BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is US doing more harm or good to stop ISIS

Let's look at the first reason we have this problem. ISIS and other terrorist organizations that America is spending millions to fight were armed by the CIA[1]. During the Civil War era, the CIA aligned with the extremist Islamic State and armed them in order to defend against Soviet forces. I am not claiming that America has not produced any good outcomes, but there are definitely more negative effects. America is in an economic crisis, not as bad as Europe with their negative interest rates, and we continue to spend money that we simply don't have. Millions of tax dollars are being spent to fight a group that we created, breaking the Geneva Conventions by doing so[2]. By June, 2011, the costs of this war on terror were about $5 Trillion[3]. $16,000 per American citizen, to put that into perspective. $16,000 could go into funding education, prisons, and homeland facilities. America is fighting overseas when we have failed to solve our problems here. Now, I do accept that we are too far into the ISIS issue to pull out, but that does not change that we have caused several hardships. In the war on terror alone, 133,000 Iraq civilians have been killed by direct violent[4], 21,000 Afghan civilians[5], 20,000-5,000 Pakistani civilians[6]. These civilians died because of armed warfare, and greatly surpasses the 2,296 casualties in the 9/11 bombings. [1] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [3] http://nation.time.com... [4] http://costsofwar.org... [5] http://costsofwar.org... [6] http://costsofwar.org...
Is US doing more harm or good to stop ISIS

ISIS is the type of terrorist group that will not be stopped in a year or so, but the attacks that the US or causing will surely stop ISIS. During the State of the Union, President Obama made a claim that the war against ISIS. "In Iraq and Syria," the President said, "American leadership " including our military power " is stopping [ISIS]'s advance." "But Obama's more modest claim " that ISIS's advance in the two countries has been seriously slowed and America deserves (some) credit " is correct. The American strategy is far from perfect, and the gains it has produced aren't necessarily permanent, but Obama is right to say that it's helped beat ISIS back. (1)" America's strategy has been remarkably successful! Since all of the airstrikes began, US and allied bombs have made it difficult for ISIS to mass its troops in the open. That makes it hard for the group to orchestrate large-scale offensives. Airstrikes have also blown up ISIS oil facilities, making it harder for the group to raise cash. Cites: (1) http://www.vox.com...
The constitution establishes Christianity as the offical religion of the USA

This debate concerns only the Constitution. However, my opponent instead quotes the Declaration of Independence, a completely separate document. http://www.archives.gov... Even if the debate focused on the Declaration, the closest it comes is referencing a Creator, which is present in not only Christianity but also many others, most notably Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Deism [1]. Thomas Jefferson, the author, was almost more of a Deist than a Christian [2], and even originated the phrase "separation of church and state." Looking at the Constitution itself, we find no reference to Christianity or Christ at all, nor does it reference God or religion, except to assert in Article VI that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." http://www.archives.gov... The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, added to the Constitution, makes it explicitly clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," making it flat-out impossible for the United States of America to have any official religion at all. http://www.archives.gov... In conclusion, my opponent has no case, relying erroneously on the wrong document, and I have proven that the Constitution in no way establishes any official religion for the United States of America, let alone Christianity. The resolution is negated. 1. http://www.religionfacts.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The constitution establishes Christianity as the offical religion of the USA

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
The death penalty by lethal injection is too lenient a punishment compared to life in prison.

Indeed, I do see where you're coming from. But I disagree, that keeping someone in jail does not ENSURE punishment. What happens to them when they're in jail? They get three square meals a day, they have a chance to socialize, most get some sort of television, athletic opportunities, a decent place to sleep, and some prisons even allow tobacco. Also, if a person is already sentenced to life...they can basically do what they want and fear no punishment. I mean, if they decide to go beat a guard to death, what can the court do? Nothing, they're already in prison for life. And they can continue to do it, again, and again. That's all I have for this round. I look forward to seeing your rebuttal.
The death penalty by lethal injection is too lenient a punishment compared to life in prison.

I will address each argument seperately: 1. "A prisoner lives on an average on $22,000 per year. It is MUCH more cheaper to just do away with them, than to keep them locked up for life. Let's say that a murderer is convicted when he's 20 years old, and will live until he's 80 in prison. That's 60 years. 60 x 22,000 = 1,320,000 That is A LOT of money for just one prisoner. That money could go for something more necessary. " While this is a very good point, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the resolution. If I was arguing that the death penalty is finiancially more benificial to the government than is imprisoning someone for life, my opponent's argument would be correct and undeniable. Unfortunately for my opponent, this debate is about whether or not "The death penalty by lethal injection is too lenient a punishment compared to life in prison. " My opponent's other argument was that we don't know what happens to us after we die, and if there is an eternal Hell waiting for a murderer on the other side of death, then he will surely be punished. This is also far beside the point. 2 men rape and kill a child. One is sentenced to death, the other to life in prison. Even if we assume the extremely unlikely scenario that there is eternal damnation waiting for bad people (whatever that means) upon death, then both of these murderers will end up suffering for eternity in Hell. However, if there is nothing, or if there is a never-ending unicorn ride on a rainbow awaiting evil people upon death, then the death-sentenced prisoner will still go unpunished, or even rewarded. There are an infinite number of theories that will ensure punishment to a death-sentenced murderer, and an infinite number of theories that will ensure the death-sentenced prisoner will be rewarded after death. All are just theories, all equally as likely. As my opponent said, WE DON'T KNOW. Hence, the only logical way to 100% ENSURE punishment is to place them in prison for life. The death penalty is at very best a vague guess that 'someone' (God, the Devil, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ?? ) will punish the murderer, when we have the means to ensure punishment ourselves.
The death penalty by lethal injection is too lenient a punishment compared to life in prison.

I do see where you're coming from. But you are assuming one key aspect of your argument. No one knows what happens when you die, simply stated. If we just cease to exist, then yes, I can see how there is no prolonged agonizing punishment (as I believe there should be). However, maybe we move onto another dimension, world, or Heaven and Hell so to speak. If we are to arrive there, upon death we WOULD have the ability to reflect upon our actions (Assuming that free thinking would be available). That has to do with the theoretical and death side of this argument, now to the government, rock solid issues. A prisoner lives on an average on $22,000 per year. It is MUCH more cheaper to just do away with them, than to keep them locked up for life. Let's say that a murderer is convicted when he's 20 years old, and will live until he's 80 in prison. That's 60 years. 60 x 22,000 = 1,320,000 That is A LOT of money for just one prisoner. That money could go for something more necessary. That ends my argument for this round. I look forward to a strong rebuttal =)
Homosexual acts are immoral

It appears as though this debate is at an impasse. In my R2 response to Pro's argument I pointed out the problems in his asserting a subjective morality via "inter-subjective" validation. Pro in response offered up merely a line of argument conjuring a hypothetical wherein a culture thought yeast was evil. Since that wasn't an argument I merely restated the same problems in Pro's argument which he continues to make, namely that aggregate subjectivity doesn't equate to objectivity. My opponent has refused to make an argument in support of this necessary connection to his argument, instead continuing to offer hypotheticals which merely presume his conclusion. One such hypothetical was offered in r3 wherein Pro argued that slavery was "acceptable" before but is not so now. This merely presumes at the outset though that morality is predicated on the dictates of aggregate subjectivity which is what Pro is undertaking to prove in the first place.
Homosexual acts are immoral

I was not evading, or leaving the debate as my opponent contends.In Round 2 my opponent simply restated my position and said it was incorrect. In Round 2 I demonstrated how I was correct after all.I shall go on.Slavery could be an equivalent issue. It has been morally correct to own slaves since before the United States was founded. It was such a decisive issue that the balance in congress was Slave State vs Free State. This is equivalent in strength to Democrat vs Republican today.In that culture, slavery was debatable but still acceptable.
Homosexual acts are immoral

Extend arguments I suppose since Pro doesn't seem interested in debating anymore. I have no idea what to make of his comment. It seems at best non-applicable (in that there's wide disagreement in American culture over the morality of homosexuality) here and at worst a misleading response to my problem of inter subjective validation in moral discourse I. e. , Pro misses the fact that a collectivity of subjective values doesn't warrant any sort of leap to objectivity or normative authority.
Homosexual acts are immoral

Pro's argument is essentially that culture determines morality and the dominant cultural moral systems oppose it. Therefore, my opponent argues, homosexuality is immoral. There are a host of obvious and irredeemable problems with the above argument. Though I'll only point out the most fatal to Pro's case here.If morality is ontologically subjective (as in Pro's argument-- being based on the mere aggregate of individual opinions on the matter) than we can't coherently argue one way or another on any particular moral issue (e.g. homosexuality). Therefore, Pro's argument defeats itself since parting ways with objectivity just as well parts ways with any form of logical analysis (or consequently, any form of argument). Consider an example for clarification. Person X and Y are debating which flavor of ice cream is superior. At the outset both agree that the answer will ultimately be subjective. No coherent debate can ever commence since no inter-subjectively valid answer will ever be arrived at. That is, in order to argue coherently, one must be able to forward reasons which would be compelling to a third party irrespective of their own subjective values. Pro's moral framework, and hence his conclusion, lay outside of this necessary requisite to argumentation and thus show no reason to be accepted.
Homosexual acts are immoral

I am an atheist, and pro Gay. However, the debate is about morality. (And an interesting debate ensues...)I commend my opponent for allowing the sharing of the definition of morality.Morality is relative to the observer. There is no fixed morality, it is only in the context of the culture.For a primal tribe of savages, it is moral and correct for 30+ men to murder and pillage neighboring tribes.Under American Law, it is illegal for 30+ men to travel to Vegas to murder and pillage.The question is, what defines morality?ReligionThe world's largest religion is Christianity. Thus, the most popular code of morality is based on the Christian bible.The Bible is against homosexuality.[1][2][3]The second largest religion is Islam. Thus, the second most popular code of morality is based on the Qur'an and the Bible.The Qur'an and the Bible are against homosexuality.[1][2][3][4]These two religious groups make up 54.33% of the world population.[5]Core point: the moral code that is the foundation of more than half the world is against homosexuality.System of Law[6]If you talk in the context of the Middle East, the death penalty is in effect for homosexual behavior.If you talk in the context of Canada, Gay Marriage is allowed.Cultural ContextIs it immoral to be gay? The bottom line is, what framework of beliefs does an individual hold to.[1] Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22 NIV)[2] If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)[3] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27 NIV)[4] And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. (Qur'an 7:80-81)[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexual acts are immoral

Pro will offer their opening arguments in support of the resolution in R1 and will not post in R4 so as to maintain equality in case length. ===Definitions=== Homosexual acts refer to consensual sex acts between two or more members of the same sex. I will obviously not be defending male on male or female on female rape. I will only be defending consensual gay sex against the charges of immorality. For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct. I'll refrain from posting anything more on the definition seeing as my opponent and I will no doubt have differing views on what constituted immorality. ===Resolution and BoP=== The primary burden on Pro to provide and defend an argument in support of the resolution. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. The resolution surrounds consensual sex acts between members of the same gender and whether or not those acts categorically constitute immorality on the part of the participants. ===Rules=== 1. Drops will count as concessions. 2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted. 3.
what are your views on tuition? Does it does more harm than good

Personally, the initiative to get a tutor by a student is a sign of being self made. Getting a tutor is a sign of being serious about your academia and shows you are ready to broaden your educational resources. Your argument really depends on using tutors in excess and as we all know, nothing is good in excess. This is usually not the case with tutors as they can be economically draining on a family. Usually, a tutor will meet up once a week if not at the most twice a week. This leaves plenty of time for the student to study. Also, your argument about students being dependent on students should be elaborated on but I still believe that is looking at tutors in excess. All of your arguments depend on using them in excess whilst most people won't do that due to economic restraints. Tutors provide an individualised learning program for students to expand beyond the educational limits they have on them by our modern education system. You can revise the basics or skip ahead due to your own interest. It is the most efficient way of educating a generation as it deals with everyone's needs rather then clumping them in by class system.
what are your views on tuition? Does it does more harm than good

Ever heard the saying "the best are the ones who are self made" If the student goes for tuition, there is no time for self study and it is as if the student is being spoon fed through education.This can lead to deprivation of the chance for the student to be a self made independent person.The student will become dependent for the education because of tuition.Moreover,this again is against the whole aim of educating a student.Also it is a waste of time because the student learns almost the same things that are being taught in school.This can maybe lead to reinforced learning according to some people but the truth is that the student is simply wasting their time and that time can actually be put better use by the student.Finally, as the students goes for tuition,and then comes home to complete their other work there would then be not enough time to rest or relax.the student has to get up in the morning for school.Dont you find it that by putting the student through this routine can lead to them being overworked and eventually not able to achieve much because of mental tiredness.
what are your views on tuition? Does it does more harm than good

Dam autocorrect. Tuition is a very powerful tool for those who require additional assistance in their academic stages of life but also supplies challenging material for those who require harder work. Let's face it, a normal public school does not have the capabilities to attend to every child's individual needs. You may believe that school is more the enough but some students cannot cope with the academic stress that school provides. In a class of fifty people, it is incredibly hard to get all you answered addressed especially if others in your class are also struggling. Some people just require extra help, what's wrong with them getting a tutor to supply this help ? Also, tutors offer the chance to individualise your learning. If you want to experiment with first year university work then go ahead, if,you want to revisit some earlier concepts you can. You can't do that with normal schooling. Furthermore, tuition allows for this who want to accelerate to work ahead. I am incredibly bored with my school's English so i ask my tutor to challenge me with different writing styles I have never even heard of before. Your argument that students will really on tuition classes does not elaborate on how it is bad for them to learn more from the tutor then the school. If they have learnt the work before, they will obviously become bored with the schools work as it is too easy, it is then the schools responsibility to supply them with harder material.
what are your views on tuition? Does it does more harm than good

Indeed i agree that tuition does more harm than good.Generally students who need tuition are those who are weaker in a certain subjects.if you pay attention in class and do weekly revision on your own i dont see why there is a reason for you to attend tuition classes.Consequently,students will not listen in class and have no motivation to study and think that they can rely on their tuition classes to clear their doubts and questions
As a whole, is the SEC the strongest conference in collegiate football

The SEC is totally overrated. Just because they won 7 of the past 8 national championships, over the past 15 years have consistently had the most NFL draft picks. (23% of the first 100 players drafted in 2014 were SEC players , and in 2013, the SEC had 63 players selected, 19 more than the Big Ten and Big 12 COMBINED ) they think their players are better than everybody else. Never mind that the SEC plays a brutally physical brand of football week after week, where tackling ISN'T optional ! They're slow and dull to watch. REAL football is played by the teams with the flashiest uniforms, ie Maryland in the fourteen team Big Ten, or Baylor and West Virginia in the 10 team Big 12, with scores like 85 to 79 in regulation. And finally, SEC teams like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, or Arkansas, could never compete with schools like , Kansas, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Michigan, or Wake Forest. Those schools are not afraid to play and be crushed by out of conference opponents like those pretenders Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, and the two Mississippi cream puffs. The SEC is a PAPER TIGER !
Green Lantern is Superior to Superman

My opponent brought up some good points last round and I will address them bellow:He argues that since Superman's costume contains yellow that it automatically gives him an advantage.It is true that Superman’s costume does contain Yellow, and I knew this but figured it was such a negligible amount compared to the red and blue that it would not gain him a huge advantage, and even then it is only defensive, it doesn’t help him defeat Green Lantern. My opponent brings up the point that a Green Lantern is limited by their own will, however, in theory a Green Lantern could do anything if their will was strong enough (though it seems the ring itself does have limits). My opponent brought up Parallax, and I am rather glad he did as I think Parallax is an example of how Hal Jordan is even more powerful. I looked him up on the Superhero database but his page has not been filled out. [1] [2]. If this was a debate about who was more moral and incorruptible then Superman would win that, but that was not my purpose in this debate. Remember also though that Hal Jordan was redeemed when he became Spectre. Also, as far as the ratings I looked up Doomsday and they gave him a 13 rating [3]. How is that possible when he is the only entity (that I know of) who has beaten Superman without the use of Kryptonite the first time they met (OK technically a draw) [4] and every time he comes back he is resistant to whatever killed him last time, this makes him more powerful than Superman yet they give him a lower rating. I don’t want this to go off into a debate between Doomsday and Superman but my point is that I think there are some major flaws with their rating system. Different factors would affect their ratings. If Superman and Green Lantern fought in close proximity to the sun then Superman would have the advantage, but Green Lantern would know to stay away. Superman is faster, I will give him that, but if speed matters so much, is the Flash a better Superhero than most? My opponent is confused about jurisdiction. It is true Superman has been all over the place, but his primary are of operation is Earth. GL has a duty to patrol the space within his sector.I thank my opponent and urge the voters to vote pro. 1 http://www.superherodb.com... 2 http://dc.wikia.com... 3 http://www.superherodb.com... 4 http://www.theendisnigel.com...