BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bhutto's assanination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow

This assassination was not as predictable as the Sun coming up tomorrow. Regardless of the political climate, people *know* the Sun will rise the following day, but no one could have predicted this tragedy. I have not read or heard of anyone that had foreseen Bhutto's assassination. You can make claims now that hindsight is on your side, but you didn't make any posts prior to this incident that support your claim.
Bhutto's assanination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow

They tried the 1st day she got off the plane with bombs strapped to a 1 year old the Islamic militant terrorists (good muslims according to Muhammed) have been trying to get Musharraf for years to no avail- he is military guy Bhutto was way way too full of herself, having gone to the ivy league schools here , where you get filled full of self importance She was a FANSTASTIC person, in many ways, and may she rest in peace But this was TOTALLY predictable, and she was STUPID for going out in Rawalpindi as open as she was with all those woman hating and western hating Islamic nitjobs around there are probabaly about 50 million in Pak alone I think the elections will be postponed, and they should be Nawaz Sharif is the only other conteneder, and he is trouble, if you ask me Musharraf should maintain a firm grip on things for the forseeable Benezir Bhutto , may she rest in peace -
Women are Equals to Men and Should Be Given Equal Rights

My opponent has forfeited this round, so I don't have much to say. I'll emphasize the points I made in my previous argument. Women are not equal to men; they are superior. I believe this because women have to go through many things that men do not have to in their live such as periods and labor. Women are just as good as men in the sense of money-making and education, but the extra boost that I stated above makes them not equal to men. Therefore, I believe that women are not equal to men; they are superior. Since I have proved that women are superior to men and Pro has not disproved this, I would like to say that since women are superior to men, they should not be given equal rights. I understand I am going against the topic and my job, but hear (see) me out. We can give women greater rights than men, but we are already, in a sense doing so. Men pay women's bills, men are nicer to women than to other men, men open doors, hold doors, give up seats, etc. for women. Finally, there are more female breadwinners arising in modern society. This proves that females have the right to work and raise more money for there families. I believe that I have won this debate do to my opponent's last round forfeit and, well, just plain winning, but, you, the voters, will decide. Good luck queenofmayhem!
Women are Equals to Men and Should Be Given Equal Rights

Ok, I see that there is no flaw in the rules now, as my opponent pointed out. I apologize, since I recently joined debate.org and was not quite sure. I would like to thank my opponent for applauding my creativity; it means a lot. In this same section, they stated that this wild stab at populism may have been misjudged and that I will have a hard time debating this, but we will see. I completely disagree with this statement as of now. They also stated that "this is going to be a complete flop of a debate." However, I believe it isn't. As long as we keep typing in these boxes and pressing submit, it will still be a good debate! So, let me restate my previous argument, since Pro did not take it down and it still stands. Women are not equal to men; they are superior. I believe this because women have to go through many things that men do not have to in their live such as periods and labor. Women are just as good as men in the sense of money-making and education, but the extra boost that I stated above makes them not equal to men. Therefore, I believe that women are not equal to men; they are superior. Now, let me build upon this argument. Since I have proved that women are superior to men and Pro has not disproved this, I would like to say that since women are superior to men, they should not be given equal rights. I understand I am going against the topic and my job, but hear (see) me out. We can give women greater rights than men, but we are already, in a sense doing so. Men pay women's bills, men are nicer to women than to other men, men open doors, hold doors, give up seats, etc. for women. Finally, there are more female breadwinners arising in modern society. This proves that females have the right to work and raise more money for there families. Also, we can still build upon women's rights. Through the points I have stated, I believe I have proved my case validly and effectively. Good luck pro!
Women are Equals to Men and Should Be Given Equal Rights

I have no advantage, we each give one argument each and one rebuttal. Con, I must applaud your creativity, however I am curious how you intend to debate why women shouldn't be given equal rights. They should be given more rights then men? I am afraid this wild stab at populism may have been misjudged. So no, stating that women are not equal to men is not what I asked you to do. My debate was not metaphorical; it was literal and you have completely dropped half of the argument. I mean no disrespect, however I understand this is going to be a complete flop of a debate.
Women are Equals to Men and Should Be Given Equal Rights

The first thing I would like to point out is a flaw in your rules. In round three, I am not allowed to make an argument? So, you have the advantage there, however I will still follow your rules. Could this be because your round one is just stating these rules? Okay, onto my argument/s. I will be debating exactly what you asked me to. That women are not equal to men. Women are not equal to men; they are superior. I believe this because women have to go through many things that men do not have to in their live such as periods and labor. Women are just as good as men in the sense of money-making and education, but the extra boost that I stated above makes them not equal to men. Therefore, I believe that women are not equal to men; they are superior.
Women are Equals to Men and Should Be Given Equal Rights

I will be looking for an opponent who can argue that women are not equals to men. I look forward to a great debate, good luck to my opponent. *Rules for Me Round One: Rules Round Two: Argument Round Three: Rebuttals *Rules for my Opponent Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: "no argument as agreed upon" Failure to follow rules means an unfair debate, and will result in a 7 point deduction.
Is cyberbullying really an issue

I want to start by thanking Con for instigating this thought-provoking debate. Since I am Pro, it will be my aim to show that Cyberbullying is indeed an issue. Definitions & ClarificationsCyberbullying: Bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites. [1]Issue: 1 - An important topic or problem for debate or discussion. [2] 2 - Problem or Difficulty. [2][1] http://www.stopbullying.gov...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...ArgumentsI. Bullying is unacceptable in our society.Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior and includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose. [3]The recipients of bullying often feel anxious, depressed, lonely, insecure, unable to focus or concentrate, afraid, or in the worst case, suicidal. The problem is that one party is responsible for forcibly impressing those feelings upon the other, or in some cases literally (physically) assaulting the victim. In America, we condone such actions in the form of having laws protecting individuals from such actions which even include prison time for the offender. With it now established that bullying is unacceptable, one needs only to extend bullying to cyberbullying which is nothing more than an extension of bullying itself as evidenced by the definition provided above. Thus, by extension, cyberbullying is also unacceptable in our society. When something which is a problem is deemed unacceptable, it then becomes an issue which I defined above as well. Due to the connection shown, I find no reason whatsoever to NOT consider cyberbullying an issue. It, quite literally, is. [3] http://www.stopbullying.gov...RebuttalsII. It is easily stoppable.My opponent makes this claim with the justification being that: No one is forcing you to be online. You can end it all with a simple click of a button.My opponent fails to realize that this is working under the false premise that the bully will simply go away if you are not online. What if the bully goes to your school? What if the bully had the means to hack your phone? What if the bully is still on the website when you go back in a few days?There are countless cases where the cyberbully has continued the abuse without the victim necessarily being online. If my opponent truly wishes to continue this line of argumentation I will gladly present multiple cases where this has occurred. In closing, I have shown that Cyberbullying is literally an issue, and have provided an additional rebuttal against the argument raised by my opponent negating his claim that cyberbullying can be stopped by the click of a button. I now return the floor to Con. Thank you.
I know what day of the week you will vote.

I am most honored to debate mongeese on this most important of subjects.OverviewThere are a few key points I'd care to make before making my case as Con.Who is "You?"In his case, and in the resolution, Pro regrettably never defines who the person is that is being discussed. Therefore, I will assume he uses "you" under the common defintion: the one or ones being addressed [1].I am "You."Further, as I was the one being addressed upon accepting the debate (this, I feel, can be commonly agreed upon), I contend that the "you" of the resolution is, indeed, myself.The Resoluton is in the PresentPro references today's date, and provides a calender accordingly. Therefore, I ask it be noted that the resolution is in reference to the present.CaseContention 1: Pro's Case Relies on "You" VotingIn his case, Pro clearly states "if you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday." I ask that this be taken note of. The resolution, "That you are voting on a Wednesday," clearly and irrevocably hinges on the conditional presented by Pro. The case cannot stand if "you" are not voting. Thus, as stated in my Overview, the resolution hinges on whether I am voting.Contention 2: 18 is the Age of Eligibility to Vote in the United StatesThe title of this contention sums it up. According to the 26th Amendment of the United States Constitution, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age [2]." I ask that the bolded passage be noted. 18 years of age is the age in which US citizens are eligible to vote. I am a citizen of the United States. However, I have not attained the age of eligibility, being 16. Therefore, I am not voting currently. And, harkening back to my Overview, the resolution, I concluded, is in reference to the present.Contention 3: Resolution is Negated Because I am Not VotingThis contention is really the syllogism. Because I am not voting, I am not voting on a Wednesday. The syllogism is as follows.P1) To be voting on Wednesday, I must be voting.P2) I have not attained the eligible voting age in the US.P3) I am not voting.C) I am not voting on Wednesday.As one can clearly see from the syllogism, and my case, the condition of having to be voting was the key to Pro's case. As I have proved, that condtion has not been met. Therefore, the resolution is negated.References[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.archives.gov...
I know what day of the week you will vote.

Yes, you. Resolved, that you are voting on a Wednesday. If you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday, as you can see by any calendar, and as you are voting on a Wednesday, the resolution is affirmed, and as the resolution is affirmed, you ought to vote Pro. Vote Pro! In case you don't have a quick reference to today's calendar day, this site is quite handy: http://todaysdate.com... Happy voting!
U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms

My opponent states that I am "beating a dead horse." All I have done is stick to one solid argument, which you have not properly refuted, as you continue to go off on wild tangents. Now for my rebuttal; I have stressed multiple times that my point has nothing to do with an actual drift into monarchy. My point is rather that unlimited terms are a characteristic of a monarchy and are thus contrary to the idea of limited government. It seems as if my opponent glanced at my rebuttal, saw the word "monarchy" written a few times, and assumed I was discussing an actual transition into monarchy. I said unlimited terms are a characteristic of a monarchy (not that it IS a monarchy), and that they areinconsistent to the concept of limited government. I am really becoming annoyed with your repeated use of the straw man fallacy misrepresenting my argument as a slippery slope into a monarchy. This is where I am inclined to believe you are a naïve idealist. It is not that I am "…not giving enough credit to the American people and our voting system." In fact, I believe you are placing too much faith in the "American people and our voting system." This again brings us back to the concept of a republic: a pure democracy allows a voter majority to triumph over a voter minority, whereas a republic safeguards the voter minority and facilitates the voting process. Moreover, we are a constitutional republic, meaning we have a Constitution set in place to restrict the Government from expanding too far -- which includes unlimited terms in office. Yet again, you are missing my point entirely. The United States has term limits in place because unlimited rule, which in this case is synonymous with the possibility of unlimited rule due to the historical context of the 22nd amendment, is a characteristic of monarchy, which is exactly what American political thinkers have avoided since the Revolutionary War. We actually wrote an entire founding Declaration against a monarchy on this very idea. Whether or not the president will remain in office for the rest of his life is entirely irrelevant; the purpose of the 22nd amendment is to forbid the possibility. My opponent states: "by allowing a President the option to run for office and serve more than two times, there is no hidden agenda to change anything else in our political structure." We are arguing about term limits, and nothing else in the political structure. Once again, we are arguing about a potential change in the amount of terms a President can serve. Any argument based on further political change is irrelevant. And as for your last point, I never said that "a monarchy is not a factor in this debate." Please read my syllogism one more time… monarchies are of course a factor in this debate! Overall, my opponent did not satisfy her Burden of Proof that we should overturn a Constitutional amendment that seeks to protect limited government, and since she did clearly did not defeat the points of my syllogism, I feel I have won this debate.
U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms

In conclusion, the benefits out weight the disadvantages in allowing a President to serve more than two terms. To keep debating the same point, monarchy, that supposedly is not your reason is like beating a dead horse. Moving on from that, I already stated above that there is a difference between having the option of unlimited, and having unlimited rule. My opponent assumes that by removing the cap, and being able to serve more than two terms the next President would stay in term forever, creating a monarchy and ruining our country's ideology of a limited government. My example of the Presidents before FDR, was to show that when Presidents had the option of "unlimited terms" many opted out of it, and others were not giving the chance because the citizens did not vote them back in. This is to support my claim that allowing a President to run for unlimited terms will not guarantee that they will,but is more of an option and about not limiting them. My opponent argued that Congress is not capable of protecting our country from unlimited rule or the characteristics of a monarchy, but is not giving enough credit to the American people and our voting system. Even in our country today, it is not guaranteed that the current sitting President will be allowed even a SECOND term, much less a third or fourth once this amendment is lifted. So, we know that all people are not the same and my example of the past Presidents is based on what someone else choose to do in the past. I'm arguing that even if there was a case where someone had the idea of getting elected and staying in office, we the people have the power to not allow that to happen by voting him/her out of office during the next election. By allowing a President the option to run for office and serve more than two times, there is no hidden agenda to change anything else in our political structure. We will still have many candidates running for office, numerous campaign to choose from to support, and finally the vote to choose. There are only benefits to come of this process, and since we both agree that a monarchy is not a factor in this debate, there is no disadvantages.
U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms

1. Unlimited rule She writes, "I do not understand your argument..." and this is plainly obvious. She states, "I originally thought your stance was that by allowing the President to serve more than two terms it would be leading to a monarchy." However, as you can see in my very first argument in Round 1, I described unlimited rule as a characteristic of monarchies, and never stated that its removal would lead to a slippery slope resulting in a monarchy. Instead, you made this assumption in Round 1 when you stated: "Thus, the only reason to not allow a President to serve more than two terms, would be to avoid a monarchy." Once again, my point is that unlimited terms are a characteristic of a monarchy and are thus contrary to the idea of limited government. My opponent states that this debate is not about characteristics of unlimited rule or about American political thought - which is the exact opposite of the truth: this entire debate is exactly about unlimited rule and its potential problems; and since we are discussing changes in American politics, we should take American political thought into consideration. Also, I will now offer a definition of unlimited: unlimited: not limited; unrestricted (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Term limits are by definition a restriction of an official's duration in office. And thus, because you are removing a restriction, you are removing a limit on his power. Therefore, by removing term limits, you are giving the President the ability to have unlimited rule. I have already proven how the Senate is not balanced against a President with unlimited duration, and I have already repeated myself to the point where I am annoying myself. 2. Limited government Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. As I said in the last round, "unlimited terms are a characteristic of the unlimited government of a monarchy and thus contrary to the idea of limited government." My opponent attempts to refute this by saying we are actually opposed to limited government currently because we are "limiting them the right to serve our country." The idea of limited government, by definition, is to restrict, the government's influence on its people. My opponent then tries to support her claim with an example, but her example does not provide a single example of a President serving more than two terms: before FDR, both Presidents and citizens clearly did not want it, and immediately after FDR we passed the amendment restricting it. My opponent's evidence is therefore irrelevant. Conclusion I will wrap up the argument with a syllogism explaining my core argument: 1. Monarchies are contrary to limited government 2. Unlimited terms are a characteristic of monarchies 3. Therefore, unlimited terms are contrary to limited government I look forward to the last round.
U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms

I do not understand your argument, nor do I see any reasoning given by you that states why a President should not be able to serve more than two terms. I originally thought your stance was that by allowing the President to serve more than two terms it would be leading to a monarchy. However, in the last round you stated " I never said the US would become a monarchy, just that the idea of an unlimited term is a characteristic of such and was thus an ideal contrary to American political thought." So if your rebuttal and disagreeance on the topic is not that it would cause a monarchy, than what is it? This debate is not about the characteristics that serving more than two term will preserve, or about the political thoughts of America. My opponent states "Congress would not be a sufficient balance against a ruler with unlimited duration". First, I think the fixation on the term unlimited, is what leads me to determine that the sole basis of your argument is about the establishment of a monarchy. To allow the President to serve more than two term is not the same thing as allowing them to have unlimited rule, instead it is NOT limiting them to two terms. To say that Congress will not be a sufficient balance against a ruler that serves more than two terms is ludicrous , which implies to me that Congress is then not sufficient in balancing against a ruler who serves only two terms. If I'm not mistaken my opponent is also saying that by allowing a President to serve more than two terms, we would be going against the idea of a limited government. In actuality by NOT allowing a President the option of serving more than two term we are limiting the government. We are limiting them the right to continue to serve our country, as well as limiting the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. If we as citizens have the right to vote, and want to vote for a president to continue to reign, by not being permitted to do so because of the twenty second amendment is a limitation. Let us also remember that before the twenty-second amendment was ratified in 1947, there were nine Presidents that had the option to serve more than two terms, who did not either because they choose not to or because they did not have the necessary votes needed to do so. This example is to show that by having the option to serve more than two terms does not mean A. That it would happen, since the current President would have to have the desire to serve again, along with the citizens , thus choosing to vote him back in office. B. would not be going against "American political thought", because to say that would imply that having a limited term presidency was always the American way, which it clearly was not before 1947. By allowing a President to serve more than two terms, we give him the chance to continue the good works that he is doing. By completing what he started, it lessens the chance that the next person will/may not do as well a job, or stop the progress of said work.