BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States foreign policy is an extremely atrocious policy.

" Extreme: 1. Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field. 2. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain. 3. Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See synonyms at excessive. 4. Of the greatest severity; drastic: took extreme measures to conserve fuel. 5. Biology. 1. Characterized by severe, usually oxygen-poor environmental conditions. 2. Having an affinity for such conditions: an extreme microorganism. 6. Sports. 1. Very dangerous or difficult: extreme rafting. 2. Participating or tending to participate in a very dangerous or difficult sport: an extreme skier. 7. Archaic. Final; last." Source: http://www.answers.com... All of the relevant definitions of here (the third) imply that it must be the MOST atrocious, the HIGHEST in atrocity, with the exception of the third, which still means it must be far beyond the norm. However, bad foreign policies, indeed often worse than the United States, are the norm. Most countries' foreign policies' consist either of complete unconcern with the rights of foreigners, unconcern with the rights of its own citizens (by bending over and accepting whatever the other countries tell them), or both. " The U.S. foreign policy is a policy that has resulted in the deliberate systematic murder of millions" First, this would not establish it is an extreme, i.e. beyond the norm. Most foreign policies have resulted, through negligience or commission, in mass death. Second, you have not proven that such killing is in the US case deliberate, or systematic (or that having a "system" for it is the problem for that matter), or murder (Killing is only murder if it is not in self-defense or defense of an innocent ally. Very few if any of the deaths the United States has caused through its foreign policy qualify as such, indeed, if anything, the problem with US foreign policy is that it is too timid, and thus allows other countries to kill innocent US citizens. ) I await your many-layered proof of specific murders caused by United States Foreign Policy, proof that such are deliberate, and proof that such fit any of the relevant definitions of "Extreme."
America needs to stop intervening with other nations.

It is not detrimental as a whole against America's existance to stop intervening with foreign countries. + Wow. Did you just say basically that if America is not wholly destroyed, we should do anything? Interventions are constantly ineffective and costly. We have been in Iraq for a large sum of time (about as long as Vietnam, I believe) and it hasn't depleted us economically. + Its costed trillions of dollars, other nations (especially the ones with oil) hate us, its costed us four thousand lives. Thts substantial. Our debt was rather large before the war and could not be helped as I assume my opponent is debating that we need to stop intervening unless it benefits us. We, essentially, NEED China's resources and exports to function. + We owe $200 billion of war debt. . http://www.atimes.com... This site will give proper illustrations as to how much China contributes to our country. + China is completely irrelevant. Its a shame that were so dependent on them but thats a different debate. We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country. + You just said that it is fine if we become a third world counrty! A need is used as a means of maintaining existance. Third world countries exist, we exist, America exists and therefore, we do not NEED to stop intervening. It is not threatening to the existance of our country and I would like my opponent to prove otherwise. + I told you what I meant. "Need" was too strict a term and I loosened it in round 2. Why are you hanging on to it? . .. Look. .. My opponent seems to have given up on this debate. I've said that if we stopped intervening in other nations when it had no beneft to us, we would benefit. We help out in Morocco with school renovations. This costs us a lot of money, overstretches our military so we cant act on real threats, and it is useless. We should stop these interventions. My opponent claims that "even if we are a third world country, we are still a country. " Well, I'd like to live to a higher standard than that. He says "America was not completely destroyed. " Lets try to do the best we can instead of better than the very worse. Vote PRO if you want our nation to have more money, more troops and to live to a greater living standard. Thank you.
America needs to stop intervening with other nations.

I will grant that I am not as inept at debating foreign policies as my opponent is. That being said, the question still remains: Does America NEED to stop intervening with other countries? My answer: No. It is not detrimental as a whole against America's existance to stop intervening with foreign countries. We have been in Iraq for a large sum of time (about as long as Vietnam, I believe) and it hasn't depleted us economically. Our debt was rather large before the war and could not be helped as I assume my opponent is debating that we need to stop intervening unless it benefits us. We, essentially, NEED China's resources and exports to function. This site will give proper illustrations as to how much China contributes to our country. http://www.imf.org... We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country. A need is used as a means of maintaining existance. Third world countries exist, we exist, America exists and therefore, we do not NEED to stop intervening. It is not threatening to the existance of our country and I would like my opponent to prove otherwise. If not, vote Con. Thank you, -EG
America needs to stop intervening with other nations.

The Libertarian Party believes that the military should pull out of other nations with our militaries eventually if not immediately unless it is absolutely necessary. - We have troops in Germany, Japan, Belize and Haiti and none of them are doing much of anything but at the same time we have less than enough troops to go into Afghanistan. If we werent promoting democracy in Haiti or bombing Kosovo to end genocide, we would have a significant amount of troops. - We spend a tremendous amount of money on our troops when they are overseas. And this is military funding. So we have less airforce jets than we should and cant deploy ppl quickly enough for the purpose of overstretching our military. - Screwing other nations makes other nations hate us. If we werent helping Israel and Palestine, then Al Qaida would hate us less. Other nations would like us more if we let them run their nation, while we ran ours. - Weve seen what Iraq has done. Pull our troops out of places that we dont need to be. Give the governmentment more money and help other countrie to like us more.
Patriotism

first off lets clarify i love patriotism but i wanted a challenging debate now lets proceed. Not all people should love their own country. for example in the midst of WWII japenese AMERICANS were sent in internment camps in the middle of a desert.all their propert had to either be sold or thrown away that took away their right to property. They were trapped in "cages" essentiall not being able to leave, that was no life at all, they were being opresse that took awy the right to life. and finally they had their liberty taken away. The japenese had essentially no rights they couldn't vote or anything of that matter. Seeing that the government took away the Japenese Americans 3 natural rights defined in numerous social contracts(life liberty property) i see no reason for them to have been patriotic.
Patriotism

Even if that were right, you didn't give any evidence or examples to prove that. Other than the WWII example, which I explained didn't show why patriotism was bad, you haven't given any facts/evidence/logic behind your argument. Patriotism supports national pride and devotion. Your contention is that if a government is bad, than patriotism is bad. This isn't true. Like I said with the Cardinals example, it is possible to love the "team" but not like the "owners." Governments do not make nations, their citizens do.
Patriotism

The only problem there is that you can love your country, but hate those running it. Just take the past 8 years for example. Most people hate the Bush administration and the things they do. That doesn't mean they hate the country, they just hate the a$$holes who are running it. For example, I love the Arizona Cardinals and I'm not afraid to show it. But the owners (the Bidwells) are ruining the franchise. But just because I support the team, doesn't mean I approve of those running it. The same goes for countries and (in America's case) presidents.
Patriotism

Well, this is why I made sure to define it right off the bat. The debate topic is not "Everyone Should Be Patriotic." It is just the idea of patriotism itself. I am arguing that it is a good thing and that patriotism isn't detrimental to society. You need to argue why it is bad. Just because group of people got screwed over doesn't make the notion of patriotism bad. It makes the country bad. Sorry if there was any confusion, but that's why I made it 4 rounds.
Anime dubs are better than anime subs

We've spent the last two months arguing about this topic-its time to end this once and for all... round 1-announcing point of view/beginning arguements round 2-second arguements round 3-rebuttle/closing statement I think anime subs are a good thing-not all the time mind you-but most of the time its a convinient way to enjoy watching an anime without reading all that annoying text at the bottom of the screen that totaly ruins the immersion and you need to read in half a second or else you won't know whats going on.
Israel is the One to Blame for the Gaza-Israel Conflict (2)

There will be 5 rounds, with a max of 5,000 characters. You will get 24 hours to rebut my argument, and the voting period is 10 days. You will be 'Pro Palestinian' and I will be 'Pro Israel' Rounds: (1) Acceptance (2) Opening Statement (3) Rebuttals (4) Rebuttals (5) Conclusion Thanks for your time and good luck Pro.
Why Nike is the best global brand

P1: The fact that there was some sort of evidence to support the claim that Armstrong was using performance enhancing drugs only makes the fact that Nike endorsed him worse. This means they did not follow through on a proper background check before endorsing a cheater. P2: A brand that is considered the best would not support cheaters or potential cheaters, no matter what their accomplishments were. P3: Furthermore, to not better screen the people they are endorsing only makes them ignorant, a quality unbecoming and unfit for a brand argued to be the best. P4: Just because a company's sales have gone up does not make them the best. Using this notion would mean that any of the many companies that had a year to date sales increase should be considered to be the best. In addition, by using this standard other companies would better fit the bill as "the best" as they have shown bigger year to date sales increases and have turned more of a profit. P5: Furthermore, Nike's competitors, like Adidas and Asics, who offer similar products at similar price points, have shown similar sales increases, once again proving that Nike's sales increases and offerings are common place and average. (interbrand.com) C: Due to the fact that Nike's accomplishments have been achieved by other companies, some on a larger, more successful scale, the products they offer are merely competitive with other brands, and that they are negligent in the people who they endorse, the cannot be the best global brand.
Why Nike is the best global brand

P1: Considering that the only person during the time who said Armstrong was taking sports-enhancement drugs was a former team mate of Armstrong and was busted for doping, there was not enough evidence to show he was taking them and should not be endorsed. P2: Nike didn't endorse him for a "cheater" they endorsed him for a man who overcame cancer and won the Tour De France several times. P3: Nike's shoe are well designed and comfortable as you can see anyone in the streets either using them for exercises or using them on a casual day. There are a variety of Nike sneakers under 100$ ( Finishline.com) P4: Nike's sales going up over a year is additional evidence to prove that Nike is the best global brand. C: Nike is the best global brand.
Why Nike is the best global brand

P1: Considering that the world of sports has know about and tried to regulate or ban performance enhancing drugs since at least 1928 (http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org...) a multi-billion dollar a year company should have done better background checks into who they were endorsing. P2: By no longer endorsing Armstrong after the fact does little to negate the fact that an influential and well developed brand like Nike backed a cheater. If they truly were the best they would not have endorsed him altogether. P3: Just because Nike's sales have gone up over the course of a year does not make them the best. When using interbrand's 100 best of 2013 it would be easier to count which brands did NOT show an increase in brand value. More specifically, only 11 brands out of the top 100 decreased in value, while 89 showed an increase. This makes Nike's sales and value increase nothing special within the business world as other companies have not only showed increases but have shown higher increases. (interbrand.com) P4: Nike's shoes are not well designed or comfortable. A well designed shoe should also be well priced, which many of Nike's shoes are not. Case in point the $175 Free Hyper-Feels, which are not only too expensive but far too narrow to walk in and down right unusable for running as the foot becomes wider during this form of exercise. And the same can be said about their Mercurial Vapor series of soccer cleats, which is too narrow and cost around $200. C: Nike is still not the best global brand.
Why Nike is the best global brand

P1: During the time Nike endorsed players like Michael Vick and Lance Armstrong, they were not officially confirmed as cheaters or criminals. P2: After Lance Armstrong was charged with using performance enhancing drugs, Nike officially stopped endorsing him and his LIVESTRONG products. P3: Nike's running shoe are well designed and comfortable such as the Nike Lunar Fly 306 QS and the variety of Air max sneakers (AM 95, 97, etc). P5: According to Forbes, Nike sales went up 9% in North America over last year and 8% in Western Europe. http://www.forbes.com... P6: Nike is the best global brand due to their innovating products and increasing sales internationally.
Why Nike is the best global brand

P1: 24 other brands ranked higher than Nike according to interbrand's top 100 Brands for 2013. P2: Nike in 2013 was valued at less money than 24 other companies, earning only $17.085 billion compared to the 2013 leader, Apple, which earned $98.316 billion. That means Apple earned almost 6 times as much money as Nike. (interbrand.com) P3: When comparing the top 25 brand of 2013 Nike's change in brand value, which was 13%, is only slightly better than average and worse than a handful of the 25, like Google at 34% change, Samsung at 20% change, and Amazon.com at 27% change. (interbrand.com) P4: Nike has also endorse cheaters and criminals as well, like Michael Vick and Lance Armstrong. P5: Nike does not develop well designed and/or comfortable shoes as they soles to some of their running shoes are too hard and inflexible, which causes other parts of the body to absorb impacts, and they have little to no traction on wet floors and some of their shoes are too expensive, like many of their soccer cleats and running shoes. C: Nike is not the best global brand.
Why Nike is the best global brand

P1: Nike is the best global brand. P2: According to interbrand.com's Best Global Brands 2013, Nike " returned to growth in the past year with revenue increasing across every category and region, up 16 percent to USD $24.1 billion, the highest rate in 15 years". http://www.interbrand.com... P3: Moreover, the website shows Nike's brand value continually increasing every year. P4: Interbrand.com also states Nike continues to endorse famous sports athletes such as Lebron James and Rafael Nadal. P5: Not only are their shoe products well designed and comfortable, they have a variety of sneakers for people who enjoy or play different sports from baseball, to basketball, to golf, to even cross-training.
That we should abandon the Bill of Rights

I stand as pro to abolish The United States' Bill of Rights; (henceforth BOR) an inherently undemocratic document that, while intending to protect human rights, in fact ends up harming them. I realise this topic seems pretty odd, but it's something of an issue in Australia right now as some groups want to impose a Bill of Rights. Welcome,I'm searching for an opponent to tell me why we should keep the United States' Bill of Rights. The way I'm envisaging this debate as going is:Round 1: Introductions and definitions-acceptance or rebuttal of definitions in the Con's first roundRound 2-4: Arguments and rebuttalDefinitionsWe-The United States GovernmentShould-ought to do somethingAbandon-abolish and no longer consider importantBill of Rights-the first ten amendments to the constitution announcing certain social and political freedoms that the government cannot restrict. If it is suspected that a violation of these rights has been accomplished, the issue can be taken to court and decided by (usually Supreme court) judges. RulesI'd prefer it if people didn't argue semantically about the definition-we want an actual debate on the issue, not one on definitions. Other than that, however my opponent wishes to defend the BOR is fine, as long as it does not involve profanity, etc.
Feminism is for equal rights for all genders not just women.

I have to admit my arguments are not as well worded as yours. You stated: "My opponent provides no sustained reasoning as to why you should believe these claims. Thus, they are bare assertions" So i am going to give some evidence: "A: The old definition was "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males. The new Summary definition of Rape is: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." " - taken from http://www.fbi.gov... which backs my point that FBI changed their definition of rape to include men. "Employed new fathers in the UK are now entitled to at least two weeks' paternity leave on the birth of their child." - See more at: http://www.dad.info... The reason we had these things take place is because people spoke up and wanted these things. These people wanted equal rights to others (wanting time of to look after their child just like women get). You have stated numerous times that women do things to become more attractive to men but this is exactly what we are trying to stop: women being told they have to wear makeup to impress men. This doesn't mean women can't wear makeup to impress men if they want but it also means if a women wants to wear makeup they can do so without people assuming they are trying to impress a man it also means women don't have to wear makeup either. Why does everything need to be for men? Society is changing. You also reference many surveys. Despite surveys giving a rough estimate of views and opinions of society it also isn't 100% accurate. It's like surveying 5 people in a class of 50 and stating it is was most people think. Evidence for stereotypes: http://www.algbtical.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Feminism is for equal rights for all genders not just women.

Feminism is about gender equality and the reason it is called feminism is because even though it's about gender equality it's women who are underprivileged. I want to grow up in a world were women don't get judged if they wear makeup or if they don't wear makeup. I want to grow up in a world were if a boy wants to were makeup he can without fear of being bullied or judged. I want to grown up in a world were if a girl has short hair she isn't stereotyped as a lesbian and if a boy is flamboyant he isn't stereotyped as gay. Feminism isn't about hating men and I have to admit there are some people who use the word feminist wrong and think its about women being superior but it's not about that it's about that equality for all genders.
Everyone should not have to buy obamacare

Obama care is a service, like dental service or doctor service or lawn care for that matter. Obama "giving" us free health care is false we all have to pay more taxes for that weather we want it and or need it or not. It is unconstitutional to make you have to buy a service. Same as if the government made it mandatory for everyone to eat at McDonald's twice a week for example, that violates your freedom well so does mandatory Obama care. Garrett.house.gov states two ways Obama care is unconstitutional here, "Exceeds the Scope of the Commerce Clause " The purpose of Congress"s power to regulate commerce among the states was to end interstate protectionist measures and establish a national free trade pact. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to create commerce in order to regulate it."[1] Well this new Obamacare is regulating commerce isn't it. And number two, " Imperils Religious Liberty " ObamaCare forces religious institutions to provide services that violate their faith."[1] Such as abortion and free birth control even if you do belief those things are ethical, I hope you agree that it is completely wrong and against the freedom that is America to force a company to provide those things for someone. Those are two reasons why it's unconstitutional. But even though I do not agree with those things or want Obamacare I still have to pay for it and that's wrong. If you don't buy it this is the penalty, "The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation."[2] That is wrong and unconstitutional and violates the freedom of everyone in this great country. Good luck to my opponent. [1]http://garrett.house.gov... [2]http://www.businessinsider.com...
Banning of BDSM porn in the industry

i think porn should be banned because its mess up and gross and no one should do that with there life because then people get all weird and want to see more. also strippers and band groupies are normally forced to do what they do because they need money or a threaten to strip down or perform sex acts. any person that enjoys that is really needing a brain check because its inhuman and rude. so i think porn and related matter should be banned from being watched,performed and shown.