BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Jews be allowed in the USA

Con says: "I see where you are coming from with the unethical reasons for why we cannot ban Jews." My response: Ok, so did Con just concede the debate? If not, major points for Pro to convince Con of how unethical it would be to disallow Jews in the USA. Pro continues to whine: "Jews offer relatively no benefit to business." My response: Who are these people then? Bill Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs Ivan Boesky, Wall Street financier and arbitrageur Steve Feinberg, co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. Jacob A. Frenkel, chairman of JPMorgan Chase International Marcus Goldman, co-founder of Goldman Sachs investment bank Alan Greenspan, Chairman and president of Townsend-Greenspan, economic consulting firm; former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Kohlberg, Jr., co-founder of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Henry Kravis, co-founder of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Bernard Madoff, former financier David Ren" de Rothschild, Banker, Current chairman of Rothschild and member of the Rothschild family Ronald Perelman, American billionaire investor Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary, director of National Economic Council, and Chairman of Citigroup Samuel Sachs, co-founder of Goldman Sachs investment bank Jacob H. Schiff, Wall street banker, leader of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Stephen A. Schwarzman, co-founder, chairman & CEO of The Blackstone Group George Soros, Wall Street investor and foreign currency speculator Michael Steinhardt, Wall Street hedge fund manager Regardless, even if Jews offer relatively no benefit to business, it's still not a reason to say they are an economic burden on our country. Also, I would like to point out, one could be born Christian and convert to Judaism. Con's generalizations should also apply to the Christian turned Jew too. Con has a misunderstanding of what classifies someone as Jewish or not. Also, there is no bias here, in fact, I support no religions; I support freedom and citizenship. Jews can stay!
Should Jews be allowed in the USA

I see where you are coming from with the unethical reasons for why we cannot ban Jews. However, the economic benefits would be massive as Jews offer relatively no benefit to business. Wall Street journal reported in 2013 37% of Jewish U.S. Citizens were unemployed. Pro seems to have a rather biased opinion on Jews as a people which is why he/she seems to overlook the clear and concise evidence that Jewish people are a economic burden on our country.
Should Jews be allowed in the USA

I accept the resolution that Jews should be allowed in the USA, because around 6.8 million Jews are already US citizens, and Con's inability to see a reason for why Jews are still in this country does not warrant a ban on Jews in the USA. For the US government to disallow its own current citizens, 6.8 million Jews, to live in the US would be extremely antithetical to US citizenship, the constitution, and human morality. http://www.brandeis.edu... (go to page 7 of the PDF) Furthermore, Con's claim that because he can't see a reason why Jews are still in this country, therefore there is no reason for Jews to stay in this country is an argument from personal incredulity, and is a repugnant, ignorant belief. http://rationalwiki.org... Con is saying that because he can't find any redeemable qualities of Jews in America, therefore there are no redeemable qualities. For this he wishes the extradition and refusal of immigration of Jews. Fallacious, massively ignorant, racist, and weak minded. I accept the resolution that Jews should be allowed in the USA, because all people should be allowed to live in the USA regardless of their religion/culture/qualities noticeable to ignorant bigots.
China's South China Sea claim is justifiable.

Though it's understandable that China's population is a factor in its increasing assertiveness to resources in the South China Sea, it's still unjustifiable considering that increased tensions would lead, in a worse-case scenario, to an all-out armed conflict between regional powers; China was able to increase its standard of living during the last three decades when Deng Xiaoping embarked on an open-door policy; why does it need to increase tensions now? I would argue that in a globalized world, any country can raise its standard of living without the need for war and armed conflict, and through peaceful trade agreements with other developed and developing countries. Member countries of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) have been able to supercharge their economies with minimal armed tension, and a factor of that growth is an increase of maritime trade. Control of South China Sea by China would be at the expense of India and other naval powers elsewhere; Singapore would also suffer, because it's economy is dependent on the free maritime trade system. Why would people suffer because of Chinese control? Introduction of Chinese sovereignty in this parts would only subject nations to rules and regulations set out by China; unfairly, to the regional countries. Most of these governments are democracies whose economies are dependent on free trade. Having no free trade would lead to economic suicide, and an unfair lifeline to China's economy. If China's economy suffers, the whole East Asia region will suffer along with it, therefore creating global economic crisis. China's foreign policy, though seen by regional countries as both helpful, has an underlying tone of keeping rising regional powers in check, or by limiting an economic prowess of the region; this can be seen in it's words of "joint development" offers to the governments of Vietnam, Philippines, and Malaysia. I would argue that this joint development is unfair to the regional countries because the regional countries would first cede territorial control to China before going to step 2; some of the territories are actually overlapping their own shores, therefore, the economics of China would only improve at the expense of the nations who are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. To argue further, having control of South China Sea would only mean leverage against other countries dependent on shipping in the South China Sea, most notably the United States. Both these countries, though trading partners, are culturally and economically worlds apart. Having China controlling SCS would send a wrong message to Washington that China would get what it wants no matter what, and since the US role in the region is one of peace-keeping for the sake of economic growth and development, it would then have no choice but meet China's challenge head-on. China should then stop its assertiveness in the region. I rest my case.
China's South China Sea claim is justifiable.

You were just a bit racist in your paragraph you wrote. I'm personally a Chinese and I will not only look from my point of view, but yours too. The South China Sea should be owned by China because 1.)China is the most populated country area, therefore meaning that they need it the most. 2.) With this change China might earn more partners, meaning that the economics will improve. 3.) They need this change. About the shipping travel in the South Sea, with China n charge the trading will improve. Under a good leader for the South Sea, more trading will happen.
China's South China Sea claim is justifiable.

I go against this because 1.) I'm not Chinese, and 2.) This would mean economic homicide for countries close to the South China Sea. According to statistics (and I hope I'm right) over a third of the world's shipping travel the South China Sea, meaning that the area is a trading hotspot. Claims of oil and gas are still being investigated, while a fishing abundance in the area is of no doubt a true claim. By having China control the South China would only mean control of the maritime supply routes, which close to more than five countries (including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) depend for their economic participation. And oil and gas would only escalate the conflict to ASEAN vs China; claiming that the whole area is China's would only send a wrong message that China is a hegemon, creating its own sphere of influence by bullying anyone in its path.
Aquaman vs Cyborg

Aquaman may have killed Cyborg with a single slash of his trident but this takes place in world that is like totally the opposite of the regular world meaning that Cyborg might be weaker in this comic than he actually is (even though he is pretty strong). Not to mention Chborg took down Staro by his own which is a very hard thing to do. All I'm saying is that Cyborg could very easily beat Aquaman under the right circumstances. Aquaman must have already thrown his trident in an attempt to kill Cyborg, Cyborg must be at his full power, Cyborg must be able to teleport. Cyborg can easily teleport all over the place and let Aquaman try to hit him but he never will. And I usnderstand that Aquamans skin is bullet-proof but it's not missile proof. I wouldn't call Flshpoint a good example because simply the world is the opposite of the regular world, Bruce Wayne dies and his parents become this demonic batman and his mom becomes The Joker.
Aquaman vs Cyborg

That all may be true but you forgot the idea that aquaman is the king of Atlantis and he also has a trident. As being the ruler of the sea, ocean, etc he has many powers of deep sea life beyond anyone's abilitys. He can send out multiple mega ladies and giant freaking sharks by just telling them to eat this guy. Also in the flash point storyline Barry Allen A.K.A The Flash traveled back in time to save his mom but as he did that, that also changed the corse of the timeline. Aquaman and Wonderwoman are starting world war 3, there is no superman, batman looks like a demon guy, and everything's basically screwed up. As flash and cyborg were fighting against aquaman aquaman threw his trident at cyborg and that killed him almost immediately. As Wonder Woman was trying to kill flash. Aquaman kept beating the crap out of cyborg until he finally grabbed his heart and killed him. Boo yah
Current U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security

My opponent has made it clear, that they have not been prepared to debate the Resolved: CURRENT U.S foreign policy undermines our national security. Since my opponent has forfeited the past round, we can assume that they agree with my fellow contentions: the usage of drone strikes have been beneficial in strengthening our national security, and the Current Administration has helped the US become less reliant on Middle Eastern oil. After all, Obama said this week, in his re election speech, "And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together.... Freeing ourselves from foreign oil." Foreign oil has become a top priority, and we have already seen us become less reliant, and we will only continue to see us become less reliant. Therefore, I urge a con ballet.
Current U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security

I would to examine the contrast between me and my opponent. My opponent continues to make claims regarding the U.S. involvement in the Middle East, tin attempt to support why this policy undermines our national security. However, my opponent has not considered the evidence to support how the Current Administration has in fact strengthened our national security! First off, I would like to emphasize on the discrepancy between my opponent's arguments. First, they suggested, "Our military actions in the Middle East have killed over 150,000 civilians according to the United Kingdom Guardian." In their next argument they exaggerated this statistic by saying, "In addition our drone strikes have killed over 150,000 civilians as the United Kingdom guardian reports, and it is the families and friends of these people are those who now hate America." This follow statement is inaccurate. The truth is, drones are incredibly successful, without putting our men at risk. I would like to reiterate, out of the drone attacks in 2012 alone, a study done by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law states number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total civilians killed is extremely low -- about 2%. With a 98% success rate of targeting and killing the individuals who are terrorist, and DO impose a threat to our national security, the usage of drones are a no brainer. It should also be noted that a drone killed, this year, the number 2 Al Qaeda leader, Abu Yahya Al-Libi. As well as CNN states, "The first U.S. armed drone attack, which appears to be the first such strike ever, took place in mid-November 2001 and killed the military commander of al Qaeda, Mohammed Atef." CNN also reported that last month, three U.S. drone strikes killed five suspected al Qaeda militants. Since 2001-now, drones have proved they have been effective in killing individuals who are a threat to our national security. In the argument regarding oil, I agree with my opponent, that US should not fully depend on the Middle East oil. However, it is significant to say that as little as 13% of imported oil, is even from the Persian Gulf. In the past four years, we have seen a significant drop in dependency. The EIA also reports that in a single year, from 2010-2011, the US has reduced oil imports by 10%, or 1 million barrels per a day. In an effort to not rely the slightest on foreign oil from the Middle East, under the Obama Administration EIA reports that wind and solar production has nearly doubled. So in the case of becoming less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, it is our Current Administration that is gradually making it happen. Hence, under Current U.S. foreign policy, we are witnessing extreme target killing success with our usage of drones, and becoming less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Therefore, it is the Current U.S. foreign policy that is strengthening our national security.
Current U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security

Before I strengthen my own argument, I would like to address my opponents. To begin my rebuttal, I would first like to mention that I did in fact take note of the term "current. " Each of my statistics and facts about our current foreign policy in the Middle East was from the past decade, most in the last four years (during the presidency of our current President Barrack Obama). Therefore any clash caused by their statement purely means that we have just appeared to have interpreted this term differently from one another. My opposition also states that we gain only a little of our oil from the Middle East, and to this I agree. However because of this we should not have over 5 troop divisions and 144 ships guarding this supply! We are placing these people and resources into openly hostile territories, while we could be using them for more helpful and beneficial purposes. Next I would like to address my opponents contention regarding drones. The point of this debate is to decide whether or not our current U. S. foreign policy in the Middle East has undermined our national security. Considering that Iran now has one of our drones which they can now reverse engineer to build duplicates, this is certainly undermining our national security"even more so due to the fact that they flatly refused our demands to return our drone. In addition our drone strikes have killed over 150,000 civilians as the United Kingdom guardian reports, and it is the families and friends of these people are those who now hate America. We have created far too many enemies by the usage of drone strikes in the Middle East. Finally my opposition states that a benefit of drone strikes is that we can control them via computers. In 2009 we released the Suxtent virus which was then copied to make the Flame, which was a destructive virus that severely damaged the Middle East. This leaves me to wonder how beneficial the usage of drones would be if someone hijacked our drone network. Today"s debate was over whether or not current U. S. foreign policy in the Middle East has undermined our national security. Our foreign policy has made us too many enemies, made us vunerable from our dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, and has led to dangerous blow-backs. From these faults Iran has one of our drones, we have a large portion of our military in openly hostile territory guarding an oil supply, and we have continued to make enemies.
Should kids under 14 play full contact football

My opponent makes a bare assertion logical fallacy. (1) Then he goes on to claim that a child died playing football. This is unsourced, and is anecdotal evidence. (2)Playing football has many positive effects. It provides young boys and girls a chance to get exercise, compete against one another, and to have fun.(1) http://simple.wikipedia.org...(2) https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
ban islam

Resolution: Ban IslamIn order to uphold the BoP, my opponent must provide argumentation for why it is the case that Islam ought to be banned. Voters, please be aware of equivocation, I suspect pro will attempt to equivocate radicalized interpretations of Islam with Islam itself. I will demonstrate the distinction between the two, and why Islam itself should not be banned. Furthermore, I can't imagine any constitutional mechanism through which a religion can be banned.
ban islam

I hope it is clear to voters that pro has demonstrably failed in fulfilling the BoP. He claims that Islam is self defeating, yet has provided no substantiation of this claim. However, even if Islam is self defeating, this in no way merits a ban. Let's look at the five pillars of Islam:1. Declaration of faith2. Prayer3. Charitably4. Fasting5. Pilgrimage I see nothing inherently immoral with the foundations of Islam. Charitably is quite moral, as it is the case that being charitable increases well being for all involved parties. Furthermore, fasting generates empathy, and empathy leads one to live a better life.Remember the resolution"Ban Islam". Pro has failed to provide any cogent argumentation for this claim.He has claimed that Islam is terrorism, a claim that he has not substantiated.He has stated that Islam is self defeating, which is a red herring, because he has not demonstrated that things that are false should be banned. He furthermore attempts to shift the BoP by stating "no good arguments can exist for Islam", it is not my job to provide arguments for Islam, it is merely my job to negate Pros claims. It is his job to provide argumentation against Islam, which he has not done, and he has especially not demonstrated that it should be banned. Furthermore, if we look at the five pillars of Islam, the foundations upon which the faith is built, we observe no inherent immorality, quite the contrary we observe good things such as empathy and charitably.
ban islam

I'm going to go ahead and give pro another chance at this before I put forth any serious argumentation. While it is true that Muslims follow the Quran, pro has not established how this constitutes terrorism. I remind voters that the BoP is on pro to demonstrate why Islam should be banned. All pro has done thus far is establish that Muslims follow the Quran, which is a truism, however this claim is not particularly substantive without analyzing the Quran, and he has put forth an ad absurdum that the Islam is essentially terrorism, however he has provided no argumentation nor any sources for these assertions. I ask pro to formulate a substantive and cogent argument and to provide credbility for the argument with sources.
Masterful is not a good debater?? RAP battle

He threw his mic into a cheering crowd of African males that are heavily endowed, that way he'd have both hands free to go on a hand job jerking spree.FanBoy is a transgender scum, he’s a seeker of black men and wants them to bum.When he’s not seeking big black buns, he’s hunting children at charity fun runs.He has an anal mentor, he takes him by the back-doorInvestigating the anus of another man is the reason Fanny is a Fan.D!ck in butt, he’s steady, condom overhead, he’s ready. As the FanBoy fvcks furiously, he forgets he’s bi-curiously under developed, so his pea-sized penis pops out, as the body of the large male envelops throughout.Fanny’s frail frame falls feeble under the weight of the larger male who’s not even legal.He’s being ploughed by a buffalo-man endowed with a crown jewel used to consume all.Fanny fights furiously as the black male grabs him bi-curiously.He runs his hand down his supple spine, he then says allowed “This faggot’s mine”He penetrates his man-pvssy with a donkey d!ck so thick it’s known as the “night stick”He thrusts forth with a force of a horse and opens Fanny’s gaper with no remorsePenis buried, like a mole it’s the end of fanny’s fudge hole.As the buffalo-man pulls out his now purple penis from within, he throws Fanny’s cream stuffed body into a bin.
Masterful is not a good debater?? RAP battle

Masterful why do you need to curse and swear like a trucker why don't you go eat dinner at Mother Tuckers The profanity is really showing your lack of intelligence and it displays the lack of scholar diligence Talking like white trash shows a lack of education and no cash Masterful stop being so racist and ignorant of people as your insults towards me and others are feeble You can only be heard online because in real life you are just a nobody hillbilly with no real skills at sociability or real life visibility I probably lost this redneck with words that are too much for his intellectuality As he is a factory worker who is a former high school dropout who likes to loiter on this site as his only hangout Masterful will never accomplish anything in life with his hate And I look forward to seeing him with his cell mate in jail where he will end up one day as his journey heads down that pathway Masterful your hate for people and your spread of racist fecal is almost illegal Only on this site can you talk this way because in the real world your views are in decay Being racist is not funny your attitude is real scummy pick up some books and study Learn about the people of the world and you will see your views on this site will change, I guarantee (mic thrown into the cheering crowd)