BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cut foreign aid to the middle east

There seem to be two major issues of conflict in this round. First, that this plan will harm the people of the middle east. Second, that I use too much evidence. As far as harming the people in the middle east, I think my opponent's argument stems from a misunderstanding that I have tried to clear up. Namely, the difference between humanitarian aid, which this plan leaves in place, and the economic/military aid that this plan cuts. As I said in my previous speech, the humanitarian aid we send to the citizens of these countries will continue. Average people will be utterly unaffected by the plan. What this plan does is cut off the money we send to the GOVERNMENTS of these countries. If the aid is needed as badly as my opponent says, all the better! More incentive to comply with our requirements which are both simple and reasonable. I have been using Saudi Arabia as an example throughout the round because it is typical of the arguments we have been making. Since you were arguing the loss of oil, the example should be the country we buy the most from. Once again my opponent makes the unsupported claim that none of our money goes to terror, so once again, let's bring up an expert to explain that our money has indeed gone to terror. Rep. Michael McCaul, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, February 12, 2015: "We must deny terrorists safe haven overseas by confronting threats early and by removing the financial cushion. The President"s dithering on Syria allowed ISIS and al Qaeda to surge and made the threat more costly to eliminate. Now we are seeing ISIS spread into other failed or under-governed states. In the future, we cannot afford to wait and we cannot afford to finance these countries. We cannot afford to play global whack-a-mole with terrorists. We must identify emerging extremist sanctuaries and implement strategies to keep them from becoming terrorism hotbeds." As far as my use of evidence, I have been using logical refutations of your points, but when we disagree on a factual statement, the only way to settle the point is to call on experts as I have done. Finally, I am not ignoring the personal side of the issue. This plan uses the might of the United States to stand up for the voiceless, and strike a blow at terror. For those countries who wish to stand with us against terror, and cease oppression, this aid will return, but those who prefer to stand against us, our interests, our allies and our values will no longer do so with our blessing and our money! Judges, please stand with me as we give the world a message it has needed for a long time!
Cut foreign aid to the middle east

You seem to be dancing around my argument. There is an abundance is of information on how important our aid is to citizens. One thing that you don't understand is that part of the world is mostly in poverty. Also, Saudi Arabia isn't the only country in the Middle East. There are countries in this region that are in desperate need of financial aid to continue as a country. We could cut off funding to Saudi Arabia and it wouldn't make a difference to them, but most countries in that region would suffer greatly without the financial support they are receiving. We are not funding terrorists. There are many precautions in place that keep the money out of the hands of ISIS. You seem to be latched onto the fact that the money is going to terrorists, but it isn't. With these precautions in place, you are completely out of an argument. You seem to believe that a teenagers statements mean nothing in an argument like this, but you keep quoting me (albeit negatively), but if it means nothing, why are you using it? Try using your own ideas instead of those who have spent their lives studying this. If I were to bring in quotes from experts, I would have a whole paper just from quotes without any of my ideas. I am arguing with you, not them. A quote from Gihad Ali states "I'm terrorized in my own land, and I'm the terrorist?" This solidifies my point. Not everyone in the Middle East is a terrorist. The people who aren't suffer because they choose not to be. You use a very factual approach to the subject, which I can respect, but this issue becomes more of a personal issue. This must be evaluated with an undertone of empathy for the sufferers of this stereotype.
Cut foreign aid to the middle east

The problem with your argument is that, without the funding, there is no oil that can be sold. Our funding is helping to keep ISIS at bay. Without this, ISIS will take control of all of the trade items we currently receive from the region. The point of an alliance isn't about the money, it's about the lack of support at all. That will be seen as hostile and will not be taken well. The amount of money doesn't matter as much as the actual idea of having aid from the US. Another thing that I would like to point out is that you have used a lot of quotes that all say the same thing. I want to know what you have to say, not them. It seems like your argument is based off things other people have said, not on actual persuasive techniques. I would like to bring this close to home. There is a lot of violence that is caused by people not from the Middle East. So would we just stop funding those cities or families? Would we want other countries to stop trading with us because a few people do something stupid in another country? When you discuss an argument, you must think about if these things were to happen to you. Would you like to be cut off from a major supplier of most of your goods? Would you like a few stupid people to become the reputation of your own country? This is how I would like this to be though about. Put yourself in their shoes, and think about how it would affect you in their situation.
Cut foreign aid to the middle east

The Middle East is where most of our essential trade partners are. Without them, we wouldn't have some everyday things that we take advantage of. These include oil, precious stones, medicines, electrical machinery, and mechanical machinery (USTR.gov). We use oil everyday, from powering our houses to fueling our cars, oil is an integral part of our everyday lives. We use precious stones for jewelry that most people wear everyday. We use medicines to help keep us healthy and, sometimes, to save lives. We use electrical and mechanical machinery to make most of the products in our lives. From smartphones to toasters, machinery is used for it all. Another thing that has to be taken into account is the allies that we have in the Middle East. Some of these alliances are the only reason they haven't come after us in a full-blown war. I agree that there is a lot of violence stemming from there, but most of it is caused by ISIS. The money that is being put into the Middle East is used to fight ISIS, and terrorism along with it. There are numerous restraints set into place that keep the money from being used by anyone other than the intended recipient. The allies that we have in the Middle East are powerful, and we can't afford to lose them. I know that this response was short, but I'm saving some for later...
The Call of Duty Series is overrated

Looking at how they release another Call of Duty game every year, I got to thinking: "Man, this series is seriously overrated." I mean, it's basically the same game over and over again just with a few new perks. e.g. Call of Duty: Ghosts: new perks include.... a PLAYABLE DOG!!!! *faints from excitement*. I believe that they should actually try to reinvent the series like they did with COD 4, which was the best one IMO. Any challengers?? Remember, this isn't a formal debate, by the way.
The Call of Duty Series is overrated

However, any franchise will get old if they keep recycling it, and COD isn't an exception. Extinction actually is a pretty good addition to Ghosts, though. What the franchise needs, IMO, is the same leap from its predecessors that COD 4 took. And the whole "don't fix what isn't broken" mentality, if it were applied all the time, would stifle our nation's progress; And I think the same applies to gaming. Many gamers on the forums complain about how overrated COD is, because it's basically the same game over and over again. I just think that most of us would like to see the series go through a complete overhaul, at least graphics wise; because since COD 4, the graphics have hardly changed. The Crysis series is actually a good example of how each game goes through an overhaul.
The Call of Duty Series is overrated

Ghosts' is different; the new mode extiction is different than the rest. It's a break compared to Zombies that usually were only for Black ops. Extiction in my opinoin is better because now you can win there is a goal to be accomplised. And while the COD series stays the same why would somebody fix a game that isnt broken. And there are improvement to each games sure as a given graphics improve so does how multiplayer is changed to make things fair for example the "Noob Tubes" (Grenade Launcher) attachment in Modern Warefare 2 on the assult rifles were extremely overpowered and unfair, so in COD Modern Warefare 3 they were still there but there power was reduced. But in Modern Warefare 3 the killstreaks were mostly air based that killed players almost instantly and in Ghosts there isnt as many air based killstreaks and its a more level playing field.
The Call of Duty Series is overrated

Don't get me wrong or anything, I think they're fun; but the series needs to be reinvented. If you go on Amazon, the best selling and highest rated COD game is still Modern Warfare, because that game took the biggest leap from its predecessors. Every game after that was basically living off the hype of COD 4 and building on it. The graphics and gameplay all stayed the same after that, with a few perks and new weapons thrown in. I hope, for the next one, they do a complete overhaul. The multiplayer in Ghosts, however, is unique. And Black Ops 2 had a multi-linear storyline.
THW: ban gun ownership by civilians

The motion is "THW: ban gun ownership by civilians". Format of the debate: R1: Acceptance, pronoun introduction, and definitions. No arguments may be presented, and voters should ignore any arguments made in R1. R2: Main body of argument, Con's initial refutation. R3: Both debaters' refutation, summation. No new arguments may be presented, and voters should ignore any arguments not already made in R2. New refutation is allowed and should be considered by voters. Please use "she/her" pronouns for me. I will default to using "they" pronouns for everyone else unless told otherwise. Definitions: "Ban": prohibit, forbid, make illegal. "Gun": firearms with the ability to seriously injure or kill. For the purpose of this debate, toy guns, water guns etc. shall not be considered "guns". "Ownership": to keep in one's possession and to recognise one's autonomy over something. "Civilians": individuals not in the military or police force.
THW: ban gun ownership by civilians

With the definitions I made in R1, I was more asserting that they are the official definitions for this debate. There's no need for my opponent to also define those words. Then again, the definitions he provided were near enough the same as might that I see no need to make a big deal of it. The pro-gun lobby typically argues that gun ownership helps prevent crime and protect people, but this has repeatedly been shown to be nonsense. According to factcheck.org: "In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship between those factors " areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general." (See source 1). Guns owners are also a lot more likely to use guns to commit suicide than to murder someone else, and they're a lot more likely to murder someone else than to use a gun in self-defence. "Far more people kill themselves with a firearm each year than are murdered with one. In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others. " (See source 2). Guns are also the most deadly method of attempting suicide: "Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases." (See sources 3 & 4). Sometimes, children get hold of their parents' guns and accidentally kill someone. Seriously, you're more than twice as likely to be killed by a *toddler* with a gun than by a terrorist (see source 5 & 6). Guns also lead to far more deaths when they are used for murder than other weapons, such as knives; it's a lot easier to kill a bunch of people in one go with an assault rifle than with a kitchen knife, for example. Therefore, guns are an enormous liability- both to the owner of the gun and to those around them, and they should be banned for this reason. Sources: 1: http://www.factcheck.org... 2: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... 3: https://www.google.co.uk...;* 4: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... 5: https://www.theguardian.com... 6: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
THW: ban gun ownership by civilians

I accept the challenge under the pretenses and rules you have established. As you deemed necessary, I use male pronouns. Definitions: [1] Ban - [Verb] officially or legally prohibit. [2] Ownership - [Noun] The act, state, or right of possessing something. [3] Firearm - [Noun] A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun. [4] Civilian - [Noun] A person not in the armed services or the police force. Sources: [1] www.merriam-webster.com
Positive discrimination is worst than negative discrimination

I apologize. I hadn't read the rules very well. I will include my opening statement and my rebutal to yours in this round then. Again, I apologize for not reading the rules clearly. As defined by the resolution, there are two types of discrimination: positive and negative. The title of this debate is "Positive discrimination is Worst (Worse) than Negative Discrimination." As Con I will be arguing that "positive" discrimination is not worse than "negative" discrimination. Allow me to begin...My first look at this resolution puzzled me. How can positive discrimination be worse than negative discrimination. Let us first describe discrimination: "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people [1]." As implied by Pro, there are two kinds of discrimination: negative, a more racist form, such as segregation and similar, and positive, where minorities or certain groups are treated with special privileges, such as in the case of affirmative action. My original though was, "how can positive discriminatioin be worse than negative discrimination?" After some thought, I came to this conclusion: it's not. I completely agree that it is unfair, but in no way can it be worse than negative. In the past, what we would call "negative discrimination," was a major problem. Blacks were treated with great disrespect. They couldn't go to the same schools as whites, they couldn't marry people of the contrasting color, they couldn't even do something as trivial as using the same water fountain as whites. This was negative discrimination at its worst. However, today, we suffer from a different type of discrimination: positive discrimination. This is when, say blacks or hispanics, are given special privileges for being minorities. Employers, places of education, government, and more, all have to meet a sort of quota of how many people of color or of some minority group must attend or be a member. This is what we describe as "positive discrimination." This kind of discrimination is almost absurd. It rebukes the purpose of the civil rights movement. However, as much as it is unfair, it is not worse than negative discrimination. Having a better chance of getting a scholarship or a job for being a minority is nowhere close to being half as bad as being segregated, let alone being worse. We need to realize that negative discrimination is and always will be worse that positive discrimination, to any extent. Considering all these things, I believe that the only sensible choice is to vote in the negation of this resolution.Thank you. Vote Con.Works Cited:[1] Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 03 May 2016. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;.
Positive discrimination is worst than negative discrimination

Ok, I did make the title quite clickbaity, i wouldn't prefer to be attacked by racists than get a job. However, I do dislike positive discrimination. Round 1 = Starting statement Round 2= Rebuttals Round 3= Second statement Round 4= Rebuttals Round 5= Closing statement / Conclusion I am a white male, if I applied for a job in Japan or Korea and got told I only got the job because I am white, I would be pretty annoyed. I would feel bad, I might not have been the best for the job. It's stupid. Companies like Facebook and Apple need to hire minorities for the "Diversity report" but wouldn't it be more fair and diverse if you hired people for their skill not their skin colour.
In the Bible, the term "church" is a generic term

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Jesus of Nazareth) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In terms of formal religion- Before the Crucifixion all religion was based on work, whether the participant had to give a sacrifice or perform a service, etc. The Angels have their position based on works. In chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Revelation the angel/messenger/(what ever you want to call the being(s) that the letters are addressed to) have their relationship to God based on works. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1 Angelic doctrine is works. 2 Formal religion is works. 3 Chapter 2 and 3 Revelation is works. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Two questions: 1 How do you put Salvation by Grace into formal religion that is based on works? 2 What happens when Angelic doctrine of works comes into contact with Grace?
In the Bible, the term "church" is a generic term

And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (I Corinthians 12:28) In chapters 2 and3 of the book of Revelation there is not 1 message addressed to any church either local or universal. Every message is addressed to an angel. Angels do not lead people to God. On the contrary, the purpose of angels is separation from God. Examples- 1) satan in the form of a serpent tricked Eve into sin, (Genesis 3:1). Sin is separation from God. 2) an angel was given a flaming sword to keep mankind from the Tree of Life, (Genesis 3:24). There is another example of angels separating mankind from God- 3) the angels cover the Mercy Seat, (Exodus 25:20)
Rock music inside church

Hello. Welcome Torm and thankyou. I am greatfull that another christian accepted my topic. This allows us to speak peacafully about the bible and church without mockers interfeering. Worldly people are attracted to there own. You who are rich so will you gather many of the same, and those people that the Lord has set apart in this time will also be gathered together. But even when people find shelter under the church they cannot accept unless they have recived the true words which are without defect. Those words are from the Holy Spirit as you know. Not all who call to the Lord will find the fire which will give warmth in this stormy time, and those who have be called, few will accept the true doctirne. How few will be allowed into Gods throne (which is there choice) if many rooted christians fall away, so how many of those who have not truely been saved will be left? That which comes from our mouth speaks of our heart. If we are to confees that our church is holy and set apart from the world, which is the meaning of holyness-to be seperate onto God. Then how can we say we glorify God with our praise and worship? If we change our way of praising the Lord so more worldly people enter our church then isnt it not for the Lord? Rather it is for people that we praise then? We are to trust God, it is better to have ten then ten thousand attending. Many turn away when the Lord said "you must drink of my blood and eat my fleash." If they turned away because of one truth spoken to them, then how many will leave the church when many truths are given. We trust in the Lord that our bills are paid, after all if the Lord placed them as Leaders then surely He will look after them rite? Paul said "all things to me are profitable, but without Christ I consider all thing worthless." If so then we may praise as we with how ever we like, but if the Lord is not involved then its considered worthless in the eyes of Paul and many others. We should not allow people we become offened to hinder the true words of the Lord. [that is to say we still respect people] but to allow people to hinder us, we should not allow this. If many people leave from hearing a truth, then they leave hearing the truth. How can we allow lack of numbers in our church to change the way we worship, which true worship requires not music at all. But it is used and a carrier, which is not needed anyway, but maybe used.
Rock music inside church

Rock music is not a bad thing to have in Church, it helps bring youth and more 'worldly people' in, and away from satan. It is a new time, and a new generation, and most people are no longer willing to simply sit and listen to all the consequences of religion, but more about Jesus's love. Music is a way many people use to speak to the soul, and not all rock is automatically bad, in my current church, they have many rock songs about the Lord. They speak about his great deeds and how he has touched so many lives. Though, just because they have a few rock songs about it, this isn't all the church teaches. They simply use the music to keep the people interested in the sermon, and still speak about sin, and consequences. "they want rock music, no talk of sin, and something to suppress there fears around us." Including rock music in church does not automatically mean they are throwing out all of their values, or that they wont speak of sin, it simply means they have something to interest younger people, so they may know about god. When it comes to a child's soul, what is wrong with a little music? "But my spirit sees death inside, lack of love and the basic duties that church should provide." Rock music has nothing to do with the teachings in the church, or the church's duties, or even the love that they give. Its just a way of connecting people with God. I've heard many instances where members of the Church say, when they are singing God's praise, they can feel his love. The type of music in the background, has nothing to do with the words or message that is being spoken. What your saying is the same as what could have been said when Churches went from having no music at all, to having any type of music. Would it not have been even worse to go from listening directly to the pastor, to having all these distractions? Darn heathens and they're evil hymns...
Rock music inside church

By my eyes and ears i see people becoming more like the world inside church due to rock music. Rock is not the issue as such but what it stands for. Worldly people like this music, and pastors who have lost many sheep and trust in the Lord seek to bring people to church by pleasing the people who attend. (Rather they should always be there to seek and please the Lord.) I have heard young pastors who want to start up a church going around to people on the street and asking "what would make you come to church?" they want rock music, no talk of sin, and something to suppress there fears around us. But my spirit sees death inside, lack of love and the basic duties that church should provide.