BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

I state the disappointment in my opponent's response and ask of him to read my arguments again and to be honest to yourself to whether you understand it or not. I don't see any counter arguments specifically addressed to what I said and your reply doesn't make any sense. Free Will Argument 1 You state that I am using free will to say there is no free will. If I knew nothing about the topic I wouldn't be able to state with arguments that it didn't exist because I wouldn't have the information to state it. Next is the huge leap from saying that because I disagree with free will it automatically is evidence that it does exist. As I stated in my previous arguments the reasons for this not to be true. By that I can tell you might have read it, but didn't understand the posted arguments. Free Will Argument 2 You need to enlighten me on this because I read it and I don't understand how this is relevant. We are here or apparently I am here to debate or talk to myself about whether it exists or not. It has nothing to do with it being beneficial. Free Will Argument 3 I can go on about how this is not true, but I can't know for sure you will understand it. I will let you explain in detail how rationality implies free will. I agree with the first two points. Other guys argument 'We choose to have emotions'. How do we choose our own emotions? You say we choose to be angry, really? You just feel angry because a certain cause triggered it. Whether you respond to it depends on the information you possess. You state it like you take a few seconds to yourself and then activate your emotions consciously. Not to say it can't be done like that, but that takes a certain skill thus implying effort and not how it normally goes. 'we actually choose in a split second to not get hit by the car'. It's called the desire to live, survival instinct. I strongly recommend you really put an effort in understanding the arguments I posted and from that point if you still disagree make references to it with counterarguments so that this debate can go on. The level of your reply is far below average.
On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process

As this is the last the last i will be posting a short argument ,it is as follows: 1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates" positions and ideas. 2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as "buying votes" for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.
On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process

I AM SO SORRY For forfeiting the earlier roundAnd opponent, if you need my evidence, just ask, I have it readyMy opponents main argument is essentially that the election is not balanced and it is unfairHowever, my 3rd contention directly refutes thisSuper PACs, which take the money from corporations and donate them to candidates, are actually creating competition between the political candidates bettering democracy and voter turnout.A February 2012 Slate Magazine article gave us is the Republican Primaries and how without Super PACs, Mitt Romney would win by a huge margin. But since there are Super PACs, there is a more competitive race for the fight for president, and this keeps other alternative candidates in the election too. Because of this, there are more choices in the election, and thus, with more candidates to fit these voter’s ideologies, there is more voter turnout.Another study conducted by the CATO organization was published in 2002 which showed that without PACs, the Mccain-Feingold Act would apply and most donations would go to the incumbents instead of the challenger. With the PACs, the current law made by the Citizen’s United decision would apply and money would go to both candidates. This makes the election fair and competitive.Also, An increase in campaign spending means that more people are participating in democracy. The Citizens United Decision recognizes campaign contributions as a form of free speech, so what an increase in campaign donations means is that more people are making posters and flyers, and there is more of a participation in democracy. According to a study done in the Social Science Quarterly, overall, an increase in campaign spending equates to an increase in voter participation, thus strengthening our democracy.Another point is that one cannot say that there is a money disparity in the campaigning1. People pay with their dollars. Campaign spending is free speech2. if a person gets more votes, it is fair? Of course. This is the natural process of democracy. Our government allows significant disparities in the election process. Why does money harm this process?3. Corporations support the candidate that has a better message, so it is their choice to give them money and support them. Thus, when our opponents claim that money disparity is not fair, this is the problem of capitalism, not the Citizens United Decision, since there has been unequal campaign funding since the start of our democracy.Judge, look at this at a logical standpointWe have to look at this at a capitalist viewThe US is a capitalist society. Any money that is earned can be spent HOWEVER THEY WANT TOJudge this is nesccesary for you to understand So I hope you vote CON/NEG
Whether or not a mosque should be built so close to Ground Zero (Site of 9/11)

That is all. My first argument is that though I have no problem with Islam is America, I believe that they should show respect for the people of New York, who suffered only 9 years ago as their two of their greatest symbols collapsed. Also the exact site used to have a Christian church on it. This was destroyed during 9/11. When the people of the church asked to rebuild the Government would not let them. This I don't understand. It would be simple for the Iman to simple move it somewhere else,but he has said he will not.
Resolved: The United States should fight the war on terror until Al-Qaeda is eliminated.

I would like to close by thanking my opponent for this debate. I have enjoyed reading your arguments and I appreciate the respectful, intelligent tone with which you have written. Let's return to the Affirmative's resolution: "that we should continue fighting the war in Afghanistan until all top Al-Qaeda officials have been killed or captured and the organization CAN NO LONGER BE A FURTHER THREAT (emphasis added), and if needed we should take this fight against Al-Qaeda elsewhere as well." The Affirmative cannot meet the terms of his own resolution. Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It is motivated by political context and history. The threat Al-Qaeda poses cannot be neutralized by fighting the war in Afghanistan, killing or capturing its top officials, or expanding the war to other countries. In fact, continuing our strategy of ground war, bombs, extradition and torture (and intervention elsewhere in the Middle East, like Palestine and Iraq) will only recruit more people to Al-Qaeda's IDEAS and harm more civilians in the process. The war on terror is an unwinnable war. To create a safer, fairer world, we need to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and seriously reform our foreign policy. I urge a Negative vote. Thank you.
Resolved: The United States should fight the war on terror until Al-Qaeda is eliminated.

First, I will concede that it is not possible to destroy terrorism altogether. However, this is a debate about the destruction of Al-Qaeda, which I will show is possible. To begin, it is entirely possible to cause the destruction of Al-Qaeda. While their methods may be unconventional, it is a simple matter of destroying their leadership base. Al-Qaeda and the organizations it supports cannot exist without Osama bin Laden and his cronies, who organize and plan the attacks that Al-Qaeda orchestrates. Secondly, it is possible to defeat Al-Qaeda without killing large amounts of civilians. I will disagree that Al-Qaeda is entirely decentralized. While cells may operate individually to a point, they have leaders not just in Osama bin Laden but others around the world as well. Individual operatives do not have the resources to plan and execute significant attacks. Even if they're fighting base disguises themselves as civilians, Al-Qaeda's leadership is well known to intelligence agencies, and if you cut off the head the body will wither. Although Al-Qaeda may have recruited more fighters over the coarse of the War in Afghanistan, their capabilities are now limited. While very active during the 90s and early 21st century, the attack on Mumbai was the only significant Al-Qaeda success since the War on Terror. This shows that they're capabilities are being weakened even if they can replenish their numbers. My opponent's contention that the war doesn't have international support is irrelevant. While it is true that the current situation is partially our responsibility (much to the dismay of the late Rep. Charlie Wilson), this doesn't make Al-Qaeda's destruction any less important. The United States still has the support of the ISAF in the fight against Al-Qaeda, the light other Middle Eastern nations view us in isn't important to the destruction of Al-Qaeda. While changing our foreign policies may reduce the further creation of such extremists groups, I don't think this will get rid of Al-Qaeda. They are already firmly established, and nothing short of giving them their wish of an Islamic State will stop them attempting to orchestrate terrorist actions. Al-Qaeda has already caused massive costs to the United States in both lives and infrastructure. To allow them to continue to have a leadership base with which to organize and attack is simply a high-risk action for the United States to take.
Resolved: The United States should fight the war on terror until Al-Qaeda is eliminated.

I am going to take the Affirmitive argument, that we should continue fighting the war in Afghanistan until all top Al-Qaeda officials have been killed or captured and the organization can no longer be a further threat, and if needed we should take this fight against Al-Qaeda elsewhere as well. Unlike with the invasion of Iraq, we were clearly attacked by Al-Qaeda, and that attack killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Additionally, Al-Qaeda killed 212 people when they destroyed the United States embassy in Nairobi. They are also responsible for the deaths of 17 Navy Sailors in 2000. [1] I believe that leaving this organization in existence in any form is a danger to all people in the world. While it is true they have been significantly weakened by Operation Enduring Freedom, there is still no proof of the death of Osama bin Laden or his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. [2] Additionally, the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India were purportrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group heavily supported by al-Qaeda. [3] Umar Abdulmutallab, the man responsible for attempting to destroy an airplane on Christmas of 2009, reportedly met with Al-Qaeda leaders who had stationed themselves in Yemen. [4] Anwar al-Awlaki is possibly an Al-Qaeda leader within the United States. [5] All this clearly shows that they are still a threat. There is a view many people have that we should remove our soldiers from Afghanistan as we are Iraq, I feel that this is one of the worst things we could do to the world. If we do not eliminate Al-Qaeda and its leaders, we are leaving them to be a threat to all the world. [This is my first debate using this website, so I apologize in advance if I did anything incorrectly] Sources: [1]. http://www.fas.org... [2]. http://www.fbi.gov... [3]. http://www.cfr.org... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com... [5]. http://www.nefafoundation.org...
Greed is Good

Con must think he is clever, he is now rhyming and manipulating words such as "greed" and "need. " How are laws a "need" for the strong? Con carefully ignores this because he knows that laws are not a need for the strong. So instead Con tries to confuse us with a weak analogy fallacy by comparing laws to air[1]. It is a weak analogy because human beings "needing" to breathe air has nothing to do with lawmaking. Laws are made and retracted by humans, air is not an option to be retracted. Back to the point, fallacies aside. The weak are only concerned about themselves in their advocation of laws. The strong are ignored so they are only concerned about what benefits them. Therefore we must conclude that their concern for themselves at the expense of the strong must be seen as selfish. [1]. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... Con further explains his ignorance when he asks "is it necessary to become a millionaire? " Con fails to realize and accept it is the consumers alone who decide how much money people will ultimately be making. Then Con further ignored my question from Round 2 to engage in more petty trickery and manipulating. A quick recall: " Is my greed harmful to anyone else? " I asked this in a question in reference to a person becoming a millionaire. and selling products to which many people consume. Con just ignored this intentionally because he knows he will not be able to prove it is harmful. Therefore, Con has attempted to deflect. Don't be distracted by what he said when he artfully ignored what I said and asked. We are not discussing the "happiness" or the "need" of greed. We are discussing whether greed is good. Con has moved goal posts to ignore points here to obfuscate the resolution of this debate. Con further goes into more foul tactics as he goes on by using appeal to emotion in reference to the neighbor[2]. Con never answered my questions, again. Simply because Con knows he can't answer them. Con has no premise to make any arguments about why the neighbor should be fed. I asked explicitly: "How can we be responsible for that which we can not control? " Con showed no responsibility therefore, I have no obligation to feed my neighbor. Con went on to purposefully ignore one of the better points of what I said in Round 2: "Why would I want feed someone whom I dislike? " Con again knows he would lose this argument so he ignored it. Pro further establishes my point. If the Soviet Union and China had more greedy people, would people have sacrificed so much for little? I think not. [2]. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... Con has engaged in manipulation and trickery. I ask a single person to deny it including Con himself. He has stooped so low to attempt to try to change the resolution. The debate resolution is not "Greed is a Need" but "Greed is Good. " I would state emphatically, Con has not shown us how greed is not good.
Greed is Good

http://i.word.com... Pro seems to confuse greed with need. Need is something that is required.Yet the following are the reasons behind Pros argument that the weak are greedy. - Laws serve to protect the weak from the strong. - It is out of selfishness that they want protection Pro: So the weak are greedy. The weak act upon need not Greed. There's a difference between the two. Greed is when you're being selfish. Need is based upon lacking of something important and required to surviving . Greed is based upon desire of extravagance and that is beyond what we really need. For example we need to breathe. Is it greedy to breathe? Or is it a need? Pro is confusing need with greed. The law doesn't protect the weak because of the weaks selfishness but rather to serve a need and a dificiency that the strong don't face. We need to understand that we don't need greed. More people should not become greedy. Why should we not want something that we don't need? Yet Pro argues that more people should be greedy. Is it essential to our survivial to want more than what is required? Is greed as similar as breathing? Pro argues for the person who wants to become a millionaire. Is it neccessary to become a millionaire? Is it the same as breathing or sleeping? Surely it is not harmful to wish for money but involving greed will only invite unhappiness which is basically not desireable and is the opposite of what Pro argues that of greed. It is in the nature of a greedy person to want more. Yes once you become a millionaire you will be happy but only for a short time. Once you become a millionaire you will only want to become a billionaire. This is only going to be a cycle a start of a cycle, an endless cycle of wanting to have more. Does this cycle of greed bring about any good except for one to constantly feel lacking? Pro you advocate that people should be greedy but reality it is not possible for one to ever NEED to be greeedy. Pro argues for the greedy rich person who let's his destitute neighbors die from hunger. Pro reasons that you control your own money and you cannot control the well-being of that neighbor. There's also another thing you can control that is your desire. Pro claims that we don't have an obligation to feed our neighbors because we can't control his well being. Of course you cannot control the well-being of another person. However we can control our desire to hoard money that has been the factor of your neighbors death. Is it not possible to stop such a person's death by feeding him? Do we not have an advantage of being able to control money that could have save this soul? And a neighbor dies because we choose to not give money and stem our desires? And Pro do you want to advocate for the greed when we don't need it? When it causes misfortune? Pro mentions Soviet and China , countries that had set out to be wealth distributors. Pro says that through greed, people would avoid dying. No not through greed of a few handful people, these countries face a population of poverty and a handful of rich. A handful of people acting uppon on greed can destroy even a population.
Greed is Good

RESPONSE:"Good is about benefitting yourself as well as others. But greed is not about benfitting oneself nor others."Con, this is false. If I do something out of greed how do you know others don't benefit? If I decide I want to become a millionaire to look better than my neighbors. To become a millionaire, I decide to sell a product tosatisfy my own greed, do others not benefit from me selling my product? Others benefit from me selling the product, they must like and enjoy the product otherwise I won't become a millionaire. In this case specifically, Con, is greed not good? Is my greed harmful to anyone else? Ater all you said greed is harmful.Con is arguing against when some people are greed. I am arguing that more people should become greedy.People would safeguard the money they have to prevent others from taking it. Corruption relates to when some are greedy and others are not. Are laws not a form of greed? After all, laws(criminal laws) serve to protect the weak from the strong. Are the weak not being greedy? Do the weak not want some fictional concept to protect them from those that are stronger? It is out of their own selfishness that they want protection.Con goes on to play the blame game about neighbors. If I have more than my neighbor that is a representation of our incomes. If my income is more than his it is strictly a representation of our exchange of labor. Currency is only an exchange of labor, that means my work is worth more than his. If our work was equal people would pay us about the same pay. My neighbor does not deserve anything I have. On what merit does he deserve anything I have? The only person I can control is myself yet Con is pulling out a feint claiming we are responsible for are neighbors. How can we be responsible for that which we can not control? I would not be a murderer for sharing with my neighbor. My neighbor would of killed himself since he is resposible for his own well being as I am responsible for my own well being as well. I may chose to share with my neighbor but that is if I like him. Why would I want feed someone whom I dislike? That is arming an enemy in simple terms.Corruption does not equate to greed.Corruption:"Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery"http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...My opponent mentions the distribution of money. Why did Con ignore the Soviet Union and China? Aren't these historically speaking, the leading wealth distributors. It was the selflessness of the people which lead to their own suffering. That is why Stalin said "One death is a tragedy and one million is a statistic." The death of one person doesn't matter. If people stood up out of their own greed to preserve their own interests there would never have been such statistics.http://www.brainyquote.com...
Greed is Good

I am con so I will be arguing that greed is the opposite of good. First I want to point out what good is. Good is about benefitting yourself as well as others. But greed is not about benfitting oneself nor others. Pro says that greed should be desired because it is good. But greed is harmful and I will be showing that in this round how greed is harmful for ones soul ,ones body, and ones surrounding. And majority of people don't want to harm and want good instead. What is harm? A prime example of harm is corruption in third world countries. Corruption is usurping money that you don't deserve. If you have more than enough and your neighbor doesn't even have a ppeice of morsel in his home then a portion of your money is some thing he deserves. You are basically a murderer if you intentionally starve him to death through your greed. Corruption is a symptom of greed ==not good and harm Corruption is a symptom of greed and this harms even on the national scale. For instance Indonesia is very rich in resources yet the money that is gained from those resources is not distributed among the general population thus leaving then poor. Obviously this is the case where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. If the rich were to distribute a portion of their money then the poor would have more money than if the rich didn't distribute it in the fist place. The rich excercise this moral disease of greed through corruption thus harming those around them. Greed also harm the body Since the money isn't distributed among the general population they live frugally surviving off what they could. In Indonesia they use motorcycles as a prime mode of transportation. It is cheaper than getting a car. Imagine 50 motorists on an intersection of a street which is normal. The result Is pollution and smog and the inability to breath air . That harms not onl y the poor but also guess what the rich too. Thus even greed is harmful physically On the other hand rich gulf countries like Kuwait distribute the money from oil among their population. They don't face these problems of smog or poverty. This kind of distribution of money cannot come from an act of greed; this can only happen when the soul is not consumed in thoughts of pleasing itself. Greed harms the soul Greed also harms the person exhibiting it. Greed eventually leads to uncontentness because greed means to be take more even if one has more than enough. A greedy person who has two mountains of gold would have only desired a third. What good is a third when it is in a greedy persons nature to want a fourth? His end will never exist ; it is only a loop of uncontentedness and this is not desirable and accomplishing good. So... Corruption is harm, bodily injury is harm, and uncontentedness is unhappiness which is harm. All are the results of people being greedy. Since only extensive harm can the result of greed, it is not good.