BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs

I will avoid those kinds of arguments.I will start to talk about WW1 and how the 'Alliance system' caused WW1. I'll be short.When an Austrian ruler was killed by the Black Hand( A terrorist group) from Serbia, with Austria attacked Serbia. And Germany attacked Luxembourg France and others. Since Russia was friends with Serbia, Russia came to aide the Serbs.You now have the Russians, France, Germans all fighting in a single war . These nations were high up on the army powers at this time of the war.The UK and the USA would later come as will the Otto's. This happened because of other nations sticking their nose into other nations affairs. After WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles ( http://en.wikipedia.org...;). With Germany punished roughly, and with the rise of Hitler Germany came to be great again. Germany started to get appeased and then fought Poland. France and Britain declared war. The fight for Europe came to be great that when Germany attacked Russia entering them into the war and America came to fight the Germans (and Japan too) we had, like in WW1, a war against powerhouses. The alliance system too had a effect on WW2 Sorry if this is sloppy.
LD Debate 2014-15 Season September/October Topic: Organ Procurement

PREFACE;Welcome Everyone! Today, I will challenging someone to a debate over this year's first LD resolution. You must have a minimum of 10 debates completed in order to accept. This to avoid any debater from just creating an account and accepting. I look forward to a wonderful deate, and I hope the competition will be tough! This debate will be in LD format!Full Topic:A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased Format:Round 1 Pro: Explains rulesRound 1 Con: AcceptanceRound 2 Pro: Presents his case ( 9,000 characters only.)Round 2 Con: Presents his/her Case and Rebuts to opponent's case (10,000 characters)Round 3 Pro: Rebuts to Con'scase (6,000 characters only.)Round 3 Con: Rebut's to Pro's case (10,000 characters) Round 4 Pro: Rebuts to con's case (5,000 characters only)Round 4 Con: Types in "no round as agreed upon"I'm pretty sure that that is the best format in order to try and replicate an LD debate. If the format isn't good, just say so in the comments, and I'll try to change it so that it best fits the LD format. Rules:No forefeitingNo trollingAll Sources must be citedThe format must be followedFaluire to follow any of these rules will result in a loss================================================ I look forward to an awesome debate**This debate will be done in google docs. My opponent and I have both agreed to this beforehand.**
Barack Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

All right, so to begin with, let me restate my stand. I'm not here to rail against Obama. I believe he's a leader who(just maybe) has his heart in the right place. I'm here to argue that he doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. To begin with, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those who have performed great and selfless service for humanity- like Mother Teresa. Your opening argument about Obama doing great things for America, even if it stands, is irrelevant in my opinion, because the Nobel isn't awarded to those who have performed great service for the USA, but for the world. Barack Obama received his Nobel prize a few weeks after he BECAME the President for the first time- before ANY major policy had been implemented. And while I think he deserves everyone's respect for being the first black man to hold that post, being a black American President doesn't qualify someone for a Peace Nobel. His elevation may have been a great moment for the black man in America, but it didn't do much for the world. I'm sorry, but Jimmy Carter with his Habitat for Humanity project has done more to aid the poor and suffering in the developing(read Third) World than Obama. Unless we say that the US IS the world, Obama had done nothing at the point he received the Prize to earn it(winning an election ISNT grounds, unless you live in la-la land). I shall ignore the bit about being racist, especially since Im a brown mqan from the Third World and therefore someone with far less rights(both domestically and internationally) than any American, irrespective of colour. Let me just summarize by saying- the logic in what youve said seems faulty- if Obama has done great things for America, give him an American prize- not a Nobel for Peace. I'll expand on how Obama's actions subsequent to accepting the Prize have further undermined his claim to it in my next round of arguments, but for the moment, I'll await your second round.
Barack Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

For whomever my opponent is who accepts this topic, my stand is that Barack Obama not only did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but has also by way of his subsequent actions, demonstrated that he never deserved to have it. Indeed, his status as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate undermines the credibility of the Prize. As my opponent, you would need to prove that Barack Obama DID deserve his Nobel Peace Prize and still does.
Barack Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

I shall begin my second round by addressing my opponents arguments. His first contention is that Obama overcame his race to be a successful President and so deserves the Nobel for PEace. I disagree vehemently with this. Many countries across the world have heads of state(for instance India) whose lkeaders are from far smaller and as marginalised minorities as Obama's in the US. By that logic, Manmohan Singh(the Indian PM) also deserves one. As do Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales- both of whom are FAR more popular with their people than Obama. Again, if we accept his argument that being a minority president is adequate reason then every white South African President - including those who institutionalized Apartheid deserve Nobel Peace Prizes. After all they were from even smaller minorities. Since my opponent has not defined 'successful' - I shall take it as popularity- both internally and externally. On both counts, President Obama is nowhere near universally popular. In fact, he has the curious distinction of having enjoyed the peak of his popularity in the runup to his FIRST stint, ie- BEFORE he ever took office. Clearly, that is not a 'successful presidency' by any yardstick, if your most succesful point was before you did anything. As for making the world a safer place, well, Obama has overseen the descent of Pakistan from a US ally into a virtual rogue state, his actions in the middle east(while I personally may support them), have succeeded only in pushing Israel and Saudi Arabia closer to attacking Iran have inflamed the region. His Syria policy has been a disaster- even key allies like the UK didnt back him on it- whereas Russia and France almost openly came to loggerheads with the US. Add to that his insistence on using UAV(drone) warfare- which has killed and maimed hundreds if not thousands of children the world over. How can anyone who has kkilled children be a Nobel Peace recipient? I shall now foreshadow my last round of arguments by saying that his NSA and Prism programs have led South AMerican countries like Brazil and Ecuador to now see the US as hostile, while the rest of the woorld is suspicious of them, Europe included. His insistence on illegally spying on everyone, including heads of allied nations and his own people have made him the President of perhaps athe single most unpopular USA in the lkast 100 years. There is no barometer by which any of this can be termed a success. So I urge you to vote for facts over rhetoric and opinion, and vote for me, because as I have demon started, my opponents arguments are not rooted in fact. All the information I quoted is in the puvblic domain and accessible and verifiable. So I conclude this round by saying that not only has Obama not deserved his Nobel, an examination of my opponents claims has undermined his very premise- because as facts show- Obvama hasnt even been a very successful President. And I havent even mentioned the economy yet.
Did Alex Rodriguez take steroids

Primobolan, also known as methenolone, is an injected or orally administered drug. It improves strength and maintains lean muscle with minimal bulk development and few side effects. It is not an approved prescription drug in the United States. Testosterone can be taken legally with a prescription. In a December 2007 interview with "60 Minutes," however, three days after George Mitchell's report on drugs in the sport was released, Rodriguez denied using performance-enhancing drugs. "I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field. ... I felt that if I did my, my work as I've done since I was, you know, a rookie back in Seattle, I didn't have a problem competing at any level," he said on "60 Minutes." Mitchell said his report included names of players who he "had received credible evidence of their illegal purchase, possession, or use of performance enhancing substances." Rodriguez's name was included.
Did Alex Rodriguez take steroids

Alex Rodriguez using steroids are only based upon allegations. There are no clear cut evidence that says that he did use steroids. If this case is actually all it is cracked up to be then why isn't the MLB on his case with punishments and penalties like those seen the cases of previously proved baseball player whom have used steroids? These are basically allegations and that's what they are. As the neg I only have to say he's not taking steroids now at this exact moment. If any future updates of his use of steroids presents itself; it will not be useful in this debate because I will not be given fair grounds.
Did Alex Rodriguez take steroids

Alex Rodriguez did use steroids February 7, 2009, Sports Illustrated reported that Rodriguez had tested positive for two anabolic steroids, testosterone and Primobolan, during his 2003 season playing shortstop for the Texas Rangers, the same season in which he captured his first American League Most Valuable Player award, broke 300 career home runs (hitting 47 runs that year[47]), and earned one of his ten Silver Slugger Awards. The information had been part of a government-sealed report detailing 104 major league players who tested positive for performance enhancers during a 2003 survey test, which was conducted by Major League Baseball to see whether a mandatory drug testing program might be necessary. At the time, there was no penalty or punishment for a positive test.[6][48] Because more than 5% of the samples taken from players in 2003 came back positive, mandatory testing of major league baseball players began in 2004, with penalties for violations although testosterone is available by prescription for some uses, Primobolan(the drug he used supposedly) has no approved prescription use. Isn't that sort of suspicious.
"Global Warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists

If you'll notice the thesis is that "global warming" is a lie. You'll notice the quotes. I admit that the goes through periods of heating and cooling. What I believe is a lie is that it is man-made and that it will continue to get hotter without a cooling period. It is a natural cycle of the earth. Now the eco-terrorists want you to believe that the entire scientific community agrees that man-made global warming (refered to hereafter as global warming) is real. The truth is that over seventeen-thousand scientists not only disagree, but disagree so much that they circulated and signed a petition explaining that there was no scientific evidence for global warming. www.oism.org Satellite readings show no sign of global warming. These satellites read global temperatures in the lower troposphere in the last twenty-three years. These satellites are extremely accurate. Only land-based temperature stations show signs of global warming and these stations are historically inaccurate as they must deal with increased heat readings from urban areas, are subject to human error and do not measure global temperatures. A little global warming (Earth's cycle, not man-made) would be good for the Earth and humanity. There were two early periods of a global increase in temperature from what we experience now. The first was around 5000 to 3000 B.C. During this time man began to build his first civilizations. This time period was called the climate optimum. During the time period between 800 and 1200. It allowed the Vikings to settle Greenland.
"Global Warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Since it has been scientifically proven that average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880 - and Pro acknowledges it - THE DEFINITION OF GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN AFFIRMED. This entirely negates the resolution which claims that it is a lie. Therefore, you must vote Con. Whether or not humans are responsible for Global Warming is irrelevant; all I must do to win this debate is prove that Global Warming is not a lie, or a lie promoted by eco-terrorists. Perhaps not surprisingly, I have problems with the neologism of the term eco-terrorism in general. Wikipedia defines it as the use or threatened use of violence against victims or property by an environmentally-oriented group. So-called eco-terrorists are accused and are probably guilty of committing crimes against private property, i.e. by burning bulldozers, sabotaging animal research equipment, etc. However, if terrorism itself is defined as being the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce (dictionary.com), how can terror be applied to property? Inanimate objects cannot be terrified. Damage or destruction towards property indicates VANDALISM; not terrorism. Even the most radical green enthusiasts have not been in the habit of threatening people or animals with physical harm (quite the contrary, actually), so the promotion of Global Warming awareness by these individuals does not imply terrorism of any kind. Therefore, it can be argued that eco-terrorists do not even exist. Further evidence of this BS terminology (administered by the Bush administration as yet another example of fear mongering, obviously) is the fact that all 53 activists accused of being eco-terrorists were put on a list which has subsequently been purged, as the government found no evidence of violent crimes. Thus, if eco-terrorists do not even exist, then they can't be spreading lies about Global Warming. Again, I have successfully negated the resolution. Finally, Pro accuses those who believe that humans are responsible for Global Warming do so for the purposes of trying to scare people into returning to a more primitive lifestyle. This is completely unsupported. First, National Geographic notes that 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. That may be why activists are trying to raise awareness -- not so that we can go back to being primitive. Second, those who believe in Global Warming seek to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. This again negates Pro's premise that Global Warming is a "lie" being spread by so-called eco-terrorists with bad intentions.
"Global Warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists

So called "global warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists. The periodic cooling and heating of the planet is a well-known phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of the our planet. The current crisis has been spread by eco-terrorists like the ELF for the purposes of trying to scare people into giving up as much technology as possible and returning to a more primitive life-style. Carbon does indeed build up in the atmosphere, but as mentioned before this is a natural cycle of the Earth. We are simply living in a period of increased warmth and eco-terrorists are using this to build hysteria.
It is possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids.

In my round 1 speech, I agreed with my opponent's definition of Anabolic steroids, and pointed out that natural HGH was still covered in this list. In MY opponent's response, his R2, he did NOT disagree with this argument, and therefore conceded the point. He instead made an argument about the word 'resort'. However, I then responded with a quite sufficient rebuttal to his 'resort' point. He has again dropped this point, moving on to make other points rather than defending it. And thus, he concedes that 'to resort to' is not limited to external things. Thus, let us look over what has been argued by me and conceded by my opponent: HGH, even the natural form, is an anabolic steroid. This is based on my opponent's initial definition and my agreement with it in R1. A person can resort to things that are internal. Thus, it is not possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids, since everyone resorts to using their own HGH to grow and build muscle. My opponent's attempt at redefining anabolic steroid should be seen as abusive, and it should not be considered. He had ample opportunity to redefine the term in R2, yet he waited until R3. I was unfairely made to think that he had conceded the point when he failed to address it in R2. And with that, I must bid ye fare well. Thanks for the debate, Critter.
It is possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids.

You'll notice that my opponent's definition is a noun, whereas it is not used as a noun in the resolution - it is used as a verb [or rather, as a participle - an adjective form of the verb]. Here's the real definition of resort: Main Entry: 2resort Function: intransitive verb Date: 15th century 1 : to go especially frequently or habitually : repair 2 : to have recourse #2 is obviously what is meant here. It's necessary to define recourse here, so I will. Main Entry: reï¿½course Listen to the pronunciation of recourse Pronunciation: \ˈrē-ˌkȯrs, ri-ˈ\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English recours, from Anglo-French recurs, from Late Latin recursus, from Latin, act of running back, from recurrere to run back — more at recur Date: 14th century 1 a: a turning to someone or something for help or protection b: a source of help or strength : resort 2: the right to demand payment from the maker or endorser of a negotiable instrument (as a check) Definition 1 is clearly what is meant here, 1b being the most accurate. Since testosterone/HGH are indeed a source of help or strength for bodybuilders, it is indeed recourse for them. Even so, let's look at the noun definition my opponent gave. The example usage was "have resort to outside help," but that is clearly not the only thing one can have resort to. The "outside help" is clearly not part of the definition of resort, since that would make "resort to outside help" rather redundant. Resort, the noun definition, is simply something you rely on. In that example, the person has reliance on outside help. They could just as easily rely on inside help. "John has resort to inside help" is just as valid as "John has resort to outside help." This applies to both the noun and the verb.
It is possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids.

Interesting. Thanks for taking this up. Now: Webster's dictionary defines resort thus: resort[1,noun]resort[2,intransitive verb]re-sort Main Entry: 1reï¿½sort Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzȯrt\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, return, source of aid, from Anglo-French, from resortir to rebound, resort, from re- + Old French sortir to go out, leave Date: 14th century 1 a: one that affords aid or refuge : resource b: recourse 1a It is the usage as "resort to outside help" in my opening challenge negates your point. As outside help will refer to anything outside of the body proper. The usage of this term then would cast the reference to anabolic steroids as supplemental in nature.
It is possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one very major issue with my opponent's argument. 1. Top-level bodybuilders must be humans. No other species is capable of becoming a top-level bodybuilder. 2. It is impossible to become a top-level bodybuilder without having any testosterone. 3. Testosterone is an anabolic steroid. 4. From 3 and 4, I negate the resolution. However, I know what objection to this my opponent would bring. He will claim that he defined an anabolic steroid as "synthetic testosterone and HGH, and similar products such as DECA, ANDRO, and the like." The first issue is the issue of the definition of anabolic steroid. I could disagree, and provide definitions to counter my opponent's, but I will not. Instead, I will have the audience draw their intention to this part of his definition: "the term anabolic steroid will apply to synthetic testosterone and HGH" Here, we see that the HGH my opponent speaks of isn't necessarily only the synthetic sort. And since no one could possibly become a top-level bodybuilder without HGH, I negate on largely the same line of reasoning shown above.
It is possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids.

For the purposes of this debate the term anabolic steroid will apply to synthetic testosterone and HGH, and similar products such as DECA, ANDRO, and the like. My premise is that the human body is capable of reaching high levels of muscle mass and low levels of bodyfat, to a degree that they could compete on a professional bodybuilding stage. It is my contention that supplements and drugs are at the very bottom of the list of what determines ones potential as a bodybuilder. The first factor is genetics. We all know people who are very muscular, while never having set foot inside a gym. The next level is even in my book and consists of nothing more than proper training and recovery. This means stimulating the body through intense exercise, then allowing adequate rest and macronutrient intake for the muscle tissue to rebuild itself bigger and usually stronger than before. In time, a proper combination of the aforementioned elements could result in a high enough level of atrophy to be considered a professional level physique. I will cite references in round 2.
gun control

I am not saying that all guns should be banned, Or in fact any guns, Although military type assault style weapons have a dubious role to play in civilian hands, I will say at this point i wish we could just get rid of the second amendment, Using it is like a bad parent telling a kid "because i said so" it makes no sense in a modern society, It does not make people more free just more terrified and likely to die if guns are properly regualted and proper safeguards implemeted a compromise may be reached most law abiding types may have their guns if they will accept a bit of inconvenience such a licensing registration training and medical check ups and back rund checks of a much more throughall nature those might say that criminals don't follow the law, This is a silly argument because the stricter the laws are the harder it is for criminals to get guns much research show s this is the case