BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Henry VIII of England was a good king

As I anticipated, my opponent has not taken this debate seriously and therefore has put in a minimal effort in defending his case. Either way, the comparison between Hitler and Henry VIII is completely irrational, as Henry VIII did not commit a genocide. I comprehend your point that it was bad that Henry VIII killed two of his wives, however comparing this to Hitler makes no since. The reason for why Henry VIII executed his second wife, Anne Boleyn, because he was desperate for a son and knew that if he did not produce an heir England would go into civil war once again. He executed his fifth wife, Katherine Howard, because he had discovered that she was in the middle of an affair with Thomas Culpepper. Also, Henry VIII did not want to be defied in any regard because that showed that his power was not absolute. These may not be the best of reasons for execution, however given the many ways that he improved the state of England shown in the second round, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that Henry VIII was overall a good king.
Barack Obama would be re-elected in 2012 if he faces the current field of GOP candidates

.. .. . So now I have to do this again. .. .. . I believe that Barack Obama will be re-elected president because overall he is a better campaigner and a better overall candidate than any individual out of the current GOP candidates. Every current candidate in the GOP has some fatal flaw or fatal quality that I believe would cost them the presidential election if they were to go one-on-one against Barack Obama in the 2012 campaign for the presidency The Con must simply offer evidence against this, I encourage a creative counter-argument :) Con may also use the first round to state his arguments, or if they choose to they can simply accept the debate and wait until the second round to state their arguments. There are 5 rounds and a 8000 character limit so there will be plenty of debating. This argument is based on the one condition that no new Republican candidates enter the field for president. .. .. .. I dont want to end up in a debate where the Con is going to argue that Palin or Donald Trump will join the race and they would beat Obama, for fairness the Con may only argue for the CURRENT GOP candidates, they include, Mitt Romney Rick Perry Michele Bachmann Herman Cain If you really want to you may also argue for Newt Gingrich Ron Paul Rick Santorum John Huntsman
Barack Obama would be re-elected in 2012 if he faces the current field of GOP candidates

Such a well thought out argument is hard to offer evidence against...... The Con may be one of those people who are hell bent on trashing Obama's reputation so I guess I will use this round to justify why Obama is not the worst president ever..... 1) Obama is slowly withdrawing the US from Iraq which is bringing an end to one of the longest wars in US history at a time when the American Public are weary of war 2) Obama since taking office had brought unemployment down from 10% to 9%. It doesnt sound like much but with a nation as large as the US 1% represents about 3.6 million people having jobs again. 3) Obama passed the economic stimulus which helped preserve jobs in education, law enforcement, and other vital jobs that the states could not handle in the midst of the recession when it was at its worse. 4) Obama has shown he can compromise and work with the Republican Party when he agreed to extend the bush tax cuts while also extending unemployment benefits to those who were still struggling to find a job in the aftermath of the recession 5) He signed a new START treaty with Russia to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both countries by half, a great and important step in the quest for world peace and also the proliferation of nuclear weapons... As for world peace Barack Obama also authorized the operations that took out the top figures of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and his replacement Atiyah Abd al-Rahman 6) Obama also limited US involvement in the Libyan Civil War but he did authorize the use of drones and robotic attacks to greatly help the country dispose of its longtime psychotic leader Gaddafi, a leader who denounced democracy and has been proven to have funded terrorists I think people like Buchanon (president who could not forestall the Civil War), Andrew Johnson (Racist president who vetoed the 14th amendment and was actually impeached), Nixon (abused his powers and resigned to avoid impeachment), Hoover (allowed the great depression to happen and did a poor effort of fighting it), or even Bush (allowed the second biggest recession to occur, invaded Iraq on bogus charges of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction) could easily be argued to be worse presidents then Obama. http://data.bls.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Con has not acknowledged any of my 10 arguments, Con has accused Obama of being the worst president ever with not factual support or evidence to back up such a claim Con has also suggested that ANY GOP candidate is better than Obama but has shown no facts to support a claim or any sources either...... (btw con, your arguments are allowed to be longer than one sentence)
Russia being banned from the Olympics was a good desicion

Arguments extendRebuttal to: Punished in the pastIf Russia has been punished before, why would this time be any different? Rebuttal to: Can still competeAs I already stated, Several former olympians, including 4 time 200 meter champion Andrey Fedoriv have been upset that the whole country is being punished for something a small percentage of athletes did. (dw. com) Andrey Fedoriv said: “Competing in the Olympics is not about winning gold medals. It is winning honor and respect for your country” according to Sportsreference. comRussia costs the IOC millions of dollarsHowever, Russia will cost the IOC 1.46 billion dollars if the ban is not lifted, which is more then the 10 million dollars mentioned by my opponentsVoters, please vote for me. I have rebutted all the opposing arguments and all of my arguments still stand.
Russia being banned from the Olympics was a good desicion

Intro: Judge, my name is Santa288 and I am on the Opposition side of this debate. Arguing that Russia"s punishment was a perfect punishment and that it should not be taken away. Russia has been punished before. In 2008 7 Russian Track athletes manipulated urine samples, they were suspended. In 2010 20 Russian athletes partake in widespread doping. They were all banned In 2014 was the first example of government sponsoring Russian Doping. Which led to the Russian head of athletics being banned and the Russian doping experts were also banned. In 2015 40 Russian Athletes participated in widespread, coach-sponsored doping that led to 40 athletes suspended, the Russian head of athletics banned, the top russian coach was banned and the russian anti-doping foundation was banned. And now (2018) 51 Russian athletes were caught participating in widespread, government-sponsored doping. Russia was banned from the olympics. Source: "Doping Scandal:Wasa to decide whether or not Russia is in compliance with the code by Rachel Axon on USA today. Russian athletics officials supplied banned substances in exchange for 5% of an athlete's earnings and falsified tests together with doping control officers Mariya Savinova saying that contacts at a Moscow drug-testing laboratory had covered up her doping Russian long-distance runner Liliya Shobukhova allegedly paid 450,000 euros to cover up her positive doping result. Reviewing 7289 blood samples from 2737 athletes from 2001 to 2009, a report found that the number of suspicious samples from "Country A" notably exceeded other countries. According to the study, that country was Russia Judge, what do you do when a child keeps on not listening to you? You impose harsher and harsher punishments until they do. It is Russia"s own fault that they got banned, and they need to learn not to use performance-enhancing drugs Russian Athletes can still compete 51 Russian athletes took part in the widespread doping scandal that was supported by the government There are 9 athletes who did not (CNN by David Stokes) If those 9 athletes pass clean, then they can still compete in the olympics They would compete under the name of Olympic Athlete from Russia Therefore, the athletes who did nothing wrong are not punished and are still able to compete There are 1186 athletes who are clean and have done nothing wrong. There is a majority of clean athletes (99.5%) Why should the 99.5% of clean athletes lose medals to those who used drugs? (olympics.org) 95% of the time, when doping is used, those dopers score much higher than those who do not dope (Statista) Russia costs the IOC millions of dollars When Russia was being investigated for the widespread doping, th IOC was forced to spend 10 million dollars Russia being banned is punishment for both that and the doping. (Statista) Therefore judge, if the proposition says that it was unwarranted from 1 of those things, there are 2 causes to the punishments. Russia should be happy they are not getting double the punishment then what they got in 2015! Outro: Judge, my name is Santa288 and this is why the Opposition should win this debate.
Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S.

Hello, You pointed out that 1/5 of the illegal immigrants live in one county. You then proceeded to argue that if one county is affected so much, then the rest of the nation must suffer a lot. This logic in no way works, as no other county as the heavy concentration of illegal immigrants that this county has. You mentioned something quite intriguing: "What could we use that money?" Despite the grammatical errors, this has some logic. Think of all the money it would take to end illegal immigration in this manner. There are so many problems that are pressing and immediate that we are ignoring, yet there is so much complaining about illegal immigration. In fact, we are losing a lot more money on things, which many people are ignoring, for instance: As of an analysis in September of 2006, we are spending about $2,000,000,000 (2 billion)…..A WEEK, on the Iraq war. All of this Tax money from the 300 million people of the US. Is this immigration issue really priority? There are so MANY more important things that are government should be investing on WAY before we even bother about solving illegal immigration. In fact, solving illegal immigration should be near the BOTTOM of our list of things to do. We should be investing on such things as global warming. Now, imagine just sending out 5% of our population across the border. Is your thinking so delusional so as to believe that this would not affect over-all state of life and economy? You complain about money spent because they do not pay taxes. Did you ever consider that they do labor for YOU, at a sub- minimum wage salary? THEY have the bad end of the deal, republicanview. You complain about taxes, but they do labor, putting food on YOUR table, and do not get what they deserve. Did you ever consider that they BENEFIT society more than they damage it? What would we do if suddenly they were all over the border? Think of all the roles in society that 5% fills. One in twenty people; that is a lot of jobs; a lot of niches in society that would not be fulfilled. I would like to provide my own, more cost-efficient, least society damaging method: It is simple; all we have to do is make it a lot easier to get citizenship. Lets not be hasty though; I am not saying we should just open the flood gates (metaphorically), that would be a true disaster. I think, though, that this would be a reasonable solution. This way, we do not have to send 5% of our population away, but merely give them easier citizenship so that they CAN pay taxes. We do not have a population problem in the US, so I see no reason for there not to be easier citizenship. No matter what solution we try, though, there will always be some illegal immigration.
Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S.

An answer to this problem certainly is easy nor won't it cost money but it doesn't have to cost alot(atleast to the goverment). Nor will it be a waste of money. The North County Times reports that illegal immigrants directly cost the county of San Diego 101 million dollars last year and an indirect 155 million in unpaid health care. I know thats just San Diego county but California is one of the countys in California. California hosts 3 million of our illegal immigrants approximaTLY 1/5 Of the immigrants in our country. So if it costs one county of Californis that much money imagine how much it will cost our whole nation. I promise you I will get that info next round but i don't have much time. Now Harlan I'm sure you know that 256 million dollars is alot of money especially for on county in our country. And that was only last year. Imagine how much in the last 5 years. 10 years. What could we use that money? Maybe use that money to make sure the immigrants get our and don't get back in. Now im not saying that we have to put 100% of our effort immediatly but at least 25% or more has to be put in to at least get rid of a substantiol amount of them. Then when we see some results we can slack. We can even use the minutemen that patrol our borders. Use them as bounty hunters only w/out the kill. Place them in los angeles, san diego all the known places with high illegal poputations. It will take time and effort to catch these illegal immigrants. but for all the money they cost us its worth the time & effort
Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S.

Hello, republicanview, glad to debate you. You are right; there are certainly about 15 million illegal immigrants now living within the US. Yes, I agree that this is a problem; there is no dispute of that. It appears, then that the solution is the only thing we disagree on. It certainly would be wonderful if it was as simple as shipping them across the border, and then the problem was solved. Unfortunately, there are several problems with this solution, and it is a lot more complex than this. First, in my opening argument I will focus on the practicality of this solution. So, you are suggesting that we deport give or take 15 million people across the border. That is interesting. First of all, the illegal immigrants live in every corner of this nation. They live everywhere in this 3,537,441 square mile expanse that is the United States. Funding a project of this magnificent size (trying to solve this problem via your suggestion) is unthinkable. Though it may help the cause somewhat, it would overall just scratch the surface of all the illegal immigrants within these borders. It would overall be a waste of money. The population of the US is about 300 million. Your claim of 15 million illegal immigrants (which is probably about right) being in the US would indicate that they consist of about 5% of our population. You do the math. How the heck will we reasonably ship 5% of our Population across the border within reasonable cost? Let me remind you that 5% means one in twenty This is the only the FIRST reason I will provide for why this idea does not work. -Harlan
Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S.

Contrary to common belief illegal immigration is more of a problem than many people think. More than 15 million illegals are in the U.S. right now and more are coming. Illegal immigrants put a strain on tax dollars and take jobs from hard working legal americans. Our country is not a free sample cart sitting in the middle of the supermarket that is life you can't just come on in a try some of it.
Is strengthening gun control laws necessay

N. A. T. O will intervene because they don't want the U. S in a Civil WarThis may be true, but they will probably intervene on the tyrannical militaries side, because, after all, we do have the most powerful military in the world. Then then the citizens will need guns more than ever, and gun control will prevent them from defending their freedom. Militia is meant to be state controlled I refute this argument on grounds of irrelevance. Voters, do not let this confuse or distract you, for even if I concede this (which I don't), it would mean nothing, because this debate is about gun control. The part of the second amendment that is not up for any interpretation blatantly says "The right of the People to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed" More guns means more gun crimeI've already openly acknowledged this fact. However, what you refuse to acknowledge or even debate about is the fact that more guns means less violent crime, while less guns means more. Switzerland is armed to the teeth, yet it is a very safe place to live. Even Hitler, the man who invaded Russia in the winter, didn't invade Switzerland because he knew that the citizens were armed to the teeth. This applies to the N. A. T. O argument as well. Ignoring facts is yet another sign that you don't know what your talking about. Psychological testing and Waiting Periods" A country can't allow uncontrollable weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people. " How many times do I have to tell you that I agree to a one-time psychological test before you will quit repeating the same argument with different wording without attempting to refute mine? My argument has been that if you have already used a psychological test to determine that that person is rational, why would you need a waiting period at all if you've already weeded out anyone crazy enough to kill somebody? This argument has been ignored entirely by you. Muskets were only used for defense against Indians, Hunting, and standing up to the governmentIndians were breaking into their homes and farms, stealing their property, and possibly getting violent. .. wait, doesn't that sound like a criminal today? I concede that you don't need a full-auto to hunt, but you just admitted that they needed guns to stand up to the government. Isn't that one of the main points I've been trying to make throughout the debate? You just conceded to one of my strongest points. Citizens should not have all of the weapons of the militaryNo, but they should have enough firepower to obtain said weapons should the need arise. Note that I say that they should only have the ability to get the weapons if they are a very large group, not just a few crazy teenagers. ConclusionI've agreed to one method of gun control , and refuted any argument for stricter gun control. You have repeated the same argument, made a new argument in the last round, and have failed to refute any relevant arguments of mine.
Is strengthening gun control laws necessay

N.A.T.O. doesn't want America in a civil war they will step in. It would create a collapse of the global economy. A well regulated malitia is meant to be state coontrolled to put down uprisings and if the state deems the federal government infridging on their rights they can wage war against them. Also it says in the constitution that only the federal government is allowed to have an army. State police are your malitia. You can't be serious that you don't see the correlatin between more guns= more gun crimes. Which is what in this argument we are trying to say needs to stop so the government should step in. A country can't allow uncontrollable weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people. It's ot everyone's right to have every liberty. People originally needed guns to hunt and maybe stand up to the government and protect against indians. Everyone had muskets. You can't give everyone gun ships if they learn to fly. It isn't in societies best interest. The constitutions meaning is meant to evolve over time and it needs more gun regulations. You don't get to possess every weapon you want but you can keep your shot guns and such. If you make gun laws much harsher to the point if you have a gun and sell it privately you need to have checks done on that person or you bare the same responsiblity as them for any crimes committed. I think this would wake up people about who is getting their guns. They need to be tracked and monitored. end of story.
Is strengthening gun control laws necessay

N.A.T.O will not do anything at all, because our nation has the most powerful, well funded military in the world, and representatives in NATO will, not surprisingly, have their own nations interests at heart and mind. As for your argument that the citizens do not have the right to their own military, look no further than the second amendment. "The right to a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free state, the Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed." Don't pull out that National Guard crap on me, because well regulated does not mean government controlled, it means well trained and well armed. That is why it explicitly says "a Free state" without specifically naming the U.S, because the founding fathers wanted the citizens to fight back if the government ever became tyrannical. They had just overthrew a tyrannical government, after all. English troops were burning down their homes, quartering their soldiers, and the people were powerless to stop them. U.S would've never become independent.s, and the people did not have arms to defend themselves. We're lucky that they started making some arms, or the You say that the only reason that you would need a modified assault rifle is defend your house from an army. Well how about our own military? Like you said, we don't want the army patrolling our streets, but who's going to stop them if the citizens don't have arms? I'm all for a one-time psychological test on potential gun-owners, as well as an accessible database of mentally unstable people, so I can't disagree with you their. And if we have that psychological test, why would we need the waiting period? you say a rational person might decide not to kill their mother within that week, but I say a rational person wouldn't want to kill their mother at all, and with the psychological test, we already know who's rational and who isn't. You seem to focus on the factoid that more guns means more gun crime, yet you fail to look at the big picture that more guns means less violent crime. If you make guns illegal, it'll be just like drugs. Huge gun smuggling cartels will open up, and the sellers won't care who buys them, whether they are kids, felons, whatever. Same with prohibition, same with weed, and it'll be the same with guns. Law-abiding citizens won't have any way to defend themselves, and criminals will run amok, doing as they please. Can't count on the police, because, on average, it takes the police twenty minutes to arrive. Enough time for a murder or two? You tell me that not everyone has every right. You say that felons who commit non-violent crimes are not allowed to vote. Do you condone this? I thought you said it was impossible for the government to be tyrannical because of the Constitution, yet we have an example of mistreatment given from yourself. This is contradictory, and contradicting yourself is usually one of the main signs that you don't know what you're talking about.