BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should guantanamo bay detainees recieve protection from the Geneva Convention and Constitution

My opponents first argument is that the detainees at Guantanamo bay should NOT receive protections under the constitution or the Geneva convention. I want to make it clear right now, my opponent preceeds to argue not that but to argue that Guantanamo bay is legal and is following the rules. This isn't the point of his own argument. He initially contended that the detainees should NOT receive protections under the constitution or the geneva convention, and I disagreed and argued appropriately. I was not arguing that the U. S. is under obligation to give detainees a trial (though they, in fact ARE). I was arguing that they "should". That is what my opponent made the debate about. Con says that the reason insurgents are kept away from the world is because they are deemed "too dangerous". I would counter, if this is true, then why should a trial not be necessary? Couldn't a closed trial, under the laws of the U. S. , allow us to find just cause to keep them under detention? My opponent argues that the supreme court has ruled that it was "legally permissible" to kep enemy combatants detained without a trial or protection under the constitution. This is patently FALSE and INCORRECT. On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were ENTITLED to the protection of the United States Constitution. (1) (2) (3) Also, before that, On January 31, 2005, Washington federal judge Joyce Hens Green ruled that the CSRT itself was "unconstitutional". My opponent argues that the detainees have no legal right to seek protection under the Geneva convention. The supreme court disagrees. The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Geneva convention, including the 3rd Geneva convention and article 2 of the 4th Geneva convention (humane treatment) applied to ALL detainees in the "war on terror". (4) Con claims (once again incorrectly) that the detainees do not have the right to receive habeas corpus under the U. S. constitution. However, Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote for the majority in the Supreme court case mentioned above actually said and I quote that the SCR tribunals were "an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus". In summary, Not only has my opponent changed his entire argument from what he initially made it to be and titled it as, but my opponent also is woefully and horribly incorrect in just about everything he has been claiming. I wonder if my opponent must have wrote this argument 8 years ago or something, because just about ALL of his information is patently false. Sources: 1. . http://www.dispatch.com... 2. . http://abcnews.go.com... 3. . http://news.google.com... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
per se is the best restaurant in new york city

"i hold to my last post" To be the best you have to be rated the best… Lets look at the chef Thomas Keller- http://en.wikipedia.org...... Awards Best American Chef: California, James Beard Foundation, 1996 Outstanding Chef: America, James Beard Foundation, 1997 Chef of the Year, Bon Appï¿½tit Magazine, 1998 Voted #1 - Top Food, Zagat Guide to the Bay Area, 1998-2003 Five-Star Award, Mobil Travel Guide, 1999 – 2004 Favorite Restaurant in the U.S. - Restaurant Experts' Poll, Food & Wine Magazine, 2000 Top Restaurant for Food, Wine Spectator Magazine, 2000 America's Best Chef, TIME Magazine, 2001 Outstanding Wine Service Award, James Beard Foundation, 2001 Outstanding Service Award, James Beard Foundation, 2003 Best Restaurant in the World, for French Laundry in Restaurant Magazine Top 50 Restaurants of the World 1st place (2003, 2004), 3rd place (2005), 4th place (2006, 2007) Best Restaurant in the Americas, for French Laundry in Restaurant Magazine Top 50 Restaurants of the World, 1st place for French Laundry (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007), and 2nd place for per se (2005, 2006, 2007) Best New Restaurant (Per Se), James Beard Foundation, 2005 Michelin Guide New York, 3 Stars for per se, November 2005, 2006, 2007 Michelin Guide Bay Area, 3 Stars for The French Laundry, October 2006, 2007, 2008 Gayot Top 40 Restaurants in the US (French Laundry) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 Gayot Top 40 Restaurants in the US (Per Se) 2008 Pellegrino has been in the forefront of restaurant reviewing and has listed per se as the best restart in America http://www.theworlds50best.com...... It has three Michelin stars http://www.opentable.com...... And is the only one that serves American food. I have eaten at a lot of restaurants but have to say that this restaurant in by far the best restart in all of America this website explains it all!!!!!!! http://www.dininginfrance.com...... best in new york city is all
per se is the best restaurant in new york city

To be the best you have to be rated the best… Lets look at the chef Thomas Keller- http://en.wikipedia.org... Awards Best American Chef: California, James Beard Foundation, 1996 Outstanding Chef: America, James Beard Foundation, 1997 Chef of the Year, Bon Appï¿½tit Magazine, 1998 Voted #1 - Top Food, Zagat Guide to the Bay Area, 1998-2003 Five-Star Award, Mobil Travel Guide, 1999 – 2004 Favorite Restaurant in the U.S. - Restaurant Experts' Poll, Food & Wine Magazine, 2000 Top Restaurant for Food, Wine Spectator Magazine, 2000 America's Best Chef, TIME Magazine, 2001 Outstanding Wine Service Award, James Beard Foundation, 2001 Outstanding Service Award, James Beard Foundation, 2003 Best Restaurant in the World, for French Laundry in Restaurant Magazine Top 50 Restaurants of the World 1st place (2003, 2004), 3rd place (2005), 4th place (2006, 2007) Best Restaurant in the Americas, for French Laundry in Restaurant Magazine Top 50 Restaurants of the World, 1st place for French Laundry (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007), and 2nd place for per se (2005, 2006, 2007) Best New Restaurant (Per Se), James Beard Foundation, 2005 Michelin Guide New York, 3 Stars for per se, November 2005, 2006, 2007 Michelin Guide Bay Area, 3 Stars for The French Laundry, October 2006, 2007, 2008 Gayot Top 40 Restaurants in the US (French Laundry) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 Gayot Top 40 Restaurants in the US (Per Se) 2008 Pellegrino has been in the forefront of restaurant reviewing and has listed per se as the best restart in America http://www.theworlds50best.com... It has three Michelin stars http://www.opentable.com... And is the only one that serves American food. I have eaten at a lot of restaurants but have to say that this restaurant in by far the best restart in all of America this website explains it all!!!!!!! http://www.dininginfrance.com... best in new york city is al
per se is the best restaurant in new york city

As my opponent has chosen not to provide definitions, I will do the honors. "The Best"- Unmatched in all qualities Per Se- A restaurant in New York City (the link provided in the comments section brings me to a blank page) Seeing as my opponent has set himself up as the affirmative, he has to prove his absolute statement of Per Se being THE BEST. Until my opponent provides an argument, I have nothing to refute, and the negative has won. I await your contentions.
per se is the best restaurant in new york city

I would also like to point out that the website he sites was dated dec.2008. If I am not mistaken he has not quoted anything from 2009, in which turning his statement about my articles of awards a weak defense. (Which my sourcing did add an award given to per se by Pellegrino's top 50 restaurants, stating that it is the best restaurant in all of America. I, on the other hand, do not go about so boldly as to claim the best in America, just New York City) . http://www.theworlds50best.com... On the matter of weather or not the city of New York has a "best restaurant" is not just opinion, it is backed by factual evidence. . http://www.theworlds50best.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...(magazine)_Top_50 Now the chef . http://saucytart.typepad.com... New York restaurant per se, in 2006, he was awarded three Michelin stars Which there is only 4 three Michelin star restaurants in New York . http://www.3starrestaurants.com... Le Bernardin- it is a great restaurant and I have been there a few times. It mostly serves fish and frowns down upon people who order a meat item there. So this would have to be the best restaurant in terms of fish… but this is an "overall debate", so I do not count Le Bernardin, as it does specialize quite a bit Jean-George- now they're a contender. It is also geared towards traditional French fair. It limits itself in creativity. But I do agree this would be the best contender Per se- is the clear choice. Eating a meal here is an experience. The chef brings you through the best of traditional, modern, molecular gastronomy, and they never use the same ingredient in any two dishes. (With exception to salt and pepper) It is moving into the future when it comes to culinary arts, (which is molecular gastrono
per se is the best restaurant in new york city

My opponent's argument does not take much to debunk. This is due to his impossible burden of proof that he has set up for himself. The most simple counter-argument is the tense he has worded the resolution in. He states that per se "is" the best restaurant in New York City. If you look closely at his list of awards, you will notice that NONE of them are from 2009. This means that per se might have been the best, but is not currently the best. Since he lists no awards for 2009, this means that another person/restaurant holds the title. If someone else holds the title of "the best," then per se simply cannot also be the best. The resolution is negated. (By the way, per se is not even mentioned in wordpress.org's list of "Best Restaurants in New York City.") http://www.worldpress.org...
per se is the best restaurant in new york city

"i hold to my last post" To be the best you have to be rated the best… Lets look at the chef Thomas Keller- http://en.wikipedia.org......... Awards Best American Chef: California, James Beard Foundation, 1996 Outstanding Chef: America, James Beard Foundation, 1997 Chef of the Year, Bon Appï¿½tit Magazine, 1998 Voted #1 - Top Food, Zagat Guide to the Bay Area, 1998-2003 Five-Star Award, Mobil Travel Guide, 1999 – 2004 Favorite Restaurant in the U.S. - Restaurant Experts' Poll, Food & Wine Magazine, 2000 Top Restaurant for Food, Wine Spectator Magazine, 2000 America's Best Chef, TIME Magazine, 2001 Outstanding Wine Service Award, James Beard Foundation, 2001 Outstanding Service Award, James Beard Foundation, 2003 Best Restaurant in the World, for French Laundry in Restaurant Magazine Top 50 Restaurants of the World 1st place (2003, 2004), 3rd place (2005), 4th place (2006, 2007) Best Restaurant in the Americas, for French Laundry in Restaurant Magazine Top 50 Restaurants of the World, 1st place for French Laundry (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007), and 2nd place for per se (2005, 2006, 2007) Best New Restaurant (Per Se), James Beard Foundation, 2005 Michelin Guide New York, 3 Stars for per se, November 2005, 2006, 2007 Michelin Guide Bay Area, 3 Stars for The French Laundry, October 2006, 2007, 2008 Gayot Top 40 Restaurants in the US (French Laundry) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 Gayot Top 40 Restaurants in the US (Per Se) 2008 Pellegrino has been in the forefront of restaurant reviewing and has listed per se as the best restart in America http://www.theworlds50best.com......... It has three Michelin stars http://www.opentable.com......... And is the only one that serves American food. I have eaten at a lot of restaurants but have to say that this restaurant in by far the best restart in all of America this website explains it all!!!!!!! http://www.dininginfrance.com......... best in new york city is all
The most common narrative of mainstream films is patriachal an disadvantageous to females over male.

I've also been really sick for whatever stupid reason and don't have the energy to care enough about typing up a thought-provoking response or concluding argument.1. Although there are more men than women in the film industry, this does not imply a "patriarchy. " Having more of something is neither advantageous or disadvantageous, it's simply quantity.2. Speaking of quantity, the female roles in movies tend to hold more quality over quantity than the male's roles. Although there aren't as many female roles in most box-office hits (which are usually action films, something men like to watch more than women), the female characters in these movies tend to be overall more put-together than the men. The men are usually expendable, whereas the women are not. The women tend to be smarter. The women tend to be better people in general. So sure, there are more men than women, but the women tend to portray a "better" persona than the men.3. Speaking of box office, let's take a look at 2014's lineup [1]. American Sniper (sigh) was number one - and surprise, it was an action movie, geared toward men. The Hunger Games was number two, also an action movie, however the lead role is played by a girl, and I'd say the ratio of male:female cast is pretty even. #3-#17 are basically all action movies. Gone Girl is #18, and although there is pretty much just one lead female character in the whole movie, she outsmarts all the guys. My point is that primarily men like action films, which is why it's primarily men that make up the cast of action films. If you took the action/adventure category out of your poll, the ratio of men:women in movies in general would even out a lot more.4. Eye candy. Everyone in movies is eye candy. There's attractive women and attractive men, that's how hollywood works. I'm not too sure what they were thinking with Bella from Twilight, but hey I never liked that series anyway so I couldn't care less. The main thing I'm trying to say is that attractive people are picked for roles in movies more than unattractive people, so to focus on the women over the men in this aspect is ridiculous and biased and whatever else. I'd keep going but I'm tired and would like to go to sleep without having to work my brain too hard first. The Canucks beat the Flames in an awesome game so I'm still happy from that, so I shall thank you for this debate while I'm still in a good mood. So thanks. [1] . http://www.boxofficemojo.com...;
The most common narrative of mainstream films is patriachal an disadvantageous to females over male.

"narrative" - By this I mean the story line, and particularly the roles of characters in that story line and their relevant genders. This includes the effect of characters actions on the plot, and the personalities, power, depth and relateability of the characters in light of their genders. "Most common" - I think we should focus on more recent films, but its okay to mention older films. "Mainstream" - self explanatory, I don't have a scientific way to categorise this so we will have to go with reason. The reason that I want to leave out low budget films and ones that are made with only a small following is because these films often go in the face of the mainstream and are thus not the topic of this discussion. This is because I believe that there is an angenda to subjugate women (not part of this debate!) and this agenda is pursued by mainstream media, not everybody else, so I would like to keep this debate about box office films that are watched by the masses. "Patriachal" - Men are typically in the most powerful positions in the story. In regards to the plot, men also have the most influence on its direction. Males also tend to be the characters that one is supposed to relate to most, and the ones that are to be looked up to, and that are the master villans. Female characters typically don't hold many positions of authority. "Disadvantageous to females over males" - watching one film that is patriachal and lacks good female role models every now and again, is probably not very harmful. When the majority of films are this way, and the culture is so heavily influenced by what films portray, then femals are disadvantaged over males because of their lack of strong, positive role models. Also, males are effected to in that they don't respect women as much as they would if they where portrayed equally by the media. Another note. This debate is about a cultural effect on the majority of people in the general population, I'm aware that most men admit they respect women, this effect (by the film industry) is very subtle. I don't mean one watches a film, then rapes a woman! I'm saying that the media, in the context of mainstream films, has little positive influence on women and may in fact be disadvantageous to women. I believe there is a strong message to men to be dominant, aggressive and generally to look for violent solutions to problems more predominantly that other solutions. I think traits like altruism, intelligence and compassion, are less encouraged than toughness and social dominance. This is bad for men too, but im arguing that females get the raw end of the deal.
Acceptance of Middle Eastern Refugees into the United States

Thank you for your arguments. Here are mine.1. Obligation to Foreign NationsYou and I both know that Europe has a migrant crisis. Because the United States is not offering to help, migrants have flooded the European continent, often into countries such as Greece that currently do not have the capacity to handle them, be it economic, spatial, or other reasons. And the United States? We're just sitting idly by while our European allies are being overwhelmed by the sheer number of people entering their countries. Germany most of all has been especially kind in accepting more refugees than it can handle, but this can't go on forever. Their quota is about 27,000 refugees, a huge amount for a country of its size. [1] In addition, economically struggling countries like Greece are not able to handle the influx of refugees traveling across the Bosporus and the Mediterranean.Added to our duty to help and support our European allies is our duty to help the migrants themselves. These are people who are fleeing horrific violence and suffering in search of safety. As the strongest country in the world, and arguably the one that could support the most, we have a moral duty to grant safety to these refugees.These shall be my main arguments. I will elaborate and expand on them in later rounds as necessary.RebuttalsYou say that the cost to resettle refugees is $587 million per year. You have provided no source and I thus cannot fact-check your claim. Please provide sources in the future.Anyhow, $587 million sounds like a lot on paper, but do you know how much the proposed federal budget is this year? 4.1 trillion dollars.[2] Thus (if I did my math correctly) the cost to resettle refugees would constitute about 0.014% of the total budget. This is a ridiculously small amount and it will do a tremendous amount of good. Are you really willing to tell the 25,000 people who have died just trying to get to Europe [3] that their lives are not worth spending less than one fifth of one percent of our national budget saving?Sources1. http://www.bbc.com...2. https://www.nationalpriorities.org...3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Acceptance of Middle Eastern Refugees into the United States

The cost to resettle refugees currently reaches $587 million a year, and that could only increase if the United States were to accept more refugees. That money could be used for other, possibly more useful, things. Each refugee costs more than $60,000 to support for five years. That money could be better spent supporting veterans, first responders, or other true American heroes. The idea that large sums of money should be spent on foreigners is absolutely preposterous, considering that there are people who risk their lives to help others in need of help.
Jesus is Man & NOT God

you have shown how Jesus is man. And, I have shown bible verses that say he is God. Instead of concluding with your own reasoning (why is that superior to the bible?), I'd say Jesus is at the very least God, as that's what the bible says, and not your own reasoning.... but really, the best conclusion is what is the orthodox position on the matter... that Jesus is both God, and man. (based on bible reasoning and yours)
Jesus is Man & NOT God

I read some of the comments & I do understand that if we introduce a reference, the validity of the reference will become another topic of discussion. Will try to avoid that in this round, but I cannot guarantee that I won't be quoting verses from the Holy Scripture in the succeeding rounds. I will approach this subject in 2 ways; defining what "man" is and what "God" is, then will investigate to which our Lord Jesus Christ belong. What is a man (or a human)? I will make a reference of myself because I am one. I am human because I am a person; a person that was born from another person, & eventually will die; with flesh & bones that can pass the test of being a human using all of our five senses. I get tired, hungry, and everything that all of us experiencing each day of our life. Now we'll ask; did our Lord Jesus Christ have these qualities of man that I've mentioned above? We can all relate to the story what happened in the little town of Bethlehem over 2,000 ago, that Baby Jesus was born from Mary, a human that was born to another human. And as He grew & fulfilled His mission here on earth, He experienced tiredness, hunger, anger, happiness, sadness, & even death, which many of us believe that is the great equalizer that a man faces. With ALL these attributes, therefore we can conclude that Jesus is MAN. What is GOD? An everlasting, no end or beginning, was not born or experienced death, a spirit with no flesh & bones, and I can go on & on, but do all these attributes of being GOD found in our Lord Jesus Christ? NO, for He is Man & NOT GOD!
Jesus is Man & NOT God

Jesus is God. (God and man, actually) I admit I always hesitated to say he's God.. but I hesitated more to say he's not. and i'm one to give the bible the benefit of the doubt... so... I go with God... Romans 9:5 - ...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. Titus 2:13-15 - ...our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, Hebrews 1:8 - But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" 2 Peter 1:1 - ...the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" at the beginning of the book of John... "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Jesus became flesh and dwelt amoung us.. Jesus is the word. In John, Jesus at one point says "unless you believe that I AM, you will surely perish in your sins". only God is ever referenced to as I AM, and Jesus and everyone else knew it.
We should start a second holocaust

Tsunami bombs are impractical weapons of destruction. Instead why not use chemical bombs, As not only does that show respect and authenticy to the original haulocast where people were gassed, But also has a more effective blast radius. Also, You say who would want to live nexts to blacks, Chinese, And jewish. The awnser is blacks, Chinese and jewish. They make up the majority anyway, We are the minority. Therefore lets kill all the white people You claim that the jewish are animals. But your profile pic clearly details that you are indeed a deer. What would a deer know about people? All in all, This is a stupid debate, Screw nazis, Glory to the motherland, And don't forget your seatbelt