BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Praying for Rudy

1) Foreign Policy I can honestly see where Paul is coming from on foreign policy. In theory it would work well, but the reality is, we are already in the predicament and practicing what Paul preaches would leave us in a terrible position. I actually agree with Paul. We shouldn't be policing the world to the extent that we are, but, the fact is, we are. Giuliani would make sure we secure ourselves in the middle east and Iraq without being terrible overzealous like the other Republicans who give us this "to the gates of hell" rhetoric. Giuliani looks at the situation we are in with a practical outlook. We NEED to stay in Iraq and get it done. Leaving would be reckless, no matter how much we want to. Giuliani is not in favor of pursuing wars in dozens of countries or policing the world, he merely wants to keep America safe. Whether Bush is doing that is not the issue. What we need to do to get there is. Giuliani knows that it is to late to pullout and act like nothing happened, they already hate us. What we need to do is work to secure the mess we have made and keep us safe abroad. Paul's policy, though ideal, is not practicable. 2) Civil Liberties I have a deep respect for Paul's commitment to the Consitution. He is one of the few Congressmen who truly sticks to his guns. Giuliani has this same respect for civil liberties. He protected the 2nd amdmnt in NY while cutting violent crime in half. He protected privacy rights while simultaneously uncovering and reporting a record number of illegal immigrants. Giuliani is also a strict constructionist, like Paul. However, Giuliani does not take the strict construction to the impractical extreme. He respects and has personally defended the Constitution and civil liberites as Associate Attorney General under Reagan. Despite Paul's great personal stands, he does not have the first-hand defense of the Constitution that Giuliani has. 3) Government To the contrary, Giuliani is a typical Reagan Republican. Cutting spending and waste, smaller government, and more efficiency is his montra. Giuliani has been consistently preaching these concepts throughout his career and campaign. I don't see how this is Rudy at all. Paul wants to make drastic government change and alienates, if not scares, many voters in the process. Rudy is the candidate who recognizes and champions many of the classic Republican and Conservative views that Paul trumpets, but applies them to the problems we are facing today in a practical and applicable way. Paul is a theory candidate. His views are ideal and over-reaching. They could never work in practice like Giuliani has proven he can. Giuliani worked miracles in NYC. He is the most proven and best candidate. There is no reason to think Paul would do a better job.
Praying for Rudy

I see you've already had this debate, so hopefully it won't bore you overmuch if I choose to defend Ron Paul. Since this is 4 rounds, I'll just give a bare bones outline in round 1 then elaborate in the later rounds. Reasons why Giuliani is bad: -overly aggressive/ignorant foreign policy that will be financially and diplomatically ruinous, not to mention imperil national security -no respect for civil liberties or the Constitution -will make government bigger and will continue programs that ought to be discontinued, such as the war on drugs why Paul is better: -intelligent foreign policy that will restore the American economy and improve relations with basically every country, and improve national security -staunch defender of civil liberties and the Constitution -will cut wasteful, inefficient, and unjust government programs
Praying for Rudy

As I watch the Republican primaries, I can only hope that Florida comes through for Rudy and we nominate the best candidate for president in America's Mayor. Rudy Giuliani is, by far, the best candidate for president, in either party. There is no other candidate who has his proven leadership and effective governing ability. All other candidates claim to have provided us with "real change", but who, other than Rudy can claim to have completely turned around the fifth largest government in the country the way he did? Present me with a candidate of your choice and I will prove that Rudy is far superior for the office. I have made the debate four rounds in the hopes that we will get to the crux of the issue. I will be more than happy to provide specifics in later rounds. Thanks!
bringing a kangaroo to the prom would be more benificial then a swan

First, I'll like to make it clear that the instigator means to argue from the PRO position based on the argument she is using, hence I shall argue from the CON side. Ladies and gentleman, I'll make this brief. 1) A swan is smaller than a kangaroo and can easily be subdued by even a child upon entering the prom. One could easily secure said Swan in a box or closet or even a car should it get out of hand. On the other hand, Kangaroo's are much larger and far more difficult to subdue 2) Kangaroo's are annoying and obviously cannot rap as we can see in the first video to the right. Hearing that all night would drive anyone insane. http://www.youtube.com... On the other hand, if done right, any engagement with a Swan can result in you getting some play as indicated by the second video to the right. http://www.youtube.com... 3) My opponent is correct in regards to the feather flaunting, but what she is forgetting is that this would be a pretty awesome senior prank to pull and could bring in plenty of lulz, especially when seeing the looks on the faces of the people who have to clean it up. It's most unfortunate that a Kangaroo would not try and cause such havok. This only makes Kangaroos all the more boring! Not to mention that if there were $9000 in damages, it would be the swan's fault; the swan would have pay the price whereas the individual who brought the swan would get off scot free. 4) Finally, scrubbing the floors of Hyrule would mean an opportunity to meet Link from the Legend of Zelda. Link is a very popular Nintendo character. Who knows? If all went well, he may even provide you the opportunity to meet Zelda. Since Link doesn't have the courage to make a move on her and since Zelda is pretty much alone most of the time whether it be in Ganondorf's dungeons or inside Hyrule castle, this is indeed a pretty sweet opportunity. *wink wink* *nudge nudge*
bringing a kangaroo to the prom would be more benificial then a swan

This is true because (as we all know) kangaroos are much more adept at fighting off offenders that wish to bring harm to them.. thus noone would get in your way ad all of the french fries and cake would be yours for the takeing... If you were to bring a swan then the swan would try to flaunt its feathers everywhere makeing it a hazzard to the tables that would other wise be washed by the scrubbing of the floors of hyrule.. Also tghe damages would cost over 9000$ if you brought a swan opposed to the 11$ of a kangaroo.
Socialism

What you're saying makes sense to a point. People have vices, but that doesn't mean that the vices translate into policy. See, people want to survive, and people have a built in aversion to pain and suffering. It's evolutionary. Coexistence is needed for survival, and we've developed necessary communication skills. Humans are strong because we work together. It's evolutionary. In a socialist system, people will naturally come together to form some level of command and authority who either will directly propose laws or have the majority do it. As long as the people have the power to periodically decide and propose against all issues, socialism is not contradicted.I mean, you might as well say that we shouldn't have anything involving people because people are greedy. That's really sillyHumans may be selfish, but no matter the motive, humans appeal to each other. They have to or else they won't live very long. No sane one is going to go on a murder spree because that would really shorten her rates of survival.Modern pseudo-socialist systems exist, but lots of them have some minority committing horrible crimes as an organized unit. We don't and haven't actually had socialism with power in the people as a whole. Socialism is not anarchy. Anarchy means no one has political power. Socialism means political power in everyone.I'm not an anarchist. You're be silly.
Socialism

Most any type of political system must account for some form of economics which is very important to how a cooperative society works.What I meant was that this debate will not take the definition of socialism which would say that socialism must mean that control of the economy is held equally by everyone perpetually.So the standard for this debate will be that socialism is the best system we have that accounts for the needs of the majority. it's not perfect. It's the best we have. Ok?Ok.Moving on.When people think of socialism, people think, "oh, socialism means everyone has the same amount of power in a socialist system and that is true as long as it is socialist".That's not true. Socialism really means that the people are the ultimate authority. A socialist society can have electorates too, but instead of an oligarchy under which people have little to no say whatsoever, the electorate or group(s) of electorate in power must obey the will of the majority masses. They can make major decisions, but once majority referendum vetoes it, the decision is annulled. Unlike the system where people can only exert political power by voting between limited political options. The U.S.'s system is a good example because honestly, your only real choices are between democrats and republicans; any other parties cannot help but be dwarfed by the Democrats and Republicans sheer size &influence)"Treating everyone equally is bad because not everyone wants to be treated the same."Fair enough, but how does that translate into policy? If there is a policy which reflects this desire to not be treated equally, then people could socially decide whether or not to have that policy. Since socialism accommodates for people not wanting to be treated the same, you aren't really refuting socialism. Socialism is not about treating everyone the same, it is about having the power be in the people. Think of the majority as one people as one political body made up of different people and ideals. The fact that people can be socially elected in popular referendum means that socialism allows some concentration of power but again, people are the ultimate authority. Socialism is not perfect, but I believe it's most fair and effective.Btw, socialism is not communism. People confuse the two because communism is socialistic and is often described as a socialistic or socialist political system. Historically, in a Communist society, the majority are stripped of power and are treated equally badly by a power-usurping minority personnel or regime. That is not socialism. The people have no power at all. Again, Socialism is not about treating everyone equally, but instead it is about power in the people. One system let's everyone have no power while the other gives the power to everyone to exercise as they want.People confuse Communism and Socialism because they think Socialism means to treat everyone equally. It is not.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

Despite my explicitly voiced concerns, the instigator chose to continue in making false historical claims, and as I said before ... I find this to be shameful. In my closing remark I will not repeat myself nor my unaddressed issues a fourth time as there is no possibility for them being answered anymore. The opponent has successfully run out the clock, but his smokescreen has obviously failed. Anyone who bothers to read the above can clearly see what has been answered and what has not, as well as what claims have been made and which of those were based in fact and which in (malicious) fiction. As the most important of all questions namely what 'morality' obliges the US to risk the lives of its own people in intervening in world conflicts as a global law officer, has not been answered. While at the same time the main argument of the instigator, namely that periods of what he defines as 'international stability' provide security for the US has been completely debunked as the examples (nor the 'sources') provided by the instigator provide any reason to assume this presumption to be true in any way. I 've tried my best to make the instigators point of view doubtful and/or unconvincing, and I'm very curious about its outcome. I thank you.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

I find it amusing that my oponnent appears to think it is self-evident that given the debate title is "The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts." and that he used capital letters to accentuate "The United States" yet seemed to be completely oblivious to the meaning of the word "international". On to the debate proper; Firstly, some corrections on what appears to be your personal version of European history. The Russian Civil War had about 3 million casualties. That"s a number bigger than the combined total of all the US-service men who have died in every war the United States has ever fought since its foundation. I would not term that as being "small". The years that followed it saw mass deportations to Siberian gulags and through various communist reforms thoroughly and utterly changed Russian society in what can only be described as a maddening chaos. As for the situation of the United Kingdom and France; following the war interest payments formed 40% of all British government spending. The value of the pound fell by two thirds. In 1926 there was a general strike, in which 1,700,000 workers put down their work to protest the economic dreadful situation. In France socialist agitators would become a mainstay of the French political scene, while the country"s demographics would not undergo any recovery until after 1945. I don"t which to dwell on history too much, but I feel it must be clearly brought forward that what I wrote in my opening argument was true, and that my opponents assertions that this was not the case are clearly, and utterly, false. The 1920s cannot be characterized as being a period of "stability", politically or economically, in Europe and therefore serve no purpose in supporting my opponents argument. My main points in this debate are clear: 1)My opponent claims that the US has a "moral obligation" to uphold national security for its citizens, and that it, in doing so, needs to intervene in the worlds affairs to preserve the status quo in (what he considers, but does not define) favor of the United States. I say that there is no such thing and cannot be such a thing as a total/universal geopolitical status quo as every country on earth (some more effectively than others) continually pursues its own interests. Hence pursuing this phantom is pointless to begin with. 2)My opponent claims that the US has a "moral obligation" intervene in international conflicts as a sort of global policeman or mediator. My position is that the only true obligation the US has is towards its own citizens and that I would very much like my opponent to explain the exact nature of this "morality" and more specifically in which way this moral philosophy supposedly forces the US to play the role of any form of international constabulary.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

This debate is only somewhat us-centric, but after all, the resolution is "The UNITED STATES has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. Sure we will mention other countries, but the US is so different from many other countries, that we really need to look mostly at the US. Under his argument of the roaring 20s, I'm glad we agree that it was a period of great stability and economic growth, however, he seems to think that for many other parts of the world, it was not. This is not true. Germany was the only country experiencing hardship during the 20's, and tho Russia had a civil war going on, this war was small and did not affect the "stability" of the Russian government. Plus, this civil war was mostly over before the 20s even started. Britain and France were in debt, yet that does not mean they are not stable. Stable is a point of staying the same, with some progressive growth. Since Britain and France had just gone through a war, they were only focused on growth and their economy, and even though they were in debt, they were still stable. Once again, we are talking about the US here, not Iran or any other country. Our national security is the most relevant to us because that is the country we live in. This is simply a resolutional analysis error on my opponent's part. I didn't say "just because we are powerful and can mitigate international conflict we should" I said, we have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict for our own national security. It is moral because of social contract, which because my opponent did not respond to this argument, stands on my side for the rest of the debate. I agree exactly with the last paragraph of my opponents speech. It was a paragraph of beautiful rhetoric supporting my side. It is exactly because we are "safeguarding our citizens" by mitigating international conflict. And yes it is moral, based on social contract theory, which, again, you did not respond to so stands on my side for the rest of the debate. In summary, lets look at the round so far. My opponent did not respond to Ct. 1 directly, so that argument flows to my side. That proves that the US have a moral obligation to uphold national security. My opponent, in response to Ct, 2, only refuted application 2, so the other 2 applications I mentioned flow to my side. In addition, I proved why application 2 does indeed stand, so in the end, all 3 of my applications here flow to my side. My opponent did not directly respond to Ct. 3, only saying that we should only mitigate conflict if it is for "safeguarding our own citizens" that is exactly what I am saying here. This is for the safeguard of the citizens. And finally, my opponent was calling morality illogical and pointless. As any voters are reading this round, you need to keep in mind how important your security is. If you vote for me, you are voting for your safety and your morality. If you vote for con, then you are voting for "pointless morality" and "national insecurity" The choice is very clear. Vote for safety, vote for your morality, vote for affirmative. Thank you.
Extending Terrorists Due Process Rights

While I agree that terrorists should have access to judicial proceedings, I disagree that they should be tried as US citizens. First off, someone who is not a US citizen who commits an act of sedition is not entitled to due process, nor have they ever been accorded such rights as standard practice. In practice, spies from all countries are do not receive access to foreign nations judiciary processes while on a foreign nations soil acting under the national interest of a competitor nation in violation of the aforementioned nations laws. If a Russian spy were to be caught during the cold war stealing sensitive military documents, should they be tried as criminals? Of course not. They are not US citizens, so they do not have the same rights and privileges as a citizen of the United States of America. Only people who are accused of acts of treason, and who are also United States citizens, are entitled to due process. By law, you can not, for example, deport a US citizen, you can not arrest them without charging them with a crime, you can not conduct surveillance on them without a warrant from a federal judge, ect. It is naive to allow foreign interest with nationalistic ties to foreign governments to have the same rights as US citizens, especially when such nations are openly hostile to the United States. Would you want North Korean soldiers visiting national monuments while "on vacation" to the United States? Would you want Iranian nuclear scientists touring nuclear facilities in America? Would you want Chinese agents gathering ground intel on american military supplies and personnel while "travelling abroad"? Those who have immigrated to the United States, lawfully, should have the same rights and entitlements as any other citizen, no matter which country they hail from. Even Terrorist suspects should have some access to judiciary proceedings such as trial by tribunal. But our criminal courts are simply not equipped to handle terrorist suspects.
All drugs should be Legalized

Alright, in this debate whoever chooses to combat my belief will need to believe that not all drugs should be legalized and Id prefer someone who strongly thinks that the current drug policy's are fair. No personal attacks are allowed and you can only attack my position in this debate. For example you cannot call me a "drug addict" since this is not an attack on my stance in the argument. This is my first debate on the website so. .. hopefully I do well. I've set the maximum argument size to 6000. When you obtain information on your stance please make sure to cite your source. This shall be the format in use: 1. The instigator laying down rules 1. The contender acknowledgement and consent to the rules. The contender must also breifly explain WHAT they believe but not why. 2. My argument 2. Your rebuttal and counterargument. 3. My rebuttal and counterargument 3. Your rebuttal and counterargument 4. Summary 4.
All drugs should be Legalized

The assisted suicide will be done by the drug dealers. (duh) Now I will begin to consider the morality of these issues. I would like you to consider the point you made in your first argument about the dangers of busting drug dealers. Unless the United States does not pose a tax on drugs like we did on tobacco, the illegal drug dealers will still have the power they used to because they still sell for the same, cheaper prices. Secondly, the legalization of drugs would hurt the generation of kids. Children who are born after the legalization would be more exposed to drugs, and therefore more people would be addicted. Even if the children do not try drugs, studies have shown that drug use during pregnancy can lead to a decreased school results and unemployment when they grow up, which would cost the government money. My last point would be that many drug users would eventually go to the government for help when they have diseases such as psychoses or lung cancer (which would be caused by smoking, but many drugs are smoked).