BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The notion that: "There were no WMD's in Iraq", is false.

Greetings. Thank you to my opponent for extending this challenge to me, though I am not sure I will be able to call it that much longer. First, I will do some resolutional analysis. It is always best to clarify what is meant by the topic before you start arguing. Due to the context of this topic, it is obvious that we are specifically talking about the time period when the US began its current military operations in Iraq. I will explain why this is obvious. "The were no WMD's" has only been used as a reason we should not have gone to war, and "They have WMD's" was used as one of the main reasons we went into Iraq. Now it's necessary to explain what is meant by WMD's. We're talking about large scale weaponry. Weaponry on a scale where the US should actually care whether Iraq has it or not. We're not talking about a rifle, we're not talking about a rocket-powered grenade launcher, we're talking about large-scale chemical or nuclear weaponry. Weapons that can cause MASSIVE damage, like the damage cause by flipping a giant enemy crab on its back and attacking the weak spot. Large scale, massive damage. Those are the criteria. So now that we know what's being argued, I'll go ahead and argue it. My opponent brings up only one point in his initial round: "WMD's were discovered in Iraq." Alright, I'm going to be as blunt as possible here. Saying something does not make it true. Sure, maybe there were WMD's discovered in Iraq, but my opponent has not backed this up in any way. It would be like me saying "No, they weren't," and considering that a proper rebuttal. Ladies and gentlmen, as debaters we need to back up our claims, and my opponent has failed to do so. Even so, I will address this point, just in case my opponent finds a way to give it some merit next round. Even if WMD's were discovered in Iraq, this does not mean that Iraq had WMD's when we invaded, which is obviously what we're discussing. They could have been made after we invaded, they could have been brought into the country by an America seeking to vindicate its actions, they could have been brought into the country by any third party, and as I said already, they might not even have been there at all, as far as this debate is concerned. With that, I will let my opponent make his case, something he neglected to do in R1.
University Attempts to Put Students in the Shoes of Homeless People

I hold the position that the program is a good idea. Let us take a look at some statistics on homelessness: http://www.nationalhomeless.org...You can see that the number of homeless people has increased because of foreclosures. We may have sympathy for the homeless, but the program can help gain empathy to a certain extent. Many times, sympathy is not enough. The program helps students feel some of the qualities of being homeless, even if it is a few. Being able to relate to homeless people, even through limited experiences, can lead to large gains in society. Many of us won't even spare homeless people a dollar. Several make false generalizations such as "Homeless people will just spend my money on drugs." Some have this sort of contempt for the homeless. Although the program has many flaws, important lessons can be learned from experience. Even if the students feel 1/16 of what homeless people go through, it will help them relate to the homeless much more easily. It will likely decrease the amount of indifference towards the homeless. The program can remind people that homelessness exists. Of course, most know homelessness exists, but many do not actively acknowledge their existence. In many ways, homeless people have been dehumanized. Since the program can help people relate to the homeless, it may open many eyes wide open.
University Attempts to Put Students in the Shoes of Homeless People

A local University that I attend as a freshman has a program where a group of students gather outside at night and sleep with their sleeping bags outside to "experience" the homeless life; which is a great idea, but has lots of flaws, and me and my girlfriend have been arguing in front of the charter guy about it while he tries to fix our internet. First off, there isn't any one type of homeless person. Some are doing better than others, therefore, not all of them have sleeping bags, or warm blankets. Here is my main issue. The school sent an email to all students saying the event was moved inside one of our buildings on campus, in a large event room. Now I understand the university is held liable if students were to sleep outside in 20 degree weather and develop hypothermia or any serious medical issue. Totally understandable. However, Homeless people cannot always access a warm building to go inside and sleep. If they could, why would we see any on the streets? So in conclusion, I believe the university should completely cancel the event, in terms of weather. If the purpose of their event is to show students what it feels like to be in the shoes of a homeless person, and they send the students inside because it's "cold," they are not accomplishing the purpose they set out for. On a side note, most of us already know the lives of a homeless person. We don't all need to spend a day in their shoes to learn about what it's like, we can all just assume its horrible.
your Religious beliefs are wrong

God loves me. How can something that isn't real not love me? There is no solid evidence proving evolution nor the big bang, which is why they are theories. However, christianity follows a solid book, which demonstrates enough proof for God. This proof cannot be dissproven. Scientist come up with excuses, however they will never overcome the power of God. However science is proven by nothing but more science. God is real, and I have the right to believe such, making it not wrong. My belief is right, even if you do not believe in God.
your Religious beliefs are wrong

In this debate, imma be a poe/troll. I am an atheist. (not actually). I believe in chicken tasting good in my opinion. Is my religious belief wrong now? I believe that I am human, am I wrong? I believe I wake up in the morning, am I wrong? These are my religious beliefs (not really) and I am sure they are right. Your wrong! how could anyone get banged before the world came? And even if someone did get banged, it wouldn't be that big! And only pokemon can evolve, but only noobs like you don't know that! My beliefs are right, and yours are wrong! So go, and hide in a corner, and wish you could have a big bang. :D Jokes. This is just my way of saying "I accept". I will be in favour of protecting my religion (Christianity). So you know, let the debate begin!
Donald Trump should be the next U.S president.

We passed upon the stair, we spoke of was and when Although I wasn't there, he said I was his friend Which came as some surprise I spoke into his eyes I thought you died alone, a long long time ago Oh no, not me I never lost control You're face to face With The Man Who Sold The World I laughed and shook his hand, and made my way back home I searched for form and land, for years and years I roamed I gazed a gazely stare at all the millions here We must have died alone, a long long time ago Who knows? not me We never lost control You're face to face With the Man who Sold the World
Islam is a religion of peace.

............................................________ ....................................,.-'"...................``~., .............................,.-"..................................."-., .........................,/...............................................":, .....................,?......................................................, .................../...........................................................,} ................./......................................................,:`^`..} .............../...................................................,:"........./ ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ ............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ .........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/ ..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} ...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ ...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../ ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" ............/.`~,......`-...................................../ .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__ ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-, .....`=~-,__......`,................................. ...................`=~-,,.,............................... ................................`:,,...........................`..............__ .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` ........................................_..........._,-%.......` ...................................,
Islam is a religion of peace.

Really, changing the rules in the middle? All right, this'll be quick. Although I do find it funny that a religion that has it's own name based off of a word for peace is now widely regarded as violent.Muhammad said "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil." [1. http://www.cair.com...]"Repel evil with that which is better." is a verse from the Quran encouraging kindness instead of retribution. [2. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...]Here are two verses from the section of the Quran which refers to Jihad:1. "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities."2. "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers."[3. http://www.answering-islam.org...]It is clear here that the Quran does not advocate holy wars or unprovoked attacks on "unbelievers." When Saladin, the Arab commander who drove the Crusaders out of the holy land, captured Jerusalem, he not only signed a peace treaty and saved the Christians from dying but allowed them to continue to worship there [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1187)]If you look into Islamic history, it shows that the religion originally spread through missionary activities rather than violence [4. http://saif_w.tripod.com...]In general, it is Christian funamentalists and conspiracy theorists that despise Islam. Accusing it of being a violent religion and taking passages from the Quran out of context merely shows a denial of truth and a desperate need to affirm a preexisting bias against it.I now turn over the debate to Con."Victory is changing the hearts of your opponents by gentleness and kindness." -Saladin.
Islam is a religion of peace.

Resolution: Islam is a religion of peace.Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Must insert at least one witty quote per round.(6) By accepting the debate, you accept the termsRounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)"DOGMA: A lie imperiously reiterated and authoritatively injected into the mind of one or more persons who believe they believe what some one else believes." -Ambrose Bierce"The difference between religions and cults is determined by how much real estate is owned." -Frank ZappaDefinitions:Islam - a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. Muslim - An adherent of Islam.Peace - Freedom from violence and war. I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Kittens!
Who would win in a fist fight...OBAMA VS G.W.BUSH

Thanks for accepting the challenge. Obama is 6 foot 2 and weighs 165 lbs (http://answers.ask.com...) Bush is 5 foot 11 and weighs 189-195 lbs.(http://answers.ask.com...) Bush clearly out weighs Obama by 25-30 lbs...advantage GWB. Obama has a slight advantage in height, but not enough to make a significant difference. When Bush was in the national guard, he had to do basic training which includes self defense techniques. Obama never served in any branch of the armed forces. Bush worked on a ranch most of his life, and comes from Texas...you have to be pretty tough to do both. While Obama is younger, Bush wins in the experience department. Obama also smokes cigarettes, and would probably run outta breath. Obama has spent his life as a limp wrist liberal, and probably wimped out of any altercations... Bush is a brash, aggressive cowboy type, who probably would not hesitate to jump into a brawl... Overall, Bush would win..
Who would win in a fist fight...OBAMA VS G.W.BUSH

Thanks to my opponent for his swift response. .. I believe it would be a close fight. Obama has a few inches on Bush, while Bush has 25-30 lbs on Obama. .. Most fights DONT last 10 seconds, unless there is an immediate knockout. .. my opponent must not have been in many fights in his life. .. I have been in many. .. and though they don't last as long as some professional fights, they still can get pretty lengthy. Id say 3-5 minutes is more realistic. .. most fights usually end up on the ground. But Bush is a Cowboy Rancher. .. when Bush goes on vacation. .. he hauled debris and did hard manual labor FOR FUN! !! . http://kiwipolemicist.files.wordpress.com...)(Obama goes golfing or hangs up curtains. (. http://media.photobucket.com...) My opponent claims that Obama has a longer reach than Bush, but his link is invalid, so there is no proof of this. .and pictures are deceiving. My opponent also claims bush had open back surgery, but the link he uses to claim this is very sketchy( Dr. Zebra? Really? ) this is the only part of the website that claims back surgery: "At some point, Bush has had surgery for sports-related back injuries ". .. .. no date, no proof, nothing. . Even if he had back surgery, it hasn't been in the last 10 years. .. that's alot of time to heal, and as we can see(. http://www.flickr.com...) Bush is able to lift very heavy objects, that if his back was a true factor, he would not be able to do. Bush was also a baseball player. He is very athletic, and so a claim that Obama is quicker is unfounded. Bush is clearly the more aggressive of the two. Anyone who dismisses this has not been up on current events in the last 10 years. .. .Aggressiveness is very important in a fight especially in the beginning. George Bush is friends with Chuck Norris, and have worked out together. .. I'm sure Old Chucky boy has lent a few pointers to Bush. Ok lets sum up. .. .. 1. Bush is more aggressive. 2. Bush outweighs Obama by 30LBS. 3. Bush Hauls Lumber for fun. 4. Bush is a Country boy Cowboy. 5. Bush hangs with Chuck Norris. 6. Bush doesn't smoke, therefore more lung power/endurance. 1. Obama has a few inches. 2. Obama is skinny and weak. 3. Obama is passive, not aggressive. 4. Obama smokes. 5. Obama hangs curtains. The clear winner here is Bush. Hands down.
Who would win in a fist fight...OBAMA VS G.W.BUSH

Onto my case: The fact that Bush weighs more does not necessarily serve to his advantage. Since Obama is lighter, he is able to move quicker than Bush. He is also able to dodge Bush's punches faster. Obama is higher than Bush by three inches. Three inches is quite a bit. Also, his height gives him extra arm length. Refer to this photo:. http://goo.gl...Obama has considerably longer arms than Bush. Bush also had open-back surgery(1). After you have back surgery, your back will never operate at 100% capability. . http://www.doctorzebra.com...While Bush was in the National Guard, he failed his physical exam. (1)"On August 1, Bush was grounded because he had failed to complete his flight physical" (1) "Obama has spent his life as a limp wrist liberal, and probably wimped out of any altercations. .. Bush is a brash, aggressive cowboy type, who probably would not hesitate to jump into a brawl. .. " An assumption based on your own stereotypes. Not backed up by any facts. "Bush worked on a ranch most of his life, and comes from Texas. .. you have to be pretty tough to do both. "You have got to be kidding me. Bush was born to a very rich family. He attended Philip's Academy (Andover), one of the most prestigious high school in the world. (2) His father, H. W. Bush has a net worth of over $26 million (3)"Obama also smokes cigarettes, and would probably run outta breath. "We are not talking about a 10 round UFC fight. A street fight is usually shorter than 10 seconds. (4) The fact that he smokes cigarettes will not make a differences. As a person gets older, their reflexes deteriorate(5). Therefore, Bush will not be able to react as fast as Obama to physcial threats. ConclusionObama would win a fist fight for many reasons. He is lighter, therefore he can move faster. He is taller and has a greater arm length than Bush. Bush has had open back surgery and failed to pass his physcial in the National Guard. Also, since Bush is older, his reflexes will be slower. (1). http://www.doctorzebra.com...(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...(3)http://www.celebritynetworth.com...(4)http://www.eastsideboxing.com...(5)http://www.innvista.com...
superheroes

Thank you Con for a wonderful debate! Allow me to rebut your rebuttal, if I may. While Thor had the initial advantage against Iron Man, I think it was pretty clear that neither of them would emerge victorious. As far as I can tell, the whole point of that scene was to illustrate that. Overall, they are definitely evenly matched. Tony's advice was NOT limited to telling Bruce that he could deal with it. Tony actively pushed Bruce's boundaries in order to help Dr. Banner overcome his problem with the Hulk. He did it very intelligently, and as we could see, it worked! In the end, Dr. Banner gained control over the Hulk. It wasn't as much "anger management" issues that Tony was helping Bruce deal with, it was trying to help Bruce understand that the Hulk was part of who he was and he could learn to accept it. It was a major theme in the movie. Iron Man has an ego, and does like to make quips at the others. However, saying that he did not have leadership is absolutely incorrect! In the movie, the team is clearly following Iron Man's instructions until he passes leadership off to Captain America. The fact that he relinquished leadership to someone he believed was more qualified proves that he was good at working in a team. There is a scene, shortly after Thor joins the Avengers, that shows Thor asking Nick Fury about Jane Foster. This illustrated that he considered her paramount. Noble as that is, it does not make him a better Avenger. The assertion that Thor is fighting when he doesn't need to is incorrect. Thor is a prince of Asgard, and is as such charged with the duty of protecting all realms, including Midgard (Earth). He is as compelled to save Earth as every other Avenger. Body count, as I illustrated previously, is not what makes a superhero a good Avenger. It may make him superior as a superhero (which is another debate), but it is not in any way indicative to how good he is as an Avenger. Remember, an Avenger is someone who can work with other superheroes to defend Earth. If he is unable to do that, he is simply a lone superhero. To summarize, Iron Man is a better Avenger because he better exemplifies what an Avenger is. An Avenger works to his team's strengths. Through self-sacrifice, transferal of leadership, and belief in his teammates' abilities, Iron Man better exemplifies the traits of an Avenger, and can therefore be considered a greater Avenger. Thanks, Pro, for this debate! I enjoyed it very much.
superheroes

thanks con first I shall start off with some rebuttals 1) in the fight between Thor and iron man when it shows you the view from inside iron mans helmet you see that more that half of his suit is in critical condition very early in the fight. and while even while it is true that Thor's lightening did not do as much damage as his other attacks you can still see red hot cracks appear in iron mans chest armor. and even at 400 percent power iron man isn't able to so much as give Thor a scratch with his most powerful attack. Thor also shows the ability to easily destroy the iron man suit with his bare hands both when he grabs iron mans hands and crushes the forearms and near the end when iron man is down and Thor rips off his face mask like it is nothing. Also they have the zidine zadan head but thing and that was pretty cool/funny. 2) Thor completely held himself back in the fight and was only fighting hulk to subdue him so that he did not destroy the helicarrier and kill black widow (that would have really really really stunk if she died) and the only help that Iron man offered was him saying I can control having to deal with a super suit (just imagine Tony yelling at pepper for his suit like frozo in the incredibles) so you should be able to deal with his anger management issues. 3) Iron man is always making fun of everyone (and given it is pretty funny at times) and he never had any leadership to begin with so how could he hand any over to Captain America when he had none to begin with, he simply asks him what to do. 4) all of the other avengers priority but you in the beginning said that Thor's first priority was Jane so I had to refute it. Also all of the other avengers lived on earth and would have had to defend earth even if they didn't want to (unless they wished to be ruled by Loki) because that is their home and they cant really just pack up and leave, however Thor is endangering his own life to travel to a planet that he doesn't need to live on (and don't say it is just because Jane lives their because Thor could always just take her to asgard himself) and defend strangers from a danger that would never bother him on his own planet. 5) Thor provides a greater assistance to the team because of his higher body count and while given he does not provide any tactical insight to the team neither does iron man, he just stays safely out of the most intense fighting, hawkeye provides all of the tactical insight to the team. in summary Thor is the greater avenger because 1) he is more powerful 2) he is able to work with all members of the team 3) he is helping when he doesn't really have anything to gain 4) provides a greater assistance in all of the fighting that occurs. and 5) he provides some amazing connections and could take people to different planets if they needed.