BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The War on Terror is a failed war

I apologize for my error, I of course meant Iraq. I agree there are some positive motives behind wars, such as the one you describe, and admittedly there are good reasons behind most of the operations. But when 100,000 Iraqi civilians are directly killed by the U.S. invasion; a military invasion designed to find non-existent WMDs there has to be some point where you say, okay, this has failed. What threat did he pose to Israel? Israel has broke 65 U.N resolutions with no consequences , Iraq broke two and got invaded, bombed and destroyed. Israel has camps close to that of the Nazis for people of Sudan looking for work and freedom. The US are Allies with Israel because it gives them a ticket to Middle East. War is a uniting force, every country in the history of mankind has needed a war to unite them, and Bush was insanely unpopular but I won't go into that. You said 'The drone strikes are deadly and dangerous because they are not controllable or able to specifically comprehend whether or not someone is a threat', doesn't that support the view of getting rid of them? 2,043 Pakistanis have been slain in CIA drone strikes, 98% of whom have been civilians. This will only lead to more terror, and what worries me that if I can see that and many others can see that, and Ron Paul has tried to voice that, the people in charge must know it will only lead to more terror. This makes me question the whole operation much more. There is no 'winning' this war on Terror. Why I mentioned Zimbabwe was to highlight the hypocrisy of many nations. UN jumped at the opportunity to sort Libya out, if they applied the same intelligence and force to African nations with devastating leaders as they did to the middle east, maybe it wouldn't bother me as much because at least its intentions are good and worldwide. Do you not wonder why the majority of countries that are invaded have huge amounts of wealth beneath them, or is this some myth and we're truly trying to bring 'democracy' to the peopl
The War on Terror is a failed war

I first want to say that we are not in Afghanistan because of Saddam. He was the dictator of Iraq from 1979-2003, and raped and killed his own people. We took particular interest in this situation, not because of oil, but because he was a threat to our allies in Israel, Kuwait, and his own innocent people. In response to your claim that we do nothing for the people victim to African Warlords (I know you said Zimbabwe, but there are warlords all over Africa) Operation: Gothic Serpent, a.k.a. "Black hawk Down", was in effort to help the people of Mogadishu, Somalia, who were being enslaved and starved by a warlord, and we helped those people with necessary action against the warlord. In addition, we are not the only ones in Afghanistan. Many other countries are there with us, such as, Canada, Britain, Australia, and even the Afghan troops fighting the Taliban with us. The drone strikes are deadly and dangerous because they are not controllable or able to specifically comprehend whether or not someone is a threat, or just a man walking home from the market with his rifle. Soldiers do have that ability. They can determine whether or not an individual is a threat to themselves, fellow Soldiers, or the civilians around them. Bullets don't generally cause the amount of collateral damage that a blast from a drone strike would. Am I condoning the loss of civilian life? Absolutely not; but that is one reason why it's a war. Wars are ugly, and war is hell
The War on Terror is a failed war

I agree with your statement that the Taliban are a ruthless group of individuals. However if we look at the real reasons for entering Afghanistan, that of an aggressive leader Suddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction which have now been proved to be a failure of intelligence. Yes I think it is good to put an end to aggressive leaders, but can I pose the question why it is America or any other country in the world do not go to the aid of Zimbabwe, where the leader is committing the same crimes as Suddam and Gaddafi? War is very profitable to a certain few, The middle east and northern Africa have their uses for many raw materials whereas landlocked southern African countries do not. I would also like Con to take a moment to perhaps sympathize with the people in these countries. How would you feel if you had a foreign Drone circling your homes? The amount of innocent civilians which have been killed in the drone attacks is not something you can hide from, these are facts. If you were a Afghan or Pakistani person, and a family member of yours was killed by a drone strike, do you not think this will increase the aggression towards the Drone controllers? The whole idea of protection is hypocrisy at its worst. It creates more danger than it extinguishes. I wish I believed what you are telling me Con, and I suspect most Americans see the war on terror bringing democracy to countries who don't have it. But im afraid its the opposite, and brings more and more danger to the American Society and has only resulted in the extinction of one tyrant, but I'm sure the war will only encourage more tyrants to stand up to the foreign intervention. The terrorists weren't even from Afghanistan, Bin Laden was a Saudi! You talk about how the Al-Qaeda torture; well I'm afraid to say that even our wonderful and democratic country tortures. I would like to bring this http://www.youtube.com... into the argument. Please watch it, I would like to hear your views.
The War on Terror is a failed war

The attacks of 9/11 were not caused by our involvement, but vice versa. We became heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the 9/11 attacks. Al-Qaeda-the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks-doesn't care whether or not they hurt, kill, and even torture innocent human beings. They are only concerned with their own agendas and goals. Their supporter-mainly The Taliban-has a very similar view. They do not concern themselves with the well being of their victims, but are focused only on what they can gain for themselves;fueled by a radical view on Islam and Sharia Law. The war on Terror is a not a lost war-it isn't even over. The people of Afghanistan needed help, and with our involvement in their country, we did not "invade their homeland", as some would say; we helped to liberate them. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have been occupying their homes for years before the 9/11 attacks, and when we took action against those terrorists, we showed the people of Afghanistan that they still have a chance. We are not fighting the Government of Afghanistan, or the people of Afghanistan. We are fighting that which causes fear throughout those people.
The War on Terror is a failed war

The war on Terror is a failed war without a doubt. Not only does it increase the likeability of another 9/11 disaster and therefore does the opposite of what it was supposed to do (protect the people), but it also a war which has failed to bring resolutions and was based on little investigation. I have Ron Paul at my side in this debate, and evidence from General Wesley Shark that this war was based on little evidence and is being fought on unjust means. After the dreadful attacks on September 11th, I believe many people including myself wanted to have an answer, we wanted someone to be blamed and to be punished, no matter who it was, it had to be someone. We've deluded ourselves into thinking that we're keeping ourselves safe by going to more and more wars but its totally wrong. We'd be safer if we didn't have troops out fighting.
In a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote

Generally, PRO goes first. However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first) Felony disenfranchisement is the term used to describe the practice of prohibiting people from voting based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony. I stand against felon disenfranchisement, convince me otherwise [...]
green bay packers vs NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

Thanks again for the debate first of all, and yes I was running out of time, so my arguments were weak. Alright so...we had a great QB in Brett Farve and then he went to the New York Jets. I admit I had no problem with that, then he went to the Vikings, alright then. But that left the way open for a great QB to fill his shoes in...Aaron Rodgers! He has become a great sucessor to Brett Farve and throws a lot more TD's now. Aaron Rodgers also has a great offensive and defensive line, and showed that in beating the Patriots earlier this year. We also have great kickers in Mason Crosby and Tim Mathsay. Therefore...Punt kicked by Tim Mathsay results in a fumble ran back for a Touchdown, 14-10 GB.On the next play, Brady throws an Interception, Aaron Rodgers throws a 37 yeard touchdown pass to Jordy Nelson!17-10 Green Bay!Thanks again for the debate
green bay packers vs NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

WHISTLE!!!!! WHISTLE!!!! WHISTLE!!! The Refs review the play. After deliberation, the touchdown is overturned! Green Bay attempts a 34-yard field goal and it"s good. Patriots ball with the lead: 7-3. You had some weak arguments (that McCarthy is now the coach and Lombardi is a great coach). I already conceded you one of those (Lombardi). Second point: The Pats where taken over in the 90s by Belichick and he had a bum of a team! They had a few solid players in LineBacker and CB; they had a veteran QB BUT he was injured early in the year! So, in comes Tom Brady, a ROOKIE. He LEADS them to " " not just to a playoff birth " BUT THE SUPERBOWL WIN! And this against a ST. LOUIS team that SHOULD HAVE WON! Touchdown PATRIOTS!!! PAT is good; Pats lead 14-3 -MSP
green bay packers vs NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

Thanks for the debate :). GO PACKERS!Ok...Vince Lombardi is and was yes a great man and a great coach. And yes, Bill Belciehk is awesome as well :). I say this: Green Bay has had a phenomnal coach in Lombardi, and now we have Mcarthy leading us. I say this, the Packers would tie the game easily under either of them against the Patriots in mere minutes with either Farve or Rodgers as QB.Green Bay gets the ball TOUCHDOWN7-7your turn
green bay packers vs NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

GREAT! So, I will be the NE Pats You are the GBP. First up, lets look at coaches: The AMAZING Lombardi! Great man, great coach. But he's NO Brilliant Belichick. First off, Bill's youth was spent under the tutelage of his father: Steve, the coach for Navy back in the day. Steve would be running plays and having Bill study the film (as a 5 year old! ... okay okay, so maybe I made that age up, but he was a Pip-Squeak nonetheless). Second, Bill grew up living, breathing football. He also has as his sidekick, Ernie Adams- long lost cousin to US President John Adams. And all Super Heroes have sidekicks (Batman & Robin; Sherlock Holmes & Watson; Woody & Buzz; Skully & Mike; Scrooge & Tiny-Tim?? WHAT???) This being said, the two of them attended a prestigious high school where they were best friends on the football team. Then, they immediately made their way into the pros. Both of them!! This says that they were both impressive enough to attract the attention of the Pro Teams where they instantly made their debut and DOMINATED. The thing about Ernie Adams though, is the man has a BRILLIANT mind, a photographic memory. He sees a play and remembers it years later. Ernie Adams is Mr. Belichick's right-hand man. Working with him in N.E. That makes them ... ... ... you guessed it ... THE MOST FORMIDABLE OPPONENTS IN THE NFL! NE scores a touch down and takes the lead: 7 - 0 GBP gets the ball. Your turn. -MSP
green bay packers vs NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

New England had to travel on the road for the Christmas holiday and this caused me to have a delay of game (e.g., forfeiting the prior round). But we have regrouped, broken from the huddle, scanned the defense and hiked the ball! Brady moves for the hand-off " Point number 1: Ownership of the Pats: the Kraft family is truly an American-dream type of family, up from a papermill to several smaller businesses until they became the tycoon of Kraft Foods; the professionalism they have in their businesses is the same professionalism that the Kraft family runs their football organization. Win baby Win. It is not a hand-off but a play-action pass and Brady looks deep " Point number 2: that first Superbowl win of 2001 came on the backs of what even Bill Belichick called a lackluster team. They did not have a Suberbowl team at all; YET DESPITE ALL THAT, they were coached into a win against a Superior St. Louis Rams team. This is further proof of how great their coaches are especially when considering that the very next year the Patriots gutted that Superbowl roster and brought in something like 13 new free agents. The Patriots can win even without the best players. Brady looks deep but instead dumps to (...insert here any one of our 4 rotating running backs) " Point number 3: there is no "I" in Team and there is only 1 "I" in Patriots " this is a very unselfish team. The coaches and owners have made it a RULE to refuse to draft or sign "Me-Me-Me" players. Now, yes, there was Aaron Hernandez and Chad Johnson " BUT, the Patriots have made it an IRON RULE NOT to draft players who will not jive with their TEAM-FIRST ME-SECOND mentality. This has been a MAJOR reason why they continue to win and a MAJOR reason why some teams never will win (Raiders, San Fran to name a few). (One of our rotating running backs) carries the ball behind his blockers, weaves his way around the defense and high-steps it untouched into the daylight of the endzone. Point number 4: Knock Knock " Who"s There? The " "The" Who? The GRONK " " enough said! GRONK is the tightends to end all tightends. I have to admit, it this guy was not there, what would we do? Michael H? Tim Wright? " this position has evolved into a MIGHTY NECESSITY in today"s NFL; and The GRONK leads the pack (and the Pats) as one of the best in the league. Touchdown Pats!! What's this? They are lining up for a two point conversion (just cause they can). It"s a little dump to who else but The GRONK-a-donk-donk and it"s good!! He spikes the ball through the endzone (grounds crew will have to patch that up) and the Patriots lead 68 to 13!!! Only 3 minutes left in the 4th. - MSP
The obese should be made to wear odour-combatting undergarments in pubs and bars

Of course this contraption will humiliate the wearer – that’s part of its appeal – it will encourage the obese to lose weight in order not to have to wear one in future, or otherwise avoid visiting pubs and bars where the beverages served tend to be of a high calorific value. DiscriminationDiscrimination in pubs and bars is already widespread: people who choose to light up cigarettes are ejected, young people suspected of being underage are ejected, alcoholics who are drunk and disorderly are ejected from the premises - all with the full backing of the law - so why should grossly overweight people who make themselves unpopular by polluting the atmosphere with noxious emissions be singled out for special favours? Of course, I understand that certain medical conditions can give rise to increased incidence of flatulence amongst normal people but these conditions are rare and, generally speaking, the obese pump out more methane than the average person because they eat more than the average person. SafetyObviously there is an element of danger in having exposed flames in confined areas which is why I would expect the obese wearer's to take out public liability insurance and normal people to give obese people in pubs a wide berth. Thank you.
The obese should be made to wear odour-combatting undergarments in pubs and bars

Now that many countries have banned smoking in pubs and bars the dominant smell is no longer that of tobacco smoke, instead it is the all-pervading stench of intestinal gases that have leaked out of certain customers' pants.Obviously, because the obese eat far more than average they naturally emit more gases than normal people - and these emissions needs to be mitigated.The most simple method would be to produce undergarments from converted adult diapers (nappies). These would have air-tight seals around the waist and legs and would be fitted with an exhaust pipe which would run from the rear of the diapers up the wearer's back.Then, as the pressure of the gas inside the diapers builds up to a certain level, it would trigger a valve to open and as the gases travel up the pipe they would be ignited and the gas will be burnt off harmlessly, in a very similar way to gas flares on oil rigs burn off excess gas. Thus, the air in the pubs and bars will be rid of all the putrid gases that emanate from digestive systems of the obese and will once again be pleasant places to drink in.Thank you.
Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

I too hope for an interesting discussion! Reasons why prostitution should be prohibited are the following:1) There are more moral manners to acquire monetary assets, goods or services rather than prostitution.Prostitution defies with the moral foundations onto which modern society was erected. Numerous people believe there are some acts which should not be exercised as they will lead to deterioration of society. Prostitution is one of them. How would one acknowledge his parents that he intends to be a prostitute?2) Problems of scientific progress.One could decide to engage into prostitution rather than to acquire education which would benefit progress. Everyone could choose aforementioned occupation and neglect their formal education, therefore leading to a smaller number of educated people which would involve into scientific business. US scientific research would be significantly lowered which would lead to stagnation of economy, society and general advancement.3) Preparation for business of prostitution.How would one prepare for prostitution? One does not require formal or any other education for this. This indicates that all the years of education were meaningless and therefore a purposeless waste of taxpayers' money. If a law would be imposed that you can only involve into prostitution after you reach legal age, by which one will have concluded his education, money spent for education of such an individual would be futilely wasted. However, if one were to involve into prostitution prior to the legal age, it would be a juvenile prostitution. And every child in the USA is obliged to participate in formal education.4) Society's response.Society would ridicule those individuals which would perform prostitution because trading your own body in sexual manner is considered immoral. Furthermore, those who consume prostitution services could regard providers of of aforementioned services as sexual objects whose sole purpose is to satisfy others' sexual needs. Prostitutes often do not legally participate in prostitution as they are deprived of their anonymity.5) Regulations.Regulations of prostitution would create unnecessary expenses.Furthermore, the fact that some regulators are corruptible, could enable some to violate regulations for prostitution thereby leading to juvenile prostitution, exploitation of sexual workers, evasion of taxes.Additionally, introduction of regulations would not guarantee security and eradication of criminal activities. Legalisation would lead to an increased demand of prostitutes which could increase human trafficking.Sources: http://voices.yahoo.com... http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap battle

Ladies and gentlemen, Flaky for the win, I really don't even know where to begin, You're a cheap old scumbag, Can't even start, My battles 'aint for the faint of heart, Let me issue a warning for those issuing a battle I'm the queen on the scene and I'll leave you rattled, I'll let you know I have good intentions, Get you kicked out of school, Undeserving suspension, You don't think that it seems offensive, But the shards of my rhymes are the most intensive, You let the broken glass sink into your skin, Ladies and gentlemen, That's how I win
Rap battle

Wow, Round one and you're already scared, Well you can't turn back so I hope you're prepared You'll burn to ashes in my homemade fire, Roast, You, Salt you, Let the flames grow higher, I gotta hand it to you, That move was pretty brave, I won't go easy on you, So don't think you'll be saved, Once you've gone, You can't be redeemed, I'm not as childish as it may seem, My doggos are courageous, However small, With their tiny paws, And their sharpened maw, Their fluffy fierce faces are both cute and vicious, All the corgi shaped cakes are the most delicious, On the other hand, I'm afraid we have you, A disgusting, Pointless slob who's knocked back a few, You can't rap in your drunken stupor, So you let it go by, Set off bombs like a trooper, Except you're never gonna win this war, Like I've said before, You are ash on the floor, There's no chance for any fortification, You lost your chance, An untimely hesitation, There's no time to recite your spiel, I've gotta break it to you; make it real, Feel nothing: that'll make it better, So let's watch your world burn down together,
Rap battle

I accept P. S: Alright, I was offensive in the other rap battle, So depending on what you submit I may or may not rap about how corgis are so much better than you and how you need to buy a milkshake. If you don't want me to, I assume this will be great ammunition for your lyrical rage. Like my god, Why are people so upset when I rap about adorable doggos! There's nothing wrong with comparing people to something infinitely better than them!
Euthanasia

Why deny treatment and go through the suffering and pain if you could make a peaceful exit from this world and die peacefully with your loved ones? That is what Euthanasia offers to us, and what things like the Death with Dignity act in Oregon offer. They offer a means to end your personal suffering, what difference does it make if the family learns anything about the value of suffering anyway? This is the last round so I hesitate to pose anymore questions, but Euthanasia offers us a way to end our lives peacefully and that's a fact regardless of what anyone has to learn about suffering and the "goods" that come from it apparently.
Euthanasia

It is not our decision when our life should end. We did not put ourselves on this earth and we should not intentionally take ourselves off this earth. One going through immense suffering has the right to deny treatment, he or she does not have to pay the money for expensive medicines to prolong the inevitable if and only if that is the case in the situation. It would be a natural death instead of the choice to end ones own life intentionally. A family has a lot to learn from the suffering of a loved one just like the individual can learn a lot from suffering. By the way that the individual reacts to the suffering that he or she is tested with the family can learn the positive effects of suffering and see the value of the pain that we go through in life sometimes. In order to be compassionate to those who are suffering we must first go through some kind of suffering ourselves. Not to say that everyone has to go through a deadly disease to know how to show compassion but we all have gone through some sort of suffering at some point in our lives and we can all relate to that as members of the human species. Through suffering we can learn to be less attached to material things and more attached to the things that actually matter in life like loved ones in our lives. When you go through an immense suffering things like your clothes and your shoes dont matter anymore because what really matters is more evident. Euthanasia tells us the opposite though. It tells us that suffering has no value in life and that if we are ever face it then we should give up because we aren't worth it. Anyone who supports a family members decision to go through with killing themselves is also wrong. In a time where you should be supportive of your love one you have said that someone of your own family should just end their own life. It may seem like an act of mercy but it is not it is an act of giving up on someone where they are most in need of love and support.