense that I have been a smug little @$$hole. I do implore the audience and my opponentto believe that this is not my style. I am experimenting with what my dirty debate teacher taught me, and here is my explanation {I couldn't tell you that I'm not a jerk at first, because that would ruin the point of the experiment}. My teacher states that debate is quiet the opposite of arguing. While trying to maintain your emotions in a debate, meeting someone who has a tinge of rudeness unsettles the person. Thus, they are prone to mistakes because the inate anger of the action of the opponent results in narrow-mindedness, constricting the opponents ability to rationalize and think of rebuttals and points. This whole thing is purely experimental, but I trust him, for he was a psychiatrist before he took up teaching and holding our debate team after school. I'm truely sorry if I offended you. The next thing is, and this is good, that you pointed out I had no evidence to support my claims. This is very good. However, in a spoken debate, they will not list claims. You must ask for them in a debate, but they must be to build your point against them, or else you run out of time in Cross X. There is one thing about this debate though. I did not mention, first, that Afghanistan is an allied country, you did. Therefore, I do not have to present proof, because you contradict yourself. However, if I had to think on the moment, I would say: "Government is defined as, in this sense, an entity that rules over a country. However, in a state of anarchy, civil war, and turmoil, their government cannot maintain it's own country, which is why we are assisting the government. The government itself wants us there. Though it cannot maintain adequate control, it is still recognized as the power of the country, but it IS STILL IN CONTROL. Since the power of this country wants us there to help it, we must be their ally. Good luck, friend, in your debate.
Resolution to long. Posted in Round 1.

I would like to begin by noting that my opponent has dropped my whole case and solely persists on one issue of the debate. My contentions still stand. 1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional. 2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense. 3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's. I would now like to DRAW A LINE between the confusion of my opponent and the resolution. The RESOLUTION states that "President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest." My whole case has proven effective against this, whereas my opponent provides insufficient evidence against this. Then, in Round 3 my opponent drops my whole case to support is SINGLE contention. "Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country." My opponent contends that he has essentially won at this point. He must have forgotten the resolution however. Wether or not democracy in an allied country is in the best interest of the United States is not the point of this particular debate. The fact of the matter is that "President Obama's PLAN for INCREASING TROOPS in Afghanistan" has not been argued against by my opponent. THIS DEBATE revolves around wether or not the 30,000 troops that will be sent to Afghanistan is NECESSARY. My opponent has disregarded this WHOLE aspect. My whole case negates this resolution, whereas my opponent does not specify why 30,000 troops are needed. The United States already houses 70,000 + men and women in Afghanistan. Allied forces sum up to around 20,000. What Obama needs to do now, is request more troops from our allied forces, not be sending more of our own men in. I honestly don't appreciate my opponent's smugness. I would also like to mention that my opponent only provides one wikipedia site as a source. As a side note I would like to request a source for Aghanistan being an allied country to the United States. Thank-you for your time.
Resolution to long. Posted in Round 1.

"I would have to agree that yes, establishing a democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country" In this single quotation, I have won my case. Here's why: He said: "Obama's plan, is to send 30,000 more troops to Afghan. My opponent tries to refute this by saying that his plan is also to win. I never made the notion that Obama's plan isn't to win." This insinuates that he believes Obama's plan is, indeed, to win. The objective of this plan is to establish democracy in Afganistan's country, as it were. Which, he just said: "I would have to agree that yes, establishing a democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country." This alone, nullifies all of his other points. Please, do not be offended if I do not argue the next round, which I probably will. However, with this alone, I will not need to. VOTE AFF! *Merry Christmas!
team war inspired by mongeese. (ps. i hope you don't mind that i copied your rules)

Okay, so if voldemort canno control the already undead, the he summons his own undead, to battle the zombies. mario uses a shooting star item, obliterating all the zombies in the fighting area, while leaving voldemorts inferius, which proceed to attack your team. assuming they survive, to counter the illusion, voldemort casts a Finite Incantatem, revealling that deadpoool is not there, but bullseye is, who voldemort casts a confundus charm on, making bullseye a guy ith a bunch of knives, who voldemort quickly kills with an avada kedavera.( spells found on http://en.wikipedia.org...) then i use my previous strategy to eliminate deadpoll, and megaman kills ahzek with a black hole or laser trident, while he is distracted battling kirby who keeps inhaling ahzeks spells. kirby later becomes magic kirby, i guess, and meanwhile, vodemort uses a killing curse on manfredd, or conjuring up a stake to stab him. that leaves ben, who is hit by another Finite Incantatem, as well as being frozen by one of marios items, leaving him vulnerable to the a spell from magic kirby, a chaos blast from SHADOW (not sonic), a killing curse from voldemort, a fireball from mario, and a black hole from megaman. Your turn PS. shadow wouldnt have been incenerated, as in sonic x, normal shadow fell through earths atmosphere and survived.
team war inspired by mongeese. (ps. i hope you don't mind that i copied your rules)

Ok, first off voldermort does not have control of the undead, he has control of his Inferius, which is a dead human body that the wizard reanimates using magic. (http://harrypotter.wikia.com...). Zombies are already reanimated corpses, and Voldermort can only take control of a dead human body, so the zombies are mine. heres my counter strategy: Quick Ben uses his Meanas warren to confuse sonic and make an illusion of deadpool. Sonic would summon voldermort, and as soon he apparates, Bullseye hits him with a throwing knife. Ahzek faces off against Kirby, and using his sorcery, destroys kirby. Also Manfredd cannot be killed by garlic or sunlight, as proven in Steven Savile's Von Carstien trilogy, it merely requires a strong will to stand in sunlight, which manfredd has applenty. Manfredd, using his supernatural speed and strengh tries to catch sonic. As sonic races by, Ben opens up a portal to the warren of Telas directly in front of him. ( Telas is the path of fire) Sonic is incenerated. The whole gang gets together, corners Megaman, and with their combined efforts destroy him. Of course this is assuming they find a way to escape from the hordes of ravenous undead.
team war inspired by mongeese. (ps. i hope you don't mind that i copied your rules)

actually, my team would not be overwhelmed, as it is shown in Harry potter 6 that voldemort also has control over the undead, so the world would be in encased in billions of zombie vs zombie battles. Strategy: Voldemort casts a tracking spell on shadow, and shadow will then fly around the world at sonic speed multiple times. when he finds deadpool, he signals voldemort, who apparates to the spot and hits deadpool with a killing curse. (also, in the Kirby show, Kirby is invulnerable to attacks from the inside, so if deadpool gave himself up to Kirby, then he's screwed). meanwhile, Kirby faces of with bullseye, inhaling all of his attacks, and then either inhaling bullseye, or spitting back his entire barrage. meanwhile, shadow and voldemort find Manfredd, and voldemort conjures up garlic, a sunny day, and a stake, which he use against Manfredd. Megaman tracks down ahzek with a hornet chaser(megaman 9), and dispatches him with a black hole weapon(megaman 9), or the armor-piercing laser trident (megaman 9), and since megaman is a robot, he is unaffected by Ahzeks powers. Finally, that leaves only Ben. paper mario, who id nothing until know, uses an item to freeze him, and then Kirby sucks him up, megaman black-holes, voldemort curses, mario fireblasts, and/or shadow chaos blasts. Team PRO reigns victorious, while the zombies continue to whipe each other out. Your move CON.
team war inspired by mongeese. (ps. i hope you don't mind that i copied your rules)

4. Bullseye Can use almost anything, including a tooth pick and a playing card, as a lethal projection. Also a master of many martial arts and his bones are reiforced with strips of adamantium. Equiped with throwing knifes and pistol canon http://marvel.com... 5. Ahzek Ahriman A chaos space marine of the Thousand sons chapter. He is incased in a suit of power armor, which is impervious to most conventional weapons. He is armed with a bolt gun which shoots explosive rounds. He is also one of the most powerfull psykers in the galaxy. http://wh40k.lexicanum.com... This is why my team is better. First off Manfredd uses the Eye of Khemri to take control of the billions of undead on the planet, also summoning the many dead in their graves. Your team would be smothered under the weight of hordes of zombies. Quick ben can send all of your people into one of his warrens (warrens are also places, and the sorcerers can use them to travel around quickly or send people into them) or use the power of his warrens to destroy them. Deadpool could counter Kirby by letting him swallow him, then cutting him open from the inside. Bullseye can simply put a throwing knife into their foreheads. Ahzek could summon creatures from the warp to kill them, shoot them with his bolter, or destroy their minds using his formidable physik powers. Your turn.
team war inspired by mongeese. (ps. i hope you don't mind that i copied your rules)

1: super shadow from Sonic X 2: 8-bit megaman- If he gets a weapon from each robot he beats and there are 8 robots in each of his games, that's a LOT of weapons 3: kirby from the anime- He eats anything and everything! 4: Voldemort(without his hocruxes, so this match will be fair) 5: paper mario from super paper mario
team war inspired by mongeese. (ps. i hope you don't mind that i copied your rules)

Alright i'm fine with all the rules. Here are my first 3 guys. 1. Ben Adaephon Delat aka "Quick Ben" Equiped with "Warren" canon. Warrens are just bassically different types of magic he uses. http://malazan.wikia.com... 2. Deadpool (Wade Wilson) Equiped with Regeneration canon. Can regenerate most major organs and limbs. http://marvel.com...(Wade_Wilson) 3.Manfredd von Carstein Equiped with Eye of Khemri canon. He has all the ability's and pitfalls of a vampire. http://warhammeronline.wikia.com... (Eye details) http://warhammeronline.wikia.com... The battlefeild will be the Zombie invested apocaliptic earth of "The Walking Dead" (thanks tvellalott) My team will start in the city of London, Ontario, Canada. And i was a bit iffy on the canon thing so correct me if I did it wrong.
team war inspired by mongeese. (ps. i hope you don't mind that i copied your rules)

post the locaion you want on comments. DEFINITIONS Team leader: One of the debaters here, i.e. me or my opponent Team member: One of the five chosen warriors. Team Pro: My team. Team Con: My opponent's team. RULES 1. There will be no demi-god characters that are capable of travelling at ridiculous speeds, shattering almost any barriers in their way sustaining little damage to themselves, and wiping out anything, like Superman or Sentry, or anything more powerful than that. Nor will there be any unlimited powers that cannot be resisted. If you're in doubt, just ask. 2. Other illegal powers include time travel and mind control (taking over an opposing character). 3. Any team member must be either real or, if fictional, verifiably existent. No characters may be made up for the purpose of this debate. 4. In the case of a fictional character, the team member's abilities must be according to a specific canon chosen by the team leader. 5. Every character has only the equipment that they generally have in the specified canon, at almost all times, not equipment they only picked up a few times. They should be in their default state. If a character is arguably two individuals, the debater must pick one and stick with it through the entire debate. 6. Team members are absolutely loyal to the team leader. All team members are still subjected to their own emotions, however. 7. The team leader may not directly participate in the competition, but may only facilitate. The role of the team leader is to explain what the team would do and why it would win against the opposing team. 8. Neither team can have a member in common. If one team leader chooses a team member, the other team cannot have that character. 9. A team wins when all members of an opposing team are dead, unconscious, or essentially unusable. Characters who cannot be dead, unconscious, or unusable are not allowed. 10. The winning team automatically receives Arguments and Sources. Conduct, in addition to regular things, goes to the person who follows the rules most effectively. Please remember this rule. Round 1: Rule specifications; CON unveils first three team members, PRO unveils all five team members. CON also chooses the location of his team at the start of the fight; PRO then chooses a different location at least X meters away from the one picked by CON (determined based on the location). Round 2: CON unveils his final two team members and explains why his team is better. PRO also begins his arguments. Round 3, 4, 5: Arguments and rebuttals. i will choose my characters once a location is chosen.
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

I understand. Why should we help the poverty of Mexico if we can't sub stain our own economy. By giving illegal aliens the job of creating this fence you can almost say that we are outsourcing. Americans decided to create this border fence and Americans should finish the job. How is to say that if these Illegals are making this fence going to do a 100% percent job of actually making it. They can make sure that certain areas of the fence have week points so other illegals are able to to get in. Not only of the liability of making sure that these illegals do their job, how can we trust them. How are we suppose to keep them in the country. Are we going to give them free housing and a salary wall they build the fence. By using Americans we would have lower expenses to keep up with. It would make sense to send the illegals back once we find them. Instead of having to provide them living expenses and a salary when they illegal entered the country.
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

Sorry about that EBaldofsky, for I have just noticed that I am for using illegal immigrants to build the border fence, not against. I am deeply regretful that I could not argue against, but shall muddle through and use the viewpoint given to me. The illegal problem is quite deep within the United States and shows no sign of a solution. To find some work besides the for these temporary immigrants and stop the flow of more we should build a fence on the border using the workers that have temporarily came across. This fence will not hinder the job market, contrary to EBaldofsky' s viewpoints, for it will use the workers that would usually be doing jobs closer to home. Also very few Americans would want to go out in the dusty desert and do menial tasks such as building a fence to block out illegals (please comment if you would do such a job). This work would also provide a way to make a small living working for the U.S. government. They would be able to send money back to their families and support their families in the U.S. This would cause no damage to their lifestyle of living and help the Mexican government deal with their problem of poverty. Overall, the illegal immigrants will be used to stop a growing problem while also benefiting them for a brief while before being sent back across the border.
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

Why would you start of the argument with the word racist? The current rate of unemployment of Americans is approximately at 14 million Americans. That number is based of the US Department of Labor. Wouldn't it be better to give those Americans a job to help support their family. If an illegal alien is to come into the United States of America, they are suppose to departed. We shouldn't be giving the prizes if they get on to the US soil. Congratulations you illegal made it to the United States of America now here is a hammer and get to work on building this fence. There are Americans that are struggling to make ends meet, and would do any thing to have an extra to make money. Yes the economy is bad in both Mexico and America, but there is a legal way into coming into this country.
Contradictions and inconsistencies in the hypocritical bible

Oh yes you did most certainly say "I didn"t say that it was you who made it was part of your argument" Here's what you stated "Example your first verse" couldn't be more clearer. And you trying to squirm out of it only makes you look all the more guilty. Continuing "so I assumed you agreed with it which I wasn"t wrong" Oh absolutely 100% you were wrong because you CAN'T READ. And again, You not owning up to YOUR mistakes makes you look all the more guilty. "Let us not forget that you didn"t even mention my argument that confusion in the definition" well by gum it is YOU that created the confusion. The verses, Had you bothered to READ them, In which you did not do are as plain as day. Now the bible is confusing because of the over 1, 000 hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies in it making it truly unreadable yes, But most certainly not here. Regardless, Your god (in which you cannot even prove even exists) would not be stupid enough, Not ever to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. "and wording because different languages have more or less meanings for a English word for example for this would be a word like kill in Hebrew. " Well I'm going to ignore that because to you didn't back it up. Of you are going to state something, Then you either need to back up what you state, Or simply shut up. This you will most certainly find out as life kicks in later in life. "The only way for god to make something that would never be evil is to make a being that wouldn"t have a choice and that would be evil wouldn't it to make something that is essentially your slave a robot that would do anything they are told. " Well only you know what you mean by that. Its a very confusing sentence. "Ahhh whoopss, You mentioned free will again. You were 100% proved wrong on that. If you believe in your god you have no free will. Period unless you believe in hate and evil and O will give you that one and thus that's what YOUR god is as proved in YOUR piece of s--t bible in which cannot be taken seriously. But you do as it is the only connection you have with YOUR god. "Your argument for evil at the end the why does evil exist is quite simply be answered using the argument above there is a loophole he would contradict his nature if he did anything else but allowed choice. " Yeah and since you agree with it, Then that means according to you that evil ---always--- wins. And YOUR god gives that power, That free will to those that are evil. Oh gee what does that have to do with hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies? K I'm done. Bye.