BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be president

Kingyosef: This has been the best debate I had, and I appreciate your participation. First you say that he has spent the least amount of time in public office. That is the only way you can gain more experience. This can only help me, but your points are good about foreign relations. But when you bring 9/11 into this, it is totally wrong. If we were to be attacked again with a new president by lets say by Russia (i think they are strong and they're helping Iran), there are only 2 candidates that Putin would be afraid of, McCain and Guliani. Barack has too good relationships with other countries, so I can see him being afraid to bomb it for the sake of civilians. Second, your argument was just about his experience with foreign countries. Sure that would be good, but if the wars are finished, and he is in office, foreign relations won't matter as much. How to lead our country will matter. Also, he has lived in other countries, but if he hasn't lived in another country, what makes him more experienced about it than the other candidates. With your way of "foreign experience", John McCain fought in Vietnam, so is he experienced about Vietnam? The average age of presidents when they take office is 55 years and 1 month. Barack will be 47 when ingnogoration takes place. The last president to take office that young, had an affair with an intern and caused a attack on our country., but that's a whole nother debate. This may be off topic a bit, but you say that John Edwards has ability to deal with stuff like 9/11, please explain. King, this has been a fun debate, please say if you would like to continue it. I'm sorry, but it still sounds like a sale pitch, do you work for his campaign, just wondering?
Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be president

Hello Kingyosef: Let me say 1 thing before I make my argument, your argument sounded more like a sales pitch for Obama rather than a debate for his experience (note paragraph 7 the most. It starts with "it is important to note"). When I posted this debate, I thought that who ever challenged me would know what the "too inexperienced" ment. I think you are just trying to be wise and you know what I'm talking about. I still stand by my argument made that says he is using his inexperience to persuade people's mind. When the War in Iraq started on MArch 20, 2003 he WASN"T EVEN A SENATOR YET! So, when he says he never supported the War from the beginning, how do we really know that's what he truly believes. Until I see some true facts that he never supported the war, I stand by this argument. "Experience is not a just tool in measuring how successful a president might be."- King That statement is totally false. Experience is a tool to become a successful president, but it is not the only tool used. When you are working on something, there is more than one tool in the tool box, there isn't just one tool. When voting time come near (even with the primaries) you will see other candidates question the others experience. Even though I'm a Republican, I know that Hilary is going to question Obama's in experience. "experience is not an issue in the election"- KIng Experience is an issue in this election, last election, next election, etc. Experience is one thing that can never change, and will all ways be an issue. It is a topic that will be here, is here, and was here. I love when I "define" experience, you just call it moot and shallow. Do you have any argument other than it's moot and shallow? Where are your facts to back it up? Merry Christmas!!!!
Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be president

Hello potential debaters, I believe that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be president. Here are my reasons: 1) He has only been a senator for just under 3 YEARS. That isn't enough time to become qualified. His fellow senators running have had a minimum of 6 years in office. The candidate that was in office for 6 years was John Edwards, who didn't run for relection since he was running for vice president. Also, Hilary has been in office for 7 years and most of the others , 11+ years. 2) He isn't proven to be a true leader. The last 8 presidents were either Governors or vice presidents. Also, 1 of the last 12 presidents were either a Vice President or governor. There is one exception, Dwight Eisenhower, who was a general. This is making him historically unqualified. He is using his inexperience to persuade people's minds. The big example is when he says he never supported the Iraq War from the beginning. He wasn't even a senator when congress voted on that. There is no way to prove that that is what he truly believed.
multi-level marketing is a fraud!

My opponent has failed to meet her Burden of proof. She must prove that MLM is always a fraud. There is problems in the MLM industry but I've proven at least one company isn't a fraud it she admits that it's not a fraud for people higher up on the chain. Since distributors in Avon, typically focus on direct sales as opposed to recruitment, it's not a pyramid scheme. My opponent had the BOP here and she failed to show how all MLM companies are frauds. She laid out a case for why they are in most instances but it's not good enough. Even if you don't buy any of my arguments, even if I forfeited every round, the voter would still have to vote for me, because My opponent failed to meet her BOP. Her job wasn't to show a lot or most MLM is a fraud. She had to show, how they are all a fraud.
multi-level marketing is a fraud!

First of all, you have to prove what you say..we can not claim that for example a friend of ours is a unicorn so unicorns exist...this argument about yourlife is unsupported.. Furthermore, there are some people who gain money by these companiesand these people are the founders of the company as I have already explained.. "Avon focuses on direct sales" 1) I have no reason to believe this 2) even if it's true it's just an exemption and we can not rely on the exemptions in order to reach a conclusion 3) even if this was the rule and not the exemption as I have already explained the mlm model itself prevent distributors from making profit
multi-level marketing is a fraud!

MLM isn't necessarily a fraud, though in some and maybe even most cases it wouldn't surprise me. Avon is a MLM company. http://www.bloomberg.com... When I was a kid my parents were in a very bad marriage and my mother started selling Avon to make extra money. Had it not been for Avon, we would have had many mots where we couldn't eat. The bad marriage point made me think of how many women in abusive relationships that Avon saves. Women in abusive relationships can use Avon as a tool to get some extra secret income and squirrel it away so they can escape it. This is on top of all the money that this company gives to domestic violence programs (according to wikipedia). http://en.wikipedia.org... Most people are going to fail in MLM regardless of how credible the company is. That's not to say it's a scam but just a tough business model. A lot of MLM companies are scams but those are the ones that focus on recruitment. Avon focuses on direct sales.
Is theortical knowledge better than practical knowledge

Very good reply to my argument .But theoretical knowledge only makes us how to gain marks in a exams that all, like a Quote " don't run after success but run after excellence " and also due to theoretical knowledge people start comparing each other. In life more of practical knowledge is needed to first to learn something new every day and second to get know are strengths and weakness.And people stop comparing each other.And have a long-term goal and not short-term goal.
Is theortical knowledge better than practical knowledge

Since my opponent has chosen practical knowledge, I presume I am arguing for theoretical knowledge as superior. 'Better' is a very shaky term,. Since the instigator has decided to forgo providing a definition, I feel obliged to respond with a correction: Better - Morally, Economically, and Scientifically superior. This debate will most likely feature a fuzzy logic outcome. All voters, please vote for the debater who proves his side to be most probably under most circumstances. I am also presuming first round acceptance, as Con has not provided any points. Good luck all, I hope for a friendly debate.
911 inside job

How else to get the world and american public on your side than by such an event live on TV for the whole world to see and get them on your side to fight an invisible enemy in countries that strategically they wanted to invade ( PNAC ) Project for a new american century. It lead to two illegal wars and the government spending of billions of dollars , dollars paid for by the United States Government and ultimately the American taxpayer. The american taxpayer must spend thousands of dollars out of there pocket every year to kill innocent children in other countries and they have no choice but to pay there taxes. Is that what you call freedom or democracy. All the tax money goes into this military complex which has totally taken over control of the interests of the government since the days of JFK and even before. It has gotten completely out of hand attacking its own people to create a new enemy after communism was dead.
911 inside job

The U.S. government oversees and funds military companies. They also wouldn't destroy a building of huge economic value to destroy evidence. If they wanted to increase military spending without court approval they would do it. They have done many unconstitutional things in the name of national security - like spying on phone records for instance. The government has this sort of power. To think a grand scheme of hijacking airplanes and crashing them into the twin towers for financial gain is ridiculous. Your other points are so weak they aren't even worth refuting.
911 inside job

1. I first want to make it clear that im not a supporter that the US government was behind the attacks. Rather military industrial companies namely , SAIC corporation. There are some researchers who propose economic reasons for the destruction of the towers, including insurance benefits , stolen gold, destruction of crucial evidence for world com and Enron. These researches some being ex government have done this sort of research that could only be argued in a courtroom. One of these researches is Kevin Ryan , the research would take years to do I unfortunately cannot take this time and effort but thankfully Kevin ryan and others have taken this question on and found startling conclusions. The main suspects seem to be a company or elements within that company called SAIC http://www.infowars.com... 2. Yes and the day before 911 were reported doing cocaine and carrying large amounts of cash and visiting strippers , they were obviously set up and framed by the 'insiders' , other reports including from the BBC reported that some of the Hijackers were still alive and well. There is no evidence that they boarded the plane. Where is the footage. Why doesnt the airport have footage of that... 3. These criminals this criminal mafia are not the US government but rather have corrupted and infiltrated parts of the US government and other governments around the world. 4. I think that if you look at Who benifits from 911 these military industrial companys gained alot and therefore should be the number one suspects of 911 compared to the unlikely story of the muslim extremists
Discourse on First Contact: Aliens are Likely to be Hostile [Continued]

There have been many cases in history people are scared of something and in that fear they take steps which in turn cause their fear to come true. If we are prepared for an attack then the aliens will most likely see it as a challenge, or that we are threatening them. It's in humanities best interest to assume that any aliens that would come, would come in peace. If they do come with intent of harm, then there are already security measures up against other nations that we could use on the hostiles. I believe that it's a bad idea to take any more protective measures than are already up. Thank you for choosing to debate with me.
Discourse on First Contact: Aliens are Likely to be Hostile [Continued]

Discourse on First Contact: Aliens are Likely to be Hostile [Continued] [Note] This is a debate continued from my previous profile. I will be assuming the mantle of pro, arguing that it is in our best interest to expect a hostile or contentious first contact event with extraterrestrial biological [or mechanical] entities. My opponent will be delegated as con. [Note] This debate should be impossible to accept. If you somehow manage to do so, you forfeit this debate. In saying this, please apply in the comments. Rules: [1] No trolling [2] Equitable conduct [3] No profanity [4] No ad hominem [5] Correct grammar and punctuation [minor mistakes accepted] Structure: [1] First round ACCEPTANCE ONLY [2] Opening arguments [3] Rebuttals [4] Secondary arguments [5] Tertiary arguments and rebuttals [Conclusion] Definitions: [1] Hostile - [Adj] Unfriendly; antagonistic. Of or belonging to a military enemy. [2] First Contact - [Noun] First contact is a common science fiction theme about the first meeting between humans and extraterrestrial life, or of any sentient race's first encounter with another one [For this discussion, not fictional]. [3] Extraterrestrial - [Noun] A hypothetical or fictional being from outer space, especially an intelligent one. Sources: [1] www.merriam-webster.com
Discourse on First Contact: Aliens are Likely to be Hostile [Continued]

We are assuming that the ET's have life as we know it. I will concede about the nature of life, but that is the nature of life on Earth. We have no idea how any other beings live. Their incentive may be to just explore, see what's beyond their galaxy. I agree that they'd have to be decades ahead of us, but I also think, what if they look at us the way we look at lesser creatures. Typically, when you see a puppy, you think "awe that's adorable" it's smart to be a little apprehensive as they can bite, but they usually won't be able to cause much damage. We know that water is essential for Earth life, but it wouldn't necessarily be essential for an ET. If they see us as I think they will, they probably wouldn't want to get rid of us, they'd want to watch us live and grow and learn. Most of your arguments can be countered with, "that's how we know life to work, but they most likely wouldn't have the same type of life as us." Trying to make ourselves invisible would just delay the inevitable. It doesn't matter if the come in 20 or 20,000,000 years, they will still be 100 times more advanced technologically than we are. Why make ourselves look like a threat when we can show that we mean no harm?
vegetarian school lunches

My opponents definition for vegetarianism is incorrect. What he described is the vegan diet. vegan: a person who does not eat meat, fish, or any animal products such as cheese, butter, etc. vegetarian: People who do not eat meat of animals such as chicken, pigs, cows, etc. Also they do not eat fish and seafood. But they do eat eggs, egg products, milk and other dairy products. Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 ï¿½ HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006 Depending on where you go to school, school lunches have different prices and cost different amounts to make. Vegetarian foods may contain no cholesterol and lots of fiber, but they lack in protein. Also, as I stated, you can always bring you lunch to school if you are dissatisfied with the menu. Last time I checked, 2% is less then 5%. So as you can see, my opponent cannot count or read. Also, there are not 1 million children in each school who do not eat meat. You have to consider that these 1 million children are dispersed all over the country. So yes, food would be wasted. "Schools in many areas have responded by adding salad bars as well as more fruits, vegetables and meatless entrees" This statement has no impact on my opponents case what-so-ever. Nor do any other quotes from this source that my opponent included. If your friends are dissatisfied with the school lunches they can bring their own. My opponents rebut to "I sit with 2 vegetarians" still had no impact for the pro side. Wikipedia is not a credited source, as anyone can post anything on there.
vegetarian school lunches

Vegetarianism - the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. It costs 3.00$ to make a school lunch. the schools get 2.50 for the lunches. as i will continue to say, adding a salad bar would add .10cents, now I don't think that this will affect many people in the long run. As you may know, vegetarian foods have no cholesterol and lots of fiber; meat, eggs, and dairy products contain a lot of cholesterol and have no fiber. No wonder that meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are. Recent surveys show that about 2% of children under age 18 consider themselves vegetarians, about the same percentage as adults. With nearly 50 million children attending public schools, that means approximately 1 million children who don't eat meet line up for school lunches each day. "Less than 5% of the population are vegetarian, so there's a potential that the food will be wasted when students choose meaty items instead." Of the 50 million children in schools you are saying 1 millions choices would be "wasted"? And that is only 2% of vegetarians, as you can see my opponent cannot keep their facts correct. Schools in many areas have responded by adding salad bars as well as more fruits, vegetables and meatless entrees, according to Marcia Smith, president of the American School Food Service Association. Over the past five years, some schools have begun serving a vegetarian item every day, she said. Schools must also accommodate children who don't eat meat for religious reasons. To rebut your Hindi comment, my friends, Ravi Deasi and Swetak Pradhan are Hindi. His family finds it easier to go all vegetarian then no beef, in case you dd not know this hinds don't eat beef other meats are fine. Also if some of the schools can add vegetarian maels, even if it IS just a salad bar, they still can be respected. " "I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table AND for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines" This argument really has no impact for the pro side. That's great that you sat with vegetarians for a week and a half. I'm happy for you. I really am. However, what's your point?" If anyone would actually pay attention and read what I said iI would not need to restate myself. i did not say I had, i said and which means i continue to in the context of the sentence. i apologize for the off topic, but we do get points for things like that, and this my help you understand how that "point" of mine effects my topic. http://www.todaysdietitian.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.todaysdietitian.com...
vegetarian school lunches

I will first build up my case then attack what my opponent said. REASONS WHY SCHOOLS DO NOT OFFER VEGETARIAN OPTIONS: 1. It costs more to make foods that are not processed - and processed foods are very likely to have some animal derived ingredients in them (i.e. french fries with meat extracts or lipase in them). Public schools in America are paid for by property taxes - if a school is in a very poor neighborhood, they get the worst funding. America is the ONLY country in the world with such a backwards, twisted system - which assures that the rich only get richer and the poor only get poorer and more debilitated. Since the funding is so bad in so many areas of our country, you can only expect the worst of slop on the plate for lunch. 2. Less than 5% of the population are vegetarian, so there's a potential that the food will be wasted when students choose meaty items instead. If schools were to offer vegetarian lunches, they would have to offer Hindu lunches (no beef, pork, turkey, chicken allowed but not on Fridays), diabetic lunches, etc. You can't please all the minorities out there. Schools offer a variety of foods that don't contain meat. Besides, if somebody has a special "eating issue", they should just bring their own foods (as my opponent stated). Now moving on to what my opponent said: "something other than meats drenched in sauce, ketchup, oils, and salt." Is meat honestly the only thing your school offers to eat? I highly doubt it. Schools are required by law to serve food from each food group. "based on the fact that a child will at meat if there is nothing else" What logical school actually believes this? Unless a child is STARVING then they would rather go hungry then eat meat (if vegetarian or something to that extent). The people who run the schools and create the menu know this. They aren't stupid. "or they suppose that you will pack your own lunch if you don't eat meat" EXACTLY. This is what smart children SHOULD do. If you are not satisfied with the food they are serving then by all means, feel free to bring your own. I actually recommend doing this for non-vegetarians as well, because if the meats they serve are as grouse as you make them sound to be then no one should be eating them. "I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table and for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines" This argument really has no impact for the pro side. That's great that you sat with vegetarians for a week and a half. I'm happy for you. I really am. However, what's your point? Also, the only examples you give only concern YOUR school. You never give any examples from other schools. your personal observations alone are not valid. "Now I don't think that they should be able to provide a lunch for kids who cant eat peanut butter, but not for vegetarians" I have never heard of any school doing this. Please provide proof to validate your point.
vegetarian school lunches

I feel that High school and JH's should feature something other than meats drenched in sauce, ketchup, oils, and salt. Many schools, still are based on the fact that a child will at meat if there is nothing else, or they suppose that you will pack your own lunch if you don't eat meat. I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table and for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines. Now I don't think that they should be able to provide a lunch for kids who cant eat peanut butter, but not for vegetarians. I leave the rest up to my opponent to make an argument, Thank you.
Contender chooses topic

Thanks for letting me choose the topic. thank you. If you don't like this topic, you can tell me and we can change it. Okay I choose to do this one on gravity falls, and why its a cool show (maybe one of the best) and you have to say why not. *Khan voice* Shall we begin. ill start. Gravity one: it is very thought out. It has lots of mystery's, all the characters possibly has at least one secret (i think, not sure on that one) it has hidden coded messages at the end of each episode witch is very cool. I will stop for now. your turn.
Contender chooses topic

Pro has failed to counter my arguments, so my arguments still stand. Pro has simply just stated his opinions on why HE thinks it is the best show ever, I have data and evidence that Gravity Falls is not the BEST show ever, it is simply good because there are other shows with a higher rating. Unless Pro counters, my arguments still stand. Pro has failed to explain why his arguments relate to Gravity Falls being the best show ever. Your turn Pro, Good Luck!