BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama is doing good so far

"obama is stealing my money so i dont have any to feed my cattle with" My opponent uses improper grammar and capitalization. How does he steal your money, exactly? "hes taking from the rich and given it to the belly lickers" Again, improper grammar. What is a "belly licker", exactly? "obama doesnt know how to run a millitary so hitler could easilly take over right now if he wanted 2" Hitler is dead. "obama thinks we can just fire off nukes but see we cant" When, recently, have we fired off nukes? "obama wouldnt have won if he was white because more old people voted for the old guy then young people voted for obama" Well, I thought you were getting some where when you said he wouldn't have won presidency if he was white... but alas, you go off and say only :old people" voted for John McCain and "young people" voted for Obama. sigh. "i like obama" This makes no sense. My opponent's refute is clearly incomprehensible to most and makes utterly zero sense to prove her point.
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Thanks for another round PRO: "My opponent is wrong. Grant and Eisenhower were not given presidency because they won wars. They won because people voted for them. " I am not wrong, you just have an opinion, like many opinions you have stated here, that those two presidents were not elected to the presidency because they won wars. I seriously doubt anyone reading this debate could possibly agree with your opinion. PRO: "So I could give a s*it less what some foreigner thinks about my country." The Nobel Committee probably feels the exact same way about your opinion that Obama does not deserve the Nobel Prize. The burden of proof is not even being addressed much less being met. My opponent once again does not challenge the validity of the Nobel Committee, thus my argument stands. Thus you should ... +Vote Con+
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Thanks for the debate. My opponent is wrong. Grant and Eisenhower were not given presidency because they won wars. They won because people voted for them. They were not given presidency on any battlefield. So, with all due respect, no, I did not validate your comparison, which I already stated is invalid because of the vast difference in award and political office position requirements. To your source (www.guardian.co.uk) Funny that you should present a source that is relevant, but still invalid. The reason being that it is invalid because you do not have direct proof that the world opinion had significant consequence on Obama's election. The American President is chosen by the American people, not the world. So I could give a s*it less what some foreigner thinks about my country. After all, it is only logical that the majority of citizens would show more political interest in their country than a foreigner. Furthermore, your source is invalid for another reason. Every so often political preferences change. It has went back and forth between Democrats and Republicans for a long time. In popular opinion, according to (http://www.pollingreport.com...) Bush was a failure as a republican. People, at the end of his presidency, looked towards Democrats to provide stability and liberalism for though times. It highly probable that had more to do with political party preference than anything else. I strongly urge to focus on these arguments which he chooses to ignore instead of stating I have presented no arguments, for these are it: 1. The award was created for a specific purpose, for those that contribute profoundly to the entire world. Obama did not fulfill that purpose. 2. America does not feel as if enough change occurred during the First Year (when he won the award). 3. Obama did not successfully make steps toward his "vision", one of the things that he was heavily commended for when he accepted the prize. His "vision" has not came true. Therefore, he does not deserve it, lest every Ms. America contestant and their philosophical "world peace" piece gain the Nobel Prize. [In my opinion, Obama deserves it as much as one of those scantily clad blondes] 4. He has failed at leadership, for he admits he did not unite the country, another reason why he won the prize. Why win it for failure? 5. He did not win the award for chronic apologies 6. How can one promote the betterment of the world when he does things that are "...good for Europeans but bad for America.", in your own words? You can not compare an international award (the Nobel Prize) where global opinion matters compared to a national office where only national opinion matters. I have stated: "He did not unite the nation under leadership and his vision is a pile of broken promises, like I stated." Many times, and you've yet to refute it. Instead, you state they are not arguments and ignore them. My opponent has presented no proof as to why he deserves the award, and I have presented many reasons why he does not, nor has my opponent successfully rebutted. For those reasons, I believe I have won the argument portion of this debate. =VOTE PRO=
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Thanks to my opponent for another round. My opponent states: PRO: "That would be an award for the merits of his actions; however, his presidency is merits of his credentials." This claim is very easy to counter. Grant and Eisenhower were both elected not on credentials, but because they on a war with their actions. There is no way you could possibly claim otherwise. Generals that lose wars don't get elected, no matter how many degrees of education they have earned. Since you have defined an award given on the basis of actions, you have just now validated this comparison. Thanks. "being elected for presidency does not concern world opinion like the award does." Oh really PRO? http://www.guardian.co.uk... Not only does this source fly in the face of your claim, but it actually supports my contention that Obama is very popular in European circles. One survey listed a whopping 83% favored Obama in Switzerland! (so much for neutrality) PRO: "I have established the original, unbiased purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize and provided what is more than enough evidence to prove why he doesn't deserve it." You actually have not provided any unbiased argument whatsoever for this, only opinions from people who never sat on the prize committee. In any case, the criteria can and has changed since Alfred Nobel, as many more recipients since have added their input on who should win the next year's prize. This is not a debate about the purpose of the prize in any case, Your Burden of Proof lies solely on whether he deserves this prize. The prize selection committee clearly has found Obama deserving, and thus far, you have presented zero arguments to rebut this obvious fact. PRO: "He did not unite the nation under leadership and his vision is a pile of broken promises" I applaud your patriotism, but the prize selection committee is way more concerned about fostering fraternity between OTHER nations. Once again, PRO continues to look at this award through his own perspective rather than the perspective of the Nobel Prize committee. This myopic view attempts to distort the real reason for the awarding of the prize. PRO is simply showcasing his own opinions. PRO: "Furthermore, the award given to one person does not mean they have a say in who gets the next. That is an absurd idea." http://en.wikipedia.org... "Former recipients, including board members of organizations that have previously won the prize," Former recipients help shape the short list which is then considered by permanent advisers to the Nobel institute, which consists of the Institute's Director and the Research Director and a small number of Norwegian academics with expertise in subject areas relating to the prize. I would argue that Jimmy Carter has a lot more say in this than PRO's opinion. PRO will continue to use any opinion source he can grasp at other than the Nobel Prize Selection Committee. If he were to do so, his claims would fall like a house of cards. I await new and interesting proof from my opponent.
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Thanks for the debate, again. First of all, I find it odd that my opponent accuses me with only showcasing personal opinions, when I have cited many sources. I did not present my case based on personal opinions, but with viable sources. Secondly, my opponent wishes to compare and contrast a political profession and position with an award. Presidency is not an award, it is a job. Therefore, it can not be compared to an award that is given for global aid, unless the president provides such global aid in office. That would be an award for the merits of his actions; however, his presidency is merits of his credentials. You can not compare a national perspective to an international perspective when the subject is unrelated, and you can not compare a profession with an award in such a way. Besides, being elected for presidency does not concern world opinion like the award does. You said, "What would be deserving is not what PRO's idea of what the Nobel Prize should mean, but what the actual prize selection committee's idea of what the Nobel Prize actually means. " I have established the origional, unbiased purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize and provided what is more than enough evidence to prove why he doesn't deserve it. So far, you've not attacked any of my points, but merely declared my arguments, sources, and entire debate opinionated. As far as your Jimmy Carter example, he actually did something. Obama, according to my sources, did not do anything in his first year, and the President himself stated that he "lost the air" and had many unfulfilled promises. He did not unite the nation under leadership and his vision is a pile of broken promises, like I stated. I do not see the relevancy of you bringing up Jimmy Carter apologizing. His award was not based on apologies. According to you, however, Obama's award was assisted in it's achievement by apologizing, by "helping mend international relations". Apologies is not deserving of such a prestigious award. "Carter probably approved of Obama's apology tour. " Now that, my friend, is opinion. Furthermore, the award given to one person does not mean they have a say in who gets the next. That is an absurd idea. My opponent has not given a real reason why he deserves the award. He merely compared his actions with another and used the actions of the other person and their "probable approval" to justify Obama's award, which is irrelevant. His main argument is that he deserves it for apologizing. This wasn't even the panel's basis as to why he won the award. "It is all about the selection committee's idea of what the award means. If one fails to adhere to this structure, then ANY award could be invalidated just from public whim. " If the award is given for aid to the world, there is a strong chance the world would unite to cite their opinion if they deserve the award, just saying. By the way, I fail to see my fallacy. Could you cite the statement where I used one, and the name of the fallacy?
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Thanks for another round of debate fun! I think my opponent is declaring victory a tad early as there are many more rounds to go. Pro has the Burden of proof for showing that Obama did not deserve the Nobel Prize. So far I have only seen many of his own personal opinions, along with many spelling errors. First I would like to point out the fallacy of declaring that World opinion or America's opinion means more than the opinion of the Nobel selection committee when it comes to this particular award. :FALLACY: Let me start off by saying, there have been many presidents democratically elected in America that many Europeans and others thought did not DESERVE the presidency. Assuming you can equate somewhat the presidency with an award, both given from the consensus of a group, you can see that it would be foolish for America to declare any president they elected as to not be deserving of the office solely on world opinion. What would be deserving is not what PRO's idea of what the Nobel Prize should mean, but what the actual prize selection committee's idea of what the Nobel Prize actually means. To get a better idea of this actual idea, we can easily go back to one former recipient of the award who was a former president, Jimmy Carter. In 2002, President Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development" through The Carter Center. (1) There are many critics that say Carter would promote the status of other countries by apologizing or belittling America, much in the same way as Obama. Some say he was too critical of American policies with Israel when brokering a peace with the Palestinians. This is only relevant in as much as, part of the award selection process involves former award winners. Carter probably approved of Obama's apology tour. What this means is basically, when you win the Nobel Peace Prize, you get a say into what it means for the next recipient. This may be a far cry from the idea of what the world believes what the Peace Prize means, but that is the system in which the prize is awarded. World opinion on who deserves the prize is irrelevant to determining who deserves it. Pro has yet to disclose a real reason for why Obama does not deserve the award beyond his own personal opinion. I have stated many real reasons why he deserves this award given the context of what the award is really all about. It is not about some altruistic world notion, or PRO's notion of a great popular man. It is all about the selection committee's idea of what the award means. If one fails to adhere to this structure, then ANY award could be invalidated just from public whim. I eagerly await the next round, hope I am doing okay for my first debate! http://tinyurl.com...
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Thank you for accepting. Contentions/Rebuttals: 1. If my opponent does not deny anything that I have offered, then I have won, for I stated he did not deserve that prize. Therefore, I have won this debate by confession. 2. An apology tour does not qualify someone for the Nobel Prize. I could apologize to everyone for everything and not get a damned thing. Action has to be taken to progress, not amen, in order to recieve this prize. 3. He did not win the award for chronic apologies, he won it for his "leadership" and "vision". He has yet to unite this nation, much less the world, and his vision is something he can not achieve and his Nobel Prize rests on a pile of failure and hapless, misguided dreams and broken promises that he, once again, failed to keep. He does not deserve it. 4. How can one promote the betterment of the world when he does things that are "...good for Europeans but bad for America.", in your own words? He can not. 5. By stating that they feel empowered, you imply that the Nobel Prize was coveted. If this is so, then he DEFINATELY does not deserve it. He didn't meet the critera and he bowed to them to make them feel better, shedding a bad light on America, according to what you have stated. 6. I say Obama does not deserve this Nobel Prize from a wordly point of view. After all, this prize does encompass the world. All that you have stated is a betterment for Europe and a worsening for America. The Nobel Prize was not intended for that, but for the betterment of the world, which you've yet to prove. Like I said, an apology in an attempt to promote world peace does not qualify for a Nobel Prize. Only a progression, not amend, is deserving of this award. On another unrelated note, Ghandi was nominated several times for this award, but did not recieve it. For the reasons above, I heavily urge you to =VOTE PRO=
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Thanks for this challenge. I have decided to make a feeble attempt at proving why Obama deserved the Nobel award. I am not going to rebut anything that Pro offered so I will proceed to my contentions. Criteria for the prize: "The person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." (1) C1: I propose that Obama's apology tour succeeded in satisfying the criteria for fraternity between nations. Obama toured the world and apologized for wrecking transatlantic relations. "America has been arrogant and has even ridiculed" its European allies. Later, Obama followed up by declaring that "I believe in a strong Europe" (2) This shows a clear attempt at promoting not just fraternity between ordinary nations, but specifically European nations. While many agree that his apology tour was good for Europeans but bad for America,it needs to be stressed that the Nobel prize is a European construct. Europeans have their own selfish agenda. Much of the perception of America which Obama represents is colored through the European prism. When Obama says he is sorry for America's transgressions, it makes the Europeans feel empowered. That empowerment is extended through the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. I await the rebuttal of this contention. Con says Obama does not deserve the Peace prize, but from whose point of view? If you say Americans, you will likely get a no answer. If you say Europeans, you will likely get a resounding yes answer. If you are to evaluate fairly, you must, gentle reader, assume that the decision to whether the Nobel Prize was deserved or not should really rest with the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which selects the laureate for the Peace. However, if you want to extend the opinion worldwide, you must still recognize that Obama did fulfill the requirement to at least attempt to foster fraternity between nations with his apology tour. http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Analyzing the Resolution: The resolution solely depicts that Obama, the United States President, did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. This Prize was awarded to him for his "remarkable leadership and vision". Contentions: I feel it nessicary to point out that the Nobel Prize was initially created, not nessicarily followed-up, by Alfred Nobel. Our modern day Nobel Prize has been modled from him, and his award given to the person in the world who had contributed the most to mankind. Assuming the Nobel Committee has not strayed from the reason they were established (i. e. being corrupt), then Obama did not deserve this award. Obama spoke of change. Not just changing a few policies, such as healthcare reform, DADT, or Guantanimo, but Obama promised to change how Washington operated, that our capital was a fatally flawed place; however, he willingly stated that he had "lost the air" for such a change, and failed in his promise. According to NBC News, Obama admittedly states that America has every right to feel deflated at his progress in the First Year. He openly admits that he "has not brought the country together in the way his inauguration did. " With the following sources, they and the general American populace do not feel the presence of much change within the First Year. One of the members of the White House stated that it was more of a calandar date than a milestone and another satirical piece stated "(Obama) Can! [He just hasn't yet]". If the Nobel Prize is intentionally awarded to those who contribute most to the world, Obama should definately not have been awarded nor accepted this prestigous award. Due to the outstanding nature of his position and of the rigorous circumstances of this award, we must judge by more sophisticated standards. His presidency alone does not account for extreme leadership, (also including the circumstances) else every presient before and after him would recieve this award. As for his "vision". .. this was on the basis of peace in a world without nuclear arms. It can be reasonably assumed the entire world does not want to die in a nuclear cloud. However, Obama, in his First Year, has made little steps in comparision to the promises he has made (*go politics*). Vision is only a dream if you do not act upon it, and, in this case, act successfully upon it, which he has failed to do. He has failed at leadership, for he admits he did not unite the country. He did not deserve this award, especially when he admits to the faults of the traits that supposively gave him the award. I would also like to point out that this is a double source- a direct one, and from the most important political professional to our nation- our president. VOTE PRO . http://blogs.abcnews.com... www. cbsnews. com/8301-503544_162-6119525-503544. html www. slate. com/id/2236708 Presidet Obama
Obama Did Not Deserve To Recieve The Nobel Prize

Hello gentle readers. As a veteran of the gulf war, I sympathize with the MEPS holdup, PRO. I would have liked to see a genuine attack from PRO on the Nobel Prize Committee, which I had baited not so subtlety this entire debate as a strong path to providing Burden of Proof. Let me give an example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org... Here you can legitimately debate that the Russians did NOT DESERVE the 2002 Olympic gold medal. The reasons are obvious. I would have liked to see PRO go full attack even if it was unsuccessful. I still contend that the Obama awarding was in keeping with THE NOBEL COMMITTEE'S standards of what the award means. That is to say, if he wants to share an award with a man who many believe was the worst president in American history, then so be it. I really do find it amusing reading PRO's own personal opinion of what he thinks the prize SHOULD mean, but it does not necessarily exist as such in this reality. So yes I still affirm that Obama deserves this ridiculous award. And all the ridiculousness that goes along with it. Let the voting commence!
There is no evidence supporting the existence of the biblical god.

I propose that there is no evidence supporting god's existence. Belief relies on blind faith alone. I also propose that any and all evidence we do have about the universe either remains neutral towards a god being involved or else goes against an intelligent designer having a hand in its creation. I am new to this site so this debate is mainly so I can get used to the format here. The rules will be just to follow standard debate protocol and remain respectful. If you want to argue from a point of logic then sources are not needed but any claims of fact, (that could reasonably called into question), should be backed up by their source. Thanks