BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The US should remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey

During the Cold War the US placed intermediate ranged nuclear missiles, as well as nuclear bombs in Turkey. They have remained there ever since. These nuclear weapons do not serve any tactical or strategic purpose and in fact they impede national consensus on non-proliferation. This is my first time using this website so please excuse any faux pas that I may make. I think it would also be interesting to include a questioning round. I believe that this round setup will provide for the best debate: Round one: Acceptance Round two: Each side presents his/her argument without acknowledgeing the other sides arguments. There should be no refutation. Round three: Each side presents the other with three questions based on the arguments presented in round 2 (No questions will be answered in round 3). Round four: Each side answers the others questions. Round five: Each side will present his/her closing arguments and final pieces of evidence, refutation, ect. Example: R 1 Pro: Hi. Con: Hello. R 2 Pro: I believe cats are good because a, b and c. Con: I believe dogs are best because a, b and c. R 3 Pro: Do dogs really do A? Are cats or dogs cleaner? Which animal requires more time? Con: Which animal is more loyal? Are cats or dogs more intelligent? Which animal is friendlier? R 4 Pro: I conceede that dogs are more loyal. Both cats and dogs show similar levels of intelligence. However I believe that cats are friendlier. Con: I have seen dogs do A. Cats are cleaner. Dogs may require more time than cats. R 5 Pro: Even though dogs are more loyal cats are friendlier and dogs take more time ect. Con:Dogs are loyal companions and are worth the time, cats may be friendlier but a dog can protect you ect. Obviously this example is over simplified but I just wanted to be as clear as possible. And I couldn't include any evidence in the example but in the real debate evidence should be included. If you think that this style of debate is confusing or unnecessary, just say so in the opening round and we can just use the basic debate format. Thanks and good luck!
Alcoholism should be classified as a religion

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, Alcoholics believe the purpose of the universe is to party and get hammered drunk with friends, so Alcoholism fulfils this requirement"especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,"The super-human agency in this case would be Alcohol since Alcohol has a host of super-human powers" usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "Alcoholism has numerous ritual observances, ranging from toasting beers at the beginning of the night, to doing shots, to yelling at the TV when sports are on as if the people in the tv could hear them, and hitting on amatuer looking women who become hotter as a result of the all powerful being that Alcoholics know as Alcohol. "1) The treating of alcoholism through groups like the AA and Psychiatric hospitals would be seen as religious persecution. "Alcoholism is actually a very progressive religion compared to other religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Capitalism, and all the other religions that end in 'ism'. Alcoholism acknowledges that people may take their religious beliefs too far (unlike Christianity or Islam) and the Church of Alcoholism (seen here: . http://eofdreams.com...) realizes that some people need to be treated because they have taken their religious belief and worship of Alcohol too far. .. .The Church of Alcoholism are the ones who openly fund AA and Psychiatric hospitals for those who are too involved in the practices of Alcoholism, so it therefore isnt religious persecution since the Church of Alcoholism is a progressive religious organization that funds these programs for people who are too involved. "2) No court would be able to rule correctional practices be required for any drunks in the case that they have had DUI's or have had domestic problems brought to the attention of the court"But they could, because again, the Church of Alcoholism acknowledges that some people go too far with the practice of their religion and realize that some people need to be treatment to have their belief in alcohol restrained and moderated. So it would still be legal for courts to give correctional sentences to alcoholics since the Church of Alcoholism is on the side of the Courts, unlike those uptight religions of Christianity "3) Issuing of DUI's and would become religious persecution despite its alcohol's deadly effects while driving. "This is operating under the absurd idea that the Church of Alcoholism isnt on the side of the courts when it comes to people who take their practice of Alcoholism too far, which I have explained numerous times now is not the case.
Alcoholism should be classified as a religion

I accept your challenge and eagerly await your opening arguments. I propose that we use this definition be used throughout the debate. re"li"gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. http://dictionary.reference.com... I will be arguing that Alcoholism should not be classified as religion based on the following premises: 1) The treating of alcoholism through groups like the AA and Psychiatric hospitals would be seen as religious persecution. 2) No court would be able to rule correctional practices be required for any drunks in the case that they have had DUI's or have had domestic problems brought to the attention of the court 3) Issuing of DUI's and would become religious persecution despite its alcohol's deadly effects while driving. In all, I will be arguing that Alcoholism being described as a religion would bring drastic legal and safety problems to the United States and other countries that stand against such reckless and dangerous behavior.
Raising the legal age for drinking alcohol to 18+ is no solution

I have to make this short due to my opponent only allowing 1,00 CharactersI am inferring that in the resolution, my opponent is referring to the United States drinking problem because, as a nation, it has one of the largest drinking problems in the worldIn an article written by David J. Hanson, Ph. D, Hanson states:"Research indicates that the human brain continues to develop into a person’s early twenties and that exposure of the developing brain to alcohol may have long-lasting effects on intellectual capabilities" "... alcohol can do long-term and irreversible damage to critical neurological development that is ongoing during the teen-age years and continues until age 20.""Exposing the brain to alcohol during this period (i.e, before age 21) may interrupt key processes of brain development” and “alcohol–induced brain damage may persist"[1] http://www2.potsdam.edu... I will extend my arguments next round.
Obama will not save the world, no matter how much we would like him to!

President Obama has been branded as not only the United States' savior, but the world'. I, however, believe that Obama isn't the savior everyone is expecting. He is only one man fighting two war and various domestic issues, which he is unlikely to fully solve. Now, when he was elected I was rather content as it certainly was an historic moment and I than sat back and realized the enormity of his supporters. They believe in him, they believe he will not only change the world, but save it as well. I feel he won't. I feel as though that its only smoke and mirrors and everyone will still be encapsulated by him, even when he leaves office. In my opinion, anyone could have replaced Bush, he didn't have to be black.
Obama will not save the world, no matter how much we would like him to!

Well than, in your first argument you state "he has already become a savior in many people's eyes," to which is a generalization. You have stated a very general claim, that "he is a savior in many people's eyes." "He may have too much on his political agenda both Domestic and Foreign, but this is simply false." - No sir, your statement is simply false. First you state how Obama does have too much on both of his agendas but than you assert that it is false, which is it ? Furthermore, you shouldn't quote Wikipedia has its users have the ability to edit the pages and some, if not the majority, of its pages are full of factual errors or a lack of citations. Actually, regarding the health care bill, the Democrats are quite divided on the issue and the Republicans are of course against it. Thus, if Obama has doubt and uncertainty in his own party, how is he possibly ever going to pass legislation. http://www.nytimes.com... Furthermore, you have illustrated that Obama has put forth an effort with regards to the war and health care, but you never mentioned anything about global warming and therefore you have not proved to me that he is handling these three things and doing them successfully. Moreover, with regards to Obama's new Afghanistan policy, he plans to deploy 30,000 more troops and hopes to withdrawal by July 2011. However, Secretary of Defense Gates suggests that July 2011 will not be the be all, end all of the withdrawal, it is only the beginning and will likely last for years. http://www.nytimes.com... To conclude, Obama isn't as successful as one may think. He cannot find unity in his own party over health care, nor is he able to create a treaty in regards to global warming. Despite his meager efforts in Afghanistan, etc, the U.S will not be fully withdrawn for at least another 2 - 3 years.
Obama will not save the world, no matter how much we would like him to!

In regards to the definitions provided, Obama will not serve as a savior. He has much too many issues on both his domestic and foreign agendas. On one hand, he has health care, the economy and global warming to deal with, while he has three wars to contend with. In regards to the definition, in my opinion, Obama won't preserve, guard or protect a part or section (the U.S). He has simply too many issues to contend with and he is only one man.
Obama will not save the world, no matter how much we would like him to!

Not only will this be my first serious debate, but my first serious debate even since usafkid1121, so this shall be fun. Since you really haven't made any arguments thus far, I will refute what you have given me and provide the definition for this debate as you have not. Definitions: 1) Save - to preserve or guard from injury, destruction, or loss [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Definition C 2) World - a part or section of the earth that is a separate independent unit [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Definition 9 Again, I reiterate, because the instigator did not set definitions for this debate, I have. Therefore, the resolution shall be interpreted as this: "Obama will not preserve, guard, or protect a part (or section) of earth, no matter how much we would like him to! " I await my opponents first argument on this resolution abiding by my definitions.
Black people should support Hispanic immigration!

There seems to be a flaw or two with your argument and that is that you assume that all black people are the subject of subjugation and torture in the United States, which I personally do not see, and you insinuate that the only people being treated like the blacks are fellow minorities, ignoring the fellow whites who are also destitute. I think you need to provide evidence that in contemporary America black people are being treated in the way you claim. In my opinion, when you say subjugation I think of it being in terms of politically, economically, and socially. Politically speaking, look at Barack Obama. While he may be only half black, he is still considered a black man who has managed to gain such popularity and support that he is a contender for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination. Also, last time I checked, the Jim Crow laws are no longer in effect, there are no laws restricting black people from voting, and affirmative action isn't exactly hurting black people. Both economically and socially, it is true that African Americans do occupy a large portion of the impoverished in America. However, with universities and colleges using affirmative action in their admissions decisions and businesses and jobs practically being forced to choose minority applicants over more qualified ones without minority status, it seems that the subjugation with which you speak of is more self imposed as it seems that many black people are being given equal opportunity with improved chances. And let's assume that all black people did occupy solely the lowest socioeconomic rung of American society, then it only stands to further argue against your thesis. If black people were truly subjugated and tortured then the government would purely be run by WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), who according to American history tend to control American government almost unchallenged. Now, once we have assumed that the black people are oppressed by the government and that the government is comprised of the highest socioeconomic rung of American society we can look at what would happened in theory if there were high rates of immigration, Hispanic or otherwise. Many people like to argue that immigrants come into the country and steal their jobs, but if this society is the way you insinuate then this would actually be true. The Hispanics would enter the country and begin receiving the jobs with the least amount of pay, for less than what the employer would have to provide to a black man. This is because the immigrants would be willing to work for whatever they could, and if the rich, white man was in control of government and cared little for the black man, then why wouldn't he allow immigrants to accept lower wages? Inevitably the black people of America would be out of their jobs and if they're truly oppressed or subjugated then they wouldn't have the social or economic ability they actually have in contemporary America. If they truly didn't have the ability to receive an education and a good job, then they would be subjugated.
Black people should support Hispanic immigration!

Black people, both men and women, should be in full support of Hispanic immigration. I believe that any person who is against immigration, we can only justifiably assume, is also pro-America in its current condition. With that being said, I believe it is completely absurd for any person of color to be in favor of a system that subjugates, tortures, and exploits not only their physical well-being, but also their mental and spiritual. So if Blacks are confined to a system of White supremacy and racism it would be in there best interest to form an alliance with any willing or possible participants which may result in their mental, physical, or spiritual liberation. It is insane for Black people to continuously hope in the same American system and the same American leaders for answers to their problems that will only come through self-determination, self-reliance and a coalition with people in the same social status.
Navy will BEAT ARMY in 2013!

It's a true honour to be debating against a service member! I totally understand where you are coming from. My dad was an Army officer and he doesn't think Army will fare better than Navy this year, or any other year. He based it on one principle, the track record. For 11 games straight (soon to be 12), Army wasn't able to cap off with a win and aside from that, Army hasn't had a winning season for a really long time. I'm very well aware that Army and Navy takes the Army Navy Game really seriously, and both play their hearts out because they know that game could be their last (sad to say), but It also depends heavily on the coaching staff that, in one way or another, determine the win-loss ratio. Since Ken Niumatalolo became the head coach of Navy, he manage to retain a wining season for Navy, upholding Paul Johnson's legacy. Ken is now up .610 as head coach in Navy. As for Rich Ellerson, he's never managed to get Army a winning streak, his W-L ration's down at .351 and Army lost most of its "greats" (i. e. Trent Steelman). Ok, Terry Baggett's a good runner, but so is Keanan Reynolds. In fact, Reynolds just set a NCAA record during the San Jose State game for highest number of single rushing touchdowns, and he's a Quarterback. Just shows his versatility as a runner and a passer (his passing's not too shabby, good lasers). Player facts and team stats are the indicators that allow us to make a pretty solid prediction of the game winner. But I do agree, that there have been upsets such as the Saints vs Seahawks, (I'm a HUGE fan of the Saints) or even the recent Auburn-Alabama game (. http://www.usatoday.com...) when, who could have guessed it, Auburn takes the victory with a 100+ yard run from a kick return. And I do agree, to the fullest extent, that the game has to be played. It just has to, it's All-American you can be when to Brothers in Arms fight it out for one day, and become bothers again the next. It's truly exhilarating.
Navy will BEAT ARMY in 2013!

Although I am a sailor and agree with your assumption that Navy will win, I would like to respectfully point out that it is an assumption. It appears this assumption is based on the idea that records decide who will win a game. I would refer you to the 2010 playoff game between the New Orleans Saints and the Seattle Seahawks. The Seahawks had a losing record and defeated the New Orleans Saints 41-36(http://espn.go.com...). The Saints were 11-5 and on their way to a second Super Bowl Appearance. Seattle limped in with a 7-9 record. We cannot base the outcome on statistics, that's why we must play the game.
Navy will BEAT ARMY in 2013!

Well, Navy's up 7-4 and Army's in a deep hole at 3-8. They just lost to Hawaii which was initially 0-10. Navy's been on Beast Mode for the season while Army has been, well Army. Soon, after December 14th, Navy will be up 8-4 and will be heading to a bowl game, can Army handle that? GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY!!!
the death penalty should be allowed

I believe the death penalty is not the best way to solve all crimes but in some cases like mass murdering or kidnapping or something else. I do think that killing someone is not the first solution but if they get to live they should at least have some harsher punishments besides just jail because its not that bad. But the main reason i think the death penalty should be allowed is because if someone decided to do something as evil as a mass murdering they shouldn't just go to jail for a life time and get it over with it because its just not fair the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right you need to learn from your mistakes and it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty or harsher and stricter jails. People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done. It also gives closure to the victims families who have suffered so deeply because of your cruel actions, and also i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims. Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us. Overall i do agree with the death penalty but if there we some law that were to be passed that made the jails a bit more stricter and made them suffer more them i would also agree with that as well . Some people may call that mean or getting eye to eye which is also not the best way to solve things and i agree and here your point but its also not fair haven't you ever lost a loved one and if so just imagine the reason they died is because guy was just feeling angry and decided to kill someone that night and its also not only that is just that someone who had the mentality to do something like that clearly needs to get their facts straight and on the right track.
the death penalty should be allowed

I think the death penalty should stay for the criminals that deserve it because first of all our tax money is paying to keep them in prison even after they did a horrendous crime and besides jail is not torture enough it barely even close enough homeless people come to jail all the time to get food and water and heating and another reason why there should definitely be a death penalty is because someone who is responsible on taking away lives from other people for no reason is just straight up cruel and evil and we should take charge and do something about it because innocent people don't deserve to die its not fair and these people need to learn and understand that what they did was not only wrong but monstrous and inhuman and it will also teach a lesson to others as well.
The USA should not spread democracy in the Middle East

In light of the recent Belgium attacks id like to debate this topicResolution: The United States of America should not try to spread democracy in the middle eastDefitinitions: Democracy-Type of government for the people and by the people; voting is instituted; representative as in voting for elected officials USA-The united states of america; elected president is Barrack Hussein Obama Middle East- Set of countries ranging from the ends of turkey to PakistanRules: Round 1 acceptance onlyRound 4 rebuttals only (no new arguements)FF is an automatic lossHappy to debate