BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should The Presidency's Power be Reduced

I will be arguing that the presidancy's power in America should NOT be reduced in anyway. I will also be arguing that President Trump is an effective president that will do well for the USA. First off. The wall. Donald Trump says he will be creating a wall to keep illeagle immagrants, mainly illeagle mexicans, out of America. Illeagle immagrants for years have been causing crimes, taking jobs, health benefits etc from the normal working class Americans. They got into the country ILLEAGLY meaning they are not an American citizen. Meaning they should not be in the country. The border between America and Mexico has very poor security, allowing drugs and crime to flow into the USA. Donald trump says he will create a wall to prevent this from happening. Great idea. However they may be some cons, the cost bring one example. But he says he will make the mexicans create the wall which is fair. Mean behavour. Not too sure what you mean by that. But i am guessing you mean with his very controversial decisions and policies. Trump has the best policies. He is finally doing something for America. They may seem mean to the common brainwashed, moronic left supporter with the constant equallity crap. So much equality that Americans are getting blown up in their own country every so more often. Trump is the solution to the world's problems.
Should The Presidency's Power be Reduced

Alright to finish this off. The president's powers should not be reduced. Trump has great policies, just unfortunate the main stream media brainwashed the Americans that are swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool. Now to respond to your arguments against myself. "You are a biast republican" I'm not supporting any party really. I'm right wing and would prefer right wing parties. Although i like Trump and dislike the left. You are calling me biast also, when your own arguments were biast. The left are the most biast, especially when you have news channels such as CNN dedicating their lives and channel into biast, false media. Hence why there are so many brainless protestors, white knighting every situation. Thats all i have to say for the moment.
Should The Presidency's Power be Reduced

You are Biased Republican you see Trump may be good for the industrial part of America However it is Likely that Trump Will Not Win a Second Term Many of The Things He has Done has Pissed Other Countries Like Building a Wall or Arguing with The Prime Minister of Australia and Putting America First that Egotistical Maniac Before you Know it He is Gonna Hold a Referendum like in Turkey Thats Gives Him Unlimited Terms he is Gonna Get himself Impeached or Assiassinated
Abortion

Hello, I definitely understand where someone may come from regarding the prevention of a potential human. The problem with this argument is that the point at which you grant the potential organism the right to life is arbitrary. To illustrate my point, I would like to question the importance of conception. At the instant of conception, the organism-to-be is just a single cell. The only difference between it and other cells, in regards to this debate, is that it will develop into a human being given time and nourishment. That sounds simple enough, but aren't all eggs and sperm capable of developing into humans given contact with the complementary gamete? The only difference between these gametes and the fertilized egg is conception, which is a much simpler process than embryonic development. It wouldn't be reasonable to force a woman constantly be pregnant and to avoid menstruation for fear of wasting an egg cell or for men to have sex as much as possible to avoid allowing sperm to die and become recycled. If you agree with the previous sentence, then you must conclude that there is a time in which the potential human being can be denied its existence while maintaining moral integrity. Assuming that we agree on that level, the question becomes "When is it no longer acceptable to deny the possible organism its existence?". This part is the tricky part. Some would claim that it is vital to avoid pain, so as soon as the fetus can experience suffering, abortion is no longer an option. Others might say that animals experience pain and we kill them, but we don't kill humans because they are intelligent. Therefore, once the fetus gains self awareness, abortion is no longer an option. Even others will claim that if the embryo cannot survive outside of the womb, then it does not yet deserve to live and abortion is still an option. In conclusion, I have argued that, if the concern is the potential for a fetus to become a person, then you are left with the problem of demonstrating why the zygotic or embryonic stages of development are the critical point during which the potential life earns its right to existence, rather than pre-conception, the third trimester, or even early infancy (some studies suggest self awareness may not form until after birth). The heart of this issue is determining what merits a right to life in more specific terms than the potential for life.
Liberal Progressives and Radical Feminist are attempting to emasculate men and destroy masculinity.

Well first of all, when they appeal to our lust, that is offerring the female in question up for worship. I believe in "Chuck", the female agent is the brains of the outfit. Look at shows like "King of Queens", "Everybody Loves Raymond", "Men In Trees", "According to Jim", and last but not least "Sex In The City". You also have "Bionic Woman". All of the shows are biased against men. Secondly I am not advocating abuse. You said however it the situation warrants a woman should be able to kick a man in the testes. Ok, fair enough I agree. So with said, it the situation warrants, a man should hit a woman in the face. It's not a one way street. You also have men growing up in fatherless homes more and more, and regardless of whose fault it is, these boys are will more likely than not foster a resentment towards male role models and wish to become anything but that which they should be. You cannot sit there and tell me the education system isn't biased to women either. You are having less and less guys go to college. Classrooms are set up for group interaction and team building through the conversing of ideas. Boys aren't wired that way. Men learn by doing, not talking about it. There are all kinds of instnaces where boys are given a poor grade for the same caliber work that a girl turned in and recieved a just grade. Many people are thrilled at the idea of a woman president. I am not. A woman would not be as efficient during a time of war, nor would many of the arabic countries even recognize her. Women have a right for equal standing, but some domains are for women and others men. Women should be paid the same. That's not the issue. The issue is blatant discrimination against men. All a woman has to do is scream rape and an innocent man may go down. A woman can now over hear a dirty joke, claim sexual harassment, win millions, MILLIONS, and another man who was having an ordinary day will lose again with a permenent mark on his public record. In dicorce cases, the fault is always the mans, even if the woman was unfaithful. She will say "oh he abused me emotionally" or "he neglected me." Rubbish. She was unfaithful because she was a hussie. Why do children always go to the mother? Didn't use to be that way. Why do women take men for all their worth? Be cause now instead of working as equals with men, they are abusing their God given rights. Look at Gloria Steinman or Mary Daly. Do they want equal rights or just no men?
Liberal Progressives and Radical Feminist are attempting to emasculate men and destroy masculinity.

Since the Feminist revolution of the 60's men have been thrown around. In education classrooms are geared towards females. Men and boys are constantly degraded for the masculinty. Boys are taught that aggressiveness and competition are bad. Girls are taught that a man must not hit them, but it is ok for women to kick a man in the testes. In fact we live in a society that worships women. Women are shown on television as the wise benevolent leaders while men are shown as dullards. They are also the powerful CEOs or secret agents now. I have been told in a law class that women should be leaders as they are more pure and morally responsible. Why is this? Men are told that guns are bad, that our traditional heroes that gained honor and glory through battle are to be replaced by a more tolerant type of hero who fights not. He is a diplomat who abhores honorable fighting. All the strength of men is rebelled against as women are afraid of patriarichal values that have governed this world for ages and will continue to do so. It is the strength of men that safety is kept and borders secure.
Liberal Progressives and Radical Feminist are attempting to emasculate men and destroy masculinity.

How can you say we won those wars? One of them is a standstill, and the other we pulled out of. Winning...ok. But that's not what we're arguing here. We're arguing that liberal progressives and radical feminists are attempting to demasculate men and destroy masculinity. Which they aren't. What you must realize, is that liberal progressives are attempting to equalize women's rights. When we look at what they are saying about men's sports, is that we should have either an all female team, or a team that has both genders. It isn't that they are saying they should have a team and men shouldn't. That is what destroying masculinity would be doing. But that isn't the case. they just want to be equal. If women actually got that, then there wouldn't be any discussion of this ever again. But they don't have equality, so they are trying to get it.
Segregation should be accepted toward Rednecks

My opponent forfeited one round. He appeared in the final round and provided the same assertions he did in his opening round. He provided us with no evidence to convince us of his claims. He simply admitted that his case is personnel decisions and not one single documented fact supports it. I do not need to provide any argument because my opponent failed to show us one thing but that he is biased. It is not my burden to show proof. It is my opponents burden to provide proof and he has not shown none. By rules of debate demands that my opponent loses this debate.
Segregation should be accepted toward Rednecks

My opponent assumed the role of Pro and Instigator therefore assuming the task of proving all the asserts he made in round 1. Because the rounds are so small I will just jump right on in and address some of my opponents points. We should first establish how a Redneck is defined. On Wiki it says that, "Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the southern United States. The term is used broadly to degrade working class and rural whites that are perceived by urban progressives to be insufficiently liberal. At the same time, some Southern whites have reclaimed the word, using it with pride and defiance as a self-identifier. [1] many members of the Southern community have proudly embraced the term as a self-identifier. " That description is not enough though we need more, "Redneck refers to a person who is stereotypically Caucasian (i. e. , white) and is of lower socio-economic status in the United States and Canada. Originally limited to the Appalachians, and later the South, this term has become widely used throughout North America, and to a lesser extent, Australia. "[3] Both descriptions do not given accurate descriptions of redneck though. Because there are many types of rednecks in the world. Some rednecks are smart, some stupid, some don't seem redneck but others it is clear to see. We can consider most country music stars as rednecks by their music and by self-proclamation of it but do describe them the same as my opponent? There is a major TV series on nowadays called Duck Dynasty and the do not fit the descriptions above but proclaim to be redneck on TV. Duck Dynasty is a reality television series on A&E. It shows the lives of the Robertson family, who became wealthy from their family-operated business, Duck Commander, which makes products for duck hunters, primarily the duck call named Duck Commander. The Robertson men, brothers Phil and Si, and Phil's sons Jase, Willie, and Jep, are known for their long, flowing beards. [2] My opponent describes Rednecks as dangerous but in reality there are dangerous people in every type or group and just the same there are non-dangerous people in every type or group. My opponent needs to show that all rednecks drink in their spare time. That all Rednecks kidnap people and burn things. Rednecks like any other group can not be described by a few people. The asserts by my opponent needs to be justified. I wish my opponent luck. Sources: [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.lilesnet.com...
Segregation should be accepted toward Rednecks

So the topic is pretty straight forward. Rednecks are dangerous to the community. Most rednecks are usually always drinkning in their spare time. They could easily go into town and kidnapp yo kids and start a fire. But you could also prevent that by hiding yo kids and hiding yo wife. Also when they are intoxicated they are attracted to fire. When they catch a house on fire, then Sweet Brown will call for Lord Jesus to help her with his belly full of water. (i saw Jesus in a vision and he had a belly full of water) Therefore rednecks are dangerous to the community.
Islam is the reason why the world's a mess.

This is totally sophomoric on your part You cant answer any of my questions, but simply revert back to "Oh yeah there are some evil Muslims but GEE! there are all kinds of evil people so we should just EXCUSE THE EVIL" I am going to quote Edmund Burke for you "The only thing that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" This debate is over Bring on an adult or better yet a muslim "scholar" so I can actually argue with someone with credentials on this subject Take care and have a good Chistmas, kid. cheers Solarman
Islam is the reason why the world's a mess.

Look, this I DO know. Evil can exist anywhere. It exists inside all religions. Does this make the religion its self evil?? No. Are there bad people in islam?? yes. Are there bad people in Christian faiths? yes. Are there bad people that are of no faith? yes. People are the evil ones. Ignorance creates fear and fear creates distrust and then with distrust comes lies and hatred. That's what makes the world a mess, not Islam.
Islam is the reason why the world's a mess.

UAE. that was hard. Plus there are not a ton of Non Islamic countries that aren't corrupt either. I'm not looking at anything with the word prophet in it. Because that reminds me of guessing and magic 8 balls. So here it is: 1) Bin Laden got PO'ed because we had troops in his native Sudi Arabia. 2)My hatred is for people who can't see past next week. Decisions made now will cost the lives of our children. We bungled Iran in 1980 and look. One of the protesting students is now the LEADER OF THE COUNTRY. 3)War on terror is just that. Afghanistan good. hit and runs into other nations. Good. taking out someone who had nothing to do with anything. Bad. lying and saying he did. let me think, BAD. 4)You never said whose fault it was if it wasn't our governments. so who??? 5)No Europe, that's really who's important. No Russia. BIG MISTAKE. they have major influence in China and Iran, who are, in my mind, bigger threats than Bin Laden. 6)And you know what? Yes i'm more frightened by you then a guy with a bomb. Because the bomb will go off but freedom will remain. You people take over i'm not free. Religion and guns will take over as the most important things in our nation. The moment you start wanting to stamp out cultures, your no better than the Clan or the Nazis.
Islam is the reason why the world's a mess.

So let me get this straight. It's not that the Bush Administration who invaded an Islamic country, when the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because we had troops in the Middle-East. It's not that the administration as done as much as they possibly could to ruin good will with most countries that had ANY importance in the world. It's not their fault that they planned the war poorly so Iraq became a hotbed for terrorists. It's not their fault that they gave us false pretences to go to war in an area of the world where any bad decisions can lead to disaster. Your right: it's the small percent of nut jobs with bombs strapped to their nads. They challenge the enitre worlds freedom. They did cause a ton of problems when they had no rallying cry to fight for? Or when we supplied them ammo to fight the USSR? So who's really dangerous, thoose nut jobs or people who want to stamp them out like you???
Most Underachieving Football Team

Cloppbeast...how can you possibly underachieve if you were never expected to do good. The Eagles were ranked 7 in the NFL at the beginning of the season. now they are 18 according to ESPN. The dolphins were ranked 27...and now there...you guessed it...32...to start that low and remain that low...is that really underachieving. Let me define underachieving...:To perform worse or achieve less success than expected by freedictionary.com So if the Dolphins were originally ranked 27...they weren't really expected to do much win wise...The Eagles were ranked 7 and eventually ended up 18 now...apparently they were expected to do pretty good...but somehow they only are able o salvage a 500 record...thats pretty underachieving The Eagles have showed there star power in somegames...dallas2...patriots...but they haven't nearly played up to there potential in there other games When you have the Starpower the Eagles do and only get a 500 record at best then you are really underachieving. When you have the...players the Fins have and have a 1-15 record...thats just like another season.
Most Underachieving Football Team

I am in no way arguing that the Dolphins are a good football team and could have made the playoffs. I am only arguing that that are much better than a one win football team, thus they are underachieving. //My point is the Eagles can play FANTASTIC ball at times but falter at others.// Who cares? They play terrible, all the time. Stupid mistakes make them terrible. It doesn't matter if they could've beaten Green Bay or New England, because they didn't and they are terrible. How do we no if they are a terrible football team who plays well sometimes, or a good football team who plays bad sometimes? Plus, inconsistency only proves how crappy the Eagles really are. It proves they are mentally weak. Mike & Mike in the morning predicted the Eagles would win 9 games this season, they are on pace to win probably 6 or 7 games, yielding a difference of 2 or 3. Mike & Mike in the morning predicted the Dolphins would win 6 games this season, they are on pace to win 1 game, yielding a difference of 5 games.
Most Underachieving Football Team

Hey, first of all I'M...the only one who can say the Eagles are underachieving...jk Anyway. The dolphins had no chance to make the playoffs in the position there in. They are in the AFC East w/ the Patriots nuff said and They are in the AFC where the Steelers, Chargers, Colts, Jaguars, etc. so they had no chance what so evr to make the playoffs anyway. The Dolphins play like crap all the time, no matter who they have Jason Taylor, pretty good, Ronnie Brown overrated, Marty Booker, 2nd man WO who only gets recognised b/c Chambers ain't there, Zack Thomas, not the same old Thomas, Porter, known for mouth not play, Green another overrated 3rd rate QB, Williams,...a pot head. Now the Eagles...McNabb, last year he threw 2 touchdowns every game b4 injury, Westbrook, playing best all together back in NFL, Jon Runyan, vicious lineman who played against Strahan w/ a broken tailbone and only gave up 1 sack, Trent Cole 12.5 sacks, all year, Shelton Brown, gave Bush incredible hit, last year, Sheppard, now breaking out as elite CB, Dawkins, getting old but still has big hit capability w/ still great get up, Takeo Spikes, who was Pro Bowl caliber who got stuck in a unlucky place b4 Philly, and yet we still give up winable games. Green Bay, inexperienced special teams muffe it away. Chicago game, gave up last minute TD to put us away The N.E. game: Eagles played best game of year and still came up short, thrown a way by back up, Seattle game, resilince pays off...until thrown away by backup 2nd N.Y. game, Offense with all its weapons only scored once, tying kick off goal post, Now look at some of these games: Detroit, We blow away the suprise team 56 to 21 w/ McNabb having a seemingly return game 2nd Redskins, We marched down the field in the 2nd half and stuffed them w/ D and flew over them w/ O Patriots game, play best game of season against best team, hair away to busting Perfect Dreams 2nd Dallas game, We take away 3 picks to make Romo wish Jessica never came My point is the Eagles can play FANTASTIC ball at times but falter at others. The Miami Dolphins are just bad. They couldn't win those games b/c of there badness the Eagles lost there games to there Underachievingness. The Eagles were suppost to be a top team his year 12-4 (says Espn in season previews)...to be 6-8 if thats not underachieving I don't kno what is
Most Underachieving Football Team

I would like to start by saying I agree that the Eagles are an underachieving football team, but the Miami Dolphins are the MOST underachieving football team. While the Dolphins did not have had as high of preseason aspirations as the Eagles, but the Eagles atleast have a formidable record. The Eeagles will miss the playoff's and probably end up with an 8-8 or 7-9 record, which is a dissapointment; but they probably only expected to win 10 games. The Dolphins on the other hand, will most likely win only 1 game, but probably expected win atleast 8 games. The Eagles will soon be forgotten once the season ends, but the Dolphins will unrightfully be forever remembered as one of the worst teams ever. - Miami has lost 6 games by 3 points or less. - Miami's starting QB, LB, and LB were all injured, disabling them all for the season. Their starting reciever, Chris Chambers, was also traded. -Miami played a reasonably hard schedule this season including, New England(twice),Pittsburgh, Dallas, Cleveland, and the New York (Giants.) -Starting the season, The Dolphins had Jason Taylor, Joey Porter, Trent Green, Ronnie Brown, Marty Booker, Zack Thomas, Chris Chambers, and aquired Ricky Williams, who are all pro-bowl caliber players.
Most Underachieving Football Team

I am a Philadelphia Eagles Fan so what I'm about to say is all right for me to say...Noone else. I believe the Philadelphia Eagles are the most Underachieving team in the NFL. Let me define underachieving for this debate: underachieving: a team that is losing games that they should win and not playing to there potential. The Eagles are with out a doubt the most underachieving team in the NFL. First of all they have all-stars on both sides of the ball D-fense: Brian Dawkins, Takeo Spikes, Trent Cole, Lito Sheppard, Sheldon Brown. And on Ofense: Donavan McNabb, Brian Westbrook, Jon Runyan, L.J. Smith Now my point is this. The eagles have Star Power but they are very inconsistant. They will be almost perfect protecting the QB: Detroit game 56-21 But be blown back at other times: 12 sacks against N.Y. Our offense is even more inconsistent. One game we score 56. The last N.Y.G. game we marched down the field on our first drive but didn't score a TD after that. The D is inconsistant too. One game we get stomped (1st Dallas game) the next we hold the best Offense with in Field Goal. (Patriots) The Eagles if we are consistant would of been the best team in the NFC. The three best teams in the league we beat or had less than a TD loss to (N.E., Dallas, Green Bay). There is no better or equal team with a worse record (6-8)