BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Denmark should leave Greenland

OK here me out, I never said revolt. No former colony of any power is in that stage anymore. Countries like England and Denmark have given their countries self-government, but I think they should grant them independence. I'm suggesting an independent Greenland receiving funding, but assuming the Danes are nice enough to give Greenland independence. I can understand an independent nation being given funding from the country that used to colonize it. But when you're on another people's land, that just draws the line for me. If Denmark gives Greenland it's rightful independence, then I can see Denmark and Greenland having a nice trading relationship. I'm not suggesting Greenland goes William Wallace on them. Denmark and England hold on to their territories out of a sense of supremacy over them, which they don't want to admit, but if they want to give their lands independence on good terms, then we can do something. And like I said, Denmark being in Greenland is not the same as the USA occupying Iraq. The USA occupied Iraq just to give relief to Iraqi citizens. In this case however it's classic leftover from the empire they had. That's why it draws the line for me. No government is in another's land to benefit the conquered. It's to benefit themselves. Now, like I said independence doesn't have to be violent. The American Revolution didn't have to be violent either. If England had given the colonists it's peaceful terms, all would've been well. Denmark can give Greenland its terms and then Denmark can help the newly independent Greenland. But at the moment, I mean we're talking a former part of Denmark's empire, that's why it draws the line there. You're on another's land, you're not there to help them. Not an opinion but just part of the messed up nature of imperialism. Again thanks for the debate
Denmark should leave Greenland

I don't agree with you about them being uncivilized. Just because they were nomadic group, their definition of civilized is no less acceptable than our's. They should get foreign funding but the Danish government has no right to be on their land. Now, that might not be true that taxes go to Greenland. I don't believe that, but I could be wrong, but I don't think so at the moment. The Danish government is very indifferent to what happens in Greenland, at least in my opinion. However, I do think that Greenland shouldn't severe it's ties with Denmark. If we are realistic, an independent Greenland with strong ties with Denmark would be a valuable solution. Right now I believe the Danish government is indifferent to what they've done to the Inuits.
Denmark should leave Greenland

It is a shame that no one has apologized for that incident. It is a horrible story. But Greenlanders have to be realistic about the state of their economy. They have to realize that, if they were an independent nation, they wouldn't have funds to be able to purchase things such as educational, healthcare, and military facilities. They'd have to realize that they'd need to sacrifice a lot - things like good hospitals and an acceptable education for their children. My point is this: Greenland should keep its ties to Denmark. I do support Greenland being a self-governed entity of Denmark; I just don't believe it should be completely independent. It's economy is much too weak and undeveloped to run itself. You say that Denmark is a nation known for racist views - but which nation isn't? Whether it is ethnic groups in China bickering, tribes fighting over land and water rights, or White Americans bickering with African-Americans (and vice versa), all nations have some form of racism. Danes should not treat Intuits as a lower class, period. But when money taxed from Danish citizens helps pay for projects that aim to improve life in Greenland for both natives and Danes, I think that the benefits outweigh the concerns. Without Denmark, Greenland would remain an uncivilized ice block in the North Atlantic.
Denmark should leave Greenland

I have conflicting views about it. Denmark is a country also known for holding racist views (https://www.google.com...) http://politicalstew.com... But I guess in a way you can make the argument that there are good Danes today trying to help Inuit people and give them aid and whatnot, and yes foreign funding is good, but they have no right to be on their land. No one has even ever apologized for the atrocity that occured in 1951.
Denmark should leave Greenland

That is a horrible story; anybody who would disagree with that is mentally insane. But you fail to mention that most nations, including the USA, have indulged in such acts as the ones committed in Denmark. Let's see. When Japan conquered the whole of Korea, the Japanese enslaved millions of Koreans - not only to perform labor tasks, but also sexual acts. When Arabs conquered North Africa, the Natives were given three options: 1) Join us. 2) Leave us. 3) Die. Perhaps the most shocking assimilation is the one committed by the USA. The Native Americans were always being run out of their homes and killed. They were forced to live in Indian Reservations. What I'm trying to get at here is that most great nations have had a taste of cultural assimilation. Most have mistreated groups of people - no matter how organized and well-established. But I don't believe it's in the Native Americans' best interest to secede. They couldn't possibly survive in the modern economic world; it's the same for Greenlanders. "Due to Greenland's continued dependence on exports of fish - which accounted for 89% of exports in 2010 - the economy remains very sensitive to foreign developments." I pulled this off of the CIA's World Factbook; it proves that Greenland's economy is too fragile to survive without some foreign assistance. It proves that Greenland could not make it in today's economic world. This is the difference between now and when Greenland was independent - the economy is more globalized, and without aid Greenland would go under. Let me also point out something you mentioned - that Denmark isn't helping them but instead taking over their government. Since the 1970's, Greenland has had home rule - meaning that, with both Greenlandic and Danish funds, Greenland has the power to do what they want. Without Danish money, Greenland could not construct as much as it has within the last few decades. You also said that if Denmark really wanted to help Greenland, they would trade. Let me tell you that, according to the CIA, Denmark is Greenland's biggest trading partner - around 60%. The next biggest exporting partner is Japan, at 15%. The next biggest importing partner is Sweden, at 17%. It seems to me that Denmark, despite ethnic tensions, is doing a whole lot of good for Greenland.
Denmark should leave Greenland

Sounds nice and innocent, but no. http://en.wikipedia.org... In 1951, the Danish government did this. It seems as though the Danish were ripe on getting resources they could steal. So they resorted to this. It seems to have been a divide and conquer method initiated. The only thing I don't agree with is "cultural genocide." That is an oxymoron. I mean if you hate someone's culture, you're not going to treat those people very nicely are you? Remember now, the culture of the Inuits was nomadic. Not organized to the extent that say the tribes in North America were, so of course there weren't wars against them like the English did, so there was no need to have a ware. http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu... This presents how Inuits feel about Denmark intruding on their land. Best of luck to you, too my friend thank you Thank you for listening. I am of the opinion that Denmark's presence in Greenland isn't beneficial. And never has been. Besides, here's the thing, why is the Danish government even in Greenland in the first place. Doesn't that by UN standards mean imperialism? Your turn If it was to help Greenland, they'd be doing trade, not taking over their government. Also look at the racism against Inuits in Denmark. They're treated like dirt there.
The United States should accelerate and fully fund the President's Malaria Initiative by $10 Billion

This will be my first debate in this website. I must reject your proposal for the acceleration of this initiative provided by none other then Mr. Bush. I will also argue against your so call Moral obligation. First of all there is a reason this project is so under funded, maybe because the last thing we need is to spend more of the American taxpayers dollars in a program that while noble in its aims, its not beneficial to the average american or corporation. You would ask the Average American a sum of $10billion dollars, you never stated as to how we should acquire this means of money. Unless you propose that we cut funding from Homeland Security, i have to disagree. I believe such acts of charity, because this is what it is an act of charity from our government, should be privatized. Private charities are the answers to this problem. Private unions like the Red Cross for example, we would still be doing an honorable duty as a nation and more so since it will be willingly not forced. We have matters in our current economy such as the Mortgage Crisis for more of tax money to be spent on Foreign Aid while the current administration ask for tax cuts and not budget cuts. Moral obligation. This is quite hilarious. You ask this of the average american consumer while at the same time Diamonds are increasing as an American Luxury. Diamonds won by the exploitation and murder of the African worker. Ever Heard of Blood Diamonds? Warlords, war zones, famines and mass murders are traced from diamonds and the conflicts taken to control this mines. However where is the Moral obligation from the United States of America to Ban the importation of such a Luxury? Is it really that necessary? Lets just say this, your argument of "solving for Malaria can improve the economy. Because so many people are infected with Malaria, they cannot work." The economy will never improve as long as the United States maintains its dominant stage as the worlds highest importer of Diamonds. Corporations keep a monopoly over most businesses and the exploitation of workers in the regions of Africa remains high due to the increases of monopolies and the urgency of bringing the products to the hands of the American Consumer, Moral Obligation indeed. Most of the troubles are caused by incompetent leaders, dictators, militias, warlords and the poverty around such regions. This would not be solved with 10billion dollars from our pockets. Maleria is just one of the Many things that are wrong with Africa in this age of ours. We should leave this to the private charities. Let the American Citizens decide which third world countries they wish to help save and at the same time exploit for there consumer needs. Not the government.
The United States should accelerate and fully fund the President's Malaria Initiative by $10 Billion

Malaria is the most acute disease in Sub-Saharan Africa. Currently 500 million people are diagnosed with malaria. Of those people, 1 million people die from it each year. Every day, 3,000 children and 10,000 pregnant women die from it. Because of this, my first argument is Moral Obligation. Moral obligation is not negiotiable. Anyone that says no to this is saying that we should not help dying, suffering people to make our lives a little eaiser. The President's Malaria Initiative of 2005 currently sprays DDT, Administers ACT drugs, provides Bet Nets. Unfortunatley, it is severly underfunded and, in turn, takes too long to make a lasting difference. 1. Solving for Malaria can improve the economy. Because so many people are infected with Malaria, they cannot work. Because so many children are diagnosed, they are less likely to go to school and become doctors and such. East Africa Buisness News Week Magazine from this year says that half of all loss of work are do to Malaria. If we solve for Malaria, more people will go back to work and kickstart the African economy. 2. Scientific Data supports DDT spraying. The World Health Organization conducted a study in 2006 that tested several insectiside treatments, and they found Indoor residual house-sprayed DDT to be the most successful. 3. Bed Nets solve simply because they stop the mosquitos from coming in. More than half of all cases of Malaria are transmitted at night. 4. ACTs are effective. They can't stop Malaria, even the resistant parasites. Also ACTs work anywhere, even when the person is outside their homes. 5. Engaging in a humanatarian effort will help America restore its broken image. Iraq, Haditha, and Guantamao combine to blacken the US image, not only among Africans, but the world as well. Many countries are also providing aid to Africa, and would be willing to work with the US. The whole African region will be happy with the US because we would be saving their lives, and other coutries will see us a more moral, caring, helpful nation.
America's downward spiral

The Resolution: At issue in this debate is whether or not the United States is in a “medium downward spiral”. My opponent will argue that it is, and I will argue that it is not. Pro’s Argument: I will begin by rebutting Pro’s three points one at a time. 1) We are destroying ourselves from within, such as unchecked immigration, loss of family fabric and attack on family fabric. Unchecked immigration: evidence does not support this. The number of unauthorized resident aliens has held relatively constant for several years at around 11.5 million, as page 18 of the congressional research report clearly shows [1]. Additionally, border patrol apprehensions have fallen off drastically since about 2005, and haven’t been at their peak since 1986, as shown on page 12 [1]. Loss of family fabric: divorce has actually been slowly trending down over the decades since the 60’s and 70’s - along with marriage rates and birth rates to some degree [2]. Ironically for Pro’s view, this actually means that our economic prosperity and demographic stability actually relies heavily on immigration to make up the difference. Attack on the family fabric: I’m not sure how to respond to this, since Pro did not make clear who is attacking the family or why. The only attack on families I am aware of is conservative opponents of gay marriage who want to prevent gay parents from marrying, adopting children, and having a family. This talk may be helpful for viewers who have confusion about homosexuality in America [3]. 2) Progressive left wing media that is unethical and free to attack anyone with outright lies, without any recourse. Politicians lie, and get away with it. This is not new. Deceit was not invented by progressive left wingers, though certainly many of them are guilty. Because this is not by any means a new development, it seems unrealistic to list this as a reason to think the USA is in a downward spiral. 3) Anyone opinion that is not mainstream seems to be "radical" or not "tolerant", which is a form of attack on ones beliefs and freedom of speech. Pro’s concern for the feelings of people who are not mainstream is heartwarming. He may be relieved to know that tolerance for many minorities which have traditionally suffered persecution and injustice has probably never been higher, though the battle is not easy and there is certainly a ways to go. [4] I am delighted that he joins alongside non-mainstreamers, like atheists, in defending their right to free speech and to hold their beliefs without persecution… doesn’t he? I remind voters that as Con, I’m not obligated to build my case that the USA is cruising along wonderfully (although I can attempt to, if I decide to), all I have to do is strike down the points given by Pro. So far, so good. 1) . http://www.fas.org... 2) . http://amptoons.com... 3) . http://www.ted.com... 4) . http://www.tolerance.org...
America's downward spiral

America I believe is in a medium paced downward spiral. We are destroying ourselves from within, such as unchecked immigration, loss of family fabric and attack on family fabric. Progressive left wing media that is unethical and free to attack anyone with outright lies, without any recourse. Anyone opinion that is not mainstream seems to be "radical" or not "tolerant", which is a form of attack on ones beliefs and freedom of speech. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this issue
hello my name is randall stevenson and im worried about my son playing overwatch

I personally play Overwatch, and you have to understand that the reason people play is not become of the tight suits some of the women are in (that is just style) and the fact that they"re are guns (at least for most people). The addictive thing about Overwatch is the way it is played. "Move joystick right, press triangle, quickly teleport to dodge enemy attack." Though on the surface it"s people shooting at each other, the addictive thing is the gameplay and the urge to get better and win every game and every challenge thrown at you. The gameplay is designed to be addictive, it is designed to be fun not because of the graphics and weapons you are using but the gameplay that activates the weapons covered by the graphics and the competitive nature of the game"s community as a whole. At the same time, if your son is acting aggressively, I wouldn"t reccomend it and would recommend he got help. I didn"t see the suspension thing till after I accepted the challenge, sorry. I"m just saying don"t view video games from what"s on the surface, but understand that it"s the gameplay that is the appealing element of it.
hello my name is randall stevenson and im worried about my son playing overwatch

Recently, my son has been asking alot for this game called overwatch. I've done a bit of research and although there is NO blood, there are SOOO many guns. I dont understand why literally every character must be packin' if you know what im saying. Even that hammer fellow is quite violent. It's just not the type of content I want my son being exposed to, especially with that quite REVEALING fast lass in the tight spandex, and the big-fisted ugandan prime minister. All this sexual and ethnic diversity is going to corrupt my child, yet he WONT stop asking. If it helps, my son was recently suspended for throwing a chair at a redskin-child.
Atheism is FAIL.

My opponent has not refuted my argument, semantics or not. My opponent's argument is incoherent. They rely entirely on unsubstantiated claims and provide no reason for the voter to believe these claims. My opponent has provided no proof that atheism is a failed idea, Atheism is the belief that no god exists. Science fulfills the purpose, to provide an explanation for the cosmos, quite well in the minds of atheists. An atheist would probably counter saying THEISM "is a fail." Honestly, my opponent provides much bluster and not much of an argument. Why does it matter if an atheist believes in life after death? All atheists deny is god, not an afterlife. Is Buddhism a failed idea? How about Confucianism? Why should we believe PRO exactly?
Atheism is FAIL.

Aside from being a grammar troll, how is Atheism not a failed idea when the very people who support Atheism admit that it is arrogant to think they know everything? According to the Bible, Satan was cast out of the Heavens to the Earth. God resides in Heaven, that would make both of them 'aliens' according to the definition of the word. Yet I see Atheists and people who believe in evolution toss aside the possibility of a Creator, while embracing the idea of life beyond Earth. This doesn't seem hypocritical? Atheism is fail. But, when lacking an argument or counter, attack grammar.(amg I started a sentence with 'but')
Atheism is FAIL.

Definitions Atheism: The theory or belief that god(s) do not exist. Fail: Verb: Be unsuccessful in achieving one's goal: "he failed in his attempt to secure election". Noun: A grade that is not high enough to pass an examination or test. A belief that god(s) do not exist cannot be a verb nor is it a grade which is not high enough to pass an exam. Atheism cannot be fail. Thus, atheism is not fail. It's a debate with 750 characters...what am I supposed to do :P
Atheism is FAIL.

Ridley Scott recently stated a sentiment I have found most Atheists in agreement with. It was along the lines of ..."It's an arrogance to believe that we're the only ones here." Well I find it an arrogance to discount a supreme being, namely, God. Has anyone actually considered the intricacies of their garden? The very fact that it exists should astound even the most dense fellow. Anyone remember the Egyptologists trying in vain to decipher ancient runes and inscriptions in the 1800's, only to be declared wrong a century later? That's what modern science and mathematics reminds me of. Some kid with brain damage trying to decode the divine. We can understand a lot of things, but to think we can understand everything is the ultimate arrogance.
Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would defeat Spider-Man.

On the contrary, Spider-Man does indeed have gadgets. In fact, the very first gadget he created were his very webshooters which he uses to produce webbing. http://img301.imageshack.us... http://img174.imageshack.us... In here he upgraded his web-shooters with space-age materials, plus added stuff that eliminates the constant annoyance of his webbing to run out in battle. And he also added a spider-tracer launcher to his arsenal too. I'd cite more, but since my opponent has only requested ( I think) me to prove that Spider-Man has gadgets, this is sufficient. And that'll do it for now.
Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would defeat Spider-Man.

If Batman and Spider-Man were to fight, Spider-Man would beat the living daylights out of Batman. First, Spider-Man has superhuman abilities. Batman is an Olympic level human in terms of physical attributes. Clearly, Spider-Man is superior in this regard. Second, Spider-Man is a worthy adversary in terms of intellect. Whereas Batman abuses his billions of dollars to buy fancy gadgets, Spider-Man actually creates his sophisticated devices (while using an extremely limited amount of resources) whenever he needs them. He is also well known for coming up with advanced battle strategies on the spot. In fact, due to his intelligence, Spider-Man was able to defeat the villain known as Fire Lord (a villain almost as powerful as Silver Surfer) in Amazing Spider-Man issues 269-270 without needing a rematch. Third, although Batman knows plenty of martial arts, Spider-Man has managed to develop his own unique fighting style that even Captain America (who is regarded as the best martial artist in the Marvel Universe)(someone who Batman thought of as being superior during both comic book crossovers) cannot help but praise. Fourth, Spider-Man has his spider sense, so Batman won't be able to count on surprising Spider-Man. Taking these four points into account, our favorite web head would mop the floor with the Dark Knight any day of the week. I now stand ready for my opponent's case (and am willing to cite any of the claims made above). Some of the above points may need clarification and I reserve the right to challenge any interpretation of the resolution which I feel does not meet this debate's intentions.
Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would defeat Spider-Man.

Like I said, he has web shooters and spider tracers. Even if he didn't, my strategy does revolve around gadgets. All it revolves around is Batman being outclassed due to the fact that he is up against an opponent who has superpowers (strength, agility, precognition, etc) and is on par with him intellectually. Not to mention his fighting skills which are regarded as being some of the best in the marvel Universe. I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to actually provide an argument on the subject at hand.